Posts by Jeffro

75

Anyone else notice the new Terms of Use on jw.org?

by leaving_quietly in

i first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom.

i wonder why they felt the need to do this?

this is just silly for a religious website..

Jeffro

Despite the slightly alarmist picture of text above, 'JW leaders' always had 'strict legal control' of their copyright material, as is the case with all copyright owners. Motion picture corporations have long included 'legal threats' of prosecution for breach of their copyright, so the kind of statements in Watchtower's terms of use are not unique. The only unusual thing is the way attention is drawn to the terms of use in a manner not typical of websites.

(Why do people create lame pictures of text? And if you're going to do so, do a spell check first, and learn what apostrophes are for!)

75

Anyone else notice the new Terms of Use on jw.org?

by leaving_quietly in

i first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom.

i wonder why they felt the need to do this?

this is just silly for a religious website..

Jeffro

JW GoneBad:

With all the above quoted opinions I like soo many others are at a loss.

The 'quoted opinions' are not particularly confusing.

'Fair Use' is a well-known principle of copyright law allowing for criticism, review, satire, and other usage of portions of copyright material. For this reason, there is no 'threat' to such usage.

The main focus of the 'terms of use' is on using copyright material from the site in exchange for money. The wording doesn't have any impact on typical fair use.

Creating a 'scraper' (software that selectively extracts content from a website) is precluded by the website's terms and conditions, and is not within the bounds of 'fair use'. It's not surprising that such activity might get blocked (though inability to access a site at some point doesn't necessarily 'prove' that an IP was 'officially banned').

Much of the content of their 'terms and conditions' is fairly standard. The disinction is their focus on threatening to block access to the site, and their unusual drawing attention to the terms.

75

Anyone else notice the new Terms of Use on jw.org?

by leaving_quietly in

i first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom.

i wonder why they felt the need to do this?

this is just silly for a religious website..

Jeffro

Badfish:

You obviously haven't read the Bible. The Christian Greek Scriptures™ as well as numerous prophecies about JW.org™ in the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures™ clearly state that Jehovah doesn't allow anyone to quote from His official website on any other websites, or else His Holy Spirit™ will move His Earthly Organization™ to sue you.

The Bible evidence is overwhelming when it comes to proving the date January 23, 2008 - the holy date in which Jehovah's website would be launched. If we start with the date when JW.org was first registered, November 28, 1999, we come up with 2989 days between the site being registered and the launch date of the website, which is pretty darn close to 2520. Evidently, this proves that Jehovah's Spirit ™ is moving upon His website and its web designers.

Obviously some typos there. Surely you meant:

You obviously haven't read the bible. The christian greek scriptures™ as well as numerous prophecies about JW.ORG™ in the hebrew-aramaic scriptures™ clearly state that jehovah doesn't allow anyone to quote from his Official Website on any other websites, or else his holy spirit™ will move his Earthly Organization™ to sue you.

The bible evidence is overwhelming when it comes to proving the date January 23, 2008 - the holy date in which jehovah's Website would be launched. If we start with the date when JW.ORG was first registered, November 28, 1999, we come up with 2989 days between The Site being registered and the launch date of The Website, which is pretty darn close to 2520. Evidently, this proves that jehovah's spirit ™ is moving upon his Website and Its web designers.

69

What Happened to the Religion I Left in 1995?

by JoshJeffries in

jw
friends

josh here, new to the board.

glad to know this site is here.. i would not be writing this if it were not 2014. i was a ministerial servant and regular pioneer who left the jehovahs witnesses back in 1995/96, around that time.

i left suddenly, didnt fade away, just left when something clicked one day in my head during the morning shower and made me realize this religion wasnt true.

Jeffro

HeyThere:

The New NWT also has several chapters removed as well without anyone noticing...crazy stuff!

Sure. If by 'several chapters', you mean 12 verses from John and 12 verses from Mark.

