truth_hurts

Joined

• started 3 topics
• posted 11 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by truth_hurts

• 
  4

  Why theres not a Women's Forum at WOL

  by truth_hurts in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from: silverfox.

  date: wed jun 21, 2000 5:41am.

  subject: fw: kitty + women's forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  truth_hurts

  I find them interesting, so I figure at least some of the readers here must find them interesting too. Particularly those which were lurkers or active participants at Witnesses.net / Witnessesonline.com / GreatCrowd.com over the last few years. They expose some of the secret going-ons of the WOL crew and the way that they think about their site, themselves, and their members.

  There's lots more good stuff. I just want to keep them somewhat organized and in historical order. Don't you find the messages interesting? Should I stop?
• 
  33

  Big Ray on Disfellowshipped Members

  by truth_hurts in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from: big ray.

  date: mon apr 17, 2000 8:44am.

  subject: re: inactive publishers who post.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  truth_hurts

  More on hockeyman ... was he disfellowshipped or not?

  From: Timothy Sampson
  Date: Tue Jun 27, 2000 10:38am
  Subject: Re: Regarding Hockeyman....

  I agree that posting privs should be yanked.
  
  Since this is not a congregation arrangement, I'm not sure that we can actually make an announcement that he has been disfellowshipped without causing some problems.
  
  My suggestion is to either give him the chance to post that he has been disfellowshipped and will not be participating on the DB anymore or to get written permission from him to make such an announcement. In either case, the thread would be locked after that one posting....that is fair notice.
  
  Tim
• 
  4

  Why theres not a Women's Forum at WOL

  by truth_hurts in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from: silverfox.

  date: wed jun 21, 2000 5:41am.

  subject: fw: kitty + women's forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  truth_hurts

  From: Silverfox
  Date: Wed Jun 21, 2000 5:41am
  Subject: FW: Kitty + Women's Forum

  First - re. the latter, you have already received my thoughts about the women forum. Based on Theocratic principles & possibility of lack of proper oversight by qualified brothers I do not believe that would be the way to go. The only split in the Kg. hall for private matters are 2 doors - Men - Women; Boys - Girls; Brothers - Sisters. Whatever. Other matters for public verification are not held in private rooms.

  From: Timothy Sampson
  Date: Wed Jun 21, 2000 5:46am
  Subject: Re: A "Women's Forum" Your thoughts?

  My thoughts?
  
  I don't think it's worth the trouble at this point. Based on Gabe's and Jazzy's suggestions a lot of work will go into that kind of forum. At the same time some of our other forums with what I think are vital topics continue without a mod and others have the same mod/admin overseeing several.
  
  I suggest that we concentrate on bringing the number of mods up as well as the number of members and put suggestions for new forums in an archive somewhere so when the time comes that we are sufficently staffed we can start to consider such.
  
  Tim

  From: Mark Fabian

  Date: Wed Jun 21, 2000 7:32am
  Subject: Re: A "Women's Forum" Your thoughts?

  Tim et al,
  
  I have to agree with Tim and Gert. I don't think a women's forum at the present time is a good suggestion. I would really hate to see the sisters or brothers think that we are placing them apart. I understand that there may be certain topics that sisters would like to talk together about, just as there are some topics that brothers like to talk about. I know, when I want to discuss something that I wouldn't feel comfortable telling in front of a sister, I'll speak in private with a good friend. I like to do this in person. Not on a keyboard. If someone wants to discuss a subject, privately, on a keyboard, I think that e-mail, or even an e-mail list like "Wola" would be better.
  
  Mark

  From: CeeStyle
  Date: Wed Jun 21, 2000 4:03am
  Subject: Re: A "Women's Forum" Your thoughts?

  In a message dated 6/21/2000 7:33:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
  mefabian@N... writes:

  << I think that e-mail, or even an e-mail list like "Wola" would be better. >>

  Excellent idea Mark. When I first saw the idea for a woman's forum, I
  thought it was great. But, after weighing all the pro's and con's, I feel it would be best if we didn't go through with it. Soon the men would want their own forum and really, as many have said, we aren't staffed for it.

