by darkspilver 104 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
lol — I don’t need “inside information”. One just needs to be observant to connect the dots, divorced from biased and wishful thinking (i.e the organization is “going broke”).
Technology is expensive, especially on this scale. Broke organizations simply cannot afford this sort of overhaul.
That's interesting that you don't need inside information Bobby. Let's look at their property ownership. Possibly now their most valuable properties. Which legal entity/entities own the Patterson, Warwick and Walkill complexes?
I don't think the organisation is going broke bob.
And they may be "overhauling" - but it's still the same old turd working to preserve itself by being rolled in new glitter.
The Europeans and Japanese are escaping. The Yanks and ANZACs are stagnant. Kingdom halls are going.
The oldies listen obey - get depressed - and get older and die, the rest give their time and facebook pages but have less money and more are waking up.
And Sophia is pressed for her ice cream money to keep Fat Tony in tailored suits to cover his ample frame.
The institutional response to child abuse is a major factor helping people awaken.
Freddo —
The envy and self-deceptive delusion is just oozing from that hate-rant of yours.
See bob, now your changing the terms of the discussion and somehow taking a friendly exchange of ideas and making it aggressive. You and i were simply talking about the changes in business model and all of a sudden it turns into ‘it dosent matter when they changed they changed and thats it’.. relax bob. Its a discussion forum. Without talk its just a blank web page, right?
They changed for a reason. Lots of them really... they were forced to go from paying for literature to donations. Eventually the printing business world wide had the bottom fall out. Paper and ink is ever more costly and digital media is far cheaper and more convient. There are reasons they changed and those reasons matter.
You’re stating the obvious, but before you were ambiguous, and apparently, you weren’t talking about those reasons before as it seem to be more about attributing motives to the change.
Anyway, its and bad financial and environmental management to keep printing in this day and age.
And when the government attempts to tax them for something they were not doing (selling literature), it was reasonable to make it donation based only, as the intent was clearly to help pay for printing costs, not to make a profit.
And to add, before the donation based only change, a person still could get the magazine if they didn’t contribute any to the printing costs. How many organizations selling you something lets you have it without paying?
And to add, before the donation based only change, a person still could get the magazine if they didn’t contribute any to the printing costs. How many organizations selling you something lets you have it without paying?
Oh im sorry but your grossly misrepresenting the truth. As someone who was alive and actually in the organization at that time i can say, for a fact, your wrong. It may be true that an individual witness could decide in their own to give someone a piece of literature for free, that literature was most certainly paid for by the publisher when it was given to them. The business model was never to sell to the general public, it was always to sell to members of the organization who in turn could sell it to recover their money, and even at one point, make money for it sale, like avon (i believe it was a nickle per set of mags, buts its been a while)
Maybe you forget that the publishers actually bought the literature at the literature counter every month. So, the WT ALWAYS got paid even if the householder didn't pay for the literature!! It was the publisher that would decide to give the literature away without payment and so take the loss. Seriously, the WT would never give anything away willingly.
And the US government never attempted to tax them. The case had to do with Jimmy Swaggart v Board of Equalization of California where CA wanted to apply their 6% sales tax on the sale of religious literature. The SCOTUS ruled that the tax was constitutional. The WT's lawyers determined that CA and other states would apply this ruling to them because they were SELLING literature (a specific charge was made for each piece to the publisher) so they decided to move to the donation arrangement rather than collecting the sales tax in states that decided to impose it on their literature. A huge strategic mistake that has led them to some of the cashflow issues they currently have.
Name one time you received something from the literature counter prior to the change without paying for it? You can't. Pioneers got a discount but still had to pay.
Amount of profit has nothing to do with it and quite frankly, since the WT is not transparent about their expenses vs revenues, we have no idea what the actual costs to produce the literature is.
