AndersonsInfo

by minimus 189 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  steve2

  The simple fact is that there is typically more inherant trust in the message someone is saying when they

  are using their real identity than when they are an anonymous identity and *may* not be genuine.

  Fair enough: it's sensible to scrutinize messages - but it ought to extend beyond who the messenger is rather than fixating on so-called "worthiness" and "authority" - the trap the JWs and others have fallen into in common with lots of other religious groups.

  Surely at an important level the content of what is said should also count for something? I may initially listen to someone because they are telling me who they are but ultimately I will also weigh up what they have to say. Equally, I may be a bit more hesitant to listen to someone like me who uses as avatar, but I'll still weigh up the content and decide for myself what the merits of the message. This is not the place for me to fully explain why I choose not to reveal my name, but one day when my immediate family are no longer such a big deal, I probably will. That shouldn't make much difference to what I say, but it might be one less barrier for some to focus on the message not the messenger.
• 

  steve2

  I don't think that is JW mentality, that is human nature.

  That's actually a point I made earlier. I'm reasonably accepting of how we humans stake our claims on the validity of messages. I don't feel at all aggrieved that some people engender greater levels of authority and legitimacy of expression. At the same time, religions such as the JWs make this tendency a mainstay: They end up only believing something because of where it comes from not because they've thought the issue through. Very human in many ways, but at its extreme, very fundamentalist (the JWs are not alone at this extreme).
• 

  BizzyBee

  As a non-gay woman, I am offended that I cannot find anything to be incensed about on this thread. And I find that offensive.
• 

  J. Hofer

  i applaud steve2 for staying cool and sticking to valid argumentation while being attacked ad hominem from all sides. *thumbs up*
• 

  Finally-Free

  The anonymous peanut gallery on JWN are entitled to their opinion, but ultimately it weighs less.

  Look who's takling "betsy".

  POS.

  W
• 

  minimus

  Good thread.

  I think a point is being made not to needlessly pick on those here that are real contributors to the cause. If info is wrongly presented, that's a different thing but posters are still PERSONS.
• 

  J. Hofer

  putting something into perspective is not picking on someone. and what is "the cause" anyway?
• 

  Terry

  Bad arguments are their own rebuttal.

  Poorly reasoned complaints stand out as just that.

  Skepticism and honest inquiry need never be feared.

  All that aside...I think since the advent of the Internet there have been a couple of generations of people who haven't learned polite discourse.

  The humanity behind the screen is invisible. What passes for discussion is more of an ego contest for some. Like the old TV gunfighters itching

  for a notch on the handle.

  I'm pretty sure Barbara Anderson can take care of her self. She is centered, factual, dedicated and determined. You can't expect her to fold like a tent when somebody lobs one at her.

  The only thing I do when I see somebody treat a veteran with disrespect is feel sorry for them that they never learned a better way.

  We can jump in and box their ears, but, banning free discourse is ludicrous and self-defeating in my opinion.

  If you can't stand the heat...stay out of the kitchen.

  The Andersons are cooking some Watchtower goose and nobody is going to drive them out of their kitchen with bad manners.
• 

  snowbird

  I'm pretty sure Barbara Anderson can take care of her self. She is centered, factual, dedicated and determined. You can't expect her to fold like a tent when somebody lobs one at her.

  The only thing I do when I see somebody treat a veteran with disrespect is feel sorry for them that they never learned a better way.

  We can jump in and box their ears, but, banning free discourse is ludicrous and self-defeating in my opinion.

  Terry, you da man!

  Syl
• 

  laverite

  Something that I have been thinking about that has been bothering me that I wanted to get off my chest...Of course, I'm very troubled that Barbara has been attacked and I posted on that previously. But one of the things that has continued bothering me is the criticism about posting in the third person.

  Barbara provides a service to the board in the form of "Andersonsinfo" and she runs a website (Watchtower Documents). It is VERY common on the internet for a site to present new information in the form of "Andersonsinfo has learned that..." or "We here at Watchtower Documents have..." This is a common style and is very appropriate. I see this all the time. In fact, JUST before logging on here, I visited the wonderwomantv.com website where they (note the plural) wrote "We here at Wonder Woman TV have just learned..." It's a site that is owned and managed by one fan to cover the new pilot and series. Referring to the site in the third person is a style that is standard and appropriate. How Barbara writes is simply a reflection of the standards and norms of how this kind of information is presented online.

  In other words, very appropriate. Barbara, please keep up the amazing work.