User talk:Cobaltbluetony

Welcome to my talk page.

To see older discussions, see the archives below:

• Archive 1 (2004-02-03 to 2005-11-02):

---

Start New Topic Here

Edit this heading above and this text here. - CobaltBlueTony 20:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirects and typos

It all depends on the context. If the typo is common, a redirect should be used. If it's something which is just plain dumb, it should be deleted. However, I think it would be better (and quicker) to just add a speedy tag if you want a typo deleted. Bjelleklang - talk 17:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Repetitious Reverts

Re: Philadelphia County.

There was never a clear consensus. Sorry.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_8#Category:_Philadelphia_County

evrik 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal Resources

Tony, that is not a resource for public distribution, nor is it a document that can be accessed to verify its contents as accurate on the web nor at a library. How are we to determine this quotation is accurate???? Netministrator 00:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Request to join discussion group

Hello Tony, I was wondering if I could join the discussion group if still active re JW structure changes. Thx. 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Check your talk page. - CobaltBlueTony 22:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, there is no link on my talk page. Can you e-mail it to me? Thx. Missionary 09:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion group

Hi Tony. I have to say I'm a little concerned about encouraging the JW editors to be involved in an external discussion group to the exclusion of the other editors. I'm not implying bad motives, but I do think it gives the wrong impression.

I think the spirit of WP is to have everything public, which is why there are no private talk pages, and everyone's contributions available for all to see. Please don't think I'm telling you to stop, I'm not. Just letting you know that it might help improve relations between JWs and ex-JWs if discussion was held here rather than offsite. What do you think? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I think what will immediately improve relations and remove the fragmentation would be to censure users (names withheld, won't point fingers as individuals) who berate fellow users and mock their belief system in a disrespectful manner. Having a sincere difference of opinion is one thing and Wiki does encourage a brokering of thoughts from variant camps. However, certain individuals do not seem so inclined as to afford Wikipedians on the "other side of the fence", so to speak, with any dignity. Interesting the tulmult relating the Human Rights and respecting independent thoughts on the JW pages, when such individuals who criticize witnesses for not allowing this themselves vent hostility. Seriously, you have in the best position to administer some level of civility between the camps so that the issues, rather than the individuals, are dealt with specifically. Missionary 09:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You are witty, with the "names withheld, won't point fingers as individuals" part and all. Did I miss the note that we're all pretending to be eight year old girls now? Or was it just posted in your secret Yahoo group?Tommstein 09:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, and he'll probably still be first in line to complain the next time I so much as imply that the Witnesses here are partisan. What's a secret offsite discussion group for their eyes only here and there? All editors who aren't trying to think with one brain are doing it....Tommstein 08:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary response

To be sure, there has been little to no participation in this group, and it seems in hindsight to have been ill-conceived on my part. I accept this fact, and I am deleting the group even as I type this.

Konrad, there are no relations between JWs and ex-JWs, (the group was intended for JWs only) and this is the point that so frustrates them. The only reason I engage any of them here at all is because of a sincere respect for the academic process. They wish to pick apart the faith, and can't just get on with their lives. Instead of growing on a positive level with their new beliefs, their goals remain to harrass, chase down, berate, belittle, intimidate, anger, trip up, stumble and tear down those who remain faithful. Their actions (and even their words here) belie any claims otherwise. Just note the vehemency with which they force every little point they wich for people to read and believe as accurate and truthful! I challenge them to operate purely on an academic level. They cannot. Watch the discussion pages carefully, and see that they cannot maintain their composure, or help but belittle or talk down to anyone disagreeing with them, especially if they identify themselves as JWs. In fact, all you need do is review the history!

My goal is to refuse to engage them in this. I believe that the academically sound goal of this site can be acheived only when the arguments stop. Moreover, those who repeatedly insinuate improper motives and attempt to intimidate by insult and accusations flying everywhere will eventually wear out their welcome on Wikipedia -- but only if enforcement is present. Otherwise, these ones will continue to abuse the situation and manipulate the rules to suit their agenda, and moderators and administrators who sit back and do nothing discredit the integrity of this resource, and expose the possibility of even the smallest amount of prejudice in their character as having an impact on the reliability of Wikipedia. Konrad, holding each and every editor accountable for their conduct in discussion pages, as well as maintaining more strict adherence to Wikipedia's rules on resources, will foster accuracy and the NPOV standard on this set of articles. Make sure that opinions on doctrines and practices are not presented as fact, but as a viewpoint about that doctrine. The precept of Wikipedia is that every editor is editing in good faith, but when such is apparently not true, good faith in Wikipedia must be restored by enforcement.

