(duplicate post)
djeggnog
JoinedPosts by djeggnog
-
69
I feel ashamed of some of you
by Lady Lee ini did not sleep well last night.
i tossed and turned until 4 am .
got up and decided to see what was going on.. i am so disappointed in some of you.. simon posted a thread requesting people not post links to the new shepherding book.
-
-
-
69
I feel ashamed of some of you
by Lady Lee ini did not sleep well last night.
i tossed and turned until 4 am .
got up and decided to see what was going on.. i am so disappointed in some of you.. simon posted a thread requesting people not post links to the new shepherding book.
-
-
djeggnog
@yknot, I just don't get you.
A few days ago, I had decided to post the following message to a different thread (a thread that I suppose@Lady Lee thought it necessary to delete) due to my concern for the impact that the links contained in that now-deleted thread to the new textbook issued by the WTS to Jehovah's Witness elders, which links folks like @yknot had included in their posts, might have on the future of this website:
The new Kingdom Ministry School Textbook, "Shepherd the Flock of God--1 Peter 5:2," that is the subject of this thread, is a copyrighted work, and the "fair use" doctrine to which reference has been made here doesn't permit the [unauthorized] use or transmission of any of the material contained in this textbook in any forum since to quote from a book that isn't available to the public is to copy another author's work to which no balancing test can be applied, and which action would constitute a violation of the copyright. This textbook is not a secret manual, for while only elders have received copies of it, ministerial servants are permitted to read it, although copies of it have been provided to just the elders. BTW, a copyright on a writing need only be declared by its author; the formal publishing of a work either in print or electronically, and distribution of it whether or not for compensation doesn't change the character of the copyright held by the copyright holder. (In the digital age, this means that it isn't always the case that a copy of a copyrighted work may be listed in a Library of Congress catalog).
I wanted to say a couple of things, one of them related to something that was raised here by both Simon and Lady Lee regarding the conduct of some of the folks here that have posted comments to this thread: If you care about the future of Jehovahs-Witness.net, you will not allow your angst for Jehovah's Witnesses to drive you to engage in the criminal course that you have undertaken on this website (and off!) against the copyright held by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania, the copyright holder of the new textbook that some here have been making electronic copies via PM and file sharing sites by continuing to do what you've been doing.
For those who do not know, the publishers are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., [...] in Brooklyn, NY, USA, also known as Jehovah's Witnesses, [which group] provides financial support for the work done by this printing corporation, which both publishes and distributes the publications distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. While all such copyright infringement can interfere and adversely impact the work of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide, including the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, the point I'm making here is that the inclusion of links to copyrighted material that one is not authorized to disseminate in writing or electronically [may violate] the copyright held by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
If you have obtained a copy, enjoy it, but you should know that you are complicit in a crime by providing a link to it in any written or electronic communication you make, and that if a federal injunction should lead to this site being temporarily unavailable to everyone here as a result of any ongoing investigation into such criminal activity on this site pursuant to a federal subpoena, it would behoove [@Simon] to remove all PMs sent to anyone containing a link to this publication, whether that link should now be living or dead, for these PMs can and will be used against [@Simon] in a court of law. If you are not now under federal subpoena, then I see no reason why you shouldn't reset all PMs as a part of normal maintenance anyway (since we cannot rid ourselves of them ourselves!), and then back up this site so that you will be in a position to confidently move this site elsewhere with the content intact (sans the suspect PMs, of course).
I have found many of the comments made in this thread to be irresponsible. Back in 2007, the Recording Industry Association of America won a jury verdict of $220,000 against Jammie Thomas for making some 1,700 MP3s available over Kazaa, and she wasn't charging anyone any money and didn't know who it was that had downloaded any of the MP3s through Kazaa. To win damages, all RIAA had to do was match Thomas' username with her IP address. If you have any sense at all and care about Simon and this website, you will stop blatantly emailing links or electronic copies of the textbook to others, for each such email communication constitutes a criminal count, and pasting links to your posts themselves may further subject Simon to criminal liability for permitting you guys to do this without his or Lady Lee's removal of such messages as is done here when, for example, someone recently thought it would be funny to include an image of a penis to his post (as if no children at all have access to this web site).
If anyone here should think engaging in criminal conduct like this is just harmless fun, it's not harmless, and such a lawsuit could potentially impact your family economically, exposing you to having to pay legal fees to the attorney you are forced to hire to represent you in court, and to your having to pay a sizeable jury award for copyright infringement. If anyone here has a hatred for Jehovah's Witnesses, I think one should sever their relationship with Jehovah's Witnesses and leave its ranks, and maybe join some other church group (or not!), and throw away those NWTs and other WTS publications from which you keep quoting here so that you will not be reminded of your former association whenever you should see one of them, since these Bible translations and publications were produced by Jehovah's Witnesses primarily for use by Jehovah's Witnesses anyway in connection with their beliefs and their evangelization work, although they are currently still being made available to the public by Jehovah's Witnesses (but probably not for too many more years).
Following my post came the following message from @just n from bethel in which he responded by asking me the following questions, but I'm not sure he did so having concern for this website in mind:
Care to elaborate: How exactly does this harm anyone (I'm not talking about those that you imply the Watchtower will sue and try to hurt financially with all the court costs, etc.)? Seriously - how does this harm anyone? Do you mean to say that it [embarrasses] the Watchtower? If so, why? Is there something embarrassing about the contents or does it solely expose their claim of being God's chosen religion as ridiculous? Seriously - back up your claim that this is harmful - prove it.
In short, I tell him:
No, I don't care to do so.
Then comes the following response to my post from @Listener to express his concern for this website:
As no income can be or will ever be derived from this book, litigation would have little benefit.
This was how I replied to it:
I made the assumption upon reading your post that you were an adult, a mature one. I trust that I've not misjudged you and that you weren't thinking when you wrote this.
Then comes the following response to my post from @Eiben Scrood to express his concern for this website:
djeggnog - are you trying to say that people who have already downloaded the elders' manual for their personal use are presently in danger of legal action?!!
This was how I replied to it:
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying here.
Then came a post from @Lady Lee, which stated, in pertinent part, the following:
If the WTS chose to do it they could [subpoena] Simon's records, find out who has the book and sue them. I'm not saying they would. I'm saying they could. It is their legal right. What djeggnog said matches up with what I have researched. And don't think that just because you don't live in the US you are off the hook. International copyright laws are pretty much the same everywhere. I hate like hell defending the WTS so I am only doing it to protect this board and yes to protect YOU....
My reply:
That's my only motivation in saying the things that I said in this thread as well.
Then comes the following response to my post from @donuthole to express his concern for this website:
The laws are continually changing in this digital age but downloading and possessing a copyrighted work is not a illegal. Distribution is illegal. However the reason the RIAA is able to file such a large suit on music file sharers is because they can claim a financial loss because the works that are being downloaded are also sold. If the Watchtower decided to be litigious they would have a difficult time proving up financial losses for an internal manual that is freely distributed to elders within their religion. Further they would have to decide if bringing a lawsuit to the public is worth the attention it would bring to a document that they very much want to keep away from public (legal) scrutiny.
The following is how I replied to his post:
You sound like @just n from bethel to me, and my hope is that no one here is so foolish as to listen to the advice that you and he have given here. While it is true that "laws are continually changing," I've been talking about copyright law. You're sound totally clueless and vague. What are you saying here exactly? Are you suggesting that folks should break the law and potentially find themselves defending a lawsuit for copyright infringement or what?
Later in his post, @donuthole argues the following:
In the meantime, those that have chosen to distribute this file are taking an understood risk and are engaging in civil disobedience for the greater good. (That is if they even are in a country where these laws are applicable.)
This prompted me to ask @donuthole the following --
What "greater good" do you mean? For Christ's sake?
-- to which he responds by making reference to reasons he thinks our new textbook has public value, among them being "secret directives," "clergy confidentially" and "rights" (his reply is in bold; my response is not in bold):
There is a public value in having this book widely released. Here are just a few reasons:
1.) Their secret directives on how to handle someone who has a blood transfusion is in violation to the agreement they made with the Bulgarian government.
What "rights"? In this world, there is such a thing as "due process of law," but, in Christ, there is no due process. There is no public value in having our textbook "widely released" to the public.
What "secret directives"? Ask anyone: Jehovah's Witnesses the world over are known as a group that refuses to accept blood transfusions. This is no secret to anyone. I don't agree that there is any public value in having our textbook "widely released" to the public.
2.) Some of their secret instructions on how to handle judicial meetings betray any claims to clergy confidentially the Watchtower has used when shielding such meetings from scrutiny during child abuse lawsuits.
Come again? What "clergy confidentiality"? Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a clergy class, for we are all of us brothers. What do you mean? Again, I don't agree that there is any public value in having our textbook "widely released."
3.) When a Witness undergoes a judicial meeting they are not fully informed of their rights. The release of the manual provides information for those who are being tried in such a manner so that they are better prepared.
Then after waxing how our new textbook has public value and taking the position that the posters here on this website are really only "engaging in civil disobedience for the public good," @donuthole incredibly seems to think that he can deceive @Lady Lee (and others here) into believing that he's really for protecting @Simon and Jehovahs-Witness.net in going on in the very same message to state the following:
That being said this website is exercising their due diligence by removing links to the material ensuring that this forum resource can remain available for those who would benefit from it. Even then removing links right now won't matter too much in the long run. The cat is already out of the bag. WikiLeaks currently has their hands full with the release of the Iraq war documents but eventually the book will end up on their servers for any who have a continued interest in it. Even though they have nothing to do with this religion they fully understand that there is an important public interest in having the material available.
The following was my reply:
I'm sorry, @donuthole, but in reading this last statement of yours, you may be smart about some things, but when it comes to the law, I'm quite sure that you are stupid. You are talking to @Lady Lee and @Simon about removal of the links when you were singing -- in the same message -- about civil disobedience being the "greater good." Don't try to take two positions. Just take one position and argue for that position. IMO no one here should take anything you have to say seriously (until you at least have something to say).
At some point, @just n from bethel goes on to further express his concern for this website by a bit of sarcasm that I will not quote here, but I quote here my response to it:
I think there are too many people here that care nothing about the future of Jehovahs-Witness.net. The angst they have against Jehovah's Witnesses is what drives them to engage in the criminal conduct which is the subject of this thread, but the problem is that their selfishness in posting links on this site to copyrighted material can adversely impact this site. I think Jehovahs-Witness.net provides a place where folks can vent, and because I can come here and read what people that are in fade or have been disfellowshipped or have disassociated themselves feel, this helps me to become better informed as to what people are thinking and feeling all of the world as Jehovahs-Witness.net is an internet forum.
