| Subject: Re: My Last Post on This Subject Donald |
Author:
Donald
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:55:06 06/08/04 Tue
In reply to:
Vince
's message, "My Last Post on This Subject Donald" on 07:54:30 06/08/04 Tue
Dear Vince,
You are quite right that it is not right for people to go around public forums revealing what was said in private. I am very sorry that I had to do this, but I was left with little choice. You put me in a very sticky situation because, here you were on this forum denouncing me for letting something slip which you had mentioned on the phone and confirmed by email. Yet I knew from other emails and from conversation with you that you had threatened me in no uncertain terms that you would have no problem using private emails and conversations and anything else you could get your hands on to try to embarass me if I dared to write reponses to your article about Jehovah's Witnesses.
So what was I supposed to do? Should I have allowed you to pretend to take the high moral ground, claiming that it was outrageous for me to let one fact slip which was not in the public domain, when we both knew fine well the threats you had previously made to use all sorts of private correspondance against me? You made it clear that you had no quams about using private emails to discredit people, you pointed to a section on your site where you liked to do this. I do not make a practice of divulging private email messages, but the hypocrisy in this situation was too much. How you could get all self-righteous about me pointing out that your public statments on what is proper in this regard is at odds with the threats you made against me is hard to understand.
What I said was not meant as a personal attack. It is true that you have written lots of articles about Jehovah's Witnesses yet have not read a single one of our books. This explained to me your appraoch in feeling it justified to pronounce judgement on an author whose argument you had not read. It was highly relevant to the topic, since you displayed the same approach in both instances. I certainly could have said it in a kinder way, and I am sorry about that. As I said before, I was genuinely disappointed that you had not given more thought to an argument which I thought was very interesting. I was also wrong when opined that you had probably not read Harry Potter either. I did not know that you had read the books when I wrote that - there was no intent to deceive.
Contrary to your recent message, I never claimed that had not written messages as ROTW. I simply pointed out that there were a few posts under that name which I had not authored. I have nothing to be ashamed of in what I wrote under any name, and some of the things I did say I feel have already been misrepresented by you (there you go, that was the excuse you were looking for - you will no doubt relish publishing them all after that comment)
I have no wish for confrontation
>O.K. Donald, let me put this one to bed once and for
>all.
>
>This discussion was instigated by you on the subject
>of an academics view of the Harry Potter phenomena. No
>problem with that.
>
>When I expressed some anger at being reminded at some
>of the damage some of these academics do (not YOU
>remember but THEY ?big difference), by calling
>referring to them as academics who sit in their ivory
>towers pontificating, while the real damage is being
>done to young people on a ground level, YOU then
>launched into an unprovoked attack against me. When I
>saw how much you had taken my ivory towers phrase so
>personally (again, this was not even aimed at
>you!!!??? Are these academics your relations or
>something?) I offered up an apology regardless.
>Despite all this, I have still had no apology from you
>for this either. Maybe calling me “Dear Vince?is an
>attempt at an apology now. If so, why not just drop
>your pride and apologise?
>
>As I said, it was YOU who ‘initiated?a personal
>attack against me at the beginning. This is the first
>personal remark that has been made in this entire
>discussion. It is from you, and the rest of the post
>contains the remainder of the personal remarks. You
>instigated this to start with Donald. Please try and
>see this and be big enough to admit it:
>
>Donald said: “Hi Vince,
>I was hoping for an intelligent response to this man's
>argument - some hope.?>
>So you immediately start the personal remarks by
>implying that I am not intelligent in my response.
>Thanks Donald. It may not be a response as you had
>wanted but it was a response nevertheless. More
>importantly, it was not even personally aimed against
>you! Even so, from this moment on your posts took on a
>personal attack against me. Next you said in the same
>post:
>
>Donald: “Essentially his argument has nothing to do
>with your apologetic agenda and I find it astonishing
>that you would dismiss his view so out of hand. You
>have not even read the article. Then again you have
>probably not read Harry Potter either, whereas the
>author of the article had. I must admit I have only
>read the first book, but I guess that is still more
>than you. But this should come as no surprise to me,
>after all your whole web site is a collection of other
>people's opinions on various books and subjects; an
>assortment of quotes from books you have never read.?>
>Had I said anything like this to you in the opening of
>this discussion Donald? No. Did I break confidence
>with revealing personal phone calls? No. Yet, later
>on, you have the cheek to cry persecution when I seek
>to defend myself against these personal attacks on my
>own forum! You have got some front Donald. I will give
>you that.
>
>What is even more incredible is that you now (in your
>last post here) continue to reveal more of our private
>phone conversations by saying in your most recent post:
>
>“Just a few weeks ago you informed me that if I dared
>write a response to articles on your web site you
>would use all my personal emails as amunition against
>me (with your permission I would gladly quote what you
>said). Yet now you are making all this fuss just
>because I let one little detail slip which you had
>admitted to me by email as well as by phone.?
