|
Post by emy on Jan 25, 2010 14:39:36 GMT -5
... 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. Very well-stated! I agree with it all. The only possible point of disagreement would be reading written accounts of what has been said by a worker I know pretty well, e.g. What Jim Price said at Harry Brownlee's funeral. Thanks for the perspective of the weight of the different types of messages, too. The length of the discourse might need to be considered, though. However, very few would go away from a worker sermon and retain everything that was said. We only take bits and pieces, like we do from friends' messages.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 25, 2010 14:41:15 GMT -5
... 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. Ditto
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 25, 2010 14:43:11 GMT -5
IMO, Wiki articles on the CC Church and WmI are far from being an unbiased source. How can it be when they are edited by any Joe Blow who wants to do so and they change continuously.
Their slant depends on the bias of the person who edits it. Some days it leans towards how the innies prefer it to portray their church; and other days it leans to what the exes believe is true about that church.
IMO it would be far better to link to a fixed-agreed-upon CC Statement of Belief with a documented history of the CC church on a website hosted by a F&W. To have an official truther website containing general basic information about the group that stayed constant (for the most part); and met with the approval/teachings of the Overseers.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jan 25, 2010 14:47:01 GMT -5
IMO, Wiki articles on the CC Church and WmI are far from being an unbiased source. How can it be when they are edited by any Joe Blow who wants to do so and they change continuously. Their slant depends on the bias of the person who edits it. Some days it leans towards how the innies prefer it to portray their church; and other days it leans to what the exes believe is true about that church. IMO it would be far better to link to a fixed-agreed-upon CC Statement of Belief with a documented history of the CC church on a website hosted by a F&W. To have an official truther website containing general basic information about the group that stayed constant (for the most part); and met with the approval/teachings of the Overseers. What need would this fill? What's wrong with yours. You state yours is official.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jan 25, 2010 15:23:11 GMT -5
IMO, Wiki articles on the CC Church and WmI are far from being an unbiased source. How can it be when they are edited by any Joe Blow who wants to do so and they change continuously. Their slant depends on the bias of the person who edits it. Some days it leans towards how the innies prefer it to portray their church; and other days it leans to what the exes believe is true about that church. IMO it would be far better to link to a fixed-agreed-upon CC Statement of Belief with a documented history of the CC church on a website hosted by a F&W. To have an official truther website containing general basic information about the group that stayed constant (for the most part); and met with the approval/teachings of the Overseers. Fair comment re Wikipedia, but at least everyone has a chance to edit it. How can we have an "official" web site when we have no "official" organization? Cherie, I applaud your accomplishments in researching and documenting the sect's history but your site comes from an ex perspective. If wanderer can keep his site as an archive only, free of editorial content, and free of links to other sites, it will fill a useful role IMO.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 25, 2010 15:51:47 GMT -5
Lin wrote:
I don't recall stating TTT was the F&W's "official" website...not can I find it on TTT anywhere.
So Lin, guess I'll have to ask you to tell us exactly where on TTT is a statement that it is the F&W's "official website."
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 25, 2010 15:58:50 GMT -5
JO wrote:
I figure JO's statement is tongue in cheek...however I'll comment anyway.
How? Easy. It's done all the time.
A group doesnt need to be incorporated or formally organzied to be able to give out its true "official" stance and beliefs, etc. Any media used to do so (whether in writing, website, etc) would be "official," provided it was delivered by someone with genuine authority to speak for the group.
A group of college kids doing lawn work in the summer to get college money can make a webite take out ads, etc. stating their reasons, beliefs and services.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jan 25, 2010 16:16:49 GMT -5
JO wrote: I figure JO's statement is tongue in cheek...however I'll comment anyway. How? Easy. It's done all the time. A group doesnt need to be incorporated or formally organzied to be able to give out its true "official" stance and beliefs, etc. Any media used to do so (whether in writing, website, etc) would be "official," provided it was delivered by someone with genuine authority to speak for the group. A group of college kids doing lawn work in the summer to get college money can make a webite take out ads, etc. stating their reasons, beliefs and services. I'm not sure what you're saying here Cherie. Could a bunch of friends get together after a Sunday AM meeting and put up an "official" website that speak's for the group? How about a bunch of workers who are together for preps? Do you consider Bert and Nathan's websites to speak for the group because they are participating members? Who do you envisage would have "genuine authority to speak for the group"?
