HOW MANY AWAKES Would I Have To Sell? (page 2)

deddaisy

MADAPOSTATE:
I can only assume (uh oh) that the "leaky teepee" that you speak of is the stadium mentioned in the article? I'm not familiar with a "leaky teepee," could you clarify? It's amazing how one has to point out these things.........You're right, just because an organization has 12.5 mil laying around to invest in ONE facility, and then has money left to renovate that facility, to use for weekends, well that doesn't mean that they're necessarily "profitable." Let me see, how many other real estate holdings do you thing they have .....Well, since you seem to be so familiar with their holdings, you can answer a question for me. Who ultimately owns the K.H's? I mean who has the authority to sell them?
Who owns the assembly halls? I know the own that I attended in the past was owned by the WTS, even though at the conclusion of the assembly they asked for "donations" to cover expenses. (And please don't come back with a comment about this, I don't CARE that they ask for donations!) I believe that a world-wide organization owns more than a few assembly halls. Let's say that they owned ONLY one assembly hall in each state, that alone adds up to alot of real estate.....Oh, let's not forget their stock holdings....(Oh I forgot, the poor Society is "sitting around" just hoping to make a little bit of money on that).....MA, I didn't say it was wrong to be profitable, I didn't say
it was immoral to pay 12.5 mil for a stadium, what I AM saying is that I am tired of hearing people (you)deny that they are profitable...You don'even have to be a bright person to figure this one out!You know, I might do both you and I a favor and stop wasting my time and yours by posting here. It seems that you can't bring anything here for discussion without having to EXPLAIN and get into a HUGE debate over what is common knowledge and sense.(to most people at least) I don't have the time or desire to dig up PROOF that the WTS is profitable! I mean that is a issue that goes without saying but you argue about it like you're some naive hick that's never been out of the house. I don't have the energy to debate such idiotic issues. I don't want to waste any more room here, so I'll post just one (of 56 available documents) that I came across at work. I typed in "RAND CAM" on the database and printed two of the articles.I didn't take time to go through the articles or print more than two, because frankly, I didn't think it was cool to spend alot of time on it. But in 30 seconds, I had access to 56 documents regarding RAND CAM engines and the few that I looked at had to do with contracts, big contracts....The point is MA, the WTS is making a BIG PROFIT on this stock! Especially since it was a gift. A big enough profit that I would bet money that they WILL NEVER DISPOSE OF IT...They will get it in a different name and bury it, but they won't give up a stock that's going to make the profit that the RAND CAM engine is going to make. Instead of arguing with me about the WTS, why don't you go to a University, or even a community college and access the library databases and do some research yourself. Unless you have access to one at home or work, which I doubt, or you wouldn't seem so uninformed. So MA, I'll post one of the Rand Cam article's to your attention but for some reason I don't think it will help. But please don't post an argument back to me, and if you debate me in any future posts, I will not respond to you. I'm really not a bitch, but I am tired of responding to such sophmoric remarks.

MadApostate

FOOL:

1. Various RELIGIOUS NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS own the various properties. Do your own research as to the difference between a "RELIGIOUS NON-PROFIT CORPORATION" and a "profitable business".

2. You can't PROVE that the WTS has received ONE SINGLE PENNY from their conditional ownership of the Rand Cam Engine Corp stock.

LDH

LOL.

Mad Cow Disease is at it again, trying to berate anyone he doesn't agree with. heh heh.

2. Rand Cam--don't know enough about it to comment

1.

Various RELIGIOUS NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS own the various properties

I'll just stop here and assume that MA hasn't read anything in the news about the Red Cross soliciting donations for victims of tragedy and NEVER spending the money on what it was donated for.

They're one of the best examples of a "non-Profit" this country has. Yes, there are a million ways to manipulate the figures to make it look like you're not making "any money." LOL.

Here's the IRS link for a 501c3 organization. Read it carefully, all 37 pages. I'm *sure* you'll find plenty of wiggle room for a 'profit.'

(I find it interesting how oftem the term "Governing Body" occurs--in an IRS document.... Almost like the WBTS lifted "politically correct terms" from *THEM* he he.)

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/k1023.pdf

It's a PDF file, 37 pages. You might wanna print it.