Am I being selfish here? Yes, I am, and so what? I don't much care what folks think of what I'm saying here. I don't run this site; I have no interest in this site whatsoever. But some of you people here are also selfish, but in a way that could potentially hurt @Simon (and I don't know the man personally). I don't want [...] Jehovahs-Witness.net to be hit with a federal injunction. I don't want the stupid ones here to become the target of an investigation launched by law firms hired by the WTS to do one thing, but, as an adjunct to their investigation, launch a witch hunt of their own in order to separate these stupid angry folks from the money in their bank accounts (those not judgment-proof) to settle grievances of federal law that they were not hired by the WTS to conduct.
As Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell recently learned (or not!) <g> there is a Bill of Rights here in the US, a First Amendment to the US Constitution, that contains provisions protecting American citizens from government intrusion into religious matters, since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If a religious group should decide to create a set of rules or principles that embody the "laws" of the group, it can decide to submit those rules to writing, and if it should decide to submit those rules to writing, to make one publication for its members or one publication for its leaders or one publication each for both its members and its leaders. It may also decide to declare such publications to be confidential so that its membership is prohibited from divulging its contents to non-members.
In a courtroom, a judge may prohibit female lawyers from appearing in his or her courtroom weaning a pantsuit, and that same judge may prohibit lawyers from appearing in his or her courtroom without a tie and suit coat. That judge may put these rules of his or hers, including these two rules I mention here, in writing, and may restrict the manual containing these rules to just those lawyers that appear in his or her courtroom, and may even sanction any lawyer in whose possession this confidential (and otherwise "secret") manual is found for having it since the manual itself indicates that only lawyers that make appearances in his or her courtroom may have a copy of it.
If anyone in the public (like a reporter) should find himself or herself with a copy of the judge's confidential manual in his or her possession, the judge may even issue a gag order making the reporter subject to a contempt citation for revealing its contents to anyone else. This does not violate the reporter's First Amendment rights against "Congress ... abridging [his or her] ... freedom ... of the press" since Congress isn't making a law. Neither is the WTS' prohibiting any unauthorized person from obtaining a copy of the new textbook violating anyone's First Amendment rights where "Congress [is] ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" since Congress isn't making a law either.
No one has a right to obtain a copy of any document controlled by a religious group unless it can be proved that that document contains content that violates the civil rights of an American citizen. This is just how things work in the US. I cannot tell anyone here what to do, but, please, get your anger against Jehovah's Witnesses under control, for I do not wish to see the business of this site foreclosed or interrupted for any length of time because of your selfishness, which affects not just @Simon, but the people that come to this site to vent.
Then comes the following response to my post from @shepherd, which isn't an expression of his concern for this website, but a direct attack against me for daring to suggest to @Simon that he take whatever steps he thought best in order to protect Jehovahs-Witness.net:
You are completely wrong, however, if you think posting a third-party link is illegal - it is not. Let me repeat that - it is not illegal to post a link to a third party site, even a file hosting site.... This is BS, it will not and can not happen simply because someone posts some links. DMCA targets the site HOSTING the files.
The following was my reply to his post:
I don't BS and I never stutter. My purpose in contributing to this thread was to give @Simon information that might protect this website and nothing more. I think Jehovahs-Witness.net to be a good place for folks to vent and receive the help they need to regain their bearings or their senses should they be in fade or disfellowshipped or have a disassociated status, for many others, feeling alone and cut off from their family and former friendships with Jehovah's Witnesses, have questions, but may be too embarrassed or angry to speak to anyone, and some have contemplated suicide, whereas here they learn that they can speak anonymously about their feelings.
I really don't want to see this site suddenly disappear because that could prove to be devastating to so many, especially to the regulars here who have developed many cyber friendships here and are still working through their issues. (Although I do not post comments to every thread, I have read many of the posts on this site.) You're giving bad advice here, and my hope is that @Simon ignores your advice, which is a choice that only he can make. If by knocking the advice I have given here you are seeking glory from posters to this site, I have no problem with that, but I have made clear in this thread what my motivation is. I can tell you -- and I do tell you -- that what I've received here from many of the posters to this thread is contempt, whose posts @Lady Lee has gratefully removed. You can have the glory.
I realize that most of you here are not lawyers, but I would like everyone here, including @shepherd, to read the following excepts (the URLs from which each were taken are provided) so that you might better understand the point I have made and am making here. Not one of you is my client and I am now advising anyone here of anything in my professional capacity, but I won't describe what you will be reading, except to point out to you that these excerpts are from a Utah case, filed in 1999 and decided in 2000, involving URLs that led to a Mormon handbook that the Mormon church had not authorized to be uploaded to the hosting website nor downloaded over the internet by anyone using a URL link or URL reference to the hosting website in an email.
In that post, I appended two (2) excerpts from the transcripts of two separate court proceedings in Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., which I will not repeat here, but will only provide here the URLs to these two court proceedings:
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight/transcripts/statusconference111899.htm
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight/transcripts/pi112399.htm
Unbelievably, the following is the exchange that occurred between @shepherd and I following the above post (his reply is in bold; my response is not in bold):
I know the WTBS can be scary....
To whom? The folks associated with the WTS are Jehovah's Witnesses, even as I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I only fear Jehovah and my fear is a godly fear, not some "scary" morbid one. There are many Jehovah's Witnesses that lack maturity. You should go find one of these immature ones that might be enamored by your wisdom. Please relate to them whatever nonsense you wish.
Again, my concern is only for this website's not being hit with a federal injunction for the inclusion of links in their posts to websites hosting the new textbook, and not because I think anyone at the WTS is or can be scary, but because I believe no one has the right to be providing to anyone online access to the new textbook, either by hosting the copyright protected work so that people might download it or by including hyperlinks in their posts on this website to the file being hosted on someone else's website, which might constitute contributory infringement of the copyrightholders work.
In the end the case was settled between both parties.... The judge did not rule as to whether posting links were illegal.
It is totally beside the point that no legal precedent has yet been set. My reading of the litigation in Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., indicates to me that this judge was about to set a precedent that would have impacted copyright law both here in the US and abroad. I provided the excerpts to the Utah case without comment just to let the reader of them understand the seriousness of the inclusion of links to copyrighted material in their posts after they have been "put on notice" that using the link to download such material could make them criminally culpable.
This case also had the complication that the group admitted earlier posting the handbook [online], which is illegal.
Irrelevant. I have here only been referring to links to the new textbook that some here have included in their posts, for @Simon has not and is not hosting this textbook on this website. Please stay on point.
The following is the exchange that occurred between @carvin and I (his reply is in bold; my response is not in bold):
Since all elders , MS, CO, DO, etc are [appointed] by Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit should have known what was in the heart of all those leaders leaking the book to the public. So we must conclude that Jah wanted the book leaked out.
Is that like you're saying that because Jesus was privileged to be able to perform the many miracles about which we read in the gospel accounts of his ministry due to his having the backing of God's holy spirit, that he should have known that his second cousin, John, would be beheaded by Herodias, which knowledge would have made it possible for John to be raised up as a powerful spirit having immortality as Jesus' apostles came to inherit after their resurrection instead of John's still being asleep in death? With this kind of power at his command, I suppose Jesus also should have known what was in Judas' heart (actually he did!) so that he could have warned Judas against his taking the course he took beforehand, right? So it's really the holy spirit's fault that the lives of these men turned out in the way they did, right? In reading what you wrote here, you do know that the holy spirit is not a person, right?
This idea of yours reminds me of the friends of bereaved parents of a child that has died, who believe their telling the deceased child's parents that evidently "God must have needed another angel in heaven" would be comforting to them (as if there were ever an angel shortage in heaven, and human beings are in reality a research project where angels live with other angels in this earthly environment of ours having physical instead of spiritual bodies where a record of their interactions with one another are recorded in a book until they have finally served their usefulness to God [maybe when only one month old or even one week old!] and they then die as humans to join their angels in heaven). So it's really God's fault that children die, right?
So, as you see it, it was in the heart of those "elders, MS, CO, DO, etc.," to whom the new textbook was not sent (the book was provided for elders and only elders were authorized to receive it) to leak it to the public when they received it, right? It was the fault of the holy spirit that these appointed men leaked it to the public because the holy spirit had to know what they were going to do with this textbook beforehand, right? Therefore, you have concluded and believe that all must conclude that it was God's will that the textbook was leaked to the public? Correct? Do I understand you correctly or am I just being silly here? Perhaps you can clear this up by explaining what it is you intended to say here by this statement.
I heard it said that to control the future you must control the past. In the past the WT was [pretty] good at [controlling] their past, but not anymore. They cant even seem to control their present.
Well, you're close. The quote from Orwell's 1984 is "Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past." While people will often recount historical events in order to justify their future goals, politicians today use their political power to control how people view those historical events. Orwell's novel explores the dangers of living in a totalitarian society under authoritarian governments with absolute political authority as his own life experiences in life informed him, but the words you kinda quoted in your post refer to how language and history can be manipulated in such a way that such propaganda can end up exerting control over not just your life, but over what things you believe to be true or false, right or wrong.
As an example of such manipulation of the past, I have never tried to explain to anyone why it is that in 2010, there are people overtly seeking to control how our young people view Darwinism, a 19th century myth masquerading as science today, except that I do believe Satan to be responsible for the blindness that exist in people's minds. (2 Corinthians 4:4) In 1859, when Origin of the Species was first published, Charles Darwin postulated many things about the origin of life that have since had to be rejected and propped up with explanations not provided by Darwin at all, but true believers in evolution today would move heaven and earth manipulating the past in an attempt to support their belief that life arose by chance than to believe that God is the First Cause to which the Bible attests.
Today, serious origin-of-life biologists don't believe that life could have arisen by chance alone. Proponents of Darwin's theory though believe that natural selection acted on random variations among chemicals to produce the first life, but it is a fact that natural selection could not have functioned before the existence of the first living cell, since it can only act upon organisms capable of replicating themselves, that is to say, cells equipped with DNA that pass on their genetic changes to future generations.
Without DNA there is no self-replication, but without self-replication there is no natural selection, so it isn't possible to use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing one is trying to explain. IOW, natural selection does not explain how the very first self-replicating cell (equipped with DNA) came to exist. But if one can control the present, it is possible to control what people think about the nutty ideas expressed by Charles Darwin.
But the past of Jehovah's Witnesses is all out there exposed for everyone that wishes to see and recount it in detail. Like Charles Darwin, Charles Russell lived during the 19th century, too, and, like Darwin, Russell he had some zany views (like that pyramid of Russell's, for example). But Jehovah's Witnesses today do not embrace those extant viewpoints of the late 1800s and early 1900s and we have never attempted to control our past. Jehovah's Witnesses have no political power since we are no part of this world, so your mention of our ever seeking to control our present in this context is ridiculous.
