Thinking

That is what happens when there is a high level of speculation - F.U.D. (buy the rumor sell the news).
It is no different from a recent example, Jen Psaki, or the notations of an international conflict only to push an Agenda.
 
In the end, those who understood, knew context, those who do not, take ill action, and reap the seeds of their labor.

Not really because I had given evidence to the notation a while back, likewise with the fact a YouTuber, who is a former JW who debunked the whole thing only to be terminated by the EXJW community because they didn't want what he said about 1975 to come to the light. Likewise with another source found prior to the shut down of Yahoo Answers.
 
NOTE: Concerning the YouTuber, you and Witness were told this already, even previously:
NOTE: JWI even gave you his experience in which you agreed with him.
In regards to that it was addressed many times, this is why many, JWs, EXJWs, and those looking in have come to refute the 1975 claims (debunking) after an ample amount of research was done, as is some people actually getting the perspective of those who were there that when the JWs gathered (those who were still alive who understood context).
Further evidence also pertains to what @Witness posted a while back vs the 70s whereas when things are said, people often profess speculation aka the legitimate notation of F.U.D. was present then and those who believe it now.
If the latter regarding to 1975 was incorrect (that being, the JWs), as you and several claim, then it would not have stopped you, @Witness and @Patiently waiting for Truth to actually quote what equates to the highlighted [the world is going to be destroyed in 1975] directly, several times you were asked, every time you either dodge the question or simply do not know and begin to rant. In Butler's case, he mentioned that they specifically said this exactly, when asked for the quotation, he could not find anything, therefore, bought the lie, hence the Agenda. As for the EXJW that was terminated off of YouTube, the EXJW community effectively cut off his livelihood granted he was paying paid by YouTube as most have. The irony is, this EXJW agreed and disagreed with Jehovah's Witnesses on some things, but the day he made the 1975 YouTube video, your community, mainly the John Cedars troop, took him down; the irony in this also is your own communicated effectively ostracized him, but erased him as well.
That being said, regarding 1975, it is linked to the game Telephone and granted this was in the 70s, often things heard is publication, a parallel example to this would be the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 60s whereas one person says something, the others say something else, and their is panic and action that ensues; speculation. A more serious and legitimate comparison is Buy The Rumor, Sell the News (associated with F.U.D.)
Therefore, if the JWs actually claim what is cited in red, pertaining to Witness' and Butler's old remarks on here, then there wouldn't be a need for EXJWs to Excommunicate and Expel one of their own from the community due to this notation.
So to correct you:
Incorrect because this is based on facts and history. Research, of which both you and Witness do not like.
Also incorrect because that is exactly what happen when there is speculation.
Therefore, Telephone, Speculative news, Tabloids, Buy the Rumor/Sell the News, and F.U.D. is even associated with the events of 1975, as is the EXJW that was terminated, who also based his findings on facts.
So Facts not only beats unverified bias opinions, it also beats speculative information and assumptions.
Therefore, if your notation was true, you'd quote the events of 1975 word for word.
 
In the 60s, and 70s, even today now when it comes to media and tabloids, there is speculation, and this equates to stories, this also plays a role in Propaganda whereas one would have to do the research to actually know what is going on.
So if in this case, if someone says, to the effect, I am going on a trip for a while might not come back any time soon, some will speculate that the person may die/commit suicide, the person being kidnap, etc whereas in reality, the person took the trip to clear his thoughts, and those who know the context of the situation, the person itself, they understand that the speculation revolving around the person to be untrue.
That being said, this, speculative and or media bias can even be traced long before the 70s, and 60s, it has been around for a while, i.e. speculation and claims that can lead to problems, harm, even death.
This calls back to other events, for example, the 1900s in which an assumption led to blood shed.
Regarding speculative notations, this is in regards to people as a whole, not just JWs. @Witness succumb to such notations several times, hence why I mentioned her as with Butler, and you. In fact all 3 of you fell for an Alt-Right article.
So what is stopping you from actually quoting them saying the world is effectively going to end on that year?
Hence, the Telephone notation is justified here.
If you can pull anything be it an archived domain or a public domain, surely, you'd have a quotation, but to this day, it is unfounded.
So can you quote the 1975 notation then?
I told @Witness this and I told @Patiently waiting for Truth and yet none of them can bring a quote, instead, tabloid newspaper clips from the 70s. Every time when this notation of that year is addressed, it is never stated of what the faith community is being accused of - ever.
So I leave you with this, if the JWs did quote the following [the world is going to be destroyed in 1975] then quote them, Butler said they said.
So if you can find this you bore a True Witness. If it is unfounded, then you adhered to a False Witness.
 
Since Witness is paying attention to you, perhaps she can help you with that.

True, due to cultural differences. For example, many Koreans still study for doctorate degrees while pioneering. It is in the culture for them because they still have the idea of looking after family in old age..... in the back of their minds or psyche. 

The notion of unity and uniformity has unusual consequences for JW members.
The interpretations of one group of elders in one congregation may differ significantly from another congregation in the same city.
This was often seen in the summer months around the insistence that speakers wear a jacket while speaking point. Well then if he can without a jacket, does the shirt have to have long sleeves or can he with short ones and the like. The absurdities of spiritual maturity in the JW brothers come to the fore.
Well then for example, can an assembly trip be organized or not. Some elders allowed it, and some were against it.
In the former Yugoslavia, we were often amazed by the directives from America, because there is HQ. Because the JW brothers on the old continent in a communist country did not have such a mindset as their “capitalist brothers”. :))

It was more bookish knowledge.... much history etc. Today they are focussing more on the qualities and lifestyle we need to pass through Armageddon.  So you see I do sometimes in a way agree with you. 

Mmm well I remember the MAD magazines also…and I never got them either….but as long as they gave you a laugh…we each have our own sense of humour😊

That’s one thing that has amazed me as I have developed friends from all over the world since internet and how even in the truth something can be a issue in one place and not even be mentioned in another place…at first it was hard to grasp but then it helped me understand the diversity amongst us…it was a issue over here..but seems not in other places…

I’m not disagreeing  with you with that…what you have said is true…but the brother who gave the talk was humble  enough to admit the error…I like brothers like that…and the moral of the story Pugsy has nothing to do with cofffee…it is….don’t trust anyone but Jehovah and Jesus..and be like a beroean…who were more noble minded than the Corinthians and took responsibility for their own spirituality.
Many left over that,,,shaken because they looked to men….and a date…
If you lived thru  that you would also know many did not go along with it…
 
 

I’m not disagreeing  with you with that…what you have said is true…but the brother who gave the talk was humble  enough to admit the error…I like brothers like that…and the moral of the story Pugsy has nothing to do with cofffee…it is….don’t trust anyone but Jehovah and Jesus..and be like a beroean…who were more noble minded than the Corinthians and took responsibility for their own spirituality.
Many left over that,,,shaken because they looked to men….and a date…
If you lived thru  that you would also know many did not go along with it…
 
 

I’m not disagreeing  with you with that…what you have said is true…but the brother who gave the talk was humble  enough to admit the error…I like brothers like that…and the moral of the story Pugsy has nothing to do with cofffee…it is….don’t trust anyone but Jehovah and Jesus..and be like a beroean…who were more noble minded than the Corinthians and took responsibility for their own spirituality.
Many left over that,,,shaken because they looked to men….and a date…
If you lived thru  that you would also know many did not go along with it…
 
 

Well that’s a cop out…

Do you have any loved ones?
And if so, have you told them that they will have take a number in the event of a disaster and you’ll get to them when it’s their turn? 

All you say is true….. but compared to Catholic Inquisitions and Crusades that lasted 300 years, what it proves is this:
It’s the best humans are capable of at their best.
Here is the test:
Who, does a BETTER JOB?
(   …. an address and a phone number will be helpful. )
 
 

.I agree with Srecko Sostar, the search for righteousness is hard and long, as was World War II. Continuous errors and screw-ups and errors by leaders seriously flawed.
Sometimes the WTB&TS seems like a retarded child with an unlimited budget, but people that “get with the program” do better than those that don’t.
Perhaps it is God’s Holy Spirit that makes it turn out well, in spite of the lack of conscious competence.….. making a wholesome chicken soup out of chicken feathers, beaks, and feet.
 
 

That is largely true but the original telephone message did lean heavily to that date.with  articles and graphs etc…it was like striking a match and not expecting it to start a fire…they at the top  have to take responsibility for the written articles and graphs that fed that fire….having said that with each article there was a paragraph saying it was all in Jehovahs time line etc etc.
yes the 70s was a different era…but 75 did not start with the rank and file…
I know the GB learnt from that…I listened to a excellent talk from a brother who admitted they had and that the GB had listen to you ( the rank and file ) he was encouraging one’s not to be weakened by that…and then he said the words…..”You don’t think Jehovah was watching all of that “
It was in my opinion a honest admission of a major spiritual stuff up….
it was a great talk…and a humble one…
 

Well those that fell for that were not studying and understanding the scriptures …and they trusted in Men….big learning experience for them ..

That is largely true but the original telephone message did lean heavily to that date.with  articles and graphs etc…it was like striking a match and not expecting it to start a fire…they at the top  have to take responsibility for the written articles and graphs that fed that fire….having said that with each article there was a paragraph saying it was all in Jehovahs time line etc etc.
yes the 70s was a different era…but 75 did not start with the rank and file…
I know the GB learnt from that…I listened to a excellent talk from a brother who admitted they had and that the GB had listen to you ( the rank and file ) he was encouraging one’s not to be weakened by that…and then he said the words…..”You don’t think Jehovah was watching all of that “
It was in my opinion a honest admission of a major spiritual stuff up….
it was a great talk…and a humble one…
 

That is largely true but the original telephone message did lean heavily to that date.with  articles and graphs etc…it was like striking a match and not expecting it to start a fire…they at the top  have to take responsibility for the written articles and graphs that fed that fire….having said that with each article there was a paragraph saying it was all in Jehovahs time line etc etc.
yes the 70s was a different era…but 75 did not start with the rank and file…
I know the GB learnt from that…I listened to a excellent talk from a brother who admitted they had and that the GB had listen to you ( the rank and file ) he was encouraging one’s not to be weakened by that…and then he said the words…..”You don’t think Jehovah was watching all of that “
It was in my opinion a honest admission of a major spiritual stuff up….
it was a great talk…and a humble one…
 

Well those that fell for that were not studying and understanding the scriptures …and they trusted in Men….big learning experience for them ..

I have, several times actually.
I use only facts, the Bible and quotations only. Call backs to, apparently one irked you this mention to speak this way.
This shows you do not fully read what @Witness says, well, Pearl, in this case. It is a mix of being a former JW along with Exegesis that do not line up with Scripture.
I am not going to believe that the Devil took out Egyptians, nor will I believe Chloe lead a Church to justify change in God's Order, nor will I adhere to Conspiracy, let alone the idea JWs are literal Extremist.
When it comes to Christian life, one must adhere to what is written, not go around it.
This is why Witness/Pearl's ideas are a problem by some, and influence is there, hence the two I debated prior to going to Washington.
Moreover, you are now using the Witness logic, but many, many times seen here, she was not part of something, but attempted to use Justifiable Cause to appear right, i.e. Smurf Girl, United Nations, Secular Law, etc.
What JW believes Chloe operated as the head /leader of the Christian Church of Corinth?
The only people who adhere to the Unisex ideology to overwrite God's Order, let alone what Apostle Paul said are those of Mainstream Ideas. We should NOT be trying to go around the Order of the Church and how it is set up.
But you confused such as of recent along with @Srecko Sostar. 
One believes Jesus is God One believes Jesus is God's Son One believes God to have manifested into a person called Jesus. You can't mix these up and claim to visitors that one should be truthful.
People are aware of Catholicism be it of it or not. The creeds of the 4th century, they apply, we know the original Church didn't have Creeds until the events with Constantine came into place, First Council of Nicaea 325AD. Likewise with the Spanish Inquisition.
I hope you realize Catholicism has Creeds, they're Trinitarian, and are of the Mainstream.
There is only 2 factions concerning God and Christ, the denominations of both factions are known.
Who said otherwise? The only issue is the Core Teachings as is the still ongoing battle that started in the 4th century.
Therefore, it shows you didn't know the events of 2016 granted there were many swept away by Babylon. So what you addressed to me elsewhere, you truly did not know.
That being said, if you truly want to do our visitors any justice, use discernment.

Yes, and the fact you mentioned Kel, he himself is neutral with JWs, however, he did point out anyone leaving the faith will evidently end up like some you see here, such as @Srecko Sostar, thus fall into a misguided state of mind; even Apostasy. He also makes note of how Trinitarians normally target those who normally do not debate, in this case, your faith community, however, there was one live instance where a JW did debate making the Trinitarian Faction as a whole look foolish. The irony of that debate, although the man isn't a JW anymore but has not dwelled on apostasy as most have, the disgruntled EXJW community will weaponize this person, any chance they get and defend some notations of the Trinitarian opponent from that debate.
Trinitarians of the Mainstream are cunning when it comes to dealing with Anti-Trinitarians, for in your case, somehow they applied the Cult and or Sect idea towards your faith group, which over the years, got people believing this to be true, while legitimate cults run rampant, hence the Disgruntled EXJWs who are already caught by that influence, as is the notation of the Hardcore Atheists who applies this idea towards The Abrahamic Faiths as a whole.
That being said, speaking about debates; some folks who are non-religious over the years, for every Cyborg-Ninja Jesus remark I ever heard, perhaps I'd be a rich man.

