|
Post by the truth on Jul 31, 2007 10:18:26 GMT -5
The workers are embarrassed by nathan barker's website. I asked at least 12 of our workers, including our overseer, at special meetings last spring what they thought of his website. Needless to say, there was not one single positive response.
|
|
|
Post by exactly on Jul 31, 2007 10:46:58 GMT -5
...and I know 12 workers (including an overseer) who are embarrassed by it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 10:56:45 GMT -5
Workers aren't going to be endorsing any web site by any of the friends any time soon. The absence of worker endorsement of Nathan's site has little to do with Nathan or his writings.
Now if a worker did a web site, it would get an extremely high endorsement rate.
That's just how the system works.
|
|
|
Post by junia on Jul 31, 2007 11:11:34 GMT -5
Workers aren't going to be endorsing any web site by any of the friends any time soon. The absence of worker endorsement of Nathan's site has little to do with Nathan or his writings. Now if a worker did a web site, it would get an extremely high endorsement rate. That's just how the system works. Exactly. No worker would sanction a website of 2x2 content from the laity because the church doctrine is worker driven. Worker authority can never be trumped by a "saint". The problem is, Nathan claims the workers DO endorse his website. Some may quietly tolerate it but I suspect if it's content were widely circulated, many workers would be offended, especially those who hold a different view of 2x2 church history, and those who are anti-trinitarian.
|
|
|
Post by most folks on Jul 31, 2007 11:13:39 GMT -5
Thank goodness that reasonable folks are not blinded by nathan's smoke and mirrors and see that his claim of endorsement is nothing but hot air.
|
|
|
Post by possibly on Jul 31, 2007 11:17:12 GMT -5
Workers aren't going to be endorsing any web site by any of the friends any time soon. The absence of worker endorsement of Nathan's site has little to do with Nathan or his writings. Now if a worker did a web site, it would get an extremely high endorsement rate. That's just how the system works. Supposedly a junior worker had placed a Q&A message board on the internet a few years ago. I think it was gone in a week.
|
|
|
Post by Yep on Jul 31, 2007 11:18:58 GMT -5
I remember that. Also the few active 2x2s who tried to post online content also got shut down.
Remember Chad Moore?
|
|
|
Post by I remember on Jul 31, 2007 11:23:24 GMT -5
I remember that. Also the few active 2x2s who tried to post online content also got shut down. Remember Chad Moore? If I recall Chad was axed from the standytrue site also because he asked questions?
|
|
|
Post by for nathan on Jul 31, 2007 12:07:10 GMT -5
hmmmmm..... intersting observation guys. For 7 yrs I haven't received 1 negative email from any 2x2 worker that complaints about the contents of my 2x2 website. This is a logical fallacy. The absence of the negative does not prove the positive. NOT 1 Oregon worker has told me to shut down my website and I see them for lunches and at Boring conventions every year since it was up in the year 2000. Same logical fallacy here. Just because they didn't tell you to shut it down does not mean they endorse it. I have been on different lists of friends and workers for 10 yrs. I have posted my 2x2 website on these lists and many have read it. Apples and oranges. Reading your website does not equate to endorsing your website.
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Jul 31, 2007 12:11:11 GMT -5
Chad Moore got into trouble for taking pictures at a baptism at convention time. No one ever gave a reason-----Just said he should know better-----Anybody know? Whats the big deal to take pictures of a baptism? It was a big STINK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 12:17:20 GMT -5
Nathan, the absence of worker negativity directly to your face is not an endorsement. Nor is the positive comments from 3 workers an endorsement, not even close. When questioned, almost all workers disavow any connection to your web site, and many say, "I think he has left the fellowship".
None of that is to say that you should stop whatever you are doing, or that workers will never endorse your site. It is simply that they don't endorse it now, most deny any connection with it, and there are no visible prospects of that changing.
As Junia said accurately, this is a worker-driven church, the laity have no input to doctrine. And, there are no unofficial workers, you are either a worker under the direct supervision of an overseer, or you are laity, there is no in-between. Even elders are practically meaningless in the big picture of the church, it's all about the workers.
|
|
|
Post by we dont know on Jul 31, 2007 12:23:52 GMT -5
We don't know that anyone allowed anything on your site. Since are already guilty of plagiarism, it would stand to reason that you swiped things written by workers and pasted them in there as well.
You are just a petty thief and an artful dodger.
|
|
|
Post by give it up nathan on Jul 31, 2007 12:31:56 GMT -5
nathan,
if that's the best line of defense you can come up with then you may as well admit that no workers endorse your website.
|
|
|
Post by to nathan on Jul 31, 2007 12:39:16 GMT -5
when you identify the workers that endorse your website, I will identify myself.
|
|
|
Post by not endorsed on Jul 31, 2007 12:39:56 GMT -5
Let's give Nathan the benefit of the doubt. Let's bear in mind that English is not Nathan's first language. (No offense meant; I'm sure that Nathan can converse in English better than the majority of us can converse in Vietnamese.)
Just to clarify for brother Nathan:
I KNOW of workers and professing friends who have helped me with my 2x2 website. Is not the same as an endorsement.
For 7 yrs I haven't received 1 negative email from any 2x2 worker that complaints about the contents of my 2x2 website. Is not the same as an endorsement.
NOT 1 Oregon worker has told me to shut down my website Is not the same as an endorsement.
I have been on different lists of friends and workers for 10 yrs. I have posted my 2x2 website on these lists and many have read it. Is not the same as an endorsement.
