Alphonse

You have made a false accusation in this open forum regarding the Watchtower's reference to the end of the world in 1975 by citing publications from 1966, 1968, and 1969. Before you continue down this path of deception, I urge the public to read the Watchtower literature to gain a genuine perspective on the meaning behind the year 1975, which primarily focuses on the 6,000 years of human existence.
Although there was certainly an excessive amount of overthinking in the past, leading to incorrect conclusions, one would have needed to experience that era in order to grasp it fully. Furthermore, during that time, there was an "assembly" titled "Why We Have Not Been Told ‘That Day and Hour" that provided an explanation to the brotherhood that could not have been any clearer. It aimed to guide individuals and ensure their genuine comprehension. This is the reason the Watchtower put an end to such speculation in 1974 with the publication of the following insightful article.
*** w74 10/15 p. 635 Growing in Appreciation for the “Divine Purpose” ***
The publications of Jehovah’s witnesses have shown that, according to Bible chronology, it appears that 6,000 years of man’s existence will be completed in the mid-1970’s. But these publications have never said that the world’s end would come then. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation “Why We Have Not Been Told ‘That Day and Hour’” was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end. All we know is that the end will come within the generation that sees fulfilled on it the sign that Jesus Christ said would then be in evidence. (See Matthew chapters 24, 25.) All indications are that the fulfillment of this sign began in 1914. So we can be confident that the end is near; we do not have the slightest doubt that God will bring it about, the speaker stressed. But we have to wait and see exactly when, in the meantime keeping busy in God’s service.
 
The article "Divine Purpose" is rooted in a series of assemblies that emphasized the divine aspect, such as "1971 Divine Name," "1972 Divine Rulership," "1973 Divine Victory," and so on. Most of the congregation comprehended the significance of the year 1975 without misinterpreting previous articles or taking them out of context, unlike some irresponsible individuals who falsely claim to be witnesses.
Although I don't agree with the topics discussed in the closed club, as they often revolve around irresponsibility, there's no need to perpetuate this distortion to the public, especially when they are already aware of the false narratives propagated by former members.
Now you can understand JWI's beliefs based on what he posted.
He fully supports the apostate propaganda without reservations.
This is the type of deceit and dishonesty that disgusts people and leads to banning. Joking aside, the image that Toms presents is just a way to divert the public's attention from their true hidden agenda: deception. Using the name of the Watchtower to defame and slander God's people is a highly irresponsible act. Such individuals shame both God and the Watchtower by misusing its name in an open forum, thereby engaging in irresponsible behavior.

This comment is specifically for your fan base, not intended to be an expression of truth. However, I will refrain from expanding further on the matter.
Absolutely! It is crucial for visitors to witness firsthand how personal perspectives can be used to deceive. They should have the opportunity to explore Pastor Russell's words in writing, where he clearly stated the truth. It is perplexing that you, along with some former and current members of the Watchtower, persist in making baseless accusations while refusing to acknowledge this.
So, you're suggesting that instead of addressing the issues with Russell, you now want to argue about Rutherford? Are you also interested in discussing your misleading interpretation of events in 1975, which you seem to be defending, even though it's a false narrative?

It is important to note that you both seem to be intentionally referring to Tom's aliases and pretending as usual. The fact that Tom's old aliases are still accessible only confirms the moderator's power to ban after years of deceit. It is evident that past aliases banned by you have not been able to reconnect under the same name, making it an unjust behavior. It is clear that there have been instances of rudeness, insults, and obnoxious behavior from your side. This obsession with deception should stop. Didn't you just admit you have insulted in the past? Why have you not imposed a ban on yourself? Once more, this blatant double standard in defending the indefensible is becoming apparent.

@"Hammer" Rubi @"Hammer" Urabi @Dr. Adhominem @Dr. Adhominum 
No. My guess is that when the software for the forum has to be reloaded now and then for maintenance issues, there were a couple of yours that got lost during updates due to attempts to include too many items of special characters and punctuation. Also you can see the attempts to create near duplicates as in the ones I listed above which might sooner or later get flagged by software as superfluous.
Or maybe I imagined that they were being rude to me or insulting me, or worse yet, downvoted me, and I just banned them without telling you. More power to the moderators!!

