Posts by Oroborus21

27

WHY NO LIBEL THREAT?

by Dansk in

i write this due to thinking about the problems trev and linda have had with watchtower regarding their website, which clearly states on the homepage that if one is a jw the site isn't for them.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/121693/1.ashx.

the site can be found here: http://beehive.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/default.asp?wci=sitehome&id=12882.

Oroborus21

Dansk,

just wanted to add something that pertains to your direct question of why the WTBTS is reluctant to press certain court actions.

It seems to me that there are several reasons why the Society doesn't engage in such litigation and generally avoids unnecessary entanglements such as these, but I will give you just two big ones (aside from the obvious and major one that they WOULD NOT PREVAIL in most cases or the examples you cited)

The first is the public relations effect such a lawsuit would have. If the society brought a lawsuit for defamation it would call more attention to the supposedly defamatory information then what it would be worth it to them.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, a lawsuit would open up the doors to discovery and that might uncover all kinds of documents and records that it wouldn't like to see the light of day. Imagine a memo or report by the Governing Body members that got circulated about certains adjustments or changes for example but which was decided the other way. Such things made public would undermine the illusion.

The Society only enters the legal arena when there aren't dangers such as these and when it expects to prevail on the merits.

27

WHY NO LIBEL THREAT?

by Dansk in

i write this due to thinking about the problems trev and linda have had with watchtower regarding their website, which clearly states on the homepage that if one is a jw the site isn't for them.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/121693/1.ashx.

the site can be found here: http://beehive.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/default.asp?wci=sitehome&id=12882.

Oroborus21

thanks fullofdoubtnow...

I am pretty confident that the complainers would not have had a legal leg to stand on and that such a complaint/lawsuit would have been dismissed pretty quickly, but few people/companies like to even bother unless they have strong convictions and integrity and its easier for them to ask you to make changes.

I also agree that there is really no need for such a disclaimer but maybe the admins think it is similar to the notices at the beginning of television shows/movies (ratings systems). It does go to the old issue that no one is making them either visit a site they find offensive or to keep reading anything they feel it is offensive.

It is good though that the site is supporting you and the principles of free speech. Just a question, the URL linked above didn't seem to put me to the right page. Do you have the correct URL. I would like to put a link to your site on my site.

take care,

Eduardo

27

WHY NO LIBEL THREAT?

by Dansk in

i write this due to thinking about the problems trev and linda have had with watchtower regarding their website, which clearly states on the homepage that if one is a jw the site isn't for them.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/121693/1.ashx.

the site can be found here: http://beehive.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/default.asp?wci=sitehome&id=12882.

Oroborus21

this is really for Trev/Linda i guess

Hi,

just wanted to clarify cause what some posters have said is confusing me. From what I have read of your posts, the complaints to the free webhosting company (beehive), were made by individuals (most such webhosts have an an abuse or reporting mechanism to report things to the admins that violate its own user policies) and NOT an official complaint from the WTBTS. Is that corrrect because it seems some posters in the thread are talking about the Society or the Corp and are failing to see that these were complaints from individuals.

So long as you stay within the boundaries of copyright law and defamation law you will be ok and you should let the Beehive admins know that you are acting within the law. That won't totally alleviate the problem, but you should also let them know that so long as they receive only private individual complaints there is nothing to be concerned about. Such individuals don't have standing to sue and there is no such thing as group defamation (in modern law).

- Eduardo

36

LOST

by XJW4EVR in

tonight, 9pm.. who's down?.

Oroborus21

I found Lost pretty interesting the first season.

But now LOST is cocktease television at its worst.

I am sorry but it is hard to have any sympathy when the baddest guy, next to Locke, (and maybe the main bad guy), namely Sawyer, stops and stares open-mouthed at some chick while mid-escape and gets himself tasered. And that Jack, a medical doctor, can't figure out how to administer a sleeper hold or some other knock-out when he has a chance to subdue his captor and then gets himself punched out by the same girl!

Lost is like a cross between Gilligan's Island meets Hogan's Heroes meets Twin Peaks that the writers seem to have concocted after a long night of binging on pina coladas and guacamole.

