250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood (page 74)

besty

The point is that there is disagreement amongst peer-reviewed published professionals, therefore amateur bloggers should know their place, and not be so dogmatic.

The disagremeent being on the substance of the professional local study, never mind amateur 3rd party extrapolations to a global scale.

Feel free to post a link to any of your peer-reviewed published articles in professional journals, so JWD can decide if your opinion is respected in the expert community - otherwise get back in your blogger* box.

*Still one step up on the hierarchy from discussion board prattler - gotta look on the bright side...

Marvin Shilmer

-

“The point is that there is disagreement amongst peer-reviewed published professionals, therefore amateur bloggers should know their place, and not be so dogmatic.”

Besty,

You presume a great deal, of the professionals at issue as well as my person.

You, for instance, presume Isbister disagrees with Beliaev’s response to his criticism, as though Isbister’s initial complaint remains a point of disagreement from him.

As for me, I’ve not offered an argument based on my own authority; hence your aspersions cast toward me are nothing short of an irrelevant red herring, if not ad hominem. I recommend you read up on informal fallacies.

I restate my initial comment that for reason known only to you, is objected to by your person:

Respectfully, if you’re going to completely disregard copyright infringement then you might as well give equal time to the original authors’ response to Isbister’s objections. It’s revealing.

Marvin Shilmer

adamah

Marvin said-

Respectfully, if you’re going to completely disregard copyright infringement then you might as well give equal time to the original authors’ response to Isbister’s objections. It’s revealing.

Interesting, Marvin, as you seemingly are unaware of the doctrine of 'contributury copyright infringement', a tort where inducing others to infringe copyright actually exposes one to charges, as well?

While I may be interested in the issue enough to click on a link to read it for free, few will be willing to PAY to gain access to material that's locked behind a pay-wall.

And that's part of the practical problem with relying on Beliaev's study for anything, really: if it cannot be easily accessed by the reader to confirm by clicking on a link, the study might as well not exist, since in the minds of many laypersons, it only creates the impression of having something to hide.

Adam

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Interesting, Marvin, as you seemingly are unaware of the doctrine of 'contributury copyright infringement', a tort where inducing others to infringe copyright actually exposes one to charges, as well?”

Adamah,

I’m unconcerned about my personal exposure on this matter, and am not attempting to induce anything illegal. I think my point was/is clear enough, and it was said to a person who’s apparently willing to flagrantly disregard property rights of a thirdparty!

“While I may be interested in the issue enough to click on a link to read it for free, few will be willing to PAY to gain access to material that's locked behind a pay-wall.”

So what?

“And that's part of the practical problem with relying on Beliaev's study for anything, really: if it cannot be easily accessed by the reader to confirm by clicking on a link, the study might as well not exist, since in the minds of many laypersons, it only creates the impression of having something to hide.”

That’s beyond preposterous!!!

Any layperson with an ounce of get-up-and-go can typically get to a public library, which will in almost all cases have access to this information.

Marvin Shilmer

adamah

Marvin said-

That’s beyond preposterous!!! Any layperson with an ounce of get-up-and-go can typically get to a public library, which will in almost all cases have access to this information.

In your immortal words, "so what"?

I explained why above: if many readers won't even read information provided in a link in an article for FREE, what are the odds that someone is going to spend the time locating a library on the internet which has the print journal (likely a medical library in a University), drive across town, pay for parking in the University parking lot, etc, simply to READ an article?

You likely are vastly over-estimating your readers (which is beyond preposterous), since if a JW were the academic type to perform due diligence, would they really be in the JWs, in the first place?

That absense of the drive to confirm facts however is NOT an excuse to start making up claims: if someone is caught in a lie or stretching the truth, their credibility goes to ZILCH.

Adam

Marvin Shilmer

-

Adamah,

Readers who want to measure veracity of claims should do so based on their own firsthand consideration of those claims. I’m not interested in reaching any other kind of reader.

What your cryptic remarks about someone being caught in a lie or stretching the truth is supposed to mean is only known to you.

I advise readers to consult whatever source information is cited.

Oh, and it is preposterous to think it creates impression of “having something to hide” because a person is lazy or otherwise unable to go to the library to consult source material at issue. These people don’t have a reason to think anyone is hiding anything.

Marvin Shilmer

zed is dead

Marvin is still tooting his horn about this? Well I guess he is going down with his ship of credibility.

Rearrange the deck chairs as needed.

zed

adamah

Marvin said-

Readers who want to measure veracity of claims should do so based on their own firsthand consideration of those claims. I’m not interested in reaching any other kind of reader.

And that's your right to decide.

Nothing cryptic in my remarks: all I'm saying is that in my experience, it's hard enough to get readers interested in stuff written on a blog.

Expecting them to PAY to verify a claim is an outdated concept from the past, which the NY Times found out recently when it tried to charge for on-line access by placing their content behind a paywall, and finding few wanted to pay to read their articles (and the paywall is coming down). There's TONS of stuff competing for attention of eyeballs on the web, and writing a blog article based on a reference that cannot be examined without expense is your choice, but also kinda works against the idea of encouraging JWs to learn TTATT in order to save their own lives.

Adam

Rattigan350

Here is another to add to the list

http://www.wsav.com/story/25424243/smiths-station-woman-dies-after-pit-bull-attack

The news stories are inaccurate. Those were not pit bulls. The media won't mention that she was a JW. The elders try to hide that fact.

This woman was baptized Dec 28, 2013 and when she arrived at the hospital she stated that she would not have blood and her mother

affirmed it. She had lost 80% of her blood. They did surgery and induced a coma, but without sufficient blood, one can't heal.

From that Monday when the incident happened to that Saturday, she could not heal without blood. It is sad that people just follow the crowd to their end. People said that she maintained integrity to Jehovah, but that is so selfish and arrogant. As if her integrity was what was important, more than her family and congregation, etc. Arrogance is all you can expect from them. Does anyone think that Jehovah is happy with that outcome?

Then people's believing that they will get resurrected and everything will be OK as long as they obey.

But then you have to add the teachings on meekness and being sheeplike does not help people in this situation to be fighters for their lives.

HeyThere

marked

250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

Share this