JT, thanks for the clarification. Presumably you were referring to experience as a clerk? Not that it matters: others who work in the legal field have confirmed your words, and of course, it rings true with commonly-known principles of law.
Slimboyfat, Cedar's claim of being misquoted is easily disproven by looking at his words in their original context (Cedars post #4557, on page 7). It takes some pretty HEFTY balls to deny saying something, when the evidence lies just a mouse-click away.
So once AGAIN, in full-context (and why I used ellipses in my original excerpt):
I bring up this article because it seems a small number on this forum believe that if I can't get all my facts straight FIRST TIME I should write absolutely nothing. Well, if the New Statesman magazine can write false information without even amending errors when these are brought to their attention, why can't I write on important issues that few journalists can be bothered to cover with the proviso that I will gladly fix any wrong information that is mistakenly included in my articles?
Cedar's message is clear: "everyone else does it, so why can't I?"
Cedars, the ANSWER is still the same: lying is unethical. Misleading others is unethical. As Moms everywhere would say to you, "if everyone is jumping off the bridge, do you do it, too?"
On this:
But he should also know that, despite suffering from depression, I can give as good as I get. If he wants to throw punches, he should be prepared to receive a few "home truths" in return, most notably the fact that he's a hypocrite for labelling faders as cowards for maintaining anonymity when he's apparently in a position to come clean as to HIS real identity but refuses to.
"Come clean" of what exactly? Were you going somewhere with that thought?
You think everyone on an internet forum who uses a pseudonym is hypocritical for not divulging THEIR actual IDs, like that's required for participation? REALLY? As if there's not MANY GOOD REASONS one might have to maintain anonymity (privacy rights of family members, ID theft risk, etc)?
Slimboyfat, on the poverty issue you asked about, the WTBTS NEVER "pled poverty" or anything like it (destitution, etc): that's pure baloney introduced by Cedars.
From his article:
Now the Society appears to be pleading poverty, implying that it cannot afford to produce the required $17.3 million dollars by way of surety without using property instead of cash.
AND:
Many have argued that the Society can easily afford the awarded damages and may well be bluffing in order to maneuver the situation in their favor. Indeed, there is nothing unusual in offering property assets in lieu of cash payments if it is possible to do so. However, it seems strange that, with so much pride at stake and the world looking on, the Society would effectively plead poverty unless their circumstances were indeed dire.
Contrary to the above, the legal documents he presents indicate THEY'VE CLAIMED THE EXACT OPPOSITE, saying they have "more than adequate assets" to cover NOT just the bond payment itself, but to satisfy the judgment in full. Even though he edited (by adding weasel words), it's still a lie.
Instead, the "immediate irreparable harm and hardship" they used is a term of legal art which conveys a sense of urgency to the Court in order to justify an expedited ruling in order to avoid some loss (and while $86k may be chump-change to Cedars or I, it's an amount most would rather not lose, when there's another free, lower-risk approach that can be utilized).
Using the phrase is simply a risk-mitigating, cost-containing strategy. It's not "reckless", as he mischaracterizes: in fact, it's the EXACT OPPOSITE, since NOT using the strategy on behalf of the Society WOULD be RECKLESS, possibly representing a breach of the counsel's fiduciary duty to their client and protect their interests, by needlessly squandering the client's funds.
Now some could care less about common-sense, and would dismiss that as an overly-legalistic concern; nothing blocks a good bit of wishful thinking like boring ol' facts and common-sense.
Oh, Cedars, nice touch with the so-called "Katherine and Candice Conti" letter, with the "it has come to my attention" bit. Assuming it IS from Conti (doubt it), did you actually dash off an e-mail, asking her permission for you to tell us all lies, crying about a meanie on JWN who efuses to swallow your spoonful of lies?
See, the problem is that you ARE known to exaggerate a bit, so it's not a stretch to wonder that you'd not just make that one up, too?
Think about it: do you believe the Contis want the Society to face financial hardship BEFORE they get their $$$? Granted, while they have PLENTY of good reason to be angry with the WT, I can think of 11-million reasons they DON'T want the WT to be unable to pay up, or don't want to be handed the keys to Patterson instead of cash (as suggested earlier).
See, that's the problem when you lose credibility: no one can trust ANYTHING you say, or they feel they need to question and verify.
PS: oh, if the Conti letter IS legit (seriously doubt it), sorry, but they and/or their lawyer cannot dictate reality to all of us, and they cannot give YOU permission to lie. Sorry, but no one can do that (outside of a KH, that is).
PS, let's settle this one, while we're clearing up things.
Cedars said:
No person who comes on here using "insulting, threatening or provoking language" per guideline 1 has a place here. My own view is that King Solomon has crossed that line many times with me and perhaps others, but it has slipped beneath the radar.
Tell ya' what, then:
I've stood by and ignored your accusations for quite sometime now, overlooking when you lied and claimed "I threatened you", and that I am "bullying" you, etc., but enough is enough. It's time for YOU to put up or shut up, as I'm calling your bluff:
Produce the evidence where I threatened you, as that would be a violation of Forum Rule #1.
If TRUE, the violation should be reported to Simon and the mods for their attention and handling. I obviously would have to accept whatever punishment they mete out.
If a LIE, then YOU would be breaking Rule #1 by making false unfounded accusations, using "insulting or provoking" language.
The allegations you continue to spew (as if they're candies from a Pex dispenser) are very serious.
So here's the thing: I KNOW full well that I've NEVER threatened you or anyone else because, well, if nothing else, it's pretty childish behavior
(Oh, I MAY have threatened to cut babies like Finkelstein in half, as King Solomon.... Of course, Shamus has threatened AND actually ripped a few faces off, but we all know it's for fun). There's no point to threaten anyone, esp people you don't even know!! Threaten you with WHAT?
You continue to make the claim of being a victim of bullying at the hands of my keyboard, so it's time to put up or shut up. SHOW US THE MONEY! Where's the beef, the proof of these threats?
Show ALL OF US the proof of my threatening you, and I'll humbly and sincerely apologize. But if you CANNOT show proof, you owe ME an apology. But more than that, you really owe everyone an apology for LYING to them: that's the bigger deal, IMO.
So how about it: sounds like a deal?
OR ?
