User talk:Duffer1

/Archive 1 - Misc. - Discussion with Central

Vote for JW structure

Please vote for or against the adoption of the proposed structure for WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses on the talk page and sign your name with ~~~~. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Jehovah's Witnesses articles

Because of the volatile and tenacious nature of certain editors whose stated or subliminal goal is to detract from Jehovah's Witnesses at any and every opportunity, I am making it my goal to recommend to new and existing editors interested in JW articles to review the Wikipedia's policies:

WP:NOR - no original research
WP:V - verifiability
WP:NPOV - Wikipedia: neutral point of view (this one is critical to JW pages edits especially)
WP:CIV - Civility

We do have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the proper forum for any form of proselytizing. This is an academic endeavor, and to make it worthwhile for Jehovah's Witnesses to contribute positively, abiding by the rules of the forum and sticking to the facts will help us not only keep these articles and the discussions behind them free from ineffective and off-topic banter, but present a respectable product that addresses all sides, but keeps them in perspective.

It is best to ignore insults and off-topic discussions, addressing only the pertinent points so as to reach a consensus regarding the content of these pages. If you must address them, it's best to simply cite the Wikipedia standards and redirect your focus to content and format. I hope my suggestions help. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CBT. I got my internet back up and running. You have posted some good suggestions, things I know I need to work on. Thank you :) Duffer 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debating theological points

Matt, it's very easy to get sucked into debating what we believe, but remember that it's not the point of the article to justify or prove anything. This is an academic exercise to attempt to impartially delineate our faith, and issues that are raised by it, to a reasonable extent. If you engage other editors in scriptural debates, it's like arguing with a household in the door-to-door ministry or heck, even trying to shout down an apostate outside a convention. We just don't do that sort of thing. And you know exactly why, so I don't even need to expand that point at all.

What we need to do, to be faithful, productive, and consistent, is to make sure what we believe is properly represented and that counterpoints are indentified as exactly that: opposing views. If someone says the Society/GB is duplicitous in fighting legal battles for the rights of the organization but denies them to us as members, we have to refute that. But if they want to say that 1914 is not supported by scholars, that point is a counterpoint, not pertinent in representing our beliefs. It needs to be separated out in whatever manner those things should be represented on Wikipedia.

Central and Tommstein WANT to debate what you believe and disrupt your faith. You wouldn't do this in person, or on some other format online; don't give them the satisafaction here. By limiting the extent to which we interact with them, we maintain our safeguards, and let them continue to sit outside and 'weep and gnash their teeth.' - Φιλία, CobaltBlueTony 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have amazing mind-reading abilities for a member of a fringe religion that preaches isolation from the rest of the world to the extent possible short of going Amish. You should contract those amazing powers out for pay.Tommstein 09:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email, please? - CobaltBlueTony 20:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed guideline for WP:JW

I saw that you dispute the validity of the new guideline, so I moved it to a proposed section, and created a talk page for it here. Please continue the discussion there. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Duffer 08:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Page

Hi Duffer, I wondered if I could encourage you to support the rewrite I proposed so that a new subject could be addressed. What I submitted covers the points you are requesting to be covered in a matter of fact fashion. Which is exactly what we are aiming for, no? The other reason is that the opposing camp seems to be ok with it. This way we can bring the current 'argument' to an end. George 20:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I already have (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F27_12_2005_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=33214731&oldid=33202495) I like it, but would like to see the implicit made more explicit by adding something like: "however, they do not discount the possibility". What do you think? Duffer 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duffer, On the Mediation Cabal page, you posted the following, Central's post "will look bad, you must keep in mind that the large majority of quotes is "good or bad" or "us-or-them" type language, such quotes are not refering to "not-us, but still good". Please clarify this, I am not sure that I understand it. Thanks, SteveMc 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation 2

Hi, your request has been accepted. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, that was fast, I havn't even had a chance to post about it on the NWT page hehe. Duffer 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please comment on my question on that Talk page: "I suppose that you don't intend to suppress or obscure information but simply disagree with vague, suggestive statements." This was now commented on in the negative by Tommstein, and this apparent misunderstanding may be the cause of your dispute. Harald88 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded, sorry I missed it, or I would have responded sooner. Duffer 21:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on Armageddon

Duffer, on the mediation over Armageddon, you placed this statement:
"Being a faithful Jehovah's Witness ensures the best possible hope for survival, however, we teach that it still does not ensure it. "The only flesh saved" would more accurately read: "only one organization is said to pass through Armageddon."

So, being a Witness does not ensure survival through Armageddon, so how does survival occur? randomly? being chosen by God (if so, what is the basis of God's choosing)?
How many Witness hold the position that tommstein is stating? In other words, how many believe that being a Witness is the only way to survive Armageddon? How strongly does the WTS teach this belief?

