Can JW Television (digital news) be trusted?

[Pudgy]

42 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

What would motivate a Christian to publicly express their indignation?

Uh …. I dunno Dick Tracy …. might it be ….. um …. Indignation?

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, Peter Carroll said:

good entertainment at the very least

Looks like Peter Carroll was correct, @Fausto Hoover.

According to your Ray Devereaux profile, [ https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/18582-ray-devereaux/ ] you hadn't brought "Ray" out do your spamming work for you for over 2.2 years, per that post from Srecko back in March 2021. As usual, per all your previous spamming patterns, it's easy to guess who your "Ray" has down-voted, and who your "Ray" has up-voted, without even opening the link above to see the actual posts the following screenshot refers to.  

I know I had promised you I wouldn't keep exposing your multi-personality tactics, and I've kept that promise for nearly two years now. But this one had already been exposed by others. And it also made me realize that this is all a game to you anyway, and it really does you no harm to expose you. After all, you already admitted that "someone" will just come back under a different name in the worst case: i.e, if any admin happens to discover this latest flailing of yours, for example. Anyway, I'm not asking that you get banned again over this practice. I think it actually helps everyone see through your tactics. I hope they leave you to own devices and machinations. 

If I continue to respond on this topic, it's not because I care whether or not you agree. It's just that there are others here who see how serious this topic is, and don't think all of it is part of a game.

 

unnecessarily edited 2 hours later to add:

P.S. Just thought I'd quickly check to see all the emoji activity on your own account while Ray was on that 3 minute spamming spree. Looks like you did pretty well this time, almost as many upvotes as last time:

Unfortunately, this software doesn't keep track of such iconic activity for more than a few hours, so I thought I'd check your profile before they disappeared.

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/20274-fausto-hoover/?wr=eyJhcHAiOiJmb3J1bXMiLCJtb2R1bGUiOiJmb3J1bXMtY29tbWVudCIsImlkXzEiOjkwNjEzLCJpZF8yIjoxODMzNDl9

and that's where I got the above screenshot.

[Srecko Sostar]

59 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

That is precisely the intention. There seems to be a pattern where the ARC purposely concealed instances that could disprove their agenda.

I give you another example. The ARC focused on victim BCG or something like that, but didn't say much about victim BCH. Their investigation was centered on those 2 victims.

I can tell you why they didn't want to emphasize BCH. Because BHC did report her claim to the police. There is yet another reason why we should not trust the conclusions made by apostates.

 

This shows, in all those decades before ARC process, that WTJWorg elders and ministerial servants do not report CSA cases to the police, but some victims or their relatives do.

Besides, you did an identity swap. BCH is not the victim but the abuser, bully, according to statement made by J.I. Bennett.

Also report (Case study 29) speaking about BCB, BCG as victims.

[betoken]

59 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Besides, you did an identity swap. BCH is not the victim but the abuser, bully, according to statement made by J.I. Bennett.

BCH (accused) for the police. BCB (Victim) for the ARC.

[betoken]

53 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

According to your Ray Devereaux profile, [ https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/18582-ray-devereaux/ ] you hadn't brought "Ray" out do your spamming work for you for over 2.2 years, per that post from Srecko back in March 2021. As usual, per all your previous spamming patterns, it's easy to guess who your "Ray" has down-voted, and who your "Ray" has up-voted, without even opening the link above to see the actual posts the following screenshot refers to.  

What an impressive counterargument. Is this the best? If Anna and Comfortmypeople emerge to give you an upvote, what would your response be?

[betoken]

56 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I know I had promised you I wouldn't keep exposing your multi-personality tactics, and I've kept that promise for nearly two years now.

How does one get exposed by the emojis? Isn't that the reason for them? Is it truly believed by the individuals here that other witnesses are not seeking genuine truth, but rather advocating for apostasy and biased truth?

[betoken]

Some of us come to see what the agenda driven propaganda is here. 

[JW Insider]

38 minutes ago, betoken said:

If Anna and Comfortmypeople emerge to give you an upvote, what would your response be?

Seriously? If anyone started to upvote me the way your doppelgangers upvote you, I'd complain to them that they were spamming, and that, when used excessively, it can give the appearance of unfair bias or sometimes even "mockery" or something "pathetic" instead of agreement. For comparison, here's a screenshot of what Ray's activity on your own profile looked like, all from that same three-minute spamming spree mentioned above:

I think the word "pathetic" comes to the mind of most persons who Witness this kind of thing here.

[betoken]

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Seriously? If anyone started to upvote me the way your doppelgangers upvote you, I'd complain to them that they were spamming, and that, when used excessively, it can give the appearance of unfair bias or sometimes even "mockery" or something "pathetic" instead of agreement. For comparison, here's a screenshot of what Ray's activity on your own profile looked like, all from that same three-minute spamming spree mentioned above:

Why are you so angry. Is this considered spamming?

