Is it all right to post a clip of the wack your winkie vid ?????? like a loop ???
Several Sites Are Down
Dammit OUTLAW, how did you find out we have incriminating pics of AM3 in the shower with his favourite wizard toy?!!
What cracks me up is that the Watchtower wets their panties when someone with an ex- in front of his name attaches a document to a website.
You are damned if you do, or don't.
If you just use short quotes from a Watchtower publication, JWs will accuse you of making it up. I mean, look - they still deny 1925 and 1975 ever happened or that the Awake! magazine changed its page two purpose statement three times in 15 years.
In the case of a BOE letter, for example, since most R&F JWs don't actually see those letters, we could quote all day and they'd deny it. THEY WANT US TO PROVE EVERYTHING WE WRITE.
So we print a copy of the Watchtower cover or a BOE letter or a major graphic from one of their books to PROVE TO THEM THAT WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH - and then Watchtower legal wants to hit us with a copyright infringement.
There are ways around all of this that are just as effective as providing copies of the actual articles or documents. Maybe more so.
I agree that the Watchtower should have the right to protect their copyrights and no one should profit from the work of a "non-profit" organization, but we all know that it is not about the monetary value of any of their publications, talk outlines, or internal letters - it about what they reveal.
Do you ever wonder if some of the "helpers" in the Writing Department ever comment outloud to each other, "Jesus F. Christ! Did we actually write this crap? WTF were we thinking?"
If you just use short quotes from a Watchtower publication, JWs will accuse you of making it up._________Juan
Now that's what I call darn crazy, But how can they deny a book they still use ???
When shown the Reasoning book . Thier reply was, " it's an old book "
wasblind: When shown the Reasoning book their reply was, " it's an old book "
Hmm, as I recall, the Bible is also an "old book," but I may be wrong on that point!
Juan, I think I understand what you're not saying.
That being said, academic and commonly accepted journalistic standards of reporting do NOT require scans. All that is required is that the quotes be accurate and sourced so doubters and naysayers can look them up themselves and either verify or disprove the quote.
Of course that isn't possible when confidential documents (BOE Letters or quotes from the STFOG book) are quoted. But, as you pointed out, "the faithful" won't believe it even when shown a scan so it only really will make a difference to those that are already inclined to disbelieve the integrity of the organization. For them, scans add weight, but are not necessary.
It sounds like that is the best strategy they can come up with. I can imagine the WT legal team patting each other on the back after thinking that one up.
Anthony Morris and Sparlock play..
"Scrub a Dub"
Be Carefull with that Magic Wand!..
Come on Outlaw, they're just having some good clean fun!
Juan, to add to my post 5130 above, I could post this quote from the Shepherd the Flock of God elders' manual to prove that WTBTS leadership is not only aware of admitted pedophiles serving as elders, they allow it:
"For example, the sin may involve past child abuse, and this would likely disqualify him for years." - Shepherd the Flock of God, p. 38 (2010 Edition)
No scans necessary.
Again, I realize that a R&F JW couldn't look this up because they don't have access to this information, but the burden of proof is now on the WTBTS to disprove it. They cannot do this, because if they were to provide a scan of the page in question it would clearly contain the quoted material for all to see.