Posts by Paralipomenon

34

Your reaction if they drop the shunning policy?

by jam in

jw
friends

how would you react toward those family members that.

have treated you like you had leprosy.

for years didn,t.

Paralipomenon

I have thought of this and I think I would continue to keep my distance.

The only reason they would be talking to me is because the Watchtower said it was okay. That is not love.

I have no need of fake people in my life.

38

The Very Latest Candace Conti vs. The Watchtower News

by God_Delusion in

we all saw this coming - http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/jw-lawsuits/latest-candace-conti-news/.

Using property deeds for bond makes financial sense for them. The property will continue to gain value even while bonded. The cash would not be earning interest from investments while tied up in a bond. Even if invested moderately at 5% they could earn over $800k in a year in investment income.

It's not that it would cause them irreversible financial harm, they just want to maximize their income gain over the period of time it takes to appeal. Judges are stupid, he can likely see this as a ploy for them to settle in for a prolonged appeal.

If their cash is on the table, they would be more inclined to work towards a quicker appeal judgement.

77

Obama ignores subpoena in CA- he is in now default

by moshe in

u.s. district court.

central district of california.

southern division.

Paralipomenon

Even though the suit is against Obama personally, I thought by holding the office of President he is immune from civil suit action until his term is over. Even if the allegations reference actions before he took office.

Is this no longer the case? I mean, it doesn't stop people from trying to subpoena the president, but it's hardly newsworthy. It's like giving a ticket to a vehicle with diplomatic plates. Nothing is stopping a police officer from writing the ticket, but the diplomat doesn't have to fight to get the ticket dismissed. It was issued to an immune party, no response is necessary to an action that has no legal grounds in the first place.

233

THE GOOD NEWS WILL BE POSTED LATER TODAY!!!!!

by EndofMysteries in

a video will be posted later today where all the mysteries of god, the disgusting thing causing desolation, all the contradictions in the bible, why god in the old testament seemed so cruel, why was satan created if god is good, how is god love?

all of the prophecies jesus had foretold which were hidden and lost yet being fullfilled the entire time.

this is the good news that will then spread worldwide, and then the end will come.

Paralipomenon

Can anyone bump the thread from the guy that was going to bring down the Society in year? I think it's a few years old at this point.

34

Wishful thinking? Will WTBS ever go down?

by MC RubberMallet in

i see it posted that many are 'waking up' etc.

but the religion is still growing!

many enjoy the kool-aid.

Paralipomenon

Maybe if we buy the WTBS some chocolates and put on some mood lighting they will more inclined to go down?

Any confirmation on what the current light is on this?

15

Questions for Recover and ANY JW here, if can be explained I'll return to JW.

by EndofMysteries in

while i am waiting for him to answer my question.

i thought i would ask of him and any other jw's.

we are supposed to have the truth, the bible is all scripture is inspired and benefitical for teaching, reproving, and setting things straight.

Paralipomenon

Can you please make a simple list of questions that you would like answered. Your explanation is fine but I just need a direct question.

What color was George Washington's white horse?

15

About Oompa/Eric Reeder on Yahoo

by BlindersOff1 in

jw
friends

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=avfu7b3mefo4npnl70kkwursy6ix;_ylv=3?qid=20121001075010aadf0vw.

Paralipomenon

BandOnTheRun - Have you read the Gnostic Gospel of Judas?

15

About Oompa/Eric Reeder on Yahoo

by BlindersOff1 in

jw
friends

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=avfu7b3mefo4npnl70kkwursy6ix;_ylv=3?qid=20121001075010aadf0vw.

Paralipomenon

Seems the Witnesses don't have their usual plastic smile filter on that site.

Interesting to see them reply with blunt, unappologetic doctrine rather than trying to misdirect and sugarcoat the truth.

Selfish individuals.

147

Conti update article: "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On"

by cedars in

i've published a new article on my blog explaining where things are up to with the candace conti case.. as well as detailing the latest developments, i also summarize the events since june and reveal some of kathleen conti's thoughts on what's in store for the watchtower.. here is the link:.

http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/watchtower-loses-conti-appeal-but-fights-on.

as always, if you can think of a way that the article can be improved, i would love to hear feedback!.

Paralipomenon

This reminds me of the presidential campaigns. People have made up their minds already. You need a law, not just gut revulsion.

I do appreciate your insights from a legal standpoint, but assuming that all people are just making a decision based on emtion isn't fair.

Initially I was confused as to why the jury ruled against the Watchtower and established such high damages. Kendrick wasn't an elder and there wasn't any legal requirement for them to report it. In fact, papal confidentiality seemed to lean against the argument.

I am not trained in law, but still I went through the whole case and read everything. Hundreds of pages. Argument and assertions referenced previous cases and precidents set by them. I tried to put myself in the postion of a juror to see which case had more merit.

Upon leaving the Witnesses I vowed to try to examine everything neutrally. Emotional response isn't always correct and is a large reason why so many people get snared and remain trapped as a Witness. As such I find that the judgement has legal merit. I do feel that the Watchtower has grounds for appeal, but I make no guesses as to their success.

Using your paralel of presidential campaigns, I would agree, but don't you think that you are falling into the camp of forming an opinion based on media reports rather than actual facts? You have stated that you haven't read the court transcripts. I don't doubt your legal knowledge, but you seem to be taking a position that the judge and jury ruled in error and that the Watchtower not only has grounds for appeal, but that you feel legally their appeal carries more legal weight than the verdict.

I'm a realist. I don't think Candice will triumph because it is a just cause. But with the motion for a new case thrown out, as I understand the appeal can only be based on the evidence and testimony already given which is weighted very heavily in Candice's favor. If I am misunderstanding your position, then I appologize. I do find it frustrating that you seem to be replying based on generic law practices rather than the arguments actually established in the case.

You may be completely right, but professionally I find it suspect that you feel so strongly in your arguments without even examining the transcripts. To me I see that as no different then forming an opinion based on emotional weight. The jury didn't turn around a gut revulsion verdict. They deliberated and asked for clarification on numerous pieces of testimony.

I am definately not in the "jump on BOTR" camp, but I do find it frustrating that in the time you have spent replying and arguing about the case you could have at least given the documents a review.

147

Conti update article: "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On"

by cedars in

i've published a new article on my blog explaining where things are up to with the candace conti case.. as well as detailing the latest developments, i also summarize the events since june and reveal some of kathleen conti's thoughts on what's in store for the watchtower.. here is the link:.

http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/watchtower-loses-conti-appeal-but-fights-on.

as always, if you can think of a way that the article can be improved, i would love to hear feedback!.

Paralipomenon

Legally liable or not, wasn't this a civil case?

O.J. Simpson was found innocent criminally, but liable in the civil case.

In a criminal case i'm sure they would be found innocent because they didn't actually break the law, but in the civil case they were found liable for the abuse since the elders, following Bethel legal guidelines chose to monitor the situation themselves rather than turn it over to the authorities.

While claiming to "keep an eye" on the brother, he was allowed to go in service alone with Candice which is where many of the incidents occured. The Watchtower never should have taken responsibility for policing the actions of a confessed pedophile if they didn't have the means to effectively monitor him. The abuse also occured within a church sanctioned setting.

They took responsibility for preventing a pedophile from reoffending and opted not to inform the police or the congregation. Mr. Simmons showed that the local elders have zero influence in legal decisions such as this and that they were appointed by the Watchtower and followed directions of Watchtower legal. It was Watchtower policy that failed Candice (as well as another girl) and it opened them up to financial liability when he reoffended.

The judge and jury seemed to agree.