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

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I am a fader but I am not offended by those who argue that fading is the coward's way out. I have some sympathy with the view. And it's good to hear others' perspectives on a problem many of us face.

    I think you are seriously confusing two distinct issues. King Solomon was apparently taking issue with those who conceal their apostate status from people they know in real life. This is in no way comparable to whether one uses their real name or a pseudonym on an Internet forum. Although admittedly the latter may impact on the former, they are in fact two separate issues, and it is quite confusing how you seem to equate one with the other. Most people remain anonymous on Internet forums for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with JWs or fading.

    The quote about the New Statesman appears to be a clear misquote. The rest of the sentence changes the meaning. I don't know why King Solomon did that, it was rather stupid in my view.

    But he makes valid points about sensationalism, as does Free @ Last. In a cool moment of reflection you could think about them.

    I don't think King Solomon was threatening you. He was trying to warn you that you may be more vulnerable to detection that you realise. But in fact I reckon if the Watchtower were bothered about finding you they would have done so already. I don't believe they are as eager to pursue apostates online as some imagine. The Quotes website incident was the exception rather than the rule. (You might like to read about that incident, if you have not heard about it already, there should be many threads about it in the archives.)

  • cedars
    cedars

    slimboyfat

    The points I make about King Solomon's view of faders are valid. He criticizes me for speaking out against the Society from an anonymous vantage point, knowing full well that I can't do this because I will be shunned if I "come out of the closet" - all the while concealing his own identity without himself being under threat of shunning. He claimes I should bite the bullet, so to speak, and deal with the consequences of identifying myself - even though he is seemingly a universe away from understanding what this means from his own circumstances. In my view, and in the view of many others looking at this matter from a non-jaundiced perspective, it's clear hypocrisy.

    But he makes valid points about sensationalism, as does Free @ Last. In a cool moment of reflection you could think about them.

    In a "cool moment of reflection" you might do well to consider your own sensationalist claims against me, which I have refuted with clear examples of how my articles are NOT sensationalist - with no apology offered in return.

    Cedars

  • cedars
    cedars

    By way of further comparison, King Solomon has also offered (on albeit rare occasions) his own criticism of the Watchtower Society on this forum - even if this criticism is, in my view, feigned and intended to deflect accusations that he is an apologist - all the while keeping his anonymity even though he is exempt from Watchtower-sanctioned shunning. When I criticize the Society, I am told to "put my big kid undies" on and "come out of the closet" or face accusations that I am a coward for not doing so.

    As with the use of mis-quotes, it's one rule for him - another rule for everyone else.

    Cedars

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Cedars, just one point. Your article is still headlined "Patterson on the line". It is not, as many have explained at length. That is sensationalism. Just one example.

    How do you know if King Solomon has revealed himself as an apostate to the people he knows?

  • cedars
    cedars

    slimboyfat - what are you talking about "to the people he knows"? Revealing oneself privately to intimate friends and acquintances is not what this is about. Going public and "coming out of the closet" is what this is about. King Solomon expects me to do that without wishing to do it himself.

    I maintain that "Patterson on the line" is a fair and honest headline for my article, and I have explained to you why I used this expression. Whether you agree or not with the choice of words is your choice - yet you seem intent on forcing the issue rather than offering your opinion and moving on.

    In any case, slimboyfat, I find it difficult to take your thoughts and opinions seriously since you have already demonstrated on this forum that you are so filled with hatred against me that you are prepared to comment on a threatening PM that I have received from a poster banned from this forum for threatening me, thereby rubbing salt into the wounds and causing my wife and I considerable anxiety by casting doubt on the severity of the threat and, in so doing, questioning the decisions taken by the mods and admins of this forum (posting guideline 11). If you had at least apologized for this clearly inappropriate behavior, privately or otherwise, I might take your views or observations more seriously. As it is, you have a bitter and jaundiced opinion of me, and I therefore can't take anything you say seriously unless you are commenting on a subject that has nothing to do with me.

    Cedars

  • besty
    besty

    I don't see any factual inaccuracy in the subject line of the OP - it also seems a fair and reasonable headline, with a nod to SEO thrown in.

    I may have rewritten it as:

    Jehovah's Witness HQ complex offered as collateral : Watchtower claims that paying child sex abuse cash bond would cause “immediate irreparable harm and hardship” - abuse victim Conti continues fight for justice against billion dollar religion

    anyways...

    an ignore button would fix the dispute for both parties and reduce abuse and trolling on the site IMHO - works very well on Yahoo boards...

  • cedars
    cedars

    besty

    an ignore button would fix the dispute for both parties and reduce abuse and trolling on the site IMHO - works very well on Yahoo boards...

    Ooh, that would be heaven!!

    Cedars

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I do not hate you. I think lot's of things you have done are great. Especially getting the "mentally diseased" thing into the newspapers. That was excellent.

    I think it was a great shame Nathan Natas got banned. I don't think he was threatening you, you seriously took what he said the wrong way. I have a low toleration for threats and I agree it is one very good reason for banning someone from the forum. But I don't think that was Nathan Natas' intention and you should blew the incident out of proportion. Nathan Natas has been on the forum for years and made many contributions to the "cause" as it were. Have you read his post 9492 on this thread?

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/235009/2/Are-you-pro-activist-anti-activist-or-passive

    Personal feelings aside, it is a shame that someone like that is now excluded from the site, don't you think?

    "Coming out" as an apostate to the people you know in real life is not the same as whether a person uses their real name on this or any other site. You are still confusing the two issues.

  • slimboyfat
  • soft+gentle
    soft+gentle

    guys KS was not misquoting or misrepresenting cedars. go back and take a look. all KS was saying that in a defamation lawsuit if you began your sentence with well so and so does it therefore why can't I then you will be in trouble - no matter that you go on to say but I am willing to make corrections unlike the statesman.

    another thing is that cedars hasn't really made any real corrections to his article so in other words he is practicing the idea of that if the statesman can do so why can't I whilst paying lipservice to being willing to make corrections when it is pointed out that his article is very misleading and verges on lying.

    As far as I'm concerned if cedars wants to use theocratic warfare strategy to get attention then that's his problem. But at least lets be clear that there is substance to accusations that cedars writes misleading stuff. Mind you in the world at large misleading stuff does get attention and once the spotlight is turned on people do take notice even if it is just to dismiss the story as being full of holes.

    but it's a dangerous game that can backfire as KS has been at pains to point out

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit