Posts by Lionel_P

74

I'm another Newbie

by MyMy in

jw
friends

hey peeps, how are you?.

the name is mark, i've been hanging around here from time to time.

i read about the elders meeting with officer danni.s.

My point was that the number is the main number of Brooklyn Bethel - and it is public information. Kindly take back the accusation that I was accusing you of anything. You're a police officer and, therefore, will know that even in the USA there is no law against publishing publicly available information - I do realize that you didn't publish it - and I didn't say that you did - but you certainly expressed concern when you stated:

Oh my. You gave out the phone number! Well that's one thing they can't blame on me ..hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Sorry just gloating........ Lunch huh?..... Well I don't have an offical set time for lunch but please come by . :) Good Luck to you. ..

Sincerely,

LPH

ps: I'd add that there is, I am sure, no law against posting any phone number - aren't phone numbers in the US by definition public information?

74

I'm another Newbie

by MyMy in

jw
friends

hey peeps, how are you?.

the name is mark, i've been hanging around here from time to time.

i read about the elders meeting with officer danni.s.

Lionel_P_Hartley

Danni,

FYI that number's just the regular Brooklyn number - AlanF posted it a few days ago and it is also contained in the letter from Mr Brown in the WTS Office of Public Information sent to Stephen Bates of the Guardian and posted elsewhere.

LPH

41

WTSComplainstoGuardianBatesRepliesFloggingCase

by Lionel_P_Hartley in

stephen bates recently wrote an article about the flogging death of a girl in chicago http://www.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,4273,4301026,00.html.

he kindly sent me a copy of a letter he received from the wts office in pennsylvania and gave me permission to post it.

i don't have time to fix the formatting right now.. .

Lionel_P_Hartley

Here's one quote I found ostensibly taken from the Guardian directly, but probably taken from these people (or someone else) since the ellipsis abusage is identical - http://www.evolution-facts.org/a10a.htm

*** ce 24 2 Disagreements About Evolution-Why? ***
26 However, many advocates of evolution feel that they do have sufficient reason to insist that evolution is a fact. They explain that they are just arguing over details. But if any other theory had such enormous remaining difficulties, and such major contradictions among those who advocate it, would it so readily be pronounced a fact? Merely repeating that something is a fact does not make it a fact. As John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London:
“Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic
persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.
20. The Guardian, London, “Beginning to Have Doubts,” by John Durant, December 4, 1980, p. 15.

at http://www.evolution-facts.org/a10a.htm we have:

In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, dogmatic evolutionists maintain that their theory has been proven and there are no alternatives.
"Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science."
— John Durant, "Beginning to Have Doubts " The Guardian, London, December 4, 1980, p. 15.

Anyone seen the original? The two quotations, including the way the reference is formatted are essentially identical.

LPH

ps: I separated the quote out in the WTS article for easy comparison - originally it was all one paragraph on the CD.

12

Questions on Stephen Bates Article WT attack

by messenger in

jw
friends

thought you'd be interested to know that i have just been forwarded a note from the watch tower, belatedly in response to the tiny little story i got in on 17 november about that chicago jw couple accused of beating their daughter to death.

it is interesting that they shld respond - on headed notepaper, apparently from pennsylvania - nearly a month later about something that really got very little space and i can't help feeling it's not unconnected with the other stuff i was writing at that time.

this is it, in full:.

Lionel_P_Hartley

JonnieMae: try here http://www.guardian.co.uk/

There's a place you can serach for stephen bates' article by his name. alos there is a link to the article itself in the scandals thread - but you have to copy and paste it in.

LPH

12

Questions on Stephen Bates Article WT attack

by messenger in

jw
friends

thought you'd be interested to know that i have just been forwarded a note from the watch tower, belatedly in response to the tiny little story i got in on 17 november about that chicago jw couple accused of beating their daughter to death.

it is interesting that they shld respond - on headed notepaper, apparently from pennsylvania - nearly a month later about something that really got very little space and i can't help feeling it's not unconnected with the other stuff i was writing at that time.

this is it, in full:.

Lionel_P_Hartley

Here is Steve Bates's reply which he just faxed to WTS PA.

