Posts by Focus

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

Wise JT said:

Focus, Focus

OK.

[Bipolar]

calm down my man b4 your blow a head gasket, your anger is fully understood

I'm quoting this bit because virtually everything else you state here I 100% agree with!

I am not in the tiniest bit angry with F iend! What could have made you think that? I hate the sin, not the sinner. I am usually smiling when posting, by the way.

[big snip - all agreed with 100% by me]

[/Bipolar]

when [Friend] finally reaches the point were we are trust me on this one he will be one of the Most Damaging guys wt has seen in yrs

Quite probably! But he may be further from this point than you think. He could be here with MoMMa's blessing, quith I to the flying piglet.

[big snip - all agreed with 100% by me]

i find that a person is only willing to say MAMA is wrong and i must get the "He!! Up Out O here" smile when the time is right

What makes his position different is that he readily says the first!

the worst thing that can be done to a person with the background such as friend is to turn him completely.

Perhaps, but it may be necessary. His portrayed reasonableness (that crumbled in this thread - LOL!) does true damage here, lulling the dimmer sorts of proto-JWs (the Xandit Class, say)/hangers-on/novitiates/interesteds/those-about-to-get-"Da Knock". Such people may believe him, and join up or stay on where after absorbing the content of his perorations, when they otherwise would not.

Any of them may well be of that 1 in 500 Class - the Class of Those JWs who Die Unnecessarily each year through the blood-ban!

Friend is thus too costly, and therefore needs gentle refutation, reproof and - yes - even loving rebuke, all firmly but kindly administered by the likes of me and as observed over the last few days!

Sadly, and I mean that, it is uneconomical (in terms of our time) to convert these hardened spiritual criminals...

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE - AND YIELDS VASTLY BETTER RETURNS TOO!

Now, don't think I actually want to drive him off. Far from it! Ones like him serve as foils, and allow for demonstrations to be created for lurkerdom of the moral, ethical and theological bankruptcy of the Watchtower! Where would we be without them! We'd have to invent 'em! Danie11e? Danie11e? Wherefore art thou Danie11e?

we really have golden opportunity by having friend here

Only insofar as just stated by me, IMHO.

always remember WT has caught more members with Honey than Vineagar- why not try it out on them

I always do! It is just that my target is NOT the died-in-the-wool Cultie - sadly (for him/her), they ain't worth it. Resources and honey are finite, and I allocate them to "PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF THIS NASTY DISEASE THAT MASQUERADES AS A RELIGION"

just my 2

Take 5!! And, keep well!

JT

--
Focus
(Calm as Ice Class)

26

They SLAUGHTER KIDS in JWdom, don't they, Mom?

by Focus in

jw
friends

here the prime sources of data are watchtower publications.. the data.

fact one (from watchtower magazine 15 october, 1993 p32).

doctor x, sympathetic to the jehovah's witnesses, stated that to forego blood transfusions increases the mortality rate for a standard operating procedure from c0.5% to c1.5% (in the advanced world).. fact two (from awake!

Focus

Xandit wrote:

Why Focus is a liar. Please read the following quote from the Watchtower that is the supposed basis of Focus post and note that not only does he misrepresent what it says, he seems incapable of understanding simple declarative sentences

We shall see!

appears to add 0.5% to 1.5% mortality to the overall operative risk

This can be interpreted in two ways - BUT THEY BOTH ARE MATHEMATICALLY IDENTICAL IN THE RESULTING VALUE. Not close, but IDENTICAL.

Here - let me explain:

Interpretation (a): If we interpret the text as meaning an addition of between 0.5% and 1.5% to the mortality rate, that means, on average, (0.5% + 1.5%)/2 = 1% i.e. 1 extra death due to refusing blood per 100 standard surgical procedures.

Interpretation (b): If we interpret the text as meaning an increase in mortality rate from 0.5% to 1.5%, that means a change of (1.5% - 0.5%) = 1% i.e. 1 extra death due to refusing blood per 100 standard surgical procedures.

THEREFORE, PROVEN. All my calculations were based on such a stated 1 extra death due to refusing blood per 100 standard surgical procedures, and therefore hold whichever interpretation is placed on the words. Of course, I had considered this before summarizing the facts.

Don't look so clever now, do you, Xandit, crying "wolf" without engaging your brain?

Ask yourself why someone so accustomed to quoting great tranches of material from the publications didn't quote the whole thing on this one. Ask yourself why you are so credulous.

