i was going over some of the older posts of others and without starting some kind of flame war, i got no idea why people are saying that the society is some kind of real estate business.
of course its making millions of dollars in its real estate sales but this a one time event.
its down sizing by selling the furniture.
no-zombie: ... but until that day comes, wouldn't it be better if we refrained from emotive name calling and put issues like this into its proper perspective?
Lol!
And here we go again...an appeal to the emotions rather than an acceptance of the evidence. Nice twist, too...label the ones who have produced evidence of being the "emotive" ones.
NZ...you have perfected the art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag6ftvig9b8.
kacey montoya for channel 5.
darkspliver: Rather than being an exampe of confirmation bias, I think this more an example of post-truth - it's not fake news, sadly the news report is true, but some 14 months old. But the way it was presented here, effectively makes it 'post-truth'.
You are full of shit, ds. You do not have a clue as to what you are trying to appear intelligent about. Pffft...post-truth my ass.
Bullshit. You are full of it. This is NOT post truth.
And I agree with previous posters - lay off the snarky comments. ESPECIALLY the sarcasm directed towards the posts that Barbara makes. I have followed your posts and you have targeted her posts in particular. Stop it. You are a jerk
i was going over some of the older posts of others and without starting some kind of flame war, i got no idea why people are saying that the society is some kind of real estate business.
of course its making millions of dollars in its real estate sales but this a one time event.
its down sizing by selling the furniture.
no-zombie: I was going over some of the older posts of others and without starting some kind of flame war, I got no idea why people are saying that the Society is some kind of real estate business. Of course its making millions of dollars in its real estate sales but this a one time event. Its down sizing by selling the furniture. Its like selling your milking cows after you've raised them from caves. It not a 'business' because there is no continuance of the business model. It would be different if the GB sold a hall and bought three more blocks of land for the brothers to build new ones ... but they are not. They are just cashing in.
And...you know all this because.....??
How do you know this? Where/what is your source of knowledge?
*to add...your post says that the WTS invested in real estate holdings years back and now are realizing the profits of those real estate investments
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
vidiot: A more plausible - and much darker - explanation is, of course, that mandatory background checks would end up disqualifying far too many (otherwise qualified and willing) brothers to keep the Organization functioning at the congregational level...
...because make no mistake - without that, the WTS would be in real trouble.
And just think of the monkey wrench that would throw into the JW "rehabilitation program" - the one where the JW guys go into jail and hold bible studies. And the sisters write encouraging letters to felons.
It wouldn't do for the org to come off as unfriendly towards criminals, would it? All that hard work in prisons would go for nothing.
After all, the org's "expert" at the ARC was someone who works with the integration of sex offenders into church communities. That is Applewhite's background - working with offenders, not victims.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
richard: So you feel that she is not an expert for what reason.
This has nothing at all to do with feelings and everything to do with the firing of neurons...not hormones.
And it isn't my neurons that have done the firing. Mine only responded to the brain power of people like Angus Stewart and Peter McClelland, the Australian legal professionals who rejected Applewhite's "expert" status.
You see, Richard...Australia (and a handful of other countries) have higher standards when it comes to making a claim of "expert". The credentials that are waved in front of a court have to come from someplace other than a popcorn factory.
Go ahead...keep defending the Catholic woman who made a fool of herself. It certainly reveals what is firing inside your head. Go ahead...defend her. It reveals who you are more than you know it does
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
richard: Please explain to me in the ARC transcript where the due process is? Explain where the cross-examination of witnesses is? Show me where Watchtower was able to present evidence and their own witnesses? In a court of law an expert witness' testimony can be given as much or as little weight as a jury member deems but cannot be and is not just dismissed off hand because that expert witness is paid by one side or the other, that is how expert witnesses work.
Yup. I was right.
Stupid it is, then.
You fail to see the forest for the trees, don't you?
First things first. The "expert" has to really be an expert. You cant put any old idiot on the stand and expect their "testimony" to be accepted. And their testimony has to be relevant.
Applewhite clearly failed to deliver on either of those points.
Yup.
Stupid.
man faces deportation after fondling young boy he met through church.
(full article at link).
fiscal depute ross carvel had told the court that komorowski became friendly with the parents of the child as they were members of the same church and were jehovah’s witnesses.“they became concerned about the behaviour of komorowski when their son’s behaviour changed.
Man faces deportation after fondling young boy he met through church
(full article at link)
Fiscal depute Ross Carvel had told the court that Komorowski became friendly with the parents of the child as they were members of the same church and were Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“They became concerned about the behaviour of Komorowski when their son’s behaviour changed. He had nightmares and on one occasion he took his mother’s hand and put it on his crotch area.
“There was a confrontation with Komorowski who spoke with a number of elders at the church. He admitted the offence. Then the father told the police after Komorowski was expelled.
“At the police interview, he said he knew what he had done was wrong but he did not know why he did it.” Mr Carvel added.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
richard: ...other than one expert witnesses that the Commission dismissed off hand because her testimony did not conform to their findings
Earlier you had said that you read all the ARC documents.
What a load of crock - either you didn't read them or you are just stupid.
Applewhite was an idiot without the qualifications to make her any sort of "expert" other than an expert ass kisser for the WT.
on a previous post mamacita29 pointed up the low quality of new jw converts.. is the quality falling even more as the society use lower than low meeting, talks, broadcasts etc.. when i was active initially the organisation and standards seemed totally different today.
i have seen hard working intelligent elders fall by death or exhaustion.
the younger generation that came along never really grasped responsibility hence shortage of good elders, never mind the watered down to almost nothing quality of meetings.
This guy is in charge of the org's Writing Department:
Jackson is a high school drop out - he left school at 14 (some sources say 13 or 15) to become a missionary.
The org's literature has to be understandable to someone incapable of graduating high school - that is who is in charge. You can't expect anything better than simplified language from someone like this.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
Vidiot: ...I still think that if it were revealed - and confirmed - that there were/are abusers in the very highest echelons of the Org (or riddled throughout at the grassroots level, for that matter, as the pedo database would no doubt reveal)
I have thought of this off and on and recently realized that the probability of there being victims of sex abuse at the higher echelons is a higher probability than there being abusers.
Which, too, would explain the secrecy and reluctance to comply with turning over the records. Who would be named as victims? And by who? The victims are the ones entrusted with keeping the secret. Whose secret are they keeping?
