Posts by Pathofthorns

50

Iv been thinking (now I have a headache)

by seven006 in

jw
friends

looking at this board and the various kinds of thoughts, beliefs, maturity levels, insecurities, as well as an individuals time span on this board one main dilemma seems to keep popping up, that dilemma is freedom of expression verses the possible alienation of a new poster fresh out of the jw mindset.. the board wars (or being able to express a controversial and contrary opinion) and the use of colorful language (my personal favorite) seem to be jeopardized because of the concern of possibly loosing or offending an important new poster who we all have to agree means something to us all (we were all there once in our lives).

the dilemma seems to ride on personal freedoms of old and established poster who are not easily offended by controversial things and the sensitivity of those who are experiencing the real world for possibly the first time in their lives and have just made a dramatic life change.. i personally am very concerned about a new poster who is confused and looking for some answers, i think most of us are.

i completely understand simon's wishes to try and not offend them.

Pathofthorns

I don't see real problems with threads that contain profanity or controvertial topics. It would seem that the real problems start when threads turn into personal attacks and flame wars and just get downright nasty. But who is to say that all personal attacks will take place in threads in the controvertial sections?

It would be difficult to label a thread "controvertial" if it starts out tame and ends up in a flame war.

I believe many of these personal attacks "brew" for quite a while between certain posters and just get out of hand - often in threads that have been taken off their original topic. To try to isolate these threads would be difficult.

All of this dancing around and worrying about "new people" seems a little bit farfetched in reality. If you can't handle this place then how will you handle losing your family and friends when you leave the organization? If you can't handle a bit of profanity or walk away from an argument or something you don't like, then how will you handle every day life?

Over and over again it seems people can't resist replying to someone deliberately hijacking a thread. They have to throw in their damn two cents and say the obvious and thereby become part of the problem by continuing to take a thread off topic and bringing it to the top.

Giving the trolls the "silent treatment" is about the worst thing you can do to them. If you are offended, not replying to a thread and avoiding a confrontation is the best way to send a message to posters looking for attention.

I think it is best to let people learn the hard way. Drive yourself mad by posting to trolls and reading what you don't like. If you are sick of reading about threads discussing "censorship" then why are you in this thread reading what makes you sick?

Censorship is needed to save people from their own sick minds.

Path

75

Selective Banning

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

i hate to see people get banned or silenced - even the people who are causing trouble.

when it comes to regulations, i could almost be described as libertarian.

because of this i would like to make a proposal - instead of leaving the banning power in the hands of a central authority, i propose that banning be placed in the hands of the individual.

Pathofthorns

Simon, your suggestion sounds similar to the thread rating system in place. While few seem to use it, exceptionally good threads seem to be rated and some exceptionally bad ones get rated too..lol

The "tomato system" brings politics into the picture and gang or clique voting paterns could develope. It could also create more posters willing to put up posts and threads to win public opinion instead of discussing the serious topics this place is known for.

Posters that have a larger network of friends here will be less likely to get "tomatoes" than those who might post exactly the same words but are either a "pro-JW" or a fundy christian. This is not really fair but it is human nature. It is also human nature to want to read a post with alot of tomatoes too.. (smile)

I think Elsewhere's suggestion is a superior one because it will make the poster accountable to himself and he will have himself to blame. Especially if you make a provision for us to filter obscene language etc, some could choose to read electronically edited versions of posts. Or you could have a provision where we could label our post as "controvertial" where heated topics like abortion, racism etc are discussed and people could filter these out too.

At the end of the day you will find few people turn the filters on. They want the obscene language and the nudity and the controvertial posts. It is ironic that we don't want to see what we really like to see. It is just that in small amounts these things are like spice and the life of the board, but in overwhelming amounts they are the death of it.

Such difficult decisions to make but I personally have great faith that the majority are good persons. People have bad days, they say stupid things but things always work themselves out in the end.

Path

85

Would You Like to Work For silentlambs?

by silentlambs in

jw
friends

help needed for the silentlambs organization

due to the increasing workload associated with silentlambs i am requesting assistance to help with certain aspects of the organization.

i have created the following positions which will include the listed duties.

Pathofthorns

I think this move to share the workload is a step in the right direction but a direction that has to be cautiously taken due to this community's sensitivities about "organization". There is no way Bill can continue at this pace without burning out. And likely there are some who would excel in certain areas due to their expertise in their fields.

I think the most successful move would be to place a well-spoken female in a position to address the media. Perhaps even an abuse survivor who is strong enough to speak publicly about an issue that hits so close to home, but calm and rational in the most tough situations. Emphasis needs to be taken off of Bill Bowen and fixed solely on the victims and this is an ideal way imo.

I see "organization" in Bill's post as simply a necessary evil to operate a basic charitable organization. Perhaps Bill could explain some things in more detail so that people are even more clear as to the whole intended structure and long term "game" plan so there is no confusion?

Path

PS. Please don't take threads off their intended direction by responding to people that wish to do so. Please exercise some restraint and courtesy and realize you are contributing to a problem by doing so. If you must reply, please start another thread. And consider if replying to statements intended to inflame is really a good use of your time. Don't play these people's games.

75

Selective Banning

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

i hate to see people get banned or silenced - even the people who are causing trouble.

when it comes to regulations, i could almost be described as libertarian.

because of this i would like to make a proposal - instead of leaving the banning power in the hands of a central authority, i propose that banning be placed in the hands of the individual.

Pathofthorns

I liked the thought of your suggestion Elsewhere. While many feel the posts manifesting some concern over moderation and censorship were about the "right" to use profanity on this board, I think those that understand the issue appreciate a broader picture. If it was about profanity Simon could activate filters to take care of that.

If your suggestion was implemented, I think very few people would ban anyone at all. Because of human nature and people's curiosity most want to be able to make that decision for themselves.

I think it is a suggestion that is worth some serious thought if it is technically possible. 5 out of 5 stars for your suggestion.

Path

(Okay, so it won't let me rate this thread, but if I could I'd give it a 5..lol)

Edited by - Pathofthorns on 18 August 2002 22:0:22

87

My Disfellowshipping

by silentlambs in

jw
friends

my disfellowshipping

as with anyone associated with jehovahs witnesses the worst possible news anyone can have is being df.

it means a loss of everyone and everything you have known all your life.

Pathofthorns

That is one hell of an exit. The picture of you speaking to the JW's during the meeting is powerful. It will be interesting to see how the reporter covers the story.

I really enjoyed Joe's letter to the members of the congregation. I am sure the information he dropped in about Chitty and Greenlees will raise a few eyebrows and his non-confrontational and respectful manner will go over much better than had he been otherwise.

I realize you are very angry like all of us over how these people operate and how they treated you and abused children. I would suggest to you though that since you are a spectacle it would be more effective to tone down the angry type of speech with all of the little potshots at the WT that you opened your post with. Such speech plays into the WT's hands whereas a letter like Joe's leaves many JW's perplexed and thinking.

Good luck in your post JW life and thanks for your fearless and tireless efforts.

Path

18

My blood boiled at WT comment read on CNN

by writerpen in

jw
friends

i was going along fine with my glass of ice tea, my cat sitting next to me as bill and the two young ladies were being interviewed.

i even made it okay through the first section of the wt comment that, "we abhor molestation..." but when chung got to the part of their comment that said something to the effect of "we provide counseling and emotional support to victims," i nearly spilled my tea on my cat.

i replayed this segment alot, and noticed that the reaction of bill and the two ladies to that section was that they were just as shocked as i was.

Pathofthorns

I thought the "emotional support and counselling" line was over the top. Giving the victim a few photocopies of WT articles hardly qualifies as such. Any elder will tell you that up until very recently the whole child abuse topic has not even really been discussed aside from protecting themselves legally let alone even a basic education on how to adequately help those in this situation.

No matter how well intentioned elders are, they are in way over their heads when it comes to matters such as this.

Path

15

The "Friends"

by El Kabong in

jw
friends

ok, i've been out of the <ahem> "truth" for some time now.

but, someone asked me a question the other day that i really don't know or remember the answer to.

why do jw's refer to each other as "the friends".

Pathofthorns

"the friends" and "the brethren" always cracks me up. Like expat said, straight out of the 1800's. I can't wait until they get a secret handshake going on...lol

Path

16

Overwhelming WTS Priorities !!! Proof !

by Amazing in

jw
friends

the watchtower society often tells of how important the name "jehovah" is because it is used about 7,000 times in the hebrew scriptures.

there is some credibility to their logic as it suggests where priorities are.

using this approach, let's examine their "priorities" with respect to apostates vs pedophiles:.

Pathofthorns

I would be inclined to believe that any religious organization's priority is not commentary on child abuse hence your comparrison is not really relevant imo.

It should be a given that any organization will do their best to ensure the safety of all who are part of it. Any organization that puts the survival of the organization over the safety and security of the people that make up that organization is slitting it's own throat in today's society.

Had the 61 instances that the words "molester" and "pedophile" been used effectively in truly promoting an atmosphere of safety for children - even at a personal cost to the organization itself - those 61 instances could have been sufficient.

Comparing the occurance of words related to child abuse and words related to apostasy in WT publications is really apples to oranges imo. That would be like saying because an organization like General Motors uses the word "car" more frequently than "molester" in their publications that they don't care at all about child safety.

Path

12

Are you good enoughto attend?

by eyeslice in

jw
friends

are you good enough to attend an international 2003 district conventions?.

other threads have brought up the subject of the planned 2003 district conventions ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=34494&site=3 ), but do you qualify to attend a convention in another land?.

according to the official letter, no one is to make private travel arrangements but must go through the official channels.

Pathofthorns

Do you QUALIFY to spend YOUR OWN MONEY to travel to a foreign country and waste valuable VACATION TIME listening to boring convention talks you've already heard?

Why is it that their "privileges" always have you spending YOUR MONEY and YOUR TIME to do THEIR WORK? And then you have to QUALIFY to be in this group of elite fools and suckers? What a brilliant scam.

Path

19

Two lies more from the Society

by ServetMiguel in

i suggest when the society quotes somebody, we should confirm that they are usin the quotation in its context because the society is a master in deceiving and taking out of context everything.

here you are another three lies more.

watchtower 15/5/1983 page 6.

Pathofthorns

Would it be possible for you to post a scan of this letter?
Thanks,

Path