Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'

by Simon 178 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  144001

  "I can see your reasoning is more to plead your case, instead of a sincere concern and harm it really did to people."

  Please clarify what it is about my reasoning that supports your comment. I don't get it.

  "Put yourself in thier shoes for at least a moment. Yes, there was damage done."

  We are in agreement on this point. But the harm had nothing to do with the alleged misrepresentation in the organizational documents.

  As for putting myself in their shoes, if one of the victims of the Facebook mess had been the one making the allegations of criminal misconduct, I would not have had any issues with them for doing so, as the AAWA Facebook posting caused them significant personal harm. Malvinas suffered no personal harm. Instead, she saw an opportunity to hurt someone who was being taken to task by others here for the AAWA situation. Knowing that no one would be likely to stick up for Cedars, she took her best shot at inflicting real harm on him.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  OK then, let's say for a second that I did try to harm him by saying that in forum. Just to amuse you. Do you realise that you have just accused many others of doing the same thing to him, unless you think that I was the only one bringing it up. As I said before, this did not originate with me. So you are saying that you had and have a problem with everyone who brought this subject up in forum? There were quite a few you know. That brings me back to why you chose not to call me (and others) out at the time of the discussion besides your turd comment. You said you thought we were incorrect at the time. Well were we? OK, no go on that one, so let's go to the messenger... Wait, let's choose one in particular (me) that you have had words with before and have sent angry PMs to in the past on a different matter. I think you are giving the WTS way too little credit to think that there are WT spies just ready to pounce on an idea forwarded by a poster here. If they had a problem with AAWA and wanted to bring it down, they would have done so easily, and with no help from us. This was all public record. In fact, the first thing they probably did in Brooklyn was to look at the public records and find out who was behind this organisation. Richard Kelly? Check. Barbara Anderson? Check. Known apostates. John Cedars? Who the hell is that? Well, let's use this Google tool and find out. So this is a fake name he is using! It doesn't take a whole lot of sleuthing to figure that one out. What we were trying to do was get him to resign his position before the WTS noticed. While there was still time. When he could still realistically say 'aw shucks, I didn't know about Arizona law, in fact I'm not even American'. So if you want to say that I was trying to harm him singlehanded by agreeing with what others were saying about the issue and by using public records that anyone could look at, then you got me.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  What kind of logic is that? So someone needs to be personally aggrieved by something to have the right to speak out about it? Glad you weren't around during the Holocaust.
• 

  144001

  Funny, Malvinas, now it's the "everyone else was doing it, so why are you not going after them?" argument. The wrongdoing of others does not justify your own wrongdoing. And the "others" did not claim, in this thread, that they are "not anti-activist," as you did.
• 

  mind blown

  Nah....sorry his activity was criminal. Bottom line. We didn't tell him to do it. So he got exposed. You think some should have been "nice" about it and "kept it on the low"...as a matter of consideration for his feelings and the problems it may have caused to his personal life....when he could give a ratz ass about anyone else but his ego self.....??

  I've made my point. No need to go on further.......
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  I did not use that defence. I created a hypothetical scenario where I assumed you were right about me trying to harm him. The first sentence should have clued you in. If you bothered to read further into what I was saying, you would have realised that I fully endorse what I view as my right to discuss this in forum. Within this realm you would have noticed my pointed comment about why I personally am being singled out for your condemnation. The answer always comes back to me as you and me have exchanged words before and you felt you had a score to settle. You couldn't settle it in forum or PMs, so you are doing so now long after the fact.

  What does my claim to not be 'anti-activist' have anything to do with the AAWA alias issue? I am not anti-activist. I am against people using a non-profit status under a fictitious name, as well as an overall aversion to shady business practices, which I thought of this as.
• 

  144001

  Malvinas,

  You may claim to be anti-activist, but to me, Cedars is an activist, and your cheap effort to harm him renders you "anti-activist" in my view. And yes, it was a cheap move, because everyone was mad at Cedars at the time, and you knew you could get away with it when you did it. You knew very well that folks would be very unlikely to stick up for him, given the anger that existed at the time.

  To me, Cedars being unpopular does not justify efforts to inflict personal harm upon him by someone who cannot even claim to have been hurt by him.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Who brought up that Cedars was unpopular? He had his notable defenders, and yes, they were quite vocal in their defence of him. I'm afraid you have fallen for the common ex-JW meme that people really give a [poop] about us. AAWA? I doubt they were losing any sleep in Brooklyn. Same thing with Cedars. What I do take issue with is your stance that anyone not affected negatively by AAWA does not have a reason to 'harm' him. You stated earlier that you wouldn't have any problem with someone who was harmed by him or AAWA doing the same thing as I was doing online. So this is your hangup? So it's wrong for me to try to harm him, but it's perfectly alright with you if someone his organisation has outed had done the same thing? It's either right or it's wrong to 'harm' someone. It also betrays your own inner thoughts that if it would be OK for such a person to do so, then what I was saying in forum couldn't have been all that bad to begin with. If it were that harmful and he had a realistic chance of getting into trouble because of a bunch of loudmouths, then why would it be OK for someone else to do the same thing? Are you advocating vengeance?
• 

  Band on the Run

  I don't understand the raging argument about something that happened months ago. It was impossible to keep up with all the developments at the time. Cedars reminds me of my well-intended teenage goofy self. People have to start someplace, though.

  I don't recall the details but in my view, Malvinas did the proper thing. Anyone could see that Cedars was building up to assuming command. Every action that organization took was going to be scrutinized by the Bethel lawyers. I don't know the officers or what their intent was. Why Arizona of all states? Was there a strategic reason to incorporate in Arizona? When you know you will be scrutinized, you should make extraordinary efforts to withstand legal problems. Not complying with the Arizona statute requirements struck me as just the goofy kind of action I warned about. It may be far worse than merely goofy. It is better not to know with certainty. If you are going to do something, do it properly.

  If apostates could see there was a problem, the WT could see. Moral and ethical obligations exist. Yes, behind the scenes may have been nicer. I recall very upset members here. Scads of them. Why should all the work of merit others here have done be wiped away by laziness? Let us bring down the WT - even if we become worse in the process. First Amendment rights? Let us revoke them. This do anything to destroy my enemy mindset makes me sick. For many here, there can never be a shade of gray concerning the WT. In the process of not behaving fairly, we become the monster. This is an ancient tale.

  I had no idea that I was an antiactivist. No one in my entire life has ever made such a conclusion before this group. This is juvenile. If one has to err, one should err on the side of lawfulness and morality. I need to develop some distance. The WT was a wretched part of my life. Why is there always such drama?

  The bottom line is that I wish everyone here the best. The WT sucks you down, then you leave. As Pete Townshend would say, welcome to apostacy, the new boss! It will suck you down, too.
• 

  Simon

  I find it fascinating how some take 'not pro (something)' to automatically be 'anti'.

  Just because someone is not pro-activist doesn't make them anti-activist!

  It seems to be very much a holdover of the WatchTower type thinking and logic - if you are not 100% for us then you must be 100% against us.

  This mentality has been demonstrated by several characters that appear and DEMAND complete support from everyone.

  The reality is we may care enough to speak out when we see something done wrong but after that? Meh, do what you want, we really may not give a crap. Don't think so much of yourself that you presume we would waste our time 'being against you'.