Groan
I am having some reservations about Barbara Anderson
by JWoods 89 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AndersonsInfo
I was trying to get the attention of people by announcing "Big News" back then. Perhaps I offended some, but I didn't intend to. I was very excited by what I knew that of the WT Society's 1990 blood bklt being exposed by Kerry Louderback-Wood's essay which was shortly going to appear in the Journal of Church of State and that was big news. It even made the newspapers because AP covered it. I heard from a someone who knew, that there was panic at WT headquarters about it back then and some very special people were assigned to deal with it. Since that time, WT has changed in ways that are not too obvious, which is the way they mean it to be, but it forced them to feature more and more information on blood fractions in their magazines. This movement has had definite ramifications within their own organization.
I've never understood why some resented it when I said what I did about "Big News" and caused a number of people to get so put out with me, but to each his own. I try to do my best to inform. I'm not a leader in any group, just a "passer alonger" of information. I've not posted on this board for quite a long time but started to do so recently because I thought my input as well as everybody else's would be welcome, but apparently that isn't the case.
The person who is now having reservations about me is the same one in the past who has many times thanked me for what I have done to expose WT. I must have really did something bad to cause him to start a thread about me now and I sure don't know what it is. I was caught in the middle of Jim's post and the responses made by others to his post. Jim and I and others worked things out the best we knew how to do, but now I'm not the victim but the accused. It appears at this point that whatever I do or say, won't help matters and there will be those who will continue this thread expressing for and against. Am I going to get the "Danny Haszard" treatment? If I do, then WT will have won. In a few days, people like "three Witness" will be posting all over the web about XJWs attacking Barbara Anderson and gloating. If my name on this board is offensive to some, say it and I'll remove myself from this medium. I'm not asking for anybody to defend me on this thread. I just want all of this to stop. Is that asking too much of people who have been hurt as much as we have been by WT?
Barbara
-
undercover
retracted...
-
JWoods
Have a little humility before you start throwing shit around, JWoods, you just might get covered in it.
It washes right off, though - doesn't it?
-
daniel-p
Have a little humility before you start throwing shit around, JWoods, you just might get covered in it.
It washes right off, though - doesn't it?
But still leaves a smell.
-
daniel-p
Countdown to locked thread....
-
SixofNine
Barb, not to worry, it's just JWoods. He's a very odd duck.
Your input here is appreciated by the vast majority.
-
scotsman
Well before it does I'd ask Barbara to keep posting here and rise above James Woods' infantile posting. You're a name, with a profile and have a record of forcing change within the WT so unfortunately you have to ignore this sort of thing.
-
JWoods
I was trying to get the attention of people by announcing "Big News" back then. Perhaps I offended some, but I didn't intend to. I was very excited by what I knew that of the WT Society's 1990 blood bklt being exposed by Kerry Louderback-Wood's essay which was shortly going to appear in the Journal of Church of State and that was big news. It even made the newspapers because AP covered it. I heard from a someone who knew, that there was panic at WT headquarters about it back then and some very special people were assigned to deal with it. Since that time, WT has changed in ways that are not too obvious, which is the way they mean it to be, but it forced them to feature more and more information on blood fractions in their magazines. This movement has had definite ramifications within their own organization.
I've never understood why some resented it when I said what I did about "Big News" and caused a number of people to get so put out with me, but to each his own. I try to do my best to inform. I'm not a leader in any group, just a "passer alonger" of information. I've not posted on this board for quite a long time but started to do so recently because I thought my input as well as everybody else's would be welcome, but apparently that isn't the case.
The person who is now having reservations about me is the same one in the past who has many times thanked me for what I have done to expose WT. I must have really did something bad to cause him to start a thread about me now and I sure don't know what it is. I was caught in the middle of Jim's post and the responses made by others to his post. Jim and I and others worked things out the best we knew how to do, but now I'm not the victim but the accused. It appears at this point that whatever I do or say, won't help matters and there will be those who will continue this thread expressing for and against. Am I going to get the "Danny Haszard" treatment? If I do, then WT will have won. In a few days, people like "three Witness" will be posting all over the web about XJWs attacking Barbara Anderson and gloating. If my name on this board is offensive to some, say it and I'll remove myself from this medium. I'm not asking for anybody to defend me on this thread. I just want all of this to stop. Is that asking too much of people who have been hurt as much as we have been by WT?
Barbara
Thank you. The thread was not an ad-hominem. It stops. Point made, I think, by that post.
-
Marvin Shilmer
Everybody,
Has it occurred to anyone else that JWoods probably did Barbara a favor by starting this thread?
It occurs to me if JWoods had the question he did that perhaps others do too, but fear to ask because of stirring up a settled wound, or fear of how they will look to others has prevented them from asking to have their concern settled.
By JWoods starting this thread he took an initiative that has let Barbara express herself about something that maybe others besides JWoods questioned but did not want to risk asking. It also allowed others to chime in as thirdparty sources and likewise express themselves. To me, this is a good thing.
All adults should be big enough to talk out loud about things that bother them, particularly if it can help alleviate a question of someone's good name and character.
I appreciate that JWoods expressed himself.
On a separate note, I will express this very strongly held opinion: It is unconscionable to me for persons to stand idly by when a person’s ethic is remotely questioned when they know the person’s ethic is stellar! I do not think JWoods has questioned Barbara's ethic, just to be clear. But it is refreshing and reassuring to see in this instance people are responding as they should out of conviction of Barbara’s good name and character. When one of us sees a reputation in any way being maligned and we know it is bad information, we should take the attitude of ‘Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!’ and do what we can to stop it and have it corrected. In such an instance we are placing our own needs behind those of a neighbor (and perhaps a friend!), which is to me a good thing.
Marvin Shilmer