God I knew that sounded familiar! Great job Clam! - Ed
Oroborus21
JoinedPosts by Oroborus21
-
7
Can you identify this song? (Classical, I'm thinking)
by AlmostAtheist inhey all,.
one of sierra's friends has a toy that plays this song, i love it and i would like to get a copy of it to listen to.
of course, i'd like it not to be a toy version!
-
-
-
7
Can you identify this song? (Classical, I'm thinking)
by AlmostAtheist inhey all,.
one of sierra's friends has a toy that plays this song, i love it and i would like to get a copy of it to listen to.
of course, i'd like it not to be a toy version!
-
-
Oroborus21
Dave,
60% sure it is Mozart. I'll let you know if I figure it out.-Ed
-
155
Whats the dumbest reason youve been counseled?
by avishai inmy friend was counseled for having a bad attitude because he wore white socks w/ his suit.
-
-
Oroborus21
-wrinkled dress shirts, black and dark colored shirts, (Was told only white shirts were appropriate)
-my western bolo style ties and dressy cowboy boots, quite common in my home congregation, didn't go over too well in LA
-usual stuff of low hours and meeting attendance
-some dating and sex stuff
-the internet
but probably the dumbest thing I ever got counseled on was for parking in the red. It was at our bookstudy and there was never any parking. Almost directly across from where the bookstudy was, was a commercial store of some kind. To me it looked liked they had painted the sidewalk curb themselves to free up space for their loading zone. Since it was always after hours I would just park there. I never once got a ticket. But the mother of the bookstudy conductor, who was a real bee found it objectionable so instead of coming to me with her problem, she whined to her son. I said that I hadn't gotten a ticket and that I didn't believe it to be a legitimate red zone but i was still told that the appearance of it was wrong and might hurt the conscience of others.
So i started parking farther away (keep in mind this is the hood we are talking about) or often not going at all.
what was humourous was that this brother and the other elder who counseled me on the color of my dress shirts were notorious speeders.
-eduardo
the stamp counsel has to be the best one. there were many times when I simply couldn't help but laugh at the counsel, but if someone had tried to counsel on stamps, I probably would have wet my pants with laughter over that one. that is precious. It sounds like confuscious was in a pretty narrow minded congregation to get counseled on so many petty things.
-
53
BIG NEWS I recieved my pamphlet WOW
by skyman inthe baylor university has a potential time bomb for the society all i can say is wow i can see how now.
you better get a copy.
use this link and get you a copy http://www3.baylor.edu/church_state/ordering_publications.htm
-
-
Oroborus21
PS: Regarding the German Form, I was mistaken in thinking previously that this was language contained on the old German Blood Cards. If you read very carefully, the German article is actually referring to a "hospital consent form" that is used by the Hospital and supplied by the Hospital to Jehovah's Witnesses which some may sign.
This makes Ms. Louderback-Wood's assertion that it (the source of the quotation she uses) constitutes a blanket prohibition of blood fractions by the Society in the Blood Brochure even more aggregious and false since it is clear that the Society is not even responsible for creating or supplying the hospital consent form!!!!
-Eduardo
-
53
BIG NEWS I recieved my pamphlet WOW
by skyman inthe baylor university has a potential time bomb for the society all i can say is wow i can see how now.
you better get a copy.
use this link and get you a copy http://www3.baylor.edu/church_state/ordering_publications.htm
-
-
Oroborus21
Skeeter Dude I am a little surprised your own misinterpretations and misunderstanding of not only what I wrote but of the material itself.
First just some points though:
-I have never tried to discourage anyone from reading the article. Although it is my opinion that the article's theory is without merit and there is much that is lacking in the article, especialy in terms of actual legal analysis, I do not have an agenda to discredit the article.
-I have never stated that because Baylor is a christian university that it is against Witnesses as you assert that I do. I have only pointed out that from a perception point of view, that as publisher of the article, it may negatively impact the article's utlity and reception among Jehovah's Witnesses who are conditioned to reject or look askance at all such religious sources.
-I did not state in my post that the essay did not discuss blood fractions or current JW doctrine. What i stated was in context of the paragraph you excerpted and to my post of the misrepresentation. Specifically it was with respect to the assertion by Ms. L-W that the pamphlet (blood brochure) was intentionally ambiguous, contradictory and qualified as a "Near Omission" of the acceptance of blood fractions. I stated that to address this point the essay should have included the modern doctrinal position, but this would have been obviously contrary to Ms. L-W's aims of trying to establish a contradiction.
( "Near Omission" = almost forgot to do it. Yup the Society almost didn't tell the reader that blood fractions were permissible. that cracks me up every time.)
