|
Post by mountain on Oct 4, 2019 2:55:04 GMT -5
A statement is certainly made, but that is not the intention. Their intention and attention are two different things. They are pursuing modesty, but it is a personal choice, not a public advertisement. If their fashion was truly a personal choice I think you would see much more variation in their dress, and not the conformist look. Conformity is certainly a major influence, whether that is good or bad. There is pressure to fit in and be accepted. From what I hear, 'variation' is far more evident today that a couple of decades ago. I cannot speak personally. I still have my Victorian dress and shoes. At the time I bought it, I didn't realise that it was only for the women!I believe their real intention is to go for a certain old fashion look, as they all want to fit in with the current group fashion look. I don't agree with the first part of the above statement. Slowness to follow the ever changing world is more apt. The latter part had a lot of truth in it in former times. I don't know what the up to date position is. I have advertised my Victorian dress at a knock down price, but after many months I have not had one single show of interest. It is like new, so I am assuming dress sense has moved on?
I remember when the women all dispensed with the black stocking and high laced up shoes. Many thought going without them was immodest. I didn't really get this at the time, as I wore trousers, which hid the black stockings. That's why I thought I had to get a Victorian style 'long' dress, which still hid the black stockings. I eventually used the stockings as rone filters.
Modesty is decided by the viewer. What is perceived as modest is time and culture dependent . For example, if an Indian women dressed modesty in the USA I would probably see it as an elaborate dress. Which is exactly why we are having this discussion!
If their aim is NOT to draw attention, they need to turn up the fashion clock a few generations. Yes the clock needs a new battery. It has been running slow for quite a while. Can't speak for more recent times. Maybe they've gone digital?
They can dress however they want, I’m just giving some feedback on how I see a little hypocrisy in what you say they intend, and how it is received. I don't see hypocrisy in it. A tad naivety perhaps? Holding back, reluctant to change until others have changed? What others may think, etc. Perhaps sticking to the winning formula?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 4, 2019 4:29:44 GMT -5
... I still have my Victorian dress and shoes. At the time I bought it, I didn't realise that it was only for the women! ... I have advertised my Victorian dress at a knock down price, but after many months I have not had one single show of interest. It is like new, so I am assuming dress sense has moved on? I do understand, a used dress can be hard to sell. I once saw an ad for a beautiful prom dress at a great price. Said “like new - wore only 2 hours”. I think the dress would sell if they worked on their message.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Oct 4, 2019 8:11:51 GMT -5
... I still have my Victorian dress and shoes. At the time I bought it, I didn't realise that it was only for the women! ... I have advertised my Victorian dress at a knock down price, but after many months I have not had one single show of interest. It is like new, so I am assuming dress sense has moved on? I do understand, a used dress can be hard to sell. I once saw an ad for a beautiful prom dress at a great price. Said “like new - wore only 2 hours”. I think the dress would sell if they worked on their message. Yes, point taken, but the whole argument here is about being more modern? Are you interested in the dress?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 4, 2019 8:48:39 GMT -5
I do understand, a used dress can be hard to sell. I once saw an ad for a beautiful prom dress at a great price. Said “like new - wore only 2 hours”. I think the dress would sell if they worked on their message. Yes, point taken, but the whole argument here is about being more modern? Are you interested in the dress? No, but you should be able to find someone who take it. I’ve see a lot of male clergy that like to wear dresses. It could even be a tax right off for them. Then there are the time travelers or Nathan’s ET’s who might want it for an museum.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Oct 4, 2019 10:54:15 GMT -5
Yes, point taken, but the whole argument here is about being more modern? Are you interested in the dress? No, but you should be able to find someone who take it. I’ve see a lot of male clergy that like to wear dresses. It could even be a tax right off for them. Then there are the time travelers or Nathan’s ET’s who might want it for an museum. Hmmmm. You have given me something to think about. The great-grandson of the late Feldwebel Otto Bajit, 1st Lunar Artillery Battalion (Wehrmacht), is apparently a drag artist in downtown Dusseldorf. He may be interested in it?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 4, 2019 12:11:34 GMT -5
No, but you should be able to find someone who take it. I’ve see a lot of male clergy that like to wear dresses. It could even be a tax right off for them. Then there are the time travelers or Nathan’s ET’s who might want it for an museum. Hmmmm. You have given me something to think about. The great-grandson of the late Feldwebel Otto Bajit, 1st Lunar Artillery Battalion (Wehrmacht), is apparently a drag artist in downtown Dusseldorf. He may be interested in it? If it’s the only dress in your closest, then I think you should just keep it. You must have liked it at one time and I bet it made you feel pretty. I doubt there is much acceptance of cross dressing or drag in the 2x2, but I could be wrong on that point. If you find wearing it publicly problem or around other 2x2 I suggest you only wear it on Halloween. You will be safe wearing it on that day and you can enjoy your dress like before . I do support whatever you decided to wear. Smiles,
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Oct 4, 2019 12:56:41 GMT -5
Hmmmm. You have given me something to think about. The great-grandson of the late Feldwebel Otto Bajit, 1st Lunar Artillery Battalion (Wehrmacht), is apparently a drag artist in downtown Dusseldorf. He may be interested in it? If it’s the only dress in your closest, then I think you should just keep it. You must have liked it at one time and I bet it made you feel pretty. I doubt there is much acceptance of cross dressing or drag in the 2x2, but I could be wrong on that point. If you find wearing it publicly problem or around other 2x2 I suggest you only wear it on Halloween. You will be safe wearing it on that day and you can enjoy your dress like before . I do support whatever you decided to wear. Smiles, That's great. Thanks. If only everyone else was as supportive and as helpful as you are. Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 4, 2019 15:01:54 GMT -5
There should be a notation on the speaking list like, This Speaking List is Confidential, and Top Secret. Information should be protected and not shared with the enemy. Do not post on Social Media. Please place in shredder before leaving Convention Ground. What can "the enemy" do with a speakers' list? These are people who are supposed to be taking the gospel to the WORLD. Their pictures is a separate matter. FWIW
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 4, 2019 19:40:02 GMT -5
BobWilliston . Religious sectarianism has been, and continues to be, a major cause of shocking violence across the globe. My motivator for looking at a workers list is purely inquisitiveness as it serves me absolutely no purpose other than to see who i recognise. In short, i am just being 'nosy'. However i would never publish one of these online as creating an online identity, especially when associated with religion, could potentially place people at risk. It is different if the individual already has an online profile; and the hypocrisy regarding the right to privacy was revealed some time back, when, despite the person and the church they now attend already being easily identified on line, they complained at my mentioning this. All you have to do is google "name" and "church" and there it is. So how and why are people being coy about exposure, including Gill, yet are glib about treating others differently to how they wish to be treated? Is it that people who are no longer in the meetings have a morbid, insatiable type of fascination with what they claim to have left behind? If we were indoctrinated into Christianity via the 2x2 belief, then it does have a long term influence, and it seems Especially so if the individual still worships Christianity. If our practice is to continually post questions or topics which conform to the theme of critiquing the 2x2 group, what does this achieve if we resist applying a consistent analysis style. And this is what is happening on this forum. Some ex 2x2 still Christian posters must achieve some sense of satisfaction from continuing to dissect the 2x2 group. Isn't this a negative practice if they concurrently refuse to engage in discussions which address the fundamental contributors to 'why people believe as they do' or 'whether the bible is reliable' or 'how can the truth really be determined' or 'is there evidence for god'. Introducing 2x2 beliefs and practices invariably leads to discussing the fundamental practices of Christianity. However those who are still Christian tend to avoid answering questions, or accuse others of 'hijacking' threads when their topic is analysed using a broader context. The default response tends to be along the lines of 'this forum is about the 2x2 group'. This failure to: understand that their resistance to 'digging deeper' into religiosity & to broader their scope and encompass the fundamental principles of Christianity or to identify the shared mindset of all faith-based beliefs and to apply genuine research into the historicity of Christianity all result in being bogged down in the same old, same old micro-focus on what worker went where; who wears stocking and who does not; why meeting folk do this or that or the workers have the wrong message but... 'please send me a copy of the latest worker's list'.