The saying goes that 'he who controls the present, controls the past,' but Jehovah's Witnesses only want control over how they are conducting themselves in the present with a view to their future. When we examine historical events, we do so in the light of Bible truth, for there are people today that believe in evolution that do not believe the historical event of God's deliverance of a people from Egyptian captivity in 1513 BC as told in the Bible, or even the historical event that occurred in the year 2370 BC involving the global deluge that destroyed an ancient world as also told in the Bible. Because Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible to be God's word, they do believe these Bible accounts to have been real historical events. We inform ourselves of the details of such historical events to help us to know what Jehovah purposes for the future. The present just happens to be where we live, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not endeavor to manipulate the past.
Then comes the following response to my post from @brotherdan, which, again, isn't an expression of his concern for this website, but a direct attack against my suggestion to @Simon that he put safeguards in place to protect Jehovahs-Witness.net (his reply is in bold; my response is not in bold):
Have YOU read the new book? It's a disgusting distortion of the Bible and Christianity in general. There is no "shepherding". It is all about who to punish, how to punish them, and what to punish them for.
I'm assuming that in making these comments that you have read the new textbook yourself, so what did you find so "disgusting" in it. What circumscribed punishments does this textbook contain that you have found you so objectionable, @brotherdan? Lay them all out here, or, if this should be too much to ask, maybe you could provide just one of these punishments....
I don't believe the new textbook is any substitute for the Bible nor that it was written in order to teach folks about Christianity. I believe it was written to help congregation elders, who come from various educational and environmental backgrounds, to become better shepherds of the flock in their care so that one elder does not handle matters differently in Detroit, Michigan, USA, than that same matter might be handled in Madrid, Spain. As an international association of Christian brothers, we ought to all of us be speaking in agreement. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
If you never saw the similarities between the Pharisees and the WTS before, you would after reading this disgusting book. But of course, you love your counterfeit gospel, don't you?
You sound like a bitter man and you may believe you have genuine reasons for believing what things you do about Jehovah's Witnesses, but being familiar with some of what the Talmud says, as a matter of fact having a copy of the Soncino Talmud on my computer here and on my PDA, I don't see any similarly between the teachings of the rabbins (i.e., the Pharisees) and the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses today, and as far as this "counterfeit gospel" to which you refer, what "gospel" would that be, @brotherdan? I don't follow at all, but I'm willing to listen if you are willing to elaborate on what you mean by "counterfeit gospel," ok?
Then comes a response from @AllTimeJeff (which I do not quote here) wondering if I understood that all of these posts attacking me, attacking Jehovah's Witnesses, attacking the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, attacking the WTS for its audacity in not releasing its "secret" textbook to the public were occasioned by "the emotion that comes from former JW's" and wondering why I would be here "defending [my] personal belief system," even though this is exactly what these "former JW's" are doing. @AllTimeJeff's response was followed by @TastingFreedom's post in response to my post. I don't see any concern on @TastingFreedom's part for this website, but just him attacking me for the suggestion I made to @Simon (his reply is in bold; my response is not in bold):
EggNogg, I don't know your track record on this site, but based on your posts in this thread, you give the impression of being a loyal Watchtower soldier, trying to infuse fear around here!
I'm a soldier, but not for the WTS. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm a soldier for the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Timothy 2:3) You, like many of the posters on this board, have the cracked idea that those of us that take what things the Bible says seriously do what things we do in our own name, or that we are motivated by a desire to be men-pleasers, such as to make everyone in the local congregation or everyone in the circuit or everyone in the district speak well of us as servants, or to maybe please the brothers at the Brooklyn, New York, branch office, as if we live for the adoration of men. (Colossians 3:22-24)
I suppose some among Jehovah's Witnesses might live for the adoration of others, but not all do; for example, I don't. I'm motivated by my love for Jehovah, my gratitude for Jesus' sacrifice, and my love for people to share with folks the good news that someone shared with me about the kingdom of God and the hope I now have of living forever on this planet. But you may not have ever been motivated selflessly to do anything. Have you ever been so motivated to do anything for anybody without their being some tangible, selfish reason or motive, something that you were getting out of your doing it? Anything at all? I'm going to tell you a story, @TastingFreedom, about what it means to loyal and motivated....
I'm motivated to do the work that he has entrusted to me to do as an envoy of the kingdom of God, declaring and warning people that his revelation is near, so that the time left for them to repent and put faith in the good news is reduced. I don't know what it means to "infuse fear" -- maybe you thought with these words you would be communicating a certain sentiment as a knock against me, I don't know -- but, in addition to all of the other things I'm motivated to do as a Christian soldier, I come to this forum to discuss the Bible with those in fade, with those that have been disfellowshipped and with those who have for whatever reason disassociated themselves from Jehovah's organization.
Many folks have no experience doing anything whole-souled to anyone or for anyone, but what I have here been describing is what it means to be engaged in whole-souled service to another human being, while Christians are required to be do all things whole-souled as to Jehovah when serving others, whether it be one's own relatives or someone not related to them (i.e., one's employer). (Colossians 3:23) Now some have experience in being "men pleasers," such as when an athlete, like a gymnast, works at his or her discipline for seven hours a day, or 35 hours a week, over five days, or maybe even longer than this, or when one works all of the overtime that his or her employer desires he or she work, all for the adoration of men as represented by the trophy one receives for whole-souled efforts for men, or because the "Benjamins" are an object of worship for them, but such "whole-souled" service is for self, is for one's own glory, and not for God's glory. (Ephesians 6:6)
Loving one's neighbor as oneself is not limited to kingdom preaching, but includes what things we do for other people, checking up on a neighbor, who is momentarily under the weather, or running an errand for someone across town whose car has suddenly let him or her down. But sharing a scripture will usually lead to a discussion of some aspect of God's kingdom, and such a discussion could eventually lead to your neighbor's salvation, so why not do it? Encouraging others to have the same godly fear that you have could ultimately save someone's life, so why not do it? Winning a trophy for earning the most points as a gymnast or being the Most Valuable Earner in the company is whole-souled service, but isn't direct service to God, as is when are talking to our neighbors about God's kingdom, for by our so doing, we could possibly "save both yourself and those who listen to you." (1 Timothy 4:16)
There are laws in this country protecting copyrights and property but we also have rights and a constitution that protects our civil rights. Those rights don't go away just because some publisher corporation wants to intimidate us. I think Sheperd has refuted your fear mongering very cleverly!
You should not use either words or concepts that you do not understand. I've not engaged in any "fear mongering" here. Also, one refutes an argument, but I've made no argument. It would appear that you are making reference to your civil rights as an American citizen and to the US Constitution, but copyrights on intellectual property are international in scope, and your First Amendment freedom of religion as an American citizen means that Congress can "make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of anyone's religion, including any law that might interfere with the free exercise of religion by Jehovah's Witnesses. There is absolutely no need on your part to pretend to be smarter than me, brighter than me, more intelligent than me. If you just use the words and concepts that you yourself understand, I will understand you just fine.
Now in this thread, the right to keep a textbook published by the WTS confidential has not been under discussion here. The possibility that Jehovahs-Witness.net might be slapped with an injunction for contributory infringement of the copyright held by the WTS to this textbook by @Simon's permitting posters to include hyperlinks to the file being hosted on someone else's website in their posts is what has been driving this discussion.
The WTS has not threatened anyone's constitutional rights. It has merely taken steps to retard, that is to say, to slow down the efforts of unscrupulous individuals to make unauthorized copies of the new textbook available to the public. If you were to hold a copyright on your own work, your work would be protected by that copyright, and you have the right to defend against anyone at all that sought to make available to the public via US mail or electronically copies of your copyrighted work without authorization from you to do so. This thread, however, is not about whether the WTS intended to keep the content of its textbook a secret since it only sought to keep it confidential by limiting distribution of it to congregation elders. There really nothing in this new textbook that has not previously been published in other WTS publications.
IMO, if you don't really understand this thread, you should read it before posting to it. Start by reading @Simon's post on Page 1; he's the OP. Then, if you want, read both @Lady Lee's and my post on Pages 5 and 6, respectively. These posts should give you a true sense of what this thread is about, despite the silly comments of some that believe Jehovah's Witnesses are distressed or disturbed in some way (like @ziddina, @Soldier77, @brotherdan, @sabatious, @OUTLAW, @Ultimate Reality, @elderelite and @ldrnomo) as if the behavior of "people being people" would actually shock or surprise Jehovah's Witnesses who regularly visit the homes where such people live. Jehovah's Witnesses are no part of the world, but they live in this world, and contrary to what you (and others here) might believe, not many of us are ignorant.
I then had to field a post from @Rabbit (which I also do not quote here) blaming me, blaming Jehovah's Witnesses, blaming the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, blaming the WTS for his mother's death, asserting that his mother would be alive today had she not put her faith, and I'm quoting him, "in the WT's GB," and for his estrangement from your family. I don't know why @Rabbit was disfellowshipped or why he left God's organization, but I do know that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't responsible for the conscientious decision made by @Rabbit's mother to not accept a blood transfusion, since God forbids all Christians to do (Acts 15:20), and I also know that there is no way that anyone can know in advance whether or not a blood transfusion is going to save anyone's life.
I will now quote here the following excerpt from the OP's (@Lady Lee's) post:
djeggnog, admittedly an active Witness was posting copyright law information. What he was posting agreed with the research I had been doing on copyright law so I know he wasn't trying to make us all scared of what the WTS could do here.
Keep in mind that @Lady Lee is the OP in this thread. The quote that now follows is an excerpt from one of the responses to the OP's post:
Sorry Lady Lee, but I must respectfully disagree with you.
djeggnog was not providing valid legal reasoning. He was quoting from a case that did not even reach a judgment - it was settled between both parties. Even worse, rather than quoting from a Judge's summation, he was quoting directly from the prosecution lawyer. This is not precedent and a good lawyer would never do it.
So I posted some details to [refute] it. It was djeggnog who immediately attacked....
The above was taken from @shepherd's post in this thread, but as you can see from this quote, I am being accused by @shepherd of "immediately" attacking him! Whatever.
Less than 12 hours ago (before I posted this message), @Gordy decided that he would post a message --
I have a link
-- which ostensibly contained a link to the textbook, which has been the subject of the discussion here. I'm sure that many of the people that visit this site from time to time may not be aware of @Simon's and @Lady Lee's request that folks not embed links to the new textbook on here, but it seems that @Gordy has since edited his post and removed it. But what I don't understand is what it was that motivated @yknot to post the following, when she is fully aware of @Simon's and @Lady Lee's joint request in this respect:
[I]f you see a bro/sis in need of a link......share it [sic] the link like Gordy did recently!
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/201129/1/NEW-ELDERS-MANUAL-LINK
I think @yknot said it best at the beginning of her post:
This is a game.
Notice that @yknot says this --
[I]t is Simon's site and he has every right to choose what sort of content is allowed.
-- but still goes on to say in the same post --
[S]hare it [sic] the link like Gordy did recently!
-- and then she embeds a link to another thread where she knew others could go, find @Gordy's post (the first post!), and use this link to gain access to the textbook! What's rich is that @yknot ends her post with the following:
Love, Deep Respect and Huggles to LL, other Mods and of course Simon and Ang!!!
