PRIVATE VIEWS PUBLICLY EXPOSED

Derrick

A regular poster revealed how an elder confided in an ex-Jehovah's Witness from Norway who in the past has always insisted he is trustworthy. I even recall him becoming outraged on H2O a year or two ago at the mere suggestion that he would turn a trusted private email correspondence into public fodder, or "out" any Jehovah's Witness who confided in him.

AlanF | Greg Stafford's New Book Has Shipped | Apr 7, 2002 05:28
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=25201&site=3
AlanF wrote:
This brings to mind another situation. Several months ago Randy Watters and Kent Steinhaug published a bunch of correspondence on the blood issue between an elder named Jensen and the Society, where Jensen pretty clearly disagreed with the Society's blood policy. Does anyone know if Jensen was disfellowshipped for having his private views publicly exposed? Usually if the divergent views of a JW become known to the JW community, they're immediately brought before a committee, even if the person had no intention of not keeping them private. And knowing how fanatically anal the Society can be, it wouldn't surprise me if they went after Jensen and accused him of any number of nefarious activities.

Need I say more?

This reiterates what I have been "preaching to the choir" all along. WHY WOULD ANYBODY CONFIDE IN INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL SIMPLY EXPOSE THEIR PRIVATE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE and "out" their identities? Family men (like perhaps this elder?) are at the greatest risk, because many with wives and kids simply cannot afford the social consequences of getting disfellowshipped.

Thank you Alan for having the courage to expose publicly at risk to yourself and family the devastating truth about what many on the inside already knew was going on.

On the internet the core values of trust and confidentiality are considered nostalgic sentiments from a bygone era.

Derrick

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

-- William Blake (Auguries of Innocence)

AlanF

I have no idea what you're trying to do here ultimately, Rick, but as usual you appear to be way out in left field. How do you think Watters and Steinhaug got hold of the correspondence they put on the Net?

AlanF

Farkel

Rick,

There's an old saying that states, "If you've got a problem, you take it to someone who can do something about it, not to someone(s) who can't do something about it."

You should have taken the problem to Randy and Kent privately before plastering it all over the net and embarrassing yourself.

Farkel

rhett

Um, I couldn't really even tell what the exact point of this message was but I do know that there are times when things said privately to one person over the net stay that way. This is not the only online community that I'm involved with. The other one that I am much more active in relies on trust and confidentiality. There have been many times when, in that group at least, I have been privy to very sensitive information, a couple times involving affairs that could land people in very deep trouble with the government of their respective countries. Each time, though, those strict confidences have been kept. In fact, its only very rarely that they are not kept among any members at all and even then its only because people's egos got in the way and they were out to cause harm to various individuals.
If anything I think that this goes back to the old JW mindset of always turning people in to the elders when you think they're doing something you disagree with. I can tell you that out in the normal world trust and confidentiality are still very highly regarded, and needed, on the net.

Derrick

Alan, I simply quoted your own words. Why do you refuse to reply?

AGAIN: Why did you publicly post these words on Simon's board:

"Several months ago Randy Watters and Kent Steinhaug published a bunch of correspondence on the blood issue between an elder named Jensen and the Society, where Jensen pretty clearly disagreed with the Society's blood policy. Does anyone know if Jensen was disfellowshipped for having his private views publicly exposed?"

Since you publicly posted that Kent and Randy might have gotten an elder DF'd, I want to know why?

In my original post, I originally wanted to know, based on your above public statement: WHY is an elder at risk of getting DF'd because his private email was posted?

Derrick

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

-- William Blake (Auguries of Innocence)

AlanF

Alright Rick, I'll play along. But for me to do so intelligently requires you to answer a few questions so that I know where you're coming from. Here you go:

1. How do you think Watters and Steinhaug got hold of the correspondence they put on the Net?

2. Why do you think that "an elder confided in an ex-Jehovah's Witness from Norway"?

3. What makes you think that Watters or Steinhaug have done anything like "EXPOSE THEIR PRIVATE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE" with respect to the Jensen/WTS correspondence?

4. What makes you think that any "email correspondence" took place at all?

5. If you can answer 4. intelligibly, who do you think were the parties involved in the emailing and why do you think so?

6. Why do you think "that Kent and Randy might have gotten an elder DF'd"?

Please explain your reasoning process. Especially, if you think your conclusions are based on anything I've said, please show me exactly what words of mine you used to come to such conclusions.

I have no choice but to ask these questions because you're so far out in left field that I would have to explain so many things that it would take several pages to get you straightened out. And if you can't properly understand a single paragraph, it's certain you can't understand several pages.

AlanF

Derrick

You should have taken the problem to Randy and Kent privately before plastering it all over the net and embarrassing yourself.

Your advice makes no sense. I didn't plaster it "all over the net" but on this board, and I simply QUOTED AlanF's words from the original post's link:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=25201&site=3

In my response to this link, I expressed my opinion about AlanF's comments about Kent and Randy.

However, I offered nothing new about Kent or Randy. Rather, I quoted AlanF who did say something about them.

I personally refuse to believe what AlanF said about Randy inparticular, or perhaps he neglected to mention that Randy had specific permission to post that correspondence. As for Kent, well, I wouldn't put what AlanF seems to have said passed him. ;-)

All Alan has to do is explain what he meant. People post all the time asking for clarification on someone's post, and expressing their opinion about the post.

Derrick

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

-- William Blake (Auguries of Innocence)

Derrick

Alan, I'm not going to get diverted by the 20 questions routine. I will just keep repeating:

Why did you say in a recent post, "WHY is an elder at risk of getting DF'd because his private email was posted?"

Derrick

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

-- William Blake (Auguries of Innocence)

Naeblis

I think it's blatantly obvious. *blinks*

AlanF

Rick, I can't physically answer your last question until I know that you understand the answers to EACH of the questions I asked you.

Others understand what I said without having to go through the 20-question routine, but you don't. So give it the old college try. You might actually learn something.

Let me give you a hint: your question is akin to asking me why I don't support my 37 children.

AlanF

PRIVATE VIEWS PUBLICLY EXPOSED

Share this