Lionel_P_Hartley

Joined

• started 23 topics
• posted 278 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Lionel_P_Hartley

• 
  21

  Email from UN desk shows library card hoax

  by Dogpatch in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did the watchtower really need to become an ngo with the u.n. to have a library card to the united nations?.

  check this out, just received back by a sister via email:.

  http://www.thetruthhurts.freeservers.com/wtresponseun.htm.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  ISP,

  Would you be so kind as to place a copy of this letter in the thread started by gilwarrior in the Scandals section?

  Thanks,

  Lionel
• 
  58

  Question about WTS/UN scandal

  by gilwarrior in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

  of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

  i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  WHat a ridiculous argument. Now you're putting additional words in the WTS's mouth to defend them - I ask again, why don't they clear the matter up. Why do they answer direct questions with ambiguity, if they are, in fact, ambiguous as you claim? You did say that the words were ambiguous, so at least you finally agree that your argument is also ambiguous, and therefore speculative, because it is based on the WTS's ambiguous statements.

  2nd Example:

  Up until recently I was using the gym. Then it became necessary to obtain a membership card to obtain access.

  That means:

  (i) I cannot get in without a card

  (ii) An implied subsidiary meaning is, I got a card so that I could get in.

  Why is (ii) implied and subsidiary? Because the only way to get in is to obtain a card. If other means of access were possible then (ii) would no longer be a necessary subsidiary meaning of (i). If you could, for example, pay to get in, thet it would not be necessary to get a card. So the rules would read: it became necessary either to pay to get in or get a card. So getting a card is then a choice rather than a necessity. But getting in does not imply getting a card.

  You said;

  but all it may really mean is that the Watchtower found it "necessary" to provide justification for continued access, as did every other organization, and it evidently decided the most expeditious way to do this was by affiliating with the DPI, which is one of three ways of obtaining a grounds pass.

  If that's what they meant then they should have said what they meant, now shouldn't they? Also, the Head Librarian says nothing changed in 1991 as far as she can recall. But you want evidence of no change when you ask:

  Will someone provide the written evidence showing that there definitely were no changes put in place in 1991?

  That's unbelievable coming from someone who runs a website that purports to be skeptical of Christianity and the Bible. The number one fundie argument is "prove there is no God." It cannot be done - recall freshman physics Joe. The correct thing to demand is for the WTS to demonstrate that something did indeed change in 1919 as they claim. You really are a liar, Joe, as hawk says.

  Only WTS lovers would take the line that you have. You are not the first person to engage in such disingenous semantic deconstruction so as to support WTS lies. For example, since you claim to look at things skeptically, do you know what the WTS did to Professor Aki's kind reply to the WTS's question to him about earthquakes? They changed the meaning so that he ended up saying the opposite of what he actually said. Did they employ you in that particular bit of chicanery, Joe? Are you a paid consultant for the WTS? How about you explain just why you are so vigorous in your defense of the WTS.

  Earlier you were grasping at straw men, now you're just grasping at straws. Have you no shame or sense of academic standards of honesty?

  By the way, Joe, your last post contained nothing new - it was simply a restatement of what you said before. Stamping our feet in anger are we now?

  Have a good weekend - I'd concentrate on the Physics though - I only hope you're better at it than you are at this.

  Lionel
• 
  58

  Question about WTS/UN scandal

  by gilwarrior in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

  of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

  i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  It could also be argued that if someone wanted to state the truth on a matter then they would not use ambiguous language. The use of language that can mean either of two things is deceitful - especially when used in reply to the sincere requests of people whose lives are affected.

  But even here you childish semantics is wrong;

  If I say "Up until last week I used to get my groceries from the corner store. But now it is necessary that I go to the supermarket to get my groceries."

  what is being said - that it is still necessary to get food or that now, because of some change (e.g., the corner store closed down, I fell out with the owner, etc) I must go to the supermarket instead. Look what the WTS said;

  We had been using the library for many years prior to 1991, but in that year it became necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access

  Now, which of us has a better analogy with what the WTS said - you or me? Their need for continued access is implied and, so, "necessary" indicates the actions needed to get access. That is the lie.

  The reason, Joseph, that you cannot convince hardly anyone on this board of your point of view is that your use of double talk has destroyed your credibility. Either that or you're a bit dense.

  LPH
• 
  58

  Question about WTS/UN scandal

  by gilwarrior in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

  of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

  i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  Joseph,

  Go back to to commenting on spelling mistakes. If I have two options A and B it is not necessary that I choose B.

