lock your own thread simon - would that be a first?
Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'
by Simon 178 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Simon
No, I've locked my own topics before ... other people have locked them too.
I don't know why, I never say anything even remotely controversial ...
-
Band on the Run
Oh. I assume that the WT lawyers read this forum. If corporate formalities were not met, the WT is capable of knowing it. All they have to do is look. Why would they not look?. It must be easy for them to hire investigators if they do not have them on retainer already. They must have been very entertained. As I stated, they were probably bent over laughing at all apostates.
People who want the laurels of leading should be careful to comply with laws. It does not sound as though problems were a secret to anyone. Do we owe each special duties? I don't think so.
-
144001
Simon,
I apologize for rehashing anything related to AAWA. It really is a subject that has been beaten to death. But this issue is a sub-issue that was raised via the conduct of some in response to the whole mess. The issue is, where do we draw the line in negatively responding to the actions of a person who is opposing the WTBTS?
As for Cedars, he is a stubborn guy, and at one time, I took issue with him, starting in a thread, for some of the comments he made concerning the Conti case, which I believed were either false, misleading, or both. As the tone started to get ugly in the thread, I took up the issue with Cedars privately, in PM. We continued to argue, but he did eventually modify his blog to address the concerns I raised. He is stubborn, but not so stubborn as to not want to do what's right once he realizes that it is the right thing to do.
Given how long you've been running this site, and the plethora of whackos I've seen visit here over the time I've been here, I'm not surprised at the responses you have received to efforts to resolve disputes via pm. I'm confident that you attempted to deal with Cedars privately, before taking him to task publicly as you did. Your condemnation of the situation was severe and aggressive, but it was also appropriate, given the potential for folks to be harmed via getting "outted." But nothing you posted ever accused Cedars of committing a crime.
While the potential for legal trouble was low, the risk did in fact exist.
-
Simon
The issue is, where do we draw the line in negatively responding to the actions of a person who is opposing the WTBTS?
That can be turned round - how much extra leeway should we give people just because they claim to be opposing the WTBTS?
I would say none, which sounds harsh, but I think giving leeway and making excuses makes us weaker, not better or stronger.
Rather than it being a negative, I think it's a sign of a healthy community that people will speak out when they see things being done wrong and just slapping an "I fight the WTS" sticker on doesn't excuse bad behavior or poor judgement whether that is pepper spraying some elderly JWs knocking on the door, filing false goverment documents or outing faders - they are all quite rightly condemned by the vast majority of us.
Now, the response is often the same - the people who were expecting praise because of their shennanegans resort to anger and attack the people who they see didn't support them enough and before you know it they are putting as much effort into attacking the people who criticised them as they are the WTS. It becomes an obsession - they are trying to fight an organisation they cannot realistically get to and so resorting to fighting anyone they can substitue as "not fighting the WTS enough, like I am". e.g. Did Cedars manipulate Lee into having a thread closed?
Cedars is a freshly-hatched apostate and wants to do things but has yet to realise his limitations. This usually goes one of two ways: either people become mature (but they are usually already mature or not) and they realise that the path to success is less dramatic and doesn't involved them storming the barricades OR they descend into madness and become more extreme, often ending up a laughable chariacature of what they imagined themselves as.
Hopefully he will grow up and eventually see that not everyone who cheers you on is really your supporter and sometimes your most vocal critics are the ones who help you the most.
-
adamah
Prior poster said- The majority fake spiritual interest because it's expected and everyone else seems to be doing it
MMXIV said- you're not wrong!MMXIV proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's nobodies 'yes man' by stating "I agree!" in the form of a double-negative!
Kudos!
144001 said- Simon, good points, except that concerns that criminal laws were violated could have been communicated privately, via PM, instead of posting them publicly for everyone, including the supporters of the WTBTS, to see.
Delicious irony noted, with 144,001 saying he'd never publicly attack Cedars since he agrees with the anti-JW cause (which is classic ends-justified thinking, BTW), only to turn around and publicly attack those who also speak out against the JWs, rather than simply taking his own advice and sending PMs?
Adam
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
So what you are suggesting is a 'shoot the messenger' mentality. Got it. For the record, it was actually fizzywiglet who first brought up the matter of the false incorporation documents and had the foresight to contact the ACC and ask direct questions, and even more importantly, to get direct answers. She shared what she found on here, and most of my comments were in response to her revelations. I would love to take credit for discovering this info and adding to the discussion here, but I really can't. Here's a little inside information for you: Someone actually did privately contact both cedars and AAWA about this before the firestorm erupted. Their/his response? Much the same as yours - We got this, thank you very much, but you are not an Arizona attorney and we have one who assisted us in the incorporation, he knows what he's doing, you don't, and why don't you focus your energies elsewhere. We're on the same team remember? So the conversation continued in open forum. I participated in it - yes. On a personal level, I felt it was an incredibly idiotic thing to do. At the time of incorporation there were 8 members of the Board of Directors. 7 out of those 8 all used their real names and could be 'identifiable'. One didn't and you know who that one was. So when it came time to choose a president to present the legal face of this organisation, who was appointed? The ONE and ONLY person out of 8 who was not qualified legally to take upon that duty. Hindsight is 20/20, and surprise surprise, the peanut throwers had a point and AAWA (eventually) acknowledged it. I might as well have called the cops? That is a risible statement. Here again you are equating postings on an internet forum as analogous to calling the cops. Wasn't even close. If I am with a friend at a store and I notice her stuffing things down her shirt, I am going to call her out on it and have no part in it. If she gets away with it, I'm not going to run back into the store and report it. The same goes for Cedars/AAWA. I whined about it here. My right. But I didn't 'call the cops and to suggest that I might as well should have is really stretching it. The allegations are only as good as the veracity of the facts. You see people accuse the Obama all the time of crimes online. If they are true, then the Obama only has himself to blame. If they are false, consider Obama vindicated. Mine and others' allegations turned out to be correct. That's all that needs to be said.
-
144001
Simon,
That's essentially the same question as the issue I identified in my previous post, skewed from a different angle and nevertheless just as valid. We can refine the issue further: What sort of posts/conduct justify the making of public accusations of criminal misconduct?
My own opinion is that we should not accuse others of criminal misconduct, even if we suspect it, unless the making of that accusation is necessary to prevent others from being harmed (the WTBTS is excluded from the definition of "others" here), or is necessary to right some sort of continuing wrong.
I think you were very patient and my comments were not intended to criticize your response to the situation in any respect. Cedars chose to use your site to advocate the interests of AAWA, and by doing so, he put you in a position of having to either voice your concerns or be associated by some with the AAWA situation that you took exception to. I don't think I read everything you posted, but I found myself sharing the sentiments you expressed in the posts I did read. I also have no issue with the many other members who criticized the varous blunders that resulted in some being outted. These debates were necessary.
The accusations of criminal misconduct were ancillary and unrelated to what everyone was pissed off about.
-
144001
Malvinas,
Your voluminous effort to defend the conduct you engaged in, whcih I took exception to, fails to provide any facts that support a conclusion that the making of public accusations of criminal misconduct was warrranted in this situation. The legal propriety of the accusations is not the issue here. The issue to me is where do we draw the line in responding to things we see on this forum that we don't agree with or that we may find to be incredibly offensive? Is nothing off limits?
-
144001
Adam,
I enjoy reading your posts, as they are usually well reasoned, so I am surprised at your use of false analogy. Accusing someone of committing a crime is not analogous to criticizing someone for making that accusation. One act could result in legal consequences, the other act could never have that result.