by cabasilas 44 Replies latest jw friends
Somehow... this struck me as being somewhat ironic...
...I do think that some subjects should only have qualified editors working on them,...
I don't think that anonymity has any value to academic progress.
...especially when you have to ask... who are the 'qualified editors' that produce the books and pamphlets they distribute? ...and why are they anonymous? Does this mean that they have no value to their 'academic progress'?
Regards,
Jim TX
Mary--------You are right on. DISSONANCE X 1000
and it is not a useful exercise to try to answer every challenge; at people's doors, if they want to debate us, we almost always walk away .I find this statement particularly ironic, seeing as that is what the Witnesses like to do with people of other religions. Aren't they always debating doctrines with people at the doors? Yet when someone challenges them, they just "walk away"? Ya, that's really "defending the Truth". Typical cult mentality.
Jim TX--Beautiful catch. More dissonance.
Somehow... this struck me as being somewhat ironic...
...I do think that some subjects should only have qualified editors working on them,...
I don't think that anonymity has any value to academic progress....especially when you have to ask... who are the 'qualified editors' that produce the books and pamphlets they distribute? ...and why are they anonymous? Does this mean that they have no value to their 'academic progress'?
Regards,
Jim TX
Brant
I imagine the key thing the WTS is concerned about is that at Wikipedia, JWs are writing about what they believe. This has always been something strongly prohibited, long before the internet was around.
When people truly teach a topic (not just parrot information from a Bible study aid), it requires a much deeper understanding, and at this depth of thought one can can easily run into unanswerable questions and logical impossibilities of the doctrine. From the WTS's point of view, it is safer for JWs to be protected from this by only reading what they are given, and only repeating what they are told.
It's sad that the WTS continues to insist upon curtailing legitimate freedoms of its members,
Nice post Scarlet. Point on too.
It's quite clear also as to why their leaders do not provide their members with an official discussion and chat area on their "ONLY official JW website". Hence, as you say: "WTS's point of view, it is safer for JWs to be protected from this by only reading what they are given, and only repeating what they are told."
This reminds me of all the exhaustive hours I spent, in the now defunct yahoo jw chatroom, pasting up the weekly BLONDIE articles and also articles from the official WTBTS/JW website. Bringing these articles into an open, public arena, for all to see and DISCUSS really burned up the active jws there. They consistently wanted to know why an apostate would even do this. LOL!!! Surely they jest, I would reply.
See, the average chatter that would happen upon the room would WANT TO DISCUSS what was being pasted up...BEFORE THE JW LANDED A BIBLE STUDY.
I would tell the room that as a "householder", jws don't tell you the actual POLICIES of being involved as a "dedicated baptized member". BUT HERE YOU CAN! I would put up links, documents, articles, essays, letters, etc. until the day came that the room was not FOR jws any longer. It was ABOUT them!
Ode to the yahoo jw chatroom. May it rest in pieces.
Incidently Scarlet, welcome a-board.
sKally
This guy is one brain-dead clown. Am I the only one who had trouble staying awake while reading his comments?
and it is not a useful exercise to try to answer every challenge; at people's doors, if they want to debate us, we almost always walk away .
Blaa Blaa Blaa....."Jesus"...Blaa Blaa Blaa....."persecution".....Blaa Blaa Blaa....."take no responsibility for our actions, we're not really brainwashed, all disagreement is pure evil, you're all a bunch of bird seed! I'm 45 years old and working at McDonalds....Blaa Blaa Blaa....praise what-his-name....?
BLAA BLAA BLAA!
I'm so sick of hearing them defend themselves. You can literally smell it a mile away! I think my I. Q. dropped ten points just reading this guy's words.
I don't think that anonymity has any value to academic progress.
This is ironic, as at least two posters have already pointed out. What a contrast with the circuitous explanation they offer as to why the New World Translation of the Bible committee chose to remained anonymous. Apparently, as it turns out, the "committee" was pretty much Fred Franz and a Jewish guy that used to drop by for coffee.
Oooh, that's bad, Anitar! If you started out with a JW level IQ, now you won't be around to play "Double Jeopardy". (Said Alex)
There's too much idiocy here for me to begin, so I'll just say a few things. Debate? I remember at a convention in the late 1970's or early 80's that it was announced that an elder would be on TV (NYC area) "discussing" (debating??) the immortality of the soul. There was a rabbi, a monk, some famous TV preacher (can't remember) and a few others. I notice the WT doesn't do that anymore.
Anonymous academic study is a waste? Who wrote the pretty green NWT bible?? Names, please?
I'm not surprised if it comes to the point where the WT tells JW's not to read Wikipedia anymore. They have been stuffing ten pounds into a five pound bad for over a century. Did they really believe that it wouldn't finally squirt out in their faces with the world watching?
All we need are our trusty CD-ROM's. The "slave" has spoken.
To edit or contradict information in an Encyclopoedia requires that you are well researched and knowledgable on the subject.
Any Dub wanting to correct or amend may well discover that what they don't want to admit or face up to or deny is in fact TRUE, and the WT loses not only one more truth teller, but also those that listen.
HB
Wiki being abused by Witnesses http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/120249/1.ashx Older discussion thread started by Simon
Check out scientology for comparison 
Does anyone have the actual letter, in whole or in part, that was supposed to come from the Watchtower Society advising JWs not to edit JW-related Wikipedia articles? It would be valid to include mention of such in the Wikipedia article "Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses" in the "Internet" subheading, but only if a valid source can actually be indicated.