Have you lost your senses, @yknot? What on earth is wrong with you, woman? How selfish can you be? Has your hatred for Jehovah's Witnesses driven you to madness so that you really do not care about the rest of us here that frequent Jehovahs-Witness.net? Do you truly think that all of "[t]his is a game"?
I don't speak on behalf of anyone here, and I cannot tell you what to do, but I'm asking you to stop what you're doing and to please listen to the sentiments expressed by @Virgochik in her post:
I haven't been keeping up with the thread due to working late, but I think it's a shame. Just because we aren't JW's any more doesn't mean we shouldn't still be good, decent people. All rules aren't thrown out and we just run around screwing others after we quit the Kingdom Hall. All that does is make ex JW's look like the monsters they say we are. Please continue doing the right thing. We all have a conscience and a moral compass. I hope, anyway. Thanks for the reminder, Lady Lee. I'm just sorry you had to give it. And for those jeopardizing this site, don't assume that's fine with the rest of us. I for one do not appreciate it.
@djeggnog
-
217
DMCA Complaint from The WatchTower for links to KS-10 'Shepherding' book
by Simon inyes, that's right, they really do not like people being able to read that book so they wanted links to it removed (it appears they have also been going after the hosts of the content itself as well).. unfortunately, i had to removed the links (which were dead anyway when i checked) and i'd ask that people don't re-post them (sorry).
i'm sure there are lots of alternative ways for those with the information to get it to those who need it.. here are the discussions on the book:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/200524/1/ks10-chapter-one-discussion.
-
-
djeggnog
@Rabbit:
Eggnog, you are so terribly verbose.
This is write. (I'm a writer.)
And, despite having some apparent education you are still blinded by the academic.
Ok.
Which is why... you choose to ignore the human equation, like all the actual JW deaths from blood, vaccine, organ transplants, bans etc. over the history of Jehovah's Witnesses. You simply cannot understand my grief over losing my mom and family. Nor, can you empathize with the thousands and thousands of other similar true human events relating to 'all things Watchtower'.
Hold on now. I don't know you personally and I didn't know your mother. It is a known fact that people die, and, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I teach others that people die because of a spiritual defect that all of Adam's offspring came to inherit after Adam decided to disobey God to make his own decisions independent of God, which decision led to all human being born in sin. While you are here saying all of these things about what it is I cannot understand, I know you already know all of these things if you ever studied the Bible with one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Unfortunately, many of the folks that were raised in Christian families and were baptized never studied the Bible with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but went along with the program as it were, so that they became spiritually illiterates as far as what things the Bible teaches.
If death took your mom, then you would have to explain to me how it is you could be here indicting Jehovah's Witnesses as being responsible for her death. If you are presently estranged from any member of your family, then you would have to also explain to me how it is you could be here blaming Jehovah's Witnesses for her death. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I believe in community responsibility, but I don't see how you can blame me or think me culpable for your mother's death or for your estrangement from your family. I think you are hijacking @Simon's thread by bringing all of this up in this thread, but if you want to discuss your complaints, your gripes, your disappointments with me, I will join that thread once you have started it and discuss these things with you.
But since you started this, I will respond to your gripes now in this thread, but, not wanting to hijack it, please start a new thread so that we can take this matter up there if you should choose to do so.
As I told you, and you ignored, my mother believed in the WT's GB SO much -- she died over the blood issue. Not long after -- the WT's FlickeringLight -- the GB heard new voices in their heads and with a 2/3 majority vote (they don't all hear the same voices down that conduit) -- decided Hemoglobin was now a "Conscience Matter." It could have saved her life. Wow. The GB delivered "Food at the Proper Time," -- so LATE they missed my loyal JW moms deadline.
I'm sorry, but I must ask you. How do you know that had your mother accepted a blood transfusion that she would be alive today? How do you know that had she accepted blood, that she would not have died from complications as a result of her accepting one or more blood transfusions? You say here that your mother "believed in the WT's GB...." Is that right? I don't believe you. Or, rather, I should say that I don't believe that your mother put her faith in those men in Brooklyn, NY, as if they had given their lives as a ransom sacrifice for the sins of the world. Do you see where I'm going with this? This is not a Kingdom Hall, but a website where I will typically take my gloves off and say things like they need to be said.
I don't much care if you think I'm coming off here as insensitive to your pain, but you need to understand that what's happening at this moment to you (in this response) is reflexively in defense of your blaming me and all Jehovah's Witnesses for your mother's not being alive today and for your estrangement from your family. When you accuse me of anything, you deserve whatever comes back in return, and I usually ignore political correctness since I do the best I can to not come off as a hypocrite and call a spade a spade, especially now that you are telling me here that had your mother not refused to accept a blood transfusion as a "Conscience Matter," she would be alive today. I'm not going to try to convince you that your mother didn't die "over the blood issue," but I will tell you that if Armageddon doesn't arrive today -- and I said "today" -- that you and I might be dead as early as tomorrow, because (1) man dies; this is a fact, and (2) time and unforeseen occurrence befall all of us.
The truth of the matter is that your mother could have died from injuries sustained the day after her hospital stay after having consented to a blood transfusion from a car accident in which you and she died with you at the wheel, but her death would then, under such circumstances, have been eternal death since blood is sacred, and her acceptance of a blood transfusion, in total disregard for God's command to "abstain ... from blood" (Acts 15:20) would mean that she did not fear the One that could "destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (Matthew 10:28) But she died having faith in the resurrection and she will return in the resurrection of the righteous ones, but due to your bitterness over her death in separating yourself from God's organization will result in you not being around to receive your mother during Judgment Day. (Luke 14:14)
I gotta tell ya: You have to be retarded to have taken such an unwise course in leaving Jehovah's organization for any reason because of your anger against Jehovah's Witnesses or, more specifically, the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as if the governing body that represents the faithful and discreet slave is the faithful and discreet slave. That are many people today that profess to be Jehovah's Witnesses that truly believe Charles Russell alone to have been the faithful and discreet slave back in the 1800s, and, like them, you were not taught by anyone, nor did you read such a thing in any of the WTS publications to suggest such nonsense, but just as Russell alone wasn't the faithful and discreet slave, neither is the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses the faithful and discreet slave to whom Jesus referred at Matthew 24:45.
One more thing: You say that the blood transfusions she refused "could have saved her life," but you don't know that they would have saved her life, do you? This is really just speculation on your part, for there are many people that have received transfused blood, who did not survive the medical procedure in which such blood was being administered. You want to be hold someone responsible for your mother's death. Fine. You want to hold Jehovah's Witnesses as responsible for your mother's death. Fine. You want to hold the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as responsible for your mother's death. Fine.
Since I, too, am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you may as well hold me as being responsible for your mother's death, too, but your accusations mean nothing to me, because I'm not responsible. I'm responsible for my own decisions, not someone else's decisions, just as you are responsible for your own decisions and not your mother's decisions. Your mother was responsible for her own decision to not accept a blood transfusion, and you only have yourself to blame for your refusal to support your mother's decision. Like I said, I call a spade a spade.
One day, an Organ Transplant was "Cannibalism," the next day, when the new WT publication came out -- with The Brand NewLight...Organ Transplants were OK. No more Disfellowshipping. One day, Vaccines were "...filthy disease causing pus..." part of an AMA "conspiracy" to cause sickness, so they can profit off of it. Then, after vaccination laws were passed, keeping JW kids out of school -- NewLights go on and vaccines are A.O.K. Do you think an Almighty, All-Knowing God would have made those blunders that killed His own people ???
I've discussed this matter in another thread, so I'll just "plagiarize" myself in repeating what I said in that thread, to the effect that in a "Questions from Readers" article, w67 11/15, pp. 702-704, a few wrongheaded ideas did find their way into the Watchtower regarding organ transplants, one of them being the following:
"Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others." (Id. at 702.)
Assuming that you have read this 1967 QFR article, what you may have missed is the fact that the decision to accept an organ transplant was the personal decision of the conscientious Christian:
"Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him." (Id. at 704.)
Thirteen years later, in a subsequent "Questions from Readers" article, w80 3/15, p. 31, because many had wrongly concluded that their acceptance of an organ transplant as part of a medical procedure to have been a disfellowshipping offense, this more balanced article was published regarding organ transplants, which stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient’s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth...."
And later, in the same article, it stated:
"Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the 'donor' is not killed to supply food.... [E]ach individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant."
I'm really interested in hearing your response after you have read this post, because I don't think you have anything of substance to say in response.
But, you go on and on and on...about the sacred WT words and beliefs and defend all the Academic they espouse. And, you eagerly forget the UGLY, the Hypocritical, the Blood Guilt they have committed for years. You have gotten so calloused, you cannot see why any of us could have big problems caused by joining this cult or feel so frustrated that we may think civil disobedience could be productive.
As Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses have no interest in civil disobedience, recognizing it as being my duty "to be in subjection to the superior authorities," for anyone that "opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God." (Romans 13:1, 2) Only should the superior authorities seeks to force us to do anything in violation of God's commands, only then will be refuse and accept the penalty, whatever that penalty might be, for such "civil disobedience." I don't belong to a cult, but you are entitled to hold the opinion you have of us. It occurs to me that you are also saying that you believe your mother was a member of a cult, and maybe you will eventually come to admit that what this also means is that you were a former 'cult member' yourself.
If you don't think it to be a good idea to join our "cult," then don't, but doesn't it even bother you that you could well be fighting against God in trying to persuade others from joining our "cult"? (Acts 5:39) You are not stronger than God, are you? You do know that you won't be able to overthrow us, don't you? As the Bible says, "a weak thing of God is stronger than men," so what kind of success do you expect to have doing what you're doing, @Rabbit? (1 Corinthians 1:25)
I realize it would be painful for you to think about all these needless deaths being ordered/expected by the WTB&TS Corporation Bylaws. So...don't ! It's way too Human and Real. Being verbose is where you excel -- carry on and on and on...
I don't really think a thing about the deaths of people I don't know; I accept that such are a reality of this life (Romans 5:12), but I also know that "there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15) I feel no pain about anyone's death and I'm hoping to be among those "millions now living that will never die," but, if not, I put my faith in the resurrection. At any rate, I'm sure that I will both meet and greet your mother, even if I won't necessarily be able to connect her to you without knowing her name and yours. That would permit me to one day (maybe) show her a copy of your post (which I have here on my PC) so that she might learn why her son wasn't able to attend the "meet and greet."
@djeggnog
-
217
DMCA Complaint from The WatchTower for links to KS-10 'Shepherding' book
by Simon inyes, that's right, they really do not like people being able to read that book so they wanted links to it removed (it appears they have also been going after the hosts of the content itself as well).. unfortunately, i had to removed the links (which were dead anyway when i checked) and i'd ask that people don't re-post them (sorry).
i'm sure there are lots of alternative ways for those with the information to get it to those who need it.. here are the discussions on the book:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/200524/1/ks10-chapter-one-discussion.
