Evacuated

I'm pretty sure this is just a data anomaly, but if you check the use of the word ("with quote marks around it") as found in full text searches of many thousands of books available in Google Books (through 2007), it would (at first) appear that the Watchtower was using it even before it was widely found outside the Watchtower:

But that was my mistake. That was just with quote marks around it; otherwise it was apparently used since the 1800's.

By the way, those Watchtower numbers are just the Wt magazine alone. I notice that it was used almost as often in the Yearbooks, 27 times since 1970. It's especially frequent in personal experiences where a person says they "recognized the ring of truth" after reading one of our publications.

Whilst not exclusively a WT magazine expression, it seems to have been used there fairly consistently in a similar context since March 1st 1951.

You must be American.

You must be American.

I am wondering whether by that you mean closing shop, i.e. the end is near

Definitely bad, oppressive, a tool of the insecure. There is a tendency for some to try to lever on this basis. Seems to be a kind of convoluted version of what Peter said at Matthew 26:33.
However, I do not think Paul and Barnabas were fear-mongering when they said “We must enter into the Kingdom of God through many tribulations." Acts 14:22, or Paul when he said to the Hebrews, "In your struggle against that sin, you have never yet resisted to the point of having your blood shed." Heb.12:4.
Certainly, Peter counseled vigorously against abject "obedience to men" at Acts 5:29: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.", all the more notable as coming from one who displayed the opposite behaviour at times.
However there is a balance in this matter too, as the same Scriptures counsel children to be "obedient to your parents" (Eph.6:1), slaves to "be obedient in everything to those who are your human masters" (Col.3:22) all faithful Christians to mark those who are "not obedient to our word through this letter" (2Thess.3:14), "to be obedient to governments and authorities" (Titus 3:1); and, finally, to "be obedient to those taking the lead among you" (Heb.13:17).
So when a b(B)rother says obeying instructions in what is of little consequence now is good practice for obeying instructions regarding what might be big consequences later, I don't feel blackmailed by some sort of bogey-man tactic really. I just feel that this is someone giving me a bit of good advice on how to turn a bumpy ride into something a little smoother. But then, that's just me. Everybody has their own way of dealing with and reacting to these things it seems. 
I agree entirely with avoiding the creation of a fear-mongered, man-pleasing attitude.
I endorse fully the need to engage in reflecting Jesus' manner in refreshing our fellow worshippers, working to lighten their "burdens" wherever we can.
But at the same time we need to balance the fact that it was Jesus who instructed a heightened level of alertness in "keeping on  the watch", an avoidance of everyday distractions in maintaining a personally calibrated "whole soul" level of activity, and a full appreciation of the "torture stake" element involved in our acceptance of discipleship. ?

An interesting topic indeed. This may provide you with some useful background despite it's specific agenda if you haven't seen it before: 
https://settingtherecordstraight.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/the-truth-of-the-mexican-military-jehovahs-witnesses/

Definitely bad, oppressive, a tool of the insecure. There is a tendency for some to try to lever on this basis. Seems to be a kind of convoluted version of what Peter said at Matthew 26:33.
However, I do not think Paul and Barnabas were fear-mongering when they said “We must enter into the Kingdom of God through many tribulations." Acts 14:22, or Paul when he said to the Hebrews, "In your struggle against that sin, you have never yet resisted to the point of having your blood shed." Heb.12:4.
Certainly, Peter counseled vigorously against abject "obedience to men" at Acts 5:29: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.", all the more notable as coming from one who displayed the opposite behaviour at times.
However there is a balance in this matter too, as the same Scriptures counsel children to be "obedient to your parents" (Eph.6:1), slaves to "be obedient in everything to those who are your human masters" (Col.3:22) all faithful Christians to mark those who are "not obedient to our word through this letter" (2Thess.3:14), "to be obedient to governments and authorities" (Titus 3:1); and, finally, to "be obedient to those taking the lead among you" (Heb.13:17).
So when a b(B)rother says obeying instructions in what is of little consequence now is good practice for obeying instructions regarding what might be big consequences later, I don't feel blackmailed by some sort of bogey-man tactic really. I just feel that this is someone giving me a bit of good advice on how to turn a bumpy ride into something a little smoother. But then, that's just me. Everybody has their own way of dealing with and reacting to these things it seems. 
I agree entirely with avoiding the creation of a fear-mongered, man-pleasing attitude.
I endorse fully the need to engage in reflecting Jesus' manner in refreshing our fellow worshippers, working to lighten their "burdens" wherever we can.
But at the same time we need to balance the fact that it was Jesus who instructed a heightened level of alertness in "keeping on  the watch", an avoidance of everyday distractions in maintaining a personally calibrated "whole soul" level of activity, and a full appreciation of the "torture stake" element involved in our acceptance of discipleship. ?

