Hmmm. Is it just me or did my post "Big News article...." just get deleted by the moderators/Administrators?
too bad,I was going to make some replies in that thread. whoever asked me if I was making light of a serious situation, I think it was 144001, the answer is no...
What I found to be humorous was the contrast between the article that has been provided and all the hooplah and hubbub of the buildup to it. It is like in a movie or cartoon where the shadow and monster is heard but then it is something small and harmless.
of course the paper's supporters are hoping that this thing will be the bunny in what was it Life of Brian or Holy Grail?
anyway, I read the paper last night and if I am allowed to post I will have two posts to make regarding the topic....
mods I wouldn't mind an explanation of why the post was deleted? And does it mean that I have two posts today or do I have to wait until after midnight to post the second topic?
I could say a lot to Auld Soul but it is simply isn't worth the trouble. He completely misconstrued and misrepresented :-) what I said, which actually wasn't about Lemon laws, it was about a car that is a lemon, very different and anyway my point was that Misrepresentation is designed for that situation which is why it can be successful in that situation. But trying to use it in the situation asseted by the JCS article is an entirely different matter which I will get into in my post.
The one thing that I will say to Auld Soul and everyone else that keeps on trying to make the same mistaken point is that this article does NOTHING NEW and does not relate anything that was not known by attorneys before. It is not something that "now we have the chance" no, the chance was always there, that is to say the law and precedent (or rather lack of it) has always been there silly!!! Nothing about the article makes anything different than it was last week, last year, or ten years ago!
Most importantly, this is not a new precedent, some genius new novel theory, some new piece of legislation, etc. this is NOT a new tool to be used....but I will touch on that in my post tonight. Again assuming the mods aren't trying to stifle and bag the discussion.
-Eduardo
PS: Auld Soul, it is too bad the post got deleted, I liked all the free publicity for my site and services.I don't have the money to do a lot of advertising so it was nice.
Oh and someone else wanted to know in that thread where I stand personally. that is obviously the subject of my website. :-) you can go to www.jehovahs-witnesses.net
caution the site is like only 2% built at this point but you might be interested in the pages that I do have up on Schisms, Scandals, Controversies and Conflicts among Jehovah's Witnesses, the Cult Controversy and why JWs are not a Cult, my list of WAtchtower publications, and some of the other pages that are up. In the About section you can get a feel for where I am at though this is an evolving process for me.
As someone pointed out in the deleted thread, I used to be an ardent supporter of the Society and I was a defender of the blood policy. After reading a lot, hearing the arguments and personal bible study and research I have been convinced that the entire doctrine is in error.
If I were to sum up myself, I would say that I believe that I might typify a significant amount of JWs in that I support many of the beliefs and facets of the religion but I also have grave reservations and disagree with some important ones too.
For me I have the biggest problem, probably in order of importance, with:
1. the FDS doctrine
2. the practice of disfellowshipping/disassociation
3. the stance on blood (can't really call it the "blood ban" anymore when a 100% of blood is allowable in fractionalized form can we?)
these are just the biggest for me but by no means all of my disagreements or concerns.
-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.