|
|
|
Post by Get off of TMB on Oct 5, 2019 12:12:09 GMT -5
I enjoy knowing where the workers are today. While I have issues with some, I have good memories of others. Are Aussies more private, reserved and vague about personal details than North Americans? I often wonder if cultural differences create confusion and misunderstanding on boards like these. If we were talking, it would be less likely. When you are a poor typist, you sometimes leave off details that can create communication issues.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 5, 2019 19:42:36 GMT -5
Get off of TMB . It is gobsmacking that you even consider that Aussies may be more private than Yanks when you are masking your own identity Gill. It is as if you exonerate yourself from your own behaviours. Privacy laws differentiate between an image taken in a public versus private location and this includes the USA.Convention grounds are not classified as a public space. Therefore if the photos of workers were taken on private property, then the decent action would be to obtain permission to share them. It really is as simple as having integrity and respect. If you knew that the 2x2 group would take legal action, you and others who post the identity and images of 2x2 members without permission would probably not be so keen to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Oct 5, 2019 21:27:28 GMT -5
The photographer has copyright on the picture of the workers. The photographer can demand removal of the picture. The workers pictured have publicity rights. As such, they can demand removal of the picture. Seems admin would have a policy on this. On a related note, some ID icons might be copyright violations.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 5, 2019 21:36:54 GMT -5
Does the photographer of the California workers' pictures report his income from them?
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 6, 2019 3:52:54 GMT -5
Greg . What if it is just a friend (probably literally in the 2x2 language) who took the photo?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Oct 6, 2019 4:47:32 GMT -5
Greg . What if it is just a friend (probably literally in the 2x2 language) who took the photo? Whomever takes the picture has the copyright with one exception. The exception is when an employee takes a picture for an employer. I am not a lawyer nor professional photographer, but this is my understanding in reading a bit about the matter.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 6, 2019 18:58:20 GMT -5
Greg . What if it is just a friend (probably literally in the 2x2 language) who took the photo? I'm sure it was one of the friends. The pictures were sold by the elders of all the meetings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 8:57:51 GMT -5
So, can I sue all the "friends" who put pictures of me and my family on facebook even though I had ask them not to? Our elders wife was always taking pictures and posting them on facebook. How about all the convention pictures on facebook. Did they get everyone's permission. I will have to ask my brother if they got his permission to take picture on his property. I hope they don't have any picture of the buildings HE owns in their pictures.
Most of the picture on facebook are available to the BIG BAD world.
Have you ever looked at most "professing kids facebook pages? Maybe you should worry about what BAD examples they are for your church!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 10, 2019 12:39:23 GMT -5
I'm not sure how this applies to workers' pictures, but people don't have blanket protection from having other people publish their image. Generally you have no expectation of privacy in public, unless you personally are the focal point of the picture. I expect that in a workers' picture they have no privacy protection, since they are fully aware of the fact that the picture is being taken for distribution. In the case of California they are fully aware of the fact that they are going to be sold -- and some workers expect to see them displayed when they come to your home.
|
|
gustaf
Junior Member
I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down !!!
Posts: 82
|
Post by gustaf on Oct 10, 2019 20:23:37 GMT -5
Get off of TMB Do you ever wonder if publishing images and the associated identities may be against the individual's wishes. You comment under a pseudonym so it presents that you prefer to keep your ID under wraps. Treat others as you would like to be treated? Get a Life!!
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 12, 2019 20:35:24 GMT -5
It is inconsistent if you hide your own identity and share images of others.
Those who are keen to post images of workers on line, without having asked their permission, are ignoring the 'golden rule'. A rule they will conveniently use to validate Christianity.
This practice of posting workers' ID's reveals a degree of antagonism, which is of course unsurprising given the incessant posting of threads intended to critique this one small branch from that dense tree of Christianity.
Exposing the workers without regard for their personal privacy is treating them as if they are criminals.
If you can prove they are, then fair enough to expose them.
But if the premise for posting is the following which Gill sent in a private message to me:
"When someone has power over people, they cannot expect to remain anonymous and without publicity. "
then it is fair to discuss the "power over people" assertion and whether this is a valid one?
I do not trust the person who shares identities of people without permission and consider this practice unethical - unless the people are criminals and deserve to be 'outed'.
|
|
|
Post by speak on Oct 12, 2019 21:22:00 GMT -5
Get off of TMB Do you ever wonder if publishing images and the associated identities may be against the individual's wishes. You comment under a pseudonym so it presents that you prefer to keep your ID under wraps. Treat others as you would like to be treated? Get a Life!!
Do you classify yourself as a Christian?
|
|
gustaf
Junior Member
I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down !!!
