Our former cong - London Penge sharing KH with Beckenham - had 110 pubs when I joined to 10 years ago and 110 pubs when we were DF'd earlier this year.
Move along - nothing to see here.
(Plenty in and out as you'd expect with a London cong. but ultimately to no effect in a decade - knock those doors harder you dimwits)
Posts by besty
-
23The real story: Is your congregation stagnant, dwindling or thriving?
by truthseeker inwith the 2007 service year stats out one could be forgiven for thinking that wt's problems are over, the child abuse settlement an itch in their bethel backside and the blood issue a minor annoyance.. if the truth were known, it is probably that more often than not, congregations are in decline, attendance is poor and few new recruits are not already jw family members.. so, if you know how your congregation is doing, if you have the pulse of your hall, let us know.. .
my congregation (which shall remain nameless).
dwindling attendance at all meetings (around 80%).
-
-
besty
-
8
UK District Overseer in Barb Anderson photo..
by besty inanybody care to to inform us who this lovely chap and his wife are?.
http://www.freeminds.org/women/barb10.jpg.
he is on the right of the lower photo standing beside john barr with presumably his wife seated in front of him .
-
-
besty
Uninformed - yes that's John and Mildred Barr - John is proud to count me as a fellow Scotsman :-)
Barb - D Dutton was known as the Button due to his being small and round and always immaculately dressed and quite bright - seemed to fit most button-like criteria :-) it wasn't meant in a nasty way
although my fellow posters seem to think he was somewhat avaricious - I think he has progressed on to the Britain Branch Committee now - might even be in charge!! -
8
UK District Overseer in Barb Anderson photo..
by besty inanybody care to to inform us who this lovely chap and his wife are?.
http://www.freeminds.org/women/barb10.jpg.
he is on the right of the lower photo standing beside john barr with presumably his wife seated in front of him .
-
-
besty
I thought it might be Denis 'The Button' Dutton - but apparently not....
any more takers? -
8
UK District Overseer in Barb Anderson photo..
by besty inanybody care to to inform us who this lovely chap and his wife are?.
http://www.freeminds.org/women/barb10.jpg.
he is on the right of the lower photo standing beside john barr with presumably his wife seated in front of him .
-
-
besty
anybody care to to inform us who this lovely chap and his wife are?
http://www.freeminds.org/women/barb10.jpg
he is on the right of the lower photo standing beside John Barr with presumably his wife seated in front of him
They have nice suntans for a holiday at Brooklyn Bethel...
-
110
Well, The Elders & Circuit Overseer Came By Tonight To See If We Are Celeb.
by Lady Liberty inhello dear friends.... well..the saga continues!!
as many of you know last new years the jws attacked our "frosty" and egged our home.
" the co said, "so you are both not willing to meet with the elders..?".
-
-
besty
Go LL - next you'll be posting your photo for your avatar :-)
-
38
Barb Anderson's proof of her background - pics of GB and more
by Dogpatch inbarb sez some silly jws are questioning her credentials.
well boo on their party.. barb anderson's proof of her background - pics of gb and more.
http://www.freeminds.org/women/barbara_anderson.htm.
-
-
besty
You have nothing to prove Barb.
Can you hear 'ad hominem'? Lets keep the focus on the real questions here - such as:
1 - Can Jehovah's Witnesses prove they don't operate in California?
2 - Can Jehovah's Witnesses prove that their clergy (elders) have no duty of care to their flock?
Evidently the answer is no to both questions.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/145224/1.ashx
<shameless plug for Duncan's Chocolate Cake Defence thread, just for you PoppyR>
-
8
who here has a website
by besty inyou can laugh at us here:.
www.the-morrisons.com.
post us your link or pm me if you're shy.....
-
-
-
155
"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video
by Fatfreek inthis is too important to bury within an old thread.
that thread hashed over several items of interest which you may want to read by way of a refresher: .
is gail bethea-jackson truly a doctor as the watchtower site claims?
-
-
besty
Hi DtP
Every interview you have ever seen is heavily edited.
Incorrect. Think about live interviews for example. I work in the broadcast industry (BSkyB) and have seen plenty of fair, balanced edits take place - one aim of quality journalism is presenting the facts thereby allowing the viewer to decide. It is always difficult to decide what to leave in and what ends up on the floor. The only way we could truly know in this case is to see a full transcript.
Clearly GBJ's opinion is 'somewhat' relevant and is more valuable as evidential input than our/your opinion as to her and WTS motives.
Again, I disagree that the interview was to gain "advantage" to the WTS.
