Thirdwitness -- An Agent of the Governing Body?

by AlanF 156 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DaCheech

  soul

  there is irony in watchtower writing and thinking.

  no disrespect to you
• 

  AuldSoul

  dilaceratus: No substance has yet been offered, however.

  And it is doubtful that any will be offered if no one who suspects foul play ever asks a question about it. Among our posters here we have some who could find out whether something like what we have broached might actually be taking place, and these suspicions can be confirmed or negated. But if no one asks it is unlikely to prompt any inquiry.

  You might be surprised how many times the uncovering of actual WTS fiascos began by someone asking questions, wondering aloud about something no one thought of before. I am certain we would all be surprised by how many times the covering over of WTS fiascos was successfully achieved because of a LACK of suspicious inquiry.

  Then again, you seem pretty sharp and the reasonableness of the foregoing response might be enough to fend off the possibility of another volley, devoid of logical merit, fired my way.

  When people are in positions of authority over others they act in aberrant ways to preserve their authority. They perceive the ruled class as equivalent to their authority, since without the ruled class they would have authority over nothing. If they perceive a threat to their authority they will entertain schemes to win it back, or at least to minimize impacts.

  Please make no mistake, some of us are at war with the concepts reinforced by the WTS. Some of us are waging campaigns and drawing up plans of attack against the notion that the individual must be subject to the will of Jehovah's the Governing Body's earthly organization. Some of us are dangerous to the authority of the WTS, dangerous to their rule, because we have been effectively cluing people in to the fact that they do not require the rule of the Governing Body and its legal instruments.

  I have woken up 7 that I know of, I am in the process of working with 2 others. I have informed at least 2 others sufficiently for them to abandon their Bible Study with JWs. Do you know how long it takes to recruit one JW to the point of baptism? I've done well to have accomplished that in only a year, I wonder how many I will help out after I get good at it.

  "Military" intelligence is needed in order to wage an effective war. But intelligence is difficult to come by without an organization through which to collect and analyze the information. And if someone has suspicions they hope to confirm or negate, the best way to accomplish this is to toss it out and watch it get ripped to shreds by others, or confirmed. We apostates have a loose association based on very few commonalities. But forums like JWD are a great place to hash out possiblities of what the WTS might be up to.

  I hope this helps you understand what you have seen here. Nobody was stating all the facts because none of us yet knows all the facts. For me, Death to the Pixies presented a logical alternate explanation that would also need to be confirmed or negated.

  You, on the other hand, chided the lack of "growth" beyond JWism of those posting on the issue, judging that we should not do what we are doing. Your rafter must hurt like hell, I can see that sucker from here—that is one splintery rafter.

  Your last post on the subject finally made clear that you had no idea why we were posting about this. Maybe now you do. Maybe not. Either way, you asked a question of me and I should answer it.

  dilaceratus: What threat is it that overwhelms you, in this medium, that you must safeguard?

  Again, your imagination fails you. A threat is not the only way that one can perceive harm as a potential. However, in this case, the "threat", such as it is, is a hypothetical one. Note, the discussion regarding the potential is only in the hypothetical phase, which is only logical.

  The "threat" is that this may be a new tactic of the Watchtower Society, they may recognize this as an effective way to communicate deceptively to the fringe JWs who surf the Internet, in violation of policy, regarding issues they would prefer that the rank and file JW never becomes aware of. Discussing this now helps many minds start preparing for the best way to combat the threat should it transmogrify from a fantastical hypothesis into a fantastical reality.

  AuldSoul
• 

  metatron

  I also was told that Pierce's wife did the Awake on blood. That information just stunned me!

  Let's think about this a second: A fanatical religion has a tradition about women being inferior - and a tradition about blood transfusion.

  which do they quietly compromise? Not blood! Talk about an albatross! Will history manifest these blind, ignorant fanatics

  being willing to abandon any tradition or rule - but still clutching their deadly, stupid blood teaching to the very last?!!

  Consider that they are very near to abandoning their tradition of not beggng for money, as Russell spoke about.

  They have abandoned a hundred+ year tradition of Watchtower subscriptions in the US. They openly laid off Bethelites.

  If you conclude that they have no solid basis for anything they believe, then all that remains is habit - and tradition.

  Take away habit and they are gossamer in the wind, sand castles in the tide. Perhaps a few of them realize this. Maybe that's

  why they have a few remaining defenders, still trying to patch together a thin tissue of evidence to support their flimsy doctrines.

  metatron
• 

  stillajwexelder

  I think you are/maybe correct Alan. I am more careful these days and do not post as much as I am wary of moles and WTS spies. Thirdwitness is certainly somebody I would not trust even 1 inch.
• 

  TD

  I also was told that Pierce's wife did the Awake on blood. That information just stunned me!

  LOL....That would explain the mindless and stupid return to the ungrammatical "Abstain" argument.
• 

  ozziepost

  G'day stilla:

  Wave "Hi!" to third!!! He's not responded but he is watching.

  Ozzie (perspicacious class)
• 

  Forscher

  orscher wrote:
  
  : With those possibilities in mind it might be a good idea to meet their postings with logical and well-researched rebuttals rather than the name calling Which often gets thrown at them.
  
