thirdwitness

Joined

• started 7 topics
• posted 524 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by thirdwitness

• 
  597

  Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  thirdwitness

  I have known many brothers and even Bethelites who have toured the UN.

  If it is a no no for JWs to do this please show us this in the WT publications.
• 
  597

  Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  thirdwitness

  Kenneson, your comments and questions are irrelevant. A signature saying who the representatives will be is not a signature of agreement to support the UN. And what does it matter how those questions were answered. I am certain they were answered honestly.
• 
  597

  Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  thirdwitness

  Here is an example of an application which includes an agreement to support the UN. This is an application for consultative status with the UN Ecosoc. This is what you need to show us to prove that the WTS signed an agreement with the DPI to support the UN. If all NGOs signed such an application/agreement it should be easily found. And yet.........

  The first page says:

  United Nations Nations Unies
  NGO SECTION, DESA
  1 UN Plaza, Room DC1-1480, New York, NY 10017
  tel: (212) 963-8652 / fax: (212) 963-9248

  Application for Consultative Status
  with the Economic and Social Council
  
  The last page says:

  I/we declare that I/we have answered the questions contained in this form to
  the best of my/our knowledge.
  
  I/we declare, that if granted consultative status, my/our organization will act
  in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and ECOSOC
  resolution 1996/31.
  
  The undersigned signature/es is/are duly authorized to sign this declaration.

  (Signature)
  Name(s) and position(s)
• 
  597

  Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  thirdwitness

  AlanF words in italics:

  Initially, the reason to get the U.N. library card was to make it easier to access the materials that certain Writing Staff members wanted

  Thanks for the admission that the WTS did not lie when they said they became associated with the DPI to get a library pass.

  Your claims are nothing but excuses. The very act of applying for Associated NGO status, when the criteria clearly state that such application is an agreement to promote and respect the U.N. Charter, constitutes an agreement to abide by the criteria.

  I am going to call you to task to show us this agreement made by the WTS and the DPI. The application is only an application. It is not an agreement between the DPI and the NGO. After the application is reviewed by the DPI, the DPI determines for themselves if the NGO meets their criteria or not. The NGO does not agree to meet their criteria.

  To claim different is to claim that Watchtower officials deliberately misled U.N. officials about what they agreed to. Is that what you're claiming?

  The WT officials did not in any way mislead the DPI. They simply provided the information that was asked for on the application. Thats all. The WT officials did not agree to anything.

  AlanF quotes me:The WTS did not agree to do a single solitary thing.

  And says: You lie. I've seen a copy of the application for Association, signed by GB member Lloyd Barry and a Service Dept. offiicial, and listing Ciro Aulicino as the liason between the WTS and the U.N. Do you think Lloyd Barry's signature was on a fake document?

  Who is lying? If I am lying then show me the agreement signed by Lloyd Barry agreeing to support the UN. What you saw was an accreditation form signed by Lloyd Barry telling the DPI who the representatives would be to receive the passes and what fields they were interested in. If you do not show me, you are a liar.

  AlanF quotes me: No agreement was necessary and the DPI was not seeking an agreement from the WTS.

  And then says: Again you lie. All NGOs that receive Associated status must agree to ALL of the criteria listed for association -- including promoting and respecting all provisions in the U.N. Charter.

  If I lie then show me the agreement. You don't have to show the actual agreement between the WTS and the DPI. Show us the generic application where an agreement is made and parties sign the agreement. The WTS did not agree to the criteria. The DPI determined on their own that the WTS met the criteria for whatever reason. Probably because the WTS promotes human rights and liberties and do not advocate discriminating against other nationalities or races. If you can not show us the application with the agreement and a place for signatures of the agreeing parties then you, AlanF, are the LIAR.

  AlanF quotes me: All a person has to do is look at the application and look at the accreditation form and the truth is revealed.

  And then says: Really. Then you go right ahead and post a scan or a link to a scan to the appropriate document. Failure to do this will be taken as inability to do so.

  You are not very well studied on the subject are you. The application and subsequent accreditation form is on almost every apostate site that talks about this subject. Here they are from a JW site:

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/scans/1991application.html (Please note that this is the 1991 application according to apostates. I no longer believe that to be true because it ask for email and website information.)

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/scans/2000accreditationform.html

  Please show us on these forms where an agreement between the DPI and the WTS would go.

  AlanF quotes me: There was no agreement made between the UN/DPI and the WTS.

  And says: Despite Lloyd Barry's signature. Right.

  You are embarrassing yourself just as much as you did about parousia and that was even embarrassing to your friends and fellow apostates.

  AlanF quotes me: The WTS gave the DPI the necessary paper work, name, address, interestes, information that they were non-profit, had many constituents reading their articles, supplied copies of past articles about the UN, etc. The DPI determined that they met the criteria and they were approved by the DPI, and issued a pass.

  And says: Try that bullshit on a mortgage company if you decided to quit paying your mortgage payments.

