BTK59
-
Posts
389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
18
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by BTK59
-
-
12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
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!!
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.
-
-
-
11 hours ago, JW Insider said:
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.
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.
-
16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
Curiously, I just checked the Profile views going back several years for Alphonse, ComfortMyPeople and JW Insider and although many others have visited, your account shows up on none of them. That would normally indicate that you never clicked on any of the links above, or never visited any of the pages you are making claims about. Perhaps something is wrong:
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?
-
28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
No. They are all still there. I just checked, although those ones are now 4 hours old. No one changed anything. Take a screenshot yourself from the link I gave and if you get something different, I'm sure you can post it. If not, I assume you already know that no one made any changes and you can stop claiming otherwise. Here are a few from that period.
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?
-
5 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:
Sorry, I upvoted again!!
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!
-
6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
unny you should mention that. About 45 minutes earlier, 9 of my posts in this topic were upvoted by Comfortmypeople. I immediately thought: "Uh-oh, that has always made you react. I wonder if it will be a slew of downvotes for me or a slew of upvotes for you." This has happened so many times before that it was quite predictable. That's why I watched for it.
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.
9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:I didn't remove anything though. I went to the Alphonse profile to see the Alphonse activity. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/20363-alphonse/ You can still go to the comfortmypeople profile to see his activity: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/10944-comfortmypeople/
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.
12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Nothing was ever removed. But voting activity disappears from the profile after a short time. I don't know for how long those links will display voting activity, but they will always show posting activity.
Repeating oneself is unnecessary. The stronger the denial, the more it may appear to indicate guilt.
13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:BTW, the unfounded and false claim that I had conveniently removed something was insulting. Downvotes without an explanation are also intended to be insulting. I don't feel insulted however because the lack of an explanation just shows that the downvoter likely has no real reasons to back up the negative criticism. Many people will see that the lack of reasons for a downvote is effectively a form of ad-hominem attack which usually strengthens the point being downvoted rather than weakening it. So rather than be insulted, I can just thank Alphonse for strengthening the point I was making.
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.
-
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:
I think Christ's negative criticism of the Pharisees was beneficial for others to consider.
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.8 hours ago, JW Insider said: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.
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?8 hours ago, JW Insider said: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."
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.8 hours ago, JW Insider said: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.
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. -
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:
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.
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.
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:See what I mean? You think me telling the truth is insulting even if subtle.
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.
8 hours ago, JW Insider said: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.
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.
8 hours ago, JW Insider said: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.
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.
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:rue. 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.
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.
8 hours ago, JW Insider said: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.
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.
8 hours ago, JW Insider said: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.
I completely agree with you. Your analogy is quite unrelated in several aspects, and it may not resonate with the public.
-
31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
And speaking of insults and negative criticism, you have always shown a keen interest in who upvotes and who downvotes others.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
Maybe we are looking at the word criticize differently. When an artist is asked to provide 3 different pieces of art for an article, one of the jobs was to sit around and criticize at least two of them so that one would be chosen. You don't just say "I like this one the best" or "I don't like this one" without giving a reason. That reason is your "critique."
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.
10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Mostly true. But what if Reverend E. B. Elliott made use of Reverend Christopher Bowen's chronology typo and it happened to fit Nelson Barbour's 1874 to 1914 chronology, and Russell, and Rutherford and Fred Franz all accepted it, not realizing it was based on a typo? Should anyone have pointed out to them that it started with a typo?
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.
-
4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
Lack of conviction has never been one of my criterion for laughing at a post.
This is a matter of personal choice. In many cases, especially when criticism lacks value, it carries a hollow sound.
6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Never thought about it that way. Never intend to, either. LOL.
Philosophy traverses a vast and varied path.
9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:I certainly didn't feel insulted, but I could easily tell that this was your intention. The problem of course is that you weren't speaking the truth.
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.
18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Never had a problem with "rebuking" either. I just think that we shouldn't be quick to rebuke brothers in high levels of responsibility. I won't rebuke any members of the Governing Body, for example. I won't rebuke anyone here either, even if I might think the Bible thoroughly disagrees with some of their content.
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.
24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:I didn't link them inadvertently. I said that the Bible says we should criticize elders if we have spiritual qualifications.
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.
28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Whether my qualifications are good or not will only be known by how people respond, and so far, so good.
This is second guessing. Where does scripture state an unqualified person has better input than those qualified?
-
16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
I actually wasn't a proofreader. Just a researcher for one (later two) of the writers when he didn't have time to look up everything for himself, especially if it was trivial, or if his source might have been old and he wanted to see if a second source or more up-to-date Bible dictionaries and lexicons had a differing view. Sometimes it was an idea that might have been a cute but unnecessary intro/lead-in, but which Hemingway would have called a "darling" that needed "killing."
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.
