I posted the link on the New York Times' Religion in America Forum. I guess there was no space to include Hoeffel's letter. Reports I received from the UK this weekend, after the first article, are that the elders are claiming the story is "false" or that it is the "legal framing of mischief." On the other hand, I have heard from a number of JWs who are "questioning" for whom this is the final straw. I can't imagine what effect this week's article will have.
Clearly, we need much more publicity if anything is going to give. How about starting a talkboard at "The Guardian." How much cash could we generate in a paypal account for running an ad. which includes Hoeffel's letter? Hawk, interested?????
WOW, Looks like WT just took another punch in the gut!! The word HYPOCRITE was very appropriate for the first word in the headline.They deserved that and more.
I thought it was interesting that the reporter says that Witnesses were "DEMANDING" to see the paper. How rude of them!!! Sounds like they are upset for some reason.
Not a good one. This one sounds as if the author is simply using the UN incident as a vehicle to transport his personal anti-JW sentiments. Mr Bates would do better to stick to the point.
- Was it really necessary to scream "hypocrite" right in the article heading?
- Instead of wasting a paragraph on the "bird seed" thing (which does not really have anything to do with the subject matter, and which many JWs will simply deny), a more precise description of the events and a statement from the UN or WTS would have been called for.
