Talk:Awake!/Archive 1

Profit
Where it is sold, evangelizers pay a lower price for the magazine, which is then resold to the public, with the evangelizers keeping the profit. As far as I know this is not true, can someone offer any evidence of this? Gideon
 * This is based upon my first-hand experience. All WT publications were handled in this manner in Guatemala, being available to the pioneers at about two-thirds their "retail" price. I will try to accompany this first-hand experience with some evidence. Samrolken 12:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Is the arrangement restricted to pioneers or does this include all evangelizers? Gideon 2004-04-24, 13:01 UTC.
 * To the pioneers, I believe. Samrolken 14:46, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I am a Jehovah's Witness myself, and all publication is free to everyone. We who do the door to door work (or anyone who doesn't for whatever reason (health etc)) don't pay for them, and neither do those who accept them. They are payed for by donations by other witnesses or by anyone, any donations go right to the watchtower and tract society for the upkeep of the magazines (printing etc). Zikar 17:27 (GMT), 20th June 2004
 * The literature is sold wherever it wouldn't be taxed. It was sold in the United States until the early 90's. You can verify this by calling the Mexico or Guatemala (or any of many countries) branches of the Jehovah's Witnesses, where they will tell you this. Please stop editing stuff unless you come up with *proof* you're right. Samrolken 16:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine rang the london Bethel (headquaters for Britain's printing and cordination etc) and they said that they are free to everyone everywhere. Although the Watchtower and Awake! USED to be sold, they no no longer are anyway. You ask me for proof that they are not sold, I ask for proof that they are, the fact that we say they are not sold should be proof enough. Please do not add false information.Zikar 17:22 23rd June 2004
 * I would have put more credibility in your updating of my information if you seemed like a genuine Jehovah's Witness. However, your rude and hostile attitude, in addition being against Wikipedia policy and guidelines, is not like that I would expect from a genuine Jehovah's Witness. You weren't friendly at all, just hostile, rude, and accusatory. My information wasn't "false", it was just a little outdated. Please work on your attitude if you wish to be any part of Wikipedia, or any environment where you have to work with people. Samrolken 19:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, no need to get personal. I deleted that information, stating I was a witness at which point you changed it back before telling me flat out I was wrong... and told me to "Please stop editing stuff unless you come up with *proof* you're right." Aside from my word I have no proof, and neither do you, I just pointed this out. I would mention a few ways to improve your attitude too.. however I do feel that this is not the place to do it. Zikar

I have a strong urge to remove the above flamewar... but I don't have a clue to the policy in this regard... Gideon


 * I would asume since this is a talk page it should be left (so that future users can understand why the artical is the way it is, and can understand the current version better) but that's just my oppinion. Zikar


 * Maybe we (or beter I assuming I may consider myself impartial) could then rewrite it form discussion mode in to document mode... This just looks childish if you would ask me, no offence intended. Gideon


 * I don't really care to be honest. Was just putting in my oppinion. Zikar


 * I agree that it was childish, but I don't think it should be removed. I think peoples' childish and un-Christianly behavior should be left around for all to see. Samrolken 18:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well that's rather snippy isn't it? Zikar

Enough already. You're both to blame, you both are behaving very annoying and I'm leaving your both alone now. Gideon


 * It's interesting that no one noted the prices for the magazines. It's been a while, but as I recall when we used to sell them here in the US they were $0.25 per copy, yes that's right, 25 cents each. So obviously nobody was getting rich off this! --DannyMuse 17:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The prices have certainly changed over the years, as in 1919 $0.25 would have been quite costly for a magazine... It would be a difficult proposition to try and track the price changes over the years (and in the various countries of publication).  Perhaps it would be better to mention that the price of the magazine usually closely reflected the printing and distribution costs.  I recall reading that in several places, but will have to verify its factuality. -- uberpenguin 03:20, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)