DANGERS OF ATHEISM AND FUNDYISM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, dangers of two extremes are lurking on H2O, and the site founders, Forum Director, administrators and moderators are struggling to decide how best to cope and act.
Imagine entering a room that is supposed to be filled with people like yourself: People who want to lived balanced lives.
You were told this room is filled with people who:
consider themselves Jehovah's Witnesses in all scriptural doctrines but feel oppressed by the Organization and want something done about it
believe most of what Jehovah's Witnesses teach but are grappling with a few specific teachings
were kicked out of the Organization by a group of elders in what they consider a very unloving and unfair manner
feel manipulated by elders who threaten to expell them unless they allow those elders to give them "an attitude adjustment"
experience problems living within the confines of Christian marriage or singleness within the Organization
love Jehovah, believe in the interpretation of scripture by Jehovah's Witnesses and practice Christianity, but are discouraged by Organizational errors and only attend the Memorial yearly (or perhaps every other year or so)
Barely hang on to their faith as Christians, are starting to doubt if God even cares about them let alone exists, and feel bombarded by a Godless world that is disintegrating into anarchy daily
You expect to find these ones in this room you enter. You expect to feel sad some days in reading someone who is getting a load off their chest by recounting their traumatic experience of being molested by an elder years earlier, or in reading about someone who has struggled for years to get reinstated but was finally judged by the elders as unworthy of reinstatement, or about someone talking about a failed marriage "in the truth," and such.
What you don't expect is
Ravenous wolves in sheep clothing who suddenly attack you or others claiming there is no God, no resurrection, and that essentially we might as well hang it up because when we die we will be dead forever
Angry ones who are spewing blind venom and rage at the Watchtower, or posting propaganda that claims reforming it is the same as trying to reform the Nazi regime
Getting viciously assaulted when you're not even looking, by cyberspace "thugs" who bludgeon you over the head with insults that you are "stupid" and "uneducated" if you chose to accept as your religion the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses
"Hit upon" in email (asked out on a date) by those who aren't interested in studying the Bible and serious Christian dating, but have only one thing on their minds (especially true if you're a sister who is the target of men who make "sport" out of luring Christians who maintain their virginity into gross wrongdoing)
People who refuse to show emphathy as you tearfully share your heartbreaking experiences with your brothers and sisters around the world who read H2O
Someone who skillfully veers the conversation into how Jehovah of the Old Testament is a "monstrous God," and then in a bigoted manner ignores your thorough explanation refuting each point
Someone who calls you a braindead moron for refusing to dignify a post that slanders God's good Name, or you return weeks later after a nice refreshing vacation to learn someone claimed you "ran away" from defending your belief in God weeks earlier, and has imputed every possible bad motive for your absence
Friends, we're facing a situation not much different than in the "real world" outside of cyberspace, where unfriendly and contentious people can enter our space and turn it upsidedown. Imagine the amount of hours required to "pre-screen" every registrant if H2O were to turn-on the feature of having moderators approve each registration? We would lose the benefit of the majority who themselves benefit from H2O by simply coming here and sharing their experiences and discussing them with others! Few want to go through airport-like screening, but we cannot have it both ways. Further, if moderators get too trigger happy, what about the angry atheist who might have been won over to the truth by your loving insistence on sharing your faith with them?
BOTTOMLINE: Each post needs to get evaluated on a case by case basis ideally. In order to accomplish this ideal, H2O needs an army of moderators from all time zones across the planet, and we only have a small "betallion" of free speech warriors definding the fortress from the above types of abuses now. If you would like to volunteer as a moderator, contact our Forum Director at [email protected] for details.
Always remember that to defend freedom you cannot have absolute freedom to do as you please, i.e., to enjoy freedom of movement in a city you cannot give people the absolute freedom to scream "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, or yell over a loud speaker "THERE'S A BOMB!!!" on a crowded city street. Freedom therefore is relative. In order for you to enjoy the freedom to express views on H2O that are beneficial to its intended audience, a police force of moderators from all time zones must be on standby alert to dispatch any post that poses a threat to H2O, or defeats the entire purpose of H2O, perhaps driving away those truly needy and suffering ones for whom this site benefits the most!
