No issues.. I was poking at you about posting. Trying to make a but of humor.
I am having some reservations about Barbara Anderson
by JWoods 89 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
miseryloveselders
JWoods said I started this thread (instead of a PM) because it was already a public issue.I knew that my viewpoint would not be a popular one. So be it.
I think it might be worth mentioning that a couple of weeks ago, yet another rumor has gotten started that "this summer a great revalation of new light on the blood issue will be coming out from the society"... we shall see if that happens, in due time.
My point was, and remains, that starting sensational rumors and doing constant self-promotion really does no good service to the exJW community.
Sorry if anyone is offended by my opinion.
I'm glad you put this out there because it needed said. There's a bunch of delusional threads on here. Every now and than its nice to see someone like you give people on here and lurkers a reality check. This isnt Dungeons & Dragons, or Warcraft. This is people's lives. To post over-speculative fantastic rumors does nothing but get people's hopes up only to be shot down with a canon upon realizing that all it was.......was a rumor with no foundation. Sensational nonsense I can do without.
-
Terry
We are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
We have come out of a monolithic social setting where you could never speak your mind.
We still have trauma from that.
On the other hand, we are bound together by having shared the awful experience itself.
Some Ex-JW's take a frontal approach in their effort to free themselves psychologically from Watchtower damage.
They use the internet and book publishing to focus outside (and inside) attention on the evils kept under wraps.
And here is the rub!
An author is a person foremost and not an anonymous entity.
Authors can be correct in everything they write and still be singled out for personality traits or misdeeds (real or imagined.)
What is fair criticism and what is foul?
I think the problem is in the MEDIUM itself: the internet.
We grow so accustomed to thinking out loud in a public forum we lose sight of how damaging a PUBLIC CRITICISM can be to a person.
On the other hand, a person who is singled out for saying or doing something IN A PUBLIC FORUM may be casually misinterpreted or simply not understood. By trying to correct the misperception the response can be taken as shrill or unfair or worse.
BETTER IS A PRIVATE conversation!
In the upper right hand corner of our forum next to our own name (in bold black type) is the letter icon.
That should be used for criticism personally, privately and conscientiously.
Why?
It avoids all the unintended consequences!
Nobody is above criticism. The day that happens we have created a sacred cow.
We've all had enough of that with the untouchable status of the Governing Body as the most sacred of all cows.
It is a very very delicate matter, however, to raise questions about Ray Franz, Barbara Anderson or anybody else we are all familiar without appearing to be character assassains.
The main reason for this is TONE.
We can't read TONE in black and white print.
Are we being vicious or mild?
Are we laid back and curious or hellbent on insults?
The TONE is invisible.
Too easy to read into something what isn't intended.
I don't know what the answer is other than exercising great care when we are even mildly critical just to be on the safe side of FAIRNESS.
-
besty
I asked you already on this thread JWoods - what is your legacy, apart from anonymous Internet rants?
Your answer - you would have to kill me if you told me. Seriously? Nothing better to say than that?
Why don't you man up and apologize to Barb - she has a legacy unlike you, and you have revealed yourself as a jealous little man.
-
cantleave
Barbara Anderson's story on Freemind's was one of the major eye-openers to me when I was exiting the cult. I think any publicity, self promoted or otherwise, regarding her work is a damned good thing.
-
Judge Dread
James, don't apologize for your opinions.
The attitudes of ex-witnesses are just as closed minded as active witnesses.
Judge Dread
-
144001
I have no reservations with Ms. Anderson. With all due respect, I prefer a slightly younger woman for a dinner date!
-
Scott77
Betsy, you are right, JWoods does not have a legacy on this JWN site. After five years, Iam sure, he will have one. If someone goes around 'spreading rumours' , its not going to hurt us as long as we get the idea behind it. Remember, there is no smoke without fire. Since JWoods acknowledges that its was a rumour, then why not give it any grain of salt? Its important to remember it was indeed big news to the announcer regardless of the outcome. Whether its big news or signficant ones, its depends on the communicator, the audience and the timing. JWoods states he could not PM Barbara as it was 'already a public issue'. Jwoods, whose audience was it 'already a public issue'? Ex-JW Community? Or JWN members?
Scott77
-
quietlyleaving
scott
jwoods has been here for a lot longer than you think, approx five years. I think he is a very nice person but was being quite cynical in this particular thread in my opinion. He has since apologised and I'm sure his mind is now at rest regarding barbara anderson.
ql
-
Gerard
Since everybody has an opinion, here's mine:
I was disapointed years ago when I saw what the "Big News" was about. After weeks of fireworks, marching bands and exagerated hype, there was this forgettable lawyer's assay/opinion published in a magazine. However, I can see Barbara's OTHER work as extremely beneficial in exposing the WT's bullshit damaging doctrines to the general public. I think JWoods is out of line and his attacks to B. Anderson are plainly unjustified.