The new service meeting
People like to have their ears tickled. As, I'm sure, you do as well.
People also like to be told they are unique, special.
JRK, why did you resort to name-calling ("dog pack" & "know-it-all types")? Do you know what an ad hominem argument (logical fallacy) is? It's using name-calling; it's attacking the one on the other side of the argument without addressing the argument. What evidence do you have that the account is true? Have you read not just this account, but all of John's accounts?
Do I not have a right to disagree on this forum without being called names in a chidlish way? I think that my doubt of John's account was presented in a mature way and is sound. Maybe I'm wrong, but, also maybe I (and others) are right. But remember, you don't know. You don't know the account is true.
The know-it-all types need to get their own life, instead of trying to dissect yours for sport.
I assure you I have a life, and I have far too many worthwhile things to do than to spend time dissecting other people's lives for sport. That's one reason I don't want to put up with BS on this site. It interferes with my life; it wastes my time. My watcing the goings-on in JWdom is serious and important to me; it's not something I do because I don't have anything else to do.
Also, could I not rightly call you a "know-it-all"? So, you know the account is true? You know it's true, and I think (don't know) it's false. Why does that make me a know-it-all, but not you? You're the one claiming to know the truth.
You must think it applies to you. Grow some thicker skin. About the pack mentality, I will just quote one of your comments: "I'm with slimboyfat and Wasanelder Once. and 2+2=5. Where are WingCommander, Vidiot, & sir82?" Please explain how my comment was wrong about a dog pack?.
A number of people have accused John of lying. They are the ones I was referring to. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. But if the shoe fits . . .
JRK, It didn't hurt my feelings; It went against my senses of justice, reason, & logic, Whether you included me in "dog pack" and "know-it-alls" is not really the main point. My words stand even if you were referring to others and not including me.
And again, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Telling me to grow some thicker skin imples that I'm thin-skinned. Why exactly is it that I'm thin-skinned? What gives you the authority to say that? What in my last post enlightens you so much about me that it authorizes you to, in effect, call me 'thin-skinned'? Some of us think the account is true; others think it's false. You're the first one who seems to be disturbed with the mature disagreements. Are you not, then, actually the one who is thin-skinned?
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings
If those words are sincere, then I genuinely appreciate them. I don't mean to argumentative. Just remember, though, some of us doubt the account, and I think we have legitimate reason to. I don't remember anybody being mean about it.
Has this forum become like JWdom - a realm in which we're not allowed to disagree or doubt or question? I was genuinely excited when I first started reading John's accounts. I told my wife about them. But then they just kept coming, and they all seemed questionable. As I said before, watching what's going on in JWdom is serious to me for some reasons that I can't yet relate on this site. But also, I have close family members who are still in. If somebody presents fictitious, misleading material about what's going on, it's serious to me. Being on this site is not a hobby for me.
JRK: I will just quote one of your comments: "I'm with slimboyfat and Wasanelder Once and 2+2=5. Where are WingCommander, Vidiot, & sir82?" Please explain how my comment was wrong about a dog pack?
OK, I will. Your using that term indicates something negative. It implies a group who want to jump on someone and tear him apart as would a pack of dogs. Dog packs don't operate on reason and logic. We do. It seems that those who doubt John's account do so after giving thought to it and reasoning on it.
Some of us think that at least some of John's accounts are fictitious. I stated that I agreed with slimboyfat, Wasanelder Once, and 2+2=5. That doesn't warrant or justify your use of the term "dog pack". I also asked where the other three were because I wanted their input and opinions. They have made comments on at least one other of John's posts indicating that they thought at least some of his stuff was fictitious (before I did). See their comments (consecutive) on pg 2 of this thread:
Their consecutive comments are the reason I asked where they were.
I will not say for sure (because I can't) that this account is false. I weigh what others say and I'm reasonable; I might change my mind. I merely wanted the opinions of the other three because they are aware of this situation and have already stated opinions. I have read many of their posts over the last few years, and I respect their thoughts even if I don't always agree with them.
I have never been part of a "dog pack", and I haven't known any of the others mentioned to be, either.
How do you know what John says is fictitious? Were you there when it happened? I know I wasn't. All I know is you called him out and said you didn't believe his experience.
Me using the terms I did in my post were directed at John Aquilla, not you. I wrote them to try to be an encouragement to him. They were not a ad hominem attack on you, just an observation.
I get bored reading long diatribes such as the op so rarely finish them but from what i read and what i know of the witnesses it did seem like ficticious bollocks. I must be in the dog pack as well.
Makes a change from being in the dog house I spose :)
I enjoyed the account or story even if it was exaggerated because there is a good chance that many JW's, of all ages, may be concerned that they have been lied to or that the Society has used misdirection.
Changes are definitely coming and not everyone may be on board.
JRK, OK, I really don’t want to argue. No hard feelings. You might not have seen my post above yours in which I stated that I don’t know the account is fictitious. I don’t think I ever stated with certainty that it wasn’t true. I will say it again here: I don’t know; I just strongly suspect it. I don’t like to doubt people; the account just seems fictitious to me. I tried to state that in a way that wasn’t mean or disrespectful.
I really, really want it to be true. If I change my mind and come to think it is, I will freely admit it. Again, no hard feelings. I’m sure there is a lot we agree on, just not this.