|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 14, 2019 23:32:47 GMT -5
I'm thinking you're not all that familiar with some of the in home recordings that have been made of worker visits in North America. I had one overseer tell me personally that unless he'd heard a recording of another worker's conversation he'd never have believed in all his life that it had ever been taken place. Would it me moral for me to defend my wife with a recording of a sister worker telling me that my wife and I had a perverted private relationship. People who lie at someone else's expense are fair game. Oh, I am familiar. But I am not all that concerned with when people say/think about me. Dragging other people in is another thing but I have found that direct confrontation works really well. Personally, I would have gone on to embellish the the perverted relationship relationship and then asked the sister worker if that was the story she had heard. Knowing what I know now I surely would have don't that. Because she actually told me this after meeting with everyone else milling around, I wrote her a letter requesting that she apologize for my wife's sake, and because she had told me that her companion agreed with her, I sent a copy of the letter to her companion. About 10 months later We got an appropriate letter of apology. I would sure love to hear what all was said about my request in those 10 months. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 15, 2019 0:29:22 GMT -5
Knowing what I know now I surely would have don't that. Because she actually told me this after meeting with everyone else milling around,... What a missed opportunity! But I know how it is to have to practice restraint. I still need practice. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 15, 2019 1:05:27 GMT -5
Knowing what I know now I surely would have don't that. Because she actually told me this after meeting with everyone else milling around,... What a missed opportunity! But I know how it is to have to practice restraint. I still need practice. I can't really chock that one up to restraint. I was just so shocked that I didn't say anything. It was really the turning point for me in my patience with the workers, I should explain the circumstances surrounding that little nasty comment of hers. I had spoken to her earlier about a near fistfight that broke out after Sunday meeting. One man was yelling and shaking his fists at a young man who had recently professed, and was telling him he would see to it that he was sent to prison. So this was how the worker decided to shut me up. We had some really wild meeting there for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Get off of TMB on Nov 15, 2019 19:41:45 GMT -5
Workers are going to have to give up their requests for secrecy and privacy. This is the age of the camera. If you want to have influence over other people, you have to sacrifice your privacy. You can't have it both ways. If you want to represent a belief system, you have to accept the fact that people may tape you, post your photos online etc.. As Harry Truman said "if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 22:36:26 GMT -5
Workers have always tried to stay away from the real life situation. They have been detached and living in a World of their own making. Of course that is the way WI designed it to be. That sort of life may be OK in a Monastery but does not work in the real life situation, not practical, too heavenly. It probably was not so out of kilter 120 years ago when WI invented it, life was much more simple. It was even not as noticeable in our Parents day 100 years ago. There was only very basic technology and not the instant communication that we have today. Come on Workers get with it catch up. Think the younger ones would, it is just those old farts of my vintage who run the show, that want to stick in the mud.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 24, 2019 4:30:46 GMT -5
Workers have always tried to stay away from the real life situation. They have been detached and living in a World of their own making. Of course that is the way WI designed it to be. That sort of life may be OK in a Monastery but does not work in the real life situation, not practical, too heavenly. It probably was not so out of kilter 120 years ago when WI invented it, life was much more simple. It was even not as noticeable in our Parents day 100 years ago. There was only very basic technology and not the instant communication that we have today. Come on Workers get with it catch up. Think the younger ones would, it is just those old farts of my vintage who run the show, that want to stick in the mud. The real problem was s they’ve made the churches mission to be as different from other churches that were getting all kinds of strange behaviors from them. The original workers didn’t start out for that reason, they wanted to see if Jesus’ way of ministry still worked. The be different from other churches hit the workers likely late 40’s into the 50’s. |
|
|
|
Post by jaimedrift on Nov 27, 2019 12:31:36 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHKW6hs6gqAHere is the link I uploaded to Youtube. Involved is Alberta preachers Mildred Lindquist, and Brenda Tschetter. What they've told me in this recording goes against much of what I've heard in their meetings. I apologize for being so late and hope everyone who was interested has the opportunity to see now if they still wish.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 27, 2019 23:12:38 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHKW6hs6gqAHere is the link I uploaded to Youtube. Involved is Alberta preachers Mildred Lindquist, and Brenda Tschetter. What they've told me in this recording goes against much of what I've heard in their meetings. I apologize for being so late and hope everyone who was interested has the opportunity to see now if they still wish.
Are you a 2x2, Born and raise in the truth? Are you a reporter? What is your story. Thanks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 1:18:20 GMT -5
i got about 40 minutes into the audio and gave up.
well for starters whatever method you used to record them made their voices very soft i could hardly hear what they were saying most of the time.
if your gonna say they contradict what they have said in mtg's you should provide what they said in mtg's along side what they said in this video for us to make a comparison.
and i noticed that you mostly agreed with what they were saying whatever that was i couldn't hear them but i could hear you.
whatever your trying to attempt/accomplish with this audio i'd say has flopped.
