Posts by Amazing1914

18

But Rand Engine Company Is Not Involved In Developing Warfare Technology

by Honesty in

jw
friends

20 years ago

that's what 2 deceived ms's told a non-dub friend and his jw wife when they mentioned the wtbts owns 51% of a company's stock that is developing engines for the us military.

i know the ms's have the sec report for rand where warfare technology r&d is mentioned because i managed to get it to one of them without him knowing the source from whence it originated.

when my friend (he does all the questioning to keep his wife from getting called apostate) asked them where they got their 411 that rand is not developing warfare technology from the 2 dubs said, "the society told us".

20 years ago

Amazing1914 20 years ago

Hi Golden Girl,

Yes, the Society knew of the stock, simply because it is hard to ignore it when a person gives them over 5 million shares. However, they likely did not study it well once they realized it was not paying dividends.

The Society has an entire department that handles their investments, real estate, bank accounts, and stock holdings. They get a lot of estates willed to them, and these often contain provisions which require the Society to hold the stock for the income value.

The Society can always choose to refuse the gift, especially if it is against their beliefs to hold such stocks. Likely, the Society rationalized that Rand Cam had other, non-military product lines, and that they are not responsible for every product made.

However, the bad press, and the fact that the Society used to condemn holding stock investments, made them decide to sell the stock in Rand Cam. As I recall from my original post, they held ownership for several years.

Jim W.

Link

18

But Rand Engine Company Is Not Involved In Developing Warfare Technology

by Honesty in

jw
friends

20 years ago

that's what 2 deceived ms's told a non-dub friend and his jw wife when they mentioned the wtbts owns 51% of a company's stock that is developing engines for the us military.

i know the ms's have the sec report for rand where warfare technology r&d is mentioned because i managed to get it to one of them without him knowing the source from whence it originated.

when my friend (he does all the questioning to keep his wife from getting called apostate) asked them where they got their 411 that rand is not developing warfare technology from the 2 dubs said, "the society told us".

20 years ago

Amazing1914 20 years ago

Thanks SF for the links,

These articles are based on my original research and posts. The article on Randy's site is the best, as it merely quotes the SEC filing. Whereas the Apostates.Net article is a pile of sensationalism, demonstrating utter lack of understanding of what happened.

Jim W.

Link

18

But Rand Engine Company Is Not Involved In Developing Warfare Technology

by Honesty in

jw
friends

20 years ago

that's what 2 deceived ms's told a non-dub friend and his jw wife when they mentioned the wtbts owns 51% of a company's stock that is developing engines for the us military.

i know the ms's have the sec report for rand where warfare technology r&d is mentioned because i managed to get it to one of them without him knowing the source from whence it originated.

when my friend (he does all the questioning to keep his wife from getting called apostate) asked them where they got their 411 that rand is not developing warfare technology from the 2 dubs said, "the society told us".

20 years ago

Amazing1914 20 years ago

I made a lengthy detailed post on this a few years ago under my other screen name. The Rand corporation started out as Sky Technologies in Oregon. They were bought out by a Canadian company, which retained the US portion as Rand Cam, USA. The American owner of the stock shares that was not sold to the Canadian company donated his shares to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. This was properly filed with the United States Securities Exchange Commission. The filing is not in error, and the Society did own about 5 million shares.

The Society did NOT own a majority, but slightly less than a 50% share. Stock dividends were almost nothing. However, the stock value for their shares ranged between $2.5 million to $5 million (45 cents to 1 dollar pershare). The Society finally divested themselves of all shares. That is why they are no longer shown in ownership. The ownership was NOT a mistake. However, they likely did not collect any dividend income, as the stock was not producing a profit. This is common, because the Canadian holding company, which owned majority interest, may not have declared any dividend for this stock. IN other words, they kept all the profits under their Canadian holding corporation. This is common business practice to run your subsidiary corporations on starvation budgets. It helps limit liability.

However, what is not known, but far more likely, is that when the Society divested themselves of the stock, how much did they get? Whatever amount they got, it was the result of value from stock in a company that made war materials, including engines that were used in the Persian Gulf War.

I will research my earlier postings, and see if there is any information which would be useful to add to this post.

Jim W.

Link

38

Smoking

by Es in

jw
friends

20 years ago

why do we continue to do it even tho we know its bad for us?????

i gave up bout a year ago but still have one occasionally i dont even know if i enjoy it all that much but i still do it.

ive seen three of my family members die as a result of smoking and yet i light another one up!

20 years ago

Amazing1914 20 years ago

Smoke'm if you got'em.

Link

24

Is this a scam?

by Soledad in

jw
friends

20 years ago

.

read this website and let me know what you all think.

http://www.auditmarket.com/agents.html

20 years ago

Amazing1914 20 years ago

Hi Soledad,

As others have already stated, it is a scam. I work in the financial markets, and because I am licensed in a regulated industry, I was required to make a report to the US Secret Service. ( They handle international money fraud crime in addition to protecting the President ). The FBI normally handles these cases, but it stays within the US.

The fact that they say to work with $5,000 increments is because banks have to report to the Treasury Dept. any transactions in excess of $5,000.

The fact that they state that agents will not be obligated for income taxes is also untrue for US residents, and could result in criminal and civil penalties.

I highly recommend that the web site be reported to either Homeland Security or the US Secret Service. You can report this on their web sites, or send them a Fax.

Jim Whitney

Link

44

Why do you post here?

