Hey tepidpoultry
that's next Sunday at the Holy Trinity in Dalston, London - Sunday 5 February 2017 - annual service in honor of Grimaldi
darkspilver
JoinedPosts by darkspilver
-
37
April 2017 Study Watchtower encourages you to defy The Society !
by BluesBrother inat least, that is how i see it... the article "the judge of all the earth always does what is right".
paragraph 6 & 7 .
6 consider the experience of willi diehl.
-
-
darkspilver
-
42
Baumgartner - Dr. Mark Morehart: State of Washington Appeal Court - aborted use of cell saver machine
by darkspilver infor information:.
court of appeals of the state of washingtondivision iidocket number: 48070-1file date: 01/24/2017.
keisha baumgartner appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her medical malpractice wrongful death claim against anesthesiologist dr. mark morehart and columbia anesthesia group, p.s.
-
-
darkspilver
Your issue is with the FDA
Er, no it's not - if anything it's with the commerical company Medilab regarding how are using a very narrow definition of 'defect' to mean 'fatality' rather than the accepted broader definition as below - and as actual fatalities are low, this obscures the real risks (as per link at end).
A six sigma safety rating is the equivalent to the occurrence of 3.4 defects per million opportunities - a defect is everything that does not meet customer requirements such as even staying in the hospital one day longer than required or a mistake during the procedure.
https://www.isixsigma.com/industries/healthcare/six-sigma-powerful-strategy-healthcare-providers/
Anyway, cool that you're familiar with the SHOT reports - anybody interested can read it and make their own mind up - and I'll leave it as that.
-
37
April 2017 Study Watchtower encourages you to defy The Society !
by BluesBrother inat least, that is how i see it... the article "the judge of all the earth always does what is right".
paragraph 6 & 7 .
6 consider the experience of willi diehl.
-
-
darkspilver
Has anyone heard of anyone else losing privileges because of getting married?
It's possible - basic principle is they both have to apply 'again' and they may not be accepted.
Hence the Branch Organization Manual states:
Missionaries
Marriage: If a single field missionary becomes engaged to be married, he or she should inform the branch office right away. If the field missionary indicates that he or she wishes to continue in the missionary work along with his or her prospective mate, the branch should immediately request a confidential Personal Qualifications Report (S-326) from the missionary's body of elders and one from his or her circuit overseer.
If the prospective mate lives in the branch territory, the branch may send him or her a Questionnaire for Prospective Field Missionary (S-214} to fill out. In addition, the prospective mate's body of elders and circuit overseer should be asked to complete separate Personal Qualifications Reports (S-326). The Branch Committee will review the missionary's qualifications and those of his or her prospective mate, taking into consideration the reputation and the physical health and stamina of each one. Whether favourable or otherwise, all the reports (translated into English) along with the Branch Committee's recommendation and the prospective mate's S-214 questionnaire should be submitted to the Service Committee, which will make the final decision.
If the prospective mate does not live in the branch territory, the Branch Committee should submit the S-326 reports for the missionary to the Service Committee along with its recommendation based on the Branch Committee's knowledge of the missionary. In turn, the Service Committee will obtain the needed reports from the prospective mate's branch office. In all cases, the Service Committee will make the final decision as to whether someone continues as a field missionary following his or her marriage.
Similiar principle for Special Pioneers, Circuit Overseers and Bethelites
Interestingly for Special Pioneers and Circuit Overseer there are additional requirements...
The prospective mate should be at least 21 years old, baptized three years or longer, in full-time service for at least two years, in good health, and able to maintain an active schedule. If there is a great difference in age between the two who are planning to marry, the Branch Committee should consider carefully whether this would cause negative talk or be a stumbling block to others.
-
42
Baumgartner - Dr. Mark Morehart: State of Washington Appeal Court - aborted use of cell saver machine
by darkspilver infor information:.
court of appeals of the state of washingtondivision iidocket number: 48070-1file date: 01/24/2017.
keisha baumgartner appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her medical malpractice wrongful death claim against anesthesiologist dr. mark morehart and columbia anesthesia group, p.s.