75

Anyone else notice the new Terms of Use on jw.org?

by leaving_quietly in

i first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom.

i wonder why they felt the need to do this?

this is just silly for a religious website..

Jeffro

zed is dead:

They are obviously not talking about their logo, because their copyright request was denied.

Logos aren't generally protected by copyright. They are trademarked.

The JW.ORG trademark was denied because the site provides services (streamed audio and video) similar to those of JW Player.

75

Anyone else notice the new Terms of Use on jw.org?

by leaving_quietly in

i first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom.

i wonder why they felt the need to do this?

this is just silly for a religious website..

Jeffro

pixel:

How would this affect if I copy/paste from a document? Is there a way they will know?

The terms of use on the site don't (and in practical terms, can't) preclude fair use, which includes copying text for the purposes of criticism or review. As is the case with all copyrighted material, you can freely copy (and publish) portions of their material sufficient to demonstrate the point of your own accompanying commentary.

75

Anyone else notice the new Terms of Use on jw.org?

by leaving_quietly in

i first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom.

i wonder why they felt the need to do this?

this is just silly for a religious website..

Jeffro

steve2:

I can see it's time to bring out the smelling salts again.
There's nothing remarkable about a website having terms of use, particularly around the issue of accessing downloadable items that are copyrighted. It falls under the umbrella of intellectual property rights that most countries have legislative policies and laws on. Those who make use of such terms and conditions are required BY LAW to clearly publicise them to minimize inadvertent breaches and as an act of goodwill ( i.e., not be subject to charge of entrapment as in not warning about copyright infringements then suing a party for doing so.)
Now, please take a few nice deep breaths.

Sure, it's fairly typical to have terms of use. But most web sites don't have a brightly coloured box sliding in to view drawing attention to their terms of use. That's quite odd.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

??? I hope we are going with an approach that tries to harmonize ancient Jewish accounts of history with other historical sources. What has the subject of 'inspiration' to do with anything?

It was just a dig at the typical apologist way of 'explaining' Bible stories, not yours.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

If Josephus wrongly assumed that 1 Esdras 2's 'Artaxerxes' was Cambyses, how can you use his mistake as support for your position that Ezra 4's 'Artaxerxes' = Bardiya, or indeed that Ezra's 'Ahasuerus' and 'Artaxerxes' have to refer to kings between Cyrus and Darius? It doesn't follow.

I do not use Josephus as the basis for my conclusion. It just happens to say something similar.

How can it be neither? You are arguing for the first scenario, believing that Cambyses and/or Bardiya were also known as Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus (circularly arguing on nothing more than speculation or assumption). You can't point your finger at my reasoning, claiming it is circular because of favoring the 'out of sequence' solution, when your own reasoning is patently globoid.

I already explained that. The author of Ezra/1 Esdras (whichever was first) could have used the wrong throne name (which doesn't identify a specific king) but known which individual and period they referred to. This does not require that the king was broadly known as the other name. The author of E[z/sdr]a[/s] could simply have confused the names, just like Josephus does. Or he could have jumbled events from kings from both periods. Or he could have made the whole thing up about the letters. (How did the author of E[z/sdr]a[/s] get the letters? Are we going with the 'inspired' [aka 'magic', aka superstitious nonsense] theory?)

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

Bart Belteshassur

Jeffro - Can you give me a reference in Josephus were he equates Cambyses to Artaxerxes

Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter 2. Compare Ezra chapter 4. Josephus equates Cambyses with the 'Artaxerxes' of Ezra chapter 4. He doesn't say that Cambyses was the person who we now call Artaxerxes (I, II, III, IV or V).

I can only find two refs, one is Artaxerxes I, and he later refs another Artaxerxes which is either II, or III?

The 'Artaxerxes' in Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter 6 is actually Xerxes I, during the time of Esther.

The "another Artaxerxes" in Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter 7 is Artaxerxes I, when Eliashib was high priest.

The Artaxerxes in Against Apion, Book I is also Artaxerxes I, after Xerxes I.