Expert: Andrew - 7/9/2007

Question
Hi. I was corresponding with a JW expert and near the end of the correspondence, the expert seemed a little perturbed by my not revealing my denomination and the last part of my follow-up response was, which he disregarded responding directly to, deleted. I didn't know this could be done. So I sent a follow up response telling him that only a portion of my response showed up when he answered and maybe this was a technical mistake by allexperts so I was copying and pasting that portion again in that follow up question. He then sent an automated response to my email that said "I've already answered that question." So I then had to email him a new question and explained and reiterated the problem and how at first I thought it was accidental but the second time had me asking the question if he had actually done that on purpose so that the last portion of my answer didn't post and if so that was very dishonest and unfair to not post my reply in its entirity. He has not answered at all.

Can an expert delete parts of a follow-up when they send their answer? I know that all of my follow-up was sent because I received an immediate email from allexperts that sends a copy of the question sent and there was nothng deleted when I viewed it but was when the expert answered back.

Answer
Dear "Yah's Servant",

The system at AllExperts.com is not designed to support unlimited follow-ups on one thread; but rather assumes a one-question-one-answer model; with follow-ups being treated as something of an afterthought. When there have been multiple follow-ups, there is indeed a point at which the software will cut off a message due to length, perhaps in the middle of the message. Experts cannot control this, as I understand it.

When an expert at AllExperts.com is asked to answer a question, he has several options with regard to how to respond, only one of which is "Answer the question". Some of the other options, including "This is one follow-up too many" and perhaps "I already answered that" will result in the questioner's follow-up message being concealed from public view in it's entirety (not partially).

So, yes, even though the system recorded your question and gave you a receipt for it via email, this does not guarantee it will be PUBLICLY viewable, because the expert's software controls can exercise some influence over that.

If a questioner has not marked his question as "private", and an expert chooses to answer it, I know of no way he can conceal all or part of the questioner's message, although he can emphasize certain parts by including them in his response.

What you may not realize is that Witnesses are keenly aware of being on public display (at virtually all times throughout their lives), and this puts them under tremendous emotional strain. Though they are wrong in their idealogy, they are only human, and I have some pity for them. Since your actions may have inadvertently produced a condition for him much harder to deal with that you might have realized, it would not be surprising to see him attempt to disengage.

Witnesses have a visceral need to prove their case for the sake of onlookers, not just the person they are directly engaged with (whose mindset may actually be an afterthought). So when you started to corner him regarding a certain point of idealogy, although you were perhaps looking forward to finally proving your point emphatically, you may not have realized what a strong reaction a Witness will experience because the public is watching. He will perhaps feel he has let God down if he does not prove "God's side" of the argument on God's behalf. What an awful pressure to have to live with. (Of course in practice this means proving Watchtower teachings, because they consider the Watchtower the direct mouthpiece of God.)

And does it really do us, as Witness critics, any benefit? After all, part of the beauty of embracing true faith (and abandoning the Witness habit of replacing spiritual experience with intellectual experience) is that we don't have to prove a faith experience. Once we come to know God's love and grace, there is, in my opinion, nothing left to prove, in terms of religious idealogy.

Of course, because cults like Jehovah's Witnesses do deprive people of freedom of mind and destroy family ties, which includes causing emotional, social, and spiritual injury; we do have to sometimes take a stand against such things in order to reduce suffering in the world. This may require us to oppose ideas which insist that destroying families and depriving people of freedom through deception or mind games is OK.

But does proving one religious idealogy over another really matter?

I believe the mistake is in thinking one's own spiritual path is the only valid one because you supposedly can intellectually "prove" it so. If it could really be proven, would it really be faith? It's OK for you to disagree with me on this. To me, there comes a point where we might go too far in determination to prove a point. I did not follow your debate, so it is up to you to decide where that point is; perhaps your persistence was necessary; I don't know.

The sequence of steps you took seem quite tenacious to me, and although I do not generally side with Witnesses, in all fairness, I think it's reasonable to keep in mind experts on AllExperts.com are volunteers, not obliged to questioners in any way, and he did already engage with you through several follow-ups.

I don't think it's safe to assume that a questioner's message or a points you might try to make will always be relayed in their entirety on a forum like this, because the forum is not designed to ensure free speech, but rather to make expert information on many topics available for free, even privately if the questioner so desires.

This is not the ideal place for debate, as questioner and expert have unequal influence over the public viewability of messages, and one must expect a Witness answering as an expert to use what influence he has according to his own agenda. For real equal debating, I suggest a more public forum where both supporters and critics have equal software controls, such as perhaps http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/

You're right that if the Witness intentionally concealed part of your message (I don't know how) that would be dishonest and inconsistent with common netiquette.

Best wishes,
AndrewXJW