-
-
darkspilver
Ah right, so based purely on fatality as being the one 'defect' that is counted - that's apparently completely different to how it's worked out as per my original website reference:
A six sigma safety rating is the equivalent to the occurrence of 3.4 defects per million opportunities - a defect is everything that does not meet customer requirements such as even staying in the hospital one day longer than required or a mistake during the procedure.
https://www.isixsigma.com/industries/healthcare/six-sigma-powerful-strategy-healthcare-providers/
Again, according to SHOT, it seems unlikely that even merely donating blood reaches a six sigmas level according to the above.
You really should read their annual report - 190 pages - I'm sure you'll appreciate it and how far ranging and comprehensive the data is and how it is broken down.
-
37
April 2017 Study Watchtower encourages you to defy The Society !
by BluesBrother inat least, that is how i see it... the article "the judge of all the earth always does what is right".
paragraph 6 & 7 .
6 consider the experience of willi diehl.
-
-
darkspilver
Cool, that's interesting - also interesting to note that the April 2017 article misses out the last sentence from the original life story...
Watchtower 1 November 1991 - Jehovah Is My God, in Whom I Will Trust AS TOLD BY WILLI DIEHL
Graduation of the eighth class of Gilead was February 9, 1947, and suspense ran high. Where would we be sent? For me, “the measuring lines” fell on the Society’s newly opened printery at Wiesbaden, Germany. (Psalm 16:6) I returned to Bern to apply for necessary papers, but the U.S. occupation forces in Germany were permitting entry only to persons who had lived there before the war. Since I had not, I needed a new assignment from Brooklyn headquarters. It turned out to be circuit work in Switzerland, which I accepted with full trust in Jehovah. But while awaiting this assignment, I was asked one day to show the Bethel premises to three visiting sisters. One of them was a pioneer named Marthe Mehl.
In May 1949, I informed headquarters in Bern that I planned to marry Marthe and that we desired to remain in full-time service. The reaction? No privileges other than regular pioneering. This we started in Biel, following our wedding in June 1949. I was not permitted to give talks, nor could we look for accommodations for delegates to a forthcoming assembly, even though we had been recommended by our circuit overseer for this privilege. Many no longer greeted us, treating us like disfellowshipped persons, even though we were pioneers.
We knew, however, that getting married was not unscriptural, so we took refuge in prayer and put our trust in Jehovah. Actually, this treatment did not reflect the Society’s view. It was simply a result of the misapplication of organizational guidelines. -
20
Witness weddings
by dothemath inrecently went to a witness wedding, and after the vows the bride and groom were introduced as "brother and sister".....(then last name).....(then the big kiss).
this is likely not unusual (i've heard it before), but with lots of "worldly" people in attendance it seems out of place to me.. i was just wondering if that's the way it is most places?.
-
-
darkspilver
What was that with a "wedding shower"? It is not the custom here thank goodness and I thought such displays of materialism were frowned on ...
Yeah, totally weird - that's why I posted it
-
42
Baumgartner - Dr. Mark Morehart: State of Washington Appeal Court - aborted use of cell saver machine
by darkspilver infor information:.
court of appeals of the state of washingtondivision iidocket number: 48070-1file date: 01/24/2017.
keisha baumgartner appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her medical malpractice wrongful death claim against anesthesiologist dr. mark morehart and columbia anesthesia group, p.s.
-
-
darkspilver
(hey dubstepped - I think we're getting caught up in the middle.)
ANY medical procedure has risks - the important thing is knowing those risks, and managing them.
While refusing blood increases those risks in many cases - the issue here is OrphanCrow's arguing that blood transfusions are safer than they actually are - her 'six sigmas' for example - or just 3.4 defects per million opportunites.
The Serious Hazards Of Transfusion organisation studies ALL the issues regarding blood transfusion and publishes an annual report.
Did you know that even merely DONATING blood could be riskier than OrphanCrow's six sigmas?
SHOT's annual report report SAEDs - that's serious adverse events of donation - as well as issues and problems with the use of cell-salvage / cell-savers. It's a pretty comprehensive annual report - but it is 190 pages....
