Russell's Will

by radar 34 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  MadApostate

  Farkel:

  You said:

  With regards to RR's statement that Woodworth "financed" the FM, I consider that to be either an honest mistake or sloppy wording.

  GIVE ME A BREAK! Go back through the three links/threads and see if you notice a trend. RoRo is supposed to be "some kind" of WTS historian. Someone with your background should not be giving this jerk any break, much less making excuses for him.

  Woodworth probably didn't have any money, but it is possible that he could have raised the money to pay for the printing of the book.

  
  Again, someone with your WTS history knowledge should know better than opine the above.

  RR clarified his original statement about Woodworth, did he not?

  HE DID NOT!!! Just like many of his previous responses in the other threads, after having his hand called for erroneous statements, 'ol RoRo trys to blurr the original issue or statement.

  And I don't plan to "relax" when some BS Hypocrite is on here using this forum to denounce people and an Org who are/is his ideological kinfolk.

  Why is it that you cut noone else any slack, but bend-over backwards for this habitual LIAR?
• 

  Farkel

  Ok, MadAposte,

  I re-read the entire thread. The majority of your complaints had to do with earlier threads, not this one. I have not read those threads, nor do I intend to do so. The information in this thread should stand on its own, and if EVERY word RR said in those earlier threads was a lie, it still has nothing to do with what he states in this thread.

  With regards to my observations about your complaining about other's speculating, yet speculating yourself, you replied:

  : Did you notice the opening word of that paragraph? "IF"!!!

  Yes, I did notice that. Why do you think I referred to your speculation? I never accused you of stating your speculation as fact, did I?

  Yet, RR prefaced his contestible statements with these words:

  "there is nothing on paper," "it is 'rumored'," "it has been rumored," "there have been rumors," "I was told of a story of Rutherford," "I did not say I believed Russell was poisoned. Someone else made that assertion, I merely carried it over with my thoughts."

  Why do you then DEMAND evidence from him, when he clearly showed he could not produce any?

  : GIVE ME A BREAK! Go back through the three links/threads and see if you notice a trend.

  Once again, I think this thread should stand or fall on its own merit.

  : RoRo is supposed to be "some kind" of WTS historian.

  So?

  : Someone with your background should not be giving this jerk any break, much less making excuses for him.

  I think you are over-reacting, MadApostate. If you have a personal grudge against RR for whatever reason, that shouldn't taint your arguments.

  I opined:

  : Woodworth probably didn't have any money, but it is possible that he could have raised the money to pay for the printing of the book.

  You replied:

  : Again, someone with your WTS history knowledge should know better than opine the above.

  Why not? Here is some information that makes my opinion a possibility:

  Before Chuck's death, he received most of the kudus because he authored most of the society's literature. Clayton Woodworth co-authored the FM and stood to gain much new prestige after the book was published and distributed. Wouldn't you consider that a good motive for crazy Clayton to work at getting the money so the book could be published? If you wrote a book that you thought could make you famous, would you be totally disinterested in helping secure funds to get published? Would you even be more interested in getting that book financed if you were promised in secret that as a reward you would get to be the chief editor of an entirely new magazine where you could spread your crackpot ideas on diet, health and medicine to the entire world?

  Of course, this is speculation and opinion, and I've stated such. Yet it is one possiblity, and yes, it could all be bulldust.

  BTW, you snipped my main argument about how the word "financed" was used by RR. Why did you do that, if you are so interested in fairness? It can be said that a person financed something and not mean that person put up any of the money. RR's statement could have been worded a little more clearly had he said "arranged financing," but nonetheless, the statement was not so off-the-wall as you seem to think it is.

  : Why is it that you cut noone else any slack, but bend-over backwards for this habitual LIAR?

  Where can you prove that he lied in this thread?

  Farkel

  "When in doubt, duck!"
• 

  MadApostate

  Farkel:

  Yet, RR prefaced his contestible statements with these words:

  "there is nothing on paper," "it is 'rumored'," "it has been rumored," "there have been rumors," "I was told of a story of Rutherford," "I did not say I believed Russell was poisoned. Someone else made that assertion, I merely carried it over with my thoughts."

  Why do you then DEMAND evidence from him, when he clearly showed he could not produce any?

  
  None of RR's "hedging" that you quote are in reference to the 2 issues that I questioned:

  -RR's statement that Wordworth financed the FM, and

  -RR's statement that Russell dismissed JFR from Bethel in 1915.

  I think you are over-reacting, MadApostate. If you have a personal grudge against RR for whatever reason, that shouldn't taint your arguments.

  NICE redherring and misdirection! Again, why is your nose up RR's ass?