The moderator tools are now improved over the old site, in that the words "DELETE" and "BAN" appear under the text within every single post to those who are logged-in as moderators. We simply needs enough moderators to collectively read every post and if they believe it is in violation of the FPP, perhaps switch windows and record it in a log (i.e., copy/paste the entire post into an open NOTEPAD window on their computer then saving this as a text file), then switch windows back to the post and pressing DELETE. Believe me, nobody takes pleasure in deleting a post, because they are mindful that a misjudgment could inadvertently tread on the precious freedom of speech of that individual! That is why many moderators choose to go easy and when in doubt, leave a post up, even if it appears at first blush to be a heinous manifesto of an atheist. You as participants need to question the moderator who deleted the post if you feel the post was in the spirit of H2O and on-topic. If your post was deleted, you should SAVE ALL OF YOUR POSTS in order to repost it if you convince the deleting moderator they were in error. If you are unable to plead your case to that moderator and an appeal to the Forum Director has no result, why not repost it on alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.religion.watchtower.reform, alt.religion.watchtower.judicial or a related religion newsgroup or even one of those free web sites? By doing so you demonstrate that on the Internet you can get away with saying anything if you know where to post it. Then you can provide a link to it on H2O providing the material does not seriously violate our linking policies. Moderators are usually more lenient with links than actual text because they are understood to be outside of H2O (unless the link is to a site that is illegal, immoral or unethical in content).
In closing, H2O is all about freedom of speech, but to enjoy this freedom we need to entrust the very difficult task of keeping the board on track with our Forum Director, and the weighing of each posting to our moderators. YOU NEED TO DO YOUR SHARE BY CONSTANTLY "FINGERING" THOSE WHO VIOLATE POLICIES SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHERE TO GO TO DELETE THEIR POSTS. Please provide the exact link to their post by displaying the post then copying the URL, and pasting it to an email to our Forum Director or moderators. Consider posting a reply to posts that violate our policies to the extreme by placing the word "MODERATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!" in the subject field in reply to the violating post. Go into the violating post, hit REPLY, and change the subject to "MODERATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!" to get the immediate attention of a site moderator. Use this alert method with discretion and judiciously or you might appear like an excitable individual. Don't be like the boy who cried "Wolf!!!!" or like Chicken Little who proclaimed "The sky is falling down!!!!!!!!" in other words. You don't want to lose credibility that is vital in communications with others on H2O.
Rick
---------------------------------------------------
Pieces of Wisdom from Rick
<b>These quotes are pieces of Wisdom posted by Rick on the old H2O board:</b>
July 04, 2000 at 01:59:52
In other words, unless I share your opinion, I'm "baiting"? Give me a break.
There was no baiting. I'm simply willing to forgive on matters where it's impossible to read hearts, and for speaking openly I'm being insulted.
It's very sad that some cannot find forgiveness in their hearts, because before healing comes forgiveness. …. Surely you want to die either knowing the absolute truth, or giving those you don't know the absolute truth about the benefit of doubt. Without letting go and forgiving, furthermore, one dies bitter.
Is your heart unable to forgive others for their trespasses? ….
July 02, 2000
The extremists even calculated a "worse case scenario" in a brainstorming session, where it was possible much of the corruption could be weeded out of the U.S. Government and the U.S. could become a central driving force in world relief efforts. The extremists felt that the millions of lives saved, and positive effects on the global economy by rooting out corrupt U.S. Government officials and leaders, would make people respect the U.S. Those extremists hated the U.S. so vehemently, that the possibility of it becoming a <I>good nation</I> -- even though the probability of such a thing happening seemed laughable at best -- was morifying to them. A better world? Rooting out Government corruption and humanitarian relief? Millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of human lives saved and the U.S. Government gets credit? The very thought made the extremists skin crawl, because every of ounce of blood that flowed through their veins was driven toward revenge and payback. Revenge toward the U.S., and payback to it -- and its citizens whom the extremists felt stupidly lived in its territories -- for past wrongs and "war crimes." <I>If the world would be made a better place because of the U.S. Government, that is WRONG </I>the extremists belived!
July 03, 2000
If I sincerely have a question about someone's sincerity -- even though I'm not saying positively they are insincere or not -- then what's your problem? Seems many question my sincerity. If I don't have a problem with someone else's sincerity, that too is my perogative. You have a propensity to speak too soon. I made observations based on my opinions, and was waiting to see if there was any feedback. I can't fault you, however, for exercising your faculty of free speech
July 01, 2000
Surely you cannot possibly believe the Governing Body holds a barbaric view that goes way back to the year 1952?
That view was published 48 years ago, half a decade before I was even born. What reasons could you possible have for not giving them the benefit of our doubt, and stop ascribing such views to those living today? "That was then, this is now," so goes the old cliche.
June 30, 2000
Thankfully the majority such as AF, JH, KS and NH on the ex-witness side, to those such as Friend and not to mention those founding H2O on the witness side, to name a few, genuinely appreciate your reform efforts. Many care about JWs and support your efforts, I believe
June 30, 2000
Good points. Yet the Society in some future Watchtower magazines would embrace E.T.'s wholeheartedly as "Jehovah's creation" and "new light" if they landed in a field outside the Patterson facilities (G). I would even suggest the Society would witness to them and establish branch offices on their home planet (LOL). ;-)
<b>About medication:</b>
June 29, 2000
As having seen the Matrix many times at home on DVD disc, I hadn't considered the metaphor of the blue The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life book, and the red on Ray Franz's Crisis of Conscience cover. It's ironic that when a sister came to my door and studied the Truth book with me in the 70's, I was chronically depressed and needed the "blue pill" to give me a reason to live as a confused teen.
Twentysome years later, I decided to try the "red pill," woke up to realize the cause my Australian brothers and sisters were fighting in the organization, let them hook me up again, and here I am at an outpost where red pills are a hot commodity. ;-)
June 29, 2000
After hearing about the tragic situation of a young teen who almost committed suicide because he feared his regular masturbating -- and his overwhelming need to masturbate on a more or less weekly basis -- would result in God's disapproval. This promising young man, a straight-A honor student in high school, had dropped out of high school to become a fulltime regular pioneer.. . . . The elders could have easily counseled the young teen to try and minimize the practice to the extent possible, but not worry when it happens.
It would be interested if someone could quote very specific snippets from Pay Attention (the secret theocratic law book for Elders published by the Society) on how the body of elders must view and handle repentant and unrepentant masturbators in the congregation (no pun intended). For example, should they be marked? Must the elders warn the fiance of a Publisher that his/her partner-to-be in marriage has this 'problem'? Does the continued use of pornography during the act result in the formation of a Judicial Committee for 'conduct unbecoming of a Christian'? Etcetera.
June 28, 2000
If Eduardo is trying to discredit Englishman because he believes such nonsense cannot happen in the org, then he hasn't seen the worst of JWs in business. Fact of the matter is, Englishman's experience is the tip of the iceberg. I've seen some pretty shocking practices in business by JWs since I was baptized in the 1970's. I was even a victim once, when I gave some personal installation work to an outfit owned by "brothers." They ripped me off so badly that it's remarkable that I continue to defend JWs as good people.
June 25, 2000
As long as everyone stays within the 2 topic maximum and 20 post maximum daily, then our resident trouble-makers are nothing a little cyber-athlete's mouse spray on the forefinger can't cure. Don't click on their posts. Don't worry if they violate the FPP by not checking their posts…
<b>Demonized PCs</b>
June 26, 2000
If one is to believe that Satan and demons are real as the Bible indicates, then it is logical to conclude demons could get on the internet without having to possess a person. There have been documented cases of "poltergeist" activity that are studied by government and civilian think-tanks dedicated to studies of the paranormal. Strange activities such as the levitation of objects, radical change of temperature and other phenomenon have been documented to occur in so-called "haunted houses" and other places. Putting two and two together, if demons can levitate objects in a confined area such as a house, then what is to prevent a demon from manipulating a computer belonging to someone living in such a house? From online banking that can create instant secured credit-card accounts that can purchase practically anything online, it is not too far-fetched to extrapolate that the global Internet could become an expansive "control center" of sorts for every demon on earth.
Of course, all of this is based in the existence of demons, their existence of which many think is absurd and laughable. Therefore the above will be treated with derision and mocking by those. However, the above is simply a logical extrapolation based on a "what if" scenario that assumes, for the sake of argument, that demons indeed exist.
Simply go from there, insane as many think it sounds, and you can see that any individual who exists online might not exist in the real world. (I suppose that's a good excuse for contacting someone you meet online in person to see if they are real in the physical sense, -grin-). It's probably because such chilling extrapolations are possible that so many so-called "intellectuals" readily discount the existence of demons, and refuse to even consider the evidence gathered by researchers. Thus they debunk the Bible forthright, because the supernatural does not fit into their narrow worldview of reality. According to the Bible, spirit entities both good and bad are very real indeed.
<b>About Witnessing on H2O</b>
June 24, 2000
Why would I expend such a great effort to reform the organization through H2O if my intent wasn't for it to continue spreading the Good News from the Bible?
<b>About Genes</b>
23, 2000
…the gene pool could suddenly become mutated to where every child born will be "evil".
<b>Christ’s worthiness</b>
June 23, 2000
Until Christ has gathered every last sheep he could never consider himself as having proved his worthiness and conquering the inherent condition those sheep suffer, death.
<b>On Reformers</b>
June 21, 2000
"Reformers" have been working behind the scenes in the organization since the early days of Charles Taze Russell, whom the Society continues to proclaim is directing their earthly affairs from the heavens under Jesus Christ's direction and is part of Christ's faithful and discreet slave class.
<b>On Adam and Eve</b>
June 20, 2000
Although I personally believe after years of Bible study and reflection, as a side comment to this post, that Adam and Eve's actions were reprehensible, I think God will give them another chance. I believe they will receive a resurrection. Jesus referred to the "first man Adam," as if to imply that Adam suffered the sin that Christ died for. The difference I believe is that Adam and Eve chose to sin, and his offspring inherited their wrong choice.
------------------------------------------
URGENT: Reply to Moderator 105 under topic Lisa picture??!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I concur with your recommendation to ban the offending "Lisa75" participant to whom you issued a warning today in the topic "Lisa picture??!!".
Reasons for Banning
Links to pornographic topics, even if the picture is considered "borderline," result in all participants who view the post recording server hits to (a) the post, and (b) all HTML SOURCE (SRC="link") HITS WITHIN POST. This means a participant at a major corporation anywhere in the world or in a country that criminalizes hits to porn site domains could be charged with visiting the actual porn site itself!
Many H2O readers have notified H2O they regretfully have set their browsers not to display images (but replace all images in web pages with small icons as "place markers" for images, in lieu of actual display of images). Why? Because they can safely open posts that unknown to them contain offensive images or links that would otherwise get recorded while they're surfing at the office, and could possibly result in their immediate termination of employee. I personally have signed a corporate agreement that any hits to porn site domains could result in my immediate termination from employment without notice and that I agree to this monitoring as a condition of employment with this major corporation!
Others who don't know how to turn-off images have placed all questionable screen names where even a remote possibility exists of an image linked to a questionable web site into their personal ban filter on CoolBoard. By personally banning a participant, you block your PERSONAL VIEWING OF ALL THEIR POSTS. Only replies to their posts can be viewed.
Giving you an example, one participant said they blocked all posts from not only Lisa75, but Kent, Jan, Norm, Dancing Cow, practically anyone they thought might one day violate their trust by posting a link to questionable site!
Let's analyze the result of their action of filtering all posts from certain H2O participants:
1. They were seldom even aware there were any posts from Lisa75, Kent, Jan, Norm, or anyone else they added for the above stated reasons to their personal filter. These people should imagine there are thousands of JWs reading H2O who might never have seen any of their posts since it opened on CoolBoard, because of the above mentioned reasons of fear of getting terminated from the places of employment when surfing at the office! In other words, if these people had NEVER violated this trust, a percentage of those thousands might have read the actual content of their posts and started serious discussions. Let me stress, it's not a fundamentalist fear that caused them to add these names to the filter, but a practical fear of getting terminated from employment, which results in the loss of livelihood needed to pay their mortgages, pay for groceries and automobile expenses, support their families, put their children through school and purchase the basic needs of everyday life!
2. Someone confided to me in email that they placed anyone they didn't trust into the filter in their personal profile on CoolBoard.com; they really didn't mind the images themselves, but were aware that the server hits would get them fired from their job. (When you load the post, it loads the full URL's in the HTML code, and your browser then instructs those web sites to retrieve those images to display in the post you loaded.)
3. Another emailed me from a middle eastern country where he believed the government would construe hits to sites with adult content that resulted from these images in postings, with visiting the site itself. This could result in their criminal prosecution and up to 10 years in prison. Having a family to feed, visiting H2O was very stressful to them because even though they had never seen a post by Lisa75 or above named participants and others they filtered, they were afraid newcomers would place links or JavaScript code in their posts that could trigger their browser to hit servers the government had banned for "illegal or immoral content."
This is a serious situation! H2O must protect the livelihoods and their possible criminal prosecution of participant in some extremely intolerant countries.
I have already investigated this matter legally, and corporations are within their legal rights to terminate those who hit pornographic web sites. Such hits expose the corporation to liability for sexual harassment in the workplace (if someone claims they walked passed a cubicle and saw a pornographic image displayed; and often, some will try to get someone fired by falsely claiming this, so the only vindication of that innocent employee are the server logs to their individual machine's I.P. address!).
Also, you may live in a tolerant nation such as the U.S., Australia, or European countries where it is not illegal to hit adult sites, and where the government does not compile lists of "banned" sites. However, why should someone from one of these nations who visits H2O risk prison time and a criminal record for your indulgence of linking to adult sites, even if the image itself is "borderline"? It's the site and the content existing on that site as a whole, not your particular link to that site that might not be considered "pornographic" in itself, that is the problem in these corporations and some intolerant countries.
The anatomy of a web page displayed in your browser
When you load a page, you simply are downloading the ascii HTML coding (text-based) from the Internet site you are hitting. Then, from your Internet account, your browser reads the coding to build and display the downloaded page in graphical format. All hidden URL links to images (i.e., IMG SRC="
Ammendment to banning policy of H2O effective immediately
Those placing adult links in their posts face a 30 day ban, or an indefinite ban that may never end until we are satisfied the banned participant will never violate this policy again, at the sole discretion of our Forum Director.
All moderators are authorized to immediately place the screen names of those posting links or linked images from any web site that is predominantly "adult" in content, or outright pornographic sites that deliver this type of content, without regard to the actual image itself. Moderators should notify the Forum Director of the exact screen name they banned, and exact URL of link that triggered banning. This way, the Forum Director can monitor possible moderator abuse, over-reaction or misinterpretation.
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE SCENARIO: John123 has learned that most libraries and public institutions offering public Internet access throughout the world, use "nanny filters" that make sites that have any kind of HIT to adult web sites or deliver adult content themselves. He realizes that H2O is more likely to get on many "nanny filters" if the web-spiders from these filters happen to visit H2O and detect links of any kind to adult sites (without regard to actual image or content). Therefore, John123 posts a link to a seemingly legit image in his posts, perhaps in the URL field for his personal photograph. Moderators notice that John123 has done this, and immediately ban John123. RESULT: All of John123's recent posts disappear, along with all threads (even if legit in content) underneath his posts. Further, after 30 days, John123 notices he is not unbanned. He asks the Forum Director to unban him, but is told that the severity of his actions has resulted in a ban for some other time period (i.e., 6 months).
Summary of reasons for immediate ban for indefinite period of those posting adult links even if image itself within FPP
H2O could get placed in many "nanny filters" of public libraries or other public instituions worldwide if the robots or spiders for these nannies visits H2O and detects links pointing to their banned Internet domain names or URLs.
Corporations record the browsing of employees, and could construe hits to sites listed in their "corporate nanny filters" as direct visits to an adult site using company equipment. This could result in the employee having to admit he surfs to H2O on company time, even if it's during his "break," and that the hits were within postings he clicked on.
Participants may add too many people to their "personal ban filter" in their CoolBoard registration profile, preventing them from reading legit posters who don't abuse image links.
Participants may turn-off display of images in their browser preferences such as in Netscape, thereby missing out on legit links.
