BTK59

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.

Are you asking whether you are referring to browsing past posts or posts that have been archived to expose public deception? You need to be more specific. Bear in mind that starting an argument is not permitted. However, in accordance with your bylaws, individuals are not allowed to contest those one-sided arguments under the threat of being banned, which seems to be your intended outcome. Although many people, including Juan Rivera, have engaged in fights with George, it is noteworthy that George was the sole individual subjected to a ban. Therefore, what excuse are you seeking for you to ban me?

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?

No need to apologize. The voting system is fair and accessible to all. If it were not, the owner would not allow everyone to exercise their right to vote. You have always been devoted to one man, but it would be more fulfilling to devote yourself to God instead. Note to oneself!

This assumption would be inaccurate, but I believe I also have a fan base who is connected to thousands through the vote of a single person.I appreciate you bringing up your perspective on entrapment. It seems that someone had to do it, as the list of upvotes for "comfortmypeople" was there, but now it has disappeared. It's truly perplexing how those with moderator privileges can carry out certain actions and then try to defend themselves or others. Repeating oneself is unnecessary. The stronger the denial, the more it may appear to indicate guilt. Are you implying that you refuse to accept the truth despite people's votes? Will you now remove the silent person who expresses their opinion through negative votes while you have resorted to ad-hominem attacks and exhibit clear double standards? Why do you persist in defending your unethical behavior by silencing those who expose your lies? Has that stopped anyone from exposing you? Stop getting angry at the truth.

You seem to have a different perspective on the concepts of harassment and torment, but it is important to consider that these experiences do not always bring immediate benefits to the masses. While we now enjoy the rewards of Christ's sacrifice, it is unlikely that any sincere Christian during those tumultuous times would have perceived themselves as directly benefiting from the persecution Jesus faced at the hands of the Pharisees. If your hypothesis were true, Peter would not have famously denied Christ three times. Let us not overlook the entirety of scripture. Therefore, it is crucial to reflect on the benefits not encountered by the apostles and early Christians may have perceived such as "fear" while enduring persecution from both the Pharisees and the Roman Empire. It is true that Russell had to "relearn" what he felt was being wrongly taught by Christendom. He acknowledged the need to seek new perspectives from wherever he could find a more logical answer to his pressing questions. This is something that some people refuse to do and instead rely on authority to dictate their beliefs. There is no valid criticism directed towards Russell's pursuit of truth. Nevertheless, witnesses have further elaborated on this pursuit, leading to new understandings that appear to personally trouble you enough to express your grievances publicly. If you do not possess as comprehensive an understanding of the past and present as you believe, why would you expose this underlying mistake to the public? I understand the advantages that Russell gained, but I fail to see the benefits that you are conveying. "Remember, we are discussing the truth laid out in scripture and not the interpretation by man." Once again, let's draw on the analogy of a proofreader that you mentioned. How can a proofreader effectively correct the mistakes of others when they themselves make their own errors? We each have our own unique perspectives, but the general public can gain a comprehensive understanding by examining past publications which present the compelling arguments put forth by Pastor Russell and Barbour. The public shouldn't rely on misleading narratives or distorted information from other sources. By delving into the original texts, they can discover the truth for themselves. I can clearly perceive the impact of Pudgy in your statements. However, the public has the opportunity to form its own judgment by reading the front-page article, which contradicts the claims you presented as your version of the truth. I believe the article is self-explanatory. While I acknowledge that you may have differing views regarding the correlation between WW1 and the period of interest in 1914, it is imperative not to impose your perspective on others, as you have persistently attempted to do over the course of the past decade. I fail to comprehend the personal advantage derived from distorting factual information, as you seem to be inclined to do, and subsequently misrepresenting my statements to infer something entirely unrelated to the ongoing discussion. Therefore, unless you can provide a compelling argument that disproves the existence of World War I, your perspective regarding the 1914 analogy holds no relevance.