-
-
djeggnog
@AllTimeJeff:
djeggnog, if I might be allowed to weigh in, I think you have made your point.
What was my point exactly, if you don't mind sharing with me what your thoughts are?
You of all people (I hope) can understand the emotion that comes from former JW's.
Yes, I do. I'm not without emotion myself, which is why I'm here.
Now that you have made your point, and the moderators agree with your statements, I fail to see the utility in morphing this thread into, what appears to be an attempt at defending your personal belief system.
Please tell me what you mean by this. I don't feel like guessing [wrong].
I mean, I bet you have personal beliefs, and for that, congrats! Carry on.
If you don't have personal beliefs, you're dead, so I assume you have a set of them [beliefs, I mean]. For example, do you believe (as I do) that billions of people now living are going to be adversely affected at the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven? If so, are you -- like me -- warning folks about the coming revelation or what? I wouldn't mind "morphing" this thread into one about your personal beliefs @AllTimeJeff; otherwise, what would be the point?
@TastingFreedom:
EggNogg, I don't know your track record on this site, but based on your posts in this thread, you give the impression of being a loyal Watchtower soldier, trying to infuse fear around here!
I'm a soldier, but not for the WTS. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm a soldier for the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Timothy 2:3) You, like many of the posters on this board, have the cracked idea that those of us that take what things the Bible says seriously do what things we do in our own name, or that we are motivated by a desire to be men-pleasers, such as to make everyone in the local congregation or everyone in the circuit or everyone in the district speak well of us as servants, or to maybe please the brothers at the Brooklyn, New York, branch office, as if we live for the adoration of men. (Colossians 3:22-24)
I suppose some among Jehovah's Witnesses might live for the adoration of others, but not all do; for example, I don't. I'm motivated by my love for Jehovah, my gratitude for Jesus' sacrifice, and my love for people to share with folks the good news that someone shared with me about the kingdom of God and the hope I now have of living forever on this planet. But you may not have ever been motivated selflessly to do anything. Have you ever been so motivated to do anything for anybody without their being some tangible, selfish reason or motive, something that you were getting out of your doing it? Anything at all? I'm going to tell you a story, @TastingFreedom, about what it means to loyal and motivated. Of course, you can skip it if you wish, but maybe some of the lurkers here will benefit from hearing this story.
My F-I-L sustained a stroke that took out one side of his body, so that in addition to his having no control whatsoever on the paralyzed side of his body, there was a loss of urinary continence, and this development, which included a loss of bowel control, was something to which he could never adjust since too many times his daughter was the only person available to clean him up after such a bowel movement occurred. He wanted so much to be able to use the toilet, and thought that with a bit of assistance from one of us to get to the bathroom (which adjourned his bedroom) that he could adjust to his post-stroke state.
But not long after my F-I-L's stroke, he developed sensory and motor deficits so that he didn't always sense when he needed to urinate, and I believe the fact that he never regained control over his bowels became the straw the broke the proverbial camel's back, for if I wasn't there, his daughter would be there cleaning him up. One of us would rush to his house to relieve the home health care person (HHCP) after work giving the other of us opportunity to check on things at our own home.
Like me, my wife would imagine herself in her father's position, and since neither of us would want to be wet and lying in our own feces for any period of time, we would immediately attend to my F-I-L's needs, even shooing visiting relatives away when necessary, and this is one of the reasons why he was especially grateful when I could be "home" (his home had temporarily become our home for several months following his release from the convalescent home) since he would cringe when his daughter had to clean him up when I wasn't there. I was motivated every day to make sure he was fed (or that the HHCP was doing what was expected of him or her while he was in his or her care), and that he was in good spirits, especially after it became apparent that he was never going to recover from his paralysis, which news doused what little hope he had possessed until this news arrived, so when the news from the rehab people that he would never walk on his own again, even with a walker, was yet another adjustment he had to make.
His quality of life had deteriorated to a point where I believe he no longer had an interest in taking in nourishment, and as the weeks progressed, his refusal to eat or open his mouth to accept food from us or the HHCP (when neither of us could be there) is what eventually led to his final hospitalization and death. (In the end, he hardly had the strength to speak.) I tell you this story, @TastingFreedom, because I was as loyal to my F-I-L as I am to the Lord Jesus Christ as a soldier, for if I am loyal, I know that I will gain his approval. (2 Timothy 2:4)
I'm motivated to do the work that he has entrusted to me to do as an envoy of the kingdom of God, declaring and warning people that his revelation is near, so that the time left for them to repent and put faith in the good news is reduced. I don't know what it means to "infuse fear" -- maybe you thought with these words you would be communicating a certain sentiment as a knock against me, I don't know -- but, in addition to all of the other things I'm motivated to do as a Christian soldier, I come to this forum to discuss the Bible with those in fade, with those that have been disfellowshipped and with those who have for whatever reason disassociated themselves from Jehovah's organization.
Many folks have no experience doing anything whole-souled to anyone, but what I have here been describing what it means to be engaged in whole-souled service to another human being, but Christians are required to be do all things whole-souled as to Jehovah when serving others, whether it be one's own relatives or one's employer not related to them. (Colossians 3:23) Now some have experience in being "men pleasers," such as when an athlete, like a gymnast, works at his or her discipline for seven hours a day, or 35 hours a week, over five days, or maybe even longer than this, all for the adoration of men as represented by the trophy one receives for whole-souled efforts for men, but such "whole-souled " service is for self , is for one's own glory, and not for God's glory. (Ephesians 6:6)
Loving one's neighbor as oneself is not limited to kingdom preaching, but includes what things we do for other people, checking up on a neighbor, who is momentarily under the weather, or running an errand for someone across town whose car has suddenly let him or her down. But sharing a scripture will usually lead to a discussion of some aspect of God's kingdom, and such a discussion could eventually lead to your neighbor's salvation, so why not do it? Encouraging others to have the same godly fear that you have ultimately save someone's life, so why not do it?
There are laws in this country protecting copyrights and property but we also have rights and a constitution that protects our civil rights. Those rights don't go away just because some publisher corporation wants to intimidate us. I think Sheperd has refuted your fear mongering very cleverly!
You should not use either words or concepts that you do not understand. I've not engaged in any "fear mongering" here. Also, one refutes an argument, but I've made no argument. It would appear that you are making reference to your civil rights as an American citizen and to the US Constitution, but copyrights on intellectual property are international in scope, and your First Amendment freedom of religion as an American citizen means that Congress can "make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of anyone's religion, including any law that might interfere with the free exercise of religion by Jehovah's Witnesses. There is absolutely no need on your part to pretend to be smarter than me, brighter than me, more intelligent than me. If you just use the words and concepts that you yourself understand, I will understand you just fine.
Now in this thread, the right to keep a textbook published by the WTS confidential has not been under discussion here. The possibility that Jehovahs-Witness.net might be slapped with an injunction for contributory infringement of the copyright held by the WTS to this textbook by @Simon's permitting posters to include hyperlinks in their posts to the file being hosted on someone else's website is what has been driving this discussion.
The WTS has not threatened anyone's constitutional rights. It has merely taken steps to retard, that is to day, to slow down the efforts of unscrupulous individuals to make unauthorized copies of the new textbook available to the public. If you were to hold a copyright on your own work, your work would be protected by that copyright, and you have the right to defend against anyone at all that sought to make available to the public via US mail or electronically copies of your copyrighted work without authorization from you to do so. This thread, however, is not about whether the WTS intended to keep the content of its textbook a secret since it only sought to keep it confidential by limiting distribution of it to congregation elders. There really nothing in this new textbook that has not previously been published in other WTS publications.
IMO, if you don't really understand this thread, you should read it before posting to it. Start by reading @Simon's post on Page 1; he's the OP. Then, if you want, read both @Lady Lee's and my post on Pages 5 and 6, respectively. These posts should give you a true sense of what this thread is about, despite the silly comments of some that believe Jehovah's Witnesses are distressed or disturbed in some way (like @ziddina, @Soldier77, @brotherdan, @sabatious, @OUTLAW, @Ultimate Reality, @elderelite and @ldrnomo) as if the behavior of "people being people" would actually shock or surprise Jehovah's Witnesses who regularly visit the homes where such people live. Jehovah's Witnesses are no part of the world, but they live in this world, and contrary to what you (and others here) might believe, not many of us are ignorant.
@djeggnog
-
217
DMCA Complaint from The WatchTower for links to KS-10 'Shepherding' book
by Simon inyes, that's right, they really do not like people being able to read that book so they wanted links to it removed (it appears they have also been going after the hosts of the content itself as well).. unfortunately, i had to removed the links (which were dead anyway when i checked) and i'd ask that people don't re-post them (sorry).
i'm sure there are lots of alternative ways for those with the information to get it to those who need it.. here are the discussions on the book:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/200524/1/ks10-chapter-one-discussion.
-
-
djeggnog
@carvin:
Since all elders , MS, CO, DO, etc are [appointed] by Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit should have known what was in the heart of all those leaders leaking the book to the public. So we must conclude that Jah wanted the book leaked out.
Is that like you're saying that because Jesus was privileged to be able to perform the many miracles about which we read in the gospel accounts of his ministry due to his having the backing of God's holy spirit, that he should have known that his second cousin, John, would be beheaded by Herodias, which knowledge would have made it possible for John to be raised up as a powerful spirit having immortality as Jesus' apostles came to inherit after their resurrection instead of John's still being asleep in death? With this kind of power at his command, I suppose Jesus also should have known what was in Judas' heart (actually he did!) so that he could have warned Judas against his taking the course he took beforehand, right? So it's really the holy spirit's fault that the lives of these men turned out in the way they did, right? In reading what you wrote here, you do know that the holy spirit is not a person, right?
This idea of yours reminds me of the friends of bereaved parents of a child that has died, who believe their telling the deceased child's parents that evidently "God must have needed another angel in heaven" would be comforting to them (as if there were ever an angel shortage in heaven, and human beings are in reality a research project where angels live with other angels in this earthly environment of ours having physical instead of spiritual bodies where a record of their interactions with one another are recorded in a book until they have finally served their usefulness to God [maybe when only one month old or even one week old!] and they then die as humans to join their angels in heaven). So it's really God's fault that children die, right?
So, as you see it, it was in the heart of those "elders, MS, CO, DO, etc.," to whom the new textbook was not sent (the book was provided for elders and only elders were authorized to receive it) to leak it to the public when they received it, right? It was the fault of the holy spirit that these appointed men leaked it to the public because the holy spirit had to know what they were going to do with this textbook beforehand, right? Therefore, you have concluded and believe that all must conclude that it was God's will that the textbook was leaked to the public? Correct? Do I understand you correctly or am I just being silly here? Perhaps you can clear this up by explaining what it is you intended to say here by this statement.