Mr J. R. Brown,
Director, Office of Public Information,
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania,
25, Columbia Heights,
Brooklyn,,
New York 11201 - 2483
USA
Dear Mr Brown,
Your letter of 14th December, addressed variously to my colleague Emily Bell, who edits the Guardian Unlimited website, and to someone called Ms Best, who I
do not recognise, has been passed to me as I wrote the four paragraph story about the Slacks of Chicago last 17th November to which you took exception. I am not quite sure why it took you a month to respond but I thought I should at least reply to you.
First of all, may I say that I am very flattered that you state that the Watchtower magazine and Awake! both quote so extensively from the fair and unbiased coverage provided by the Guardian. Since I do not normally see either publication, I would be most interested if you would care to send me cuttings of these articles, complete with the attributions since, as you know, it would be a breach of copyright to use our material without permission in your magazines. Your encomium is nevertheless welcome.
Since my recent writings about the Jehovah's Witnesses have concerned its affiliation (and subsequent disaffiliation) from the United Nations, an organisation it refers to in its loving, joyful, peaceful, long-suffering and kindly way - to quote Mr Leon Slack - as the scarlet coloured beast of the Book of Revelation and since you clearly took no objection to the accuracy of these articles (otherwise we should presumably have received a letter from you) I
sincerely trust that in the interests of accuracy and openness these too willhave appeared in your publications and I hope that this was so. I look forward to seeing them.
My article did not imply that the couple acted as they did because they were Jehovah's Witnesses. It merely stated that they were devoutly religious and, separately, that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. Both these facts are true and not disputed by you or Mr Leon Slack. Since I assume your sect does not condone such appalling behaviour, I cannot see what your problem with the story is. It
does not allege that this is normal behaviour by Jehovah's Witnesses or to be expected by them, so I am at a loss to explain your sensitivity or to see how you can justify the slur on my integrity by suggesting that the story in some unspecified way "gave insufficient attention to facts" in its brief four paragraphs.
I have a confession to make, that in compiling my report on the case of the Slacks, taken from reports in the highly-regarded Chicago press, I did not trouble to contact either your London or your Brooklyn offices. The reason for this was that my experience of dealing with Mr Gillies over the United Nations issue has been that he believes fully in the Jehovah's Witnesses' stated "theocratic war strategy" by which it is permissible to mislead with half-truths and evasions "birdseed" such as we non-members of your sect. Since this is the experience of my colleagues in Britain also over the years, may I suggest to you, as director of the office of public information, that you may have a certain credibility problem in your dealings with the media at least in this country.
In any event, I am not sure in a four paragraph article how much space could have been given to Mr Leon Slack's observations since, despite being a loving, joyful, peaceful, kindly, mild and self-controlled etc person he had evidently failed to spot previous episodes of mistreatment by his brother of his children,
or to act upon them as he clearly should have done had he been aware of them.
This suggests that his closeness to his brother's family and hence his knowledge of his brother's beliefs was not as thorough as it might have been. Perhaps you would care to respond to this.
Yours sincerely,

********************

41

WTSComplainstoGuardianBatesRepliesFloggingCase

by Lionel_P_Hartley in

stephen bates recently wrote an article about the flogging death of a girl in chicago http://www.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,4273,4301026,00.html.

he kindly sent me a copy of a letter he received from the wts office in pennsylvania and gave me permission to post it.

i don't have time to fix the formatting right now.. .

Lionel_P_Hartley

Here is Steve Bates's reply which he just faxed to WTS PA.

Mr J. R. Brown,
Director, Office of Public Information,
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania,
25, Columbia Heights,
Brooklyn,,
New York 11201 - 2483
USA

Dear Mr Brown,

Your letter of 14th December, addressed variously to my colleague Emily Bell, who edits the Guardian Unlimited website, and to someone called Ms Best, who I
do not recognise, has been passed to me as I wrote the four paragraph story about the Slacks of Chicago last 17th November to which you took exception. I am not quite sure why it took you a month to respond but I thought I should at least reply to you.

First of all, may I say that I am very flattered that you state that the Watchtower magazine and Awake! both quote so extensively from the fair and unbiased coverage provided by the Guardian. Since I do not normally see either publication, I would be most interested if you would care to send me cuttings of these articles, complete with the attributions since, as you know, it would be a breach of copyright to use our material without permission in your magazines. Your encomium is nevertheless welcome.

Since my recent writings about the Jehovah's Witnesses have concerned its affiliation (and subsequent disaffiliation) from the United Nations, an organisation it refers to in its loving, joyful, peaceful, long-suffering and kindly way - to quote Mr Leon Slack - as the scarlet coloured beast of the Book of Revelation and since you clearly took no objection to the accuracy of these articles (otherwise we should presumably have received a letter from you) I
sincerely trust that in the interests of accuracy and openness these too willhave appeared in your publications and I hope that this was so. I look forward to seeing them.

My article did not imply that the couple acted as they did because they were Jehovah's Witnesses. It merely stated that they were devoutly religious and, separately, that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. Both these facts are true and not disputed by you or Mr Leon Slack. Since I assume your sect does not condone such appalling behaviour, I cannot see what your problem with the story is. It
does not allege that this is normal behaviour by Jehovah's Witnesses or to be expected by them, so I am at a loss to explain your sensitivity or to see how you can justify the slur on my integrity by suggesting that the story in some unspecified way "gave insufficient attention to facts" in its brief four paragraphs.

