Posts by Beep,Beep

I had started to answer this as a single reply and then I hit the wrong button and lost it all. I will break it down to smaller sections and hope I don't make the same mistake again.

""Except that there is no statement that there are any fractions that are objectionable meaning any JW can choose (without censure of any kind) to accept ALL available fractions derived from whole blood. Which means, your quote confirms, rather than dispels, my earlier statements.""

""Moreover, some products derived from one of the four primary components may be so similar to the function of the whole component and carry on such a life-sustaining role in the body. ""

No, law, nothing declared off-limits? Damn, imagine that, someone would have to think, think and decide for themselves. Oh, wait, that can't be! Witnesses are mindless zombies, incapable of thinking for themselves. But, but, there isn't any law so one MUST think, but witnesses can't think on their own. But there is no hard fast rule which would require one to think.

Hmm. a matter of conscience. So what one person decides is acceptable, someone else could reject. Which one is right? Should I be allowed to condemn someone because their conscience allows them to accept something I would not?

Sorry I cannot agree with your statement. I see it implied that one would have to DECIDE for themselves.

""Although, I fully understand why you might wish to dispel the reality I posted. It remains reality.""

In your opinion, which I do not agree with.

""And if you write a letter to the WTS you will find that they will not instruct you to avoid any blood fraction derived from the four primary components.""

Exactly. And why should they? Such are a matter of conscience. That would require one to think, research, and then DECIDE for themselves. Which would also go a long way in dispelling the myth that witnesses do not think for themselves.

I'll continue a little later with Mexico and your example of a "lie"

84

Confession me reply to your message RE Richie

by Beep,Beep in

jw
friends

i do not agree with your reading of "policy".

i base this on personal experience on a couple of fronts.

1. i have yet to come across a single verifiable of a cover up.

Beep,Beep

""In actual practice, here's what a highly influential HLC member who runs one of many successful "bloodless surgery" units in a major hospital said in telling me how he explains the use of fractions to dub patients who present with serious complications and need to make a decision on blood: ""

Why does this statement seem wrong? A member of the HLC, runs a "bloodless surgery" unit? As far as I can determine ALL members of the HLC are witnesses. Therefore this statement reeks as being untrue.I see no reason to accept anything this person says.

84

Confession me reply to your message RE Richie

by Beep,Beep in

jw
friends

i do not agree with your reading of "policy".

i base this on personal experience on a couple of fronts.

1. i have yet to come across a single verifiable of a cover up.

Beep,Beep

unclebruce,

"" Would Beep Beep condem Simon Weisenthals much lauded 'theft' of Nazi documents proving the holocaust? Sinse he hasn't replied, I guess so. The Nazis were extrremely pissed off but who gave a sh*t about that? Only fellow fascists. I raised this point before - it went unanswered yet the dopey wanker raises the issue of theft again here in this self-pleasuring thread. Beep beep thinks he's pulling our chain but in reality he's pulling something nearer and dearer. ""

What, did you miss it?

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/111671/1951844/post.ashx#1951844

84

Confession me reply to your message RE Richie

by Beep,Beep in

jw
friends

i do not agree with your reading of "policy".

i base this on personal experience on a couple of fronts.

1. i have yet to come across a single verifiable of a cover up.

Beep,Beep

Nice mrsjones5. Is that a self portrait?

84

Confession me reply to your message RE Richie

by Beep,Beep in

jw
friends

i do not agree with your reading of "policy".

i base this on personal experience on a couple of fronts.

1. i have yet to come across a single verifiable of a cover up.

Beep,Beep

AuldSoul,

The problem is your insistance that 100% of the fractions ARE acceptable. Are they? The following would seem to indicate otherwise. It is taken from the same Watchtower magazine that has the chart you provided.:

""***

w04 6/15 p. 23 par. 16 Be Guided by the Living God ***

16

As noted in paragraphs 11 and 12, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components—plasma, red cells, white cells, and platelets. What about small fractions extracted from a primary component, such as serums containing antibodies to fight a disease or to counteract snake venom? (See page 30, paragraph 4.) Some have concluded that such minute fractions are, in effect, no longer blood and hence are not covered by the command ‘to abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:29; 21:25; page 31, paragraph 1) That is their responsibility. The conscience of others moves them to reject everything obtained from blood (animal or human), even a tiny fraction of just one primary component. Still others may accept injections of a plasma protein to fight disease or to counteract snake venom, yet they may reject other small fractions. Moreover, some products derived from one of the four primary components may be so similar to the function of the whole component and carry on such a life-sustaining role in the body that most Christians would find them objectionable.""

This one paragraph would seem to blow your claim that 100% of fractions are accepteble out of the water.

Lies/Lying.

I don't suppose you would care to provide an example of this "lying"? Without knowing what you are refering to, it would be silly for one to attempt to address it.

UN/NGO:

The stated purpose was to obtain a library card. Some here have scoffed at such a claim. However at least three local educational institutions have also found it necessary to do the same thing. It seems that there are some areas that do require such a card for access. One such area would seem to be the section dealing with Human Rights.

Being recognised as an NON GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION is not the same thing as joining the UN. I fail to see why tis is upsetting to you.

Secret J.C.:

What did the writers of the N.T. say? Were you to air your problem with your brother in public or in private?

Matthew 18:15-17, ""15 "Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.""

No where does this indicate that EVERYONE needed to know what was going on.

Mexico "Incident" I have yet to find a second, independant source to back up this claim. Every time I have had this brought up, it has been refered back to Ray Franz. I find it interesting that the only ones who bring up this alleged incident are ex-Witnesses. I never had a non witness bring this up. Curious. Could it be that those non witnesses heard and dismissed this as rubbish?

Somehow I can't picture the Mexican government allowing such a thing to occur. Why would they allow those who will not serve in the military to carry a card saying they ALREADY had basic training? Somehow I can't picture the Mexican military going along with such a thing. To put it bluntly, what a crock of SHI_.

93

In ref. to child abuse

by jw in

.

ok all time to get real.

child abuse is not limited to jw's.. if you truly want to stop child abuse first start with the family , and be honest we all have a relative that is a pedophile.. then protect your family from stranger danger.. don't just isolate to jw's.. expand and truly stop the child abuse world wide.

Beep,Beep

""How is it that you have at least SEVEN different IP numbers?""

I can offer a suggestion. In a few words............. DAIL UP MODEM.

84

Confession me reply to your message RE Richie

by Beep,Beep in

jw
friends

i do not agree with your reading of "policy".

i base this on personal experience on a couple of fronts.

1. i have yet to come across a single verifiable of a cover up.

Beep,Beep

""For instance, if I have a pizza cut into 4 slices, it doesn't matter how many fractions I make out of those four slices I still have one whole pizza. 100% of 1 pizza. It is simple mathematics."

Sorry AuldSoul but your example falls short. Regardless of how you cut the pizza it's still pizza because you are not breaking it down into it's components. Cut it as you like that doesn't change.

Using the typical pepperoni pizza, look at it this way. The four components of your pizza are the crust, the sauce, cheese, and pepperoni. Remove the pepperoni and you still have pizza. However if you take away the crust do you still have pizza?

Hence if I remove one component from blood is it STILL blood? Since water makes up the biggest part of blood by volume if one takes away the water does one still have blood. By extension, is that water blood?

So once again at what point does BLOOD cease being blood?

84

Confession me reply to your message RE Richie

by Beep,Beep in

jw
friends

i do not agree with your reading of "policy".

i base this on personal experience on a couple of fronts.

1. i have yet to come across a single verifiable of a cover up.

Beep,Beep

""I asked you how you defend their rejection of blood based on the"requirement" at Acts 15 and permit (whatever a person individually decides) 100% of whole blood in the form of the variously available blood fractions.""

100% ? I don't think that is an accurate account AuldSoul. I believe that the four major fractions are not permitted. Red cells, white cells, plasma are still unacceptable are they not?

Let me ask you this, at what point does blood cease being blood? If the red blood cells are removed is it still "blood"? How about if the red cells and the white cells are removed? What if you took out the various salts and minerals, do you still have "blood"?