-Elsewhere I have indicated that the Blood Brochure is outdated and is due and I believe that is is clearly so. The fact that it is included either on the Society's website or cited in recent KMs is not proof that it accurately reflects today's doctrine on blood. Old literature is frequently offered or used by Witnesses, even the WT Library CD-ROM contains many older publications which reference the old Generation Doctrine, teaching on Sheep and Goats, and so forth. Until a new replacement comes out, the blood brochure may continue to be used but all Witnesses will understand that certain things, particularly the greater acceptance of blood factions, have changed since publication.
-Finally, I like many others, felt that the build-up to the release of the article and the prognostications about its impact were unwarranted and somewhat sensationalistic.
-My comments in this thread up to this point have been about particular issues:
1) concern over an apparent hypocritical policy of moderator Lady Lee threatening to immediately delete even a link to a third-party website which might contain the article in violation of copyright, while tolerating several open posts to websites with copyright violations of the Society's materials. If the policy is going to be that JWD will allow posts or links in posts to websites who may be infringing the Society's copyrights but will not allow posts or links in posts to infringing material which is critical of the Society, then it should be plainly stated. That is certainly within Simon's perogative even if it would be biased. As an aside, legally speaking, the board, Simon or the moderators or any other website usually will not be liable for merely linking to another website where illegal activity such as copyright infringement might be occurring. Thus there is not a protective reason to adopt any policy that prohibits such posts that contain links to third-party websites and so doing so would only be a reflection of administrator's personal views.
2) AS and I have had a minor exchange upon internet jurisdiction and whether the reexaminer site is appropriate or engaging in illegal activity. These are interesting questions but so as not to hijack this thread I have refrained from commenting further.
Turning to the issues in question regarding the JCS article...
In your post-reply, you merely echo what the author herself writes as can be seen from your excerpt. Specifically:
that these three statements were “intentionally ambiguous, if not contradictory as blood components are never mentioned in its medical alternative section, banned altogether in its legal section, yet unexemplicably allowed in one statement near the end.”!!!!!
Yet this is the very contention which I indicated was not only poorly argued but actually a misrepresentation of the Blood Brochure itself. I will take each of these elements one at a time.
a. "never mentioned in its medical alternative section"
As I said in my review post, so-what? This is only the opinion of Ms. L-Wood that such a discussion should be included in the medical alternative section of the brochure. It is not evidence of misrepresentation by the Society. Additionally, in 1990 the number of blood fractions permissible to JWs were limited to a handful, albumin, Factor-h, gamma globulin, etc. unlike today which doctrine permits many others. As will be seen from below, the Society actually never discusses the use of blood fractions in the brochure and consistently ignores the topic.
b. "banned altogether in its legal section"
This was Ms. L-W's misrepresentation which I have pointed out in my review post and in this thread. Let's examine the excerpt again and I will highlight for you the relevant parts so that you can understand that this is precisely Ms. L-W's contention.
Furthermore, page 18 of the pamphlet, in reference to a German consent form, reconfirms that blood components are not acceptable: “As a . . . Jehovah’s Witness, I categorically refuse the use of foreign blood or blood components during my surgery.”
As can clearly and undisputedly be seen from the article (and the concluding statement already cited), L-W asserts that the pamphlet "reconfirms" that "blood components are not acceptable" and then follows the quotation as proof. (Actually, it is not a "reconfirmation" of anything since it is only the absence of a discussion on blood fractions in the alternative healthcare section which Wood sees as a "confirmation." of a total ban on blood fractions - something which is obviously complete speculation.) In any case, Ms. Wood is here stating that the Society, via the pamphlet, is communicating a blanket ban on blood fractions.
She supplies the quotation as evidence for the pamphlet's position carefully including ellipsis and failing to indicate to the reader that the quotation is not from the Society or even from the text of the pamphlet itself but is actually a third-party quotation included in a minor paragraph of a side-box. Here it is again in context:
Witnesses will also sign hospital consent forms. One used at a hospital in Freiburg, Germany, has space where the physician can describe the information he gave the patient about the treatment. Then, above the signatures of the physician and the patient, this form adds: "As a member of the religious body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I categorically refuse the use of foreign blood or blood components during my surgery. I am aware that the planned and needed procedure thus has a higher risk due to bleeding complications. After receiving thorough explanation particularly about that, I request that the needed surgery be performed without using foreign blood or blood components."—Herz Kreislauf, August 1987.
I will ask it again: Isn't this type of conduct the exact same kind of treatment of articles and sources that the JCS article is complaining about?
Look more carefully Skeeter. Ms. L-W is not talking about what is on the German cards today, and that is not what I have pointed out. No, she is actually stating that this quotation in the side box of the brochure "banned altogether in the legal section" blood fractions. This is a ludicrous assetion and moreover, it is completely misleading to the current reader of the JCS article and misrepresentative of the Society's position then and now.
c. "yet, inexplicably allowed in one statement at the end!"
