When all is said and done, here is what we have: Nothing more than suggestion and innuendo. Although I started this thread with sincere intentions of getting to the bottom of this claim, it has changed into an interesting study in logical fallacies. Frankly, it is rather sad to see this from a group of otherwise "enlightened" people who are so quick to catch the Witchtower Babble & Trick Society when they use logical fallacies.
Some have claimed to have proof, but they can't say. That doesn't count as proof! Maybe this person/persons are wrong, maybe what they consider "proof" is just 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th party hearsay. But we'll never know, since they aren't putting their "proof" out where others can analyse it. If it can't be analyzed, if it is not verifiable and/or falsibiable, it's not proof.
A few have asked "Of course they monitor, why wouldn't they?" which is a classic example of "Begging The Question"
BEGGING THE QUESTION. An argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the premises. Also said to be a circular argument. Example: Of course the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says so in the Bible.
We've also seen the suggestion: "They keep close tabs on their members, so why wouldn't they keep close tabs on the web?" which I think is an example of the logical fallacy called FALSE ANALOGY:
ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY or FALSE ANALOGY. An unsound form of inductive argument in which an argument is based completely or relies heavily on analogy to prove its point. Example: This must be a great car, for, like the finest watches in the world, it was made in Switzerland.
Thanks to OUTLAW, we also have AD HOMINEM attacks against me personally, apparently just for asking the question:
Ad hominem or ATTACKING THE PERSON. Attacking the arguer rather than his/her argument. Saying something negative about someone is not automatically ad hominem. If a person (politician for example) is the issue, then it is not a fallacy. Example: John's objections to capital punishment carry no weight since he is a convicted felon.
BTW to OUTLAW, you still haven't responded to any of the points I made in reply to your post. Never once did I "
push for dates names and places" those are your words and your interpretation. I'm not sure what you mean by my "trying to look innocent about it" -- if you question my intentions, fine that's your opinion. But to reduce yourself to
ad hominem attacks really isn't necessary. To give you an example of your own medicine, I
could pull the
ad hominem trick on you: "How did you get to be Jedi member, with over 1900 posts in 8 months? Was it by the lame, kindergaten level, hit-and-run, 3 line posts like you have included here? Why don't you go back to Public School or playing with your Lego Blocks... The adults have important things to discuss, and it wouldn't interest you. Go back to hiding behind your locked email account like the coward that your are." I
could do something like that, but I won't. I prefer to talk about this using logic and reason.
We also have a tendancy towards APPEAL TO IGNORANCE:
Ad ignorantium or APPEAL TO IGNORANCE. Arguing on the basis of what is known and can be proven. If you can't prove that something is true then it must be false (and vice versa). Example: You can't prove there isn't a Loch Ness Monster, so there must be one.
In other words, since noone can proove that they don't monitor, therefore they do monitor.
The over-riding feeling is "proof" via COMMON BELIEF
COMMON BELIEF. This fallacy is committed when we assert a statement to be true on the evidence that many other people allegedly believe it. Being widely believed is not proof or evidence of the truth. Example: Of course Nixon was guilty in Watergate. Everybody knows that.
Or, in other words, of course they monitor us... everybody knows that! Haven't you been listening?
Although I have already addressed it, once again: several people have posted Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc statements:
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. A form of a hasty generalization in which it is inferred that because one event followed another it is necessarily caused by that event. Example: Mary joined our class and the next week we all did poorly on the quiz. It must be her fault.
In other words: a topic was discussed here, and the Watchtower quickly changed their policy on this topic shortly thereafter. I know most people won't understand why that isn't proof, but it isn't. It may be consistent with WTBTS monitoring JWD, but it does not proove that WTBTS monitors JWD.
I could go on, but I won't. It seems possible that if they are monitoring, sooner or later one of those monitors will be exposed to too much and lose their faith and join us here at JWD as a full-fledged XJW, and they can regail us with verifiable details of how they monitored, how often they monitored, who did the monitoring, what sites they monitored, what they did with the information they obtained from monitoring, etc.
I look forward to that day!
Until then, I will file this under "possible JWD myth -- not yet substantiated with proof".
