soft+gentle
excuse me while I choke (edit) with laughter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjLVRqB6dd4
Cedars
Patterson on the line: Watchtower claims that paying cash bond would cause immediate irreparable harm and hardship
by cedars 339 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Vidqun
Cedars, unfortunately on every schoolyard is a bully, right you rightly said. And if he puts his sights on you, he/she is determined to make you suffer. Best for your blood pressure is to ignore him. Now you know what King Solomon did during his early years. I'm glad I wasn't in school alongside him.
-
cedars
Thanks Vidqun - you're not the first to advise me to ignore him, and I doubt you'll be the last. To a certain extent I've been ignoring him for some time now because I stopped reading his posts ages ago - his opinion simply doesn't interest me. I only wish this was mutual, because he seems to hound me almost every time I express a viewpoint on something.
It's such a shame that a small minority of posters on this forum feel the need to get personal with their comments. They're not content to merely disagree with someone, they need to go into an elaborate character-assassination in an attempt to discredit their "opponent". King Solomon has done this countless times with me, and I feel I'm entitled to say something back.
I'm really not bothered what people think of me. I'm only concerned that my information, and its intended purpose of helping people out of a damaging cult, isn't compromised in the minds of lurkers. By trying to discredit me, KS is trying to discredit my information - and I won't stand for that. I think he knows it. But he should also know that, despite suffering from depression, I can give as good as I get. If he wants to throw punches, he should be prepared to receive a few "home truths" in return, most notably the fact that he's a hypocrite for labelling faders as cowards for maintaining anonymity when he's apparently in a position to come clean as to HIS real identity but refuses to.
Cedars
-
observador
Cedars,
Thanks for writing this article. It's always good to be informed of the developments in these cases.
I see a few exagerations in your article:
1. As some viewes here have already said, the Paterson property would not be "on the line". Patterson would just be a guarantee that the money would be paid.
2. This Conti case has not "set a precedent", YET. We just hope that the WT Society loses on appeal and the actual award is finally paid. Then a precedent would be set.
3. The "world is looking on", is quite a bit of exageration, Cedars. The only world that is looking on is the world of "apostates", meaning us. The WT Society is mostly irrelevant to the real world.
We just keep dreaming that one day the WT Society will pay a substantial sum of money that will make to the rolling ticker at the bottom of our TV screens, exposing them a little, and causing them some real financial harm. Until then all we can do is speculate and dream that this will happen.
-
cedars
Thanks observador. I do appreciate your comments and feedback. I used the term "precedent" to mean that, win or lose, similar cases are in the pipeline that will be drawing from the Rick Simons model of proving the Watchtower legally responsible when it comes to mishandling child abuse. You're right though, precedent means something rather more specific in a legal context, so I will change that term.
"The world is looking on" may seem like an exagerration, but though obviously every single person on the planet isn't interested - many in our community are (both active and former JWs). We get people reading the Candace Conti articles from all over the world, and you should never underestimate word of mouth.
As for Patterson being on the line, it's something of a moot point because I believe the judge's motion will be rejected. However, both myself and others find it fascinating that the Society is willing to risk losing Patterson to Candace Conti if they lose the case and cannot afford the eventual payment of damages etc. In that sense, it most definitely would be "on the line".
But I do thank you for your observations, and I will definitely look into re-wording the part that speaks about "precedent".
[edit post: I've changed it from "set a precedent" to "formed a blueprint for future legal action", which is hopefully much clearer.]
Cedars
-
Doubting Bro
Just read all 8 pages and I appreciate everyone's contributions to this article. I feel that its extremely important to get every detail as accurate as possible because we all know that JWs will jump all over the slightest error to discount the entire article. The bottom line is that the Conti verdict is by far their worse loss in recent history and could be their worse loss ever. Even if its overturned on appeal, I know several JWs that are still talking about it and the PR hit is there and impacting current JWs. Not saying that I know anyone who has left over it but I have had people speak with me confidentially that were once strong JWs who are seeing the WTS as nothing but another religion due to the scandal.
Obviously they need to take this as far as possible because if they end up losing all their appeals, the precedent will have a big financial impact on their operations and they most certainly understand that. This isn't about the 11 million but about the future loss suits, in my opinion.
My opinion is that they're using Patterson as surerty to save the 86k. If they didn't have the money to pay the verdict, they wouldn't have done that. If I were them, I would do the same thing. I'm not sure I'd read too much into that portion of it but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Good job!
-
slimboyfat
Well I for one think King Solomons's views are worth hearing. You admit yourself he sometimes has a point:
We first clashed over the Anonymous debacle (in which, I accept, my enthusiasm was somewhat misplaced)
Why can't we just accept people will sometimes disagree without attempting to silence them?
This is NOT going unnoticed by the community. I've had several PMs and emails from posters, many of them known to you, telling me to ignore you
What are such statements if not an attempt to bully and silence other points of view? Sure your articles and videos do a lot of good, but sycophants ought to consider whether the silencing of discordant views is a price worth paying. And you ought to reconsider going down that road in the first place.
-
cedars
slimboyfat
Wondered when you'd show up, after all you have a horse in this race.
Why can't we just accept people will sometimes disagree without attempting to silence them?
I do allow people to disagree with me, that's the whole point. I even invite people to disagree with me and use some of the better suggestions to make my articles more factual. What I object to is people trying to dismantle my character with unwarranted insults and abuse. For example, I'm not remotely interested in King Solomon's opinion (even though I AM interested in yours when it is offered in an unbiased way), but he still follows me round trying to harass and provoke me at every opportunity. I just want him to leave me alone and go about his own business without making such personal remarks about me. I have no interest in him, so what is behind his apparent obsession with me?
This is NOT going unnoticed by the community. I've had several PMs and emails from posters, many of them known to you, telling me to ignore you
If you think that's an attempt to bully / silence someone, then I'm clearly not the only one prone to exaggeration!!
But then like I said, you have a horse in this race so I expected you to put in a word.
Cedars
-
slimboyfat
Why don't you just ignore him then? Just let him have his say.
I think he makes some valid points about sensationalism that you should consider. It is not only in terms of facts that a presentation can be improved, but in terms of tone and overall approach too.
I don't know what you mean about horses. I am slightly concerned that one poster already having been banned you may be attempting to get King Solomon banned as well. I for one think that would be a shame. What are we going to end up with? A forum where your articles are universally praised, only minor factual corrections allowed, and no dissenting voices countenanced? Surely even you can see that is not desirable, not to mention ironic considering the high control group we are breaking free from.
-
Justitia Themis
despite JT, who is a lawyer, telling him what they actually say); he prefers instead to take a cheap shot at the Society and go with his fiction.
Just to correct the record...I'm not a lawyer; I am merely a third-year law student.