Before further persisting to claim worker endorsement, Nathan, do us all a favor and look up the word endorsement in a dictionary. Simply stated, it means to put one's name to a document, attesting to that document's validity.
No current practicing Worker is going to publicly endorse anything but the Bible. "Neither add to, or take away from....."
Most here would say that they respect your right to post a website which states your own personal understandings. There are those who would applaud your efforts privately. But no Worker is going to publicly endorse your website; we all know this. You can only continue to embarrass yourself by refusing to admit it.
|
|
|
Post by for shame on Jul 31, 2007 12:44:05 GMT -5
:-[You continue to embarrass yourself by attempting to dodge the ENDORSEMENT issue.
|
|
|
Post by to nathan on Jul 31, 2007 12:44:52 GMT -5
...you mean.... like those anonymous authors whose articles you plagiarized?
Are they chickens?
|
|
|
Post by very well written on Jul 31, 2007 12:45:39 GMT -5
Let's give Nathan the benefit of the doubt. Let's bear in mind that English is not Nathan's first language. (No offense meant; I'm sure that Nathan can converse in English better than the majority of us can converse in Vietnamese.) Just to clarify for brother Nathan: I KNOW of workers and professing friends who have helped me with my 2x2 website. Is not the same as an endorsement.For 7 yrs I haven't received 1 negative email from any 2x2 worker that complaints about the contents of my 2x2 website. Is not the same as an endorsement.NOT 1 Oregon worker has told me to shut down my website Is not the same as an endorsement.I have been on different lists of friends and workers for 10 yrs. I have posted my 2x2 website on these lists and many have read it. Is not the same as an endorsement.Before further persisting to claim worker endorsement, Nathan, do us all a favor and look up the word endorsement in a dictionary. Simply stated, it means to put one's name to a document, attesting to that document's validity. No current practicing Worker is going to publicly endorse anything but the Bible. "Neither add to, or take away from....." Most here would say that they respect your right to post a website which states your own personal understandings. There are those who would applaud your efforts privately. But no Worker is going to publicly endorse your website; we all know this. You can only continue to embarrass yourself by refusing to admit it. This is very well written. Too bad nathan will not learn from it.
|
|
|
Post by cluck cluck on Jul 31, 2007 12:50:02 GMT -5
The anonymous Workers who refuse to put up their names up in ENDORSEMENT of Nates website are chickens also, but I can't say I blame them. If they ever ENDORSED Nate's site, they'd be out of the Work in no time flat, and then they'd have to figure out a way to support themselves! Won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Jul 31, 2007 12:54:31 GMT -5
when you identify the workers that endorse your website, I will identify myself. I don't think so... keep playing your chicken anonymous games eventually you will get tired of it. Using nathan's logic (or lack thereof), the workers who volunteered articles on his website (assuming there are any) are chickens for refusing to include their names.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Jul 31, 2007 13:01:54 GMT -5
Ingenious response, Mr. Barker... or is it Mr. Plagiarist.
|
|
Red Herring CounterQuestions
Guest
|
Post by Red Herring CounterQuestions on Jul 31, 2007 13:23:41 GMT -5
Red Herring: Counter-Questions
Instead of answering your specific Question, some will pose a counter-Question, sometimes playing for time or information. The counter-Question shifts the Burden of Proof back to the Questioner. DON'T accept it! It's not your responsibility to prove their position -- it's theirs! A conclusion stands or falls on its OWN merits, not because it cannot be/has not been proven false. For example:
Q: Can you give me one good reason I should believe X?
A: Can you give me one good reason NOT to believe X?
When your Question asks for their supporting reasons for a belief or practice, it's up to them to prove their position. You don't have to disprove it, or show how it is lacking or wrong at all, if you don't choose to. As God's servants, they are the teachers. You're asking for the reason they believe or do something; reasons to support their position, conclusion or practice. Either they have good reason, or they do not. If you are to hold this same position or belief, you must know their reason behind it and evaluate it for yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 17:23:59 GMT -5
Loaded questions:"loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded. Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers: 1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife." 2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife." Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question. From www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.htmlExample of a loaded question: When did your church begin?
Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers: 1. Started by God 2. Started by Irish workers
If (1) then you are a liar If (2) then your faith is a lie.
RE-QUOTE - " For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question."
|
|
|
Post by Workersagain on Jul 31, 2007 17:27:17 GMT -5
Loaded question: "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded. Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers: 1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife." 2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife." Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question. www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.htmlExample of a loaded question. When did your church begin? Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers: 1. Started by God 2, Started by Irish workers
If (1) then you are a liar If (2) then your faith is based on a lie.
QUOTE - " For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question."Bert, Did the workers tell you to say this or did you make this up yourself? Workers_again
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 31, 2007 17:29:35 GMT -5
Bert,
Can you name one Worker and/or Friend who was part of your fellowship between the years 1400 and 1895?
If not, why not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 17:30:20 GMT -5
Question - did the workers tell you to say this? Answer - No, I just looked it up on a logic fallacy website. I see so many logic fallacies floating around here that I have decided to learn more about such fallacies so I can spot them earlier, and respond to them sooner.
ps The Gospel don't deal in logic fallacies
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 17:32:32 GMT -5
quote - "Can you name one Worker and/or Friend who was part of your fellowship between the years 1400 and 1895?"
Ah ha! A LOADED QUESTION! ;D ;D ;D ;D
RE-QUOTE - " For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question."
|
|
|
Post by Collective Review on Jul 31, 2007 17:34:45 GMT -5
|
|