Posts by troubled

Are these legitimate studies? I didn't see any references. If they are legitimate, I'd like to know specifically where the information can be found.
Thanks

22

Survey: How many want me to keep posting?

by troubled in

jw
friends

since hawkaw and messenger (and others?

) have suspicions about me being some kind of informant or troll, i would like to know how the rest of you feel about my posts?.

if it were up to you, would you want me to continue posting or not?

Active JW's Who Question The UN/WTBTS...

by zev in

jw
friends

one question.

have any of you who have written to the borganization, about the un/wtbts relationship, heard any replys?

i know many of you have.. i'm not looking for details, though you can include them as you see fit.. a yes or no will do for now.. thanks so much.. .

troubled

Hawkaw,

That was a nice response from you. Thanks for caring about my husband. And some of those references you mentioned, I have not read yet. So I will.

81

Education Survey

by larc in

jw
friends

education was strongly discouraged among the witnesses.

i am curious as to how many of you went on for further education and in what fields.

i will go ahead and list the ones i already know.. larc - advanced degrees in organizational psychology.

troubled

Larc,

I put off college right after graduation, partly because I married right out of high school and went to work full-time, but also because the Society discouraged it.

Then, about 3 years ago, I started back. I almost have my AA degree and want to go on to a 4-year college and double major in English/Psychology.

Looking back, I realize I could have gone to college years ago. It really was a conscience matter. But at the time, I felt I was doing the right thing by being obedient.

22

Survey: How many want me to keep posting?

by troubled in

jw
friends

since hawkaw and messenger (and others?

) have suspicions about me being some kind of informant or troll, i would like to know how the rest of you feel about my posts?.

if it were up to you, would you want me to continue posting or not?

troubled

Since Hawkaw and Messenger (and others?) have suspicions about me being some kind of informant or troll, I would like to know how the rest of you feel about my posts?

If it were up to you, would you want me to continue posting or not? Please be honest. I will not be offended.

52

Active JW's Who Question The UN/WTBTS...

by zev in

jw
friends

one question.

have any of you who have written to the borganization, about the un/wtbts relationship, heard any replys?

i know many of you have.. i'm not looking for details, though you can include them as you see fit.. a yes or no will do for now.. thanks so much.. .

Active JW's Who Question The UN/WTBTS...

by zev in

jw
friends

one question.

have any of you who have written to the borganization, about the un/wtbts relationship, heard any replys?

i know many of you have.. i'm not looking for details, though you can include them as you see fit.. a yes or no will do for now.. thanks so much.. .

troubled

Hawkaw,

I don't know what to say. At least twice, I wanted to leave this site because I felt like people were being mean, but then came back because I knew there was some truthful info here.

I know you think I'm defending everything the Society has done. That's not true. I just don't want to condemn them if there's a chance I don't know the whole story. I mean, it's my whole faith and life we're talking about here.

As for my husband, maybe it's true what you said. That telling him later won't be any easier than telling him now. But I at least want to have the full picture before I do.

I understand that I'm coming across to you as inconsistent and wishy-washy. If you can be patient with me, I will try to be with you.

52

Active JW's Who Question The UN/WTBTS...

by zev in

jw
friends

one question.

have any of you who have written to the borganization, about the un/wtbts relationship, heard any replys?

i know many of you have.. i'm not looking for details, though you can include them as you see fit.. a yes or no will do for now.. thanks so much.. .

troubled

To hawkaw,

You said:
"I just don't buy you anymore"

That's entirely up to you. You are not the ultimate judge of my character, so it matters little what you think of me.

You said:
"Weren't you the one whining that this UN thing wasn't a big deal?"

Whining? No, my computer doesn't have voice capability.

As to whether or not it is a big deal, maybe it is. It's big enough that I'm looking into it and posting about it. It's big enough that I'm talking to a friend at the Hall about it. But is it big enough to leave the organization over? I'm not convinced of that. And I am not convinced I have the whole picture yet, particularly the Society's explanation for their actions. All I've seen so far is one letter from Britain.

You said:
"Then when people set the record straight we didn't hear boo from you"

What? You mean you're responding to a ghost message?

Also, you may feel the information provided "sets the matter straight." But as I said above, weighing BOTH sides means getting ALL the information possible, not just from the UN or this board, but from the Watchtower Society. Like the Scripture says, "If one is replying to a matter before he has heard it, it is foolishness and a humiliation on his part."

You said:
"Weren't you the one whining about the fact that some people didn't have any proof showing the criteria in 1992 was the same as today? Even though I told you that you could easily confirm the "supporting the UN charter criteria" was the same since 1968 by contacting the UN's DPI. Then I and others, clearly and using the UN's own writen information (such as the Hoeffel letter, 4 press releases (2000, 1999, Aug 1992 & Feb. 1992), 2 1968 ECOSOC Resolutions, the 1996 updated ECOSOC resolutions, the DPI 1999-2000 Directory of NGOs) provided the proof you desired."

Hawkaw, I haven't disregarded these links or the info contained in them. I've seen enough information to be concerned. Otherwise, I wouldn't even be here discussing it, would I?

You said:
"I haven't heard boo from you since then. Not a peep."

If that were true, we wouldn't be posting right now. But even if it were true, it's my choice whether I want to communicate with you or not. I don't have to answer to you. Neither do I have a quota of posts to fulfill.

You said:
"Didn't you explain you have a husband who is in this Borg."

Yes

You said:
"I have already read one article on this board about a couple getting marked over asking questions on the UN thing. Are you telling me that it is different in your congregation in so far that you can ask the CO (and yet you won't discuss it with hubby)?"

No, it's probably not different in my congregation. If I decide to approach the elders or the CO about it, I very well may be marked. That's a chance I'll take if I decide it's necessary.

You said:
"If you write to the Society about this isn't your hubby going to find out?"

Absolutely. If I write to the Society, I will give a letter to every elder and MS in the Hall. And of course, my husband will be the first to know. But until I have enough information to feel sure I have the whole picture, I'm not jumping the gun.

You said:
"Why are you talking to a sister when I haven't heard you talk to your husband about it?"

Tactful version:
My husband struggles with manic depression and has enough problems to worry about without me dumping more on him at this point in time.

Blunt version:
Who I choose to discuss the UN/NGO issue with is none of your business.

You said:
"Your whole reasoning is out to lunch."

As is your whole method of "tactful persuasion."

You said:
"The WTS has given you countless articles explaining that the beast is evil and where it stands on neutrality. There is one in the Nov. 15/01 WT just before the Religious hypocrisy article. Now you have found out, just like Ray Franz showed you with the Malawi inicident, that there is a clear double standard that hurts people. Whether the leadership did it for access to the UN or for prestige, they let people rot in jail and they prevented people from voting and they disassociated and shunned people who waved the flag. They have also whined about persecution in Malawi and Germany on the neutrality issue these past 10 years but look at their record since 1992. They sold out their doctrine and sacrificed their people all for either prestige or for a measely library card."

The subjects of Malawi, voting, shunning, and neutrality are all worthy of discussion, but THIS thread is about the UN/DPI issue.

You said:
"That is the ultimate in evil. All organizations have problems but this is beyond the minor problems. This is a sell out that kills and hurts people."

Hawkaw, I know this is how you feel. You have a right to think and feel whatever you want to. However, so does everyone else, even when their viewpoint doesn't match yours.

You said:
"What kind of spin are you looking or waiting for unless you are just trolling?"

I'm not waiting for any kind of spin. Just trying to gather all the facts. I've said this time and again. Hawkaw, I try to respond to your posts with tact, but you test my patience. You really do.