Posts by Lionel_P

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

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.

The trouble is, Joseph, that all through this thread - at least from the point where you decied to change the terms of the debate - you have been misrepresenting what they did actually say as if it meant what you think that they could have said. It is only in this last post but one that you finally admitted that you are interpreting what they did say as what they might have said. Careful readers will note that I had said that Alward was putting words in the WTS's mouth well before his last but one post. That is the misrepresentation. But Iwas gratified that you finally admitted the charge I made some several threads ago.

As for my mistatement - I have explained what I had intended to say. It was a simple slip - but a golden opportunity for a junior debating champion.

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

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.

Lionel_P_Hartley

They could have said a lot of things. But they didn't - they said that it was necessary to register as an NGO to get access and it wasn't. Of course, if they had said as you suggested then it would certainly have damned them even more, for JWs would ask - well, then why did you register instead of taking the benign approach of simply documenting your research interests?

Actually, you are misrepresenting the WTS by putting words into their mouth. That you do it to make them look good is no more honest than the supposedly deliberate misrepresentation that you accuseed me of.

Since they were answering the question "Why did you register" and not "Why did you want a library card" then it is perfectly clear that they registered because it became necessary to have continued access - at least according to them.

You still have ignored the Portuguese question even though you started out demanding evidence for reasons beyond library access. That statement indicates an entirely different reason for registering. But shifting the terms of the debate is just another well known technique used by those who are interested more in trying to win a debate than to figure out what's going on.

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

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.

Lionel_P_Hartley

SaintSusan,

... because there is always the chance you could really become one of them.

He certainly would fit in - I'm sure that there would be an opening for him in the writing department.

LPH

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

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.

Lionel_P_Hartley

So Joseph, now that I've decided to "abandon the thread" that's precisely when you decide to start pretending to deal with the issues. You are so predictably childish. Is that why it has taken you so long to attain the lofty level of Assistant Professor? And is there no bottom to your dishonesty? Apparently not. Against my better judgement I'll respond this last time:

Note what Alward did:

He quoted what I stated, and which is true, namely;

The Head Librarian and also the letter higher up in this thread have confirmed that it was not necessary to be an NGO to get a library card

Recall that the Librarian stated;

Although the Dag Hammarskjöld Library and the NGO Section are both
within DPI, admission to the Library is not related to NGO status except in
the positive sense: anyone with a pass permitting entrance to the United
Nations premises (including accredited NGO representatives as well as
accredited members of the press) can enter and use the Library facilities.
Otherwise, a library pass is required. Passes are granted to serious
researchers upon presentation of a letter with the raised seal of your
institution and subject to clearance by both the Library and UN Security.

and then Alward said:

Hartley evidently wants trusting forum members to believe that the Watchtower claimed that it was necessary to be an (affiliated) NGO to get a library card. This is not true.

and yet it is true - look what the WTS actually said;

Our purpose in registering with the Department of
Public Information as a nongovernmental organization (NGO) in 1991 was to have access to research material avaiable on health, ecological and social problems at the United Nations library facilities. 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.

You cannot get much clearer than that. Even Alward said that it could mean two things - so how is he sure it is not true? Why is he misrepresenting the fact that, according to what he said earlier, there is no way to know which of the two meanings is correct? Recall that Joe's argument is that when the WTS says it was necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access they didn't actually mean that it was necessary to register, but it was necessary that they have continued access and so they chose to register. So at worst, his beloved WTS is guilty of unclear wording he says - or something like all of that - it's all back up the thread!

Note how he says "trusting forum members" to add credence to his fallacious argument. He also implies that the forum members are so stupid that they would be misled without Mighty Joe Alward coming to protect them.

Then Alward states:

I bring this up to show forum members what happens when someone loses their balance in an argument. Hartley was caught in a deliberate misrepresentation made for the purpose of strengthening his argument, and he lashes out with feigned laughter at my innocent mistake and apology, then he runs away.