LOL! The answer is easy. Because the rest of the material in the articles was wholly irrelevant to the mathematical computation re the number of deaths.

And I did state that:

Doctor X, sympathetic to the Jehovah's Witnesses

So, what is your issue? Are you confusing yourself again, like in the other thread (before you ran off)? But thanks for quoting the article, you have actually given me more ammunition!

In it, it is stated by the Watchtower quoting its sympathetic doctor (a rare beast indeed):

Dr. Kitchens [stated] "The Jehovah's Witness patients' decision to forego transfusions for major surgical procedures appears to add 0.5% to 1.5% mortality to the overall operative risk. Less clear is how much morbidity and mortality are avoided by this practice, but they probably exceed the risk of not being transfused." (Italics ours.) His point? Any medical risk of refusing blood is probably less than the risks involved in accepting blood transfusions.

As we have seen from the other study (Fact Two), the above conclusion is pretty obviously flawed. Risk from blood transfusions has been computed to run at 1 in 13,000 bottles transfused - even at 5 bottles average per standard surgical procedure (much too high), that translates to 1 in 2600 - miniscule compared to the 1 in 100 risk espoused by the very same anti-transfusion doctor! So his "less clear" and "probably" are terms which virtually the whole medical establishment might take issue with!

And note that the KEY words:

His point? Any medical risk of refusing blood is probably less than the risks involved in accepting blood transfusions.

are NOT the words of the doctor the WT is quoting - they are the conclusion of the Watchtower

And WOW! They found 1 doctor to side with them. Do you know how many doctors they are in the world? 10 million?

Oh, and you might try to find the second quote

Why? Did I get the page number wrong in the Awake! ? Your desperation is showing... LOL!

--
Focus
(Dealing with Monkeys Class)

13

Dazed and confused.

by zev in

jw
friends

in the wt 01-15-01 page 31 i quote:.

at the conclusion of the annual meeting of the watch tower bible and tract society of pennsylvania on october 7, 2000, a special announcement was made by the chairman, john e. barr of the governing body.

{zev note:included below} making a very significant point, brother barr stated: "the faithful and discreet slave' and its governing body have had entrusted to them interests that are higher and far more encompassing than those granted to legal corporations.

Focus

LDH wrote:

Instead of opening that day with the new material, they wait until they have given the R & F a ton of information. Then at the end of the day, they throw this morsel in. Believe me, most are so tired by then they would accept whatever came from the podium as pure gospel.

Hey! That isn't fair. I wrote exactly that - not you! It was in my head but when I came to post it I found you had already done so. How did you manage that?

*** w54 1/15 38 Do You Respect Plagiarists? ***
WHAT do you think of a man that lifts articles from one magazine and has them published in another magazine? What do you think when he attaches his name as author of the stolen articles? What do you think of him when he continues to do it after he has been caught and has promised to quit? And does the fact that he claims to be a minister of religion shock you still more?

PS: Are you my cat?

--
Focus
( Class)

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

SixofNine, you are being too kind to "Friend". While picking up on most of them, you are missing some of his many attempts to damage-limit and fire-control. As with the "they simply leave the matter to publishers" claim above, which was pretty effectively countered by material from the "secret" communications to elders that I presented several days ago in the Coffin thread. Friend obviously read them, but ignored them. Again we ask, What is the motive of such a one?

F iend had written:

Saying that “A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW” makes the question one of policy

And YOU very CORRECTLY countered on Mar 6, 2001 10:54:06AM with:

Focus says "must not" therefore he is speaking in terms of official WT policy? You must not reason that way.

Exactly. Of course we know why """"Friend"""" has to reason that way, don't we?

But he can't help the JW mindset. He is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and his business is being an informed apologist. Of course, "not-for-prophet" work!

choose a religion with Christ as its foundation. (not that any JW could be accused of that, lol)

That one went sailing over his head too... In the Greatest Man book, on the cover, see how much bigger the font size for the word "MAN" is than for any other word, including "Jesus"

"PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?" is a just a tad bit extreme

I do not think it is that extreme - provocatively worded, for sure. The WTS was, purposely or otherwise (no implication re intentthere) set up AND allowed to run in such a way that would encourage those with pedophilic tendencies to believe they were more likely to get away with it within "God's Organization" than they would be outside it. Such a condition may well attract pedophiles to the WTS - it certainly will "bring forth" those already inside. And I have provided a mountain of evidence in this thread and in the "Coffin" one to support this contention.

