From: sornson@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A correction is in order (was JWs Child Custody booklet ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:22:05 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


        This is a reply to Walter Smith, and is thus almost guaranteed to
    only generate heat, but no light.  My apologies in advance to the rest
    of you.  

In article <1992Apr9.131343.26722@apollo.hp.com>, smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
>In article <1992Apr8.200057.14358@e2big.mko.dec.com> sornson@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:
> 
>Mark Sornson posted an article recognizing that the booklet in question
>does exist, and is written by the JWs, not the "Anti-christ", as Andreas
>had asserted.  
> 
>Mark also made it clear that he felt I was abusing the spirit of what was
>in the booklet (a booklet that he said I should not have access to), and
>said that people were welcome to contact him by private email, where he could
>express his opinions about me and what I have written.

        For the record, what I said was:

>        If anyone would like to talk more about this whole matter, you are
>    welcome to contact me by e-mail (though I should say in advance that
>    *I* don't have a copy of the book either, though I *do* have opinions
>    on what Walter has already said about it).

        To be painfully clear, what I meant by the expression "this whole
    matter" was the whole, overall matter of the true Witness position on
    telling the truth in court, and my opinions on the meaning of the
    material in the book you have been quoting.  When I wrote my
    parenthetical remark, I had in mind the purpose of conveying the truth
    that 1) I didn't have the book, so I couldn't speak with authority on
    its full contents, and 2) my thoughts were therefore based only on the
    information [i.e., quotes] you supplied, and your interpretations of
    them.  I had no hidden agenda.

>Maybe I'm being a little sensitive, but this bothers me.  Everything I've
>said about the booklet, I've said publically (where the JWs can respond
>if they feel I'm being inaccurate), and I've tried to be thorough enough
>that people can make up their own minds about what the booklet says, in
>comparison to what JWs are actually taught.   Now, Mark Sornson, who
>apparently has never actually read the booklet, and says he does not have
>a copy of it, wants people to email him privately, so he can rebuff
>what I have written, but in a forum where I'm not privy to what he has
>to say about me, or what I've written.

        Walter, you've made the choice to throw this whole matter up in the
    face of the 'public,' and there's nothing I can or care to do about it.
    However, your choice to broadcast your desire for a public debate
    DOESN'T obligate me to either take up the gauntlet and debate YOU in
    public, or even to convey my thoughts about this whole matter to anyone
    ELSE in public.

        Back in February, I publically insisted that you to stop digging up
    things I said to you in the past and dragging them, with my name
    attached, into unrelated discussions.  You flamed back and wrote:

>Mark, GET A GRIP ON REALITY, man...gee..I "insist" that you crawl back
>into your *&%^ hole until your name is "invoked" again, calling you
>out...

    Since, by this, as well as the collected weight of many of your other
    remarks, it became clear to me that when it suits you, you have no
    reservations about dropping your veneer of 'Christian politeness' for
    quite Un-Christian abusive speach (and perhaps other behavior as well),
    I decided to simply NOT make myself the target of your attacks and
    abuse (against either me personally, or Witnesses in general).  

        For the record, I do NOT have a canned reply (or rebuff) to all you
    have written simply waiting for people to ask me to send it to them. 
    What I AM willing to do is talk about anything that someone has
    specific concerns about.  If they'd like to hear my thoughts about
    something specific that you've written, then they're free to ask.  If
    your exact words don't even come up, that's fine too.  If no one writes
    back, I will be free to do something else with my time.

        That you're not "privy" to anything that I write to someone else is
    just too bad for you, Walter.  I think it very ironic that you, of all
    people, should complain about not being able to spy into someone elses
    private conversations when you, in particular, regularly accuse
    Witnesses and the Watchtower Society as a whole of spying on others so
    that THEY can be "privy" to what individuals are saying about them in
    private.

        Now, would I go to any great lengths to be abusive about YOU in
    private?  I believe that THAT'S really what you are concerned about.
    I don't believe that I've said anything more in private about you than
    I have in public, that I think you pretty much, as a rule, twist and
    abuse the truth about Witnesses to suit your own bias and prejudice;
    but I'm not really interested in excoriating YOU, personally, either in
    public or in private.  I'm most interested in helping people get the
    most balanced view of Jehovah's Witnesses that I can help them acquire.

        Check your ego at the door, Walter, and get a grip on reality
    yourself.  You aren't the center of the universe, and the fact that you
    want to argue about Witnesses in public simply doesn't obligate me or
    any other Witness to channel our own discussions about our faith
    through you.  That your words serve as the starting point for a
    particular discussion is the result of your own doings.  If you can't
    handle the idea that people might choose to talk about what you write
    in PRIVATE, then perhaps you shouldn't post publically at all.  You
    write in public, making full use of your right to free, public speech.
    But it sounds to me that when it comes to what YOU say, suddenly the
    rights of others to "free speech," though in private, suddenly mean very
    little to you.

>Mark, if you have something to say about me, and feel that I'm twisting
>things all around, show it to my face; not behind my back.  You've
>obviously been accessing the newsgroup enough to have read the articles,
>and Andreas' replies, and to make a followup yourself.    For being
>members of a group that claims to make a point of publically exposing
>false religion, the more "moderate" JWs in this group (like yourself)
>sure seem to want to avoid talking in the open.  Only people who have
>something to hide act like that, and seek to talk about people behind
>their back.

        In the first place, I have very little to say about you that I feel
    is worth committing to print.  The day you become one of Jehovah's
    Witnesses is the day that I'll feel it'll really worthwhile saying
    anything further to you.  As I see it today, talking to you is only
    asking for a never-ending argument.  The Bible recommends that
    Christians turn down fights; and thus I chose to follow its advice and
    turn down your challenge [by which you "call me out" of my "hole" once
    again].

        Secondly, I've come to the conclusion that I wouldn't have a life
    if I had to respond to everything you've ever said about Witnesses
    which I feel was twisted, especially if I had to say them to you
    personally.  When it comes to writing against Witnesses, in my view,
    you have an almost SUPERNATURAL ability to write far more than I could
    ever deal with in any practical way.  Furthermore, since it's evident
    to me, at this point, after YEARS of arguing with you and seeing you
    argue with other Witnesses, that I don't have a PRAYER of ever having
    you see things my way, it my choice to simply take Jesus' advice to
    "turn the other cheek" when it comes to the things you say.

        There's a proverb that says,

        	"where there's no wood, the fire goes out." (Pr 26:20 NWT)

    Refraining from public arguments with you is the best way I know of to
    keep from throwing wood on the fires that you constantly are lighting.
    You NEVER let a matter drop; in fact, you go further and constantly dig
    up NEW issues as though every smear against Jehovah's Witnesses is a
    personal gain for you in some way.  I mean, you even try to provoke
    fights between Witnesses and OTHERS so you can sit back and watch the
    fun (like you did when you posted your note about WB&TS remarks about
    Mormons).  You JUST DON'T QUIT, Walter; so here's a clue.  When it
    comes to you, I do.  By not wasting my time arguing with you, I have
    plenty to gain elsewhere, with others.

        Your 'Witness troubles' appear to have begun the day you met the
    woman who is now your wife; and were obviously compounded the day you
    married her (given that she was either already married at the time, or
    formerly married, to a Witness, and already had a 'Witness family'). 
    Your relationships are obviously your business and not mine, but it
    seems evident to me that you didn't (to borrow Jesus' words) "count the
    cost" of marrying a disfellowshipped Witness (that is, unless she
    wasn't disfellowshipped until after you married her).  You made your
    decision, and now you have to live with it;  but your practice of
    making everyone else on the net [or at least all the Witnesses] pay for
    your personal decisions is something that I want no further part of.

        I dare you just to let it go, Walter.  Just this once.  Prove to me
    and all the net that, in the face of extreme provocation (like this
    reply), you're a better Christian than I, and that, as a Roman
    Catholic, you can bring honor to your Lord, Jesus Christ, by focusing
    on the Gospel message that you and your Church feel you have been
    charged with keeping and spreading, instead of focusing on a defense of
    yourself and your vehement feelings about Jehovah's Witnesses.


        							-mark.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7396 soc.culture.jewish:8149