Steve Bates our good friend at the Guardian Newspaper has received some interesting Emails from a few people regarding this Watchtower/United Nations scandal.
The one thing I noticed (besides all the absolute crap) is this guy does not know how to capitalize.
From:Ian Mayes on 30/10/2001 10:15 AM
Sent by: Ian Mayes
To: CN=Stephen Bates/OU=Guardian/O=GNL@GNL
Subject: RE; MR. STEPHEN BATES' BIASED ARTICLE ON JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THE
--------------------- Forwarded by Ian Mayes/Guardian/GNL on 30/10/2001 10:15 am ---------------------------
[email protected] on 29/10/2001 07:27:55 pm
To: Guardian Reader@GNL
Subject: RE; MR. STEPHEN BATES' BIASED ARTICLE ON JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THE UN
Mr. Bates' article is a disgrace to all journalists. please kindly forward this to him:
There are some grossly inaccurate comments in your article on jehovah's witnesses:
<The United Nations is being asked to investigate why it has granted
associate status to the Jehovah's Witnesses, the fundamentalist US-based Christian sect, which regards it as the scarlet beast predicted in the Book of Revelation. >
jehovah's witnesses are not fundamentalists. they are not a us-based christian sect; they are a christian-based sect.
<The UN itself admitted yesterday that it was surprised that the sect, whose formal name is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, had been accepted on its list of non-governmental organisations for the last 10 years.>
the formal name of this 'sect' is jehovah's witnesses, not the watchtower bible and tract society of new york. that is the legal corporation representing jehovah's witnesses.
<Followers who criticise the Witnesses' leaders or question their decisions are routinely "disfellowshipped" which means fellow members including their families must shun them.>
wrong again. no one is disfellowshipped for criticizing or questioning
'leaders' decisions. jehovah's witnesses don't have 'leaders'. their one leader is jesus christ.
Mr. Bates, it appears from your article that you are indeed biased. shame on you. since when do journalists show bias?? the article contains statements taken out of context and seems to favor the 'disaffected' members whom you so obviously gleefully consulted while eagerly running to your pc to spit out such a shabby piece of journalism.
these 'disaffected' ones you consulted are actually disfellowshipped. that means they are adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, murderers, perverts, and apostates. in short, this means they are the dumped-out refuse who no longer choose to remain in a clean and high caliber organization, amongst clean and high-caliber people. thus, they no longer are quite fit to remain in it. are these the types of individuals you consult?
<An obscure and ill-publicised decision by the hierarchy in New York last year modifying the prohibition on transfusions by deeming that God had revealed to them that transfusions of some blood components might be acceptable, providing there was later repentance, has come too late for many hundreds of followers known to have died because they refused blood. >
what is the 'obscure and ill-publicised decision by the hierarchy' (and who's the hierarchy??)? and who are the 'hundreds' who have died? name them from your 'sources', please.
my advice, sir, is for you to go back to school to sharpen your much-needed and sorely-lacking journalism skills and learn to write accurate and non-biased information.