Perhaps. But if Simster persists in asking me the same question I have already insisted I cannot answer, that indeed isn’t irony; it’s harassment.
Now this? This is irony.
Maybe you should assess how you feel about these questions and imagine simster coming to your house to ask them.
It’s not harassment to ask you to answer a question when one assumes you have the ability to do so -
I have assumed from the onset of this that you were familiar with your organizations teachings - I have assumed that you are a ‘baptized’ Jehovah’s Witness which means accepting them - and I recall the book of questions/study aids that a person had to go thru in order to ‘get’ baptized.
So it surprises me that you ‘are not able’ to answer these questions - I take it more as ‘unwilling’ or being ‘shifty’ - its a common tactic used by members to avoid these types of questions.
I see my initial assumption is invalid - that you apparently ‘do not’ understand your organization as well as me, an outsider, does - shouldn’t that concern you?
So - this is my final point - maybe you should do some research of your own on them - so that you CAN answer them.
You know - this really bugs me -
a) I asked a set of questions - you gave a vague response
b) I responded, with some information about one of the questions to help clarify and asked if you would like to provide answers to the next two questions (that you seemed to be avoiding for some reason)
c) you responded with the same vagueness - so I provided my answers to the questions since you clearly ‘would not’ - and I did not re-ask them.
In my final post to those questions - I asked if you wanted to see the evidence for question ‘d’ - then you started claiming harrasment - you were the one that said to continue early on - you were the one that seems to be avoiding answering.
In any event - the last questions I asked you were ‘rhetorical’ at this point - I do not require an answer - you, however, should consider the implications.
Admit it, simster, you’re disturbing dougie’s family on Saturday by knocking on his door and pelting him with one-sided conversation he’s unprepared to address.
yeah - but its in my atheist handbook as a requirement to show good works.
Carry on.
This is clearly the **simster **and **CLee **show, with **jsgoddess **chiming in from time to time with self-affirming witty banter. And yes, jsgoddess, it is a mite ironic as you said in post #322.
The guy already told you he’s damn near 70 years old. Why you gotta harp on an old man like this? I for one, and damn proud of his ability to use a computer this well.
If ya’all are so darned concerned about his spiritual, emotional, and theological well-being, maybe you should take a more loving tack?
Or, just go to the local Kingdom Hall and stand out front with sandwich boards proclaiming your version of “the truth”. That always works. Nearly as well as berating an old guy on an internet message board I’d wager.
Or we could hold all people to the same standard, whether they are peddling their religions, their products, or their ideas about conspiracies.
How many people has a nearly 70 year old JW shunned? How many people has a nearly 70 year old JW discouraged, pressured, or prevented from accepting a simple blood transfusion? How many shut-ins, widows, widowers, and mentally unstable loners has this guy converted and carved off from society? I don’t know how many years he has been practicing his primitive version of classism and child abuse, but I for one am not at all afraid to call him on his cruelty and inhuman treatment others no matter his age.
I don’t know, but how does being a dick help anything? Ever? I just don’t see what you stand to gain from this. You’re not going to change his mind, and nobody watching is going to be swayed in a manner they weren’t already inclined to before.
You’re just being obstinate for spite. Spite of your previous experiences, or the experiences of people you love.
It’s not helping. Your catharsis will not yield any results outside your own mind, except MAYBE a newfound friendship with **simster **and jsgoddess. You guys should go out for coffee or something.
and this does what? no one here is ‘berating him’ - if anything, we’re trying to have a conversation with him - one that he was more than able to leave at anytime.
where did he claim he was ‘damn near 70’ in this thread or on this board? where does that get him a ‘pass’ on participating in a thread?
so - do you have anything of substance to add, or are you just here to - well, I don’t know what you;re trying to do.
He began this thread saying that all us “witness haters” are probably happy that some poor folks got shot. He has yet, that I’ve seen, apologized or taken anything back anything about his direct statement that we hate he and his kind so much that we’d like to see them dead.
How about he doesn’t start nasty, inflammatory threads, insulting swaths of people first.
So you’re saying I should stop telling someone I don’t care for their ugly behavior? But it’s okay for you to tell someone to stop telling someone you don’t care for their ugly behavior? Since we’re both dicks, you and me, maybe we should go out for coffee.
This is condescending and patronizing as fuck, and implies that “old” guys shouldn’t be held responsible for their behavior or statements, which belief is AGAIN condescending and patronizing as fuck.
and its directly insulting to dougie_monty - “hey, lets just be glad this feeble old man can actually use a computer”…
This guy isn’t exactly a paragon of virtue and kindness, as evidenced by his post in the high beams thread:
Making fun of an old JW on the Dope is much worse than not caring if you kill people.
Actually, that sounds like another doper who says that if people die from lack of vaccines that’s no big deal, but making fun of a woman who gets stuck on a drawbridge is a monstrous act.
Touché! 
Thanks, BrickaBracka.
(For the record, I am sixty-four—remember Paul McCartney? )
)I had started this thread to find evidence of humanity among the Dopers who post on it. Instead, I have been made the subject of a relentless questioning that continued despite my insistence that I had no information on the topic.
I had sensed that there was an ulterior motive underlying the posts by Simster and CLee even before I read their most recent posts: An analogy with the door-to-door ministry. Well, the analogy is false. No Witness I ever heard of has ever come back within a few hours or within the space of a few days (unless invited) to the same house. As I noted in a similar thread some time back, it might be more than a year before we would go back to the same neighborhood and the same address. And if a householder were particularly adamant about not being interested—never.
CLee’s comment imputing “child abuse” to me—that was uncalled for. I will ask a lawyer I know whether that constitutes libel.
To Simster: You are foolishly ignoring my response to Question “d.” Why? You asked me “What would I do…” I gave you an answer. You are not in a position to reject such an answer, since you know nothing of my mind and values and have not walked a mile in my moccasins. Don’t presume to know me better than I know myself.
Back to Brickabracka: Your suggestion to CLee and Simster that they proclaim their convictions in public is the ultimate squelch—it would show how “sincere” they are. 
Thanks again.
So you are admitting trolling then?