  I first was aquainted with RR by reading his posts here at JWcom, and I finally got tired and fed up seeing him repeatedly trounce truth/facts!

  All your "opining" about Woodworth goes directly against his sworn trial testimony. Reread the transcript!

  PS: Take a firm grip on each of RR's cheeks, exhale, push hard, and your head should pop right out.
• 

  Farkel

  MadApostate,

  I can see that this discussion is going nowhere, so I will finish up my side of it with this:

  You said:

  : None of RR's "hedging" that you quote are in reference to the 2 issues that I questioned:

  : -RR's statement that Wordworth financed the FM, and

  It is true that RR did not qualify that statement, and it is true that you demanded evidence. It is up to him to produce it (if he can), retract it, or re-state it as his opinion, since I never made that claim as fact.

  : -RR's statement that Russell dismissed JFR from Bethel in 1915.

  Whether RR made that statement in another thread or not, I don't know. But in this thread it was NOT RR who made that statement, but Athanasius, who said:

  : Found your comments on Russell's Will to be very interesting especially your mention of Russell's dislike of Rutherford. I had also heard about the rummor of Russell dismissing Rutherford from Bethel in 1915. Do you have any concrete evidence to support this allegation?

  To which RR replied:

  : There is nothing on paper, although it is known that Russell did not trust Rutherford and felt he was a danger. Actually it was "rumored" that Russell gave Rutherford $1,000.00 to set up a law office in California. He wanted the Judge as far away from him as possible, because he was making a nusiance of himself. It has been rumoured that the judge use to follow Russell around bethel, trying to get a audience with him. In the Olin Moyle court case, I believe it does mention a "loan" that Rutheford got for $1,000.000 but it doesn't give specifics.

  Once again, RR used these qualifying expressions, "there is nothing on paper," "it was rumored", "it has been rumoured", and "I believe."

  Seems crystal clear to me that RR is not grandstanding or emphatically claiming those statements to be absolutely true. So once again, what's your problem with those statements? (This question is rhetorical.)

  I said:

  : I think you are over-reacting, MadApostate. If you have a personal grudge against RR for whatever reason, that shouldn't taint your arguments.

  You replied:

  : NICE redherring and misdirection!

  Better learn more about logic before you make a statement like that. A red herring is a misdirection in an argument. An argument only exists when a declaration is asserted or assumed as fact. I said "I think." I did not present an argument, only my opinion. Therefore, no red herring can exist in this case. Sorry to be pedantic, but you insist on complete accuracy, do you not?

  : Again, why is your nose up RR's ass?

  That was uncalled for.

  Farkel

  "When in doubt, duck!"
• 

  MadApostate

  Farkel:

  Thanks for demonstrating how you parse my posts, yet continue to give your buddies every benefit of the doubt.

  SORRY, but RoRo did make the statement in this thread that I attributed to him regarding JFR's alleged dismissal. Check out RR's first post:

  Truth is Russell did not care for Rutherford and even dismissed him from Bethel in 1915.

  
  While you are at it, please give us your opinion of how accurate are these statements by RoRo, again found in that post that you can't find:

  Russell who owned at least 51 percent of the voting shares, left them with thse sisters. They were deemed invalid by Rutherford, as he felt sisters should not vote. He then took the shares for himself, gauranteeing himself victory in 1917, 1918 and 1919. After that, the board was dissolved and Rutherford became the king for life.
• 

  Farkel

  MA,

  :SORRY, but RoRo did make the statement in this thread that I attributed to him regarding JFR's alleged dismissal. Check out RR's first post:

  I missed that and stand corrected. Even so, when challenged he freely admitted that there was "nothing on paper" regarding JFR's alleged dismissal.

  : While you are at it, please give us your opinion of how accurate are these statements by RoRo, again found in that post that you can't find:

  Ok.

  : Russell who owned at least 51 percent of the voting shares, left them with thse sisters.

  Russell stated many times that he had controlling interest in the society. His Will stated:

  "I have already donated to the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY all my voting shares therein, putting the same in the hands of five Trustees, as follows: Sr. E. Louise Hamilton Sr. Almeta M. Nation Robison, Sr. J. G. Herr, Sr. C. Tomlins, Sr. Alice G. James."

  Presumably "Sr." means "Sister" since the older literature used "Br" to refer to a "Brother." Are you asserting that "Louise", "Almeta" and "Alice" were men?

  : They were deemed invalid by Rutherford, as he felt sisters should not vote.

  : He then took the shares for himself, gauranteeing himself victory in 1917, 1918 and 1919. After that, the board was dissolved and Rutherford became the king for life.