One thing about Isaac Newton is that he was spoken of as Demonic by the Mainstream because he didn't accept the Creeds or believed in the Trinity. He knew God was the Father and Jesus was the Son.
He is still attacked by the Mainstream today, so much so, some try to twist his views. Some Black Hebrew Israelites, also try to proclaim that, although Isaac was a White British Man, believe it or not, is not British and somehow among the Jewish Tribes.
In short, you'd be surprised of other things I've ran into.
 

You know, if we back up and take another look at this—I think it accounts for why much of our audio and video production comes across as so bland and plain vanilla. If you add any of the spice that makes speech and text interesting, it becomes a turn-off to someone of another culture and background. So the brothers avoid the pitfall altogether. They trowel it on unambiguous and unfettered with anything potentially off putting. It is a test for those used to fine writing and oratory to not be so full of themselves, dial back artistic considerations, and just deal with ‘just the facts, ma’am.”
Even I—I know you will not believe this—have inadvertently been misunderstood and have given offense to some, without any bad intention whatsoever! And don’t get me started on all the rest of you. 

I did watch.
He is an interviewer who uploaded his conversation with a UU, not the author. And clearly you own no authorship.
No one said you were the author of the video, the problem is you jumped from Biblical Unitarian to Unitarian Universalists, extremely different and not the same. Therefore misleading, this is why you were told (which I see you purposely did not quote) the following:
  
The video in question was tied to the following - Unitarian Universalism.
It should be known already in your first video, which I acknowledge is Biblical Unitarians take the Bible, God's Word, with seriousness, as is his corrections on the website, which was mentioned to @Cos also a while back in 2 debates. We already know God is the Father and Jesus is God's Son, Subordinate from the Father, hence our early counterparts, Subordinationism. which evidently birthed the Restroationists. Whereas the other group, Oneness Believers, associated with UU, believes God manifests into the Son or the Father, etc.
An example would be, concerning Jesus, for the Oneness belief don't see Jesus as God, but God himself manifests as Jesus, so to speak. Whereas the Biblical Unitarian believes that Jesus is God's Only-Begotten Son, hence the first video you posted.
Biblical Unitarians recognize that in regards to Baptism, you are baptized in the name of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit, hence Matthew 28:19 whereas for a Oneness Believer, solely baptize in the name of Jesus, in addition to that, the Oneness believers state that Jesus is the one name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and so all religious activities should be performed in that one name.
As you can see there is a major difference. Therefore to equate the 2 not knowing these things, is misleading.
He is an Interviewer, the man's channel is primarily based on Interviews, speaking to someone, he didn't speak for himself, but rather, asked questions.
He's Channel information literally reads:
Kindred Interviews - Hello I'm Kris.  If you live in the DFW area and would like to share your opinions or knowledge on YouTube via a personal interview, then send me a message and I'll set up an interview with you.  God bless!
Those who seek to be interviewed contact him, not the other way around and this was during the Golden Age Era of YouTube (10 years ago).
He interviewed a Unitarian Universalist, not a Biblical Unitarian. Even the description of the video addresses this,
An interview I conducted with a leader of the UU organization.  The video was cut off before the interview ended, sorry... I would love to interview another Unitarian Universalist.  If you live in the DFW area and would like me to interview you, please e-mail me at kriskindred@gmail.com
I do not need to succumb to anxiety to understand, in this sense, an Apple isn't an Orange. However, I can point out deliberate ignorance.
That being said, this is like 100% equating Jehovah's Witnesses to Seventh Day Adventist, and or Islam. To mix things up, makes no sense, unless one does so to cause confuse or weaponize misinformation.
But here we just witnessed you confuse Biblical Unitarians with Unitarian Universalist - literally.
You were better off sticking with the first video and remarks, but you wanted to shoot yourself in the foot by choice, a mistake John Butler made, although he went further to attempt to make the accusation of interfaith, and failed.
That being said, although in my case, I am on a crusade against Mainstream Christendom and falsehood, I would not be as foolish to confuse them, for I understand the difference, and move about defending core teachings. Although the majority is wrong concerning them, I would never use a misconception regarding them as a truth if there is no evidence.
Perhaps next time, do the research, it seems Witness and yourself still do not take that recommendation after your last attempt.

I mentioned the Indian and Pakistani phone scammers recently. Sometimes they call to tell me that they are the Office of  Customs and Border Patrol and it's usually about a rented car under my name on the Texas border in which they found drugs and evidence of wire transfers to a bank account. They give themselves names like "Officer John Williams" even though they have trouble making that name sound "American." I have sometimes responded with in an exaggeratedly slow Texas drawl:
I say: "This is Officer Srinivas Patel." (pronounced: SuhREEEE-nee-vaaahs Paw-Teyyaaaal')
Nothing sarcastic about it!