Posts by Oroborus21

40

JW's participate in Government talks with other religious bodies!

by Atlantis in

(please delete if already posted).

http://www.online.ie/home/news.aspx?newsid=636132 religious bodies in talks with government.

ground-breaking talks between the government and religious bodies began in dublin today.. .

Oroborus21

To be "affiliated" with someone or something means more than just talking with them or attending some function. If that were not the case than it could be said that JWs affiliate themselves with worldly persons every day when they speak to them on their doorstep or study the bible with them.

It appears that these talks are meant to grant an audience with the government of Ireland and the attendees have an opportunity to provide input or voice their concerns over potential government conduct that could adversely impact their own activities. It only makes sense that JWs would have a representative and their presence at such talks is not contrary to their stated desire to remain politically neutral.

-Eduardo

19

Baha'i religion

by Junction-Guy in

jw
friends

does anyone here know anything about baha'i?, i have never seen it mentioned on here before.

i remember there was a country singer back in the late 80's that was a baha'i, but i cant remember his name.

even back then while i was going to the kingdom hall, when i first heard of this singer something in my mind said this is a cult, even though i was associating with the grandaddy of them all.

Oroborus21

just do a simple web search or check out the wikipedia listing...lots of info on the Net. in LA there is a large Baha'i community.

interestingly, Baha'i practice a form of Disfellowshipping that is similar to JW's

-eduardo

290

JW Children Lie in Custody Cases

by compound complex in

direct and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.

wtb&ts, page 42.

"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.

Oroborus21

just post the citations to Ray's books and leave it at that.

i think when you are the only person to post to a thread five times in a row, its time to let it go.

...don't worry the topic will come around again...they always do

11

Aqua Teen Terror Force

by rolling rock in

jw
friends

so... was it all just one clever marketing scam???

i'm about to believe that this was the reaction the cartoon network was looking for... .

if it was cartoon network is lucky nobody got killed while beantown was on lockdown...

Oroborus21

I find this whole event pretty interesting.

In retrospect, it probably would have been a good idea to make the "advertising signs" more obviously non-threatening and maybe even to communicate in advance with law enforcement that this campaign would be occurring and that they posed no danger to the public.

Having said that, it is just mind-boggling to note how quickly our society can undergo mass-influence and delusion. Maybe it is the result of the Sept 11 attacks, Oklahoma City, etc. but this is how society is now and unfortunately, very often, common sense and cooler heads will not prevail in certain situations. I fear for the time when we face real threats perhaps nuclear, chemical or biological and how not only the authorities but the average person will react. It doesn't bode well.

Anyway, regarding the charges against these poor guys, they are completely ridiculous.

I am very surprised that the prosecutor was not interrupted today because if I was the defense attorney I would strongly object to the prosecutor and the media referring to these things as "bomb-like devices." Not only is that a highly misleading and prejudicial term but it isn't accurate. These things are no more "bomb-like" than a homemade flashlight or a potato-clock. (Be careful you middle-schoolers not to leave your science fair project on the school bus accidently. :-)

These things should be called what they are: advertising signs. The media and law enforcement should stop inflaming things by repeatedly referring to them as "bomb-like" and just admit that they went off half-cocked themselves instead of approaching the situation more level-headedly.

I don't know what the MA statute says but I don't see how a prosecution can stand under a "hoax device" charge. Common sense informs us that a "bomb hoax device" is one which not only appears to be "bomb-like" but also is meant to create that impression. These signs even at a distance do not appear to be explosive (no fake dynomite sticks, or fake plastic explosives or fake pipe bombs, no clock ticking down, etc.) and certainly the intent to fool anyone into thinking that they were bombs was not there. If I had greater confidence that our society was not so fearful about terrorism, I would believe that there is no way these guys could get convicted on that charge.

I know one thing, if they do get convicted then anyone who intentionally or inadvertently leaves anything laying around in public, from an engine starter to a lunchpail to a backpack is going to have to worry that some idiot may come along and dial 911 before exercising some common sense and they might end of in jail.

All of this is just another example of how we let the terrorists "win" when we go all Chicken Little over things we don't understand.

-eduardo

290

JW Children Lie in Custody Cases

by compound complex in

direct and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.

wtb&ts, page 42.

"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.

