User talk:DannyMuse/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.


Contents

[edit] JW Discussion Posts Here

Welcome! Please post any comments you may have related to current development of the JW page or related issues. --DannyMuse 07:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Watchtower

I'd like to invite you to have another look at the Watchtower page. Your help was much appreciated some months ago cairoi 04:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Central's immediate deletion of my comment (which I felt was as objective as possible without pretending that he/she wasn't completely out of line), along with his/her refusal to directly argue on the real points of order lead me to believe that he/she should just throw in the towel! I think that someone will eventually see his/her real motives, as usually happens, and dismiss him/her, supporting fair editing. - CobaltBlueTony July 8, 2005 13:12 (UTC)

Hi. I'm from the Willamette congregation Eugene, OR. Sorry don't know any McGhee's in California. I like your "Opposition" idea. Cheers, Matt M. :) Duffer 03:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome on my user page and for what seems to be a rather calm approach to following the article's development! I came here after getting somewhat unsatisfied with the discussion on the German JW article concerning whether and if so, how, to mention the issue of JW being considered a "sect". That discussion, if it took place here, does not seem to be current, and in the German article, it is not very productive. --Bhuck 15:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses: Disfellowshipping

User:DannyMuse, can you point me to a current reference that says that you will not be disfellowshipped for associated with a disassociated or disfellowshipped person? My brother was disfellowshipped recently, and the elders warned my mother and sister from associating with them for that very reason. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I see you've checked the talk page. While Tommstein wrote a lot on the point, if you read it carefully you'll see that it doesn't say anything any different that what the article states or what I've written on the subject previously. I'm sorry to hear about your brother. I take it he doesn't live at home with your parents. --DannyMuse 15:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
No, my brother is married. So it's total cut off. Anyway, I don't understand what you mean about it not saying "anything any different that what the article states or what I've written on the subject previously." Tommstein's post makes it pretty clear you can be disfellowshipped for it; I thought you were stating the opposite. Is that right? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cults & Sects

[edit] Interesting Stuff

[edit] Advocacy

 Danny, you may use, reference and link this comment to your talk page as my submission of advocacy to your specific cause relating to Central's argumentative retorts regarding shortened book descriptions. I understand there is a distinction between the 'books' and 'links to resources' critical of the group, and I hope I quote directly from the appropriate section. If I do not, however, one can still utilize the tone and inference from his quotes as indicative of his general malaise towards Jehovah's Witnesses in general. I find his argumentative tone to be strikingly similar to that used by Russian and Eastern Orthodox maligners, the kind that elicit repeated inquiries by the European Court of Human Rights:

  • "you repeatedly restored Duffer1's slanderous material and reinstated it" - I do not understand how LESS information about books is slanderous
  • "using bogus false reason saying that all these were not "your opinions" but those of "experts"! Your memory is highly selective, but I understand, as many cult victims take a long time to get their reasoning faculties back" - I have good reason to suspect that the "experts" are in fact the Governing Body, as they would have expressed it in publication or in selective press release, but needless to say it is rather common knowledge among average Jehovah's Witnesses familiar with the organizational history, and to my knowledge has never been corrected by the GB as erroneous. I remember vividly the accounts of the bitterness that existed between the siblings, and how that extended into Raymond's disdain for the organization as a whole. Even so, it is necessary to use the NPOV in the desciptions of the texts, no matter their views; as I recall, the descritions were objected to because they were worded in a manner so as to be purporting facts, and the the views of someone disaffected. - [unsigned]
  • Danny, you stated is succinctly and accurately when you said, "it is irrelevant because the discussion on what was appropriate for this section was regarding the content of the book descriptions, not the content of the books". In every other instance in my experience, when a book blurb promotes the opinion of the author, it is considered to be more of a sales pitch. This is why society in general utilizes independent and objective reviewers to provide summary information about publications. I don't know if Central quite grasps this. Saying, for instance, that Pope Benedict XVI discussed his views on what it means to be tolerant within the Catholic faith in his 2003 book, 'Truth And Tolerance: Christian Belief And World Religions' is a summary; stating that Benedict XVI 'embodies the true faith by his meaningful defense of truth while still being tolerant' is not a NEUTRAL point of view. Central does not seem to grasp the validity of anything beyond his own viewpoint. He does not respond directly to factual arguemnts; instead he slings the insults and degradations around as if this were somehow a logical response (ergo my Eastern Orthodox opposers comparison). While he's quite free to hold whatever views he chooses, he does not appear to be a competant editor of material with which he does not agree, and in fact towards which he seems quite vehement.
  • User:Duffer1 wrote on 3 July 2005:

