While you're making notes, please make a note of this: I just quoted what you said to me in the original thread, that our advice was analagous to the 'turds you flushed down the toilet'? Now tell me. How can I be 'personally attacking' you when all I was doing was quoting you? Look at that a little more deeper before you go the 'ad hominem' route. When these 'allegations' were first made, you told us all that they were worthles as your turds were. OK. Your opinion, great to know. A bit childish and silly, but I got your point. Point: You thought our opinion that AAWA being in violation of the law for having a president using an alias was worthless because none of us were Arizona lawyers. Counterpoint: You said nothing about the tone or the allegations aired online then. You for some reason have come out of nowhere to complain about that now. What started off as 'turds' becomes now a pious lecture in what is your ex-JW ideal of togetherness and politeness. You also keep pushing the fact that because I was not personally affronted in the AAWA debacle, I should therefore not have any right to voice my concerns. Is this the kind of psuedo-logic you care to employ against me? You have no right to take these rights away from me here. You are nothing on this board. I take it you think it was impolite. OK, maybe, probably. In case you didn't notice, a lot of things were impolite about that period, and especially any and everything eminating from Cedars. Cedars destroyed himself. I did not have to 'bring him down'. To be blunt here, your opinion doesn't mean [poop] to me either. You speak about much of what you do not know and your posts are quite pedestrian in nature. If that's a personal attack then so be it. You keep droning on about my 'conduct', I should at least have the right to respond to your lame contemplations.
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
JoinedPosts by Las Malvinas son Argentinas
-
178
Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'
by Simon init 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?.
-
-
-
178
Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'
by Simon init 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?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Well, as I remember it, at the time you chose to use language that you always are fond of using when you don't agree with something. By that I mean you like to call things 'poop', 'diarrhea', 'turds', 'toilet', et al. You said something to the effect of that the advice we were giving was worth about as much as the 'turds' you flushed down the toilet. Advice which turned out to not be as 'poopy' as you originally thought. As for the issue you seem to take issue with now (which you initially only referred to as turds), you are suggesting that we 'draw a line' as to making accusations of criminal conduct online. To borrow from your very own poop library, bullshit! I came on JWN for the freedom to express myself. What AAWA was doing with regards to the president was WRONG, and many here were RIGHT in taking issue with it here. As I said before, the PM route didn't work with these people and inevitably this subject was bound to come up. I live my life to a certain moral principle, and being in the profession that I am in, such a stupid thing as using an alias on incorporation documents was something that needed to be hashed out. I don't desire or need you to set imaginary boundaries for me. It's not your place, and really isn't worth the turd that I am about to flush down my toilet right now.
-
178
Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'
by Simon init 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?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
So what you are suggesting is a 'shoot the messenger' mentality. Got it. For the record, it was actually fizzywiglet who first brought up the matter of the false incorporation documents and had the foresight to contact the ACC and ask direct questions, and even more importantly, to get direct answers. She shared what she found on here, and most of my comments were in response to her revelations. I would love to take credit for discovering this info and adding to the discussion here, but I really can't. Here's a little inside information for you: Someone actually did privately contact both cedars and AAWA about this before the firestorm erupted. Their/his response? Much the same as yours - We got this, thank you very much, but you are not an Arizona attorney and we have one who assisted us in the incorporation, he knows what he's doing, you don't, and why don't you focus your energies elsewhere. We're on the same team remember? So the conversation continued in open forum. I participated in it - yes. On a personal level, I felt it was an incredibly idiotic thing to do. At the time of incorporation there were 8 members of the Board of Directors. 7 out of those 8 all used their real names and could be 'identifiable'. One didn't and you know who that one was. So when it came time to choose a president to present the legal face of this organisation, who was appointed? The ONE and ONLY person out of 8 who was not qualified legally to take upon that duty. Hindsight is 20/20, and surprise surprise, the peanut throwers had a point and AAWA (eventually) acknowledged it. I might as well have called the cops? That is a risible statement. Here again you are equating postings on an internet forum as analogous to calling the cops. Wasn't even close. If I am with a friend at a store and I notice her stuffing things down her shirt, I am going to call her out on it and have no part in it. If she gets away with it, I'm not going to run back into the store and report it. The same goes for Cedars/AAWA. I whined about it here. My right. But I didn't 'call the cops and to suggest that I might as well should have is really stretching it. The allegations are only as good as the veracity of the facts. You see people accuse the Obama all the time of crimes online. If they are true, then the Obama only has himself to blame. If they are false, consider Obama vindicated. Mine and others' allegations turned out to be correct. That's all that needs to be said.
-
178
Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'
by Simon init 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?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
To try and throw cedars to the 'criminal authorities' would have required much more than a few anonymous postings on an ex-JW discussion forum. All I did was post about it. However, the ACC did in fact invite the other poster to file a complaint. I did not file a complaint. AAWA eventually followed the advice offered, so I view that as a validation of what was said, and not a condemnation of it. Things were getting a bit tense in forum as they always do, but no one called the cops on this one. Try again.
