it seems like lots of people have big dreams of 'destroying the watchtower'.
it's usually linked to a story of how they were wronged and want some revenge.
do these 'in your face' attempts to convince people that the truth isn't the truth really have an effect?.
Malvinas,
You can run from your conduct, but it doesn't change what you've done, or what others think of what you've done. It's pretty pathetic that you're now stooping to calling me "Cedars-esque." For what it's worth, I'd rather be accused of being "Cedars-esque" than "Malvinas-Esque." I've had my issues with Cedars in the past, but I've never seen him intentionally try to harm anyone, like you did.
it seems like lots of people have big dreams of 'destroying the watchtower'.
it's usually linked to a story of how they were wronged and want some revenge.
do these 'in your face' attempts to convince people that the truth isn't the truth really have an effect?.
Good points, Adamah. I may not have made it clear, but I do believe that we should call others out when we have issues with what they're doing here. Strict scrutiny is healthy for all, and I do not take issue with any of the debate that occurred re: AAWA, except the making of criminal allegations regarding conduct that hurt no one. If the alleged crime had actually hurt someone, I would be ok with the criminal allegations as well. But as here, where no one is hurt, I think we should avoid attacking each other in ways that could actually result in harm to someone that is an opposer of the WTBTS.
I hear your "ends justify the means" argument, but I don't think that's the issue here. I'm not justifying anything Cedars did, and have my own issues with what happened with AAWA. But the alleged crimes attributed to Cedars by Malvinas and certain others here harmed no one, and I see no justification for taking action that had the potential to cause him legal harm.
I do agree that we need to clean up the garbage that some in the ex-JW community choose to spread and which reflects poorly upon all of us, but I do not believe that we need to go all out to inflict damage upon the individualsiwe have issues with. The question I raise is, where do we draw the line on what sort of conduct is appropriate to respond to ex-JW activity that we are offended by because we believe it to be dishonest, etc.? Is it OK to make a real effort to harm someone, because we don't believe in what they have to say, or their method of saying it?
it seems like lots of people have big dreams of 'destroying the watchtower'.
it's usually linked to a story of how they were wronged and want some revenge.
do these 'in your face' attempts to convince people that the truth isn't the truth really have an effect?.
Malvinas,
More personal attacks. Why am I not surprised? You are one of the meanest, vindictive persons on this forum. You continue to try to change the subject, because you are unable to justify the depths you stooped to in your quest to harm Cedars.
What you did was wrong, notwithstanding your effort to change the subject.
it seems like lots of people have big dreams of 'destroying the watchtower'.
it's usually linked to a story of how they were wronged and want some revenge.
do these 'in your face' attempts to convince people that the truth isn't the truth really have an effect?.
Malvinas,
I note that instead of confronting the issue that was raised, you are now trying to personally attack me; I talk about poop, etc. Given your vicious attack on Cedars, I'm not surprised. Nevertheless, nothing justifies the low level that you stooped to in your quest to destroy Cedars at all costs. You weren't hurt by anything he did, much less the alleged improprieties in the organizational documents of AAWA.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion of your conduct, and are also entitled to ignore what other people think about what you did. I am entitled to my opinion as well. I thought your making of criminal allegations against Cedars was extremely vindictive and unwarranted, and indicative of a cold heart. My opinion remains unchanged by anything you've posted here, including your irrelevant personal attack on me.
it seems like lots of people have big dreams of 'destroying the watchtower'.
it's usually linked to a story of how they were wronged and want some revenge.
do these 'in your face' attempts to convince people that the truth isn't the truth really have an effect?.
Adam,
I enjoy reading your posts, as they are usually well reasoned, so I am surprised at your use of false analogy. Accusing someone of committing a crime is not analogous to criticizing someone for making that accusation. One act could result in legal consequences, the other act could never have that result.
it seems like lots of people have big dreams of 'destroying the watchtower'.
it's usually linked to a story of how they were wronged and want some revenge.
do these 'in your face' attempts to convince people that the truth isn't the truth really have an effect?.
Malvinas,
Your voluminous effort to defend the conduct you engaged in, whcih I took exception to, fails to provide any facts that support a conclusion that the making of public accusations of criminal misconduct was warrranted in this situation. The legal propriety of the accusations is not the issue here. The issue to me is where do we draw the line in responding to things we see on this forum that we don't agree with or that we may find to be incredibly offensive? Is nothing off limits?
it seems like lots of people have big dreams of 'destroying the watchtower'.
it's usually linked to a story of how they were wronged and want some revenge.
do these 'in your face' attempts to convince people that the truth isn't the truth really have an effect?.
Simon,
That's essentially the same question as the issue I identified in my previous post, skewed from a different angle and nevertheless just as valid. We can refine the issue further: What sort of posts/conduct justify the making of public accusations of criminal misconduct?
My own opinion is that we should not accuse others of criminal misconduct, even if we suspect it, unless the making of that accusation is necessary to prevent others from being harmed (the WTBTS is excluded from the definition of "others" here), or is necessary to right some sort of continuing wrong.
I think you were very patient and my comments were not intended to criticize your response to the situation in any respect. Cedars chose to use your site to advocate the interests of AAWA, and by doing so, he put you in a position of having to either voice your concerns or be associated by some with the AAWA situation that you took exception to. I don't think I read everything you posted, but I found myself sharing the sentiments you expressed in the posts I did read. I also have no issue with the many other members who criticized the varous blunders that resulted in some being outted. These debates were necessary.
The accusations of criminal misconduct were ancillary and unrelated to what everyone was pissed off about.
it seems like lots of people have big dreams of 'destroying the watchtower'.
it's usually linked to a story of how they were wronged and want some revenge.
do these 'in your face' attempts to convince people that the truth isn't the truth really have an effect?.
Simon,
I apologize for rehashing anything related to AAWA. It really is a subject that has been beaten to death. But this issue is a sub-issue that was raised via the conduct of some in response to the whole mess. The issue is, where do we draw the line in negatively responding to the actions of a person who is opposing the WTBTS?
As for Cedars, he is a stubborn guy, and at one time, I took issue with him, starting in a thread, for some of the comments he made concerning the Conti case, which I believed were either false, misleading, or both. As the tone started to get ugly in the thread, I took up the issue with Cedars privately, in PM. We continued to argue, but he did eventually modify his blog to address the concerns I raised. He is stubborn, but not so stubborn as to not want to do what's right once he realizes that it is the right thing to do.
Given how long you've been running this site, and the plethora of whackos I've seen visit here over the time I've been here, I'm not surprised at the responses you have received to efforts to resolve disputes via pm. I'm confident that you attempted to deal with Cedars privately, before taking him to task publicly as you did. Your condemnation of the situation was severe and aggressive, but it was also appropriate, given the potential for folks to be harmed via getting "outted." But nothing you posted ever accused Cedars of committing a crime.
While the potential for legal trouble was low, the risk did in fact exist.
it seems like lots of people have big dreams of 'destroying the watchtower'.
it's usually linked to a story of how they were wronged and want some revenge.
do these 'in your face' attempts to convince people that the truth isn't the truth really have an effect?.
" but no one called the cops on this one. Try again."
You may as well have called the cops. It's not a stretch of the imagination to conclude that the WTBTS monitors this site, to some extent. Reckless public postings of allegations of criminal misconduct could come to the attention of the WTBTS legal team, which could lead to phone calls to the powerful law firms that represent them, and phone calls from there to connections in the judicial system.
In any event, there was no good reason to make public posts that had even a miniscule potential to bring legal harm to Cedars. If you were really trying to help AAWA, you could have communicated your concerns via PM.
it seems like lots of people have big dreams of 'destroying the watchtower'.
it's usually linked to a story of how they were wronged and want some revenge.
do these 'in your face' attempts to convince people that the truth isn't the truth really have an effect?.
Simon, good points, except that concerns that criminal laws were violated could have been communicated privately, via PM, instead of posting them publicly for everyone, including the supporters of the WTBTS, to see.