26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:As a first reader of someone's writing you'd see some blatant things. But there was also the passing along of a finished article to a group of brothers on a list who would have to initial that they had read it. One of those brothers was the "editor" who also looked at it for how well the content fit the theme, whether it repeated other info in another article that had just come out in the same or recent issues.
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.
30 minutes ago, JW Insider said:But the actual proofreaders were sisters outside the department who watched for grammar, spelling, and the like. Then it would be typed up in typesetting and a printout sent to a second proofreader who would also see those things but was more attuned to page numbering, paragraph numbering, indexing the right pages, making sure the footnotes pointed to the right place in other publications. Notwithstanding the darlings already killed, they would also kill the widows and orphans and dam the rivers and then reread the text when that was done. Two separate proofreaders is probably the answer to your question about who would correct mistakes of a proofreader.
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.
-
27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
You have been aware for years that I state I have never banned anyone.
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.
34 minutes ago, JW Insider said:assumed that this meant only a few out of hundreds of my posts have been true. Another insult that I am overwhelmingly a liar almost by default.
BTK insult #8: JWI only posts a very small percentage of truth.
At any rate, I don't think I have to spell out the next 20 or 30 micro-insults from you. They don't even make a difference. I'll continue to speak the truth. But I just wanted you to see why it seemed ridiculous for you to claim that other people insult you (,)and you don't insult others. It seemed you had such an obvious double-standard. (Yes, that's an intentional form of me using echolalia. My own definition, not the same form you will see in a dictionary, but perhaps related.)
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!
-
14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
I have to admit that I laughed out loud a bit when I saw your claim that Tom and I are the Librarian. It didn't make me laugh when Anna admitted that she had the same reaction. In fact, I cringed a bit realizing that you would take immediate offense and try to make a big deal out of it.
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.
19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:You probably aren't aware that claiming someone is not telling the truth is insulting, except of course when someone happens to make that claim about you. For example, look closely at the exchanges between you and me. Next post of mine:
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!
-
8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
And, what’s with the angel that was able to spring Peter from prison, opening doors right and left, but was not able to spring the one at Mary’s home, leaving Peter knocking in the street. Have him write Bethel about that.
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?
-
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:
So, my point was that some criticism gets commendation instead of condemnation. But what if I had questioned Psalm 45 for the same meeting? And what if I said that I don't think this is really the marriage of a king, but the marriage of a king's daughter (which may or may not have been to another king)? I might question such a point here on this forum, but it's nothing to call the Bethel Home about. But that's because I could easily be wrong and it's too trivial to worry about. Yet, if I study another issue that I feel is quite important, I might actually feel the need to call them up and question it.
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.
-
40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
In fact, I have questioned 4 potential errors in the NWT 2013 Edition, and 3 of these error/typos have been changed in the [latest] printed version. Only one of these got an acknowledgment, so I don't know if others had also reported the others.
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!
-
18 minutes ago, Anna said:
I often wonder if there is any point in responding to any of your ridiculous statements, but this one made me laugh
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.
-
19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
I am most certainly not the librarian. And knowing the kind of wordplay I've seen some of you guys use I am also not "The librarian" or "The Librarian" or "the Librarian" or "THE LIBRARIAN" or any combination of letters referring to "The Librarian" account. I am as certain as I can be that Tom, TTH, TrueTomHarley, etc., also is not the Librarian.
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.
25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:OK. Maybe I understand a bit better what you meant. I didn't know George used abusive language in his post about Tom's dishonesty. I didn't know Tom had been dishonest about something.
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.
33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Sort of right. I'm guessing that I do have the power to ban. Perhaps you have control of an old account that you don't think you will ever use again. If you give me permission I can give it a try and let you know if I was able to ban it. I suspect a strong possibility that I can only report it, and then another person has to approve the ban. I truly don't know for sure, but I was wrong to say "I will never use it even if I can." Because I'd like to know and if someone gives me an account to try, and permission to ban it, I will try to ban it.
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.
-
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:
I don't think disfellowshipping is always unethical.
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.
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:Every one of us who is here is here against the wishes of the Governing Body and we know it. There is therefore no reason to ban/disfellowship over any issue, with the exception of deliberate or targeted abusive behavior intended to hurt or bring harm to someone. But as we are mostly Witnesses here, we have learned to take such abuse in stride.
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?
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:I especially don't like the fact that all the innocuous posts from the same individual get lost in the process. That's overkill over and above what's already overkill.
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%?
-
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:
Must not be as obvious as you think because I've never banned anyone.
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?
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:I was told that I could use my new moderator powers to remove excessively spiteful posts from Allen. As you are well aware, I never did
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.
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:I may never know if I actually have the power to ban anyone because I will never use it even if I can.
Well, we both know this is not a true statement.
Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum
in Topics
Posted
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?