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

Hi, I'm back!

Friend scribbled on 6 March 2001 at 23:58

You do understand the meaning of “? ”, don’t you?

Sure I do, and thanks for your solicitude Do not try to catch an old dog with new ticks, please.

For others:
Probably, he is trying to see if I make the same mistake as he did, when I asked him "Does your 'yours' mean 'your's'?" and he was caught misinterpreting that question as meaning that I was saying he had used the word "yours" incorrectly!

Friend continued:

Earlier I wrote: "you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings."
Afterward you responded: "Proof By Assertion YET again, eh? Sorry – WRONG! I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, ANDmy sure knowledge of how the Society operates"
I made an assertion, you then asserted that it was wrong. The question then becomes, what was wrong with my assertion?
1) Was I wrong about what you based your assertion on? No, for in fact you admit that you based your conclusion upon the Society’s writings, namely that w73 [SNIP!!!!]

Change the last "No, [..]" to "Yes." and you will be correct. As I pointed out earlier, "Try and work out why the word "AND" was capitalized and emboldened by me in the original material (knowing, as I did then, your capacity to fool yourself).. LOL! LOL! Your apparent lack of reading comprehension is STUNNING, [Friend]! Does the penny drop?"

Let me be even more helpful, and teach you some Boolean logic too. I explain the terminology too.
(1) The statement 'X is based on Y' is equivalent to (i.e. implies and is implied by; i.e. is a necessary and sufficient condition for; i.e. <==>) the statement 'Y implies X' (i.e. Y is a sufficient condition for X; i.e. if Y, then X; i.e. Y => X).
(2) Therefore, 'X is based on (Y ANDZ)' <==> (Y ANDZ) => X
(3) However, and this trips up many students of elementary logic, the last statements are NOT AT ALL equivalent to (Y => X) AND(Z => X), which would have implied (Y => X).

Hope that helps. Take it to local grade school math teacher if further exposition is needed, or if you cannot see the relevance.

So, given your ignorant response, again I must ask, do you understand the meaning of “?”?

Again? Overkill. Do you enjoy beating your wife?

Regarding your claim of me that:
"But, but... "Oh So High Up" [Friend] 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 answer to Expatbrit does not evidence your claim of me because my answer only spoke of the Society and whether it had a policy or policies, NOT whether that policy (or policies) is practiced differently on important areas at the “congo-level.
expatbrit wrote: Are you referring to the WT's formal written policy, or to the WT's informal unwritten policy?
Friend wrote: When it comes to serious criminal actions, I am referring to the Society’s only policy.

Does "policy" include the wink at the end of it? Your naivete would be touching if it was naivete and not cupidity.

And I see you have not commented in or on http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3099&site=3 at MacHislopp's notice of a "life-or-death" issue where two policies existed (one at elder level; another at R&F level).

And, whose definition of "policy" are you trying to rely on? I've stated the only sensible (and that, only just) definition of "policy" that can be applied to an Organization with a shameful track record of deception, weasel-worded statements, (occasional) outright lies, denials, backtracking, flip-flopping, tacking-a-la-180-degrees, somersaulting, revisionism even including scandalous Stalinistic reprinting, deliberate ambiguity, buck-passing, blame-shifting, contradictions ... and AMBIGUITY?.

The AMBIGUITY upon which the Society relies when it later comes up with "but that was not policy .. we never said 'you must .. or else'" or similar.

And THE READING BETWEEN THE LINES which the Society has conditioned the dubs to do.. so that its discreet comments (from which it can legally distance itself later, if needed) have the effect of a RULING.

"Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned."

And of course there must be some good reason why F iend has not responded in the http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3088&site=3 thread, which contains the evidence that the "policy" even by Friend's assumed definition included overtones of "SSSSSSHHHHHHHHH"...

We have established just WHAT YOU ARE, F IEND. All we need to do is establish what your price was.

--
Focus
(Fighting Evil Class)

11

Up for grabs: The Rutherford Award!

by expatbrit in

jw
friends

how do you get your grubby little apostate fingers on this wonderful award?

simple!.

just predict what you think will be the next bit of "new light" coming down the heavenly cable modem to brooklyn.

Focus

New Light

"The Internet is of and from Satan"

(Overriding the more wishy-washy warnings given before)

--
Focus
(John 8:32 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

1. The occasional bleeding 'unto death' provides a wonderful martyrdom to motivate the brothers. "If 7 year old Johnny could stay loyal, there's hope for us all in the tribulation"

2. & 3. appeared much the same.

And surely this is part of the Watchtower's Foul Scheme, as evidenced in the "Awake!" of May 22, 1994 ('Youths Who Put God First', pp3-15). It shows kids who died on the altar of the Watchtower. "In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."