Or no. Let us experience bipolarity and produce an alternative universe, Schrodinger, cat and all:

There, there, Friend. We are only pretending. In reality, we are all fooled by your deceitful snipping, misrepresentations, fraud, intellectual dishonesty, damage-limitation, selective blindness, true motives etc. And that's the truth!

NB: Watchtower definition used for the italicized text immediately above.

--
Focus
(LOL! Class)

Edited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 13:6:42

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

Friend opined a few minutes ago:

I do not understand all the fuss made of my participation on this thread.

Strange that so many others seem to have no trouble in understanding this...

I am not defending the Society.

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious;
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest -
For Brutus is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men"
and so Mark Antony proceeded to defend and praise Caesar and slander Brutus.

Friend, you are SO transparent!

I am not denying that the Society has acted inappropriately. I am not denying that people have been hurt as a result, in fact I know they have and I hate it! And, though I enjoy my association with the diversity of people found among Jehovah’s Witnesses I do not even feel that they are unique in terms of possibly having God’s approval.

From which your FRAUD is obvious. As you have never claimed it is loved ones and fear of shunning that keeps you within the Scarlet Beast, believing what you do WHY ARE YOU STILL A JW? Lying to them, or lying to us, or both, eh? LOL!

"come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you" (2 Corinthians 6:17)

My only purpose in visiting this thread stems from a desire to point out flaws in sweeping statements regarding various criticisms of the Society.

As every worthy apologist sez.

But when criticizing the savvy you it becomes more important to be precise

Wow! Just a day ago I was stupid and with poor powers of reading comprehension, according to you. So, what prompted this change of view? Were you wrong then, or now, or both, eh? Again?

I know that, to many, that sounds as though I am being legalistic or technical, but that is not the case.

The above is an example of "PROOF BY ASSERTION". That means "I say it is true, so it is true."

I am trying to instill precision

The Society has a lot of savvy retortists!

True indeed! And you number among them. Special Order of Full Time Servants, one concluded.

As for what amounts to ad hominem regarding my use of English, those fools [.. many other direct insults snipped]

You are just toorich for words - LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! Do check up what an "ad hominem" is when you accuse other "fools" of using them... check up on "hypocrite" as well whilst you are doing it.

most of you people would bite a feeding hand

Oh, how much like Mother you sounded there! You slipped again. And if it is your hand, I counsel more than biting it - I counsel slicing it right off. I have your number, "Friend".

As for Focus’ initial and broad assertions .. the assertions were far too broad

Quite funny, that. Does it take practice to get that good? Further example of Proof by Assertion. . Also, repetition.

[sundry blather about "categorically true statements" snipped - quite irrelevant. It is PERCEPTION that counts, and PERCEPTION in the mind of a poor raped child at that: the mindset that One does not do anything to bring reproach on God's name prevails.

Focus’ answer refuted Focus’ initial assertion

A lie. I have utterly refuted this claim by Friend above in my posts of Mar 5, 2001 6:12:55PM and Mar 6, 2001 6:17:23AM (to which, naturally enough, this fellow makes no reference whatsoever). Instead of addressing my reply, this Intellectual GANGSTER simply repeats his (false) assertion!

Here, it is truly revealing to note the difference in the way he and I address replying to the arguments of others.

I systematically - and following their sequence - respond to the material presented by the other side, quoting it (often copiously) and not omitting anything inconvenient to myself.

This shyster OMITS 90% .. EVEN WHOLE POSTS where it suits him! Just like his Foul Spiritual Mother, the Great Whore of Babylon, a False Prophet and an Antichrist, he tries to set the agenda, confuse those listening, derail the debate and so on, while pontificating about his so-noble motives... He hopes you, dear reader, will have forgotten that these points have already been addressed, dealt with fully and decided upon...

The same tricks taught at TMS, in km etc. Why does he need to do it, one might ask. That's an easy one!

And with Friend it is not a case of old habits dying hard.. this is the life that he lives NOW.

to show where precision was lacking

That loud trumpet of your own that you are blowing so feverishly is cracked - no walls are going to collapse as a result!

elders are told not to interfere with reporting

Oh, yeah? In the thread entitled "A New Nail in "FRIEND"'s COFFIN ;-)" (obviously I did not title the thread clearly enough - you must have missed it) I have demonstrated using numerous quotes from SIX Letters to Bodies of Elders that, if anything, the weasel-worded advice is precisely the opposite: it is "SSSSSSHHHHHHH".

and since the publications encourage reporting of serious criminal actions

Where? You quoted just one measly publication, relating to the rape of an ADULT by a NON-JW. I asked you this before, and you ignored me.