>
>So not only do I fail to get an apology, but you
>continue to break confidence by revealing even more
>private phone conversations. You don’t quote me word
>for word (but have offered to do so. Did you have a
>tape recorder running or something?! I am left to
>wonder) but you paraphrase me here anyway, and give
>everyone the sense of the conversation regardless.
>Again, thanks Donald! Then, if all this isn’t bad
>enough, you contradict yourself and have the cheek to
>self righteously declare yourself as one who does not
>make details public!:
>
>Donald: ?But, unlike you, I have no interest in
>making all those details public.?>
>You then say:
>
>Donald: “You are looking for a fight, but I am not
>going to give you one. You have treated me terribly
>over the past few months, as your pre-emptive strike
>was intended to counter.?>
>!!!!!! You really do amaze me Donald. You seek to set
>up a website that criticizes mine, expect me to do
>nothing about it, but when I do, you quickly take it
>down, even though you have said here, in this
>discussion, over the last few days, that you have
>“nothing to hide? Then you come on here under the
>guise of having a discussion about Harry Potter, but
>then use it as a cloak to take personal shots at me.
>And you wonder why I am angry!? Well I have news for
>you Donald. I do get angry from time to time. So did
>Jesus when He was faced with similar individuals from
>the religious leaders of His time.
>
>You say you stand by the things you said under ROTW?
>You know that most of the things said under that name
>were from you and I am glad you feel you can admit
>that much at least. But even this has been offered up
>under duress if you will remember. When various
>individuals did some detective word around the ISP,
>some of the clues you gave, and the style of writing,
>you had to come clean.
>
>In all this Donald, no one would have any problem with
>you having views that differ from the Watchtower Bible
>and Tract Society. What people have a problem with is
>the fact that you seem to set yourself up as a model
>JW, while at the same time dismissing others who no
>longer believe as the Watchtower does as “apostates?>(even though you have admitted that you are happy to
>apply that word to yourself under ROTW). You are then
>unwilling to even share these independent thoughts and
>views you have with your own organisation as you
>secretly know that it is an abusive organisation which
>does not allow such independent views (even just
>having them as private thoughts). And before you say
>it, yes, individuals in Christian churches are able to
>disagree with each other in many minor areas. JWs are
>different by far in that they are not able to think
>(let alone express) even the smallest of independent
>thoughts. Certainly, the things that you differ from
>them with most certainly fall into this category; in
>fact I would be so bold as to suggest that some are
>major areas of disagreement. I won’t repeat them all
>here again, but for sake of clarity (and I think you
>need reminding of what you have actually said) here is
>the post reference:
>
>Date Posted: 11:54:08 06/07/04 Mon
>In reply to: Donald 's message, "Re: Challenge to
>Donald" on 10:14:57 06/07/04 Mon
>
>
>And do you know what the really tragic thing is in all
>of this? It is the people you view as the enemy
>(myself, Reachout, and all of evangelical Christianity
>it would appear), that have been telling you all along
>that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are a mind
>control cult. They have lied to you (the UN issue),
>changed their doctrines many times, made false
>prophesies, etc. etc. and so the list goes on. You
>have been faced with it all Donald over the years, yet
>still insist on defending an organisation that wants
>to bind you up as an individual.
>
>Remember that the people you demonize have been trying
>to help you. You know what I really think? I think
>that you ‘need?to think critically against someone or
>something. The WT has trained you to do this, and it
>has made you feel good to find an outlet for this
>initially. Maybe it did your ego good to win arguments
>on the doors with ‘church goers? Then you came across
>the reachout site and saw arguments that the average
>JW doesn’t really see. You created an apologetic. A
>noble cause and not one that the average JW would
>embark on. However, over the years bits may have stuck
>I feel. When you have been away from the reachout
>forum though I feel that you have probably begun to
>turn your critical thinking abilities against your own
>organisation. After a time away like this, you emerged
>as ROTW ?It was great to see that honesty and
>frankness Donald. But after a while you just seemed to
>slip back into defending the Watchtower again, as this
>is what you have been trained to do. I would suggest
>that you have time out from forums such as Reachout
>and carry on using your God given critical thinking
>abilities towards the WT again. Uncomfortable, yes.
>Necessary? I think you already know the answer to that
>one.
>
>You end your recent post with:
>
>Donald: “Please take some time to consider your own
>motives.?>
>My motives before God are 100% right Donald. In fact,
>as I have told you many times in the past, my motives
>are for your good, to see you free from a modern day
>false prophet and abusive mind control cult ?the
>WBTS. They want to rob you of your intellect, your
>time, your personality, your freedom to think for
>yourself, and your salvation in Jesus Christ. Don’t
>allow them to do it.
>
>Take care Donald. Time out for you and I for now. I
>forgive you the personal posts (even if you are not
>willing to apologise), and I do want the best for you
>(whether you believe me or not ?God knows) I have a
>book to write and other projects I really need to be
>getting on with.
>
>May you find your peace in Him, and Him alone.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 