""Now, how do you account for people in Malawi dying, being raped, having their homes razed to the ground, having their children stolen, and more, all for refusing to accept a polictical party card that costs ¢25 while at the same time JWs in Mexico were OFFICIALLY allowed to bribe Mexican governement officials to obtain a certificate showing that they completed their entire period of military service and that they were now in first line for any draft for any military needs the country might have?""

Sorry the only referenceI can find to the alleged actions in Mexico is attributed to Ray Franz. Do you have a reference I can check other than his? While I'm sure that most here take him at his word I do not.

I'll stop here for now.

84

Confession me reply to your message RE Richie

by Beep,Beep in

jw
friends

i do not agree with your reading of "policy".

i base this on personal experience on a couple of fronts.

1. i have yet to come across a single verifiable of a cover up.

Beep,Beep

""You can also see that case here http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2005/berry081.htm so you know its not those pesky apostates making stuff up.""

Shame on you! You really need to read the whole transcript not just part of it. Take for instance the following, also from the same transcript:

There are no factors present that establish any special relationship between

the plaintiffs and Watchtower or Wilton Congregation. See Roman Catholic Bishop

v. Superior Ct., 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 399, 406 (Ct. App. 1996) (no special relationship

exists between a church and its parishioners). "The creation of an amorphous common

law duty on the part of a church or other voluntary organization requiring it to

protect its members from each other would give rise to both unlimited liability and

liability out of all proportion to culpability." Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract

Soc., 738 A.2d 839, 847 (Me. 1999) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1189

(2000) (parishioner’s allegation that he was sexually assaulted by an adult church

member when he was a child did not establish special relationship with church despite

fact that elders knew of the abuse). We decline to hold that the fact of church

membership or adherence to church doctrine by the plaintiffs’ parents creates a special

relationship between the plaintiffs and Watchtower or Wilton Congregation.

We also disagree with the plaintiffs’ assertion that special circumstances exist in

this case such that an especial temptation and opportunity for Berry’s criminal

misconduct was created by Watchtower and Wilton Congregation. There is no allegation

that the elders created any opportunity for Berry to abuse his daughters. As noted,

there was no allegation that the alleged abuse took place on congregation property or

at congregation-related activities. There is no allegation that the elders acted in

any way other than by providing spiritual guidance and scriptural advice, at the request

of the plaintiffs’ mother. We hold that the plaintiffs have failed to establish either

a special relationship with the defendants or that special circumstances existed in which

Watchtower and Wilton Congregation created an especial temptation for criminal conduct

by Berry. Consequently, there is no common law duty running from Watchtower and Wilton

Congregation to the plaintiffs and the trial court’s ruling that a duty existed requiring

Watchtower and Wilton Congregation to dispense "common sense advice to the church member

and a reporting of the abuse to the authorities" is erroneous as a matter of law.

The special circumstances exception should never be triggered by the mere failure of a

citizen to report actual or suspected criminal conduct to law enforcement authorities or by

a citizen’s improper advice concerning an appropriate response to complaints of criminal

activity. Otherwise, the general rule which imposes no duty on citizens to prevent the criminal

acts of third parties will be swallowed up and civil liability unreasonably extended. The dissent

suggests that if the elders had counseled Poisson to report the abuse to secular authorities

they would have satisfied their common law duty to the plaintiffs, even if Poisson did not follow

their advice. Apparently, knowledge by the elders of alleged criminal conduct and a failure to

report it would not be sufficient to create civil liability but failure to dispense proper advice

to the person disclosing the conduct would be. Poisson, however, had her own independent and

overarching duty to protect her children from abuse perpetrated by her husband and had a common

law obligation to intervene regardless of any advice she received. No special circumstances

exist in this case to justify civil liability against Watchtower or Wilton Congregation.

Because we hold that Watchtower and Wilton Congregation have no common law duty to protect the

plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs may not bring a private cause of action for the alleged failure

of the elders to comply with RSA 169-C:29, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’

action, albeit for different reasons. We need not, therefore, address the remaining arguments.