Your interpretation and evasion are not mine. If someone is faced with the truth, they should not feel offended by it. However, due to human nature and our imperfections, many people who do not wish to hear the truth often take offense. There is a notable distinction between merely claiming to speak the truth through a fabricated story and genuinely believing in it. In such cases, it is unjust to perceive the criticisms and insults of such individuals as valid. I understand the content that I am reading. Should you have any reservations about your own written work, we can apply the concept of "proofreading" to address them. You don't need to seek approval for your actions or behavior in order to elicit sympathy from others. It won't work with me, and you're well aware of that. This is a clear example of your baseless accusation against me. What I have actually asserted, and what Tom disagrees with, is that if someone insults me, I should have the right to respond in kind. Every day, we all insult God by pretending to be something we are not. The real question is, where is George? It appears that some people want to have the best of both worlds. This is a disingenuous framework. We are aware that no one here is authorized to speak negatively about brothers, as it would be unchristian. However, there is a distinction when those brothers behave as if they are part of this world. I have not witnessed the GB behaving in such a manner. On the contrary, they live an exemplary life to the best of their imperfect ability. Therefore, any decision regarding the Watchtower GB will come from God, and the same applies to the Eldership arrangement. Criticisms of this nature should be kept to oneself and not expressed in public. In my view, I believe in it, but those who oppose the truth do not. As a result, that kind of criticism reflects back on the person providing it, highlighting their own shortcomings. Similar to how the Pharisees were not justified in criticizing Jesus, which you appear to suggest should be permissible, they had no right to challenge the will of God. This is why Paul emphasized "respecting" authority. The authority that originates from God is sacred and not to be criticized by mere mortals. I completely agree with you. Your analogy is quite unrelated in several aspects, and it may not resonate with the public.

What is the reason behind your insistence on having these games? Is this criticism stemming from the wave of "upvotes" you received from comfortmypeople, which you conveniently removed to justify your unwarranted excuse to criticize? It's been 10 years, why not behave in a manner consistent with adulthood.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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!

Hey, that was the same interesting topic in the study article that addressed it. It highlights the significance of God's intervention in Peter's behalf and emphasizes the vital role of God's Holy Spirit in correcting individuals. Given the greater responsibility borne by Elders, their judgment naturally carries a weightier spiritual impact. So by all means, if you happen to spot a typo in one of the Watchtower publications, please get in touch with the writing department to ensure it is corrected. It is important to note, however, that this has no bearing on how Elders interact with each other or how concerns are addressed within the congregation or territory.

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?

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.

Did you know that when Tom assumes the character of Vic the Parrot and speaks to himself, he becomes rather abusive? It's quite amusing!

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.

The same kind of wordplay you are using. However, it is inconsequential as we are both aware of the undeniable truth concerning you and Tom. I have no intention of engaging in a futile debate over semantics, only to be "banned" for a single reason, just like George. It is unjustifiable to condone the continued presence of individuals who exhibit unacceptable behavior and yet kick out another for the same offense. So, continue to defend the indefensible, it doesn't matter to me. It's your game, not mine. More wordplay, not even close to what I meant. The discussion revolved around the topic of eggshells and abusive language. George posted one of Tom's profanity-laden posts to prove that Tom was lying. This must have offended Tom and proven him to be a liar. As a result, he either had you ban George or he took matters into his own hands out of anger. Either way, you people are out to defend your own abusive behavior. I think you actually upvoted a post by Xero where they used a curse word, but one letter was replaced with the symbol "*". By omitting just one letter, it seems like you unintentionally condone the use of profanity in this context by your upvote. I appreciate your honesty, but it remains contradictory as you continue to deny it. Although it might sound illogical, having the backing of your fan base is essential, I suppose. Tom has previously proposed that all he has to do to execute the plan is simply put a checkmark in the account. Bam! That person is banned. However, he only practices that with one person. You seem to believe that having power over others (lording over) is a position of superiority. However, it is intriguing how individuals often fail to recognize their own flaws, focusing solely on those they perceive in the Watchtower. It is essential to reflect on ourselves before criticizing others, especially when we lack the authority to do so. We must do what we believe is the right thing to do. Banning cannot silence the voice of truth.

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%?

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.

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?