i wanted to consolidate a lot of the information about the attack of anonymous against the watchtower society.
if you disagree with the tactics of anonymous, that's fine.
this information may still be useful as the public is made more aware of the the dangerous policies of the watchtower society.
I thought I would update this by posting a link to the discussion about videos that are critical of the Watchtower Society being removed from YouTube.
I know that Internet censorship is something that Anonymous is very concerned about, so this issue might capture their attention.
soldier 77 just posted this about two hours ago but i think his post got lost is the great debate and straw mans that another posters was throwing around.. anyway i hope soldier 77 does not mind if i make a thread from his insight.
soldier 77 "this seems to have missed in the tangent argument going on: http://pastebin.com/3nitctlf.
anonymous are needing some more people on the inside to help.
"well, I guess this one fizzeld out...."
I'm not sure about that. There are reports of work being done secretly. Also this latest round of DMCA complaints by the Watchtower Society has been getting some attention on Twitter and the Anonymous press release.
you may remember some time ago i released a song entitled "sparlock we love you" on youtube.. the song was a parody of the "become jehovah's friend" dvd, and became very popular - with well over 10,000 views last time i checked.. i did consider the possibility that the society would complain on grounds of copyright infringement, because i used some specially-altered versions of images on the dvd, such as the one below.... .
however, i shrugged this off, because i thought even the society wouldn't be as petty as to publically complain about the way the images were used.. nevertheless, they did.
today i got the following email.... dear john cedars,we have disabled the following material as a result of a third-party notification from watch tower bible and tract society of pennsylvanias, claiming that this material is infringing:.
Thanks, I was trying to figure out how to post here.
I was hoping the Watchtower Society would do something dumb like this. Their earlier round of takedowns really backfired when it just brought more attention to Sparlock and resulted in even more videos being posted. Members of Anonymous may also find this interesting. I remember when their actions against Scientology were partly prompted by Scientology trying to take down that infamous Tom Cruise video.
Here is that video.
this is posted as information hopefully helpful for those who've posted sparlock videos, or other ip (intellectual property) which is owned by wtbts, and have received a dmca takedown notice from youtube (yt).. i host many vids on yt, and have much first-hand experience with the dreaded dmca takedown process, largely thanks to a video that was posted by me years ago that gets alot of traffic (currently 700k hits) and is subject to recurring take-downs notices from nbc universal (it is an snl skit that i use as a launching point for a discussion of the principles of sexual harrassment law.
nbc universal has a huge skyscraper in l.a./n.y., teeming with ip lawyers: this is what they do to earn their keep).
i've talked to ip lawyers, just to make sure i understood the process (which is easy to handle yourself).. disclaimer: i am not a lawyer: spend your own $$$ on legal advice, if you are in doubt.. the first thing to realize is that the takedown process largely is automated by yt, wherein content owners (networks, movie studios, corporations, etc) submit a dvd or video footage of their protected work(s), which is automatically screened against existing and uploaded yt user videos looking for a finger-print "match" of the footage.
I can't comment on the other thread for some reason.
I noticed that the video says it was taken down because of a copyright claim by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvanias. Although, that may be a misspelling, that entity as it's spelled doesn't appear to exist. I would ask YouTube about that. I don't see how they can remove something based on a claim by a nonexistent corporation. How would you even fight a claim from something that doesn't exist?
i have posted this experience of mine before- it's time to resurrect it again.. in 1999 i was in bed asleep and i had a dream- my father and i were shoping at a clothing store called fazios, that i hadn't been inside since i was a boy (closed for many years).
we were looking at some denim overhalls and in walks my mother and brother ( she died in 1991 and my brother had died five months previously).
they told my dad, it's time to go.
This is an interesting discussion. A number of natural explanations have been suggested and I think it only makes to examine those before supernatural explanations are even considered.
I have personally never encountered convincing evidence of supernatural activity, so my inclination (perhaps it's a bias) is to only consider natural explanations. Even if something like this happened to me, I would be inclined to accept that there is a natural explanation that may not be obvious.
If I ever did experience something that I thought could only be explained through the supernatural, I would try to at least consider which supernatural explanation is most likely. In the case of this dream, it hardly seems to be "proof of a spiritual afterlife". I personally think some kind of esp would be much more likely. If you accept that the dream was a result of some sort of supernatural communication or connection with another person, I would consider it to be more likely to be from the person who was living then from those who were already dead. I would consider this to be the more likely explanation for this incident, even if the the existence of an afterlife was proven.
There are other supernatural explanations such as demons (either with good or bad intentions) playing with your mind. These may not seem very likely, but they should at least be considered if you are trying to determine the chances of something being the result of a single supernatural explanation.
The human mind is good at developing compelling stories to explain things. The idea of an afterlife is certainly a very compelling story. However, if a person comes to the conclusion that a different supernatural explanation is more likely, even if it is less compelling or meaningful emotionally, it might not be that big a step to go further and consider more mundane natural causes as the best explanation.
at first i must apologize my english, im not native speaker.. .
during the last two years i ve been studying without watchtower publications and it really opened my eyes.. i think i made a mistake to tell my findings about the "truth" to my brother.. here s the translation of email i got from him.... .
"howdyhau you gay*****, i have confessed all my sins and im trying to get rid of them.
I agree about telling the police about that email. Depending on the laws in your country and your situation, you might want to also think about getting a restraining order.
You also have the option of informing the elders about the email. An email like that could result in a judicial committee for your brother. This would likely make things worse for you so it might not be a good idea unless you no longer care about possibly being investigated for apostasy.
no doubt everyone has been following the juan viejo postings regarding the watchtower kingdom hall "grab" on jwn for the last couple of years.
called the mrs and me to say "wow- you have to google this" we did...came here to jwn ...became members..and the rest is history.. in the last nine months i have been calling and emailing contacts in the silicon valley for verification on the societies theft and forced sale of the menlo park kingdom hall (near the new facebook heaquarters) because the story seemed...a little far fetched.
every reliable contact i made has confirmed what juan reported.
If I were involved in this situation I would be tempted to attend the appeal staffed by the elders that are defendants in this lawsuit. The result would be virtually guaranteed, but they would have to be very careful to avoid further liability. It could end up being very awkward for them.
i should point out that i'm not a lawyer and i'm not qualified to give legal advice.. there has been much discussion about judicial committees lately and how to handle and possibly record them.. naturally, the question of the legality of recording judicial committees is a concern.
my understanding of the law in the u.s. is that it is legal to record private conversations in most states provided at least one party consents to the recording.
in the other states, it is required to get the consent of all parties to record a private conversation.. however, it would be reasonable to ask whether or not a judicial committee is a private conversation and whether the elders have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Band on the Run,
Your words of caution are appreciated on this thread and others. It is good advice to consult a lawyer when questions like this arise, especially considering that laws vary by state and that the rights of the religion are often favored over the rights of the individual in this country.
I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone try to get away with this. I am suggesting that the elders should share in some of the fear of the unknown that the accused experience. Their words in these medieval style witch hunts could come back to haunt them and these state laws might not be a protection (in my nonprofessional opinion).
I think it would be interesting to hear what a lawyer would say to an elder who asks about his potential liability during judicial committees and whether a certain state law about recording conversations would protect him.
i should point out that i'm not a lawyer and i'm not qualified to give legal advice.. there has been much discussion about judicial committees lately and how to handle and possibly record them.. naturally, the question of the legality of recording judicial committees is a concern.
my understanding of the law in the u.s. is that it is legal to record private conversations in most states provided at least one party consents to the recording.
in the other states, it is required to get the consent of all parties to record a private conversation.. however, it would be reasonable to ask whether or not a judicial committee is a private conversation and whether the elders have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I think this would usually be a gray area. Recording a judicial commitee in one of those states could be dangerous legally. A lawsuit or criminal case could be devastating, even if the person wins. However, I believe it would also be dangerous for the elders to assume that they are protected by state law. It's quite possible that a judge would view judicial committees as an exception or that the constitutional rights of the accused trump the state law.
"And yes, both criminal and civil damages can be assessed if you violate the laws. This does not hold for public meetings but any meeting where there can be an expectation of privacy and JC's would definitely be included in that."
I frankly don't see what is definite about judicial committees. Here is an interesting link about a case in Florida http://www.ocala.com/article/20101225/articles/101229821?p=1&tc=pg
Here is an interesting quote. "The courts have gone on to say that in addition to a party expecting privacy at a location, the expectation must include a ‘societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable,' " Haldin quoted from a court decision."
The elders can ask for privacy during a JC but I doubt that society would agree that it is wrong to record a JC for the protection of the accused. Our society values due process and protection of the weak. Most people would be horrified at what goes on in judicial committees and would be in favor of the accused recording it if it helps to protect him in a process that could result in a violation of his religious rights, a breakup of his family and destruction of his reputation.
Furthermore, the elders realize that the results of the JC may be sent to headquarters and possible announced to the congregation. They also know that their statements may later be discussed in an appeal. I don't see how they can claim that they have an expectation of privacy.
the sept 1st 2012 watchtower carries the article "our readers ask - do jehovah's witnesses have women ministers?".
the first words of the article provide a straight answer "yes, worldwide jehovah's witnesses have several million women ministers"however, the aricle goes on to explain their limitations in that they are not permitted to teach the congregation, "the audience of their ministry is different" .
they also do not preside or have oversight.. that opening sentence is a masterpiece of fallacious reasoning, using the well established method of equivocation ie.
This is a blunder that was "evidently" written before the Candace Conti case. Since they have millions of ministers, they have tremendous liability in child abuse cases involving their ministers. Jonathan Kendrick was a minister also and that was a factor in the Watchtower Society's liability.