Could you please explain the reason for your antagonistic behavior?

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think the word "pathetic" comes to the mind of most persons who witness this kind of thing here.

Sharing inaccurate information is also considered misleading. Should that be witnessed here?

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Fausto Hoover said:

I can tell you why they didn't want to emphasize BCH. Because BHC did report her claim to the police. There is yet another reason why we should not trust the conclusions made by apostates.

I notice that the date is highlighted on this police form above. Notice that it was 11/10/2000 that "Elder Bennett" gave a statement to "Police Officer Bennett." But look at the ARC exhibits here: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits-case-study-29 and select the document: Report of Appeal Committee regarding [BCH]. If you download it you will see the following:

But this letter is dated: July 1989. This was evidently more than 11 Years before Charman Bennett gave a statement to the police.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, betoken said:

Why are you so angry. Is this considered spamming?

Angry? LOL!

You asked: "Is this considered spamming?" (referring to Pudgy's recent activity shown on his profile page.) Since your first activity on this forum shows up as starting only a couple of hours ago, I should assume that you really don't know and are asking me a sincere and innocent question. So, I'll offer my perspective, and tell you why.

No. Pudgy's profile does not reflect spamming. For reference, I took updated screenshots from the same profile page.  The first line of the first screenshot shows Pudgy reacting to the rather funny statement by Fausto Hoover that told me to calm down. Since that was so much like the very laughable "Why are you so angry?" in your own post. I thought it was funny, too. It definitely deserved a laughing icon, but as you might already know, I have never given any of Fausto's numerous accounts any vote over the last three years except a few up-votes that I thought were well-deserved. I have never given him a down-vote for any reason, and although I have been tempted to give a few laughing votes, I stopped doing that about three years ago too because he misunderstood it. His numerous accounts invariably use the laughing emoji to express derision, so I didn't want to have mine confused for the same. 

On those next two lines, Pudgy reacted to two of my posts about a half-hour apart: that's not unreasonable considering that these were serious posts addressing a serious matter. I'm not sure why you were concerned to add the line that someone named Dandellon Frend reacted to one of his own posts 10 hours earlier or that Srecko had reacted to one of his posts 11 hours earlier.

Then you provided a more recent set of Pudgy's reactions to myself and to you, "betoken," for which I have also updated the screenshot. This time my comments are after the screenshot below.

Starting from the bottom this time, the first is an up-vote reaction to a serious post by me, and the next one up is a serious up-vote reaction to a serious post by Srecko. Nothing spammy about either of those. They are for completely separate people.

Then. yes. he laughed at three very short posts in a row when you, the new person named "betoken" showed up. You may not be aware, but most people laugh when one of Fausto's many "personalities" comes on the scene when he seems to be severely challenged by someone. Some laugh at the childish naivety, thinking that he thinks he is pulling a fast one and that no one is noticing that it's really just him by another name. Pudgy probably thought the same about the "betoken" name. Others have noticed this pattern of bringing in other versions of himself and just laugh at the mess he makes of a topic that reminds them of one of those humorous pictures we've all seen of a dog that chews up a bunch of cushions and then looks up all innocent and sad that he has done all the damage he can but has no more worlds [cushions] to conquer. I laugh, although I don't press the emoji, because it reminds me of a joke I once heard about a person who cheats at solitaire to raise his self-esteem. Then, he probably thought it was funny that you may have thought you could really impute a motive about someone and think it would stick by asking questions like "Why are you so angry?" or better yet: "antagonistic."

I will admit that I thought Pudgy saw the humor in the whole situation and sees the entertainment in watching agenda-driven posts that are so easy to see through. I do think that Pudgy also sees the potential that the laughing emoji will be seen as derision. And I think he should be careful to avoid this. I'm uncomfortable with using that even three times in a row. But a series of three or four laughing emojis is not the same as an unexplained series of 6 down-votes to those who have challenged an agenda, followed immediately by a series of 6 unexplained up-votes to one's current "master" account. Pudgy has never shown evidence of bringing on new accounts just to enhance his own "self-esteem." He stands by his positions and will defend them. Unlike bringing on someone like "Ray" (or his many "brothers") who rarely has anything to say for himself, but will up-vote anything his master wants up-voted, and down-vote just about anything from persons who have challenged him, even if it means haphazardly down-voting a simple Bible scripture or Watchtower quote. 

Anyway, I hope you understand my own perspective a little better about what it means to use the emojis for spamming purposes.

 

[betoken]

Your argument is simply based on a minor detail and lacks relevance to the larger picture.