I have a confession to make, that in compiling my report on the case of the Slacks, taken from reports in the highly-regarded Chicago press, I did not trouble to contact either your London or your Brooklyn offices. The reason for this was that my experience of dealing with Mr Gillies over the United Nations issue has been that he believes fully in the Jehovah's Witnesses' stated "theocratic war strategy" by which it is permissible to mislead with half-truths and evasions "birdseed" such as we non-members of your sect. Since this is the experience of my colleagues in Britain also over the years, may I suggest to you, as director of the office of public information, that you may have a certain credibility problem in your dealings with the media at least in this country.

In any event, I am not sure in a four paragraph article how much space could have been given to Mr Leon Slack's observations since, despite being a loving, joyful, peaceful, kindly, mild and self-controlled etc person he had evidently failed to spot previous episodes of mistreatment by his brother of his children,
or to act upon them as he clearly should have done had he been aware of them.

This suggests that his closeness to his brother's family and hence his knowledge of his brother's beliefs was not as thorough as it might have been. Perhaps you would care to respond to this.

Yours sincerely,

********************

41

WTSComplainstoGuardianBatesRepliesFloggingCase

by Lionel_P_Hartley in

stephen bates recently wrote an article about the flogging death of a girl in chicago http://www.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,4273,4301026,00.html.

he kindly sent me a copy of a letter he received from the wts office in pennsylvania and gave me permission to post it.

i don't have time to fix the formatting right now.. .

Lionel_P_Hartley

Stephen Bates recently wrote an article about the flogging death of a girl in Chicago http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4301026,00.html

He kindly sent me a copy of a letter he received from the WTS office in Pennsylvania and gave me permission to post it. I don't have time to fix the formatting right now.

Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
25 Columbia Heights,
Brooklyn,
New York
Phone: 718 560-5000
December 14 2001
Emily Bell
Editor in Chief, Guardian Unlimited (ie: our electronic website)
3-7 Ray Street,
London EC1R 3DR
Dear Ms Best (sic!),
In the United States, the Guardian has regularly been regarded as a
source of
reliable news. I have been among those who considered the information
in the
Guardian to be fair and unbiased. Our international journals, Awake!
and The
Watchtower quote from it extensively. Sadly, my opinion has been
changed as a
result of the coverage given to a subject that I am quite familiar with
-
Jehovah's Witnesses.
The last piece written about Jehovah's Witnesses, by Stephen Bates,
repeated a
story on a tragic incident in Chicago, Illinois, in which the parents
of an 11
year-old girl were charged with causing her death (November 17 2001,
"Devout
couple accused of flogging daughter to death") We checked with our
office in
London and found out that no one contacted them for the facts of the
story
before the piece was run. We have no record of anyone contacting our
office here
in Brooklyn, New York, either. We feel that Mr Bates gave insufficient
attention
to facts and put more emphasis on sensationalism. Had Mr Bates
inquired, he
would have been supplied with a relevant statement given by the uncle
of the
victim who wished to set matters straight after seeing inaccurate
reports in the
media, some of which were repeated in the Guardian's November 17
article. We are
enclosing a copy of that statement for your information.
I am writing you to call this matter to your attention in the hope
that the
normal, high standards of the Guardian will extend to the coverage of
Jehovah's
Witnesses.
Sincerely,
J. R. Brown
Director
Office of Public Information for Jehovah's Witnesses

The attachment is a four paragraph statement by Leon Slack, dated
November 16 in
which he contests the "false impression" that the horrible events on
November 10
were the result of his brother Larry Slack following the beliefs of
JWs:

"In
fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I am a father myself;
and I am
also one of Jehovah's Witnesses, as are other members of our family.
None of us
could ever even imagine doing such a thing to any of our children no
matter what
we thought they did wrong.

"Larry and Constance Slack were not devout Jehovah's Witnesses as some
reports
said. Larry has not been a practicing (sic) Witness for Jehovah for
many years.
He was baptised as...a teenager many years ago. For the last 10 years
they have
not shared in our worship services, although there were a few
relatively short
time periods that they would sporadically show up at meetings with the
congregation.

"It was the hope of the family and the local congregational members
that he
and his family would actually practice the faith...as this could help
them just
as it helps many people in a spiritual way. But...he fervently insisted
on not
being pressured in that regard and we respected his decision. We have
no idea
what was going on in his head that made him capable of doing this to
Laree.

