Third Witness's old go to line was to claim that the Wacthtower never lost a court case on abuse. With the Conti case he can no longer say that. He is scrambling for a rebuttal.
I'd really like to know who he really is and if he is really a witness.
source: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/trp8rlm4l1af9sn60.
who wants to be a millionaire--conti's way.. for those that attended the north freemont congregation or the oakley congregation in california from 1993 onward (hot attractive females preferred but not necessarily a prerequisite) you have millions and millions of dollars waiting for you.
the only requirement is that you knew jonathan kendrick while you were a minor after all his responsibilities were removed from him in the congregation.
so it's true they are real.
i never thought i'd see the day when the org.
would be so desperate for money that they would do this.
i've finally get my hands on a pdf of one of the two newly released brochures, this one entitled "who are doing jehovah's will today?".
here's a link so you can download your own copy.... http://www66.zippyshare.com/v/98881625/file.html.
predictably, the brochure is extremely vague on key topics.
motivating right hearted ones to love their spiritual mother.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0zxvfheesk.
mr. brock makes good comments along the way pointing out watchtower methodology to twist & control.. .
how many of you have ever worked on a quick build?
here's a good one.
i am a professional pencil pusher by nature.....but many years ago i decided i would volunteer at quick builds so i could help "build a house for jehovah".
i've given this recent lawsuit quite a bit of thought and come to sound conclusions.
after examining other organization's child-protection policies (namely churches), what i've come to realize is there's a one-size fits all solution that's socially acceptable; all information obtained through witnesses and confessions by organizational personnel is be used to aid and abet law-enforcement.
there's no in-between or anything short of this objective that's socially acceptable.
i see a lot of mentions about hospitality after the public talk and honestly, i guess it is a practice that was not in the ny/ct area i grew up in or here in south florida today.. i grew up with an elder father and grandfather who gave public talks and were generally well-liked.
as a child, i never recall being invited to someone's house after the meeting.
granted, it was rare to travel more than an hour but regardless, it was typical to get in the car and head home after the "amens.
In my midwest hall we had a sign up sheet on the information board that listed the speakers, both local and incoming. The more popular elders would get signed up for quickly, while the b-listers would be blank for a while, sometimes even up to the day of their talk. When I could, I'd sign up to take out the unpopular ones, other times it would fall to one of the elders or a bookstudy group. Normally, the speaker would be taken out to a local sit-down restaraunt. On occasion someone would fix something at their home, but that was difficult since you didn't really have time to prepare a lunch and so had to fall back to some kind of crock pot dish you could put while you went to the meeting. The most frustrating things were when a speaker would come in with an entire entourage: their wife, their brood, their moms, the single brotha looking for sistas, grandma, etc.
As a child I hated having to go over to someone's house. 1.) You often had to stay a LONG time and if they didn't have kids it was sooooo boring. 2.) You were at the mercy of whatever they fixed. The little old ladies with their salmon patties were the worst.
full disclosure:.
i am an active (2-4 hrs/month) 3rd generation jw hovering under the radar.
been posting here for 10 years.
is this recent?
http://www.silentlambs.org/oaklandlawsuit.htm.
i havent seen anyone post about it, the link has a pdf on it of the court documents, and it looks like the stamp is from 5/12 but its blurry.. .