Francois, I have read all of the comments about your encounter with Jones. Your reaction to him, in my opinion was very much appropriate, and I commend you on your response. Out of the mouth the abundance of the heart speaks, and your heart must have held many hurts from the WT experience. Your righteous indignation towards him was entirely appropriate. Out of his heart he spoke too. His arrogance showed through his perfect JW disquise. His response to you was typical of thier tactics. Rather than humbly excepting responsibility for the actions of his religious community's dealing with pedophilia, he immediately blamed it on the Catholics, and turned it around on you by passive agressively questioning you, almost name calling. I do not believe for a second that he was in the dark about WT's sex abuse problem wit all the media coverage. Francois you are to be congratulated for not allowing yourself to become victimized by the JW coming into your yard to force his presence on you. If more people would do this, Jehovah's Witnesses would not get away with forcing people to become enablers for the continued agressive, and intrusive tactics of Watchtower Publishing Company.
JWs At My Door This Morning
Hey, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I think anger can work sometimes. As can the gentle approach. I think we have the most impact when we are most true to ourselves. There are times when I spoke out in anger and it worked. But it could not be put-on. Those times I spoke from the depths of my gut.
TeeJay, I have been holding back in raising an issue relative to you and I regarding your position in the current discussion. However, in continuing to read your assertions and fault-assessment, I find that I've finally been pushed across the line of what I can bear in silence.
I fully expect you to deny what I'm about to say - so be it. But I have, on at least one occasion in the past and perhaps more, expressed my unequivocal disagreement - in terms quite certain - with some position you have taken. And I have been my usual charming self when I have found it necessary to cross swords with you, as you so frequently do as well when you cross swords with others on this site.
Frankly, I feel that at least some of your statements in support of your current position opposing my behavior on Saturday last is motivated by a desire to play "one up" with me in a silly notch-carving contest. You certainly have not appreciated my lack of agreement with you, much less my analysis and evaluation of your position(s) in past debates and that is your right. However, I feel you're being very transparent in your current behavior, and I do wish we could keep our disagreements as well as our agreements (there have been those, too) as isolated and discrete little packages and not let them bleed over to other discussions. Letting past arguments bleed into current conversations/debates is hardly valid and does not really speak well of your argumentation/debating skills.
This "technique" is more characteristic of the type of argumentation found in a bad, bitter, and failing marriage than it is of free and open debate on this bulletin board.
(Wife, in a voice that rattles the dishes....next door: "You may have forgotten, but I remember when you called my mother a kitchen criminal."
Husband: "I made that remark over 15 years ago. Before she went to cooking school. And what has that got to do with all this starch you keep putting in my shorts?") See what I mean about keeping current discussions free of the emotional detritus of arguments long gone and past?
As noted, you were not there; nor have you walked in my shoes nor experienced the molten hurt I have suffered at the hands of my "loving brothers" in the borganization over the last 28 years. You did not see nor feel the hostility of the subject swaggering, arrogant, JW standing before me last Saturday, resentful that I had caught him out. The content of his question suggests that he was spring-loaded with his response to any raising of the pederasty issue, pre-schooled in what to say. And perhaps his response would have worked on Joe Six Pack.
To each his own, TeeJay. You calls 'em as you see's 'em when they're standing on your front porch. I do the same. Statistically, you've lost this argument anyway. And I really do think you're dishonestly motivated in your opposition, although I don't claim to be able to tease out your true motivations from anything you've said. I'm not God, and only God and perhaps yourself truly knows what motivates you.
So there you have it. I've thought this since I read your first post. Can you truly and honestly tell me there's not the slightest trace or flavor of requital in your opposition?
Finally, are you aware that for six years I was in a relationship with a beautiful, intelligent, educated young woman who - from the ages of 4 through 14 - was so hideously sexually abused by a married couple, special pioneers in North Georgia, that she had a full-blown case of multiple personality disorder? And that after six years of the most fantastic type of dysfunctional behavior between us, I was forced by a need to protect my own emotional well-being by ending that relationship that I thought I could "fix"? Do you know how heart-broken I was over the loss of that relationship that was in every other way beautiful and idealistic and romantic and fulfilling and desireable? I didn't think so. Come on along, TJ, let me take you on a trip through my life in my moccasins. And then let you be my judge.
You've got a private message.
I got your reply but nothing showed up in the message area. (A glitch in the software?) Please try again, or send an email. Thanks.