The process of getting one's registration as a Charity processed and approved may be lengthy and involved. I agree it is a good question.
Yes, you have seen what a veritable Confederacy of Dunces has missed. As I indicated, Bill (speaking for the Silentlambs) is happy to give the other side a (relatively) easy way out, and blame "the apostate" - if it helps the lambs.
Anything which makes it more likely is therefore good.
Not that the WTS are likely to take this way out, as you know. Just that they are even less likely to take it if they can't deflect some or all of the blame.
Legally, there is no question of culpability civil or criminal on the part of Ray: any such contention would be ludicrous. He was a servant of the publisher, writing at their direction, in a work uncredited to him, and for whose enforcement he bore no responsibility and took no part.
//All red herrings, strawman argumentation and unwarranted insults snipped - nothing at all written by IW left behind//
IslandWoman, you were here caught, outright and red-handed, by me in what was either a direct and outrageous LIE or an example of gross stupidity.
You accused Bill of doing something he had absolutely not done.
Bill wrote "they will stand before Jehovah and will answer to him" (as all Watchtower Cult believers - and this includes all the people whom Bill was addressing - believe everyone will).
But you claimed Bill had stated that he, Bill Bowen, was speaking for Jehovah and that he, Bill Bowen, and not Jehovah, was judging the hearts of exactly the same "them".
Your claim is thus seen to be utterly free from merit.
You have been shown up for what you are - a COMMON LIAR and CHEAT, or a QUASI-LITERATE IDIOT.
I hope you are just a quasi-literate idiot.
Of course you refuse to address this issue. Your misrepresentation in this very thread speaks volumes.
And this new attack is just one of a hundred similar ones that you have made here. Pretty much all in one direction. Your numerous boastful claims along the lines of your being party to some mythic Trojan Horse movement that is subtly altering Watchtower thinking and bringing about reform is just a lot of apologist horse excrement. And the Trojan Horse movement is probably a Bowel Movement of some sort. As my tutor Farkel eloquently put it, you seem to contend there is some "high road" to take while one is actually navigating the moral sewer that is Bethel.
I'm sure it is embarrassing to be caught out so thoroughly, IslandWoman. Learn from it, and move on. You would not qualify for the humblest position on the Writing Staff: a much more polished level of linguistic deceit is required therefor.
To be insulted by one such as you is probably a compliment. Thank you.
I just don't like seeing blame laid at people's door who I don't think deserve it.
I still think it is a bogus claim
I reiterate that I wish Ray's name had not been invoked in the communication. Few of us like seeing the feelings of a good old man hurt (again).
But do you think I want blame mislaid? No, surely I do not.
Ray simply DID "author" (the root of the term Bill employed) the said guidelines found in OR. I am sure that Ray did, not only because of what Ray wrote after being DF'd, but also because of the similarities in language used between the material in question and Ray's other writings.
bogus here means Fraudulent; Spurious; fictitious; sham; counterfeit. Which of these did you mean, Simon?
In my considered opinion, the claim actually made (rather than some strawman) is NOT bogus. Your emotions are carrying you away, Simon.
and ill thought out
Perhaps, and certainly in that all its effects may not have been considered.
But no more ill-thought out than Ray's original work from the early 1970s and earlier (the OR work is drawn from earlier material, right? Similarly authored.). Let me expand on this assertion by me.
Sure, child abuse was not what most people had on their minds, and I am confident it was nearly unthinkable to Ray (and most others) at the time he wrote or revised the wording of the guidelines.
BUT RAY IS A HIGHLY INTELLIGENT MAN. CHILD-ABUSE, WHILE ARGUABLY THE MOST EGREGIOUS OF SUCH CRIMES, IS FAR FROM THE ONLY CRIME WHERE IT IS UNLIKELY THERE WILL BE ANY WITNESS (OR EVIDENCE) OTHER THAN THE SOLE ALLEGED VICTIM. MANY TYPES OF FRAUD FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY TOO.
And BY THE GUIDELINES STATING THAT THE WITNESS(ES) MUST BE TO THE SAME EVENT OR OCCURRENCE OF THE CRIME, MANY GUILTY ONES WERE SURE TO WALK FREE.
Get this straight. A JW fraudster defrauds a number of different people at different times, always by promising to "invest" their money (though perhaps in differing ways), which he takes from them in folding money and without witnesses being present.
Surely the fact that there are multiple charges of broadly similar nature brought against the one person would be pretty conclusive to most people.
BUT THE GUIDELINES, AS WRITTEN, SUGGEST HE OR SHE WOULD "GET OFF".
Why Ray did not cater for such circumstances more competently must be a good question.
Let us say he did not because the real policy was made clear to him (the origin is Biblical, as is much nonsense) and he was just penning it (Simon's point).
Well, let me explain to you how someone like Ray would have worked in the Writing Department. He was a high-flier. The only person who would have checked his work would have been Nathan Knorr or Fred Franz. He would have known this.
The Watchtower is interested in getting in the $$ for the nonsense it prints. It is usually not too careful about exactly what the nonsense is. Ray would have known what he wrote would have pretty much gone through "on the nod" as long as it broadly adhered to what he had been asked to produce. This was not some spirit-led organization!
it was created for them, by them
It is well-known that when drafting rules, THE DEVIL LIES IN THE DETAIL. Always.
So why did Ray not put in the detail, making clear that there were bound to be some exceptions? The Bible does not give exceptions. But a sentence or two in the Bible was being expanded into a half-page of rules. Something was getting added, right?
He would not have been stopped or censured for doing so. It would have been passed. And Ray would have known this would happen. Especially the second time around.
The simple truth is... Ray didn't think about the ramifications carefully enough at the time he was writing the detailed rules. He didn't have to envisage Child Abuse to realize that there were going to have to be clearly set out exceptions. And he wasn't so naive as to think a rigorously rule-oriented organization (was he still blind to this in the early 1970s??) were going to interpret the rules liberally, right?
Sure, Ray was trying to protect the innocent from malicious complaints. But the line of division is complex, and that is why we have Courts and a legal system. Not bunches of self-important, pig-ignorant fool-Elders. Please, no one mention OJ.
I won't go further than that. "We don't go beyond that which is written", right? Now who am I quoting there? And in what context?
and at best 'irrelevant'
Relevant if the inclusion of this material embarrasses the Watchtower into making a change that it is very, very reluctant to make (knowing it may open the floodgates to legal actions from aggrieved victims who had until then held their peace).
Bill does not care if Ray feels hurt by this, I surmise. He thinks the greater good is served by shaming the WTS into acting to end this murderous policy as soon as possible.
Very regrettable, for sure. "Collateral damage" is how someone could hurtfully portray it. Many (myself included) could have worded the letter to minimize or eliminate offense to Ray, without noticeably reducing the effectiveness against the WTS. But the repeated baiting of Bill, as takes place here, makes it more rather than less likely that intemperate wording will be used.
Edited by - Focus on 2 January 2003 19:43:20