Posts: 82
|
Post by gustaf on Oct 12, 2019 22:11:34 GMT -5
Get a Life!!
Do you classify yourself as a Christian? Not only am I a Christian in title, but I am a Born Again Christian. God himself has saved me from my fate! You all just keep choking on your gnats and see where that gets you! You all keep a lot of secrets don't you. Hiding from the real Truth with your own special Worker Friend Gospel... Pretty much reminds me of fruitless whited sepulchers!
|
|
|
Post by speak on Oct 12, 2019 23:51:45 GMT -5
Do you classify yourself as a Christian? Not only am I a Christian in title, but I am a Born Again Christian. God himself has saved me from my fate! You all just keep choking on your gnats and see where that gets you! You all keep a lot of secrets don't you. Hiding from the real Truth with your own special Worker Friend Gospel... Pretty much reminds me of fruitless whited sepulchers!
So if you being a born again Christian why are you being nasty, surely that is not one of the traits of Christ?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 13, 2019 0:14:15 GMT -5
Greg . What if it is just a friend (probably literally in the 2x2 language) who took the photo? I'm sure it was one of the friends. The pictures were sold by the elders of all the meetings. In the states locally, these pictures are usually in the cookhouse for sale. It seems to me if pictures are produced for sale, the photographer has little rights left. It’d be no different then buying a picture anywhere for sale, once the names price is given then iwner’s rights are changed. The person(s) that might be legally in peril is the person who publicized the photo the first time because then the photo becomes publicly publicized. Open to whomever looks at it. No different then many people looking at a sold picture in a public place. I doubt owner rights can be dictated in the case where people have paid for copies. The original is the only one that can be legalized.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 13, 2019 0:18:31 GMT -5
It is inconsistent if you hide your own identity and share images of others. Those who are keen to post images of workers on line, without having asked their permission, are ignoring the 'golden rule'. A rule they will conveniently use to validate Christianity. This practice of posting workers' ID's reveals a degree of antagonism, which is of course unsurprising given the incessant posting of threads intended to critique this one small branch from that dense tree of Christianity. Exposing the workers without regard for their personal privacy is treating them as if they are criminals. If you can prove they are, then fair enough to expose them. But if the premise for posting is the following which Gill sent in a private message to me: "When someone has power over people, they cannot expect to remain anonymous and without publicity. " then it is fair to discuss the "power over people" assertion and whether this is a valid one? I do not trust the person who shares identities of people without permission and consider this practice unethical - unless the people are criminals and deserve to be 'outed'. This doesn’t compute! The pictures were taken to be sold to whom ever paid for them. Gill didn’t put his name up for a price or sell his name. The workers are well aware their pictures are in the internet!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 13, 2019 0:56:58 GMT -5
I'm sure it was one of the friends. The pictures were sold by the elders of all the meetings. In the states locally, these pictures are usually in the cookhouse for sale. It seems to me if pictures are produced for sale, the photographer has little rights left. It’d be no different then buying a picture anywhere for sale, once the names price is given then iwner’s rights are changed. The person(s) that might be legally in peril is the person who publicized the photo the first time because then the photo becomes publicly publicized. Open to whomever looks at it. No different then many people looking at a sold picture in a public place. I doubt owner rights can be dictated in the case where people have paid for copies. The original is the only one that can be legalized. It's the fact that they are "sold" that is the major problem. The first problem is of someone photographs a person without the person's consent. If the person is on the street or otherwise in a crowd, not really a problem. If the person doesn't want to be photographer close up they have the right to not give consent -- the celebrities' common problem. However, the workers intentionally sit to be photographed. Then there is the problem of "selling" pictures. The person who takes the picture owns the copyright of the picture. But he cannot sell copies of it without having prior permission of the "subject" to sell the copies. That is why models sign contracts with the photographer specifying (1) how much the model will get paid, and (2) that the photographer has the right to make copies and sell copies, and (3) if/what the cut is of the sale price that goes to the model.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 13, 2019 1:50:52 GMT -5
If a worker is reading this thread and can honestly speak on behalf of their peers, it would be good if they could comment on whether they are happy about their names and images being published on line.
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Oct 13, 2019 2:52:44 GMT -5
Posting up photos of current, as opposed to historical, figures is something I am not comfortable with, unless express permission has been given.
|
|