by zed is dead 298 Replies latest members private
Everyone involved in SST's outing bears a certain amount of responsibility.....including SST just a wee bit don't you think?
NO...I don't think. AWWA is responsible. SST is not responsible for AWWAs actions. He gave NO persmission, he was NOT asked, he was FORCE added.
Pretty simple really.
-
“So don't rely on the "Watchtower’s relentless training of elders" as a thing.”
UnConfused,
I don’t rely on it. Watchtower training only represents probability in terms of benchmarking. That said, the more rabid elders and the more radical elders are, in my experience, less apt (not more apt) to take anything published by Internet as true at face value.
“You seem to have your mind made up already that this is all a hoax.”
No. My mind is not made up. I’ve shared an observation, and reasons for that observation.
“Tell us your reason for believing that even before you joined this thread.”
I had not given a lot of thought to particulars of the judicial committee hearing until later in this discussion. Said another way, until recently my participation in this discussion assumed SST was disfellowshipped as a result of the whole BBXB Facebook incident. Then you made a comment suggesting I had not paid attention to details. This compelled me to take a closer look at details.
During my review it stood out that claims of what transpired during SST’s judicial hearing did not contain anything a person could be disfellowshipped for. Given this whole discussion leverages the incident claimed by SST, and given that details of the incident do not add up, then I spoke up about it saying the story sounds contrived. Today it got worse.
Marvin Shilmer
Plumbing yet new depths....
-
“After a case of information exposure and lack of trust, the last things someone likely wants or is willing to do is provide the same group with additional personal information. So lack of evidence being available is not totally surprising.
“Yes, evidence is great when you have it but not having it doesn't mean that something didn't happen.”
Claims are only as valuable as they can be proven. I don’t suggest anyone should or can offer more evidence in this case. My point is that much has been leveraged against a claim whose value is less than solid and, more, potentialy contrived for reasons given.
In effect, to believe and then use the claim of SST we have to accept it because SST said it happened. On top of this we have to accept that it happened despite presentation of no information that Watchtower would have a JW disfellowshipped for. This means we have to assume three rogue elders acting contrary to Watchtower training.
Now, today, we have introduction of an additional claim of some sort of “digital proof” when there can be no “digital proof” because SST is said to have never joined the group. The whole thing is about being added to a group SST never joined. Hence “digital proof” would be exculpatory and not condemnatory.
The SST incident is getting more difficult to believe rather than less difficult to believe.
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin, when I spoke of the "essence of truth," I knew that such essence was not the lawerly proved truth that some insist upon. I was speaking simply of it being believed by those who might be somewhat familiar with the subject at hand. SST provides the ring ot truth to ex-JW's here, especially those that have ever been at JC meetings.
UnConfused has fully stated what you need to read. Your way of questioning makes you sound like a jerk. Instead of digging up quotes from previous pages that we can go back and forth on, we can stick to page 5.
By continually saying "it sounds contrived," it is crystal clear (no matter what else you said or will say) to me that you are implying that you can't SAY that SST is lying, but you are sure that he is lying or leaving out the real reason he was DF'ed. But Ex-JW's know the ring of truth and can figure that out differently.
Lastly (because I may post more on this subject but do not wish to keep hearing how you don't understand me) I say to you before I stop saying anything to you on the matter,two witnesses can confirm the existence of digital evidence and show printouts to back their claim. A person might have the character that decides he will not lie when confronted or when he knows there is no winning. You sound like Cedars insisting on more info before you will believe anything said. That's your prerogative. Just as others hear the ring of truth in SST, they hear a motive behind what you say. UC defined it as "troll." Good day.
I meant page 6.
-
OnTheWayOut,
“Ring of truth” is very Watchtowerisk. I don’t accept something as true because of ringing. I accept something as true based on evidence to that end. Neither my gut feeling nor your gut feeling is something I compare with evidence. Evidence is something that is testable. In the case of a witness, the witness must answer hard questions to measure things they say for validity.
“Your way of questioning makes you sound like a jerk.”
The only way I know to question is to ask. That’s the method I use. I ask. Whatever that makes me look like, I wear it as a badge. I not afraid to ask questions. I’m not afraid to answer questions. I'm not offended by being asked questions, either.
“By continually saying "it sounds contrived," it is crystal clear (no matter what else you said or will say) to me that you are implying that you can't SAY that SST is lying, but you are sure that he is lying or leaving out the real reason he was DF'ed. But Ex-JW's know the ring of truth and can figure that out differently.”
You can attribute notions to me if you wish. But an objective assessment would stick to what I’ve said without transposing your view onto what I’ve said as though that's my view.
I have not said SST has lied for one reason and one reason only: I don’t have sufficient evidence to say or suggest that. But I will say that today things moved in that direction with the new claim of “digital proof”.
“Lastly… I say to you before I stop saying anything to you on the matter, two witnesses can confirm the existence of digital evidence and show printouts to back their claim. A person might have the character that decides he will not lie when confronted or when he knows there is no winning. You sound like Cedars insisting on more info before you will believe anything said. That's your prerogative. Just as others hear the ring of truth in SST, they hear a motive behind what you say. UC defined it as "troll." Good day.”
Two witnesses holding hardcopy in hand is not digital evidence. Today anyone can print whatever they want onto hardcopy. So what? That’s not digital evidence by any stretch.
In the case of SST, he’s said not to have joined the BBXB Facebook group. If that claim is true then digital evidence would refute witness testimony to the contrary.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself. But to believe and then use a claim in the form of an accusation, I need to be convinced the claim is valid. I do not accept gut feeling (i.e., ring of truth) as validation.
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin is like a defense lawyer trying to prove his client is innocent by introducing doubt. He is questioning the veracity o f the victim's account by picking apart his story, and looking for any way to discredit him. He and Cedars have basically accused me of lying and/or fabricating the story of SST. Cedars also tried to make it sound like I have a homicidal fantasy about him. Therefore, it is obvious that they want to cast doubt on me as the messenger of unwelcome information.
It is pretty straight forward who has been doing the attacking on this thread.
zed
-
“Marvin is like a defense lawyer trying to prove his client is innocent by introducing doubt. He is questioning the veracity of the victim's account by picking apart his story, and looking for any way to discredit him.”
That’s nonsense.
A claim stands or not on its own merit. The claim at issue is not mine. It’s SST’s. You’ve embraced it and used it.
In this case the claim at issue takes form as an accusation, and is used accordingly.
If it’s wrong to examine such a claim for veracity then being wrong is the right thing to do.
The only thing that’s obvious about my participation in this discussion is a willingness to explore claims made for what those claims say. Apparently that bothers you; hence you paint me with a color of your choosing.
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin,
You paint yourself as what you are. I do not need to assist you in your personal spin on reality. The color seems to be a deep shade of brown.
zed