I heard it said that to control the future you must control the past. In the past the WT was [pretty] good at [controlling] their past, but not anymore. They cant even seem to control their present.
Well, you're close. The quote from Orwell's 1984 is "Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past." While people will often recount historical events in order to justify their future goals, politicians today use their political power to control how people view those historical events. Orwell's novel explores the dangers of living in a totalitarian society under authoritarian governments with absolute political authority as his own life experiences in life informed him, but the words you kinda quoted in your post refer to how language and history can be manipulated in such a way that such propaganda can end up exerting control over not just your life, but over what things you believe to be true or false, right or wrong.
As an example of such manipulation of the past, I have never tried to explain to anyone why it is that in 2010, there are people overtly seeking to control how our young people view Darwinism, a 19th century myth masquerading as science today, except that I do believe Satan to be responsible for the blindness that exist in people's minds. (2 Corinthians 4:4) In 1859, when Origin of the Species was first published, Charles Darwin postulated many things about the origin of life that have since had to be rejected and propped up with explanations not provided by Darwin at all, but true believers in evolution today would move heaven and earth manipulating the past in an attempt to support their belief that life arose by chance than to believe that God is the First Cause to which the Bible attests.
Today, serious origin-of-life biologists don't believe that life could have arisen by chance alone. Proponents of Darwin's theory though believe that natural selection acted on random variations among chemicals to produce the first life, but it is a fact that natural selection could not have functioned before the existence of the first living cell, since it can only act upon organisms capable of replicating themselves, that is to say, cells equipped with DNA that pass on their genetic changes to future generations.
Without DNA there is no self-replication, but without self-replication there is no natural selection, so it isn't possible to use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing one is trying to explain. IOW, natural selection does not explain how the very first self-replicating cell (equipped with DNA) came to exist. But if one can control the present, it is possible to control what people think about the nutty ideas expressed by Charles Darwin.
But the past of Jehovah's Witnesses is all out there exposed for everyone that wishes to see and recount it in detail. Like Charles Darwin, Charles Russell lived during the 19th century, too, and, like Darwin, Russell he had some zany views (like that pyramid of Russell's, for example). But Jehovah's Witnesses today do not embrace those extant viewpoints of the late 1800s and early 1900s and we have never attempted to control our past. Jehovah's Witnesses have no political power since we are no part of this world, so your mention of our ever seeking to control our present in this context is ridiculous.
The saying goes that 'he who controls the present, controls the past,' but Jehovah's Witnesses only want control over how they are conducting themselves in the present with a view to their future. When we examine historical events, we do so in the light of Bible truth, for there are people today that believe in evolution that do not believe the historical event of God's deliverance of a people from Egyptian captivity in 1513 BC as told in the Bible, or even the historical event that occurred in the year 2370 BC involving the global deluge that destroyed an ancient world as also told in the Bible. Because Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible to be God's word, they do believe these Bible accounts to have been real historical events. We inform ourselves of the details of such historical events to help us to know what Jehovah purposes for the future. The present just happens to be where we live, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not endeavor to manipulate the past.
@brotherdan:
They are not upset because the information is "copyrighted" djeggnog. They are upset because their secrets have gotten out.
Who told you that Jehovah's Witnesses are "upset" over this? I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm not upset with anyone. I live in this world and I know the possibilities associated with the dissemination of music and information across cyberspace. The technology of the 21st century doesn't disturb me in the least. I run a radio station and host several websites myself; I use the internet on a daily basis and I don't just mean that I send and receive email or post messages here. Believe me: No one at the WTS is upset with anyone.
If I were a recording artist and all of the songs in MP3 format from my latest project were being disseminated across the internet for free, I would expect the record company to go after those websites that were infringing upon my intellectual property rights to retard the spread of my songs, since there would be no expectation on my part that my company would actually be in any position to control the spread of the MP3s already out there in cyperspace. That is all the WTS is trying to do and nothing more. Jehovah's Witnesses are upset when religious freedom is denied and our work is under ban somewhere in the world, and so we use the courts to fight laws that infringe upon what we believe to be an individual's right to worship as they choose. But are we upset about a textbook being copied electronically again and again and again? No; we're mature Christians that are very cognizant of the realities of life in this world and "we are not ignorant of [Satan's] designs." (2 Corinthians 2:11)
You talk about secrets, but what "secrets" in particular have "gotten out" that you believe will shock the world? Just share one of these secrets that you learned from reading the new textbook that shocked you. Just one secret would be sufficient, please, if you don't mind, @brotherdan.
Have YOU read the new book? It's a disgusting distortion of the Bible and Christianity in general. There is no "shepherding". It is all about who to punish, how to punish them, and what to punish them for.
I'm assuming that in making these comments that you have read the new textbook yourself, so what did you find so "disgusting" in it. What circumscribed punishments does this textbook contain that you have found you so objectionable, @brotherdan? Lay them all out here, or, if this should be too much to ask, maybe you could provide just one of these punishments.
Tell me something, @brotherdan: Do you think it improper for any of Jehovah's Witnesses to write a novel? Yes or no? I mean, if someone had received training as a cardiologist or as a pediatrician, and decided to write a book or a manual in his or her discipline, would you think it improper for that physician to do so if he or she were one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Maybe one of Jehovah's Witnesses should decide to write a book on parenting, including ways in which one might administer discipline to their children. On what basis would you conclude such a book to be "a disgusting distortion of the Bible and Christianity," even if the book should not be written as a substitute for the Bible, but just to help parents with a few ideas on raising their children, especially if that book should embody a few Bible principles sans Biblical citations?
Now if the Vatican had written a book on how the Faithful should deal with matters relating to family life, rearing children, divorce and remarriage, etc., even if you should disagree with some of the suggestions the book contains because you believe it to be "a disgusting distortion of the Bible and Christianity," on what basis would you conclude this book to have been written as a substitute for the Bible, despite the fact that it might actually include Bible citations in it?
I don't believe the new textbook is any substitute for the Bible nor that it was written in order to teach folks about Christianity. I believe it was written to help congregation elders, who come from various educational and environmental backgrounds, to become better shepherds of the flock in their care so that one elder does not handle matters differently in Detroit, Michigan, USA, than that same matter might be handled in Madrid, Spain. As an international association of Christian brothers, we ought to all of us be speaking in agreement. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
If you never saw the similarities between the Pharisees and the WTS before, you would after reading this disgusting book. But of course, you love your counterfeit gospel, don't you?
You sound like a bitter man and you may believe you have genuine reasons for believing what things you do about Jehovah's Witnesses, but being familiar with some of what the Talmud says, as a matter of fact having a copy of the Soncino Talmud on my computer here and on my PDA, I don't see any similarly between the teachings of the rabbins (i.e., the Pharisees) and the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses today, and as far as this "counterfeit gospel" to which you refer, what "gospel" would that be, @brotherdan? I don't follow at all, but I'm willing to listen if you are willing to elaborate on what you mean by "counterfeit gospel," ok?
@djeggnog
-
217
DMCA Complaint from The WatchTower for links to KS-10 'Shepherding' book
by Simon inyes, that's right, they really do not like people being able to read that book so they wanted links to it removed (it appears they have also been going after the hosts of the content itself as well).. unfortunately, i had to removed the links (which were dead anyway when i checked) and i'd ask that people don't re-post them (sorry).
i'm sure there are lots of alternative ways for those with the information to get it to those who need it.. here are the discussions on the book:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/200524/1/ks10-chapter-one-discussion.
-
-
djeggnog
@shepherd:
You do know this website is likely to contain 'nonsense' that goes contrary to the governing body, right? All are welcome, and in time I sincerely hope the comments at this site will help you in your personal spiritual quest.
I've not been, nor am I, on any "personal spiritual quest." (I have no idea from where that idea of yours came.) The "nonsense" to which I have here been referring was provided by you.
@djeggnog wrote:
There are many Jehovah's Witnesses that lack maturity. You should go find one of these immature ones that might be enamored by your wisdom. Please relate to them whatever nonsense you wish.
@shepherd wrote:
I was discussing the legal aspects, for which I am qualified. You can call that 'worldly wisdom' if you wish, and I will say no more on the subject.
I notice you paraphrased my words by adding "worldly" for some reason, but please take a very close look at my words as quoted above. Notice that I said nothing at all about "worldly wisdom," did I? Perhaps it would be best that you say nothing more to me on any subject. I'd rather you talk about me, rather than to me. (For all I know, you're an expert at gossip.) Anyway, I'm going to hold you to this last statement you make here.
@djeggnog
-
217
DMCA Complaint from The WatchTower for links to KS-10 'Shepherding' book
by Simon inyes, that's right, they really do not like people being able to read that book so they wanted links to it removed (it appears they have also been going after the hosts of the content itself as well).. unfortunately, i had to removed the links (which were dead anyway when i checked) and i'd ask that people don't re-post them (sorry).
i'm sure there are lots of alternative ways for those with the information to get it to those who need it.. here are the discussions on the book:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/200524/1/ks10-chapter-one-discussion.
-
-
djeggnog
@shepherd:
I know the WTBS can be scary....
To whom? The folks associated with the WTS are Jehovah's Witnesses, even as I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I only fear Jehovah and my fear is a godly fear, not some "scary" morbid one. There are many Jehovah's Witnesses that lack maturity. You should go find one of these immature ones that might be enamored by your wisdom. Please relate to them whatever nonsense you wish.
Again, my concern is only for this website's not being hit with a federal injunction for the inclusion of links in their posts to websites hosting the new textbook, and not because I think anyone at the WTS is or can be scary, but because I believe no one has the right to be providing to anyone online access to the new textbook, either by hosting the copyright protected work so that people might download it or by including hyperlinks in their posts on this website to the file being hosted on someone else's website, which might constitute contributory infringement of the copyrightholders work.
In the end the case was settled between both parties.... The judge did not rule as to whether posting links were illegal.
It is totally beside the point that no legal precedent has yet been set. My reading of the litigation in Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., indicates to me that this judge was about to set a precedent that would have impacted copyright law both here in the US and abroad. I provided the excerpts to the Utah case without comment just to let the reader of them understand the seriousness of the inclusion of links to copyrighted material in their posts after they have been "put on notice" that using the link to download such material could make them criminally culpable.
This case also had the complication that the group admitted earlier posting the handbook [online], which is illegal.
Irrelevant. I have here only been referring to links to the new textbook that some here have included in their posts, for @Simon has not and is not hosting this textbook on this website. Please stay on point.
@djeggnog
-
217
DMCA Complaint from The WatchTower for links to KS-10 'Shepherding' book
by Simon inyes, that's right, they really do not like people being able to read that book so they wanted links to it removed (it appears they have also been going after the hosts of the content itself as well).. unfortunately, i had to removed the links (which were dead anyway when i checked) and i'd ask that people don't re-post them (sorry).
i'm sure there are lots of alternative ways for those with the information to get it to those who need it.. here are the discussions on the book:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/200524/1/ks10-chapter-one-discussion.
