Watchtower's ownership of Weapon technology
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:49 pm
I have studied your argument against the Watchtower regarding its owning stock in weapons companies, but one interesting detail did come up.
In the SEC's documentation, on page 27, paragraph 2, it is mentioned that the Watchtowers stock in this company was donated to it, by James McCann, but he did withold voting proxy. Which means that while the Watchtower owns the stock, James McCann is the actual person who has voting rights.
Mr. McCann is also responsible for donating the other shares, all the while witholding voting proxy for himself.
So, wouldn't it be more logical and loving to first see
1) How stock donations are handled by the Society?
2) if your research shows they do not do the proper amount of research regarding the stock's donated, why not attempt to inform them of an error?
The research shows that the Watchtower has no voting power, and therefore no true way of knowing what business decisions are made. Being an organization dedicated to religious instruction, they may not have looked into the full scope of the stock they recieved. So wouldn't it be reasonable to check into the matter a little further before pointing fingers?
In the SEC's documentation, on page 27, paragraph 2, it is mentioned that the Watchtowers stock in this company was donated to it, by James McCann, but he did withold voting proxy. Which means that while the Watchtower owns the stock, James McCann is the actual person who has voting rights.
Mr. McCann is also responsible for donating the other shares, all the while witholding voting proxy for himself.
So, wouldn't it be more logical and loving to first see
1) How stock donations are handled by the Society?
2) if your research shows they do not do the proper amount of research regarding the stock's donated, why not attempt to inform them of an error?
The research shows that the Watchtower has no voting power, and therefore no true way of knowing what business decisions are made. Being an organization dedicated to religious instruction, they may not have looked into the full scope of the stock they recieved. So wouldn't it be reasonable to check into the matter a little further before pointing fingers?