C'mon Watchtower: How long will the Blood brochure stay online?

Neo

Hi WT monitors! I think you've noticed you'll be experiencing some ugly times in the near future. Soooo, with about 40 pages of exposure of your lies and misrepresentations in a Law journal read by experts all over the globe, with an Internet-based dissemination work force that will spread the news to tens of thousands of other people, how long will you leave the How Can Blood Save Your Life brochure on watchtower.org?

For the record: as of today, the Blood brochure is online. Consider the possibilities:

1. If you don't remove the link to the brochure, thousands of people - some of them non-JWs considering litigation - will be visiting your website in the following months to double-check if what they were told about your misrepresentations is correct. Leaving the brochure online will be a standing embarrassment to the Watchtower.

2. If, anytime from now on, the brochure goes offline it will be an admission that the brochure is sheer charlatanism.

Either way, you lose.

Neo

Here's the embedded page. They'd better think of some new light to substitute the brochure. Too bad their priority was first substituting publications like the Knowledge and United in Worship books... Don't you just love their myopia?

MidwichCuckoo

Hello Neo .....

......I hope you're not suggesting a they may withdraw the Blood Brochure in a ''Quick-let's-resign-as-an-NGO-now-we've-been-rumbled'' fashion? Lol

Gill

Why would they want to take the blood brochure off line?

All they have to do is point to a scripture that they, by religious belief, says that they must 'abstain from blood' and there it is...job done. It's religious belief and they'll put it as personal choice...you have blood and you're not a JW, you don't have blood and you are.

The simplest arguments are the best.

They'll have this covered.

They can only be touched, financially shuold any one take them to court...and in the end, they'll argue free choice and freedom of religion.

You Can't touch the WTBTS or the JWs on the blood issue.

Oroborus21

Neo,

you might want to read my post in the other thread.

Legal Misrepresentation is not the same as the common dictionary definition. Legal misrepresentation requires that the bad actor KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY lied with RECKLESSNESS.

The Society believes that it is telling the truth with its statemetns on blood, or at least it will claim so, and it has come to that belief after careful deliberation not out of recklessness.

IThe tort of Misrepresentation is designed to punish the guy who sells you a lemon for a car, knowing that it was in a previous accident or tells you that there is no water damage or termites to the house you are buying when he knows differently.

The theory espoused in the journal's essay is a soap bubble.

-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

jgnat

This link, too.

http://www.watchtower.org/library/vcnr/article_01.htm

So far, the video speaks to secular information, none religious. This leaves them open to be sued for misrepresentation, IMO. I've watched both videos through. No scriptural or religious references at all.

Transfusion-Alternative Strategies Simple, Safe, Effective

No Blood—Medicine Meets the Challenge

Neo

MidwichCuckoo,

I hope you're not suggesting a they may withdraw the Blood Brochure in a ''Quick-let's-resign-as-an-NGO-now-we've-been-rumbled'' fashion? Lol

It's even worse. We're talking about their own site! The WT is being caught red-handed and there'll be a lot of traffic at watchtower.org in the coming weeks because, in this Information Age, countless people interested in the recent blood exposé will run to the online brochure to see with their own eyes the utter deception of the medical issue found therein. The publication has been around for over a decade, but we will witness a coordinated effort to expose its lies. We're having a chance we didn't have before. A brochure that was once seen as queer and unortodhox by the specialized audience will now be read in a different perspective. The WT will start to get ashamed of keeping it online. It's a catch-22 situation.

Gill,

All they have to do is point to a scripture that they, by religious belief, says that they must 'abstain from blood' and there it is...job done. It's religious belief and they'll put it as personal choice...you have blood and you're not a JW, you don't have blood and you are.
The simplest arguments are the best.

They are now wishing they had done that. See, the pamphlet doesn't do so. They don't limit their discussion to the religious aspect; they go way beyond that by doctoring the whole blood issue, exaggerating the dangers of transfusion and minimizing the risks of not accepting one.

Oroborus21,

you might want to read my post in the other thread.
Legal Misrepresentation is not the same as the common dictionary definition. Legal misrepresentation requires that the bad actor KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY lied with RECKLESSNESS.

I'm not a lawyer and I'll need some time to digest your comments. It's good to see someone playing the Devil's advocate, we need that. And we also need to read the opinions of some of your colleagues. But the reason I started this thread was not for the legal aspect. I'm talking about the publicity issue. Notwithstanding the possible legal ramifications of the theory advanced by LW's essay, it will no doubt generate renewed interest in the whole blood fraud. It depends on us to make the news resonate around the world and get people to look into this. If we do our homework, the WT will become increasingly uncomfortable with keeping the blood brochure online and they'll take some heat. It won't go unnoticed.

Neo

Honesty

Download your copy now at:

http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/article_00.htm

steve2

Neo, you are probably not aware that the journal you refer to is not a top-rank publication and, as will emerge in the next few days, its major thesis is probably flawed. The tort 'law' refers to deliberate misrepresentation (as in knowingly trying to sell a bad second-hand vehicle) rather than a religious belief.

My prediction: The Watchtower will not remove or change anything in its online material on blood.

Sorry, but this is a big anti-climax - hardly first rate research. Yawn.

Neo

stevie2, you probably have not read my last post. Irrespective of the validity of the "tort of misrepresentation" thesis, the news will be out there and will get momentum. What will the WT do?

BTW, I'm with you in that I think they won't take the blood stuff off anytime soon. It's damage control. But leaving it there will look uglier and uglier as people easily check their lies and distortions.

Neo

C'mon Watchtower: How long will the Blood brochure stay online?

Share this