WT does NOT own "Military Stock"

by amccullough 58 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • herbert
    herbert

    Freeman,

    It isn't helpful to say that "a WT owned company" does this or that unless the WTS actually owns the company. If the WTS merely holds stock in a company then they don't own the company. The WTS supposedly owns stock in IBM which obviously does military work but it can hardly be said that "IBM is a WT owned company."

    Stuff like this tends to support the WTS rhetoric about "apostate lies." Better to be dealy accurate and precise than to give them loopholes through exaggeration or inaccuracies.

    herbert

  • simwitness
    simwitness

    This all begs the question(s):

    Isn't owning stock taking an interest in the world and worldly affairs?

    Since armageddon is so near, wouldn't "long term" investments in worldly affairs be misuse of the master's stuff?

    For some reason, I want to think that the WTBS has told the follower's not to do these things (similar to going to college, investing in the "future"...etc...)

    Just thoughts.

    Really dont care who's stocks they own, moreso the question of why they own them to begin with.

  • amccullough
    amccullough

    Freeman:

    Like it or not, that is a fact! Believe it or not, it is still a fact!
    You saying something is true does not make it a fact. If you are going to make claims that a "WT owned company" is profiting off of smart bombs, then you should back this up with some type of proof. Otherwise, most people, including myself, will write your post off as completely untrue (unless they are looking for more reasons to hate the WT.)
    What you are saying may very well be true, but I cannot assume that just because you say so. If the WT owns stock in these companies you mentioned, then they are publicly traded companies and there is nothing confidential about that. If you want to make your post credible, than please provide some proof that the WT owns these stocks or at least provide the company names so that people like me can investigate and verify your story.
  • jwsons
  • amccullough
    amccullough

    jwsons-

    you obviously didn't read the initial post in this thread. Those weblinks simply back up what I posted originally about the WT owning 50% of Rand Cam Engine Corp, not Reg Tech. Please read the original post and tell me what you think.

  • jwsons
    jwsons

    Open wide your eye and read the blue bar across the title of the Company (which has the date 10/07/1998 on it in case you're serious blindness for believing in The WacoTower). What's this ?

    "REGI U S INC, filed this on 10/07/1998."

    Is that above line not REGI ?
    http://www.tenkwizard.com/blurbs.php?repo=tenk&ipage=1098910&exp=watchtower&g=

    And how about this ? Is this not REGI
    http://www.regtech.com/main.htm

  • amccullough
    amccullough
    And how about this ? Is this not REGI
    http://www.regtech.com/main.htm

    No it is not. It is Reg Technologies. REGI is Rand Energy Groups Inc. Reg Technologies and Rand Cam Engine are both part owners of REGI. That's why Reg Technologies website says "Reg Technologies, Inc. (RRE.V / OTC BB: REG RF) and its U.S. subsidiary REGI U.S., Inc. " The WT has 50% stock in Rand Cam Engine Corp (with no voting proxy so I believe they have no control), not REGI or Reg Technologies. All of this is exactly what I stated in my original post. I realize that is a lot of "R"s and that might cause some confusion, hopefully this post will clarify things.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    : If I own a broom factory,
    that is sold in NYC, which is
    bought by a janitor who works
    for the UN, am I supporting the UN?

    No, but you are guilty of really crappy analogies.

    Farkel

  • amccullough
    amccullough

    Let's make this simple and use a recognizable set of companies. For the following analogy, please use these references:
    GM = Reg Technologies
    Saturn = REGI
    Bill's Engines = Rand Cam Engines

    Let's say your name is Bill. You're a pretty smart guy. You develop a new style of engine that is very efficient, so you start a company called "Bill's Engines." You keep it a privately held company, but donate 50% of the stock to the WT, but retain the voting proxy so you can still run the company.
    Then you approach GM with your engine. They like it. They decide to partner with you to develop the engine into a working product and as part of the deal you negotiate certain rights of the engine to GM. So Bill's Engines and GM both invest 51/49 into a new car company called Saturn. Saturn is going to make new cars using your engines. After this deal all goes down, GM and Saturn (being the developers) pursue a military contract and win it. They now are to produce a Missile carrying vehicle as well. Whamo, the WT is linked to the military.

    I am not saying this is right, in fact, I've already stated that if the WT is aware of this connection, I would expect them to rid themselves of the stock. I AM interested in clarifying the facts as opposed to saying things like "The WT is into Military Stock Big Time" or that the "WT owns a company making smart bombs" which are some of the things I've read in other posts.

  • amccullough
    amccullough
    No, but you are guilty of really crappy analogies.
    Farkel

    That was funny! Xenu, we will have to give you a W and for your next talk, please work on application of illustrations.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit