Let us Appreciate Brother Lett

[Srecko Sostar]

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

(though it has nothing to do with the thread - my thread)

Stephen Lett  is mentioned as important figure in this situation. That was the reason why  i putted. :)) 

 

[Grey Reformer]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I'll take a chance here. Srecko posts a Philly article damning to Jehovah's Witnesses. (though it has nothing to do with the thread - my thread)

I would say, dig deeper into the news source. Now, I’m not suggesting to have cryptic messages within your fellow writers, since there is no critique in grammar for other participants in this forum. Just saying.

https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/inquirer-daily-news-paywall-philly.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Media_Network

With the old owner, sensationalism without verification was the norm.

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, Grey Reformer said:

With the old owner, sensationalism without verification was the norm.

No, not really. Under the former owner, through 2016, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philly.com still had journalistic integrity. (200-plus journalists are expensive, though.) They were known to emphasize "bad news," but they were never known for sensationalism without verification. You describe it the way people describe the National Enquirer (which is often confused with the Philadelphia Inquirer).

You seem to have implied that those provided links to Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and Wikipedia would have supported your claim but they didn't. CJR did discuss the faults and business mistakes of the previous ownership and the typical lurid links of their online outlet, Philly.com. Still nothing about sensationalism without verification, however.

Of course, the writer of the CJR article admits that he is a friend of the current managing editor for digital content at Philadelphia Media Network (PMN), so this whole article reads like a cautious advertisement for his friend, but nevertheless quotes someone there about their current situation, since 2017:

• “Our job is to make sure that the best journalism gets as many eyes as possible … It’s really easy to throw up links all day long, but we’re starting to think about making sure that we’re sharing our best journalism at the best times with the best people in a more focused way.”

Whether PMN got the article right about the Witnesses or not is another question, but trying to tarnish the credibility of a paper because it had a prior history of mistakes is like those people who point out historical mistakes of the WTS in order to tarnish its current credibility.

[Grey Reformer]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

You seem to have implied that those provided links to Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and Wikipedia would have supported your claim but they didn't. CJR did discuss the faults and business mistakes of the previous ownership and the typical lurid links of their online outlet, Philly.com. Still nothing about sensationalism without verification, however.

Your comment only proves there can be a difference of opinion. Just like there were some critics of the newspaper before it went online.

Sensationalism and propaganda sell. It should be obvious as to the usage here. How did Trump win the presidency if not through lies as he has done with all his business endeavors?

By the way, thanks for that tip about TOR browser. I started using it. I didn’t know there were unethical spies in our organization.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Grey Reformer said:

By the way, thanks for that tip about TOR browser. I started using it. I didn’t know there were unethical spies in our organization.

That wasn't me. It was someone else who gave the tip about the TOR browser. Also, it's much better to just recognize that there is no such thing as perfect anonymity. The TOR browser, for all we know, is promoted surreptitiously by government agencies because of their own ability to exploit weaknesses in it while tempting people to use it for dishonest and nefarious purposes. Better to just be honest and know that all things hidden can easily come to light.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 hours ago, Grey Reformer said:

By the way, thanks for that tip about TOR browser. I started using it. I didn’t know there were unethical spies in our organization.

 

JW.org _Publisher ID_ - leaked video 1-of-4.mp4

[TrueTomHarley]

When I heard that the Philly reporter hangs out at the Reddit site, and then I later saw him there myself, as though reporting back to the 'faithful' and promising them further salvos, I thought maybe other reporters might do that too.

So I have posted there several times, as JTR immediately detected at his Apostate Control Center. In any community where ones do nothing but repeat and reinforce, in time the subject becomes skewed and misrepresented. 'They need some education over there,' I said, not regarding the chief priests, but the third parties that may pop in or even take their main nourishment from that source. I don't expect to turn anyone around. I hope only to present another side so that should a reporter broadside us, he at least has a better feel for who and what he is broadsiding. On posts that are lengthy, which is most of them, I usually post just a few paragraphs, and link to the remainder on my own blog, where I can keep track of it and it is not quickly buried. Do you know,  Ms @The Librarian, that I have never once been called for 'spamming' on the 'apostate' site?

In writing specific replies to each Philly article, then an overreaching one incorporating all three, I begin to imagine, I hope not too immodestly, that I become a 'news source' in my own right. What I write I have seen no one else write in a comprehensive fashion. This is also true of my 'review' of the Apostasy movie and an upcoming post or two about the BITE model that everyone is swooning over.

Though some get all bent up that specific replies are not forthcoming from the theocratic organization on whatever dirt opposers think they have dug up on us, and fume that responses cannot be found on the official website, I think they cannot be expected to appear there or anywhere else. To do so would require our brothers go the 'low road,' from the Bible standpoint. Jesus said (Matthew 11) that they will bellyache no matter what you do, so shrug it off and go full speed ahead. David said 'all day long they muttered at him, and he responded by keeping mum.' The plowman that keeps looking behind 'is not well-suited for the kingdom of God,' so they tend not to do that. (Luke 9:62)

It will be for others to defend them, and they may not even appreciate it. And they may not even appreciate it because it is not a good idea. Who can say? I just find that, having taken the time to get my head around things, I cannot let one-sided articles go by without posting a reply as complete as I know how to make it.

Another reason, maybe the more important reason, for the organization's not jumping into the fray, is the principle of separateness. The fray is populated by those yet in the 'low sink' of 1 Peter 4:4. 'Water's just fine here in the low sink!' they cry. 'What are you, nuts, for staying out?' It is just as Peter says, that they are puzzled about it for a time, but quickly figure out that the 'correct' response is to 'speak abusively' of those keeping separate. And few people are as quick to embrace values of the sink than media people - it is they who discuss the merits of "theybees," for example, while people of common sense dismiss it as stupidity on steriods. And don't get me going about people who were out of the low sink but dive back in. "Water is not so bad here, after all," they say, as they slap lipstick on a pig like varnishing a barn.

The brothers cannot win by jumping into the fray. Pope Francis apologiizes in the wake of the Pennsylvanian report, and it is "too little, too late," to the Church's opponents. And no, JTR, it is not even remotely similar to the JW situation - please do not embarrass yourself still further by going there. It will always be 'too little too late' to those whose primary goal is to discredit what they don't like. Even were the brothers to decide that they have something that merits a public apology, the instant retort would be: "Well, what are you going to do about it?" Unless the answer is exactly the course that opposers want, the 'apology' will be dismissed as but empty words. We should not be naive.

How do you face a squad that would convict you for not 'going beyond the law' in reporting? What sort of an invitation to Monday-morning quarterbacking is that? If it is so crucial to go beyond the law, then MAKE that the law. What is so hard about that? Jehovah's organization can make a new policy and spread it throughout every congregation in the world in no time at all. The overall world is, as usual, incompetent, and tries to foist the consequences of its incompetence on others - in this case the one branch of Christianity that knows that if you preach moral values, you had better take some measures to determine that your own people are doing them.

How do you face a squad that says the standard of justice integral to Western law should be abandoned because bad guys escape through the net that way? Each time DNA evidence releases someone convicted on less strenuous proof from prison, we see the value of actually making sure of your facts. Doesn't matter to the zealots. Not long ago the British cops descended with huge fanfare - helocopters, I think, to bust some well-known person for pedophilia, with media giving the raid the greatest coverage. It turned out that when it was found that there was nothing to it, the man sued media and won a large award. It did not make a dent in their zeal. 'Alright, alright, so we destroyed someone,' they muttered. 'It is worth it in our quest to 'protect children.' In searching, I didn't remember enough to bring up the story, but I came up with this from the Michael Jackson trial  (one of the most shameful travesties of 'journalism' says the HuffPost) which is almost better. Meanwhile, at Apostate Control, JTR does not miss an opportunity to malign Michael Jackson, as he does Prince, because he thinks he can hurt the Watchtower that way.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

Nonetheless, do what Jackson pleaded for before the ARC and the problem is solved. Both parties, congregation and government, can pursue their goals without interfering with the other.

No, I think the organization will never go there, in answering charges specifically. It will focus on what it does best, make 'reforms' that it deems necessary, and press forward. It will take up the words of Russell about not kicking at every one that barks, because you don't get very far that way.

Meanwhile, the Librarian, fine lady that she is, and who can blame her for blowing a gasket when I try to link to my blog three times a day? took a look at my blog, said it had an 'old look,' and made some suggestions. I had to admit that it did, so I went to Typepad and said 'what were they going to do about it?' It turns out they can make things more modern, even get it so that it flows into whatever device summons it. I will not get to it immediately, because it is a pain in the neck, but I wlll get to it. Thank you, Ms Librarian. (you old hen) My blog will not compete with yours. It is only a collection of writings I deem loyal. At most, I get one or two attaboys from allies, and seldom even that. "I don't want more,'" said the fox to the sour grapes. And what! You think I am going to let JTR go there without a leash? No. I want to write, not moderate comments.

It is as you say: FB and the huge social media sites are squeezing out the bacon of everyone else. I took a four year hiatus from blogging to attend to some pressing matters. When I returned, it took awhile to restore former traffic. That has been done. Yet the commenting never reappeared. Come, we are allies in a battle that is not unimportant. I don't mean to take from here; I think it almost an impossible goal due to presentation and commenting differences, and if I link to myself, will only do so if it is directly relevent, and not just tooting my own horn for the sake of tooting it. Especially if Srecko links to an entire article, where a hit man writer luxuriates in slowing building his point, I ought to be able to counter with a post progressively building a reply.

 

 

 

[Grey Reformer]

43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That wasn't me. It was someone else who gave the tip about the TOR browser. Also, it's much better to just recognize that there is no such thing as perfect anonymity. The TOR browser, for all we know, is promoted surreptitiously by government agencies because of their own ability to exploit weaknesses in it while tempting people to use it for dishonest and nefarious purposes. Better to just be honest and know that all things hidden can easily come to light.

I thought you are the one that wrote it. Is there another JWinsider?

Au contraire Mon frère. Anyone really wanting anonymity can achieve it. That’s why hackers seldom get caught. But, those trying not to hide, are easily detected. Just like, from Virginia to Seattle Washington Amazon to Virginia, and Florida. There must be a lot of doubt and speculation in your life.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

13 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This is also true of my 'review' of the Apostasy movie and an upcoming post or two about the BITE model that everyone is swooning over.

So, TTH, .... um ... you reviewed the "Apostacy" movie?

Did you do it like you do everything else .... with second hand reviews of OTHER people's reviews, who actually DID see the movie?

It is my understanding that it is not yet showing at all in the United States, but my info is a month old.

When and where did you actually see the movie?

[TrueTomHarley]

 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Did you do it like you do everything else .... with second hand reviews of OTHER people's reviews, who actually DID see the movie?

 

When everyone else has viewed and written about something, that means you do not have to. Just read what they said, note what they did not say - it's a slam-dunk as to why - and you are golden. You can hit it with 90% accuracy. Mine is a forensic review. That's why I put the word in quotes.

Before you choke in indignation, recall that forensic techniques are used all the time in many fields and people never discard the results on that account.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Grey Reformer said:

I thought you are the one that wrote it. Is there another JWinsider?

In case you actually did forget, it was the infamous @James Thomas Rook Jr.. Go back to page 9 of this thread:

On 8/17/2018 at 12:45 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If you use the TOR browser to get to the Archive, one's IP address could be from ANYWHERE.

In my response to him, on the top of page 10, I never mentioned the TOR browser.

No harm; no foul.

4 hours ago, Grey Reformer said:

Anyone really wanting anonymity can achieve it. That’s why hackers seldom get caught. But, those trying not to hide, are easily detected.

I'm sure you are right, and the TOR browser may be perfectly safe on its own. But those who use the TOR browser might even find that they are making themselves targeted for surveillance or potential exposure, assuming someone has other reasons to take an interest in them. There is a good book called "Surveillance Valley" by Yasha Levine that traces the military history of the Internet, and surprising current findings about military and NSA utilization. I based what I said on evidence exposed in that book, and knowing the admitted military history and development of the original TOR browser. (See, for example:  https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-TOR-browser-was-actually-made-by-the-CIA .)

Precautions are useful under certain legitimate circumstances, but I just think people should be careful about thinking that they will always remain perfectly anonymous by relying on a specific piece of technology. I'm happy with quasi-anonymity, and would not be terribly upset for myself if all my anonymity were gone.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm happy with quasi-anonymity, and would not be terribly upset for myself if all my anonymity were gone.

Me either .... I have had people astonished that I use my real name, as now  people "know where to find me..."

That's Ok by me ... all my enemies have died before me, and any new ones will have less than an even chance ..... God willin' an' the creek don't rise.

If you have ever taken out a mortgage, "they" know "everything" about you, anyway.