-
-
djeggnog
@shepherd:
You are completely wrong, however, if you think posting a third-party link is illegal - it is not. Let me repeat that - it is not illegal to post a link to a third party site, even a file hosting site.... This is BS, it will not and can not happen simply because someone posts some links. DMCA targets the site HOSTING the files.
I don't BS and I never stutter. My purpose in contributing to this thread was to give @Simon information that might protect this website and nothing more. I think Jehovahs-Witness.net to be a good place for folks to vent and receive the help they need to regain their bearings or their senses should they be in fade or disfellowshipped or have a disassociated status, for many others, feeling alone and cut off from their family and former friendships with Jehovah's Witnesses, have questions, but may be too embarrassed or angry to speak to anyone, and some have contemplated suicide, whereas here they learn that they can speak anonymously about their feelings.
I really don't want to see this site suddenly disappear because that could prove to be devastating to so many, especially to the regulars here who have developed many cyber friendships here and are still working through their issues. (Although I do not post comments to every thread, I have read many of the posts on this site.) You're giving bad advice here, and my hope is that @Simon ignores your advice, which is a choice that only he can make. If by knocking the advice I have given here you are seeking glory from posters to this site, I have no problem with that, but I have made clear in this thread what my motivation is. I can tell you -- and I do tell you -- that what I've received here from many of the posters to this thread is contempt, whose posts @Lady Lee has gratefully removed. You can have the glory.
I realize that most of you here are not lawyers, but I would like everyone here, including @shepherd, to read the following excepts (the URLs from which each were taken are provided) so that you might better understand the point I have made and am making here. Not one of you is my client and I am now advising anyone here of anything in my professional capacity, but I won't describe what you will be reading, except to point out to you that these excerpts are from a Utah case, filed in 1999 and decided in 2000, involving URLs that led to a Mormon handbook that the Mormon church had not authorized to be uploaded to the hosting website nor downloaded over the internet by anyone using a URL link or URL reference to the hosting website in an email.
Having said this, I've appended to this post two (2) excerpts from the transcripts made from two separate court proceedings.
@djeggnog
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight/transcripts/statusconference111899.htm
THE COURT: OKAY.MR. BARNARD: THE THREE U.R.L.'S THAT WERE IN THE E-MAIL THAT CAUSED THE REQUEST IN THE SECOND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, OF THOSE THREE U.R.L.'S, ONE OF THOSE IS IN AUSTRALIA, AND THERE'S SERIOUS QUESTION ABOUT THE EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF U.S. COPYRIGHTS.
WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER TWO U.R.L.'S, THEY ARE APPARENTLY U.R.L.'S HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. WITH REGARD TO THOSE, WE GET INTO WHAT CONSTITUTES CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT, AND WHETHER OR NOT SIMPLY GIVING AN ADDRESS--NOT A LINK, BUT SIMPLY GIVING AN ADDRESS OF A U.R.L. CONSTITUTES CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT. SO WITH REGARD TO AUSTRALIA WE'RE SIMPLY DEALING WITH ONE OF THOSE U.R.L.'S.
THE COURT: TELL ME THEN, JUST FOCUSING ON THE U.R.L.'S HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, HOW DO YOU--HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE CASE LAW THAT SEEMS TO SAY THAT CONTRIBUTING OR ENCOURAGING PARTIES TO READ THE INFRINGING MATERIAL OR TO PARTAKE OF THE INFRINGING MATERIAL IS SUFFICIENT?
MR. BARNARD: WELL, THE FIRST CASE THAT DEALT WITH CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT IS THE GERSHWIN CASE. AND THE CASES THAT HAVE COME SINCE THEN SAY THAT FOR A PERSON TO BE GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT, THEY MUST KNOW THAT THE MATERIAL IS INFRINGING, AND THEY MUST SUBSTANTIALLY OR MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACT OF INFRINGEMENT. AND THAT'S THE CRUX. IT'S TO THE ACT OF INFRINGEMENT.
THE ACT OF INFRINGEMENT IS WHOEVER CREATED THOSE U.R.L.'S, AND PUT THE HANDBOOK ON THE WEB SITE, THOSE PEOPLE MAY WELL HAVE COMMITTED PRIMARY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT BY DOING THAT. THEY'VE REPRODUCED THE DOCUMENT. THEY PUT IT ON THERE. THEY MAY WELL HAVE THAT--HAVE COMMITTED THAT PRIMARY INFRINGEMENT.
THE NEXT QUESTION THEN IS HAVE MY CLIENTS MATERIALLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THAT INFRINGING ACT. THE ANSWER IS NO. MY CLIENTS DO NOT KNOW THE THREE PEOPLE THAT HAVE PUT UP THOSE WEB SITES. MY CLIENTS HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THEM; HAVE NOT IN ANY WAY ENCOURAGED THEM TO ENGAGE IN THAT INFRINGING ACT.
NOW, IF WE LOOK AT IT FROM THE OTHER STANDPOINT, THE WEB USERS OR THE BROWSERS THAT GO LOOKING FOR THIS, INFORMATION, IF THEY CALL UP THAT WEB SITE--THEY USE THE U.R.L., THEY CALL UP THE WEB SITE AND THEY SEE THAT INFORMATION ON THE WEB SITE, THAT IS NOT--IT'S OUR POSITION INITIALLY THAT SIMPLY VIEWING INFRINGING MATERIAL ON A WEB SITE IS NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
THE COURT: AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BY THAT ARGUMENT THEN, MR. BARNARD, IS YOUR CLIENTS' ACTIVITY IS LIMITED SOLELY TO ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO READ INFRINGING MATERIAL, WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT AN INFRINGING ACTIVITY?
MR. BARNARD: AT THE WORST, THAT'S RIGHT. OUR POSITION IS SIMPLY SAYING THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THESE U.R.L.'S. WHETHER THAT IS THE NEXT STEP OF ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO DO IT, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS. AND WHEN WE LOOK AT GERSHWIN AND ITS PROGENY, IT REQUIRES SOME MATERIAL, SUBSTANTIAL ACT OR SOME AID TO AN INFRINGING ACT.
SO ASSUMING THAT JOHN Q. PUBLIC CALLS UP THAT WEB SITE, FINDS THIS INFRINGING INFORMATION, AND THEN JOHN Q. PUBLIC READS IT, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS AN INFRINGING ACT, OR THEN TAKES THE NEXT STEP AND DOWNLOADS IT, WHICH MAY WELL THEN BE AN INFRINGING ACT, AND THAT BROWSER, THAT USER BECOMES THE PRIMARY INFRINGER, WHAT HAVE MY CLIENTS DONE TO MATERIALLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY AID THE INFRINGER? THEY HAVEN'T BOUGHT THE COMPUTER FOR THEM. THEY HAVEN'T PROGRAMMED IT FOR HIM. ALL THEY'VE DONE IS SAID, "THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THIS ADDRESS."
AND IN MY MEMO I SUGGEST THAT'S COMPARABLE TO SAYING TO SOMEBODY, "THERE'S A PHOTOCOPY SHOP A BLOCK AWAY. AND IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE PHOTOCOPY SHOP, THEY MAKE PHOTO COPIES." AND IF SOMEBODY HAS IN HAND A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, AND YOU'VE TOLD THEM WHERE THE COPY--PHOTOCOPY OFFICE IS--SHOP IS, YOU'VE NOT COMMITTED AN INFRINGING ACT. AND I THINK WHAT MY CLIENTS HAVE DONE IS COMPARABLE TO SIMPLY TELLING SOMEBODY WHERE A PHOTOCOPY SHOP IS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
AND I KNOW YOU'VE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO OPPOSE THIS, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT PUTS YOU AT A DISADVANTAGE, MR. ZENGER, BUT WHAT DO YOU RESPOND TO IT?
MR. ZENGER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. FIRST OF ALL I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT ACTUALLY HAS TWO TYPES. ONE IS WHERE YOU--YOUR PERSONAL CONDUCT YOU ENCOURAGE PEOPLE, AND ANOTHER TYPE IS WHERE YOU PROVIDE EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, INK, PAPER, SOFTWARE AND THE LIKE.
AND THE INTERESTING THING THAT WE FIND ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENTS IN THIS CASE IS THEY DON'T ADDRESS THE FACTS IN THIS CASE. AND LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. COUNSEL JUST NOW ARGUES WE DIDN'T BUY THEM THE COMPUTERS. WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM THE SOFTWARE. GREAT. WE DON'T CONTEST THAT THEY BOUGHT THEM THE COMPUTERS AND SOFTWARE, SO WE DON'T THINK THEY'RE AIDING IN THAT WAY.
BUT THEY ARE AIDING IN THEIR PERSONAL CONDUCT BY ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO GO TO SITES WHERE THOSE COPIES ARE AVAILABLE. AND IN FACT WHEN PEOPLE WRITE TO THEM AND SAY, "I TRIED TO GO GET ONE BUT COULDN'T GET IT, WHAT DID I DO WRONG?" THEN THEY CORRECT THEM AND EXPRESSLY SHOW THEM HOW TO GO GET IT AND WHAT THEY WERE DOING WRONG BEFORE.
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT THE COURT TO ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WE BELIEVE IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THIS ACTION. AND, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A COPY FOR THE COURT AND A COPY FOR MR. BARNARD. MAY I APPROACH THE BENCH?
THE COURT: SURE. THANK YOU.
MR. ZENGER: I HAVE PROVIDED YOUR HONOR AN EXCERPT FROM THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT IN WHICH THEY WERE ADDRESSING THE SAFE HARBOR FOR ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET. AND IN THAT SECTION 512(D) IT STATES THAT THERE IS POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR REFERRING OR LINKING USERS TO ONLINE LOCATIONS CONTAINING INFRINGING MATERIALS AND DOING SO BY USING DIRECTORIES, INDICES, REFERENCES, POINTERS OR HYPERTEXT LINKS. NOW, SURELY, IF THERE IS--IF THERE IS A POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR I.S.P.'S, THEN THERE IS A POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE PEOPLE POSTING THAT INFORMATION OR PROVIDING IT.
AND OUR VIEW ON THAT IS CONGRESS NOW IN 1999 HAS RECOGNIZED THE HIGHLY DAMAGING EFFECT OF STEERING PEOPLE TO INFRINGING SITES. AND IF THE I.S.P. CAN BE LIABLE, THEN MORESO THE LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY AND THE TANNERS IN THIS CASE WOULD BE LIABLE FOR REFERRING USERS TO ONLINE LOCATIONS CONTAINING INFRINGING MATERIAL AND DOING SO USING DIRECTORIES, INDICES, REFERENCES OR POINTERS.