Respectfully, CobaltBlueTony 15:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You wish to use Wikipedia to make converts, and are frustrated at getting shot down. And yes, I can say that, seeing as you just had a sentence with about 10 attacks on ex-Witnesses. Such is life. Find a different forum. Go out preaching more. I hear you only have to preach for a little over 40 years on average before managing to make one single convert these days.Tommstein 15:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your tactic is apparent: make a baseless accusation, then toss on some belligerent asides and random speculation. I have no nterest in using an encyclopedia article to proselytize. I speak from experience and observation. No one told me what to think or feel when I observed ex-members behaving in the manner that they did. No one coerced me to reject the outright lies of individuals standing outside conventions bellowing at the top of their lungs. I know what apostates are, and I know who some of them are. I can speak to the common thread I've observed in these individuals. You strike me as no different, and you have yet to step up to the table and bite your own tongue. You can try to intimidate me, but I am dedicated to the academic process. Find reputable scholars who can see some validity in the spurious claims you continue to make, and then you'll have a leg to stand on. - CobaltBlueTony 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish I knew what the heck you were blabbing about... but I don't, so I'll just ignore it.Tommstein 16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You said, "You wish to use Wikipedia to make converts, and are frustrated at getting shot down."

This statement is false. You have no way of knowing this, you are wrong in your assumption, and you insinuate a less than scholarly motivation on my part, without any basis. Ergo, baseless accusation. The rest of your statements are random speculations on which you have no basis to speak. "I hear you only have to preach for a little over 40 years..." is self-stated heresay. You hear? From whom, disgruntled ex-members? Might take that long if their heart's not into helping people in the first place. But you wouldn't know, since you're not there. - CobaltBlueTony 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You said, "They wish to pick apart the faith, and can't just get on with their lives. Instead of growing on a positive level with their new beliefs, their goals remain to harrass [sic], chase down, berate, belittle, intimidate, anger, trip up, stumble and tear down those who remain faithful." (among a million other things that I will not waste time addressing).

This statement is false. You have no way of knowing this, you are wrong in your assumption, and you insinuate a less than scholarly motivation on my part, without any basis. Ergo, baseless accusation. The rest of your statements are random speculations on which you have no basis to speak. As to the 40 years thing, take out your latest annual report and do some math. Try to not blame the calculator for the results, even if it was created by agents of 'Satan's system' that are all out to get you. I would give you the formula, but you're pretending to be a scholar, one would think you could do third grade math.Tommstein 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Tit for tat. Fair enough. Explain, then, why you insist on wasting so much energy on a religion you dislike so much? Do you see me attacking Catholics, or Scientologists, or Buddhists? What Witnesses have to say about other religions is not about their flawed human components, but [our perception of] the failure of the belief system(s) to provide real and lasting benefits to thase that adhere to them. My experience with detractors such as yourself is reflected in the above statement you quoted. Can you seriously insist that Witnesses are so horrible? Any Witness who doesn't accept your points you deem either brainwashed or "in on the conspiracy." How convenient. If you really are so convinced of your skewed and belligerent propositions, how can you possibly be expected to provide and maintain edits that are fair? Even if you do manage to contain your rage towards us, your subsequent edits are still suspect, as others will wonder as to your motivations. (Yes, your motivations are clear, even when moderators and admins must abide by the good faith presumption.)

It boils down to this:

• You need to relax. This isn't and should never be a forum for your "war" against Witnesses (nor is it a platform for preaching). We won't debate you here, nor anywhere else. We and every other editor here are (and should be directed to remain) objective to the extent possible, with the goal of accurately representing information with the import that it merits on an academic level, not on the level of any editor. (I intend to continue to push for this.)
• Few Wikipedians want to deal with these articles because you and your cohorts continue to deal with this forum unacademically, unscholarly, and without civility.
• The only reason you are successful on this forum is because you are louder and more unbearable than other interested parties.
• If your response to edits you do not like is filled with belittling statements, name-calling, and spurious accusation, who can respect you?
• If your edits are not motivated by malice, but "genuine concern" for "telling it like it is" in regards to Jehovah's Witnesses, you need scholarly and believable resources.
• Real problems/crises will have discernable evidence for which scholarly and impartial research can be done.
  • "Straw men" and "red herrings," to borrow terminology from your friend, don't have any more credibility just because you misquote, mischaracterize, and villify every statement printed by the Watch Tower Society or the Governing Body. Tactics, I might add, which you claim the Society uses in explaining their viewpoints on certain doctrinal or organizational matters.

This whole process will be much less tedious if we stick to a civil tone and academic criticism, and earnestly abide by the Wikipedia standards.