  LPH
• 
  58

  Question about WTS/UN scandal

  by gilwarrior in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

  of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

  i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  Joseph,

  You stated as to who may have library access privileges:

  (1) UN staff members, (2) institutions whose applications documented a legitimate research interest, and (3) organizations which became affiliated with the Department of Public Information.

  So you have noted that there are 3 options - (1) become a UN staff member, (2) be an institution whose application documents a legitimate research interest and (3) be an organization that affiliates as an NGO.

  # (1) is out

  # (2) would be for institutions that needed to do research for whatever their own ends were - that is they simply wanted access to the library without taking on any of the obligations of an NGO. This link outlines what those research needs might include: http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/services.htm#service

  Clearly, WTS writers fall under the category of authors. Certainly they could be considered members of the press. Finally, the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead could qualify as an "institution" if one wanted to quibble about the difference between an institution and an organization. However, this letter from the Head Librarian demonstrates that there is no real distinction in the UN's eyes: http://www.thetruthhurts.freeservers.com/dag.htm

  # (3) this option would be, as the UN rules make clear, for organizations that wanted to further the goals that they held in common with the UN. Since the WTS chose this instead of option (2) then clearly, as the Portuguese branch stated, they had primary reasons going beyond getting a library card. At least that is the only conclusion that can be legitimately drawn based on the available facts.

  In view of this your comment:

  Thus, it evidently became “necessary” in 1991 for any organization to qualify in one of these three ways if it wished to have continued access to the main library. Thus, when the Watchtower says that it became "necessary" to affiliate itself with the DPI, it seems to be the truth, not a lie.

  is not accurate. Your last sentence implies that the WTS had only a single option when, based on your own words it had two. Option 2 was available to them if they merely wanted access to research materials as opposed to wanting to further the humanitarian goals which they shared with the UN. Subsequent Awake! articles show that they did a good job of publicizing the goals which they claim to share with the UN. In other words, they took their obligations seriously in promoting UN principles. Option (2) would have not required that they do this.

  Obviously, a researcher with access to the library need not necessarily share UN goals, or want to promote them, which is presumably why Option (2) exists. Or are you saying that one must support the UN in order for them to let you use their library?

  There is no doubt that WTS writers could obtain access to the UN librray without affiliating as an NGO. It may have been more convenient for them to affiliate but that is not quite the same thing as saying that it was necessary to affiliate. Is it?

  Let me make several more points:

  (i) How did you, Joseph, get a copy of Gillies' letter? Presumably it was from the internet. So why do you attach so much credibility to that letter and apparently so little to the letter from the Head Librarian when both have similar sources, i.e., the internet? It is probably a lot more easy to verify the Librarian's letter than Gillies' since the WTS tries to avoid talking about this matter. Email Gillies at [email protected] and report back what he tells you.

  (ii) Why did the Portuguese branch issue a statement that is very much in line with what would be expected from an NGO and in total contradiction of Gillies' letter and the Nov. letter from WTS headquarters? The Portuguese letter did not mention the library card at all and, further, stated that the sole reason for affiliating was for humanitarian - which could involve political - reasons. There's that "sole" word again!

  (iii) When Gillies said that the "sole purpose was ...." he was being misleading. Whatever the private reasons the WTS may have had for affiliating, the reason they gave for affiliating does not exist. That is, one cannot become an NGO simply to get a library card. One becomes an NGO in order to further shared goals with access to the UN being one of attendant benefits. Gillies' letter was written cleverly and was designed to give the impression that they were merely applying for a library card. They were not. That is deceit because the impression conveyed was not accurate, even if Gillies statement was technically true inthe sense that the WTS had a hidden agenda that it did not inform the UN of in its application. That is the WTS's way. Fortunately their later letter clarified the matter.

  (iv) The requirements have not changed for NGO affiliates in any substantive way since the 1968 UN Resolutios 1296/97. When the WTS claims the rules have changed they are being dishonest. In itself that is enough to cast the WTS's explanation into serious doubt.

  As I noted, the onus is on the WTS to explain their voluntary decision to affiliate. JWs around the world are saying "it was nothing, they just wanted a library card!" The effectiveness of this bit of duplicty by the WTS demonstrates how good they are at their craft. JWs have little interest in the propriety of the matter so long as they have a buzz phrase to stop them thinking - "stopthink" in Orwellian terms.

  I have a suggestion: why don't you call up Harry Peloyan, the editor of the Awake! magazine and identify yourself as an academic researcher interested in the UN affair. Ask him for copies of the original application, etc. Ask him about the Portuguese branch's letter and, finally, you might suggest to him that an informative, documented article in Awake! with copies of those materials would go a long way to resolving this matter.

