Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2010 7:20:57 GMT -5
Good work.
I've bookmarked your site. There's a real need for a factual site like this which contains no editorial or overt agenda......just information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2010 7:34:09 GMT -5
Good work. I've bookmarked your site. There's a real need for a factual site like this which contains no editorial or overt agenda......just information. Who's facts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2010 7:37:10 GMT -5
Good work. I've bookmarked your site. There's a real need for a factual site like this which contains no editorial or overt agenda......just information. Who's facts? The workers' for the most part, but the friends' too. It's a great idea. I've never been to your site, but from what I understand it's mostly editorial work, not unlike Ilylo's site in that sense. As a result, I don't visit either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2010 7:40:42 GMT -5
|
|
shiloh
Senior Member
Posts: 723
|
Post by shiloh on Jan 20, 2010 7:51:21 GMT -5
Bert's website has an AGENDA. Agree with it, disagree with it but it has an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jan 20, 2010 8:20:28 GMT -5
wanderer: Good job. I like your site.
|
|
shiloh
Senior Member
Posts: 723
|
Post by shiloh on Jan 20, 2010 9:09:58 GMT -5
I don't like the stuff about the VOTs. Too biased. I enjoy the Truth Archive website that the original thread is about though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2010 10:24:30 GMT -5
Great work wanderer.
Your method almost eliminates bias. I say "almost" because of course you choose what gets on the site and what does not. Do you have a criteria for what qualifies to get on your site? Or is it wide open for documents circulating around?
What about copyright issues?
Also, another potential for subtle bias could be in the categorization of the documents. So far, things look pretty straightforward on your site in this regard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2010 10:28:26 GMT -5
If wanderer sticks to his principles, he won't link your site or any others related to this topic. There are none (as far as I know) which don't have a strong agenda to influence their readers. I like the TTT as it has a lot of straight facts and documents, it's remarkably good in that sense. However, it too has its agenda and editorial opinions.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jan 20, 2010 15:49:27 GMT -5
like clearday wanderer, I think you have done a great job posting the facts with limited editorial. Your only bias is as clearday already states...what you put on your site. All in all, a great job though I havent had much time to read through it as I am on vacation but cant wait to spend some time there once I am back at home.
Bert, certainly wanderer wouldnt be so foolish as to destroy all the credibility of his site, by putting links to yours on it.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jan 20, 2010 16:44:37 GMT -5
Someguy, please get off Roger's back. There's a good lad.
|
|
|
Post by dudeler on Jan 20, 2010 17:48:22 GMT -5
Thanks for putting in the effort wanderer. This is a good resource.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 20, 2010 19:12:13 GMT -5
Glad you have the search feature so you can search by name and see all the items by a single person.
Perhaps eventually, your collection will include all the funerals notes for the overseers. I have the funeral notes for Eldon, Wm Lewis, Joe Twamley & Howard Mooney, and I'm willing to share hard copies.
I also have in my files many funeral notes of workers on the 1905 workers list as well as other notes by them, which are not on TTT, and I dont intend to add them to TTT.
Do you have some volunteers to scan and/or type notes for you?
Originally, I believe it was your intention not to copy onto the Truth Archive what was already on TTT--is that still the case? It doesnt matter to me--I'm just curious.
Keep up the good work!
Cherie
|
|
|
Post by heal on Jan 20, 2010 21:23:44 GMT -5
wonder if there going to rebuild they probably will but it will be slow going
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 10:14:13 GMT -5
Great work wanderer. Your method almost eliminates bias. I say "almost" because of course you choose what gets on the site and what does not. Do you have a criteria for what qualifies to get on your site? Or is it wide open for documents circulating around? What about copyright issues? Also, another potential for subtle bias could be in the categorization of the documents. So far, things look pretty straightforward on your site in this regard. The only criteria I have for documents to be included in the Archive are that the documents be produced by and circulated amongst (which I consider to be "informally published by") members of the fellowship. I think there may be one or two exceptions to this but I will review that eventually. I am quite strict about this and will pull documents from the Archive if necessary. I have no criteria as far as including/excluding documents based on things I may or may not agree with in a sermon or letter, for instance. Copyright is meant to protect OWNERSHIP of a work, that is, the financial gain to be made from being the author of a work. As far as I know, none of the authors of the documents in question have ever sought any financial gain from the publication of their works, and I certainly am not seeking to make any $ from it. As far as I know, copyright has nothing to do with protecting the PRIVACY of a work. However, since I only include documents that are already "in circulation", I think I will largely avoid publishing anything that is intended only for personal or private communication. If you forward an email to me that is personal between you and someone else, I will likely not put it in the Archive. If you forward an email to 10 people, I might. Up until now, I did not categorize the documents in any way. I only slightly edited the Titles of each document page so they would be listed in alphabetical order by writer's or speaker's (in the case of a sermon) name. Documents are now categorized by document type (e.g. Email, Sermon, Funeral Notes, etc.) and I can see no way of being "biased" in that. Thanks. That makes sense and is a good set of criterion. Regarding your categorizations, I wasn't criticizing your existing headings which I think are good, but it's simply an area that could be subject to bias if and when you are reviewing your categories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2010 7:32:13 GMT -5
Wanderer, the devil is in the detail - and its quite sly.
Reminds me of those left-wing books and movies about the Vietnam War. You would hardly know there was another side to it because you are bombarded with "facts."
Our Prime Minister was canned over a "children overboard" issue here in Australia. 12,500 web sites attacked him. One (1) web site vindicated him - the proceedings of the Senate committee which looked into the affair.
All 12,501 web sites were based upon "facts."
Imagine the friends or workers creating web sites about some of the people who left the meetings! I could write a few things about someone who I personally knew who has been on the internet with his whining.
I have had numerous people write to me about well known figures on the TMB, but have asked me not to publish their comments.
Why not? It's "facts," isn't it?
This is the main reason why, for instance, I collect thousands of quotes from sites like this. If you want the friends to read your material then let's show them EVERYTHING you people are writing. I mean, its "facts" too, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jan 22, 2010 8:17:35 GMT -5
Not necessarily facts Roger. They could be anything from factual to downright lies, including misunderstandings, one-sides, beliefs, opinions, blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps journalistic licence is a more appropriate term, or writer's licence?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 22, 2010 15:53:41 GMT -5
Great work wanderer. Your method almost eliminates bias. I say "almost" because of course you choose what gets on the site and what does not. Do you have a criteria for what qualifies to get on your site? Or is it wide open for documents circulating around? What about copyright issues? Also, another potential for subtle bias could be in the categorization of the documents. So far, things look pretty straightforward on your site in this regard. The only criteria I have for documents to be included in the Archive are that the documents be produced by and circulated amongst (which I consider to be "informally published by") members of the fellowship. I think there may be one or two exceptions to this but I will review that eventually. I am quite strict about this and will pull documents from the Archive if necessary. I have no criteria as far as including/excluding documents based on things I may or may not agree with in a sermon or letter, for instance. Copyright is meant to protect OWNERSHIP of a work, that is, the financial gain to be made from being the author of a work. As far as I know, none of the authors of the documents in question have ever sought any financial gain from the publication of their works, and I certainly am not seeking to make any $ from it. As far as I know, copyright has nothing to do with protecting the PRIVACY of a work. However, since I only include documents that are already "in circulation", I think I will largely avoid publishing anything that is intended only for personal or private communication. If you forward an email to me that is personal between you and someone else, I will likely not put it in the Archive. If you forward an email to 10 people, I might. Up until now, I did not categorize the documents in any way. I only slightly edited the Titles of each document page so they would be listed in alphabetical order by writer's or speaker's (in the case of a sermon) name. Documents are now categorized by document type (e.g. Email, Sermon, Funeral Notes, etc.) and I can see no way of being "biased" in that. Financial gain is irrelevant as far as copyright is concerned. Copyright allows the speaker or writer to distribute their work as they see fit, not as you see fit. You will never have an issue with older convention notes as copyright will have expired. Newer ones will only be an issue if someone (the workers, for example) complain about their distribution. The question of privacy is a separate issue as you say. I would urge caution with photographs of private, living individuals. You seem to indicate that if you have addressed privacy concerns, by not publishing personal letters and so on, then copyright won't be an issue. Not so. My gut instinct is that you're pretty safe with general circulation letters, gems and things of that sort. They are intended for public consumption from the very start. Some of the more recent convention notes you have on there make for horrendous reading. Personally I find convention notes of limited value unless someone has taken the care to write out the sermon in a reasonable narrative. Then there is always the problem of accuracy of the note-taker. One area you might consider as a useful source is obituaries and death notices of friends and workers. I would change the menu bar selection that says "Emails" to "Circulation Letters" to make it clearer. The word "emails" is a bit of a red flag. I think there's more good than harm in what you're doing. I know you want to avoid editorializing but personally I would reject poor quality work from the site. It'll be a pretty nice site if everything there meets a certain standard in grammar, spelling and clarity. Then people will want to use it. Also, I don't agree with your view about the Christian Conventions article. It has taken a large step backwards of late. Read the "Talk page". Senior wiki editors have expressed concern about the anti-advocacy work that has crept into the article.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 22, 2010 16:17:22 GMT -5
Good work. I've bookmarked your site. There's a real need for a factual site like this which contains no editorial or overt agenda......just information. That's not entirely correct. There are a lot of worker notes, gems, etc which clearly have an agenda. I know what you mean, that wanderer is republishing stuff already out there so in that, he personally does not have an agenda. I'm trying to figure out though why other pro- material like Bert's or Nathan's wouldn't be included on the site. I mean, it's wanderer's site to do with as he wishes, but if it is a comprehensive "archive" site, what would preclude the links?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 22, 2010 16:27:09 GMT -5
Good work. I've bookmarked your site. There's a real need for a factual site like this which contains no editorial or overt agenda......just information. That's not entirely correct. There are a lot of worker notes, gems, etc which clearly have an agenda. I know what you mean, that wanderer is republishing stuff already out there so in that, he personally does not have an agenda. I'm trying to figure out though why other pro- material like Bert's or Nathan's wouldn't be included on the site. I mean, it's wanderer's site to do with as he wishes, but if it is a comprehensive "archive" site, what would preclude the links? I would have to guess that if what is posted is convention notes or 'gems' and such that originated with a worker, then they have the stamp of 'approval' and legitimacy because they are from the platform. Nathan and bert's sites are from individual members of the church so by definition cannot 'speak' for the church, no matter how factual or accurate they are. As individuals they can't be taken as being from a church spokesperson, much as I can't be said to speak for the 'exes'. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 22, 2010 20:15:35 GMT -5
Who is Roger, mountain?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2010 23:50:20 GMT -5
Good work. I've bookmarked your site. There's a real need for a factual site like this which contains no editorial or overt agenda......just information. That's not entirely correct. There are a lot of worker notes, gems, etc which clearly have an agenda. I know what you mean, that wanderer is republishing stuff already out there so in that, he personally does not have an agenda. I'm trying to figure out though why other pro- material like Bert's or Nathan's wouldn't be included on the site. I mean, it's wanderer's site to do with as he wishes, but if it is a comprehensive "archive" site, what would preclude the links? Yes of course that's what I meant about about the agenda. And more specifically, it's about no agenda of the web site owner to convince someone of some particular view of faith or church. The TA is just presenting the church as the church presents itself.......which of course is an agenda in itself but there appears no agenda to sway readers. An agenda to present the F&W just as it is is a good agenda in my view. I don't know enough about either bert's or Nathan's web sites to comment specifically on them. I presume their sites reflect much what both post here. Regardless, I can say that neither site is generally acknowledged by the church as representative of the church. In fact, bring these subjects up to a church leader and they will be inclined to distance themselves from them, if not outright condemn them. If the mainstream is inclined to disown these sites, it hardly makes sense to link to them to give readers the impression that the sites are generally acceptable by the ministry group and elders.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 22, 2010 23:52:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 23, 2010 1:00:12 GMT -5
Yes, those answers are quite satisfying. Thanks wanderer and clearday and all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2010 4:28:54 GMT -5
Canonical huh? Makes me think of Big Guns! ;D But with my Foundation Church and New Covenant - the material supplied comes direct from scripture or was taken from the "platform" so that makes it "canonical." It has also been amended by various people, both in the meetings and on the TMB, so that makes it Extra Canonical.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 23, 2010 22:13:10 GMT -5
When Truth Archive first came on line about a year ago I think it was, I linked TTT to it. I think it is a very good idea.
Through the years, I've had a number of people volunteer to help me in various ways they were able or talented or trained, and I have really appreciated it. TTT would not be what it is today, had there not been help volunteered like typist and other assistance. I would highly recommend soliciting and posting sermons by the regional Overseers (the Grand Poohbahs), as what they spoke is highly indicative of what the church believes...far more than what the underling workers spoke.
I have many funeral notes of well known workers I would be glad to turn over to you for your archive, which I think is a very good idea. They would need to be typed/scanned, however.
There aren't many sermons given about "end times." However, I have several notes by workers on this subject, which friends might find interesting. You're welcome to them. They would need to be typed/scanned tho.
Perhaps there will be some who will volunteer to help you type/scan more notes for such a worthy endeavor. Might place a notice on your homepage that word processing/typing, scanning assistance would be welcome.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2010 12:40:23 GMT -5
A couple more thoughts on all this. First, as important the role of workers is, how much weight do we place on their sermons? Here is my approximate "bread" count based on the last year.
Sermons from head worker: 0 Sermons from local workers: 40 Sermons from other workers: 50 Testimonies from local Sunday Meeting and Bible studies: 1000+ Testimonies from other meetings: 200+
So, why all the emphasis on the head worker? Okay, the analysis is simplistic but in a given year I hear thoughts from many different individuals. And I can honestly say I never know where God's help will come from next.
Second, I will gladly read something one of the friends write, who says, this is my testimony, or, this is my opinion, or this has been my experience. To me there is much value in writing of that nature. I'm less interested in someone who says, here is what we all believe, or here is our doctrine.
I also question the value of a written copy of anything presented verbally/ orally. Really, transcriptions of oral presentations, no matter the context, are of very limited value, especially when the presentation is extemporized. First of all, they're tiresome to read and to follow. Second, they are often of little value beyond the moment and context in which they're spoken. Third, the speaker has not considered the requirements of a reader in a time and place removed, who does not have the context leading up to the comments. Fourth, the Spirit's work is an important part of the immediate context, which may not translate well in a transcription. Fifth, an oral discourse in itself has limited value as an indicator of doctrine or teaching of the movement as a whole; it's just what one person said one time.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jan 25, 2010 13:52:57 GMT -5
Good work, Wanderer. IMO you would be better to not link to sites that show any bias at all (which is probably all sites with the exception perhaps of Wikipedia). If people want to find other sites they can Google them. As a member of the fellowship I avoid pointing people to 2x2 related websites, but I'm happy to discuss the material with those who've already found them. As long as your site didn't link to the others I might send people links to yours.
|
|