  You're misrepresenting the history of the threads. For example, in the "607" thread, after thirdwitness posted a link to his website and claimed that no one had ever refuted anything on the website (which is a lie and misrepresentation on many fronts, one being that there is no mechanism on the site to post refutations), I challenged him to present one item for debate to keep things simple. Then he presented his theory that claimed that Egypt was desolated for 40 years from 588 to 548 B.C., a number of posters asked questions and posted minor challenges, thirdwitness ignored nearly all questions and challenges and kept posting more new stuff without dealing with the old stuff. This set the tone for the rest of the discussion: thirdwitness would ignore almost all challenges and questions. I soon posted a fairly detailed and objective rebuttal. Thirdwitness quickly posted an evasive answer that ignored virtually everything I said, misrepresented what little he did comment on, and then claimed that I had no answer. He posted other replies that continued misrepresenting what various people said and continued ignoring people's actual arguments. He even posted blatant lies. He displayed the usual JW arrogance. Other solid posters gradually chimed in, and thirdwitness continued to lie and misrepresent and evade important points. In short, he acted in the manner of the stereotypical JW defender most of us have come to expect. Very quickly, posters began calling a spade a spade and calling him out on his lies and misrepresentations. He began to cry. Very quickly there arose a typical slugfest between a deceitful, evasive, arrogant JW defender and critics.
  
  Now, you said that it would be a good idea to post logical rebuttals rather than engaging in name calling -- as if that is what was done. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I've shown. You can easily verify my summary of the 607 thread yourself.
  
  What happened here is fairly typical of debates involving logical, reasonable posters who won't take shit from fanatics. After the fanatics expose themselves as illogical, unreasonable, deceitful, evasive and arrogant, there is no reason to treat them with kid gloves. Besides, lots of posters are entertained, and the deserved derision heaped upon the self-demonstrated fanatics serves to insulate many lurkers from their stupidity.

  
  
  Slow down a minute Alan. I know it is easy for you to conclude that I was taking a specific dig at you, you tend to jump that gun. That is why I tried to put my comment in more general terms. There are other people who are all to ready to make any argument personal and start insulting anyone they disagree with. If I'd been specifically making that charge at you I would've provided specific examples from your words to make my point. You, of all people here ought to realise that about me now. As I did not, I was voicing a general cautionary word which is often needed on this forum. and especially so since I thought your speculation About Thirdwitnesses might have some merit.
  
  I'll admit that I didn't follow the 607 thread because those threads get so tedious and go right over the same territory time and again. So I only have your word for it at this point as to how you handled 3W there and will not question it. I myself did cross swords once with 3W and accused him of not being honest in the particular thread where I responded. I also predicted in my post exactly how he would respond to it.
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/117646/2067417/post.ashx#2067417
  As you can see in his response to my post, I was dead on.
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/117646/2067646/post.ashx#2067646
  After pointing out that I'd predicted his response, I simply left the conversation because he had shown my assessment of his honesty correct as far as that question was concerned. There was no need for further engagement on the issue.
  Why did I post that interaction between us? Because I am being open and honest with my audience here and didn't want it to come back and bite me in the butt.
  I still stand by my comment which you took umbrage with Alan. If you are correct in your assessment of the situation regarding thirdwitness, then everybody needs to keep in mind that how we respond to him, or them, is just as important as our facts. There is a tendency on the part of some, yourself included, to make snap judgements before all the facts are in and proceed in ways which do not help your cause. You did that yourself with me and still refuse to this day to face the fact that it was you who jumped to a hasty conclusion, rather than me, who you still claim was being dishonest. I simply didn't correct your conclusion until a time and place of my choosing. Learn from that and stop making hasty judgements of what I or anyone else is saying or doing. End of line!
  Forscher
• 

  hillary_step

  Alan,

  I still stand by my comment which you took umbrage with Alan. If you are correct in your assessment of the situation regarding thirdwitness, then everybody needs to keep in mind that how we respond to him, or them, is just as important as our facts. There is a tendency on the part of some, yourself included, to make snap judgements before all the facts are in and proceed in ways which do not help your cause. You did that yourself with me and still refuse to this day to face the fact that it was you who jumped to a hasty conclusion, rather than me, who you still claim was being dishonest. I simply didn't correct your conclusion until a time and place of my choosing. Learn from that and stop making hasty judgements of what I or anyone else is saying or doing. End of line!

  Now, consider yourself a very naughty boy, slapped on the arse by an arse.

  Failing this, you might check many of Forcher's own comments on the political threads that he posts to for a lesson in monumental hypocrisy.

  HS
• 

  serendipity

  yadda yadda, was your post REALLY necessary?

  On the E-Watchman board or Al's board, 3W claimed to be 50ish, married and lived in Texas. From his posts, I didn't get the impression that he was young guy but rather he was a set in his ways (and thoughts) middle-aged guy.
• 

  ozziepost

  G'day Forscher,

  Can I butt in here?

  We haven't met on threads before (to the best of my failing memory) but one point in particular "grabbed me" here:

  everybody needs to keep in mind that how we respond to him, or them, is just as important as our facts

  Could I ask why?

  Cheers, Ozzie