  I can't really do it since I'm an apostate but I think you could.

  No one, I think, argues with the possibility that the WTS sold out for the conevenience of getting access to the library. If that is the case it looks even worse for them I believe. But there is not a shred of credible evidence that they affiliated solely to get a library card. To present even legitimate speculation as if it were a fact is unhelpful and misleading.

  LPH

  ps: you stated that the WTS's claims are not extraordinary. Of course they are! Why else would they have been the subject of so news articles in the Guardian and the Tablet and so much discussion here. The affiliation with the UN is extraordinary precisley because of the 80 years of vitriloic hatred hurled at the UN - ergo the WTS should go to extraordinary lengths to clear the matter up. Once again, Joseph, you sem to have things upside down - you're looking at the inverse problem.
• 
  49

  YoYo: proof?

  by cynicus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  yoyo says:.

  i wanted to prove to myself that what the watchtower says about apostates is true.. now what a refreshing idea!

  am i correct in assuming that you did this also for other topics the watchtower has opinions on?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  YoYo,

  I get it; you have given up on the chronology yet you know that 1914 is derived through Bible chronology even though you can't do it. But, you CAN defend your faith. Then you resort to threats alomg the lines of "my God is bigger that your God" and will soon settle matters!

  If that is defending your beliefs then show me a man who hasn't a clue.

  Any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
• 
  57

  Resignation - not that it matters at all, but ....

  by TheOldHippie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just wanted those kind-hearted, those gentle, those friendly ones of you to know that i wrote my letter of resignation as an elder yesterday, after having served in that capasity for 24 years.. those wishing to call me or any society "bastard", "sucker", "braindead" or anything, as they have before, i would ask please to refrain from that.

  other comments would be welcome.. somehow, it is the armstrong quote about "one small step for man, one giant leap for humankind" (approximately) the other way around, "one giant leap for (a) man, one hardly noticeable step for humankind".. ok, that was that.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  Gumby,

  Is YoYoMama male or female? Am I missing something?

  LPH
• 
  57

  Resignation - not that it matters at all, but ....

  by TheOldHippie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just wanted those kind-hearted, those gentle, those friendly ones of you to know that i wrote my letter of resignation as an elder yesterday, after having served in that capasity for 24 years.. those wishing to call me or any society "bastard", "sucker", "braindead" or anything, as they have before, i would ask please to refrain from that.

  other comments would be welcome.. somehow, it is the armstrong quote about "one small step for man, one giant leap for humankind" (approximately) the other way around, "one giant leap for (a) man, one hardly noticeable step for humankind".. ok, that was that.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  OldHippie,

  Like my man JT, I've dogged you too. But, equally I've been dogged in the past by others for defending that which cannot be defended. Congratulations then, and, take it steady.

  JT - super posts!

  LPH
• 
  49

  YoYo: proof?

  by cynicus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  yoyo says:.

  i wanted to prove to myself that what the watchtower says about apostates is true.. now what a refreshing idea!

  am i correct in assuming that you did this also for other topics the watchtower has opinions on?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  YoYoMama,

  "I have no further comment regarding the 607 BCE and the 539 BCE date. I will have to do some more research on that subject."

  That is good - if it's true and not just a way to move on to another topic. How about forgetting Daniel for the time being and doing your research.

  I am sorry to remind you. once again, of the 1965 WT article "Can you Defend Your Faith?" But it is relevant. You spend, presumably, all that time at meetings, assemblies, etc., and you preach the 1914 date either explicitly or implicitly (these are the last days). Yet, you are unable to defend your faith. Whose fault is that? Please think seriously about that question - is it not the fault of those who taught you? Don;t you think that in all that time you spent studying you should have a sound knowledge and be able to defend your beliefs. After all, the WTS in that article used the lack of ability to defend their beliefs as a way to demonstrate that the Catholic Church was false.

  Similar things could be said about a host of other doctrines - blood, creative days, etc. And, in all cases an "overnight telegram to WTS headquarters" asking for clarification would produce what? Well, nothing as has been demonstrated many times.

  The sad truth is that you cannot defend your faith because the leaders cannot do so either.

  AlanF well demonstrated that in this thread.

  LPH
• 
  8

  Library Card Defense - All aspects

  by Lionel_P_Hartley in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  this thread is for a general all-inclusive discussion of the library card explanation presented by the wts.

  nothing within that context should be considered off-topic.. to get the ball rolling:.

  by affiliating with the un as an ngo an organization agrees to support and advance un goals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  Will,

  It's worse than that - they imply that they did know what they were doing when they affiliated but that the UN changed the rules on them without their knowledge.

  LPH