  Let me tell you what to try. Try to get a mortgage company to loan you money without signing an agreement as to how it will be paid back. Suppose you could even get them to do that. Then suppose they sent out a brochure saying anyone who borrows money from us pays back 100 times that amount at the end of one year. Will you pay them?

  Let me reiterate. No agreement between the DPI and the WTS was signed saying that the WTS agreed to support the UN.

  You're such a gross, disgusting liar .

  We shall see who is the gross disgusting liar. I have provided the documents proving my point. Can you provide the documents proving yours? If not you are the liar. you shouldn't even be allowed to post on this board You are the one breaking rules 1 and 3 constantly disregarding the rules.

  By the way, why do you want me removed? Do I not perform a great service for apostates in showing them how ignorant JW defenders are?
• 
  597

  Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  thirdwitness

  Zagor, I have a rectum if thats what you are asking. So I guess part of me is a 'asshole'. As for your question I have a lot of people writing stuff and I am trying to answer them. If you would state your question over again when calling me names I could then see what it was and answer it. That is much easier than trying to search for it thru all the past pages.
• 
  597

  Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  thirdwitness

  AlanF said: When the Watchtower Society agreed to all of the requirements necessary to obtain Associated NGO status in 1992, did it agree to the following basic criterion?

  "The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement with those principles."

  Your refusal to answer will indicate that your is answer is Yes. All else follows.

  I have already clearly answered this question and proven that the answer is true. The answer is no. The WTS did not agree to do a single solitary thing. No agreement was necessary and the DPI was not seeking an agreement from the WTS. All a person has to do is look at the application and look at the accreditation form and the truth is revealed. There was no agreement made between the UN/DPI and the WTS. The WTS gave the DPI the necessary paper work, name, address, interestes, information that they were non-profit, had many constituents reading their articles, supplied copies of past articles about the UN, etc. The DPI determined that they met the criteria and they were approved by the DPI, and issued a pass.
• 
  597

  Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  thirdwitness

  AT last here is the truth. Love it or hate it.

  The reason that the DPI did not require an NGO to sign an application agreeing to support the UN or write about the UN is not because of their own ineptness. It is because they were not requiring nor were they wanting an NGO to agree to do anything.

  An NGO sent the DPI their information along with the articles they had written about the UN. If the DPI determined that the NGO met their criteria then they recognized them as an associated NGO and gave them the library passes. They didn't have any requirements as to what an NGO had to do from that point onward.

  It is not necessary for us to explain what the DPI meant by 'support the UN charter' or 'share the ideals of the UN' because the DPI committee is the one that would determine what they themselves meant and whether they felt the NGO did that or not. Their accepting or not accepting a certain NGO determined what the DPI meant by the statement. If they decided that the fact that the WTS favored human rights and liberties and thus met the criteria so be it. There is nothing the WTS agreed to in order that they would accept them. If the DPI decided that a Nazi organization met the criteria or a racist organization met their criteria that would be their determination. There is nothing the NGO could agree to do in order for the DPI to determine that the NGO met the criteria.

  But four years later when it became time to fill out the new accreditation form and supply the articles that had been written during the past 4 years, then the UN would simply remove the NGO if they hadn't written the articles. If they had written the articles then they would once again be issued their library passes and passes for other facilities. Of course the WTS has always written articles about the UN since it began so this was no problem at all. No agreement was ever necessary or required to do anything. That is why no signature was ever necessary and why no agreement appeared on the application or accreditation forms and no agreement appears on those forms even at the present time.

  Whether the NGO criticized or dissagreed with certain things the UN did was up to the determination of the DPI as to whether that would disqualify the NGO or not. Never did the NGO have to agree to say only good things about the UN. In fact, the NGO did not have to agree to one single solitary thing. They didn't even have to agree to write articles about the UN.

  It really was just a library pass. Thats it.
• 
  597

  Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  thirdwitness

  It is funny how when apostates are faced with the facts staring them plainly in the face they still will try to make some off the wall argument to avoid admitting the truth.
• 
  597

  Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  thirdwitness

  Notice from the DPI comes this:

  Associated NGOs undergo a specifically designed evaluation and review process, which is two-fold.

  1. The DPI Committee on NGOs, which decides on association and disassociation, meets twice a year, in June/July and December. The Committee reviews new applications and decides on the status of currently associated NGOs that no longer meet the criteria.

  What does this mean? Does the NGO write the DPI and say, "We can no longer sign an agreement saying that we support the ideals of the UN."? NO, the DPI committee determines whether they believe the NGO meets the criteria or not. If the NGO supports human rights and liberties and non-discrimination then the committee will probably determine that this is good enough to meet the criteria.

  Just face it. Apostates have misled you. The WTS never agreed to support the UN or its charter or even its ideals. The DPI decided and determined that the WTS met the criteria whatever it was at the time.
• 
  597

  Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  thirdwitness

  AlanF, Your reasoning was blown out of the water just before you posted it.