Actually, in my posted review of the JCS article I didn't even address this further misrepresentation. (there were many other points to address and too many to pick on every one) but since you have brought it forward it should be discussed.
Here again the author implies that the Society is contradicting itself in the Blood Brochure by first (as she tried to fabricate) stating a blanket ban on blood fractions in the "legal section" can be found from the German quotation. And then now by stating that it has "inexplicably allowed" blood fractions in one statement at the end.
Please note the citation to the footnote and you will see that the source of this "statement" regarding blood fractions is not actually from the Society itself nor again is even from the text of the publication itself, but rather it is contained in the JAMA article which is an appendix to the brochure. Evidently, what Ms. Wood means by "allowed" is that the Society has reproduced without change the JAMA article. (I might add that it is undoubtable that the Society was bound by JAMA reprint rules to include the entire text of the article without modification if it wanted to use it at all. No doubt the article probably contained a few things which the Society would have preferred to write differently or cast in a different light if it were the author of the JAMA article. Whether the statement in question may have been one of those things we do not know.)
--------
As can be seen from the above discussion, the author's assertion that the Brochure is contradictory on the point of blood fractions is a whimsical fabrication.
But more importantly, Ms. Wood's declaration from the outset that the Blood Brochure was published in 1990 does not mollify her intention that the essay " further legal theory regarding the use of tort law as a narrowly tailored means for affording harmed persons legal redress."
If the article were merely a retrospective upon the Blood Brochure and dedicated to pointing out what are in the author's opinion inconsistencies or misrepresentations, there would hardly be reason to object to it.
But it is the entire thrust of the essay that it be used to stimulate present action in tort, using a misrepresentation theory or cause of action.
Because the tort of misrepresentation is limited by a statute of limitations, such misrepresentations have to be relatively current in order to be actionable. Crafting an essay which examines a publication that is 15 years old and which admittedly contains a number of outdated points and beliefs which few if no Jehovah's Witnesses would fail to understand had been superceeded by more recent material and doctrine is just baffling. But more importantly, persons should understand how reliance upon the article might possibly lead to more harm and a worsening of their legal position.
Because of this, I believe that is therefore warranted to give the article as thorough and objective of a critique as possible. And where there are what appear to be clear misrepresentations contained within the article itself, it seems prudent to point these out and call for explanation and examination.
-Eduardo
-
53
BIG NEWS I recieved my pamphlet WOW
by skyman inthe baylor university has a potential time bomb for the society all i can say is wow i can see how now.
you better get a copy.
use this link and get you a copy http://www3.baylor.edu/church_state/ordering_publications.htm
-
-
Oroborus21
140001:
I didn't have any such delusions. I understand that many were waiting to review their own copy of the essay before commenting, if they are so inclined.
As food for thought while you or others study the article, I would like reiterate just one of the many instances that I have previously cited where I believe the essay itself is misleading to the reader.
The following bolded quote is from the essay. In it the author seeks to lay a foundation to claim that the Society misleads its members in the blood brochure ("pamphlet") by not disclosing that blood fractions may be acceptable.
Furthermore, page 18 of the pamphlet, in reference to a German consent form, reconfirms that blood components are not acceptable: “As a . . .Jehovah’s Witness, I categorically refuse the use of foreign blood or blood components during my surgery.” 137
This is the original quotation in context of the brochure:
Witnesses will also sign hospital consent forms. One used at a hospital in , has space where the physician can describe the information he gave the patient about the treatment. Then, above the signatures of the physician and the patient, this form adds: “As a member of the religious body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I categorically refuse the use of foreign blood or blood components during my surgery. I am aware that the planned and needed procedure thus has a higher risk due to bleeding complications. After receiving thorough explanation particularly about that, I request that the needed surgery be performed without using foreign blood or blood components.”—Herz Kreislauf, August 1987.
By failing to disclose in the essay that the excerpt is actually from a German media report from 1987, the author misleadingly suggests to the reader that the present German blood card maintains the same posture and thus implies that the Blood Brochure is providing conflicting information to the Society’s present position on blood. Ms. Louderback-Wood well knows that today’s Blood Card (Advanced Medical Directive) does not use the “categorically reject” language but instead specifies which blood parts are being rejected.
----
Moreover, I would add that an essay written in 2005 should accurately include the Society's more recent statements and publication excerpts which all demonstrate that the acceptance of blood fractions is clearly permissible for Witnesses as the current doctrine holds. It should furthther reference the current Advanced Medical Directive.
Instead by reliance upon the third-party quote outdated as it is, the author strives to bolster her argument that the present conduct of the Society is misleading with regard to blood fractions, despite knowing full well that the Society's official position is to allow blood fractions and that even to assert to the contrary to today's reader would be false.
In fact, it is her own spin on both the interpretation of the quotation and the use of the quotation itself which is misleading. Unfortunately, only someone with the brochure in their hand would catch such an obvious misrepresentation of a minor third-party quotation in a side-article of the brochure.