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

20 years ago

for me, it's mainly the money and the women, i suppose.. no, but seriously, i was thinking the other day about why i post here.

in september it will be two years since i left the organization.

i don't much care for doctrinal debates anymore, and i usually pass on threads that are concerned with he-said-she-said kind of stuff inside the organization.

20 years ago

Amazing1914 20 years ago

I post just because.

Link

121

Do you ever feel invisible?

by Sassy in

jw
friends

20 years ago

sometimes i do.

20 years ago

Amazing1914 20 years ago

Hi Sassy,

Sometimes I feel noticed and sometimes I don't. I have learned in six years of posting that we have ups and downs in the ex-JWs world just as we do in other things in life.

You have a catchy and easy to remember screen name - Sassy. You have nearly 7,000 posts compared to my 459 under this screen name, and nearly 4,000 under my other screen name - Amazing. You have started 156 new threads to which you have gotten a lot of responses for the most part. That is, most of your posts show the "on fire" THREAD KILLER II (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/82949/1.ashx)

So, I can understand how you feel, because when I work hard on what I think is a great post, and it gets little attention, it makes me feel I worked for nothing. But, on average, most of my posts get good attention, including some I have done that got a lot of attention like your famous Killer thread. I just try to focus on posting what matters to me, do a good job, and let the chips fall where they may.

Also, you have nearly 12 posts per day in just 19 months of posting. That beats most people. Be sure that you are noticed and that posters here love you and like your material. You are a good poster here ... so, get back to work, and start posting more good stuff. - Jim W.

Link

27

question about the last genaration

by donald in

jw
friends

20 years ago

with 2014 only 9 years a way...how could it be one genaration to the great trib....am i off on this or does it seem the dubs have missed this one too...what is there explation???

?...donald

20 years ago

Amazing1914 20 years ago

In the late 1960s, the Society began looking to 1975 as the time they expected the end of the system and Armageddon.

They based the "Last Generation" on Pslam 90:10 which say a generation (defined as a lifespan) is 70 years, and if one has special mightiness, it is 80 years.

The Society initially reasoned that the Last Gneration of JWs, well past the age of reason, say 12 to 14 years old in the year 1914, and old enough to comprehend the events of the day, would be close to the 75 years of age when the end of 6,000 would take place in the year 1975 ... all of this seemed "fitting" as the "appropriate time for God to act" (10/8/68 Awake!) and bring in Armageddon.

The Society held to this idea until 1975 came and went ... and they tried stretching the "Last Generation" to mean chldren born in 1914, then they included non-JWs, such as very old people in Siberia who were living past 100 years of age, and finally, they dropped the teaching and blamed the readers of the Watchtower for reading too much into their writings. Then years after a half-hearted apology for being over-eager in their prophetic speculations, they invented a ...

NEW GENERATION that never dies, but is always made up of the people living at the time Armageddon arrives. Cool escape ... and one they had to take to wiggle out of the problems they had with their false prophecies.

Ray Franz gave a great history of this in his book, Crisis of Conscience.

Link

10

Anyone heard this new talk?

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

20 years ago

i got an email today that says:hi randy, i'm from wi and i have a question that deals with the talk act wisely in a senseless world given by cos. another former brother told me that he had heard this talk given in janesville, wi.

he took notes and knows that what he had heard was not imagined.

the talk dealt w/worldly people being conned by satan and therefore "willing victims" if they were raped, etc.

20 years ago

Amazing1914 20 years ago

Hi Randy,

Do you know if the COs are to follow the Society's outlines exactly or is some of it left up to the individual CO like they do with elders and public talks?

Technically, the COs are supposed to follow the Society's outlines exactly, just as the elders are required to do. However, there is an important distinction that no one ever seems to question. Elders will have an outline of the talk that another elder is giving that Sunday. Elders allow one another a lot of latitude, but will"counsel" one another from time to time about sticking closer to the outline. Of all the Public Talks I gave over the years, I was counseled one time.

However, with a CO's talk, no elder has an outline given to them by the Society. So it is not possible to scrutinized to CO as elders are. A CO would have to share an outline with the PO for that to happen, and to my knowledge, that never happens. So, a CO can get by taking liberties that the Society and local elders will not likely catch ... unless the CO gets too far off track. ( I posted an experience, where in one case, I contributed to a CO being disciplined by the Society for such liberties. )

Notwithstanding all of that, there is another avenue whereby COs will give different details in such talks. After they attend their training programs, they get oral instruction, just as they give to the elders. Each CO may either be instructed to give a talk a certain way, as a "trial baloon" or the CO comes away from such training with different ideas of what he thought was being taught. He may think he is following instruction, when in fact he is really an idiot.

For example, we had a CO who gave a talk on loose conduct that was very stranmge. ( I forget his name, but he looked like Nikita Krushev). In that talk, he gave a long, twisted, and tortured set of fallacies to reach the conclusion that masturbation was loose conduct, and loose conduct was the same as fornication, and thus merited disfellowshipping. When I inquired because of confusion with conflicting Watchtower articles, I was told that this was a "trial baloon" talk, and that we may see more in future Watchtower articles. Go figure.

The problem with all of this "oral" instruction and training is that it is so hard to pin down just exactly what is going on. I never knew if this was something the Society was experimenting with, or if the CO was taking liberties or floating "trial baloons," or the elders were idiots, or a combination thereof. What helped me to settle this issue is that Ray Franz confirmed much of this confusion in Crisis of Conscience and/or In Search of Christian Freedom, when he revealed that it is the Society's unwritten practice to keep the elders and congregations "off balance" with conflicting instructions. If this is the case, then the Society has succeeded very well.

Jim W.

Link

21