GBJ's opinion. See above. It is her statement. In the wider context of the WTS's long and indistuinguished record of misquoting secular authors, changing doctrine, rewriting their own history, having different versions of publications on WT CD compared to original print and blaming the followers for misplaced expectations it is reasonable in my opinion to conclude their use of a heavily edited piece which has an external subject matter expert seeming to imply that child abuse is a recent phenomenon is typical of their modus operandi.
It seems like an honest attempt at educating.
Allow me to avoid that school. Education has a root meaning of 'leading'. Where is the viewer being lead? To conclude that child abuse is recent, that experts didn't know about it 18-20 years ago and that the WTS is in the forefront of 'progressive understanding'. The viewer - probably a JW - can then be satisfied that the WTS is at least no worse than 'society in general' and most likely taking a leading position in the field.
How so? Gail's "out of context" claim is bogus to begin with, as the Media site did not give context.
The point is that 1 minute of non-concurrent clips compiled from 60 minutes of original interview is out of context by any reasonable definition of context. If you like I can respond with numerous reputable media websites showing full transcripts of interviews they have partially used in reporting stories. The fact that the WTS 'did not give context' is grounds for concern surely?
Add to that, I suspect her memory is not good here
Sounds like she is weasling under harrassment from Ex-Jws.
I suspect it is a lot of "context" given to her by your friends
Can you see how subjective your statement are? You are giving an opinion on behalf of how someone else may feel - not valid argumentation.
Just for the record please see below an email I sent on the 29th November 2007 to the point of contact given on a website GBJ is listed with:
Hi Ellen
I note Gail is listed on your website http://mscsw.org/ - I'm interested in contacting her for more details about her views on paedophilia, which are being used by Jehovahs Witnesses in some sort of official apologetic manner to excuse their current troubles in this regard. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917798/ dated 21st November 2007
http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/717263.htm
For your convenience I have pasted a transcript as captured from the same website
Dr. Bethea-Jackson:
I don't think, 18 or 20 years ago, we knew much of anything about pedophiles. It wasn't really looked at as a criminal matter. We didn't publicize it as being an act that needed some criminal intervention, so to speak. We didn't look at it … or it wasn't … people didn't have the body of knowledge 18 or 20 years ago to say that this is something that will harm your child emotionally, if you don't address it. Parents didn't know the seriousness, 18 or 20 years ago, and the long-term effects. And as people document the work that they've done, some successes and their failures, that some of that early work did not get to the public. I mean, it was in some New England journal somewhere. But certainly it was in the process of being looked at and studied. That information was not released. We weren't taught that in school. I went to one of the most prestigious social-work schools, at that time, in the country and in all of my studying, we didn't have a course in child abuse .
Evidently this interview was created some time back and I'd like her current opinion on this matter. She is on the record here as saying that 20 years ago the sexual victimisation of children was unknown, not viewed as criminal, information wasn't widely available, and she hadn't come across it as a subject during her 'prestigious' education.
I find all that hard to believe to be honest and would welcome your help in contacting Gail to ascertain her current professional opinion.
--
Best Regards
Paul Morrison
(a concerned parent and former Jehovahs Witness)I resent your implication that Ex-JW's are harassing her and giving her a piece of their mind. Not so. We are concerned that a well meaning child care professional is being used ina way she did not intend. She agrees it would appear and is taking steps to rremedy the situation.
I suggest you write to the WTS cc your local Body of Elders and ask for their side of the story now that you have seen GBJ's, and let them know how you have defended their position to date on this website.
-
155
"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video
by Fatfreek inthis is too important to bury within an old thread.
that thread hashed over several items of interest which you may want to read by way of a refresher: .
is gail bethea-jackson truly a doctor as the watchtower site claims?
-
-
besty
Even if she was talking of younger children abusing even younger children, I fail to see how she was taken out of context.
Death to Pixies - It is GBJ who claims to have been taken out of context, not us evil apostates making the claim, but the interviewee.
Consider the words 'taken out context'. That means what was shown on the video was a smaller part of the original whole. You state that the WTS haven't added to or changed her words. Maybe so, but by removing most of her interview and editing the rest, what she appears to say gives a misleading effect to the advantage of the WTS. Her words, not ours.
The WTS have lied by omission.
GBJ says she gave a 1 hour interview, approximately 90 seconds of which appears on the website. Can you explain why you don't see that as out of context in itself?
-
59
2008 study WT will be confiscated from non-publishers
by mac n cheese inthe literature servant told me that their instructions are to only give one study wt per publisher starting with the january 1st, 2008 issue.
under no circumstances are they to provide any other copies (if lost or whatever, much like kms are provided now).
any guests attending the wt study will be provided a copy, but then the servant who gave them the copy must confiscate it after the meeting.
-
-
besty
Come on guys - how confidential is the Kingdom Ministry?
They cannot hold back the Internet tide - when are they going to realize that?
We are all publishers now.
