I wonder whether or not, we might be giving away things and the Society changes course on us. Maybe they start out a certain way but change their manner after reading such boards.
BIG NEWS - Did I miss something ?
Auldsoul...........I understand what you say.
My point is that the AP article said that new directives were about to come from the WTS about blood.
Nothing happened. After all the hype.
Let's be prepared to say that we were wrong.
(My dear old Mum was so disappointed)
Why haven't you posted anything positive about the AP hype since Sunday
My job description/misson specialist profile was and is to assist in getting the information to journalist and on the news wire.Other specialist are working on editing and drafts.
Fair enough....I hope to hear from them soon....My dear old Mum was so excited about something happening. I'd love to be able to tell her something positive.
I am confused about what hype you thought there was regarding the new directive. We had a copy of the new (replacement) directive back in December, before most congregation POs had received them. We had a copy of the new and old directives side-by-side for comparison.
We knew what was in it and that the changes weren't significant. The AP article WAS NOT ABOUT THE DIRECTIVES. We weren't wrong, because as far as I know no one hyped the directive as any significant change—not even the AP articles.
The AP article was about possible exposure to litigation and the fact that the new directives did NOTHING to close that hole of possible litigation. Over half the article discussed Mrs. Louderback-Wood's article and gave a scant one sentence mention—in an off-hand way—to the fact that a new directive was released. Why are you so keyed in on that directive? The AP article could have not even mentioned it and the article wouldn't have been any more or less potent.
We wanted to get the information about possible legal relief in the hands of the public, easily accessible to attorneys who might try such a maneuver. The AP article did so. As far as I know, not one single solitary soul hyped the directive as being anything noteworthy, especially since we had already seen the directive.
So my question to you would be: Why did you hype the directive to your mother? Did you read it here before you hyped it? What did you hype about it? What did you see as a significant change that was "hype-able"?
It is certain that if you hyped the directive, you were wrong. The AP artocle didn't hype the directive, I didn't hype the directive, Danny Haszard didn't hype the directive, I don't know anyone except you who did hype the directive. I'm really confused by your irritation about this.
what i find so amazing is that jws themselves laugh off the complexity of it all..and dont have a problem not understanding it..when i was a jw i at least knew why i didnt take blood...to me if was important enough to be believed it was important enough to understand
Absolutely spot on.
At our local hospital they dread JWs coming in because nine times out of ten they (the Dubz) don't understand what they are and are not allowed to take blood wise. Then you've got a bunch of muppets from the HLC hanging around telling people under extreme pressure that they musn't have a transfusion. The hospital admin people are so confused and angry about this that they just get security to kick the HLC out. Each JW MUST be clear. It's a life and death matter
FFSfor pity's sake.
The HLC make themselves look like a bunch of theological nazis to the outside world.
just for information. i counted five mentions(sentences) in the forbes article where the term new directive was mentioned. of course you know and i know there is nothing new in it. the pda and all that other stuff came up at least two years ago. however the public, in general, may not be aware of this.
I stand corrected. However, the point remains that the focus of the article was not on the new directive but on Louderback-Wood's paper and its potential impacts. I do see, on going back and re-reading the article, how someone may have drawn an inference that the new directive was somehow in response to the new paper, but that was not the case.
I thought the folks who were following things on JWD already knew that the new directive did nothing to alter the impact of the Louderback-Wood paper. The fact that it DOESN'T, in light of the encouragement as recently as December 2005 to use the Blood brochure and DVDs as primary resources for training children how to answer questions about blood, is HUGE news, in my opinion.
AuldSoul is absolutely right wrt to the AP article. The whole idea was to get Kerry and more important her information in the spot light.
And it worked. For the first time a major news media reported that JWs don't actually abstain from blood and took the JWs doctrine to task. Usually the media reports JWs abstain from blood and cite a bible passage. Not this time. Now the general public has got a good idea what is going on in WTS land and hopefully the AP article vaccinated a few million people from joining this club that promotes the needless premature death of countless people.
I think there was another reason for the letter to be read.
Kerrys mom died because the local JWs and her family was not up to date on the WTS's blood policy. It seems that if they knew hemaglobbin was permitted she would have had it and she would be alive today. Kerrys essay states they sought medical guidance from the blood brochure.
The AP article mentioned that the WTS was not too efficient at communicating its policy to its members.
I think the letter that was read, which I read and copied from the internet, encouraged JWs to seek ouit the HLC for information on blood treatments. By doing so they have provided the JWs with a resource to get info on the blood policy which could help them in court.
The responsibility is now on the individual JW to seek out the HLC and get informed. Since the WTS does not seem to intend to discuss the policy in detail in its religious publications.