some of you may recall the governing body pictures on page 116 of the proclaimers book.
that was back in january, 1992.. they were:.
carey w. barber.
Last I heard:
Carey W. Barber - alive
John E. Barr - alive
W. Lloyd Barry - died
John C. Booth - died
Frederick W. Franz - dead
George D. Gangas - dead
Milton G. Henschel - alive
Theodore Jaracz - alive
Karl F. Klein - dead
Albert D. Schroeder - alive
Lyman A. Swingle - alive
Daniel Sydlik - alive
my most painful confession
note to simon: i will use some expletives, but i hope that they will be retained as this is intended to be an otherwise civil and thoughtful post to all my fellow ex-jws.
please read on, as this is most painful.
Jim,
Please take care of yourself. I hope your health improves. We'd love to hear from you again. It was one of your posts that I first read on this forum, and it was obvious that this entire forum was even more valuable because of your contributions. We'll certainly miss you.
Gilgamesh
bill bowen may be more important than some of us think he is.
there was a post back in july this year that began: wycliffe, tyndale,..........bowen .
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=33120&site=3.
HS,
Sure. Kids are callin right now, but I'll fire off an email so you have my address.
Gilgamesh
bill bowen may be more important than some of us think he is.
there was a post back in july this year that began: wycliffe, tyndale,..........bowen .
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=33120&site=3.
Epic!
Six-of-Nine,
Clever! (same goes for Gauls, too!)
Mitigatingly,
Gilgamesh
bill bowen may be more important than some of us think he is.
there was a post back in july this year that began: wycliffe, tyndale,..........bowen .
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=33120&site=3.
teejay,
Okay.... so now you're starting to scare me...
Would you be interested at all in emailing me (at [email protected]) with some of your findings?
I assume you were referring to Russell/Rutherford findings. My findings have more value to those who are currently JWs, but know my background and therefore know that I found these myself, rather than in an "apostate" book by Ray Franz, Duane Magnani, etc. For the rest of us, everything of importance has been covered elsewhere. There are a few things in my notes which could add only slight value to existing discussions but which, on their own, are trivial. (e.g., Russell's final printed opinion on whether there was a zero year. What did Rutherford say had immediately precipitated his understanding that the League of Nations was the beast? That the familiar quote "Therefore, advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom." followed only a few sentences after "Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874?") Most of these ideas have by now been caught and published by others, and others saw their folly long before I did. To me, these findings seem silly outside of the context of a more comprehensive presentation? Cedar Point?
...most hated Kingdom Songs...
Oh and speaking of Kingdom Songs, I even have some notes from some of the old song books BS/JWs used under Russell and Rutherford when we were still singing Adventists songs, back when the writers' and/or composers' names were printed at the top of the page. There are still some legacies of melody, cadence, and lyrics that can be easily traced back to these Adventist origins. I am thinking of producing a multi-volume treatise that shows how we can determine with a mathematical certainty that the JW's are still 26% Adventist. I'm kidding, of course, but this should give you a sense of how important I think it is to continue my Russell/Rutherford studies. (Just in case that was ambiguous, I mean that I don't think it's important at all. I think that doctrinal error must have had almost nothing to do with why I myself left. For me it was a matter of honesty.)
The best thing my Russell studies ever did for me was to help me develop a friendship with Percy Harding, a good friend of mine who was well over 90 when he died. He was disfellowshipped for "apostasy" and my brother's best friend was in his congregation. This friend's wife was an RN and volunteered as his nurse. She the RN was threatened (by Harry Peloyan) with disfellowshipping if she continued to help Percy. I risk shaming her further by telling the story --she is already terribly ashamed of this-- but she was convinced to leave this old man to fend for himself: a man with a great mind and spirit, but who had little physical strength, no money, and, suddenly, no friends.
We visited him weekly during his final years. He had been a colporteur under Russell. He loved the visits. (Visiting also meant some cooking, cleaning, etc.) He enjoyed finally discussing those early years with someone who understood the negative side, too. He understood the perils of organization. He was finding a measure of joy in a newfound freedom of speech despite the cruelty of the JWs -- and specifically the cruelty of the esteemed Harry Peloyan, henchman. He, Percy, actually gave me his entire Wt publications library which seemed to contain at least one of every book and mag as far back as they went. I didn't take it, but it finally ended up in much better hands anyway. (Ray Franz has most, if not all, of them.)
Gilgamesh
Edited by - Gilgamesh on 24 December 2002 14:53:39
bill bowen may be more important than some of us think he is.
there was a post back in july this year that began: wycliffe, tyndale,..........bowen .
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=33120&site=3.
Cassiline,
I'm sorry I didn't mean to skip your post.
You state you have two names and give your reasons for wanting to keep your anonymity. IMO you seem to think that your reasoning for doing so should be accepted, while IF messenger and silentlambs are one in the same his/their reasons for doing so seem not to be acceptable.