  It would be great to get the suggestion of an email group to Siofra. Maybe even tell her how to set one up, or getting a sensible, mature sister with experience (like Jazzy ... she'll kill me for that suggestion) to bein charge of the group. With an email group, we won't have to worry about offending any guys with "icky" topics. :)

  Cee
• 
  33

  Big Ray on Disfellowshipped Members

  by truth_hurts in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from: big ray.

  date: mon apr 17, 2000 8:44am.

  subject: re: inactive publishers who post.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  truth_hurts

  I was in, but I am now out.
• 
  33

  Big Ray on Disfellowshipped Members

  by truth_hurts in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from: big ray.

  date: mon apr 17, 2000 8:44am.

  subject: re: inactive publishers who post.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  truth_hurts

  From: Mark <mefabian@N...>
  Date: Mon May 29, 2000 5:39am
  Subject: Re: Qualification of posters - again

  I was thinking, (which is a dangerous thing) If we are to consider Hockeyman "Marked", shouldn't a thread be started to indicate proper decorum on the subject? In the congregation, when someone is disciplined, a talk is given at the KH during the Service Meeting to indicate inappropriate behavior. It is then left to the congregation to decide how to act. Without naming names, should not a "Netiquette" reminder be posted? This, of course, should be by the "Netiquette" specialist (in my opinion) Gert. (He is so handy with words.)
  
  Then, should it be deemed appropriate, Hockeyman could be placed on probation.
  
  Only the Admin and Hockeyman would know what is going on. And he would have the reminder in a public forum. Should he disregard the counsel, he would be removed from the DB. Then he would be "disfellowshipped" from WOL.
  
  Any comments? Gert?

  Mark :)
• 
  12

  i'm here, let's have some fun

  by truth_hurts in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi people,.

  i am a new participant on this board but have been following jw websites for a long time.

  a friend has recently supplied me with a bunch of documents that show the way that our "friends" over at witnessesonline.com really feel about their participants, and particularly some of you that now are participants here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  truth_hurts

  am I saying that private forums should not exist? no. but you can't pretend to be something in public and be another way in private, unless you want to be exposed someday.
• 
  12

  i'm here, let's have some fun

  by truth_hurts in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi people,.

  i am a new participant on this board but have been following jw websites for a long time.

  a friend has recently supplied me with a bunch of documents that show the way that our "friends" over at witnessesonline.com really feel about their participants, and particularly some of you that now are participants here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  truth_hurts

  Amicus: do unto others does not apply here. the docs in question were originally private but have been disseminated on the net. they provide an incredible insight into the minds of the administrators of the only credible JW web sites remaining. some of the emails, as you will see betray those administrators as arrogant, hypocritical and downright plain nasty. they are getting their comeuppance or will get it in the near future.

  permission was secured from this website's owner prior to making the documents available here. whoever said to be careful what you say on the Internet is right. you never know who is going to read your email or supposedly private forums and when your words will come back to haunt you!!!

  ciao,
  truth_hurts
• 
  33

  Big Ray on Disfellowshipped Members

  by truth_hurts in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from: big ray.

  date: mon apr 17, 2000 8:44am.

  subject: re: inactive publishers who post.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  truth_hurts

  From: Big Ray
  Date: Mon Apr 17, 2000 8:44am
  Subject: Re: inactive publishers who post

  I would say that it is not for us to conduct a witch hunt for individuals who are inactive or disfellowshipped. There simply is not much of a way to determine that without getting mired in the personal lives of peple who will not welcome that. The point is, are they behaving on the board?
  
  Now...
  If it comes to light that a disfellowshipped person is associating with us, we then investigate to authenticate, and then inform the poster by email that their posting priviledges will be revoked and a brief announcement on WOL will be made that this individual has been disfellowshipped, and in accord with Bible principles, we uphold the disciplining technique of avoiding contact with this person. That's the part that we have in upholding that principle.
  
  As far as an inactive one is concerned, they aren't disfellowshipped, so we should not treat them as such. We encourage them to get as much help as possible, or if we have time, we encourage them as much as we can. As long as they behave in posting, there isn't much hard administration that we could do without having to go ona witch hunt for all manner of inactive ones and to tell the truth, there may be quite a few. Some are using the Internet to find their way back to strength while others are using it to help with their circumstances in that if they see others with similar problems who have conquered them because they really uphold the field ministry, the meetings and it's preparation, prayer, and association with the friends at the Kingdom Halls... then they will be influenced for the better. We have all seen the praise for Gert's efforts with the Daily Text... people need us, and even the inactive ones need us.
  
  So, the principle should be, as long as we don't know their circumstances, we assume that they are in good standing.

  Jehovah will reveal to us the troublemakers and unsavories... and disfellowshipped ones are included. Once identified, we take action.
  