Oroborus21

AllAlong,

you might be interested to see that I placed the Armstrongian group within the Adventist umbrella.

http://www.jehovahs-witnesses.info/adventism.html

Regarding other points from your post, not that i feel any need to justify certain choices, but with my daughter's website, what many do not understand is that I do not know all of the friends and family of my ex-wife who are from abroad, or whom she may have told about the site, or whom in my large extended family might be interested or who might google it up, so for that reason and others it is "public." (Who knows if I keep it going maybe one day someone will offer to put her in commercials or something - that would be good for her economic future.) Anyway, if you read carefully my comments regarding the site "being for family" earlier in this thread and in response to criticism you will see that they were not so much about the website itself but about the particular page which states explicitly that "family and friends" who wish to contribute to her college education fund can do so. (That would obviously only be something that family and friends would want to do and by not passwording it, it allows them to see that they can do it without jumping through any hoops.)

As for my JW info site, as you can see I am still in the process of creating content, not even 5% of it is done yet. All of it gets refined over time, even as new information comes to my attention or as I continue in progressing in my personal study of these issues, or even as a result of the feedback that I am getting. It's a work in progress.

-----

Regarding the topic of this thread, it seems a common problem that people are unable to appreciate nuance and distinction. I am not defending the booklet itself or in whole and have stated many times that I think it is pretty crappy for a number of different reasons. (In short to take a specific side on a one issue or a small excerpt of something larger does not mean that one holds that same position with regard to the larger thing. Get it?)

I have tried to keep an open mind as to why many (and certainly the majority here) insist that the booklet in whole or in part is "misleading" and can see and agree with the points made to a certain extent. My issues were with the specific paragraphs cited in the original post of this thread and how I felt that that specific citation did not lead to misleading the court or advocating that JWs lie to the court. that is all of my point and I have stated why i believe so ad nauseum now.

(just an aside, a recent contribution to this thread suggested by someone, seems to imply that it is wrong to have a different emphasis or change in information in different situations. I think the comment was somehting like that JWs should say the same thing from the platform as in court. It just seems to me that it isn't wrong to recognize that different situations call for different communication and that in such communication certain things might be stressed while in other circumstances those points would not be stressed.)

(aside to AuldSoul, I think you give too much weight to a single word "care" which is not really there. the point being made by the paragraph in question would be no different without the word care as it would if it had been exaggerated "give extra care" for example. that point again was to let the child know that this court or child-custody setting, unlike a theocratic one, is a setting where they do not have to feel obligated to emphasize their theocratic activities or goals. (one of my criticisms with the brochure is that it is poorly written.) Regarding your comments about pioneering, that I take issue with because it is very obvious that not every JW parent accepts the Society's push towards pioneering and many JW parents do not goad their children or push them into full-time service.)

94

Looks Like the Andersons Lost in Court

by Beep,Beep in

came across this a few minutes ago.

http://www.wmcstations.com/global/story.asp?s=5973793

Oroborus21

aside to VM:

one of the major things that happened in the Olin Moyle case is that Rutherford sent in speakers to the Moyles' congregation who gave public pronouncements about Moyle being an evil slave, etc. and the resulting fall-out hurt him financially. that was a big factor in his winning his case. it's possible that the result would not be different today which is why the Society made the "announcement' change away to what it is today regarding DF'd ones from the old days when they actually stated what is that the person was DF'd for.

4

Some thoughts on Copyright issues.

by JeffT in

jw
friends

i thought of this when reading the thread about e-bay, and decided to give it its own thread.

i'm not a lawyer but as a businessman i've dealt with a lot of legal issues.

it is a fundamental point of tort law that you have to prove you're damaged in some way.

Oroborus21

Jeff,

copyright law is not based in torts (that is personal injuries) but has its basis in statutory law.

one frequent consideration when determining a copyright issue has to do with economic interest, but this is generally an issue regarding damages and not a consideration of whether a prima facie infringement has occurred. one thing to keep in mind is not whether the copyright holder is benefiting economicaly from the work or making the best economic use of the work. a work need not have any economic value at all nor the copyright owner have any intention to derive any economic benefit from the work, for the work to be copyrighted and the copyright holder to exercise all rights respecting the work.

one of the principal rights of a copyright owner is to control the disemination and distribution of the work.

the term of copyright protectoin from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

is

-----

For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

----

and for pre -1978 works the expiration for (WTS) works is no sooner than 2047

-----

that would seem to suggest that virtually all WTS pubs are under copyright except for those personally authored or acknowledged like Russell's and Rutherford's which is their date of death plus 70 years.

