Tuesday, 1 November 2005 - 9:31 AM MST

Again my thoughts go to presentation and structure of info presented.

So many of those have a response, but many will illicit another talking point.

I imagine a tree type structure. A topic or a jw talking point can be given a number of responses. Each of those will elicit another set of likely responses. Repeat. Inevitably the conversation will develop around a few major points.

Others are so insipid that they have a one liner response.

So maybe each tree has a node. The starting node is a jw topic, talking point, whatever. Listed in that node are several possible resonses. You click on a response, and you get to that node. In that node you have a list of likely jw responses. Click on a jw response, and you get new node of possible ubm responses.

A ubm could sit there for awhile having a pseudo conversation before he goes into battle. We can update the tree as we learn of new arguments and talking points. We can rate responses in there effectiveness from feedback of users.

Such a thing maybe shouldn't be made public?

Tuesday, 1 November 2005 - 9:53 AM MST

Right now we are doing a lot of brainstorming. The danger is we will get overwhelmed with all the ideas. Maybe after we get them all out on the table, we should focus on them one at a time in a logical order.

The first thing a ubm needs when he shows up is a good intro to who and what we are. We need a mission statement! What are we trying to accomplish.

My first attempt.

The purpose of ubm solutions is to help assist anyone who has a spouse that is now or showing interest in becoming a member of the Jehovah's Witness's. We are here to collect and present the shared knowledge and experience of other "unbelieving mates" so we can all make informed decisions as to how to deal best with this change in our marriages.

My alternative would be to remove the "collect". I am not sure we want to hint that we have a private blog function.

Next would be to classify the various ubm's. In that way we could collect the faq's into groups that pertain to their specific situation.

Examples:
Opposed
Open
Interested/Not sure
Have children
Non-JW
Former JW
Spouse used to be a jw
Spouse is a new study
Your spouse is not sure jw are right relgion
Your spouse is pretty sure
Your spouse is absolutely convinced

Again, maybe the most refined example would be to have the user select from many of these inclusive cases and based on the path they chose, they end up with a list of relevant questions they might want to have some input on. When they click on a question, that node will have an answer with more questions.

I think this may be to complex to plan out in advance. We just need to define a basic structure, or approach. As we refine it, the precise structure will take care of itself. We do need to make this flexible and easy to update as new info becomes available.

Thoughts?

Tuesday, 1 November 2005 - 10:30 AM MST

more stupid cliche's

If you wanted to know more about a person, wouldn't you want to find out from them, instead of their enemy?

God has always used an organization.

The preaching work would have to be organized.

If we reject whom Jesus sends, we reject him and the one who sent Jesus, Jehovah!

The bible says we are to worship in spirit and TRUTH!

We know the JW's are the one true religion because they only teach what is from the scriptures.

We know JW's are one true religion because we have unity!

We know JW's are one true religion because we use the name Jehovah!

In reference to apostates: Why would you want to listen to someone who has done nothing but lie to you in the past.

Tuesday, 1 November 2005 - 10:30 AM MST

more stupid cliche's

If you wanted to know more about a person, wouldn't you want to find out from them, instead of their enemy?

God has always used an organization.

The preaching work would have to be organized.

If we reject whom Jesus sends, we reject him and the one who sent Jesus, Jehovah!

The bible says we are to worship in spirit and TRUTH!

We know the JW's are the one true religion because they only teach what is from the scriptures.

We know JW's are one true religion because we have unity!

We know JW's are one true religion because we use the name Jehovah!

In reference to apostates: Why would you want to listen to someone who has done nothing but lie to you in the past.

Tuesday, 1 November 2005 - 10:31 AM MST

more stupid cliche's

If you wanted to know more about a person, wouldn't you want to find out from them, instead of their enemy?

God has always used an organization.

The preaching work would have to be organized.

If we reject whom Jesus sends, we reject him and the one who sent Jesus, Jehovah!

The bible says we are to worship in spirit and TRUTH!

We know the JW's are the one true religion because they only teach what is from the scriptures.

We know JW's are one true religion because we have unity!

We know JW's are one true religion because we use the name Jehovah!

In reference to apostates: Why would you want to listen to someone who has done nothing but lie to you in the past.

Tuesday, 1 November 2005 - 2:12 PM MST

I started modifying slightly, then my "plain language" gene kicked in. The changes are very slight, the only change in meaning is "change to our marriage" instead of "change in our marriage"

The purpose of "UBM Solutions" is to help anyone with a partner who is or is showing interest in becoming a Jehovah's Witness. This site collects and presents the shared knowledge and experiences of other "unbelieving mates" so we can make informed decisions on how to deal with this change to our marriage.