Some participants may feel they lack the knowledge to either block display of images or ban certain users. Having no way of knowing if a legit appearing image resides on an adult web site, and not knowing how to turn-off images, they might decide NOT to continue lurking at H2O.
We risk someone out there getting terminated from his or her employment for unknowingly hitting an adult URL link to an otherwise seemingly innocuous image in a post.
We risk someone in a middle east country or totalitarian regime spending years in prison for unknowingly breaking a law against visiting any web sites on a government banned list (which often includes sites with adult content), simply because their ISP detects a hit to an adult site to display an image when they click on a post.
How to stop the automatic loading of images in Netscape
Although I don't know how to do this in Microsoft Internet Explorer, I do know how in Netscape (I'm using version 4.76):
(a) Select Edit menu.
(b) Select Preferences menu item.
(c) Click on Advanced selection.
(d) Uncheck box or de-select the first selection Automatically load images.
(e) Hit OK button at bottom of dialog screen.
How to make an objectionable poster INVISIBLE TO YOUR EYES ONLY
(a) Select the My Account link in the upper-right corner of your CoolBoard.com screen while viewing H2O or H2O posts. (This link is right below your displayed logged-in screen name. A window will pop-up over your H2O screen.
(b) Select Ignore Users link at top of this pop-up window.
(c) Type the exact screen name of objectionable poster (case-sensitive) in the add box. Then press the Add button to the right of their screen name. Unless you made a typo/mistake, the screen name you entered will appear in the scroll-box to the left of screen.
(d) IMPORTANT FINAL STEP: Press Close to close window.
(e) Suggestions before you close window: I suggest investigating all the features of your profile by clicking on all links on this screen, so you don't miss any cool features that will make your life easier when visiting H2O.
(f) To view their posts again, repeat steps (a) and (b) above, highlight the name of the banned screen name to left of screen (you might have to scroll down if there are many names), and then press remove. Their name is removed from your private banned filter until you add it again. (For example, you may need to do this on occasion, if a reply to a person you banned indicates that the person you excluded is talking about you behind your back, and you want to find out what they are saying about you.)
ALL POSTS LISTED FOR SCREEN NAME YOU HAVE EXCLUDED ARE INVISIBLE TO YOU. Everyone else can see them, but you can't. However, you can see all replies to those you exclude. The threads will have a semi-broken appearance if someone you exclude is participating in the discussion. (Their posts will appear missing.)
How to participate in a week-old discussion without wading "knee deep" in recent posts to get there
Every time you get into a topic you want to continue participating in over a week or so, click on the little gold banner to the left of the name of the topic (when you're inside the topic displaying a post). This banner is called a "bookmark," and will store the name and link to that topic in your CoolBoard.com bookmarks list while you're logged-in to CoolBoard.com.
To display your bookmarks after logging-in to CoolBoard.com and while viewing any part of H2O, click on the My Account link in upper-left corner of screen (just like you did to make someone "invisible" above). Then click on Bookmarks.
Click on the bookmark for the topic you have stored, in order to go there instantly and continue the discussion! That's much faster than wading through screen after screen of new posts just to check the activity of a topic and post more replies!
Rick
-----------------------
RE: Justify this from the FPP, Rick!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan, when you decide to use superficial reasoning, the results are priceless!
First of all, you ignored the fact that I stated it doesn't matter what the image is. The one Lisa75 posted, according to Moderator105, was from an adult site. The image itself was somewhat humorous. Let's just say for the sake of argument that Lisa75 posted her real picture on a pornographic site (say, because she knew the site owners). The point is, and I exhaustively detailed this point (but chose to ignore any of my points), servers label domain names of pornographic sites as "pornographic content," or "adult content," etc... that's how these so-called "nanny filters" work!
Why are you ignoring this point??? Well, quite obviously because you don't want to ever admit that anything I ever say is valid. For example, to use a facetious example, if I said, "the sun rises and sets," you wouldn't comment because it would be dangerous to admit that I stated something correct. And so goes it with the issue of nanny filters, and corporate monitoring of web sites that are known to deliver pornographic content. Often the web site itself sends of "bells and whistles" for corporate administrators even if it turns out the specific link on the porno site is not pornographic in content.