---------

the E-Bay situation is a complicated one and it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out (assuming what has been reported as a WTS "policy" or tactic is true).

the reason why the WTS is on shaky ground with trying to shut down E-Bay sales of WTS publications themselves is because the ownership of a book or work itself is NOT the same as ownership of the copyright (obviously). thus when you buy a book at the bookstore, [I recommend Jim Cramer's Real Money and Mad Money :-)] you aren't buying any copyrights, just ownership of the thng itself as mere property. The law recognizes the right to transfer that property and that is all that E-Bay does - allow people to transfer their property to others.

On the other hand, you can buy a book but you aren't allowed to make photocopies afterwards and sell them out the back door or on E-Bay so that kind of activity will be an infringement. And keep in mind if the copy is from one medium to another, as in digitizing a copyrighted work and putting it on a CD-ROM it is still an infringement. - In part that was Quotes mistake to make CD-ROMs for sale that were copies of copyrighted materials and of course creating a webpage of copyrighted works in excess of Fair Use doctrine is an infringement.

79

In Memorandum

by RichieRich in

jw
friends

it was the 14th of april last year that i had to sit my mother down and tell her i was an apostate.. i was closer to her than anyone else.

my father and mother are still married, but he let her raise me as a witness, and that meant it was me and mom.. me and mom in field service for 100 hours in july because she had to make her time as a regular pioneer.. me and mom fighting over what to bring for lunch to the district convention.. me and mom up late at night, when she would berate me, and then unload all her problems on to me.. me and mom and our 4 hour family studies, where we discuss 2 paragraphs of a random book, and then she would browbeat me until early in the morning.. somehow, through all that, i pretended to be a witness for years, just to appease her.

looking back, i don't know if i loved her, or if i was just afraid of her.

Oroborus21

GB/BG,

next time try either "in memoriam" or "memoriam definition"

Dictionary

Directory > Words > Dictionary

in me·mo·ri·am (in ' m?-môr'e-?m, -mor'-) pronunciation
prep.

In memory of; as a memorial to. Used especially in epitaphs.

-------

it seems that's what the guy meant. no need to make a big case about it, though it does make me wonder about his college?

4

Whatever happened to the Big News?

by Woodsman in

does anyone know if it went anywhere other than an interesting essay?

has anyone used the strategy in court?

Oroborus21

you mean the Big Snooze...

all i know is i am warming up the burner for AuldSoul to cook me my steak :-)

-Eduardo

27

Should I mention my marital rape to my 18-yr-old son?

by J-ex-W in

first---thank you, lady lee, for providing the articles on rape.

the one on marital rape is especially catching my eye now.

now, the question, and i welcome any serious answers: my boys are all seriously alienated from me by my abusive jw ex-husband, who has physical custody (because of my physical health limitations).

Oroborus21

Nothing good would come of it and it wouldn't produce any results that you might hope that it would.

Your ex's character will eventually be discerned by your sons as well as your true character. It may take some time but you will likely have a chance to have the relationship that you want.

Also, because big changes will be occurring with the Organization/JW religion over the next few decades, while things may look bleak now, the chances are that they won't grow up to be like their father in the way you fear due to these external factors.

Finally, most children desire to hold their parents in the best light. It is never a good thing to either bad-mouth the other parent (even when true) or to use the child, even in a passive way, as an act of aggression or in a manipulative way. Your bringing up the marital rape or any kind of negative facts about your ex, will be seen by your sons as an attempt to manipulate them into loving you and not loving him, and they will resent that. Additionally, making them uncomfortable over your relationship with your ex will only reinforce a desire not to be around you which is certainly not what you want.

You want to make spending every minute of time with you a joy and something that they crave so if you do have the opportunity or whatever contact you do have always keep that in mind and do everything in your power to create that feeling.

So just continue to express love and let things develop.

Regarding the legal situation, keep checking around to see what resources may be available to you. The main thing is that you can go back to court to have the custody reevaluated if there is a signficant change in either your or his circumstances, so if your health does improve or something occurs to make it possible for you to have more custody, you may be able to get the present order adjusted.

good luck,

Eduardo