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jan 25, 2010 16:26:14 GMT -5
Roger and Nathan often give the impression they are speaking for the group and its beliefs, especially Roger. The fact that neither are B&R might in some way invalidate their authority, I don't know?
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jan 25, 2010 17:02:33 GMT -5
Lin wrote: I don't recall stating TTT was the F&W's "official" website...not can I find it on TTT anywhere. So Lin, guess I'll have to ask you to tell us exactly where on TTT is a statement that it is the F&W's "official website." I never said official was on your website. However the tenor of your unspoken attitude says loudly your own feeling of officialdom.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jan 25, 2010 18:48:59 GMT -5
Roger and Nathan often give the impression they are speaking for the group and its beliefs, especially Roger. The fact that neither are B&R might in some way invalidate their authority, I don't know? Who's "Roger"?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 25, 2010 19:10:18 GMT -5
~~ I don't claim/dare to say I am speaking for the 2x2 group. My website is NOT the 2x2 official website either. I wished you hadn't altered that. Loved your sense of humor in the original ;D
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 25, 2010 19:51:06 GMT -5
Are you saying that you prefer to refer outsiders to the Wiki website that is a battleground where innies and exes meet and add, change and remove pertinent information constantly rendering the information there unreliable and unstable as water?
Over a prepared well hammered out, stable Statement of Beliefs and an account of the sect's history?
There are many who would qualify to put same together. They could even get a committee together like they did for the hymn revisions.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 25, 2010 19:51:40 GMT -5
Crawfishing again, Lin?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2010 19:54:47 GMT -5
Roger and Nathan often give the impression they are speaking for the group and its beliefs, especially Roger. The fact that neither are B&R might in some way invalidate their authority, I don't know? Who's "Roger"? Apparently it's some kind of navy talk for "I read you". Over and out.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 25, 2010 20:35:52 GMT -5
... 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. Very well-stated! I agree with it all. The only possible point of disagreement would be reading written accounts of what has been said by a worker I know pretty well, e.g. What Jim Price said at Harry Brownlee's funeral. Thanks for the perspective of the weight of the different types of messages, too. The length of the discourse might need to be considered, though. However, very few would go away from a worker sermon and retain everything that was said. We only take bits and pieces, like we do from friends' messages. Does someone have notes of what Jim said at Harry Brownlee's funeral?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 25, 2010 20:49:27 GMT -5
I only used that as an example, but yes, they are posted on the deaths page of this website. Since I was reading, I did read what all 3 said, knowing 2 of them well. Though I don't know him well - just a bit of his life story - I greatly appreciated what Max Bowman said.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 25, 2010 20:51:07 GMT -5
Apparently it's some kind of navy talk for "I read you". Over and out. That doesn't really fit mountain's statement.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2010 21:49:13 GMT -5
Apparently it's some kind of navy talk for "I read you". Over and out. That doesn't really fit mountain's statement. I know but that's what he said on another thread when asked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 0:48:58 GMT -5
Developing a Statement of Beliefs wouldn't be particularly difficult. Regional overseers could accept submissions of overseers, breaking down beliefs by components and in order of importance. A half dozen or so regional overseers could then get together for a couple of days over prayer and discussion and produce the final statement. Sadly, the only thing clearly in common though is as wanderer says: meeting in the home and the homeless ministry. It's unfortunate we have become so base.
Because of such disparate beliefs around the world, a Statement of Beliefs could be church suicide. There would be a lot of people of principle who would discover that the church was not what they thought it was, and would be compelled to leave.....it could be a death blow. It's difficult to know how many people out there don't really care what the church believes, there's other things they like about the church and would stay regardless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 1:02:29 GMT -5
I wholly agree with this. Cherie has done a ton of work on the history and there is no better, more comprehensive source for it than the TTT. Many thanks to Cherie.