    The Sign of the Last Days - When? - I changed: "..accompanied by historical facts demonstrating how surprisingly little.." to read: "accompanied by a presentation that purports to show how surprisingly".. Whoever wrote this description of the book obviously is not interested in truth, just "truth" according to Carl O. Jonsson. I changed the wording to an NPOV perspective, first and foremost.

    Central's response was, "LOL. You never learn do you Duffer? I seriously suggest you actually READ the books mentioned before you claim to know what's in them! You're hilarious, read Proverbs 18:13 it might help if you get information and facts before you answer anymore. Posted Central 3 July 2005". Here again, he is trying to argue the points of the publication and not addressing an NPOV description of the book. He is demonstrating his desire to argue the theological points and not the issue of diligent editing of a reference material.

I hope this is a sufficient demonstration of my advocacy. While I may be a fellow believer with you in "the faith," I don't think this by necessity precludes me from being impartial (which, in fact, imitates our God). Please, Danny or User:Sam_Spade, feel free to correspond with me as you feel the need.

CobaltBlueTony 20:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Danny, please let me know what/if any response you have received regarding my volunteering as your advocate. - CobaltBlueTony 16:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources

Danny, has any effort been made to verify whether the reproductions/quotations are accurate, or doctored? - CobaltBlueTony 19:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE www.jwfacts.com

Danny,

Not sure if this is the correct way to contact you. It appears you keep removing the link to my site www.jwfacts.com . Can you please stop doing this. The guidelines state "An extreme political or religious website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." My site fits these guidelines as a site that discusses the opinions of that organization. You can contact me at info@jwfacts.com to discuss if you like. I am willing to listen to suggestions for improvements. I have had numerous messages of thanks for the information contained there. Conversely one inactive JW was motivated by the information to start going back to meetings after reading the information, strange but true. --12:18, 13 August 2005 User:220.237.18.12 (Unsigned)

NOTE: This website fails to meet the academic standards appropriate to a encyclopdia. See Use Using online sources: "personal websites ... are not acceptable as sources."--DannyMuse 14:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Danny,

"Using online sources" states that personal websites are unacceptable as reliable sources for the content of Wikipedia, it does not state that they are not be linked to. Some of the other sites in the list that are linked to are also personal websites. You may notice from my site that there is no personal gain to myself, apart from the satisfaction that some Witnesses may save time in researching the history of the religion. - (Unsigned)

