AndersonsInfo

by minimus 189 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  skeeter1

  Believing:

  who climbed the Watch Tower ladder to the top

  For a woman, Barbs did climb the Watch Tower ladder to the top and about as high as she could go without marrying or sleeping with a GB member.

  Ray Franz didn't grandstand

  No, but the crying, whiny butts are sure grandstanding about how Babs presented this news and other news in the past.

  I think that 'Ray Franz didn't grandstand' is a sexist comment. Men are considered to give 'serious' accounts, while women are considered to be flighty gossipers. Barbara introduced a 'big news' thread years ago about a blood article. Just like now, some of the posters thought she was grandstanding about the article. Barb got an earful of snotty nosed, whiny butt posters who didn't like the way she posted it as 'big news.' Guess what happened? Ray Franz, not Barbs, appeared and was quoted in newspaper articles about the JW blood doctrine and the blood article. This went all around the US. Guess also what? No one on this board accused Ray Franz of grandstanding. I do think the sexism learned while a JW carries over to this life. Barbs is grandstanding, but Ray Franz isn't. waa-waa-waaa.

  You locked a thread I started. Why are you picking on this poster? Others have disagreed with Barbara but you seem to find me a problem? Am I easier to lock out? That's fine, Simon.

  Now, the motive comes out. Hidden jealousy and anger. waa-waa-waa

  This Board is not a public park. Simon is its owner. If you break the posting guidelines, he can shut you out. It's his playpen. If you publicly dispute or argue about moderator decisions, you need to aise it via e-mail or pm. See rule #11. I wonder what about your previous thread caused it to be shut down. Must have broke another rule, I am sure. I don't care to hear it, but you should have worked through it via the methods. I have heard enough whining.

  Nor, is this Boardt like mandatory service. If you don't like how you are treated, you have the right to leave. You can and should move to other places. You have the right to build your own talk forums.

  Personally, I am very worried about you. Have you ever heard of obsessive compulsive disorder? Were you offended because Simon shut down your previous thread, you didn't like the tone of Barbara's thread, are jealous becuase Barbara is more popular and in the know then you? Are you now dwelling on her? Seriously, do you dwell too much on things in other areas?
• 

  skeeter1

  Slimboy,

  I couldn't agree with you more in your comment about who decides who is adding value.

  Another poster a few pages back wrote:

  "Simon, with all due respect, I don't think you'll find anyone on here who doesn't appreciate what Mrs.Anderson has contributed to The Cause. However, its a disservice to her reputation, as well as the movement when someone of her caliber lowers the bar and gets involved with what I like to call Tabloid Apostacy.."

  Who should decide what is 'Tabloid Apostacy'? Should Barbara have been the arbitrator and told Mr. Unthank that his submission was Tabloid Apostacy? Does she have a crystall ball on her desk - where she can decide the merits and see into the future and tell Mr. Unthank to not waste his time? From reading the Submission, Mr. Unthank has been working this case for a long time. Is there not any value in learning about another ex-JW who is trying to do something? Even if you don't agree with Mr. Unthank, you can learn something by it. What if there was such a law in another country or even Austrailian province? I learned alot from reading his submission about how the WTS uses children and has formal policies (like on children at building sites, statements in charters, distributing magazines, etc.) that show that the WTS have an orchestrated policy to 'work with' children. I found this submission to be useful and worthwhile.

  The first attempts at building an airplane didn't fly. But, the flawed designs were useful to the next builders. And, Mr. Unthank hasn't flown his plane yet. He's taken some test runs, and retooled his design. He's now about to launch it off the Kitty Hawk sand dune.

  Should Barbara have told the 'big news' legal journal editor that the blood article was 'Tabloid Apostacy?' It wouldn't have been published, the Associated Press and other newspapers/media would not have talked about it, and Lawrence Hughes would not have been able to give it to his attorneys to help him win using its theories. Should Barbara have told Mr. Lawrence Hughes that his case was "Tabloid Apostacy", when it used the big news concept to win at Alberta Appeals? Should Barbarahave wrote to the judges and told them the 'big news' and Lawrence were 'tabloid apostacy'? Hasn't Lawrence lost alot more arguments then he has won? Is Lawrence also fighting a losing battle? Should any of us be the arbitrators and tell Lawrence to stop his cause and not fly his Kitty Hawk? Should we call Lawrence and tell him that he is "Tabloid Apostacy" when he was starting his battle?

  Or, do each of us have a right to bear our own cross and fight our own battles?

  Construcive critisim on actual points within the Submission, webpage, etc that help Mr. Unthank are what is needed. "Mr. Wright....that wing has a tear in it." That's what many of us, me included, gave to Mr. Unthank. He could make or not make the changes we asked. But, he was thankful.

  And, I am thankful that Barb told all of us about this Submission by Mr. Unthank. But, my ears are hurting from all the whining about Barb being excited about a new plane and concept that was about to be launched.

  Skeeter
• 

  J. Hofer

  it's everybody's right to post partially sensationalist articles and it's equally everybody's right to not buy all of it. it arguably may also be everybody's right to go stampede and personally attack the few unbelievers. some people just like to "follow those who take the lead" and some are more individualistic in nature.
• 

  besty

  OK let me put it another way.

  Ray Franz etc have come out into the public spotlight at great personal cost.

  JWN is populated - in part - by anonymous armchair critics.

  My comment about trust and real identity was intended to distinguish between people providing content - in this case Andersons Info - and those in the cheap seats providing valueless (subjective I agree SBF) 'commentary'. Until Simon gets ratings/ignore functionality on the site the peanut gallery get same billing as the performers.

  It was not a zero sum conclusion - plenty of anonymous posters add great value (subjective I agree SBF).

  My point remains that high profile posters like Andersons Info are there to be shot at, including by those who have not paid the same entrance fee. I know who I will ascribe most value to.
• 

  Broken Promises

  Ok Besty, according to your post, I can give your opinion on this little value as you're also one of the "anonymous peanut gallery".
• 

  besty

  Besty, in the context of what you originally wrote, it did sound like you were putting the likes of Ray Franz, Barb Anderson, Simon Green et al on one pedalstal, and the "anonymous peanut gallery" on another. You didn't expand on who you saw the "anonymous peanut gallery" as being, so it was assumed by many (including me) that you were referring to anyone who isn't as well known. Which is most of us. And yourself.

  I didn't expand on 'anonymous peanut gallery' as it should be a self-defining phrase. Either you are anonymous or not and either you are merely heckling the performer, or you are not.

  Who decides? That's up to you, me and slimboyfat

  I don't claim to be well known, but I'm certainly not anonymous. Very few people have their full real name as their user name on JWN, including Simon, dogpatch, Andersons Info and jwfacts :-) My life story (which at the time included my full name and location) has been posted on JWN and is also on Randy and Barb's sites.
• 

  Broken Promises

  You can take the boy out of the JWs, but you can't take the JW out of the boy.

  Sad.
• 

  skeeter1

  I am a card-carrying, proud member of the JWN peanut gallery!

  Skeeter
• 

  besty

  I can't really make it much clearer - if you are anonymous thats fine - just think about adding value with what you type.

  If you prefer to toss peanuts from the cheap seats thats fine too - just don't expect my respect.

  Broken Promises - your last comment above puzzles me - care to elaborate?
• 

  undercover

  I've stayed out of this thread till now because I could see the rails rattling loose from the git-go and knew it would turn into a train wreck eventually.

  But, just like all the other villagers who heard the collision and explosion at the edge of town I just had to trot out to the scene of the wreck to rubberneck.

  So now I'll step up on a soap box that fell out of the wreckage and say my measly two cents:

  While I have upmost respect for the Andersons, Randy, Simon, Ray Franz and others who have gone public with their stories and their experiences, I try very hard to look past who they are and concentrate on what they say. Over time those people mentioned have earned my respect. It is not a given that one should respect any of those people just because they who they, it's what they say and how they say it.

  At the same time, just because some of these peope have garnered respect and admiration, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be excused from criticism or scrutiny. Even the most respected journalists have made mistakes and erred in their reporting. It is possible for the best among us to make mistakes. And that's why I like to see people come out and question something posted by the Andersons, Simon, etc. but that also includes questioning any one of us of the anonymous peanut gallery.

  To me this dialog shows that, as a group, we're not an"apostate society" coordinated and organized to bring about the destruction of the WTS. The Andersons are not our leaders. Ray Franz was not our Messiah. Instead it shows that we're individuals. We're a village, not a corporation. We are people who have learned, or re-learned, critical thinking skills and analytical ability to sniff out what's real, what's fake, what's true, what's embellished. And that means there will be disagreements and opposing opinions. While some use their skills and oppurtunities to publicly expose more about the WTS, others choose to remain anonymous, some have no real choice as to remaining anonymous at the time. So they absorb the knowledge to help family/friends. Even though they're not publicly trying to free people, they are in their own way trying to fee people.

  I've seem some comments trying to compare some attitudes or actions as very JW-like. I don't see that. In JWland, you're not to have personal opinioins. You're not to disagree with the stated fact. That touted "United Brotherhood" was just another name for "army of robots" who can't think or reason for themselves. Instead, here we have some who challenged the information and even some who challenged the deliverer of the news. As long as it is done respectfully and without malice, I think it's okay to a degree. I would hate to see the day where everyone would just accept, without question or doubt, anything that someone posts just because of who they are. That is the same as JWs accepting Governing Body edicts without question. If we don't question even those who do expose their identity, then we'd all have to worship at the banner of Rick Fearon.