About the JW Research Site Ken Raines, webmaster
Who are you?
Are you now, or have you ever been a JW?
Why do you hate JWs?
Why all the outdated material on JWs?
Will you publish my response or rebuttal to your outdated/
Why the anti-Microsoft propaganda on a website dealing with JWs?
Q. Who are you?
A. I'm Ken Raines.
If you want to know more about me, try
The Story so Far: My Life in the Demon Haunted World of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Q. Are you now, or have you ever been, a JW?
A. No and no.
I grew up in the "Watchtower" but was never baptized as a Witness. I never have been and never will become a JW unless someone convinces me that I should. I don't believe the Watchtower Society's Truth claims and say so and am thus categorized by the Society as an "apposer" as opposed to an "apostate." Again, see The Story so Far.
If you think I or anybody else should become a JW because they alone have "the Truth" that leads to eternal life, you can try and convince us. I will publish your opinion on this site, which of course is accessible to anyone, world-wide with access to a computer connected to the Internet. How's that for the long, sought after "world-wide witness?" See below on responding to material on this site.
Q. Why do you hate JWs?
A. I don't believe I "hate" JWs. Why do you hate me? :-)
I have written against much of what the Watchtower Society and its leaders and writers have written through the years that I believe is false or just plain silly. I've made fun of some of their statements and beliefs. This doesn't indicate hatred on my part. Perhaps a lack of respect (I don't think some of their actions and statements deserve much respect). If you think I'm expressing hatred in what I've written, please quote the alleged hateful comments and why you feel it expresses hatred for "JWs" or the Watchtower Society. The closest thing to hatred I think I've written on this site is in regards to Microsoft's behavior, not JWs. I've definitely been irritated and angry with that! :-)
I'm more bored than anything with the Watchtower Society which is one reason why I haven't written much of anything on JWs for a couple years (the others being I got a little burned out on researching their bizarre material and am battling health problems). I certainly don't have any strong emotions, let alone hatred toward the Watchtower and certainly not individual JWs . Most of what I've written on JWs for years has been on science and medicine and what the Society has written on these fields through the years. This is because I'm interested in these subjects much more than I am the Watchtower Society and JWs (see next FAQ).
Q. Why all the outdated material on JWs?
A. I have been interested in the historical development of the Watchtower and how they came to believe what they do today. The Society's history though "outdated" is relevant to their current claims and beliefs.
Where did JWs get their current doctrines? From the Bible right? Wrong. If you research their history and read what they said about where and how the got their doctrines they teach today, you'll know the "rest of the story," one the Watchtower isn't going to tell you...
Q. Will you publish my response or rebuttal to your outdated/.uninformed/ misleading/ deceptive articles?
The JW Research site is subtitled "Research and Opinions on Jehovah's Witnesses" which means opinions of all kinds, pro, con and in-between. Send responses and material to email@example.com or:
PO Box 5534
Everett, WA. 98206
Your response will be posted in the Your Responses section [new version in the works] or if it is an article or paper they will be posted in those sections. All articles, papers and responses will in turn be subject to responses (criticisms and comments) by others.
Q. Why the anti-Microsoft propaganda on a website dealing with JWs?
A. Because I'm a Mac fanatic that hates Microsoft. :-)
Besides that... JW Research is a website on the Internet. I believe Microsoft is a threat to the Internet as originally envisioned as open and cross-platform, open to anyone with any computer with any operating system using agreed-upon open standards that are not controlled by one company (certainly not a monopoly). It only took MS 3-5 years to monopolize and control web browsers and basically elliminate competition through leveraging their OS monopoly ("innovately" "intigrating" it into their Windows monopoly). They now basically control the standards for browsers. Open standards-compliant web browsers now account for less than 5% of the market. Many are now only making websites and software that only work with Windows/Exploiter and won't work on anything else that is open standards compliant, thus making open standards compliant browsers irrelevant (just as MS wanted).
As a Mac user of the Internet, my platform of choice for accessing the Internet is thus threatened as a result, just as MS's monopoly on desktop OS's has and continues to be a threat to Apple, the Mac platform and any competition and innovation by others. The bottom line is, as a Mac user, I'm trying to keep my right or ability to use something that I prefer to Windows and without financially supporting the Microsoft "Mafia" as I call it - in peace - and to support open standards, an open marketplace and an open Internet. If Barry Manilow or the Rolling Stones monopolized the music industry so that the only music you could listen to (practically) on any radio station or on CD was Manilow or The Stones, I would complain (as I like neither). If they abused their monopoly (like MS) by harming other musicians' ability to get their music heard on the radio, by say controlling and bullying radio stations only to play their music or else loose their license, or making their proprietary CD format the "standard" thus automatically making any competitors' CDs non-standard and unable to play on "standard" CD players, I would really complain about it and to anybody who financially supported Manilow's or The Stones' monopoly. Since nobody has monopolized music, I haven't complained or ranted about the lack of choice in music on the Internet or music stations or stores on this site. If you like to listen to Barry Manilow, fine. It's none of my "business" what you listen to; I can listen to whatever I like just fine (Eno, Metheny, Glass, Debussy -whatever). To each his own. The computer industry however has been monopolized by an anti-competitive predator that has harmed or killed most of the competition it has faced (as apposed to competing fairly in an open marketplace) and continues to threaten what little competition remains. This growing monopoly could potentially include the entire Internet if they have their way.