User:220.237.18.12 - Perhaps other personal websites should also be held into question as to their accuracy by default. I'm certainly not opposed to that. - CobaltBlueTony 14:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
To anonymous user(s) 220.237.18.12/61.29.58.114: First of all, it is proper Wikiquette to sign and date your posts to talk pages. This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog. Failure to do so is confusing. For example, 61.29.58.114 added to the unsigned post by 220.237.18.12. Are you the same user at a different IP or are you both just showing bad form? I have no clue! It's confusing.
To CobaltBlueTony: I obviously totally agree with your statement that "perhaps other personal websites should also be held into question". We need to be very stringent in applying WP's standards regarding reliable sources. As the WP standard advises, “Wikipedia articles should use reliable sources. Edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor." (Emphasis added). Otherwise any crackpot with an agenda will post their personal diatribes, like that ridiculous dannyhazard site that used to be in the Resources Critical of the Group section. Which other sites do you think fail to meet the academic standards of WP? --DannyMuse 17:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Danny, the real problem here is that this information really shouldn't be here. Let's try to think about it from the other side of it. Let's say a person genuinely feels mistreated in some way by a Catholic priest, deacon, nun, etc., etc. Everything in their experience has soured them to the religion, but others disagree with the factuality of their experiences. Statements like, 'that couldn't have possibly happened,' or, 'Catholics don't do/believe that' might be thrown in as an arguement, further alienating the individual. Effectiveness of the faith's methodology aside, can we academically condemn the religion based on this disagreement? No. So the question should be, how do we address those who claim a different experience than the 'official word' on a particular topic? You and I know that spiritually something is just not right, that someone somewhere erred intentionally or through common human imperfection. We can answer someone and say, 'that is not what we believe, and here are the facts to support that, so if you experienced something else, let's address that through the proper channels.' But how do we address someone who thinks that their experiences, which may resemble those of others, are the reality? Especially since we likely have had no direct personal contact with them and therefore cannot speak as an authority on the issue?
How about this: an article called Divergent experiences involoving Jehovah's Witneses' beliefs and practices? Since you don't go into a print encyclopedia and read all about Catholic excommunicated, disillusioned, or otherwise discontent experiences that may or may not have basis in facts under the Catholicism heading, why have it under the JW article heading? If it deserves encyclopedia mention at all, it needs to be within its own space, reflecting its comarative uniqueness.
My head hurts right now, so I need to stop typing. I'll dicuss more later. - CobaltBlueTony 16:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source and Resource

  • SOURCE
  1. One that causes, creates, or initiates; a maker.
  2. One, such as a person or document, that supplies information: "A reporter is only as reliable as his or her sources."
  3. The place where something begins, where it springs into being
  4. A publication (or a passage from a publication) that is referred to
  • RESOURCE
  1. A source of aid or support that may be drawn upon when needed; "the local library is a valuable resource"
  2. An available supply that can be drawn on when needed. Often used in the plural.
Sources: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company

CONCLUSION: If something is not acceptable as a source then it follows that it would also not be acceptable as a resource!

[edit] Other Messages

Danny, please contact me via Yahoo or AIM using cobaltbluetony. I am invisible, so you cannot see me. by my email address, cobaltbluetony | at | yahoo-dot-com. - CobaltBlueTony 19:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) (edit CobaltBlueTony 16:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC))

Danny, I think you've done a very good job at presenting facts without sounding biased. Keep up the good work, brother :).--CB

[edit] Re:

Please see User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Juli 2005 3#Requesting_an_advocate. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Tom is a really great person, but he has very good reasons for taking an indefinate break. Frankly I largely share his reasons, and may do the same before too long. In any case, let me know if you need help w the RfC. It is only one step of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, but it is an important one, providing evidence and community support for further steps, if they are needed. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Vote for JW structure

Please vote for or against the adoption of the proposed structure for WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses on the talk page and sign your name with ~~~~. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

————

Really do need to talk to you. No, really. Yahoo: cobaltbluetony, AIM: cobaltbluetony, Skype: cobaltbluetony, SkypeIn phone number: 856-393-1655 CobaltBlueTony 22:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NC?

Is this you???

http://wcuvax1.wcu.edu/~ulrich/danny.htm

-)

- CobaltBlueTony 20:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope! But I am a musician!!! --DannyMuse 17:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo discussion group

Danny, I would invite you to join the Yahoo discussion group and invite other wiki JWs RE: pending structure change. Please contact me via my talk page and sign your comment. Thanks!- CobaltBlueTony 20:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DM and TH

Hi, my friend DM. Many thanks for the kind welcome back. I am not here very heavily, but I am here. And it is good to feel of your spirit again. Tom Haws 03:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)