The above is just one of several important misrepresentations that are ironically contained in the JCS essay dedicated to discussing misrepresentation.
I look forward to any "refutations" on the points I addressed in my previous review.
-Eduardo
-
53
BIG NEWS I recieved my pamphlet WOW
by skyman inthe baylor university has a potential time bomb for the society all i can say is wow i can see how now.
you better get a copy.
use this link and get you a copy http://www3.baylor.edu/church_state/ordering_publications.htm
-
-
Oroborus21
Greetings!
Unless I have misunderstood your posts in this thread, i understand that you are saying that a link to a website which contains the JCS "Big News" essay in full would be deleted by you or other moderators on this board (regardless of where that website might be hosted or located). Correct or not correct?
My only question is why such a policy is not applicable to instances of other copyright violations, vis a vis, the reexaminer website.
AS: Your assertion ignores the fundamental morality involved. Many goods and products (such as unauthorized movie DVDs, counterfeit Gucci handbags, etc. are also made in China or elsewhere at the least with the Government' s inaction or tolerance if not implicit sanction). This does not justify the situation.
Furthermore, having researched and written at length on internet jurisdiction, I can tell you that by making the products available for download in the U.S., reexaminer is making himself (or herself?) subject to personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts and is violating U.S. copyright laws. The location of the root host of the served website is not the defining factor of in personam jurisdiction.
-Eduardo
-
53
BIG NEWS I recieved my pamphlet WOW
by skyman inthe baylor university has a potential time bomb for the society all i can say is wow i can see how now.
you better get a copy.
use this link and get you a copy http://www3.baylor.edu/church_state/ordering_publications.htm
-
-
Oroborus21
TD/Lady Lee:
Hmmm. And people talk about the double standards of Jehovah's Witnesses.
On one hand you pat yourselves on the back at protecting copyrights of others and how you are not like "pro-JW" boards and say that even a link to a third-party site that contains the essay would be deleted,
but yet you don't show the same righteous indignation for the Rexaminer site which lets persons download copyrighted materials ad nauseum.
What a black pot, what a black kettle.
-Eduardo
PS: I noticed how no one has come forward to refute the clear discrepancies and misrepresentations of what the blood brochure says which I have found in the essay itself.
-
63
Iran: Your Next !!!
by prophecor inare you watching world events unfold before your eyes?
iraq is receiving a liberation from ancient backward politics and a ruthless criminaly minded dictatorship.
boy geoge has stuck his foot in the middle east, to the amazement of virtually the entire planet.
-
-
Oroborus21
Greetings!
I am glad someone finally pointed out the grammatical error. I was cringing.
I won't go off on U.S. policy, Iraq, or the present administration. That would be too easy and I don't have the time or energy to waste my breath or fingers rather.
All I wanted to mention is that I think it is very ignorant and narrow-minded of people to couch things in terms of this is a fight for democracy, to "liberate" anyone or to overthrow "dictators."
There are many totalitarian governments existing in the guise of Kingdoms, Amirs, and Sultanates in the Near East/Middle East. (Not too mention totalitarian regimes such as Cuba, Brunei, N. Korea, and elsewhere.)
Saudi Arabia, one of the U.S.'s best allies in the region, is as we all know ruled by one family, the Sauds, and as we all know was actually the nationality of many of the terrorists involved with 911. It remains a land of gross human rights violations and inequality and anything far from democratic.
Kuwait was ruled by the Sabah family.
Dubai and the other UAEs are amirs ruled by single persons or families.
the list could go on and on.
All of these governments are not democratic and most of them are just as bad from a civil rights perspective as Iraq ever was. Yet, (some in) the U.S. turn a blind eye to all of these things simply because it is useful in pursuing the current agenda.
So please stop blindly parroting what the policy wonks and the Bush administration keep repeating as if to convince themselves that the U.S. is engaged in some righteous crusade to spread democracy and freedom around the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you believe that you are a fool. It is about money and power that is all it is about and to an extent it is about the desire to do something, however misguided, immoral or consequential, so as not to feel helpless in response to terrorism.
And even if it was the goal of the U.S. to promote democracy and freedom around the world, it does not have the moral right to do so. (Our government and many who support such policies have confused mightiness with righteousness.)
These are sovereign nations who have the fundamental human right to choose their own form of government or to revolt against it. I would also add that these are sovereign nations that have the fundamental human right to arm and protect themselves, including developing and possessing nuclear weapons, and it is only when they should ever threaten other sovereign nations that the U.S. or other countries might have the right to object or to use force to prevent it. This new doctrine of preemptive warfare is rotten in every sense.
-Eduardo
-
-
-
Oroborus21
Sherri D.
I have added you to those who need prayer right now.
http://www.jehovahs-witnesses.net/platform.html
-Eduardo