As a Mac user, I have been watching Microsoft for over ten years now screw one company after the other using their market/monopoly power illegally and getting away with it. They have obtained and maintain their monopoly not through superior, innovative products, but through completely despicable, anticompetive means (think Tonya Harding's aproach to innovative "competetion" at the Olympics and multiply several fold).
I do not think Microsoft should be "enabled" by users to do the same to the Internet. Netscape was just the beginning I believe. Unlike other examples of MS's tactics, what they did to the Netscape threat to their monopoly is well known through the very internet Netscape helped popularize. Even many PC users were watching while it happened. Netscape is dead. I'm amazed at the ignorance of many of MS's history of this sort of thing. Many believe (or assume) that MS is a great and wonderful, innovative company that musta gotten their monopoly position by simply out competing (fairly) everyone else through producing far superior and innovative products.
MS obtained, maintains and extends their monopoly through anticompetitive means, not through fair though perhaps tough competitive means with superior products. The reverse is closer to the truth. Windows and its predecessor DOS have always been some of the worst OS products out there (though one could rightly say today that Windows is one of the best OS's. This isn't saying much as there are really only 2 OS's left - various versions of Windows and various flavors of Unix and derivatives - Linux, Mac OS X, etc.). New, innovative and superior operating systems that appear simply have no chance in such a closed market (BeOS for example). MS has continually used their market position and monopoly power to harm or kill competition (which had superior products to MS's offerings) and they have harmed their competition's ability to compete fairly. This has been like what Tonya Harding did or attempted to do with her main competitor standing in her way of a gold medal, Nancy Kerrigan. (I think Tonya Harding was what the MS higher-ups were refering to when talking about threatening to use a "club" on Apple to harm them for example which is why I use the Harding anology to MS's anti-competitive behavior.)
The battle lines so to speak are being drawn in the coming "Internet Wars" like they were for the "Browser Wars" between Netsscape and MS. I don't think there should be a "War" going on here for the Internet for one particular company to "win." Same with the desktop OS and browsers. There should be an open, competitive market place with various competitors competing for comsumers' money and business with open standards followed for compatibility. No one company should monopolize the computer industry and the Internet. Financially supporting such a Mafia-like company as Microsoft and its control of the Internet even if, like a JW, you feel there is "nowhere else to go" is, shall we say, unethical IMO. Can you tell I'm ticked off at both MS and its supporters?
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language. That said, have we ever taken a look at how long it would take Microsoft to build a cross-platform Java that did work? Naturally, we would never do it, but it would give us some idea of how much time we have to work with in killing Sun's Java."
-- Exhibit 97 (MS7 026935) DOJ trial, Microsoft's P. Sridharan 9/1/97 email.
"This really isn't hard. If you're going to kill someone there isn't much reason to get all worked up about it and angry - you just pull the trigger. Angry discussions before hand are a waste of time. We need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger."
-- Former MS VP James Alchin, 09-9-91 email (Caldera Vs. MS)
"Apple wants to keep both Netscape and Microsoft developing browsers for Mac -- believing if one drops out, the other will lose interest (and also not really wanting to pick up the development burden.) Getting Apple to do anything that significantly/materially disadvantages Netscape will be tough. [I] Do agree that Apple should be meeting - the spirit of our cross license agreement and that Macoffice is the perfect club to use on them."
"The threat to cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately. I also believe that Apple is taking this threat pretty seriously."
Monopoly's semi-helpless helpers On internet software developers reluctence to make a cross-platform (Mac or Linux web browser compatible as well as Internet Exploiter compatible) versions of their products now that MS has a monopoly on web browsers. Told ya so. MS can now leverage their browser monopoly to set Internet "standards" that are specific to Windows/Exploiter, that of course won't work with any other, now "incompatible" open standards based web browsers. See also:
IBM and Microsoft Shun W3C Standards Meeting
STOP SUPPORTING THIS OUTFIT AND START SUPPORTING OPEN STANDARDS AND AN OPEN INTERNET.