Oh yeah? Well, what about the profiles I can no longer find?! Seriously, guys like Dr. Max “Ace” Inhibitor, Bob “Hammer” Urabi, and Bill Ding (an LDC brother). I search for them, but can no longer find them!
Seriously, I lost track of some of them. Some I probably forgot. Some I probably misspelled. Is there an easy way to locate them? Do you have a master spreadsheet that gathers them all so you can tell me? I miss their upvotes.

Tom, come on! Seriously, Vic the Parrot strikes again. At least your alias isn't vocal, but be careful Tom: downvotes are seen as an ad hominem attack. I recommend you refrain from attacking yourself. lol!
Does that only apply to me, Alphonse, and the now-banned George?

That reminded me of Donna Summers song, Hot Stuff, lol! Continue creating aliases and accounts that support your perspective. Love it! Just highlights how "one" person is unfairly targeted, lol! Keep it up!

I can easily refute your claim here, JWI, by providing a simple example.

When you're publicly proven wrong, it's understandable to feel offended and let anger take over. However, allowing emotions to get the best of you, as George did with Tom, can lead to undesired consequences of being banned for showing deceptions. I will encourage the public to conduct their own research on the topic I am discussing. It is important to verify information independently.
 

Alright, I was referring to the activity section, not the privileges you have as a moderator. All I can see is Alphonese, and...

Are you concerned that your supporters only express their opinions through votes without anyone supporting the truth?
 

I believe Juan Rivera expressed a similar concern about George. What authority did George have to criticize people in this context? While George was critiquing the impact of individuals misrepresenting themselves as JWs in good standing, by their actions and behavior, it's evident that even some sisters here are outspoken and are conforming to rules of equality put forth by men, rather than by God. There should be a clear distinction between addressing grammatical errors and addressing errors with personal character. If an Elder has the responsibility to correct misconceptions of another Elder through a committee, it should be carried out through God's Holy Spirit, not by the opinions of those who do not possess such authority from God.
Now what does correcting an Elder have to do with correcting typos?
In the past, typos were corrected through new publications, which former members interpreted as an attempt to conceal something. However, with the convenience of electronic means to correct typos, why do you believe this would have a detrimental impact worth addressing publicly? What sort of dialogue are you looking to initiate in this open forum?

I don't support Anna's cynical comment, but you seem to do that effortlessly. Despite this, we all enjoy a good laugh at posts, particularly those that lack conviction. However, we both understand that you won't change my opinions generally with your views, and I don't anticipate changing anyone's mind here. In the end, we will all be judged accordingly. I suppose humor only takes into account our intentions.
Oh! I was unaware that speaking the truth is considered insulting. Perhaps this reveals more about the person receiving the truth than the person speaking it. Does this imply that you have a problem with scripture instructing us to "rebuke" our brothers? Just a moment ago, you stated that you don't have any objections to disfellowshipping. So, which is it then? It would be beneficial for the public to comprehend your steadfast defense when it concerns your perspective on conformity.
Is that why you inadvertently linked "elders" and "typos"? I would love to see your response and get my fifth laugh in, lol!

If we are all imperfect, back in the day when the Watchtower had proofreaders like perhaps you were part of in the writing department, and you made an error like sometimes you actually do here, who would correct your mistake as a proofreader?
I ask because it appears that you are asserting your superiority in judgment, despite being an imperfect human being.

Just picture the joyous laughter elicited by the majority of you people's posts. It's great that the public can witness your non-Christian behavior. lol!
Insults: Anna - 1 / BTK - 0.
Let's keep track of who starts first, Tom or JWI. It's time to face the truth about the way people are treated here, and the double standard that you're willing to embrace to justify such unacceptable conduct.

While under your moniker JWI, this is correct. However, you will never convince me otherwise with the link that you and Tom possess with the librarian. It is too obvious due to the electronic signature.
We will continue to pretend that I have no objections to your choice of whom to defend and your reasons for banning someone you've chosen to dislike. But before you deny the word "hate," consider the actions behind it.
When you personally insult someone subtly, it remains an insult. Yet, continuously portraying oneself as a victim only serves your fan base. Visitors who come here to observe and witness the exchanges can discern for themselves who is authentic and who is merely pretending.
I will not allow myself to be affected by any of your subtle insults, just like I did not let Anna's loud one get to me. It is inevitable that your anger, or even Tom's, may lead to me being banned, but I do not hold any expectations either way. It is a fact that people struggle to control their tempers, yet paradoxically they still wish to be seen as credible witnesses.
It's is what it is!