Again, I agree completely. I too have brought up the issue of op/eds on the TTT with Cherie (right here on the TMB I think) and for exactly the same reasoning wanderer uses. It's not Cherie's opinions that I take issue with in any particular way, it's just that it is there at all. By being there, it exponentially limits the use of the web site by those who go to meetings.....those who could most benefit by it.
I like the idea of a "mirror" or "sister" TTT site that is purely documented material without op/ed material. It's something I could promote to F&Ws, as I can the TA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 6:20:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jan 26, 2010 6:58:06 GMT -5
Apparently it's some kind of navy talk for "I read you". Over and out. NATO and other organisations use Roger as a shorthand version of "Message received and understood." The word "copied" means something similar but is not an official version. The term Over and Out does not apply to Roger which is used throughout radio dialogue to ensure messages which of necessity are brief, are in fact understood. At the end of dialogue a person communicating with base will usually say their call sign followed by "over." The main base will say their call sign followed by "out" to close radio dialogue. Different forces will have variations of this. For instance, the Australian armed forces use the term "Bert" instead of "Roger." This is because they are upside down from the rest of us and when they transmit the term Bert to the Northern Hemisphere, it is miraculously received as "Roger." I hope this clarifies this whole issue?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 26, 2010 7:12:14 GMT -5
For instance, the Australian armed forces use the term "Bert" instead of "Roger." This is because they are upside down from the rest of us and when they transmit the term Bert to the Northern Hemisphere, it is miraculously received as "Roger." I hope this clarifies this whole issue? Strange. I would have thought they would simply say "ɹǝboɹ", and rely on it to flip right-side up upon crossing the equator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 7:22:20 GMT -5
Say! How did you do that!? ps I won't be offended if you refuse to divulge trade secrets - avoiding questions is a trademark of this forum! pps I can read that inverted perfectly as I live in NSW Australia!
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jan 26, 2010 7:26:32 GMT -5
For instance, the Australian armed forces use the term "Bert" instead of "Roger." This is because they are upside down from the rest of us and when they transmit the term Bert to the Northern Hemisphere, it is miraculously received as "Roger." I hope this clarifies this whole issue? Strange. I would have thought they would simply say "ɹǝboɹ", and rely on it to flip right-side up upon crossing the equator. Not so strange. Saying Bert is much easier and is more easily understood.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jan 26, 2010 7:35:30 GMT -5
pps I can read that inverted perfectly as I live in NSW Australia!
That's because you are just over the border from ACT and being further away from the Northern Hemisphere makes it all the clearer!
Simple!
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jan 26, 2010 7:54:22 GMT -5
I never said official was on your website. However the tenor of your unspoken attitude says loudly your own feeling of officialdom. In defense of Cherie, I would have to say that I have never got the impression from her or from her website that the work she has done constitutes any kind of "official" history of the group. However, I would guess that from an "outsider's" perspective, TTT would certainly be the most authoritative work on the historical subject. Personally I feel that the TTT would have a much more far-reaching impact if it did not have all of the negative editorial content but was instead strictly a historical study. Then, it would be read by a lot more 2x2s while now it is dismissed due to its negative slant. (I have brought this up to Cherie before but she prefers to include all of the editorial content; and of course it is her site and her choice to do so.) Perhaps a "mirror" site that is stripped of editorial content and thus "2x2 friendly" would be in order? (I am not saying in any way that I would like to silence Cherie's personal voice). Cherie has mentioned a "group" of 2x2 historians in the USA somewhere which has done a lot of historical research, however, apparently they currently have no plans to publish anything. The chapter in Jaenen's book is woefully barren considering the fact that it is the apparent climax of the book. I will eventually get links on the Truth Archive to documents on TTT such as Goodhand Pattison's "Accounts of the Early Days" and all of the other Early Workers' testimonies, etc. This may help the situation a little. I believe you are missing the fact that the negative editorials of TTT are it's reason for existing. Those negative editorials are the essence of her venom against this way. Take them away and her website has no reason for existing.
|
|