But Marvin, the Facebook fiasco, the resignation, the pseudonym, the puff PR pieces - none of these took place on JWN itself. This is simply the place where they were discussed. Negative comments are apparently removed from the Survey site and the Facebook page, so that leaves JWN as the place where AAWA can be discussed freely. Maybe AAWA will do some good with people like you and jgnat on board. But it's still disappointing because it could have been so much better.
AAWA has caused divisions and has lost the opportunity to be effective
by NoRegrets 162 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Glander
I hear the slapping sounds of high fives in Brooklyn. Too bad.
-
Tylinbrando
Brooklyn will be feeling the slapping sounds soon too.
But you are right, mama's lurkers are grinning as the step children bicker.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
"But Marvin, the Facebook fiasco, the resignation, the pseudonym, the puff PR pieces - none of these took place on JWN itself. This is simply the place where they were discussed. Negative comments are apparently removed from the Survey site and the Facebook page, so that leaves JWN as the place where AAWA can be discussed freely. Maybe AAWA will do some good with people like you and jgnat on board. But it's still disappointing because it could have been so much better."
slimboyfat,
I hear ya.
I don’t understand the Facebook thing because Facebook is not my thing. Once upon a time I signed up for it, but it was such a pain in the ass with all the “friend” requests that I had to shut it down. I don’t know what happened regarding AAWA at or on Facebook.
The pseudonym thing is a non-issue.
Puff pieces are predictable and so what. Puff pieces don’t hurt anyone.
Ba’s resignation is another non-issue. I’ll add that her reasons are no one’s business but her own.
Negative comments removed? The whole AAWA web site has been under constant reconstruction since it was introduced. That some material is removed means what, exactly? Lots of information has been shifted around. So what?
Things can always be better. AAWA’s rollout is no exception. Unfortunately smooth rollouts are an exception rather than the rule. Why folks think the things you mention above are worthy of much concern is probably a consequent of exposure to Watchtowerdom. In the world of association rollouts none of what you mention is particularly noteworthy. There’s always backroom politics. There’s always powers behind the scene that remain unnamed. There’s always a tendency to muffle negative material. There’s always a tendency to produce puff pieces. There’s always resignations (not to mention firings). These are things of the human sphere. But no one that I know of inside AAWA has intention of self-promotion or personal profiteering. Each wants to help.
Here’s a real irony: I predict that a majority of AAWA worker-bees will be volunteers who’ve never been JWs in their life, or had close relatives on the inside.
Marvin Shilmer
-
slimboyfat
I would be interested in how we can know that the use of a pseudonym by the president of AAWA is not an issue. Information on the subject from AAWA has been scant to non-existent.
The Facebook incident was worrying because it seemed AAWA put its own prestige and interests above the privacy of fading JWs. They could have avoided further potential harm to people caught up in it by deleting the page and starting again. It smacks of "the organisation is more important than the individual" mentality many former JWs would like to get away from.
That's interesting you predict a lot of non-JW related people getting involved with AAWA. Do you mean like Evangelicals or secular anti-cult activists?
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
I would be interested in how we can know that the use of a pseudonym by the president of AAWA is not an issue. Information on the subject from AAWA has been scant to non-existent.
The lawyer who filed the corporation documents is well trained and experienced. It’s complete folly to think he’d risk his career for the few measly dollars he gets for this AAWA thing. Besides that, use of pseudonyms is prevalent on legal documents, and also the use of an agent’s address. Celebrities do it all the time.
The Facebook incident was worrying because it seemed AAWA put its own prestige and interests above the privacy of fading JWs. They could have avoided further potential harm to people caught up in it by deleting the page and starting again. It smacks of "the organisation is more important than the individual" mentality many former JWs would like to get away from.
I think this perspective is residual from experience with things Watchtower. I have reached out to responsible individuals inside AAWA in order to make up my own mind with direct information. I get no sense of self-importance or protectionism. None. In fact it’s just the opposite.
That's interesting you predict a lot of non-JW related people getting involved with AAWA. Do you mean like Evangelicals or secular anti-cult activists?
The world is full of delightful folks. So many people want to help other people. Retirees. Philanthropists. Young activists. Professionals seeking charitable work. You name it there’s people who want to help.
When I opted to learn more about AAWA my first initiative was to know where the initial funding came from. Once I learned this I went to the source and asked respectful and learned questions. These folks are not the typical ex-JWers. They are well-healed and well connected with professionals across a wide spectrum, and within this sphere is resources, including structured sources who can integrate with AAWA’s mission.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Listener
Cedar's is now in charge over a lot of people, time will tell how many remain.
He's already lost his Vice President and they are only just up and running.
-
slimboyfat
So the lawyer was informed a pseudonym was used? Is this recorded anywhere publicly or the fact that a pseudonym was used?
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
So the lawyer was informed a pseudonym was used? Is this recorded anywhere publicly or the fact that a pseudonym was used?
Of course the lawyer was informed of the pseudonym, and again this is nothing odd. It happens all the time.
Public record of what? That a pseudonym was used? There’s no need for such a public record. The public is served in this instance if the State has recourse to identify the individual through the court if need be.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
So you are saying that you know for sure that 'John Cedars' has filed a DBA (Doing Business As) statement with the State of Arizona?