tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223623498441385.post2025062198099660178..comments2023-12-28T05:38:49.370-05:00Comments on Escaping Armstrongism: A Funny Little StoryxHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223623498441385.post-35125559463433073252009-01-30T21:23:00.000-05:002009-01-30T21:23:00.000-05:00>:D>:DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223623498441385.post-54305161998301559592009-01-30T20:07:00.000-05:002009-01-30T20:07:00.000-05:00I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!Bill H.I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!<BR/><BR/>Bill H.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223623498441385.post-29327339922894824592009-01-30T10:26:00.000-05:002009-01-30T10:26:00.000-05:00Bob,You're pretty much straight on with how HWA ma...Bob,<BR/><BR/>You're pretty much straight on with how HWA manipulated things. Man, was he slick! <BR/>IMO he would have made a great politician in the secular arena.<BR/><BR/>The bully pulpit is a powerful tool, aint it?<BR/><BR/>I am not a grand opponent of all things censorship. I make exception for the motivation behind the censorship. Like you said, people sometimes need to be kept on topic, or sometimes a comment can be unacceptably offensive, or whatever. For example I will disallow comments that are, IMO, unfairly bashing HWA, or which would work against the point of this blog, which is to help people leave Armstrongism. (By that I don't mean pro-HWA comments, which are fine in most instances, but other things entirely.) So, some censorship is a must. When it becomes a tool for mind control, well, that's crossing my line. So I agree with you there too.<BR/><BR/>And yeah, it was kinda fun. I don't think I should be finding it fun, though. I though it needed to be done. I was going to be banned anyway. I figured, why not get some utility out of it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223623498441385.post-32492309930625353742009-01-30T00:25:00.000-05:002009-01-30T00:25:00.000-05:00You are obviously having too much fun!!! I wonder...You are obviously having too much fun!!! I wonder seriously what goes through the mind of current splinter group members when they are actually confronted with the words of HWA from that 1956 Plain Truth, or similar materials.<BR/><BR/>As one can see from that 1956 excerpt, the "HWA Method" was very effective. He would first frame or define an argument or issue, in his own terms. Then he would show how his church totally fit that framework, leading many people to single source all of their spiritual guidance from him. And, of course a one person radio broadcast is at best a one way conversation. The listener can internally process what is being said, but there is no back and forth give and take. If you refuse to allow the speaker to frame an issue or debate, it's not like you can verbally counter him, so you either let him get away with it, or you turn the dial.<BR/><BR/>As for censorship, it is repugnant to me, but many people do practice it to one degree or another. I've seen it done on some of the blogs and forums, and sometimes it is justified because some posters become disruptive. When the intent is mind control, such as not wanting members to see factual materials that would tend to alter their beliefs, then it becomes especially heinous. It can be a form of deception, since the censorer is not allowing the censoree full access to truth, truth that the censorer himself knows. How could the censoree then make an intelligent decision? Obviously he could not, and would then probably end up as an ACOG member. <BR/><BR/>Censoring out filth or blasphemy, otoh, is just good common sense if you want to reach a broad cross section of humanity with intelligent ideas.<BR/><BR/>BBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223623498441385.post-72477326630786330532009-01-29T15:05:00.000-05:002009-01-29T15:05:00.000-05:00I would like to remind everyone of a comment which...I would like to remind everyone of a comment which Mary Lane kindly left us on my post <A HREF="http://xhwa.blogspot.com/2008/12/slandering-hwa-i-think-not-part-2.html" REL="nofollow">Slandering HWA? I Think Not - Part 2</A>, where she said:<BR/><BR/>"Armstrongism continues to be promoted on some of the links, like Messianic News(on the Shadows site)and they have cut off the passwords of those who disagree with their recent blog called "A Tribute to Herbert Armstrong" showing videos that promote his corrupt system."<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing that, Mary. I'm certain there are more examples of censorship in Armstrongism. Anyone care to share some?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com