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 28, 2019 13:06:08 GMT -5
i got about 40 minutes into the audio and gave up. well for starters whatever method you used to record them made their voices very soft i could hardly hear what they were saying most of the time. if your gonna say they contradict what they have said in mtg's you should provide what they said in mtg's along side what they said in this video for us to make a comparison. and i noticed that you mostly agreed with what they were saying whatever that was i couldn't hear them but i could hear you. whatever your trying to attempt/accomplish with this audio i'd say has flopped. I don't hear well so I had to give up really soon too. Very soft voices. I would do better reading a transcript of the recording. I still have fairly good eyes lol. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 1, 2019 7:13:34 GMT -5
i got about 40 minutes into the audio and gave up. well for starters whatever method you used to record them made their voices very soft i could hardly hear what they were saying most of the time. if your gonna say they contradict what they have said in mtg's you should provide what they said in mtg's along side what they said in this video for us to make a comparison. and i noticed that you mostly agreed with what they were saying whatever that was i couldn't hear them but i could hear you. whatever your trying to attempt/accomplish with this audio i'd say has flopped. I don't hear well so I had to give up really soon too. Very soft voices. I would do better reading a transcript of the recording. I still have fairly good eyes lol. The transcript is available but since it is based on the audio it is also difficult to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2019 12:35:16 GMT -5
I don't hear well so I had to give up really soon too. Very soft voices. I would do better reading a transcript of the recording. I still have fairly good eyes lol. The transcript is available but since it is based on the audio it is also difficult to follow. Where is the transcript. I don't see it under the video so is there a link to it that I missed? |
|
|
|
Post by iam on Feb 17, 2020 0:00:43 GMT -5
On the moral side -- it's really just as important WHAT YOU RECORD. "Records" of all kinds of egregious events are not worthy of any expectation of privacy. The expectation of privacy has to do with whether the average person would believe that the situation was one where they would expect privacy. Perhaps vague but if I were having a conversation with you in your home I would not expect the conversation to be recorded and then made public unless previously informed of that possibility. I am still uncertain of the purpose. And in a trial this is important. Or if you are building a civil suite. Is there an ongoing situation that required proof of wrong doing? In about 1/ 4 of the states all parties involved in the conversation must be aware that they are being recorded. I was trying to understand why you would invite people into your home, record a 2-hour conversation without their knowledge, and then decide to publish it on the internet. Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). ... Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. In fact, it is illegal in Canada to possess surreptitious recording devices. The reason you can record your own conversations is the "one party consent" exception, meaning, where one of the parties to a conversation consents to being recorded, then they can record the conversation |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 17, 2020 2:24:36 GMT -5
I have never thought of recording the many conversations I have with myself. I may try it one day. I could run different answers past myself to see if they are anymore agreeable than the previous ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1chinesewhispers on Feb 17, 2020 7:09:47 GMT -5
In Canada it is against the law to record without telling them .,Unless you are a police officer , prosecutor , a psychiatric in a forensic unit in hospital , if you make a phone from jail then it is all recorded . But there must be a sign letting you know .,so if you land up in jail watch what you say , because they are listening to see if you speak of the of your crimes .
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 17, 2020 7:48:43 GMT -5
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). ... Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. In fact, it is illegal in Canada to possess surreptitious recording devices. The reason you can record your own conversations is the "one party consent" exception, meaning, where one of the parties to a conversation consents to being recorded, then they can record the conversation Yes, you can make such a recording legally in many locations. The question is why would you? My cell phone can make surreptitious recordings. Should I venture across the border into Canada do I need to to surrender it to the authorities? Do you think the user name iam might be bordering on blasphemy? |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 17, 2020 16:28:19 GMT -5
The expectation of privacy has to do with whether the average person would believe that the situation was one where they would expect privacy. Perhaps vague but if I were having a conversation with you in your home I would not expect the conversation to be recorded and then made public unless previously informed of that possibility. I am still uncertain of the purpose. And in a trial this is important. Or if you are building a civil suite. Is there an ongoing situation that required proof of wrong doing? In about 1/ 4 of the states all parties involved in the conversation must be aware that they are being recorded. I was trying to understand why you would invite people into your home, record a 2-hour conversation without their knowledge, and then decide to publish it on the internet. Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). ... Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. In fact, it is illegal in Canada to possess surreptitious recording devices. The reason you can record your own conversations is the "one party consent" exception, meaning, where one of the parties to a conversation consents to being recorded, then they can record the conversation If it's against the law in Canada for us to possess recording devices, we are all illegal. Our cellphones have that capability and just about everyone has one these days. |
|
|
|
Post by iam on Feb 17, 2020 22:28:40 GMT -5
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). ... Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. In fact, it is illegal in Canada to possess surreptitious recording devices. The reason you can record your own conversations is the "one party consent" exception, meaning, where one of the parties to a conversation consents to being recorded, then they can record the conversation If it's against the law in Canada for us to possess recording devices, we are all illegal. Our cellphones have that capability and just about everyone has one these days. Yes but it sounds like if you are one of the parties in the conversation, you can record the conversation. You can't record a conversation you're not a part of. |