-Eduardo

ps: it pretty much started going down hill when they killed off the most beautiful girl on the island

23

If the WTS closed shop, who'd get the money?

by PopeOfEruke in

i don't really understand who really are the beneficial owners of the watchtower society and all its assets.. so i pose this question: if the watchtower society closed down tomorrow and all the assets were sold off, who would get the billions of dollars?

the wts shareholders??

or are there jw companies which are "owed" huge amounts by the society, and so all the cash would simply go to these "companies" to pay off the "debt"?.

Oroborus21

my understanding is that the limited number of shareholders are only voting shares, not ownership interest. this is the case because the corporations are all charities (non-profit organizations). with a non-profit corporation, no share holder, officer, etc. is allowed to profit from an ownership interest. in a sense charities are "owned" by the public. they enjoy their tax-free status because they give back to the public or serve the public's interest. if someone that is private individuals were allowed to benefit, then that would be a taxable situation. (of course this doesn't mean that charities don't take in more revenue than expenses (i.e. profit), can't pay a reasonable percentage of operating costs as salaries or on personnel, etc., or are exempt from all forms of taxation.)

charities are set up for the benefit of the general public or with specific purposes to serve specific segments of the public. if a charity has to be wound up, after payment of any debts, any residual assets are either distributed in accord with the Articles of Incorporation or in the absent of a specific directive, in a manner that would similarly serve the public interest as the purpose of the charity. Generally the board of directors has this responsibility to wind up the non-profit corporation (charity) and makes such decisions as to the distribution or use of assets. If however, there is no acting board of directors or responsible party, the State Secretary where the charity is incorporated would make such a distribution or allotment. The goal would be to use such assets to serve the public interest in comparable fashion, so for example lets say there were a certain sum left of cash, no board, and the State Sec is making the decison, the State Sec could distribute the funds to other religious or bible charities/non-profits.

nice hypo but it will not happen. the WTS will shrink in scope and assets as it reshapes its paradigm and purpose in the 21st century, but some non-profit corp will continue probably indefinitely.

43

IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE NEEDED!

by Apostate Kate in

this just in;.

contact me for details.

.

Oroborus21

Ah. not exactly clear Kate...but in looking more closely at the site, I gather from Roy Milton's quote that it is about the WTBTS. (I didn't listen to the media stuff, maybe she discusses things there.) the email was clear, but I thought maybe she was just active against all groups she perceives are cults.

has anyone read the book? how does it compare to Diane Wilson's whiny yarn?

43

IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE NEEDED!

by Apostate Kate in

this just in;.

contact me for details.

.

Oroborus21

not to get off-topic of the thread TopHat, but I don't see how what you are describing is cultic? without evidence of deception/lying, such as asking for money for the expenses of the assembly stating that the expenses have not yet been covered by donations when in fact they have, that would be deceptive. (not itself cultic actually, just a lie) but we have no evidence of that.

so what is wrong with just asking for money? nothing of course. and as for specifying where the money is used, few if any religions open their books for public inspection.... and there is nothing inherently cultic about that either by the way.

a cult is about controlling other's behavior in an immoral way among many other things of course....

43

IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE NEEDED!

by Apostate Kate in

this just in;.

contact me for details.

.

Oroborus21

I was just wondering which cult it was? I find it odd that she doesn't state which one it is anywhere on her website. I can't believe you have to buy her book just to find out that info. Has anyone read the book? Most cites like hers have a small excerpt. And her bio page has no bio info, more like a brief highlight of her recent accomplishments.

I like the cover art.

So anyway for anyone who knows, is she specifically concerned and involved with Jehovah's Witnesses, or just in general due to her experience with another group/NRM?

43

IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE NEEDED!

by Apostate Kate in

this just in;.

contact me for details.

.

Oroborus21

was wondering what cult Brenda Lee was involved in since she places the name in quotes "The Friends"? Any idea?

6

Guess he wasn't a "Not At Home" afterall...

by Oroborus21 in

jw
friends

.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15130297/?gt1=8618.

Oroborus21

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15130297/?GT1=8618