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight/transcripts/pi112399.htm
THE COURT: OKAY. THEN WE GET TO THE WHO. WHO IS THE PRIMARY INFRINGER? AND HOW, THEN AGAIN--AND MR. BARNARD RAISES A POINT THAT I HADN'T THOUGHT OF. IF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT--IF INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, IF IT'S STRICT LIABILITY, AND IF SOMEONE--JOHN Q. PUBLIC, AS MR. BARNARD SAYS--BUT IF SOMEONE HAPPENS UNWITTINGLY TO GET INTO AN INFRINGING SITE, IS THAT PERSON TRULY A PRIMARY VIOLATOR? I MEAN THAT IS A LITTLE BIT SCARY.MR. ZENGER: YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE INFRINGERS, BUT THE COPYRIGHT STATUTE HAS PROVISION FOR THAT. THEY HAVE PROVISIONS FOR INNOCENT INFRINGERS, AND IT GOES SIMPLY LIKE THIS: IF SOMEONE INNOCENTLY INFRINGES AND THEY'RE PUT ON NOTICE OF IT AND THEY CORRECT IT, THEN THEY'RE BASICALLY OFF THE HOOK.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE HERE. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE COPIES OUT THERE ARE UNAUTHORIZED, WHO KNOW THAT THEY--THAT I.R.I. DOES NOT WANT THE COPIES REPRODUCED, AND WHO KNOW THAT THEY ARE--THAT COPIES THAT ARE BEING MADE ARE UNAUTHORIZED, AND THEN WHO GO OUT AND INDUCE AND CAUSE OTHER PEOPLE TO DO IT.
THIS ISN'T THE INNOCENT INFRINGER CASE, AND THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM IN THE COPYRIGHT LAW FOR INNOCENT INFRINGERS NOT NEEDING TO FEEL LIKE THE FEDERAL COURT IS GOING TO COME POUNCING ON THEM EVERY TIME THEY--IF THEY INADVERTENTLY OR INNOCENTLY INFRINGE.
THE COURT: WHERE IS THAT PROVISION FOR INNOCENT INFRINGERS? IS IT STATUTORY OR CASE LAW?
MR. ZENGER: YES, IT IS. IT'S IN THE STATUTE.
THE COURT: COULD YOU TELL ME THAT, PLEASE.
MR. ZENGER: I BELIEVE IT'S SECTION 504, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. ZENGER: SO THAT IS A--THAT'S A NONISSUE. CERTAINLY WE DON'T HAVE THAT CASE. WE HAVE ASKED AND ASKED AND ASKED AND ASKED FOR THEM TO STOP, AND THEY JUST SAY, "NO. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP GOING." THIS ISN'T THE INNOCENT INFRINGER CASE.
NOW THEY SAY, "WHO? THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WHO. I'LL TELL YOU WHY THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WHO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE WITHHELD THE NAMES. THEY POST ON THEIR WEB SITE, AS SET FORTH IN OUR MEMORANDUM IN EXHIBIT 2, TWO PEOPLE WHO SAID, "THANKS. WE GOT A COPY." OR, "WE TRIED TO GET A COPY AND WE JUST DIDN'T GET IT RIGHT. WHAT DID WE DO WRONG?" AND THEN THEY TELL THEM HOW TO DO IT RIGHT. OKAY. RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THIS LIST OF E-MAILS THEY SAY, "NAMES WITHHELD."
OKAY. TELL ME RIGHT NOW WHO ARE THE E-MAIL SENDERS OF OCTOBER 30, 1999? AND AS SOON AS THE TANNERS TELL US, THEN YOU'LL HAVE AT LEAST TWO FOR SURE, BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT IN THEIR OWN STUFF. SO AS SOON AS THEY TELL US, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO TELL THE COURT.
BUT THERE'S AN INTERESTING THING GOING ON HERE. THE TANNERS HOLD THEMSELVES OUT AS RELIABLE RESEARCHERS, ACCURATE IN STATING THE FACTS. WELL, THEY SAY HERE THAT PEOPLE HAVE MADE COPIES. THEN WE NEED TO HAVE THEM TELL US IF THESE ARE MADE UP E-MAILS OR IF THESE ARE TRUE OR FACTUAL E-MAILS. AND IF SO, WHO SENT THEM THESE E-MAILS? THEY WITHHELD THE NAMES. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE HAVEN'T GIVEN YOUR HONOR THE NAMES IS BECAUSE THEY'VE WITHHELD THEM FROM US.
SECONDLY, THE POSTERS, THE PEOPLE WHO POST THE UNAUTHORIZED COPIES, YES, WE BELIEVE THEY'RE INFRINGERS. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. AND SO WE HAVE TWO SETS OF PRIMARY INFRINGERS; THOSE WHO HAVE POSTED THE INFORMATION AND NOW THOSE WHO GO, KNOWING THAT THE COPIES ARE UNAUTHORIZED, KNOWING THAT THERE'S NO AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE FURTHER COPIES, GO AT THE INSTRUCTION AND BEHEST AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF LIGHTHOUSE AND THE TANNERS TO GO MAKE THOSE ADDITIONAL COPIES, TWO OF WHICH WE HAVE RIGHT HERE FROM THEIR OWN WEB SITE. THIS IDEA OF THEY DON'T KNOW WHO IT IS IS RIDICULOUS.
THEY TALK ABOUT MR. JOHN Q. PUBLIC STUMBLING ACROSS THESE MATERIALS. AGAIN, THEY'RE ARGUING SCENARIOS THAT ARE NOT THIS CHASE. THIS ISN'T THE CASE OF SOMEONE JUST INNOCENTLY BEING OUT THERE SURFING THE WEB AND FINDING THEM. THIS IS THE TANNERS HOLDING UP A GREAT, BIG SIGN SAYING, "UNAUTHORIZED COPIES OF THE CHURCH HANDBOOK ARE ON THE WEB. COME AND GET IT. AND HERE IS HOW YOU GET IT
-
169
Rich Man and Lazarus
by Ding ini have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.
1. who are the five brothers?.
2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?
-
-
djeggnog
@Ding wrote:
Where does the Bible say Salome was Jesus' aunt?
@djeggnog wrote:
Salome was Mary's sister, which would make her Jesus' aunt. Maybe you should do a bit of research on the matter, since at every turn you want to argue with me.
@Ding wrote:
I'm aware that a number of churches in Christendom teach this, but it isn't required by the Bible texts, and I didn't know that disagreeing with them or with you is disallowed.
This is what I had originally written (to which you took exception):
Actually, Jesus parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable and should not be taken literally. Expressions also used in the Bible as to Jesus being in the "bosom position" with the Father (John 1:18) or Jesus' first cousin, John, reclining in front of Jesus' "bosom" (John 13:23) is the same as the one used at Luke 16:22, 23, which expression relates to a position of favor, since the class of people that listened to Jesus, represented by "Lazarus," were the ones that had God's favor, represented by "Abraham" in Jesus' parable. The class of people that refused to listen to Jesus, represented by the "rich man," were the religious leaders, like the money-loving Pharisees to whom Jesus was relating and applying this parable. (Luke 16:14)
Your original response to this was as follows:
I think you've got the wrong John reclining at Jesus' bosom.
In response to this, I stated:
Ok, but I think I've got the right John (since there weren't two "Johns" among Jesus' 12 apostles, that was also paired with James, who was also Jesus' first cousin, one of the two "sons of thunder" [Mark 3:17], the kids of Jesus' aunt, Salome. Whatever. BTW, who is the "disciple" referred to at John 19:26 and John 20:2, if you know?
You didn't reply, and that's ok, but, like I stated earlier, John was Jesus' first cousin. You may continue to dispute whether this is so, if you want, but I was answering your question based on what things I have come to learn. Faith is about believing what a person says, about taking people at their word, and when it comes to Christian faith, cynicism is a bar to anyone's receiving the holy spirit. I suppose you could give me the benefit of the doubt, and then, should it turn out that I was lying to you or if you should otherwise discover that I was mistaken in my view about something, you could inform me as to what you learned so that I might make an adjustment in my incorrect understanding of the matter.
But that's not your style.
In the first century, it was Jesus that explained to his disciples those things that pertained to him in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, regarding the kingdom of God, as well as many other things that had not been understood correctly. After Pentecost, after the holy spirit had been poured out, it was Jesus' disciples that went on to provide explanations to those listening to them about the kingdom of God, and those accepting their word repented and were baptized. Jehovah's Witnesses today are providing explanations to those listening to them as well about the kingdom of God during the presence of Jesus Christ, and those accepting our word are repenting and being baptized.
Look, @Ding: No one at all is going to be saved apart from a hearing by faith. (Galatians 3:5) Apart from a preacher, no one can be saved. (Romans 10:14) This is primarily what Jesus demonstrated through his preaching of the kingdom of God to be the meaning of the commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself." And, as Jesus stated: "There is no love greater than this, that one should "surrender his soul in behalf of his friends," which is exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide strive to do as a united group. (John 15:13) We are becoming "completely spent" for the souls of our neighbors because we, like Jehovah Himself, do not wish "any to be destroyed, but [desire] all to attain to repentance." (2 Corinthians 12:15; 2 Peter 3:9)
I will discuss the Bible with anyone, even with you, but I will not argue with you, even if you happen to be of the belief that you know more things than I do, things in the Bible that would lead to my salvation. Whether I will ultimately be saved, I cannot say, but what I can say for a certainty is that there are many things that you do not know, and that unless you should hear these things from someone, believe these things and act in harmony with the good news, you will not be saved, for during the manifestation of Jesus' presence, people are now being judged based on how they respond to the good news.
Not everyone is going to actually hear the good news, not everyone is going to given the same opportunity that you have now to respond favorably to it. Keep this one thing in mind though: That (1) those who do not know God and (2) those that do not obey the good news will "undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction" at the revelation of the Lord Jesus. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
@djeggnog
-
169
Rich Man and Lazarus
by Ding ini have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.
1. who are the five brothers?.
2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?
-
-
djeggnog
@Vanderhoven7:
Your question was ambiguous DJ.
Ok.
Actually there are a number of reasons that suggest this account is not be a parable.
Ok.
@Ding:
The way I interpret the terms in the story is [consistent] with what Josephus said those terms meant to the Jews in Jesus' day.
I don't care. When you asked me in an earlier post:
And you got this interpretation where?
I replied:
Holy spirit.
Because your interpretation of Jesus' parable regarding the rich man and Lazarus is inconsistent with what the holy spirit says, I believe you're mistaken, and that's fine. I've already explained here what this parable means and I don't feel compelled to argue with you about its meaning.
Where does the Bible say Salome was Jesus' aunt?
Salome was Mary's sister, which would make her Jesus' aunt. Maybe you should do a bit of research on the matter, since at every turn you want to argue with me. There's no reason you shouldn't do research of your own, @Ding, so that you might learn for yourself what Salome's relationship was to Jesus.
@djeggnog