Lisa

QUEENIE

I think this was funny to me anyway...HOW many mags would one have to sell on a monthly basis to live the life of Riley??? JUST wondering otherwise i will stick to my idea of writing the book of my life as a JW (40 yrs of c r a p) what a title you think ?? QUEENIE

Xenu

I thought the WTS was losing money becuase of the decrease at Bethel
and the end of Subs.

ballistic

what everyone seems to forget is that the org has many business interests. Forget poxy mags, the Awake which they will probably dump. They are raking it in from legit businesses of many different kinds and they admit this.

deddaisy

Xenu,
I thought that they didn't have any money to lose? Tell the other stooge that I was being sarcastic calling the WTS a profitable BUSINESS.........That's why it was in upper case......that's what I love about you guys, I even have to explain the sarcasms..... he's soooooo smart, he knows the difference between a "non-profit religious organization" and a "business"...........I gotta stay out of these threads, you're both too intellectually challenging (or do I mean challenged?)

amccullough

I'm not sure what constitutes a profitable business as opposed to a non-profit religion, but it seems to me that the WTS use their money exactly as they say they do, to promote their preaching work. I think buying a facility to teach people in would fall under that category. I see nothing unethical with this. I assume that the WT has a lot of money and they probably have some pretty savvy business men to make sure they use their money wisely so they always have resources to further their preaching work. When I was at Bethel, I saw no indication that a single person was profiting off of the WT's revenues. Did any other ex-Bethelites?

And Deddaisy, I'm not sure if you realize this, but Rand Cam is the trade marked name of a type of engine. So if you do searches just on that you will find a lot of things that aren't directly related to the Rand Cam Engine Corporation who do not own the trade mark license. You may already know this, but thought I would point it out just in case.

deddaisy

LDH, Thanks for the Link!!!!!

mccullough, I'm done with this thread after this.....when it gets to this point, it's not even fun...Not that you personally
mentioned the Awake, but the point that I was ATTEMPTING to make in posting the article, had nothing to to do with
selling Awakes, (that was just a funny title, ha ha......)and it had NOTHING to do with the WTS being unethical for being
profitable.......What it HAD to do with, was in fact, that the WTS is profitable (I don't understand how someone
could ask for proof of that with a straight face).........And what is your point with Rand Cam Engine?....Certainly, you're
not trying to say that the Society is not going to profit from even the most miniscule holdings in this company?
Personally, I can't imagine what 50% of that company would be worth......Again, I never commented as to whether I
thought this was "unethical." I simply heard in a previous post, I wish I remembered which, that the WTS really wasn't
a profitable organization......To be honest, most people don't take issue with whether or not an organization is profitable.
I can't understand why some people here are so uptight.......my point, again, was to point out that they are profitable,
as most large organizations are........If some don't see them as being "profitable," then I certainly can't imagine how they think
the Society can pull off paying $12.5 mil for an auditorium.....

.

amccullough

ded -

it had NOTHING to do with the WTS being unethical for being
profitable

My post was more directed at LDH's comment where she made a comparison to the Red Cross by saying the following:

I'll just stop here and assume that MA hasn't read anything in the news about the Red Cross soliciting donations for victims of tragedy and NEVER spending the money on what it was donated for.
They're one of the best examples of a "non-Profit" this country has. Yes, there are a million ways to manipulate the figures to make it look like you're not making "any money." LOL.

So in my reply I prefaced that I don't know enough about a profitable business as opposed to a non-profit religion to determine which the WT should really fall under, but that I didn't think they were doing anything unethical, such as "NEVER spending the money on what it was donated for." This wasn't even a debate against any other post, just an opinion (because I don't think LDH point was that the society is unethical as much as it was that there are plenty of ways to peg yourself non-profit when you really are.)

Then you say...

And what is your point with Rand Cam Engine?....Certainly, you're
not trying to say that the Society is not going to profit from even the most miniscule holdings in this company?

No, not at all. But I certainly won't go the other way and say

The point is MA, the WTS is making a BIG PROFIT on this stock!

because I don't know that for a fact.

stock that's going to make the profit that the RAND CAM engine is going to make.

Maybe I should go buy some stock in it then.

HOW MANY AWAKES Would I Have To Sell?

Share this