And here is a memorial to a few of the unnecessary deaths:

>> http://www.abaweb.com/WATCHTOWERvictimsMEMORIAL/

Re: the Christian argument - does the Bible really say what the JWs claim it says? Well, this has been done very often. As suggested, I'll provide some key links:

>> http://www.ajwrb.org/bible/index.shtml

>> http://www.jwbloodreview.org

A careful read of these will give the sensible reader comfort that the Watchtower teachings on blood are unscriptural and arbitrary.

By selecting the right focal length you can see so much more

I'll zoom with you on that one. Why not participate in the f iendly threads, philo?

--
Focus
(Respondent 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

Friend stumbled:

I said: "…you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings."
You responded: "Proof By Assertion YET again, eh? Sorry - WRONG!"
So then, are you saying that your assertions that, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" and, "a JW must not [involve judicial authorities] until the disfellowshiping happens…" are conditional? Conditional upon what? All I see is sweeping statements. Did you intend something less?

LOL! You can't read, can you?

My very next words were:

I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, AND my sure knowledge of how the Society operates

It helps if you can READ, doesn't it? Try and work out why the word "AND" was capitalized and emboldened by me in the original material (knowing, as I did then, your capacity to fool yourself)..

LOL! LOL! Your apparent lack of reading comprehension is STUNNING, F iend! Does the penny drop?

However, you have expressed more than one falsehood about me on those linked threads

Oh, yeah? Let us see!

Friend claimed:

I have made no assertion that there is no difference between official JW policy and what is practiced by elders at a congregational level

Let us first be exact. What I stated was not "what is practiced by elders at a congregational level" but instead "congo-level Practice ON IMPORTANT AREAS". Besides the obvious difference, local elders were not mentioned by me here. The overseers who act as go-betweens are responsible for a lot (inter alia, it is often they who interpret practice) etc.

Now, given that correction to your interpretation, let me remind you of:

expatbrit wrote: Are you referring to the WT's formal written policy, or to the WT's informal unwritten policy?
Friend wrote: When it comes to serious criminal actions, I am referring to the Society’s only policy.

Are we back to what is your (naive?) misunderstanding about the nature, meaning, import and value of SOCIETY "policy" (given the Society's track record)? LOL!

I have not asserted anything other than what your references indicate, that is, that the Society does not train elders to encourage reporting to secular authorities

"that is"?? My references demonstrate MORE than that: they demonstrate that the Society has, to some extent, encouraged a "ssssssshhhhhhhhhh" climate. Of course, I know that YOU KNOW that, which is possibly why I do not see any post from you in the http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3088&site=3 thread! Do the blinkers fit well, eh?

What’s the matter, aren’t you going to continue your fine grammar lesson regarding "yours" and "your’s"?

What "grammar lesson", F iend? I asked you a question as to which you meant (your earlier terminological and other errors having given rise to material ambiguity). You showed that - this time - you actually did mean what you had written...

Regarding your faux pas, using the editor, as an after thought, you wrote: "Is there some part of a "?" that you do not understand?"
Yeah, right!

What are you trying to say here? More deceit and smokescreening from you, eh? My editing (if any) is confined to correcting typos (e.g. bold/italics control, where the difference between the < > which is used for HTML (as in h2O posts) and the [ ] used here causes confusion; closing parentheses or highlighting controls, etc.), predate the reply and are made pretty immediately after the post (as the time stamp shows: I use a chain of anonymizing proxies, btw). Is your editing not of a similar nature? Do share! As revisionism is so rife within Mother, is it being unkind to suspect Friendly tendencies in that direction?

And - do answer the question. We haven't forgotten it, your smokescreen notwithstanding:
"Is there some part of a "?" that you do not understand?"

I do understand your embar^H^H^H^H^Hconcern.

Your desperation to find some tiny error in what I do (however irrelevant such would be, if it existed, to the discussion at hand) is so revealing of your agenda, your priorities - and your basic decency. What a kook and loser you appear - and how rattled, too!

Try and get this. The fact that I appear to be, in terms of logical and linguistic abilities, far out of your league is quite irrelevant - after all, the reader can see that I make every allowance for your demonstrated disabilities and incompetence. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT:
THOSE MOLESTED KIDS ARE STILL CRYING INTO THEIR PILLOWS...

"Get thee to the righteous side"

--
Focus
(Righteous Requirements Class)

Edited by - Focus on 7 March 2001 8:14:0

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

How the blinkers keep working for you, eh, Friend?

you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings.

Proof By Assertion YET again, eh?

Sorry - WRONG!

I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, AND my sure knowledge of how the Society operates - and don't think we can't see your ignoring the "don't-put-it-in-writing" directives I quoted in http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3088&site=3 or the keep-the-blood-change-hushed allegation in http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3099&site=3 etc.

LOL!

Since 1) your unconditional conclusion was based [only] upon the Society’s writings .. w73 11/15 703-4

False! Bundle of stuff snipped as it is based on the abovementioned(wholly invalid) Proof by Assertion - LOL!

How many times do you try the same thing? Do you have no grounding in logic, propositional calculus or the like? Hilarious! Try Lie Algebraas a start (I'm not joking, it exists).

You can try and redefine "policy" all you want ..

No, I leave that to the Experts at Redefinition - YOUR FILTHY WHORELIKE SPIRITUAL-MOTHER, THE WATCHTOWER

As for a person witnessing a "murder" (since you insist upon quibbling),

Oh, so putting the word in quotes works everything, does it? A bit like "prophet" not meaning prophet at all, right? LOL!

[Sundry legal errors ignored, they have already been refuted by me]

stupid .. the minute amount that makes any sense is unbelievably small .. I begin to think that you are the same multi-personality fool that posted here a few months back, the same one that Sevenofnine calls Mr. Pocket Dictionary (or something like that). If so, I guess the sting of your embarrassment remains. If not, then we have only to read this grand testimonial of yours here to see your latest shame.

Your assertion is wholly false - but hey! What's new?

I am actually quite well known in H2O and have been for a while, albeit from after when you may have been fired as FD, perhaps... LOL!

>>Does your "yours" mean "your's"?
Just for your edification, "yours" is the possessive for "you," which was my usage.

Is there some part of a "?" that you do not understand? Does a question imply an error? Can you read at all?? LOL! LOL! LOL! As you specialize in ambiguity - through design or otherwise - I felt the need to query the usage intended. Your answer was satisfactory.

How desperate you sound! But you entirely overlooked three-quarters of the traps, and that is something up with which some might be reluctant to put!

And DO keep the insults flowing, btw - it keeps me laughing, and shows how rattled you are by being so thoroughly exposed.

To all
Note how he refuses to address the DOZEN refutations above in this thread, and keeps blowing the same tired nonsense again and again. Be careful - MOTHER'S "SPIRITUAL-SYPHILIS" may be catching - and you know that does things "up here" as well as "down there"...

--
Focus
(He is such FUN! Class)

Edited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 22:59:40

Edited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 23:7:3

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

True enough, JT! When SixOfNine states

since these kings do not defile themselves with women, it (size) is of no real importance, in spite of what Ezekiel 23:20 says

I am comforted that I am notthe wickedest on this board.

Can someone bring "Friend" back, please? I have uncovered more juicy material, but need some intro gags... One would hope that the ex Forum Director of h2O would not stint with his brotherly assistance.

And yes - PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey.

--
Focus
(Serious Again... 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

philo, I get your drift!

You asserted that the 12,000 deaths were "UNNECESSARY". But you didn't say why.

(1) >=8,000, not 12,000, please!
(2) Definition: A death is UNNECESSARY if it occurred when it could've been prevented without any great extra expenditure or effort. Hence, proved. Proof by definition. Allowed.
(3) The blood law is Mosaical anyway!
(4) Furthermore: Life in the hereafter with only JW-types = HELL
(5) Keep orf me flies!

--
Focus
(WHACKed 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

Tina wrote (emphasis mine):

I personally find Friends oh-so technical rationales similar to Arendts, descriptive banality of evil .. these are the truly dangerous

Exactly so. Which is why you find me here.

How quaint that he has managed to avoid "seeing" the material quoted at the top of this post, from the WT's letters to bodies of Elders etc! How convenient is "selective blindness"!

Can't we even stir him into making out some nonsensical case for "irrelevance"? Let us put the Coffin back on top, T.

Attorneys make lots of money from ones like him!

--
Focus
(Face The Facts! 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

Said Friend:

Based upon the Society’s writings, if a JW “must not” involve secular judicial authorities against a fellow-JW for serious crime then you are saying that that is Society policy !

Listen, shouldn't you consider what is meant by POLICY where it is the "Policy" of a deceitful, weasel-worded, "let's-not-put-in-writing" GREAT WHORE that is being discussed? For such a beast is exactly the Watchtower.

Let us take the only sensible definition of "Policy" in this real world context: such things that are published to the R&F and which are stated sufficiently unambiguously (and whose very nature makes variation as practised impossible) as to prevent backsliding and weasel-wording and revisionism (though New Light may appear at any time, flashing crazily).

Now, taking that definition of Policy, my comment on the above quoted material is: "No, I am not."

So your further conclusions do not follow.

SixOfNine has already addressed this a page ago, btw.

To contend otherwise is nonsensical.

That you think that shows how ignorant you are of the way the whole scam works, at Brooklyn and downwards.

Can I interest you in a Bridge, Friend? Almost never used! I'll set it at a knockdown price, cash of course. And you are a proven legal expert (see below) so I'll have the title deeds for you to scan..

For you to later say that the Society has no policy against JWs reporting a murder (yes, murder!) that they happen to witness (that’s how they know its, yes, murder, stupid!)

Your legal understanding of the term "murder" is so revealing of your semi-educated JW-ility. It is not for the witness (nor is the witness so capable) to calmly and detachedly assess all of motive, degree (if any) of premeditation (qualitative and quantitative), provocation, sanity and mitigation, and without such assessment it is a "killing" and not a "murder". That is for a Judge and/or Jury (depending on the system) to assess. A witness can only witness a "killing". As this assessment occurs some long time after the event, and what is being discussed is the witness's short-term response (whistle-blow to whom (first)?, need time to think? etc.), the distinction is relevant.

Test your hypothesis, then. A certain well-known poster in arj-w shot dead another person who was unarmed. This act was witnessed by a third party. State there that a "murder" was witnessed, dear Friend, and see how expensive a legal action for libel can be.

See that large object protruding from your mouth? It resembles your foot, now, doesn't it? Or is your myopia such that anything further than the end of your nose has blurred into Watchtower pinkiness?

committed by another JW completely refutes your sweeping assertion!

You have a strange understanding of "refutes"

that will not change any facts.

Hey! Momma likes the word "facts" too! You share her understanding of the term, perhaps? LOL!

Also, since the assertion in question was yours (as opposed to mine, stupid!)

"stupid" replies: Does your "yours" mean "your's"?

, and since it regarded a prohibition (i.e., “must not”) then whether the Society has ever required Witnesses (elders or not) to report a crime is irrelevant to your assertion, which assertion of yours was the subject of my critic. Again, I muse, just how sound a thinker are you to not see this!

While I could answer this at several levels, as you are being sensitive to the volume of material being rammed at you (though you studiously avoid answering it and persist in your misconduct of following your demonstratedly irrelevant question trail), I'll just say a sufficient defense (were one to be needed: since the confusion arises again because of your attempting to use arguments fitted to an honest, aboveboard body where the word "policy" would not have to be so exactly specified, it actually isn't - but I'll indulge you anyway) is:

"Inconsistency is no stranger to the Society"

And how remarkably strange that this is news to you!

it defies the senses that you are unable to comprehend your error .. your nonsensical writing! Sheesh! What an idiot you are! And, BTW, calling a fool an idiot is not ad hominem if it true and relevant; and in your case it is both!

Wow, you are in denial. We understand: IT STINGS! IT STINGS!! WE JWs CAN FOUL-MOUTH IN THE MOST DISGRACEFUL WAY EVERY OTHER BELIEF (no matter how sincerely held) - but if anyone gets back at Momma, and...

And I'm truly sorry that you believe I do not measure up to your intellectual stature. So, how can I become intelligent like you and get an Eddicay-SHUN like your one, please? Do share. Start with your academic qualifications, please. If you are sensitive as to your identity, some concealment of names of institutions and dates is acceptable. And TMS does not qualify as college, sorry. I'm always ready to learn!

Of course we know you are really trying to help us get our case right, Mr Attorney-a-la-Barrack-Room. Where and when did you qualify, by the way?

--
Focus
(Hope This Helps! Class)

Edited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 17:17:26

8

LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!

by Englishman in

jw
friends

can someone please tell me why pro-witness posters frequently tell other posters that they are lying?

xandit has just done it to focus -who`s post was well researched and informative - friday on h20 does it for a pastime, as do most of the pro witness brigade.. i have to say that, in my experience, people who shout "liar!

" have usually turned out to be persons who`s own truthfullness can often be called into question.. calling someone a liar is, in my book, a dire insult, and will result in a challenge to pistols at dawn if that particular form of abuse is ever pointed in my direction!.

Focus

Quoth Englishman:

Can someone please tell me why pro-witness posters frequently tell other posters that they are lying? Xandit has just done it to Focus

Because Truth Hurts in a totally different way from the way "The Truth" Hurts?

larc:

Xandit .. implied that I and others were ignorant hayseeds.

Well, you are in the very worst of company, as he called me stupid and idiotic. And braindead. And "Friend" agreed with him, it appears!

How odd that Friend seems to have failed to run rings around such a dumbo. "The Truth" must be just so.. powerful, ain't it just?

--
Focus
([Irony] Class)