  It is well-documented by Ray Franz, M. James Penton and others that Rutherford wrested control of the society for himself in 1917, and never lost that control. It is also well-documented that Rutherford used legal shenanigans to have the board that Russell authorized in his Will dissolved, and it is also a fact that Rutherford was the de-facto monarch of the WTS.

  I don't see what your problem is here, unless you are just in an arguing mood or want to nit-pik over nuances.

  Enough.

  Farkel

  "When in doubt, duck!"
• 

  MadApostate

  Farkel:

  Nice "concluding" paragraph:

  I don't see what your problem is here, unless you are just in an arguing mood or want to nit-pik over nuances.

  Kinda reminds me of how Tina performs this maneveur in similar circ.

  Anyway..., you post:

  Ok.

  : Russell who owned at least 51 percent of the voting shares, left them with thse sisters.

  Russell stated many times that he had controlling interest in the society. His Will stated:

  "I have already donated to the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY all my voting shares therein, putting the same in the hands of five Trustees, as follows: Sr. E. Louise Hamilton Sr. Almeta M. Nation Robison, Sr. J. G. Herr, Sr. C. Tomlins, Sr. Alice G. James."

  Presumably "Sr." means "Sister" since the older literature used "Br" to refer to a "Brother." Are you asserting that "Louise", "Almeta" and "Alice" were men?

  
  I will give you another try at this, with a hint:

  Reread the first 3 statements in the excerpted quote VERY SLOWWWLY, and tell us whether they are consistant, that is, "make sense".

  Now try this statement:

  : He then took the shares for himself, gauranteeing himself victory in 1917, 1918 and 1919. After that, the board was dissolved and Rutherford became the king for life.
• 

  MadApostate

  Farkel:

  You rationalized:

  Even so, when challenged he freely admitted that there was "nothing on paper" regarding JFR's alleged dismissal.

  
  Don't you think that it is incumbent on a supposed "historian", when making an allegation which he knows cannot be substantiated, to warn his audience of such in the initial presentation, rather than waiting to see if his word will be accepted as gospel due to his "established crediblity", and then only acknowledging such WHEN CHALLENGED?
• 

  RR

  Farkel, thanks for all your efforts in "defending" me. It seems that MA has an agenda, and he wants ME to do his research for him. This all started a few threads ago, when he challenged me to produce photos of Russell at the great pyramid. He NEVER told me why he wanted the photos, he tried to force my hand in doing so and I did not budge. So now he's finding fault with everything I say. In fact he believes we {Bible Students] have all these photos that we're ghaording away embarrassed to show or publish. Again, that is his speculation and he hasn't come up with one shred of evidence that such photos exist or if Bible Students indeed have them.

  I did want to comment on one of your comments:
  

  Before Chuck's death, he received most of the kudus because he authored most of the society's literature. Clayton Woodworth co-authored the FM and stood to gain much new prestige after the book was published and distributed. Wouldn't you consider that a good motive for crazy Clayton to work at getting the money so the book could be published? If you wrote a book that you thought could make you famous, would you be totally disinterested in helping secure funds to get published? Would you even be more interested in getting that book financed if you were promised in secret that as a reward you would get to be the chief editor of an entirely new magazine where you could spread your crackpot ideas on diet, health and medicine to the entire world?

  When I said he financed, I meant he financed. I remember reading somewhere, and if I find it, I'll send it to you. as to his finances, he seemed to be well off. He mentions in one of the convention reports how he published thopusands of copies of a book but before he distributed them he destroyed them, because he realized that her wrote the book under the influence of the demons.

  Seems to me that a person who would have a large order made, pay for them and then destroy them, would most definitely have money.

  ____________________________
  "Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional."
• 

  Farkel

  RR,

  : It seems that MA has an agenda,

  There is no "seems" about it. MA has an agenda: stir up shit. He feeds on me, with the claim that he is just interested in "facts." He snips and cuts and presents his arguments against what he deems arguable. I've dealt with him before, and I've been warned that he is nothing more than a self-seeking, self-gratifying parasite. I finally concur. If Mr. MadApostate is REALLY interested in truth, why doesn't HE write some serious essays on what HE knows about the WTS. NO! He lives and breathes to nitpik and attack the work of others. Parasites are like that: they feed off others. Parasites make no original contributions. MadApostate makes no original contributions.

  This is to YOU, Mr. "MadApostate": if you are not just a total verbal predator or WTS spy, then YOU write a controversial piece on the WTS and let the rest of us deal with it the way you love to deal with what we write.

  You can criticize, but can you produce something original, Mr. Mad Apostate? Or are you just a leech who feeds off of the work of others?

  Well?

  Farkel, waiting for MadApostate to come up with even more bullshit

  "When in doubt, duck!"