-
42
Baumgartner - Dr. Mark Morehart: State of Washington Appeal Court - aborted use of cell saver machine
by darkspilver infor information:.
court of appeals of the state of washingtondivision iidocket number: 48070-1file date: 01/24/2017.
keisha baumgartner appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her medical malpractice wrongful death claim against anesthesiologist dr. mark morehart and columbia anesthesia group, p.s.
-
-
darkspilver
@ dubstepped: Who said blood transfusions were without risk?
OrphanCrow said that: "blood transfusions are the safest procedure available to the medical profession. The safest. That is a fact. Blood transfusions are the only medical procedure that reaches a six sigma safety rating."
A six sigma safety rating is the equivalent to the occurrence of 3.4 defects per million opportunities - a defect is everything that does not meet customer requirements such as even staying in the hospital one day longer than required or a mistake during the procedure.
https://www.isixsigma.com/industries/healthcare/six-sigma-powerful-strategy-healthcare-providers/
Interestingly The Serious Hazards Of Transfusion - SHOT - is the United Kingdom’s independent, professionally-led haemovigilance scheme, which is funded by the four British Blood Transfusion Services and is based at the Manchester Blood Centre, UK.
They collect statistical data, and present an annual review - 2016 hasn't been published yet, so the latest one is 2015.
http://www.shotuk.org/ -
29
Why was Rutherford sent to prison?
by Alfred inwell that was 93 years ago so well probably never know all the facts.
but the wt claims that russell and others were falsely accused of sedition.
the may 9, 1918 new york times article that covered these arrests and sedition charges states that they were charged with spreading doctrines calculated to promote unrest and disloyalty among the men of the army and navy.
-
-
darkspilver
A. H. Macmillan in his book Faith on the March provides more information on the actual charges on pages 92 and 93
Our indictment was in four counts, each count charging a separate and distinct offense under different parts of the statute. This statute, known as the Espionage Law, was enacted June 15, 1917, and was strictly a war measure. It would be impossible to violate it when the country is at peace. The indictment as originally returned charged that a conspiracy was entered into some time between April 6, 1917, the date the United States declared war, and the sixth day of May, 1918. Upon motion the Government specified the date of the alleged offense as between June 15, 1917, and May 6, 1918. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. At the trial the Government contended that The Finished Mystery was written and published designedly to hinder the United States in raising an army and prosecuting the war and that the defendants had written letters to members of the Society within draft age that interfered with the raising of an army. The Finished Mystery was offered in evidence by the Government and portions of it read, particularly the preface, pages 247-252, 406, 407 and 469. The Government counsel contended that these pages were designedly hidden in different parts of the book for the purpose of getting a person interested in some other part of the book and then influencing him by the statements concerning war; that publishing the book, The Bible Students Monthly and The Watch Tower, as well as writing letters to conscientious objectors, all were overt acts in carrying out the conspiracy.
-
29
Why was Rutherford sent to prison?
by Alfred inwell that was 93 years ago so well probably never know all the facts.
but the wt claims that russell and others were falsely accused of sedition.
the may 9, 1918 new york times article that covered these arrests and sedition charges states that they were charged with spreading doctrines calculated to promote unrest and disloyalty among the men of the army and navy.
-
-
darkspilver
This is the Yearbook 1975 version, pages 104 to 108:
On May 7, 1918, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for the arrest of certain principal servants of the Watch Tower Society. Involved were President J. F. Rutherford, Secretary-Treasurer W. E. Van Amburgh, Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher (the two compilers of The Finished Mystery), F. H. Robison (a member of the Watch Tower editorial committee), A. H. Macmillan, R. J. Martin and Giovanni DeCecca.
On the very next day, May 8, 1918, those of this group who were at Brooklyn Bethel were placed under arrest. Eventually all were in custody. Shortly thereafter they were arraigned in Federal Court, Judge Garvin presiding. All of them were met with an indictment previously returned by the Grand Jury, charging them with
“(1, 3) The offense of unlawfully, feloniously and willfully causing and attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces of the United States of America, in, through and by personal solicitations, letters, public speeches, distribution and public circulation throughout the United States of America of a certain book called ‘Volume Seven—SCRIPTURES STUDIES—The Finished Mystery’; and distributing and publicly circulating throughout the United States certain articles presented in pamphlets called, ‘BIBLE STUDENTS MONTHLY,’ ‘THE WATCH TOWER,’ ‘KINGDOM NEWS’ and other pamphlets not named, et cetera;
“(2, 4) The offense of unlawfully, feloniously, and willfully obstructing the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States when the United States was at war.”
Principally, the indictment was based on one paragraph in The Finished Mystery. It read: Nowhere in the New Testament is Patriotism (a narrow-minded hatred of other peoples) encouraged. Everywhere and always murder in its every form is forbidden; and yet, under the guise of Patriotism the civil governments of earth demand of peace-loving men the sacrifice of themselves and their loved ones and the butchery of their fellows, and hail it as a duty demanded by the laws of heaven.”
Brothers Rutherford, Van Amburgh, Macmillan and Martin faced a second indictment of trading with the enemy, based on a claim that the Society’s officers sent $500 to the manager of the Swiss branch of the Society at Zurich. Each brother arraigned was held over on bail of $2,500 for each of the indictments. They were released on bail and appeared in court on May 15, 1918. The trial was set for June 3, 1918, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The brothers pleaded “not guilty” to both indictments and considered themselves completely innocent of all the charges.
Owing to the feeling manifested in preliminary hearings, the defendants filed affidavits showing why they felt Judge Garvin was biased against them. In time, United States District Judge Harland B. Howe was brought in to preside at the trial. According to A. H. Macmillan, although the defendants were unaware of Howe’s views, the government knew that he “had special prejudice in favor of the prosecution of the law and against the defendants charged with violating it.” Macmillan also stated: “But we were not left long in the dark. From the first conference of the attorneys in the judge’s chambers before the trial began his animosity was manifested, and he indicated, ‘I’m going to give these defendants all that is coming to them.’ However, it was now too late for our attorneys to file an affidavit of prejudice on the part of the judge.”
Macmillan said that the indictment as originally returned charged that the defendants had entered into a conspiracy sometime between April 6, 1917, when the United States declared war, and May 6, 1918. Upon motion the government specified that the date of the alleged offense was between June 15, 1917, and May 6, 1918.
SCENES IN THE COURTROOM
The United States was at war. A court trial of Bible Students on a sedition charge thus attracted great attention. What about public sentiment? It favored anything that would further the war effort. Outside the courtroom bands played and soldiers marched around nearby Brooklyn Borough Hall. Inside the courtroom the fifteen-day trial wore on, piling up a veritable mountain of testimony. Why not step inside and witness the proceedings.
A. H. Macmillan, one of the defendants, helps us to sense the atmosphere, for he later wrote: “During the trial the government said that if a person stood on the street corner and repeated the Lord’s prayer with the intent of discouraging men from joining the army, he could be sent to the penitentiary. So you can see how easy it was for them to interpret intent. They thought they could tell what another person was thinking, and so they acted against us on that basis even though we testified that we never at any time conspired to do anything whatsoever to affect the draft and never encouraged anyone to resist it. It was all to no avail. Certain religious leaders of Christendom and their political allies were determined to get us. The prosecution, with consent of Judge Howe, aimed for conviction, insisting that our motive was irrelevant and that intent should be inferred from our acts. I was found guilty solely on the basis that I countersigned a check, the purpose of which could not be determined, and that I signed a statement of fact that was read by Brother Rutherford at a board meeting. Even then they could not prove that it was my signature. The injustice of this helped us later in our appeal.”
At one point, a former officer of the Society was sworn in. After looking at an exhibit bearing two signatures, he said he recognized one as that of W. E. Van Amburgh. Here the Transcript of Record reads:
“Q. I hand you Exhibit 31 for identification, and ask you to look at the two signatures or purported signatures, of Macmillan and Va[n] Amburgh, and ask you first as to Van Amburgh, if in your opinion that is a mimeograph copy of his signature? A. I think it is. I recognize it as such.
“Q. Mr. MacMillan’s? A. Mr. MacMillan’s is not so recognizable, but I think it is his signature.”
Concerning the defense presented by those on trial, Brother Macmillan later wrote:
“After the Government had completed its case we presented our defense. In essence we showed that the Society is wholly a religious organization; that the members accept as their principles of belief the holy Bible as expounded by Charles T. Russell; that C. T. Russell in his lifetime wrote and published six volumes, Studies in the Scriptures, and as early as 1896 promised the seventh volume which would treat Ezekiel and Revelation; that on his deathbed he stated that someone else would write the seventh volume; that shortly after his death the executive committee of the Society authorized C. J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher to write and submit manuscript for consideration without any promise made concerning publication; that the manuscript on Revelation was completed before the United States got into the war and all the manuscript of the entire book (except a chapter on the Temple) was in the hands of the printer before the enactment of the Espionage Law; hence, it was impossible for any such conspiracy as charged to have been entered into to violate the law.
“We testified that we never at any time combined, agreed or conspired to do anything whatsoever to affect the draft or interfere with the Government in the prosecution of the war, nor did we have any thought of so doing; that we never had any intention of interfering in any manner with the war; that our work was wholly religious and not at all political; that we did not solicit members and never advised or encouraged anyone to resist the draft; that the letters written were to those whom we knew to be dedicated Christians who were entitled under the law to advice; that we were not opposed to the nation going to war, but as dedicated Christians could not engage in mortal combat.”
But not everything said and done at that trial was open and aboveboard. Macmillan later reported: “Some of our people who were attending the trial later told me that one of the attorneys for the Government had gone out into the hallway, where he talked in low tones to some of those who had led the opposition within the Society. They said, ‘Don’t let that fellow [Macmillan] go; he’s the worst of the bunch. He’ll keep things going if you don’t get him with the others.’” Remember that at this time ambitious men had been trying to get control of the Watch Tower Society. No wonder Rutherford later warned brothers left in charge at Bethel: ‘We are advised that seven who opposed the Society and its work during the past year attended upon the trial and lent aid to our prosecutors. We warn you, beloved, against the subtle efforts of some of them to fawn upon you now in an attempt to get hold of the Society.”
Finally, after the lengthy trial, the awaited day of decision arrived. June 20, 1918, at about 5:00 p.m., the case went to the jury. J. F. Rutherford later recalled: “The jury hesitated a long while before rendering a verdict. Finally Judge Howe sent word in to them that they must bring in a verdict of ‘Guilty,’ as one of the jurors afterwards stated to us.” After some four and a half hours of deliberation, at 9:40 p.m., the jury returned with their verdict—“Guilty.”
Sentencing took place on June 21. The courtroom was full. When asked if they had anything to say, the defendants did not respond. Then came the sentence by Judge Howe. Angrily he said: “The religious propaganda in which these men are engaged is more harmful than a division of German soldiers. They have not only called in question the law officers of the Government and the army intelligence bureau but have denounced all the ministers of all the churches. Their punishment should be severe.”
It was. Seven of the defendants were sentenced to eighty years in the penitentiary (twenty years each on four counts, to run concurrently). The sentence for Giovanni DeCecca was delayed, but he ultimately received forty years, or ten years on each of the same four counts. The defendants were to serve their sentences at the United States penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia.
The trial had lasted for fifteen days. Testimony recorded had been voluminous and the proceedings often unfair. In fact, it was demonstrated later that the trial contained over 125 errors. Only a few of these were needed by the Appellate Court eventually to condemn the whole procedure as unfair.
“I went and suffered through it all with the brothers as they were subjected to this unfair ordeal,” comments James Gwin Zea, who was present as an observer. He continues: “I can still see the judge refusing Brother Rutherford an opportunity to make a defense. ‘The Bible doesn’t go in this court’ was his comment. I stayed with Brother M. A. Howlett in Bethel that night and about ten o’clock word came that they had been convicted. They were sentenced the next day.”