"On the other hand, something I appreciate about being one of
Jehovah's
Witnesses is that we abhor all violent actions and behaviour. Life is
sacred to
us. To physically harm, abuse or kill others is diametrically opposed
to the
Bible principles we believe in and strive to practice. Among the
qualities we
study about in the Bible and are strongly encouraged to inculcate in
our
everyday family lives are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness,
goodness,
faith, mildness and self-control. We love our families and cherish our
children,
viewing them as an inheritance from God."

13

Letter to all Branches------A Fake?

by miner in

many of you are no doubt familiar with the nov.1, 2001 "letter to all branches" putting forth the the library card defense.

(the letter can be seen at: ) i gave a copy of the letter to a jehovah's witness friend of mine who took it to one of his elders.

the elder said the letter is a fake because: (1) it is not written on official wt letterhead and (2) watchtower does not send such correspondence via the (eeeevil) internet.

Lionel_P_Hartley

miner,

Then show him the one found here http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/wtresponse.html

19

No Change in 1991 - Library Card

by Lionel_P_Hartley in

i received the folowing two emails from dana loytved who is senior reference librarian at the un library in nyc.. in view of her first reply i asked her what procedure the wts used to access the library before 1991. her second reply is a bit cryptic but she states with confidence that there were no changes in procedure.

i don't want to pester these kind folks any more.. .

the procedure for a library pass is the following: the interested party needs to fill out an application form and supply a letter of recommendation in support of the research.

Lionel_P_Hartley

Hawk,

Exactly. The WTS's letter is pure deception. That it can be taken so many different ways demonstrates just how slithery the WTS is when it comes to the truth.

There is more than enough evidence to make the charge that the WTS was lying it way out of this, and if Alward would stick to what he has previously stated to be sufficient evidence of lying then he'd agree too. But his premise is "The WTS didn't lie" and so the debate must be shifted - and new standards for veracity invented - every time his conditions are met.

Unless he is lying himself, the fact that we have all spent so much time interpreting such a short letter - and that Alward is still seeing new interpretations - demonstrates that the letter was intended to deceive. As I have stated repeatedly, if it were not then the WTS would answer honest inquiries candidly. They won't. Instead they have instructed all branches to sing the same tune, and that tune is a letter that nobody seems able to understand - except for its target audience, the trusting Dub. And they get hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick.

LPH

19

No Change in 1991 - Library Card

by Lionel_P_Hartley in

i received the folowing two emails from dana loytved who is senior reference librarian at the un library in nyc.. in view of her first reply i asked her what procedure the wts used to access the library before 1991. her second reply is a bit cryptic but she states with confidence that there were no changes in procedure.

i don't want to pester these kind folks any more.. .

the procedure for a library pass is the following: the interested party needs to fill out an application form and supply a letter of recommendation in support of the research.

Lionel_P_Hartley

Dino,

Thanks. I will check out Parenti's stuff - I wasn't aware of it.

The remarkable thing about all of this the obvious fact that, if the WTS wanted to be honest then they would have issued a straightforward statement. Alward is spending his time trying to defend the WTS when he could just as well call up Harry Peloyan or someone in the WTS's Office of Public Information and ask for clarification. After all, why would an organization that is interested in telling the truth be reticent to provide much needed clarification to a serious academic researcher? He could also ask how long a creative day is while he's about it.

It goes like this:

(i) Please can you tell me precisely what changes occurred in 1991 that caused you to affiliate as an NGO with the UN?

(ii) Was it necessary to register as opposed to being convenient? If so why?

(iii) Was it merely access to the library that you wanted or access to other aspects of the UN grounds?

(iv) What does "library facilities" mean specifically? Does it include conferences organized in the library, or under its auspices.

(v) Do you still teach that a creative day is exactly 7000 years long?

I'm highly delighted that I was able to anticipate Alward's new argument - that access did not mean "access to the library" but access to other kinds of research material - material that affiliated NGOs would need to pursue their joint goals with the UN.

We could probably devote an entire thread to the analysis of what is "research material."

It all demonstrates that the WTS is extremely skilled in the art of deceit. They choose their words extremely carefully so that they can lie by telling what, according to some outlandish explanation is the truth. It's deceit - plain and simple.

For example, maybe a WTS writer developed a crush on the girl behind the UN desk. This made it necessary that the WTS affiliate so that the writer could have access to the library to perfom his research on what she liked to wear.

See how easy it is - honest statements do not permit of multiple conflicting interpretations.

That is why the WTS makes statements the way it does - it's called theocratic war strategy. As all exJWs and JWs know, lying by telling the truth, or by intentionally misleading, is part of the WTS's theological structure.

LPH

Lionel_P_Hartley

Posts by Lionel_P_Hartley