After you ignore the real issues I raised, and superficially mention the part about breasts (which word was not mentioned once in my post). You just fabricated the following comment: "So, your argument, Rick, is that because it is theoretically possible to find a few female breasts using small parts of the data a knowledgable web user can find from the image posted alongside Lisa75's messages, then this participant should be banned?"
Of course, I'm asking you now to PROVE that female breasts were in my argument, you'll just let this post quietly die and never reply. Any time you fabricate something, Jan, and I call you on it, you seldom reply and run away tail between legs. I am now ONCE AGAIN stating that your words are a total fabrication when you said and I quote: "So, your argument, Rick, is that because it is theoretically possible to find a few female breasts using small parts of the data a knowledgable web user can find from the image posted alongside Lisa75's messages, then this participant should be banned?" Anyone can search for "female breasts" in my post and come up empty!
I'm watching Comedy Central on digital cable television called Gallagher: Overboard and he is hilarious in parody.
I suddenly realized in reading your post, because you claimed I said things about the "female breast" and your whole off-the-wall argument, that you are a parody! You always seem to shoot yourself in the foot, and then try to talk your way out of it by namecalling and insults. I'm looking at this commedian Gallagher and his ridiculous parodies that elicit laughter, and I'm wondering, are you a rogue JW who has become the Gallagher of the JW community on the Internet? I'm just watching this guy standing there on my widescreen TV, and his vulgarities and insults, and other than his long hair and mustache you even resemble him (based on the photo you once displayed on your web site), and I'm thinking "No!" I'm remembering the parody someone made about claiming you were this dentist/rogue-JW in the U.S. who was pulling off this masquerade, the point of their parody was the implication you weren't for real and actually making so-called "apostates" who are trying to "help" JWs actually seem foolish while also making JWs who leave on your account seem like "morons" for not having the education to see through your anti-JW arguments -- the parody was sort of an innuendo you were trying to make everyone from both sides look absolutely ridiculous. (The only reason I can thinks someone would go to this trouble and expense to do this, is if they had turned against both JWs and those who had become vocal ex-JWs, setting up both sides to look stupid because one felt the ex-JWs were simply uneducated JWs with an attitude.) All these thoughts come to mind, Jan, because you consistently seem to parody your replies and refuse to address the actual content of the argument. Rather than stating, "what you said on this is correct, but as regards this other thing (quoting it), here is a detailed explanation as to why you're wrong") -- basically the scholarly approach that A.F. and a few other ex-JWs give -- you create sensational issues that are non-existent. I think some overlook this, assuming that English is your second language. I think if these people would take the time to carefully read the post you are replying to, and then carefully read your reply, they will see that your little red-herrings or subtle twistings of others' posts -- seemingly intended to create sensational replies that seem to make them look foolish -- are quite ingenious parodies that (a) contain irony that comes across as humorous to many, and (b) ever so subtly give ex-JWs (whom you represent in the eyes of many) as being manipulative and bent on discrediting anyone who is a JW. I always walk away wondering if these considerations are a matter of English being your second language. Although you speak remarkably good English for someone of another native language (Norwegian), I'm wondering if there's a linguistics problem causing you to misunderstand the subtleties and nuances of posts written in English? Then I wonder if you're an extremely genius individual who is still an active JW, but has gone "rogue" due to personal issues against the organization, who is playing both sides and even creating these questions that I just raised in the last few sentences as I try reasoning in your defense? I'm sorry, Jan, but sometimes I cannot help but feel manipulated by your replies. I'm thinking, "is he not reading my posts? Is there a linguistics problem preventing him from understanding what I'm saying, or causing these parody-ish types of misunderstandings that seem both humorous and unbelievable? Is he actually a loyal JW who is trying to give 'apostasy' a bad name, or what?" (LOL to the last question, where I was trying to be facetious.)
Bottomline is that you seem to have totally misunderstood the root of my concerns regarding the activities of Lisa. If it's truly a language problem and my expressed suspicions are totally out in left field, then why not ask someone you know (like A.F. or Ros, who is an English speaking person who can detect the subtle nuances) about specific paragraphs in my post you don't totally understand?
One more thing, is that I don't like to see anyone banned, and I don't believe in censorship. However, to enjoy freedom of speech, its abuse must be moderated, agreed?
Rick
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org
