@Lady Lee:
But of course they don't judge them because no man can judge the heart of a man unless of course he has one of the special books that changes so often that he has to write notes in the margins that were made wider than normal to accommodate all those notes.
Was that a run-on sentence?
I don't know. Was this one a run-on sentence:
Like I said, I don't care to elaborate on the obvious here, but do you think it embarrassing for an elder to have to handle a case of a married brother's extramarital affair with a sister for six months with whom he had studied three years ago which affair comes to light a year after the sister's baptism when their affair ended two years earlier is outted by a householder invited to the Kingdom Hall, who sees the brother and his children, and the sister at the Kingdom Hall the same as a case where a sister that has a one-night stand three years ago with someone that becomes a brother six months ago and feels it necessary to unburden himself by reporting the sister's fling with him?
? Seriously, @just n from bethel asked:
What does everybody think - did that sum up eggnog's response?
I don't know why, but I assume "everyone" included me, but I can up my response in this way:
I think there are too many people here that care nothing about the future of Jehovahs-Witness.net. The angst they have against Jehovah's Witnesses is what drives them to engage in the criminal conduct which is the subject of this thread, but the problem is that their selfishness in posting links on this site to copyrighted material can adversely impact this site. I think Jehovahs-Witness.net provides a place where folks can vent, and because I can come here and read what people that are in fade or have been disfellowshipped or have disassociated themselves feel, this helps me to become better informed as to what people are thinking and feeling all of the world as Jehovahs-Witness.net is an internet forum.
Am I being selfish here? Yes, I am, and so what? I don't much care what folks think of what I'm saying here. I don't run this site; I have no interest in this site whatsoever. But some of you people here are also selfish, but in a way that could potentially hurt @Simon (and I don't know the man personally). I don't want this Jehovahs-Witness.net to be hit with a federal injunction. I don't want the stupid ones here to become the target of an investigation launched by law firms hired by the WTS to do one thing, but, as an adjunct to their investigation, launch a witch hunt of their own in order to separate these stupid angry folks from the money in their bank accounts (those not judgment-proof) to settle grievances of federal law that they were not hired by the WTS to conduct.
As Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell recently learned (or not!) <g> there is a Bill of Rights here in the US, a First Amendment to the US Constitution, that contains provisions protecting American citizens from government intrusion into religious matters, since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If a religious group should decide to create a set of rules or principles that embody the "laws" of the group, it can decide to submit those rules to writing, and if it should decide to submit those rules to writing, to make one publication for its members or one publication for its leaders or one publication each for both its members and its leaders. It may also decide to declare such publications to be confidential so that its membership is prohibited from divulging its contents to non-members.
In a courtroom, a judge may prohibit female lawyers from appearing in his or her courtroom weaning a pantsuit, and that same judge may prohibit lawyers from appearing in his or her courtroom without a tie and suit coat. That judge may put these rules of his or hers, including these two rules I mention here, in writing, and may restrict the manual containing these rules to just those lawyers that appear in his or her courtroom, and may even sanction any lawyer in whose possession this confidential (and otherwise "secret") manual is found for having it since the manual itself indicates that only lawyers that make appearances in his or her courtroom may have a copy of it.
If anyone in the public (like a reporter) should find himself or herself with a copy of this judge's confidential manual in his or her possession, the judge may even issue a gag order making the reporter subject to a contempt citation for revealing its contents to anyone else. This does not violate the reporter's First Amendment rights against "Congress ... abridging [his or her] ... freedom ... of the press" since Congress isn't making a law. Neither is the WTS' prohibiting any unauthorized person from obtaining a copy of the new textbook violating anyone's First Amendment rights where "Congress [is] ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" since Congress isn't making a law either.
No one has a right to obtain a copy of any document controlled by a religious group unless it can be proved that that document contains content that violates the civil rights of an American citizen. This is just how things work in the US. I cannot tell anyone here what to do, but, please, get your anger against Jehovah's Witnesses under control, for I do not wish to see the business of this site foreclosed or interrupted for any length of time because of your selfishness, which affects not just @Simon, but the people that come to this site to vent.
@djeggnog