-
178
Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'
by Simon init 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?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
I beg to differ. I played a part in helping AAWA clear up what could have been a huge problem for them later on down the line. A fact which they corrected later publicly. You don't think the WT lawyers would have went after 'John Cedars' and quickly realised that this was not a real person? Let's be glad that problem was solved before some real damage could have occurred. I never claimed to be an expert in Arizona law (I guess by that you mean an attorney licensed in the state of Arizona), but what I was pointing out was an email from the ACC which stated that it was a Class 6 felony to do so. The ACC doesn't give out legal advice, but they do know a thing or two about Arizona corporate law since they are the governmental entity relating to it. This point is moot since we have an admission by AAWA that they did need to have real people on the documents.
-
178
Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'
by Simon init 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?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Well don't take my word for it, take AAWA's then:
http://aawa.co/blog/aawa-the-next-six-months/
AAWA recently reorganized its corporate structure. By law, we must have identifiable corporate officers, and we do. Mickey Hudson, Lee Marsh and Richard Kelly make up our current Board of Directors.
By law, they needed identifiable corporate officers. Thus if you are not 'identifiable' (i.e. using your real name and address) then you are not abiding by the law. People other than me pointed it out to him, but we were all told to shut up and be quiet about it. Just because he's doing something against the WT means that we should not point out when he could be in trouble? It was against the law. And it was completely uneccessary. There were many others who could have been president, even in name only. You are really suggesting to just pipe down about it because it had no direct effect on me? So if I see a crime being committed on the street, as long as I am not involved, I should just mind my own business? Another poster took it upon herself to contact the ACC and they informed her it was a Class 6 felony to use an alias on incorporation documents. What is alleged about the misrepresentations? AAWA itself has acknowledged this. This was discussed weeks ago, you really need to catch up on things.
-
6
China and Nicaragua Will Build a New Cross-Isthmus Canal
by fulltimestudent inthe nicaragua route was under consideration from early in the nineteenth century.. and in 1985, the minneapolis tribune published this cartoon advocating that the us.
government build a canal in nicaragua.. .
so now, it seems it will be built, and will accommodate the largest ships.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
They've been talking about that canal for a long time. Just not sure if it's the right call. Sounds like they just want to tweak the Americans more than anything. They don't even run or own the Panama Canal anymore - Panama does. Take the existing and shorter canal and make it better, rather than cut through remote jungle and disturb an otherwise pristine environment.
-
178
Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'
by Simon init 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?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
mind blown: That's not a link, it's just a screenshot. Look up his Facebook page and scroll down to that link he posted and then read the comments. A friend of mine saw that he singled out myself, Simon, Band On The Run, and James Woods (an odd combination, but whatever) as 'anti-activists' and since I was mentioned, I thought I would go have a look-see. Well, Captain Crunch didn't take too well to my last post as he so often does and has responded to me in the same comment thread accusing me in not so many words of stalking him. I just have a habit of wanting to read something whenever my name is brought up and especially when I am labelled.
As to that label... anti-activist. I do not consider myself one of those, but rather one who recognises the relative futility of the task at hand, not that many people have so openly declared that they are 'bringing down the WT', but rather that those who feel that sending the GB letters or making offers to meet them in an attempt for reform is not a realistic method. Videos and blogs are great and are certainly entertaining, but I question the effectiveness of these methods. There might be a JW or two that are convinced, but that medium was not the cause or effect of the JW leaving. They already had it within themself and took it upon themself to search for the truth. Personally I think talking to people who have been in the same circumstances such as the many here on JWN has a greater affect. People coming out do not want to be overloaded with information when they likely have already come to the same conclusions. A PM from someone that says 'hey, want to talk? Sounds like we have some stories to share. Here's my number...' and 'you live close to me. Let's meet up for some coffee' might be more what the doctor ordered for people coming out of such a traumatic experience. I advocate an approach on a more personal level. Yet, these are just my opinions and others might desire a more 'activist' stance. That's all fine. But it appears that some on the activist side are more prone to calling others WT apologists when they express a different opinion. I make no apologies for WT and have indeed posted likewise and through PM.
-
178
Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'
by Simon init 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?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Looks like there is another party just desperate to add to the thread here, but for now he's enjoying the bravery of being out of range. Read on, the comments are entertaining, especially when he starts using his depleted old WT apologist barbs. Even his own 'crew' needed to set him straight after he lit into one of his own FB friends.
-
7
What is this "don't take it personally comment all about ? "
by caliber indo you think when someone takes things personally in a way they are "selfcentered" because "its all about them" .... or does it mean maybe that the person is just very caring and sensitive?.
"(a phrase people use as a disclaimer to make an excuse to say or do something rude or mean to you to prevent you from having a poor self-image or so there won't be repercussions").
when a person says not to take it personally, don't they mean it may be upset them ... just like they are requesting you not to be upset ?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Kind of like the 'all due respect' qualification. It means that either a subtle insult or pointed criticism is on its way. But whatever you do, do not take any offence! It's meant in with 'all due respect', which in reality means that there is very little of it coming.