I made I believe 5 concrete points in my last thread alone - none of which Alward bothered to deal with except to jump on a mistatement I had made. I had meant to say something like "The Head librarian was confident that ...." which I believe her words indicate - or she would not have said them. But Alward, while yet again ignoring everything I said, jumped on a single mistatement and focussed exclusively on that - ignoring all else. That is, again, a juvenile debating technique - poisoning the well. Why not deal with my points one at a time and then raise that objection as appropriate. Then I would have accepted his point. This is typical of Joe - look back over this thread and see how he has misrepresented what I said, for example, spending an entire post explaining how and why I'd misunderstood Gillies letter when in fact Alward was misrepresenting what I said - and possibly deliberately ignored the Nov 1 WT leter that hawk reproduced at the beginning of the thread.

Alward is an arrogant intellect who, possibly, has come to this forum thinking that he could snow us - probably to reassure himself of his great intellectual prowess. Well, he cannot. Although I admit that his thread on how to spell "anointed" was a real eye opener.

This thread proves that;

(i) Alward will defend the WTS at all costs even if it means redefining words so that "it was necessary" means - "it was not necessary" - typical cultist behavior.

(ii) Alward is intellectually dishonest because he will only start to deal with issues when he thinks that the person he is debating with has left the debate.

(iii) Alward can only deal with a single issue at a time and cannot see the broader picture. For example, he asked for proof that the WTS had other reasons for affiliating than the library card and I supplied it - the Portuguese branch's statement. I have lost track of how many times I've asked him to comment on this. But he will not do so. Why? Well, he says he will when the time comes. So why did he ask for examples in the first place? Likemany JWs he shifts the terms of the debate as he loses point after point.

Now I'm gone from this thread Joe, so you can indulge your habit of intellectual masturbation in the purest sense of the word - on your own. And if it turns you on, Joe, you can even keep track of how many people are watching you do it to yourself.

Hugs,

Lionel

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

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.

Lionel_P_Hartley

Tell you what Joe - show this thread to your colleagues, and anybody else you like - certainly advertise it to the forum and get their opinion too. Let's see which of us they think is dishonest.

But I suspect that there's only me giving you any attention - and you know what - from now on there's not me either. So go at it Joe - you got the whole thread to yourself.

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

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.

Lionel_P_Hartley

LOL! And you think that makes it ok - to refer to nonexistent people and then merely apologize? But what's good for the goose.....

My apologies to the Head Librarian who I mistakenly said was "confident" there were no changes when she really said that "she was not aware of any changes."

Of course, the fact that Gillies stated in his letter that the UN published requirements for NGOs years after the WTS affiliated - when they actually published them years before - in 1968 - doesn't make them liars, at least judging by Joseph's refusal to comment on that and other issues. But my slip-up after what must now add up to tens of posts in this thread is sufficient for him to hurl charges that I'm making things up - even though I gave a link to the letter in question. Interestingly he used one minor misstatement to damn the whole post.

This is all typical behavior from those who defend cults - or have hidden agendas.

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

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.

Lionel_P_Hartley

So I suppose that she wrote what she did because she was not confident? In other words, she wasn't confident that there were no changes? I wasn't making a direct quote, and my words are a reasonable summary of what she said in her letter. So your charge is overblown.

By the way, you stated;

Saint Susan, for example, several weeks ago told me and this forum

there is no Saint Susan on this board and so your name can be added to the growing list of those who make things up to suit their own ends.

But at least it has provided you with yet another excuse to avoid the issues.

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

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.

Lionel_P_Hartley

Joseph,

It is true that all information about the WTS should be presented accurately. If only you would do the same.

Let's itemize the facts that you have ignored:

(i) The Portuguese branch said the WTS affiliated

Excerpts:
«"The registry as NGO was made only to be able to give humanitarian help and defend the human rights in several countries of the world"

whereas Gillies stated that it was for the sole purpose of getting a library card.

That is a documented contradiction. No explanation has been forthcoming. Doesn't that contradiction bother you? Or should we just discount the Portugal branch's opinion - even though branches in Europe are often involved with humanitarian efforts.