If Simon says two names are not acceptable, then they just aren't. It's his forum. I am only saying from my own experience why I think some might oppose it. I am saying that I am OK with the policy, but that because my reasons for having done it in the first place may be very similar to others, I don't think everyone will be happy. That's all I wanted to tell Simon. For as long as everyone has been allowed to post openly, under extra names, I think we should all be welcome to speculate for as long as we wish about the actual personalities behind those posts. Also, people should be very aware of the possibility that they may have already been deceived due to such creative ruses people use.
Whether one set of reasons is acceptable or not is not my call. I thought that my reason was acceptable at the time, but had I known about the policy, I would not have done it, nor would I have argued for "acceptable" vs. "unacceptable" reasons. If silentlambs had actually wanted extra id's, I don't care what his reasons were, they would be acceptable to me. Some of my arguments, in fact, were directly related to why I think silentlambs might have benefited from multiple id's. Some posters may use them to avoid trouble, and some may use them to make trouble. Simon apparently thinks that if someone uses them for making trouble then they should be banned. That may be the best call. I hadn't thought of it that way. If someone makes trouble and the id is banned, then other ID's from the same person might still be used for causing trouble and Simon loses control. The IP address gives him some measure of control again, because they can help identify if the same type of trouble is coming from the same IP address. His idea of using the information as part of the information to help stop this type of trouble in advance is proactive and preemptive, and therefore probably a labor-saving idea.
Then you state that you have read 3000 plus posts in a 24-hour period to confirm so before the posts were lost due to forum changes. After which Simon states that this loss of posts if indeed it does happen will be temporary.
Last night I saw that Simon had explained the "code" something I had forgotten to check previously even though it might have been helpful. I wanted to see just how much meaning I could glean from them in a couple hours. But I made a decision to post about my specific interest in the subject only after hearing about the potential loss of posts and concern about those with two id's. (Also, I hate to go look up a post and find that it has been deleted, or modified beyond recognition.)
You go on to suggest you believe that those who do have two accounts (including yourself IMO) should be offered the choice of having them displayed in private.
Yes. I think that Simon will get less negative reaction in general that way. But that's also more work for him. He will get no negative reaction from me no matter which method he chooses.
Did you offer this choice to silentlambs and messenger if they are one in the same? Seems as if double standards are being presented. Pot/kettle/black perhaps?
Perhaps. I am treating it as somewhat of a "post-mortem" on the evidence left by two inactive posters. Silentlambs has made it fairly clear that he does not plan to post here anymore. Messenger stopped posting almost immediately after that announcement. I was in a thread where someone (teejay) asked where messenger went, and where someone else (Mulan) expressed openly the hope that the two id's weren't from the same person. I had no more reason to speculate openly on those questions until last night. As long as it is clear I am just speculating I see potential good coming from trying to discern what we can from the available evidence. In fact, it reminds me of a very satisfying and enjoyable project I once tried at Bethel:
After finally making it through the entire Aid book, I took on the project of reading all the rest of the Society's publications. I figured that after the Aid book, I could take on anything. I moved to a new room only a few feet from the 3rd floor entrance to the Gilead Library and was often up the entire night working on this project. I worked backwards from 1980 and forwards from 1879. By the time I left Bethel, I was up to 1924 and had just finished the 60's. I bring this up because it was impossible not to develop an idea of the personalities that were running the organization(s). It's probably why I see close connections between the way many elders, and now Bill Bowen, apparently believe that businesses and organizations should be run.
People definitely had the right to ask me to get a life while at Bethel. But I knew almost immediately that much of the information I was reading would be of interest to others. Since then, the information I collected on Rutherford and Russell has been very valuable to many other people.
I ask for the obvious double standard IMO, and your claims of newbie status when first posting about this subject in the thread below.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=39735&site=3
If you are asking if I was a "newbie" when I said I was, then the answer is Yes. I didn't create the second ID until a few days later. The post you mention was my first post on this forum, period. (I had also never posted to H2O before.)
Personally, I don't think much about the idea of double-standards for a couple reasons. I don't mind at all if someone wants to find associations between my id's or guess. I know it's unfair to say so because I am not a very interesting person and it could merely waste someone's time. But people have a right to spend time however they want. The other reason I don't think about the double-standard problem is because I don't even mind if someone decides to lie about themselves or their beliefs. It's part of what I come to expect is possible, and therefore something I have to consider about anything I read - and that goes for the NYTimes, a Bible commentary, a press release, anything. Truth be told, even lies tell a lot about people. A lot of excellent discussion was started from devil's advocate style provocations. Besides, I had a lot of fun with the idea that messenger might have a relationship with silentlambs, and for most of that time I didn't think the possibility was very strong. Still I learned a lot about the poster(s). I wouldn't have gone to the trouble if the idea hadn't intrigued me. Messenger came to a thread to start some trouble. I didn't have a problem with that, just as I didn't think s/he should have much of a problem if I answered back. So, I read to see what I might glean about the personality behind the name. In so doing, I found that silentlambs had expressed similar opinions and opined with similar expressions. I hadn't noticed then that they also had probably posted from the same machine. If anyone had wanted to talk about this latter fact, then I was willing to talk about it, ergo, this thread.