|
|
|
Post by iam on Feb 17, 2020 22:36:32 GMT -5
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). ... Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. In fact, it is illegal in Canada to possess surreptitious recording devices. The reason you can record your own conversations is the "one party consent" exception, meaning, where one of the parties to a conversation consents to being recorded, then they can record the conversation Yes, you can make such a recording legally in many locations. The question is why would you? My cell phone can make surreptitious recordings. Should I venture across the border into Canada do I need to to surrender it to the authorities? Do you think the user name iam might be bordering on blasphemy? No I don't consider the user name iam bordering on blasphemy at all. But you do sound like another Pharisee. Seems like there are some on these threads. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 17, 2020 22:42:11 GMT -5
No I don't consider the user name iam bordering on blasphemy at all. But you do sound like another Pharisee. Seems like there are some on these threads. Not having the willing suspension of disbelief I have to go on the written text - you know, the letter of the law and not the law that feels good. |
|
|
|
Post by iam on Feb 17, 2020 22:49:22 GMT -5
No I don't consider the user name iam bordering on blasphemy at all. But you do sound like another Pharisee. Seems like there are some on these threads. Not having the willing suspension of disbelief I have to go on the written text - you know, the letter of the law and not the law that feels good. That's right. The letter of the law. Phariseeism. There's actually a very personal and meaningful reason for my username but I would never share it on these boards. It's kind of like if you throw something that is valuable to you to a bunch of dogs, they all tear into it and make a big mess of it and it loses it's value because of the dogs. But I believe very few here would "get" that. |
|
|
|
Post by iam on Feb 17, 2020 23:03:51 GMT -5
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). ... Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. In fact, it is illegal in Canada to possess surreptitious recording devices. The reason you can record your own conversations is the "one party consent" exception, meaning, where one of the parties to a conversation consents to being recorded, then they can record the conversation Yes, you can make such a recording legally in many locations. The question is why would you? My cell phone can make surreptitious recordings. Should I venture across the border into Canada do I need to to surrender it to the authorities? Do you think the user name iam might be bordering on blasphemy? Also .."why would you"? I don't know but, what business is it of anyone's why people do the things they do unless it affects us? |
|
|
|
Post by iam on Feb 17, 2020 23:24:25 GMT -5
Not having the willing suspension of disbelief I have to go on the written text - you know, the letter of the law and not the law that feels good. That's right. The letter of the law. Phariseeism. There's actually a very personal and meaningful reason for my username but I would never share it on these boards. It's kind of like if you throw something that is valuable to you to a bunch of dogs, they all tear into it and make a big mess of it and it loses it's value because of the dogs. But I believe very few here would "get" that. I was wondering where you stand yourself on blasphemy, rational, especially thinking about your own own username...figured it couldn't be in line with faith...but after reading some of your posts, I really believe you need to question yourSELF about blasphemy. I'm not meaning to be disrespectful, just some honest observations. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 18, 2020 16:10:56 GMT -5
If it's against the law in Canada for us to possess recording devices, we are all illegal. Our cellphones have that capability and just about everyone has one these days. Yes but it sounds like if you are one of the parties in the conversation, you can record the conversation. You can't record a conversation you're not a part of. Yes, but the person that recorded the two female workers was part of the conversation so does that make it legal/okay? Not understanding I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by iam on Feb 18, 2020 16:14:42 GMT -5
Yes but it sounds like if you are one of the parties in the conversation, you can record the conversation. You can't record a conversation you're not a part of. Yes, but the person that recorded the two female workers was part of the conversation so does that make it legal/okay? Not understanding I guess. It does sound kind of ambiguous. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 19, 2020 18:50:48 GMT -5
Not having the willing suspension of disbelief I have to go on the written text - you know, the letter of the law and not the law that feels good. That's right. The letter of the law. Phariseeism. There's actually a very personal and meaningful reason for my username but I would never share it on these boards. It's kind of like if you throw something that is valuable to you to a bunch of dogs, they all tear into it and make a big mess of it and it loses it's value because of the dogs. But I believe very few here would "get" that. We all lack your understanding?? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 19, 2020 18:59:00 GMT -5
That's right. The letter of the law. Phariseeism. There's actually a very personal and meaningful reason for my username but I would never share it on these boards. It's kind of like if you throw something that is valuable to you to a bunch of dogs, they all tear into it and make a big mess of it and it loses it's value because of the dogs. But I believe very few here would "get" that. I was wondering where you stand yourself on blasphemy, rational, especially thinking about your own own username...figured it couldn't be in line with faith...but after reading some of your posts, I really believe you need to question yourSELF about blasphemy. I'm not meaning to be disrespectful, just some honest observations. Not holding a belief in a deity or deities makes it difficult to even imagine the possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 19, 2020 19:00:28 GMT -5
Yes, you can make such a recording legally in many locations. The question is why would you? My cell phone can make surreptitious recordings. Should I venture across the border into Canada do I need to to surrender it to the authorities? Do you think the user name iam might be bordering on blasphemy? Also .."why would you"? I don't know but, what business is it of anyone's why people do the things they do unless it affects us? Then why mention it? |
|