Sometimes, the writing department requires assistance, and any typos encountered should be corrected. On the other hand, if one decides to contact the Watchtower to suggest an interpretation of a particular passage, that person would need both the necessary credentials and God's blessing. These are two distinct areas of expertise that cannot be attained without the guidance of God's Holy Spirit. Just consider what Jesus said about the Pharisees.
Hemingway, having his own inner struggles, faced numerous challenges due to his literary stature. However, one of his daughters also experienced her fair share of mental turmoil. What happened to her? She committed suicide.
I am well aware of the process and, being aware of our human imperfections, I am also familiar with the concept of distractions. Yet, there is nothing worth criticizing about.
I have had numerous friends and relatives who served. These witnesses cherish nothing but cherished memories, as they steadfastly refuse to perceive any human imperfections as insurmountable. They gave their utmost during that time, and they continue to strive for excellence to this day.
One of my relatives had a life-changing experience after being sent to Japan from Bethel. This experience inspired them to venture into the textile business. Through the grace of God, the entire family has been immensely blessed, as they now own a multimillion-dollar company. What's more, every male cousin of that part of the family has become an Elder, further exemplifying the values and strength that have contributed to their success through God.
 

This is a matter of personal choice. In many cases, especially when criticism lacks value, it carries a hollow sound.
Philosophy traverses a vast and varied path.
Who is insulting whom with that comment about "you weren't speaking the truth"? What were you just saying about Anna? It is time to decide where your defense is heading.
Speaking the truth and not being accepted by someone who is deceiving themselves does not qualify a person as an expert. But once again, I notice that you employ subtle insults despite your argument against insults. This is where you lose your credibility.
Instead of focusing on pointing out my faults, why not take the opportunity to address your own shortcomings? By taking this approach, we can work towards meeting each other halfway.
Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that none of us possess the authority to rebuke those whom God has chosen. That task belongs solely to God himself. Secondly, it is crucial to highlight that when George was banned (disfellowshipped), it went beyond mere rebuke. Therefore, let us avoid making sweeping statements, as such a response can be perceived as lacking integrity.
When someone is part of the problem instead of being part of the solution, it is only natural for that person to be hesitant to make corrections of others.
Then, this thought should remain within one's mind, rather than being spoken out loud, as no one here possesses that qualification. That's why I mentioned, what's the purpose of being outspoken about something that cannot be connected.
 
This is second guessing. Where does scripture state an unqualified person has better input than those qualified?

Yes, there is such a thing as positive criticism. However, my experience here has been limited to receiving only negative criticism. It makes me wonder, how does negative criticism truly benefit anyone?
Do you believe that the Pharisees' criticism of Christ was beneficial for others to consider?
Then the word, "benefit" should come into play.
Do you want to go there? Why has the Watchtower been revised under the control of Jehovah's Witnesses? Why do you insist on bringing up topics from the Bible Student era when you are well aware that Pastor Russell was still learning and challenging the beliefs he deemed false from Christendom? Furthermore, there came a point when Barbour returned to his Adventist views, leading to a public fallout through their print publications. However, these disagreements do not diminish what Russell felt in 1874 - his personal experience of Christ's presence. With Russell's determination, he brought unique insights and blessings to the Bible students. Nevertheless, Russell also understood that the end of the Gentile times would occur in 1914, not the end of the world as claimed by former members.? Can you refute WW1?
That is the issue, JWI. A defiant attitude nullifies all your previous arguments, leaving people hesitant to follow anyone as a proofreader. There claim to possess proofreading skills, it is difficult to accept this when they consistently refuse to be corrected or proven wrong. This mindset distorts any logical understanding. Remember, it is impossible to be simultaneously right and wrong.
 