This fraudster "F iend" is a real joke.

elders .. simply leave the matter to publishers to report (or not) as they see fit

No, it is worse than you claim. Strange, isn't it, F iend, that you missed the "A New Nail in "FRIEND"'s COFFIN ;-)" thread, where I quoted weasel-worded material (strictly for elders) that suggests the policy's been much closer to "SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH!", eh?

Perhaps your browser has developed a fault? Many debating with me seem to get this problem! Here, try clicking this:

>> http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3088&site=3

and read.

[other pious, self-serving material snipped]

Listen here, we aren't fooled. Go back to Mother's filthy paps, and desist from contaminating us with your Vomit. Clear enough? Oh, I got the wording of that from Mother too.

"COME OUT OF HER!!" And progress toward rehabilitation. Come, I can help you.

--
Focus
(DISGUSTED Class)

Edited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 11:16:35

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

Tina wrote:

I found your key points both relevant and correct.

Thank you. You were right to so do.

This starts by leaving off the excusogetics,getting in touch with humanity,,,,something I have yet to see from Friends postings on the matter. (and not the 'lip service' I do see)

Indeed. Many think "Friend" (what an ironic choice of handle!) is a Bethel plant. He usually comes across as reasonable, conciliatory, ever-ready to admit detailed WTS failings, even dishonesty (but SOMEHOW Watchtowerinanity still remains the truth to him). Even allowing for the mental illness, that simply does NOT stack up.

He is certainly talking through the side of his mouth (see his cross-bearing at the top of this page!) - but may well be working with the blessings of Mother. And I ain't paranoid. Mamma well knows that hard-liners get slaughtered.

With the F iend Class around, the need for anonymity for those fighting Satan's Organization (viz. the WTS) is all the greater. I am asking PB to trace his Usenet post(s) - let us see what we uncover.

--
Focus
(Anon-E-Muss Class)

26

They SLAUGHTER KIDS in JWdom, don't they, Mom?

by Focus in

jw
friends

here the prime sources of data are watchtower publications.. the data.

fact one (from watchtower magazine 15 october, 1993 p32).

doctor x, sympathetic to the jehovah's witnesses, stated that to forego blood transfusions increases the mortality rate for a standard operating procedure from c0.5% to c1.5% (in the advanced world).. fact two (from awake!

Focus

Hey - thanks! waiting, Prisca, scorpion, ianao, mommy, JT, SixofNine, expatbrit, TR, larc etc., your kind words/support has been noted.

Now, I have placed new material in the PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey? - please read it carefully.

And note at the start of page 5 in that thread, the tone of dear Friend's comment... His sincerity is truly revealed thereby.

I hope he doesn't have kids!

--
Focus
(DO THE RIGHT THING. Class)

20

A New Nail in "FRIEND"'s COFFIN ;-)

by Focus in

jw
friends

i know that honest-hearted ones here are thoroughly sick of friend's ill-disguised, legalistic, nitpicking, ground-shifting, form-over-substancing, necrophilia-inducing attempt to deny that the setup and conduct of the watchtower society serves excellently to encourage pedophilia... (of course, like all apologetics claim, he is not defending the cult, only attacking the poor argument of the opposer - lol!

lol!

lol!).

Focus

mommy wrote on Mar 5, 2001 6:37:41 PM

Focus,
I tried to email you but it didn't work! So I will put here what I had written.....
Don't let the busturds get you down
I can tell you have a good heart and a love for your fellow man. A bit lengthy at times, but worth it to dig for the gold. Thank you for being here, and for what you do on the other sites as well.

Thank you. I have placed new material in the "main" thread i.e. PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey

Let us see what F iend comes up with, eh?

--
Focus
(Restitution for the Victims! Class)

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

It isn't funny how Friend has tried to derail this thread with his ultra-legalistic approach, predicated as it is upon his misunderstandings and misconstruals of law (though he is more accurate than most. Of course he protests he is only trying to help - but they always do, don't they?

As training from Theo Ministry School, km, the Reasoning book, older sisters (the 'seen-it-all' brigade) and so on informs the JW - he must take control of the discussion, maneuver it, set the agenda AND ONLY ASK THE QUESTIONS that suit him. So, Friend's misconduct is no surprise - but the audacity of his attempted diversion is noteworthy!