Thanks, SteveMc 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC), added second question SteveMc 15:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It ensures the best hope, but it does not guarantee. Duffer 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Witness provides the best possible hope, rejecting our theology provides no hope, but how can you reject what you have not known? Tomm's unique ideas about Jehovah's Witness theology are his alone and they are most assuredly NOT shared by any active Jehovah's Witness. The Touchestone article I provided a link to was written by several active Jehovah's Witnesses who have previously encountered this misconception about our doctrine (none of those Witnesses have anything to do with Wikipedia). You must understand that Tommstein is not interested in accuracy, evan a cursory examination of his edits as well as the comments that administrators have left on his talk page clearly show this. Duffer 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory examination of the Jehovah's Witnesses Talk page, including the archived page where this was previously discussed, or even the history of the mediation page itself, reveals that Duffer1 is again lying, this time about me being the only person saying this (for a longer list of Duffer1's history of lying, see the list created by Central the other day found here: User_talk:Cobaltbluetony/Discussion_with_Central). This is perhaps in line with his religion's policies about lying ("theocratic warfare" as they call it), found here: http://www.reexamine.org/quotes/lie.htm. One would do well to not believe a word that comes out of his mouth without massive, published corroboration. This is a statement of common sense in light of the foregoing.Tommstein 04:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot: please do read WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:AGF at your nearest convenience.Tommstein 05:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for kudos. SteveMc 20:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, do Witnesses have any idea why not being a faithful (I mean honestly faithful!) Witness does not ensure survival at Armageddon? I ask this because I am trying to determine what "best hope" really means. SteveMc 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even honestly faithful. Zephania 2: 1-3:

2 Gather yourselves together, yes, do the gathering, O nation not paling in shame. 2 Before [the] statute gives birth to [anything], [before the] day has passed by just like chaff, before there comes upon YOU people the burning anger of Jehovah, before there comes upon YOU the day of Jehovah’s anger, 3 seek Jehovah, all YOU meek ones of the earth, who have practiced His own judicial decision. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably YOU may be concealed in the day of Jehovah’s anger.

Truly and honestly faithful; to a Witness, survival is almost a certainty, however, we highlight the need to not become 'overly exalted' in our minds over such issues. Be a good, faithful Witness, and you will have the best hope. But to be clear, the WTB&TS does not teach that you will, for a certainty, survive. That is why I made the suggestion: "Witnesses believe that in order to have the best hope of surviving the coming Armageddon you must adhere to the.." Duffer 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SteveMc 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your most recent post on the Mediation page (19:42, 9 January 2006), you took exception to the statement, "near certain belief that they will survive..." That exception seems to contradict the edits we exchanged above, especially, "survival is almost a certainty." Am I to assume then, that some Witnesses (again faithful) will survive, it is just unknown who they will be. Thanks, SteveMc 20:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for kudos. SteveMc 20:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was refering to "near certain" in regards to those that are not Jehovah's Witnesses. Your sentence read: "Witnesses have a near certain belief that they will survive and that those who do not associate with them will perish." I meant that: destruction of those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses is not a "near certainty", indeed the references that I have provided clearly say: "we don't know" etc.. in regards to non-Witnesses. That's why I proposed: "Witnesses believe that survival of Armageddon is highly unlikely outside of their association" as an alternative. Duffer 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for a vote

Please register your vote on the topic at Mediator is damaged? Thanks, SteveMc 19:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Hey, redux again, can I get your input at the bottom of the talk page? - FrancisTyers 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tommstein

Nic, if you are unable to do something then please refer me to someone who can, this guy's harassment is increasingly hostile and disruptive. This situation demands immediate review, he is out of control, and I'm tired of being the butt end of his abuse. Please do something, or get people involved who can. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=35353761 this is entirely unacceptable behavior, and it has only gotten worse since you initially blocked him for a day. Duffer 06:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duffer - I am sorry, but there is very little I am now able to do to get Tommstein to behave nicely, simply because placing a block on him whilst there is an active RfC initiated against me by him is very poor form, and secondly because I'm sure to never hear the end of it if I take any further steps towards keeping him under control. I lack the time to be taken through more spurious dispute resolution processes by him, and frankly I would rather avoid his vitriol and unpleasantness wholesale rather than becoming its target. If he wanted to make sure I left him alone by producing that RfC, then he achieved what he set out to do. I suggest that if you feel his behaviour continues to be unacceptable that you bring an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration; I cannot, simply because I do not wish to be bullied by him again. My sincerest apologies. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your honesty Nic. Duffer 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bullying the administrator that bullied me by blocking me? When are you going to get around to reviewing the novel of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and other violations by Duffer1 (and company)? It has been over two weeks now, and it's not a very time-consuming thing to do (I don't think you engaged in 60 hours of research before threatening me, and you didn't even have a nice laid-out list like I have provided you with).Tommstein 05:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil towards other editors, myself included. I admit I did get rather heated towards you and Central on several occassions, although I firmly believe it was a response to provocation, I recognized it was wrong, and I have stopped. Please do likewise; if you won't then I must request arbitration. Duffer 07:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that I was uncivil. However, I believe your threats are, so, for the 50th time, please do read WP:CIV, because otherwise your continued violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and probably other policies, and your continued, well-documented, and very extensive history provoking of Central and me, will have to be reported to the Arbitration Committee, who will not kindly ignore it and look the other way as our friendly neighborhood administrator here has done.Tommstein 01:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arbitration

I've posted a few words, though I don't know how useful they will be to making your case since I stopped editing JW-related articles soon after my encounter with Tomm (not that Tomm was nearly the first to behave like he does). Since I've only passively watched him and other editors involved and would totally agree with your assessments. I basically affirmed what you and Tony have claimed and added some anecdotal evidence. -- uberpenguin 02:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and query

In relation to your query on my talk page, all I can say is that I am the slightest bit mystified as to your response towards my rudimentary commentary. I appreciate reviewing deliberations on legalities as they pertain towards organized bodies, and one happened to catch my eye that motivated my participation in the discussion process. I\'ve read of good faith as a guiding tenet here, and am curious why I was not afforded this upon my initial contribution. It perhaps provides some insight as to the motivation, if by no means the rude manners, of your adversary in this arbitration. Rockumsockum 09:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]