PRESS RELEASE 5-23-02 (page 3)

BILL: This is Mike from New York - I called you last week to tell you about hearing the CBS Radio news broadcast with snippets of your interview in it. Those of us who can't be at the vigil tonight (but wish we could) send you our good thoughts and prayers. I think in the arena of public opinion, this issue will stir a LOT of interest. When it comes to the sexual abuse of children, most people have very strong opinions - even prison inmates view this as one of the most despicable things one human can do to another. We are behind you 100% - more power to you!!!!

(and please ignore the earlier posting by Dedalus - he missed the point of your Tianenmen Square reference, and just wanted to flex his vocabulary.)

dedalus

I think we all missed the point on the Tiananmen Square reference, Michael3000. Tell me, how exactly is Bill (or any one of us who care about what's going on here) like one of the student protestors at Tiananmen Square? How does that historical analogy clarify the problem of the Organization concealing child molestation?

Sometimes things are clear as a whistle, and self-aggrandizing analogies only muddle up the context, which is important enough to speak for itself.

As for your quip about my vocabulary -- fuck you, asshole.

Dedalus

Hmmm

Dedalus,

Tell me, how exactly is Bill (or any one of us who care about what's going on here) like one of the student protestors at Tiananmen Square? How does that historical analogy clarify the problem of the Organization concealing child molestation?

The connection that I got was especially of the four that have been--or are in the process of--being disfellowshipped for speaking out. The Tiananmen analogy seemed to be about the organization running over anyone who dares to protest its corrupt policies. I imagine that Bill was saying that people like the Pandelos and himself are like that solitary man/woman (can't remember off-hand) who placed themselves in front of oncoming Chinese tanks, heedless of the personal consequences.

Now, you may consider it self-aggrandizing histrionics, but from an editorial standpoint, I'm not sure you can say the analogy is "anachronistic" or apples and oranges.

Hmmm

PS Michael3000 took a small swipe at you and you respond with "fuck you, asshole"... and you accuse Mr. Bowen of histrionics?

D8TA

FredHall said:

Run like hell Bill!!!

So, would you like those "words" served with some wine before you eat them?

Apparently the "society" that puts so much faith in "Jehovah", found it a bit difficult to actually show up. You know, that "society" that claims to keep the "organization" clean? No matter what? Doesn't fear "earthly rulers" because "Jehovah" is on THEIR side? You know, that same society that makes no "compromises" when it comes to keeping the "congregations" from corrupt influence?

Besides, I think I know why the Judicial Committee decided NOT to show up....to go grasp the last remaining straws available, before the world "witnesses" them for what they really are.

Scorecard:

Victims 24,000
WBTS 0

Game Over

D8TA

plmkrzy

Apparently the "society" that puts so much faith in "Jehovah", found it a bit difficult to actually show up.

Did anyone actually expect them to show up there?
I personally would have been SHOCKED if they did.
That is most defenately not thier style.

Life sucks...get a helmet

[email protected]

dedalus

Hmmm,

but from an editorial standpoint, I'm not sure you can say the analogy is "anachronistic" or apples and oranges.

Of course I can. Why can't I?

I don't like the analogy, because I don't think it works. Why? Well, for one, there is no actual threat on Bill's life, no danger that he himself will be run over by any tanks, imprisoned, executed. So he's kind of posturing by comparing himself to those who actually were (the elders didn't even show up to his committee). Second, the Tiananmen protest was distinctly political -- Bill's is of another sort entirely. I wouldn't classify them as the same kind of protest -- each is conducted differently, in radically different contexts, with radically different results. Third, I dislike the way the analogy turns Bill (perhaps the others you mention, but mostly Bill) into a martyr. It puts the spotlight more on him, less on the victims. I've seen this happen a couple of times before, and I've also seen Bill snarl at those who inquire about his sources, and then never apologize. Doesn't make him evil, but it irks me, even though I acknowledge the good he's done.

For what it's worth, I think Bill's efforts are terrific, and clearly the best is to come. Believe it or not, I admire him for it. But sometimes his tone bothers me. Sometimes he seems too attention-grabbing to me. I mention it, draw attention to it, because I care about the issues here. And if, on a public forum, I want to say something about that, I'd prefer it if someone engage with me on that level, instead of telling people to ignore me, and accusing me of vocabulary-flexing.

Histrionic? You're right about that -- Bill's not quite histrionic. Bad word choice on my part, okay? Melodramatic, maybe. Anyway, I consider "fuck you, asshole" to be more dismissive than anything else. I certainly wasn't shrieking when I typed it.

Thanks for your response. Probably we won't agree, but in instances like this, that's certainly okay.

Dedalus

cellomould

Dedalus,

'Anachronism' has nothing to do with 'apples and oranges'. Except that if 'anachronism' is the apple, 'apples and oranges' are the oranges.

Anyhow, you have attacked someone by an emotional argument. That was unnecessary, but it does reveal your indolence in mustering a logical argument.

Do you feel that Bill is attracting to much attention to himself? Why don't you think of a more effective way to tell him?

cellomould

"You're crying 'why am I the victim?' when the culprit is YOU" Stevie Wonder

cellomould

Ded,

nevermind. I see your new post.

cellomould

"You're crying 'why am I the victim?' when the culprit is YOU" Stevie Wonder

dedalus

Cellomould,

I never said "anachronism" means "apples and oranges." I'm not even going to pretend I know what you mean by "if 'anachronism' is the apple, 'apples and oranges' are the oranges." Perhaps our misunderstandings have multiplied to the point of utter incomprehensibility. No matter.

I never attacked someone by an "emotional argument," whatever that means. I made some statements about a particular (and in my opinion inappropriate) analogy made by Bill in that press release -- but I didn't attack Bill. Then Michael3000 posted that I should be ignored, and accused me of being pretentious (in so many words). Tell me, where was the "logical argument" in Michael3000's remarks?

As for my response to Michael3000, I'm not pretending I was logical. He wasn't interested in what I actually wrote, since he didn't respond to what I actual wrote, so my attitude was "fuck him." I was annoyed, yeah, and I think I had a reason to be. If it was indeed excessive, well, sorry -- but I thought we had thicker skins than that.

Do you feel that Bill is attracting to much attention to himself? Why don't you think of a more effective way to tell him?

We may hold contrary opinions, which is fine, but this is a public forum, and I'm just trying to participate. I'm not interested in communicating with Bill; he's doing fine on his own. Admiring most of his work doesn't mean I have to admire all of it, or the way he does it sometimes. And if all my harping on one little analogy seems excessive to some, what can I say? I really care about this stuff, and that's why I get the way I get.

Dedalus

PRESS RELEASE 5-23-02

deddaisy

Michael3000

dedalus

Hmmm

D8TA

plmkrzy

dedalus

cellomould

cellomould

dedalus

Share this