Gilgamesh
bill bowen may be more important than some of us think he is.
there was a post back in july this year that began: wycliffe, tyndale,..........bowen .
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=33120&site=3.
Simon,
I realized later it might not be such a good idea, even though I've used the tool to run backup snapshots of several of our corporate sites for the auditors. I see that a lot of people run the utility that comes with IE under Add to Favorites/Make Available Offline/Customize/. This utility can be even worse because it could go several pages deep without slowing down. The utility I have used allows for pauses between page downloads.
Gilgamesh
bill bowen may be more important than some of us think he is.
there was a post back in july this year that began: wycliffe, tyndale,..........bowen .
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=33120&site=3.
Sloan, wednesday, LongHauler,
Thanks for the reminder about getting a life. You are quite right. Don't get the idea it was that much work, however. I am quite lazy when it comes to computers. I started from the football-delayed 60 Minutes and worked through most of Law and Order that finished at 10:00. I kept telling myself that it was mindless work and I would have been up anyway watching TV (and between loads of laundry ). But you are right: 'tisn't the season for this folly.
Also, if Simon is wondering how I could check so many without that much bandwidth last night, I had previously used a utility (Offline Commander Pro) to grab thousands of posts automatically so I could read them on the train going to work. It can grab thousands of pages in a seconds which I can then index and I therefore don't have to hit jwd servers for my boolean searches. Processing the info offline keeps my bandwidth off the live servers. Still, this is probably something Simon wouldn't recommend because one could be tempted to save time by opening too many connections to get the downloads so quickly that it appears to be a Denial of Service. I let mine run slowly, but don't plan on running another download, anyway.
I defend my interest in what's going on with silentlambs and Bill Bowen, however, on separate grounds. I believe it's very important.
Gilgamesh
Edited by - Gilgamesh on 23 December 2002 15:13:57
bill bowen may be more important than some of us think he is.
there was a post back in july this year that began: wycliffe, tyndale,..........bowen .
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=33120&site=3.
Simon,
I'm glad to hear it won't be any old posts, this place is still an excellent reference about recent JW and ex-JW history. I missed H2O and I have barely scratched the surface here.
I wonder how everyone will accept a policy/profile that identifies the duplicates. I ran across quite a few examples where I thought the duplicate name was obvious and perhaps just there to get past a posting limit.
But there were some names where apparently, a person wished to keep a specific focus and reputation attached to a certain name, and it might have caused problems if he had been forced to use that same name to make posts on unrelated issues. Certain names may have already built up a certain useful reputation. If that type of name now was being used to ask serious questions, engage in certain controversies, or to express doubts about God and the Bible it might have unnecessarily offended some of the people who had come to respect what the first name.
I don't know if this problem is serious to anyone, but I suspected it might be a problem for at least one person. Also for myself, it's quite OK with me to combine and show both names. But one needed more anonymity because I try to help both JWs and exJWs without letting those goals interfere with each other. Also, I speak of my children and offer many more items of information that would identify me with one name vs. the other.
Some might be offered the choice privately if they want to discontinue one of their id's rather than have them both displayed.
Gilgamesh
Edited by - Gilgamesh on 23 December 2002 13:17:42
bill bowen may be more important than some of us think he is.
there was a post back in july this year that began: wycliffe, tyndale,..........bowen .
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=33120&site=3.
Thanks Simon,
I saw a lot of posts about duplicate accounts, the meaning of the characters under the profile, and the possibility that when you upgrade next weekend (?) some posts might be lost. Since I had previously put several hours into trying to figure out if there was a relationship, I still had an interest in knowing if these characters were useful evidence for what I had been looking for.
The more meaningful "silentlambs" as "messenger" post is the one that may help understand the organizational mindset of silentlambs as he revealed it under his own name. If there was a connection between him and the poster who went by the name messenger, then I didn't want all evidence to be gone before I had one last chance to discuss the meaning of the evidence.
I realize that if it's true, there are some curious ideas that were expressed by messenger in several posts which might be hard for some to synchronize with their expectations about Bill. Also, even if it's true, no one should waste their time connecting someone's "silly" persona with their "official" persona. They probably had expectations of privacy which it would be wrong to try to disclose.
But, then again, I also thought it wasn't a bad time to try to diagnose what is going wrong here. Better a diagnosis than an autopsy.
Gilgamesh
Edited by - Gilgamesh on 23 December 2002 12:46:19