  On that note, I do have to inform you that it is official that the poster Irene Beni( [email protected]) from Wit.net, a sister from Hutchinson, Ks, is now disfellowshipped. So look out for a female by the name of Irene, although I don't think she is hanging with us anymore. There is however, a brother in the Filipino forum that goes by the name of Irene... so don't be too quick to shoot him.
  
  That is all for now...if you have any further comments, let me know....
• 
  12

  i'm here, let's have some fun

  by truth_hurts in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi people,.

  i am a new participant on this board but have been following jw websites for a long time.

  a friend has recently supplied me with a bunch of documents that show the way that our "friends" over at witnessesonline.com really feel about their participants, and particularly some of you that now are participants here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  truth_hurts

  From: Mark Fabian
  Date: Sat Apr 15, 2000 1:02am
  Subject: Re: In response...

  Greetings everyone,

  In response to the question why I posted the announcement as I did, publicly, I do not want us to seem like we are browbeating WN. Privately is another story :) (j/k)

  Actually, I saw that continued questions would be raised so I pointed the poster to Ray's answer. Then, in a show of cooperation with others on the Internet, I mentioned that the person should check back on his own. It may have been a little too much of a push, but since I'd seen the message from Bobcarl, I've been wanting to be delicate with the subject. I agree with Ray that we shouldn't post public announcements unless it would lead to confusion or unnecessary speculation (for example, "I heard that WOL was buying WN. Is this true?) In these cases we would HAVE to answer.

  So, Ray, if you got your ass chewed out for your comment, I don't want to see what will be said about mine!

  In any case, I'll try to be more cryptic and discreet.

  Mark :)
• 
  12

  i'm here, let's have some fun

  by truth_hurts in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi people,.

  i am a new participant on this board but have been following jw websites for a long time.

  a friend has recently supplied me with a bunch of documents that show the way that our "friends" over at witnessesonline.com really feel about their participants, and particularly some of you that now are participants here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  truth_hurts

  From: Gabriel Nobles
  Date: Mon Apr 10, 2000 5:38pm
  Subject: members there, mods here, and the future

  "The FD&S, in the last 100 yrs or so, have written reams and reams of
  magazines and books on virtually every concievable topic, and have, for that
  matter, rewritten and readjusted and refined our understanding on most
  topics of any importance in just the last 5 yrs. Yet, still, no specific
  prohibition on kissing."

  The above was just written by an Adminstrator [at] WitNet.

  It is a typical expression of the current administration of witnet, that
  reveals a borderline attitude of criticizm toward Jehovah's visible
  organization. Those who had proven themselves to liberal thinkers in a
  broad range of thinking, were quickly brought in as Admins. I left because
  of the attitudes of the owner of that site. He has only strengthened his
  ability to express reformist opinions by surrounding himself with others who
  think much the same way.

  But there is this sad truth to remember. Of the few hundred that ever post
  on WitNet anymore, and of the few dozen that are active daily posters, most
  are not aware of the outragious thing that Obed has said and done. They
  don't know. They are innocent of it.
  It will take time... and a shrewd eye for such members to wake up to the
  nature of the heart of witnet. Many people don't keep that close of an
  eye on the pulse of a web site like these.

  I have been strongly encouraged to NOT draft a letter to everyone under the
  sun, with direct quotes in public statements by Obed, that reveal him to be
  a reformist who in all probability, doesn't REALLY KNOW WHAT HE HIMSELF
  BELIEVES. Of late, he has revealed that he is simply a proud and confused
  man, who apologizes for the wrong things, and promotes contraversey to the
  limit of tolerance as HE determines the limit.

  I'm rambling about a negative past. I apologize.
  Regardless, there are many who have no knowledge of the deeper layers of
  WitNet policy and permissiveness.

  There is one other point I would like to make thought. We cannot ignore or
  cover up why we left WitNet. We have nothing be ashamed of.
  There is a distinct difference between slander, and the truth that defends
  one's stand. None of us need to let the cries of "Foul!" by those who are
  loyal to Obed, motivate us to hush hush. I'm just saying.. we shouldn't
  drag up the past.. but we also shouldn't keep it a secret.

  I'm all for welcoming members of other sites who aren't trolls in other
  places. But as Ray said, no one who moderates elsewhere should be allowed
  to moderate here. "conflict of interest"

  So far, thanks to everyone's efforts.. Creator, Admins, Mods, and posters..
  we are creating a Fantastic place! ~big smile~

  But, our tests and trials are coming.

  Nuthin we can't handle!

  Gabe Nobles