That is CONTRADICTION NUMBER 1.

(ii) Gillies said that Stephen Bates' article "substantially misrepresented" the issue. He presented no facts.

That is CONTRADICTION NUMBER 2.

(iii) Gillies stated that "Years later, unbeknowst to [the GB], the UN published "Criteria for Association" stipulating that affiliated NGOs be required to support the goals of the UN."

Those criteria were published in 1968 in UN Resolutions 1296/1297. Therefore Gillies' letter is wrong.

ADDED: I'd add that Stephen Bates in an email to Gillies, published on this site, clearly told Gillies about the 1968 resolution and pointed out other inaccuracies. Contact Stephen Bates if you don't believe me. Did Gillies attempt to correct his letter or let it stand? As you know, if one deliberately fails to correct an error (if it was that) once it becomes known, then that it becomes a lie.

That is CONTRADICTION NUMBER 3.

(iv) Hoeffel's letter confirmed that the same rules were in place in 1991/2 as in 1968 and even now.

That is CONTRADICTION NUMBER 4.

(v) The Head Librarian and also the letter higher up in this thread have confirmed that it was not necessary to be an NGO to get a library card.

That is CONTRADICTION NUMBER 5.

(vi) The Head Librarian says that she is confident that the rules did not change in 1991.

That is CONTRADICTION NUMBER 5.

Now, while it is true that a person is not guilty until so proven, it is also true when the weight of evidence is there a charge can be brought. The charge of lying and hypocrisy has legitimately been brought against the WTS based on the weight of evidence. It is now up to them to explain themselves if they want to have this charge removed.

It is stupid to ask for proof that "something did not happen." The WTS, in its explanation to JWs worldwide is making statements that go against all of the evidence, including direct statements by UN officials on UN notepaper.

You choose to ignore what doesn't suit you. It is not an extraordinary claim to make that the WTS is lying. There is abundant evidence that they lie regularly. The above facts were they available, say, in the Enron case would be sufficient to launch an investigation. What is extraordinary is that the WTS agreed to promote the goals of the scarlet-colored wild beast and did so for 10 years rather effectively. Thus, an extraordinary explanation is called for. We have the extraordinary evidence - even if you don't like it.

Gillies' letter was intentionally deceitful which is why it caused so much confusion. Without doubt the vast majority of JWs read the letter the way that you say hawkaw read it - because it was designed to be read that way. It was designed to deceive. Also, it contains definite falsehoods as I have shown. Unless you are saying that Hoeffel and Dickstein are both lying.

So far you have used straw men, selective quotations, and now you are dragging red herrings across the path. I don't give a damn about what Saint Satan or Hawkaw have said in other threads - in this thread we are dealing with specific concrete issues that I have raised repeatedly and which you are doing your best to avoid.

As for writing to the library - I have done the same. I too am interested in getting more evidence. But the point is that if the WTS were being honest then they would be willing to explain the contradictions above. The UN is far to busy to find every single item relating to changes to library policy in 1991 1992. Enough documented contradictions exist to establish that, if the WTS refuses to discuss this issue - as it does - then the charge of lying must stand. For it is proven absent some extraordinary explanation from the WTS.

I repeat, why don't you call Harry Peloyan, the editor of Awake! and get the answer from him? After all, since you are the WTS's number one defender on this issue he is sure to want to talk with you.

LPH

38

Are You Vegetarian Or Not?

by ladonna in

jw
friends

with all the "food" "fluff" larc has started, it has made me wonder how many here are vegetarian or meat eaters.. i like my meat in winter, but only in very small amounts.. summertime i go completely vegetarian and relish fruits and vegetables.. how about you??.

ana.

manners require time, and nothing is more vulgar than haste.

Lionel_P_Hartley

I'm vegan. But I try to eat only red vegetables.

8

Library Card Defense - All aspects

by Lionel_P_Hartley in

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.

Lionel_P_Hartley

miner,

See the thread in this section started by gilwarrior.

LPH

Lionel_P_Hartley

Posts by Lionel_P_Hartley