Friend wants us to believe that this question (reworded by me solely to reveal his agenda) is key:

"How would a rational, mature JW (after all, one who is properly familiar with ever-liable-to-change Watchtower diktats is called for) who is a detached witness to a third-party killing by a JW interpret Watchtower policy on involving secular authorities first?"

Absurdly irrelevant, as those with perception can see. Now let me make clear what IS the key question:

IS A JW CHILD, a VICTIM of PROLONGED, DEGRADING SEXUAL ABUSE by a JW ADULT, significantly LESS LIKELY than a non-JW child to WHISTLE-BLOW?

Given that:
(a) the potential reporter is a VICTIM and not a detached, relatively cool, rational observer - pedophiles do work in secret, and there are no witnesses (making Friend's key question irrelevant); and
(b) the victim is YOUNG and has perceptions of what is required of a JW that may well not be in accord with the official position, and formal Watchtower written policy is known by hearsay and observation to differ from practice on a lot of areas any way (making Friend's key question more irrelevant); and
(c) there is a strong perception, repeated many times, that a JW must do NOTHING that spoils the congregation's name or "brings God's name into reproach" (as the QFR I quoted evidenced: precise circumstances are irrelevant, the overriding concern is made clear therein) - which even a child realizes would follow after a pedophilia whistle-blowing (making Friend's key question still more irrelevant); and
(d) there is an equally strong perception that the duty is to inform the awe-inspiring elders (who know the pedophile: indeed, one of whom may well be the pedophile) of wrongdoing first, and not the secular (Satan's) organization (as the QFR I quoted also indicates, and making Friend's key question YET more irrelevant); and
(e) the child itself has fears, feels extreme guilt and shame (indeed, blames itself, as all studies show) and therefore views what would follow any investigation by the elder body with immense trepidation (frightening star-chamber JC excommunication proceedings, sexual interrogations etc. being the subject of frequent gossip amongst "the happiest people in the world") - possibly thinking (however wrongly) that it too will be cut off, and thrown out, and destroyed at Armageddon tomorrow (making Friend's question more irrelevant, if that were possible); and
(f) the pedophile JW will have made very sure the victim is aware of how vital it is to avoid damage to God's people ("this must remain our little secret, Susan" will have an added twist, inapplicable in non-JW cases); and
(g) it is the victim's perception that counts..

I hold that the answer to MY question (the relevant one) is *YES*, the JW child is very significantly less likely to whistle-blow.

Thereby proving my contention: PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey.

Now, having read the relevant question, go back and view Friend's wholly irrelevant "question(s)", and - as he is not stupid - perceive his DISGUSTING AGENDA in attempting to derail things.

Ignore what he claims his motives are: I (and JT and others) have shown that the QFR I quoted was relevant, and I have no doubt that Friend knew that too. Friend knows a lot more than he lets on. His pretence that written policy supported him - and that on key matters written policy agrees with the unspoken - has been utterly refuted by, and discredited in the face of, the evidence I produced in the "Coffin" thread - ALL OF WHICH HE KNEW ABOUT (given his "position" to scan CO's forms) BUT WHICH HE WAS NOT GOING TO ADMIT TO!

As I said, the REAL enemy is the "ever so reasonable" F IEND CLASS.

Shameful. Truly shameful...

--
Focus
(Not Fooled One Tiny Bit. Class)

TO KNOW ALL THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, VISIT :-
http://www.freeminds.org/history/part1.htm
http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
http://localsonly.wilmington.net/jmalik/TheList.zip
http://www.concordance.com/watchtower.htm
http://www.intrex.net/tallyman/the_list.html
http://www.3dom.freeserve.co.uk/main.htm

Edited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 7:27:37

18

Why are we not "officially" informed?

by MacHislopp in

jw
friends

do you find normal that:.

it is interesting to point out that nearly a year after ceasing its policy of .

disfellowshipping jehovahs witnesses who accept blood or the blood.

Focus

“It is interesting to point out that nearly a year after ceasing its policy of disfellowshipping Jehovah’s Witnesses who accept blood or the blood products that are still forbidden, the WTS has never informed the publishers of the change. (As from April 2000).Only congregation elders have been informed “

But, but... "Oh So High Up" F iend said in the Pedophile thread that there was NO DIFFERENCE between Official JW Policy and congo-level Practice ON IMPORTANT AREAS .. and LIFE or DEATH sounds important to me!

My. Oh my. Is he a LIAR, or am I missing something?

--
Focus
(Innocent as doves... Class)