I think Christ's negative criticism of the Pharisees was beneficial for others to consider.
Sure. The answer to your question would be that Russell never really challenged this particular belief derived in large part from these "reverends" of Christendom. He claimed not to have had for himself a very good understanding of the chronology and admitted that he had just pretty much accepted Barbour's numbers that Barbour had partially derived from other leaders of Christendom. But we have no choice but to bring up some of the Bible Student issues that were still accepted long after many Bible Student individuals and groups began to go by the new name, Jehovah's Witnesses. Some of these doctrines partly derived from Christendom are still accepted today by most of us. 
Some see it as Barbour refusing to return to his Adventist views, and ultimately giving up on any version of Adventist chronology while Russell went on to state that the Adventists were instrumental (from God) in giving us a workable God-ordained chronology but that persons like Barbour were like the foolish virgins who let their lamps go out just because the advent appeared to be delayed. Russell specifically accused those who stopped believing in Barbour's 1874 date as "foolish virgins."
Russell many times claimed that the end of the world would occur in 1914, and then later offered a possibility of 1915, and later he said it could be within a few months, or even maybe a few years of 1914. What he didn't believe in was the burning of the world, one of the original Adventist views he rejected. But for many years he preached that 1914 would see the complete and final end of this world, meaning all the world's systems and governments and institutions. I don't refute WW1, but WW1 certainly refutes Russell.

You just indicated that speaking the truth should not be considered insulting. Yet, now when I speak the truth about something you said, you seem to consider it insulting. That's what I meant about a double-standard. You only mean that when you claim another person is not telling the truth, you say it's not insulting to them. But when I know for a fact that what you are saying isn't true, and I state that true fact, you feel insulted.
That's the other thing to consider about your claim. You can only guess at something and it turns out your guess was wrong. But you claim it's a fact, that you will never believe anything else, and yet you can never and therefore will never be able to provide even a tiny bit of evidence for your false claim. I'm the one who knows for a fact that I am not the Librarian, have never asked the Librarian or anyone else to ban anyone, have never asked Tom to ban anyone (and I doubt he could, the old rooster). And I have never banned anyone and don't even know if I could even if I tried. And I still have no intention of ever trying, except that you did get me curious about whether I have the ability or not. But I guess I'd rather not know so that I can't ever be accused of using such a function. 
See what I mean? You think me telling the truth is insulting even if subtle. 
Sounds OK. By the way, I never meant to imply that I haven't made others feel insulted. I was only pointing out the ridiculousness of a claim you made about making zero insults and waiting for others to join Anna to be first in some kind of insulting laughter. I was counting your own insults but didn't mean to imply that mine would always remain at zero, only that mine were still zero by the time you had already racked up a few against me.
I know it's true that I can be insulting. Sometimes it feels like the appropriate response to a barrage of insults, and sometimes I feel like it's OK to counter a barrage of insults with just one or two subtle ones. But I'll take that as a mild rebuke. I will try to avoid even the slight ones. Starting now. I hope it doesn't take all the fun out of the forum for me.
True. I tend to only speak about GB members who made a reputation for themselves, left a history of their words and actions, and are no longer alive on earth to be actually physically rebuked by any criticism. But letting the Bible rebuke their actions or their claims should still be a legitimate form of criticism.
I agree.
That doesn't make sense to me. Did you say it the way you meant to? You say that persons who are part of the problem are hesitant to make corrections of others? I have no problem trying to make corrections of others. But I'd guess that it can work both ways: persons who are part of the problem might also be too quick to make corrections of others.
Are you really saying you think that you personally have no possession of the spiritual qualifications to be able to criticize an elder? Or did you mean no one else does? I've heard criticism from you of elders who have been on this forum: one on the forum in the past, one or two in the present. 
From what I can tell, I think that this question is unrelated to the point or to anything either of us previously said. The closest is probably Luke 16:8,9 but I don't think it applies.
 
 

Under your personal moniker JWI, that's correct you haven't. But since you and Tom are the librarian, then under that moniker, Yes! You have. That has been obvious well over 5 years now. You're not the only one with computer skills. Obviously, you will never publicly admit it, just as Tom was reminded by his own words and post which was taken down, about how things are manipulated here.
Regardless of how many times someone has been banned (disfellowshipped) here, the truth will ultimately prevail, which is what truly matters.
You've only posted a few out of hundreds. However, the truth has persisted for over a decade. Why do you choose not to publish the outrageous comments made by others, like the one from Tom, and the recent post from Pudgy that is still being defended here, which are equally insulting and offensive as George's comment, or perhaps even more subtly offensive like you have done yourself?
Why bother defending your position when you know you can't justify it?
What does it imply when you ban that person and their content? Your understanding of the situation is astute. It appears that George's use of abusive language in his recent post about Tom's dishonesty may have led to his ban, while Tom continues to be a presence. Your defense of those involved is noteworthy. It appears to be a clear case of double standards, which, as a Christian, you cannot in good conscience justify.
Well, we both know this is not a true statement.

Maybe now that you understand the similarity with a ban, your perspective has shifted. I recall that in the past, you mentioned using the term "barbaric" to express your strong disapproval of it. If you have reconsidered banning George while Pudgy remains unbanned, you cannot justify your action as an act of Christian conduct.
We are both aware that this is untrue, as George has been banned while Pudgy and other former members are freely spreading slander, disparagement, and maligning the Watchtower, God, and the Bible. The only thing that doesn't change here seems to be the same attitude of noncompliance.
Why would lies be allowed to persist? Can you provide an answer?
What is the difference when the same proposition can be applied to those who ridicule God? Why criticize the Edler arrangement, the Governing Body, and the Watchtower when we all recognize our imperfections? Your standards here surpass the ones chosen by God. God may have once selected you, only for you to degrade that choice by replacing it with dissatisfaction and in a public manner. So, where's the spiritual benefit?
I've noticed your previous post in which you posed the same question to the public and acknowledged that you only support about 95% of what the Watchtower offers. In that case, what gives you the authority to undermine the remaining 5%?

What about the abusive behavior displayed by TOM, Pudgy, and now Juan, Xero, Many Miles, Miracle Pete, as well as numerous other associated accounts created by Tom and Pudgy? You cannot make any excuses, JWI, for showing favoritism to some individuals while banning others. This behavior becomes increasingly obvious with each person you ban.
Then you upvote that dishonesty.

Is that why you banned him for exposing you all?
JWinsider argued against the unethical practice of disfellowshipping, emphasizing its barbaric nature. It is indeed the same when it comes to banning, as it involves severing ties with someone who stands up and speaks truth to power. 
So, who is right? Can someone who is wrong correct another person?
Why aren't you glad that despite being called out for your reckless post, you are still here with your double standard, while that person has been banned? So, who are you fooling when it's Tom and JWI that have the authority to ban.
Are you going to take shots at the person as people normally do after they have been banished unjustly? In my perspective, if you have the ability to insult someone, why shouldn't others have the same freedom? What kind of muzzle do you want to impose on others that you wouldn't be willing to impose on yourself? 

I did my one-month penance away from this site, and I'm ready for another 10 years here. LOL.
I hadn't realized that Pudgy also stopped posting the same day. Also, there are dozens of post from George88 that are quoted by others here but when I go back to find the original, they are missing. Looks like JR invoked some of the rules of the forum which may have raised a flag to a moderator. What's left of his requoted comments tells me I probably would not have been much encouraged by the exchanges anyway.
But banning someone like George does almost nothing to remove that kind of vitriol and divisiveness. He still has other active accounts on here anyway. There are times when I think it just makes it worse when old accounts are "reincarnated." Anyone remember these names? 
1 Abusive Behaviour
Moise Racette was warned   March 18, 2023
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Abusive Behaviour
Chioke Lin was warned  July 15, 2022
 Acknowledged   15 Abusive Behaviour
César Chávez was warned   May 13, 2021
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Leander H. McNelly was warned  March 8, 2020
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
DefenderOTT was warned  October 24, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Abusive Behaviour
Sean Migos was warned  October 24, 2019
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Allen_Smith was warned   October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Spamming
divergenceKO was warned  October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Foreigner was warned October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged 5 Abusive Behaviour
AllenSmith was warned   July 2, 2018
 Acknowledged  

It's truly disheartening when someone who is supposed to be a friend of the exclusive group resorts to using profanity in their comments, just like other members claiming to be witnesses. It's quite a ludicrous situation for the public to witness. 
Yet, the "defense" of such a person, continues.