How can there be an argument about this? Isn't it one of the functions of prayer?
Me too.
I wish someone who actually through those times as a participant rather than a bystander could give us a comment.
 
 
 

I wish the same....
I also wish someone could explain what the difference was between what happened in Malawi versus what happened in Mexico. But this is completely off topic here. I apologize @TrueTomHarley but this is JTR's fault, he started it

How can there be an argument about this? Isn't it one of the functions of prayer?
Me too.
I wish someone who actually through those times as a participant rather than a bystander could give us a comment.
 
 
 

Interesting and quirky line of reasoning.
Probably stretches it a bit too far to be accurate. What people generally believe about soul and/or spirit is that it/they are an entity with a life of their own...somewhere. We do not believe this at all. That would seem to me to present too fundamental a difference to advocate similarity in concept.
Perhaps the nearest we could get is to liken the dead to be in a digital media archive with as much detail as possible to characterise the individual, and then the resurrection would be like printing them out again in a 3D printer. Although that might put a rather different slant on the greeting mentioned elsewhere: "Hello Dolly!" (Let the reader provide a link).

I'll stick my neck out and offer some last words on the topic.
You are right that the common expression uses new rope. But it's a dumber, and more ambiguous perspective, in my opinion. As you know I don't always side with JTR, but when I do, it's usually because I think his humor is working. In this case, I think it's a bit funnier with old rope. But I can swing either way with this one.
Editing to add that JTR's version reminds me somehow of the 3 men in the process of being beheaded by a guillotine. The first, a farmer, puts his head in the slot and the blade gets stuck, stops short, so the executioner says it must be fate, and they let him go. Same thing happens to the next man, a salesman. The third man, an engineer, puts his head in the slot, looks up and says, "Oh wait! I see the problem."

Definitely bad, oppressive, a tool of the insecure. There is a tendency for some to try to lever on this basis. Seems to be a kind of convoluted version of what Peter said at Matthew 26:33.
However, I do not think Paul and Barnabas were fear-mongering when they said “We must enter into the Kingdom of God through many tribulations." Acts 14:22, or Paul when he said to the Hebrews, "In your struggle against that sin, you have never yet resisted to the point of having your blood shed." Heb.12:4.
Certainly, Peter counseled vigorously against abject "obedience to men" at Acts 5:29: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.", all the more notable as coming from one who displayed the opposite behaviour at times.
However there is a balance in this matter too, as the same Scriptures counsel children to be "obedient to your parents" (Eph.6:1), slaves to "be obedient in everything to those who are your human masters" (Col.3:22) all faithful Christians to mark those who are "not obedient to our word through this letter" (2Thess.3:14), "to be obedient to governments and authorities" (Titus 3:1); and, finally, to "be obedient to those taking the lead among you" (Heb.13:17).
So when a b(B)rother says obeying instructions in what is of little consequence now is good practice for obeying instructions regarding what might be big consequences later, I don't feel blackmailed by some sort of bogey-man tactic really. I just feel that this is someone giving me a bit of good advice on how to turn a bumpy ride into something a little smoother. But then, that's just me. Everybody has their own way of dealing with and reacting to these things it seems. 
I agree entirely with avoiding the creation of a fear-mongered, man-pleasing attitude.
I endorse fully the need to engage in reflecting Jesus' manner in refreshing our fellow worshippers, working to lighten their "burdens" wherever we can.
But at the same time we need to balance the fact that it was Jesus who instructed a heightened level of alertness in "keeping on  the watch", an avoidance of everyday distractions in maintaining a personally calibrated "whole soul" level of activity, and a full appreciation of the "torture stake" element involved in our acceptance of discipleship. ?

Definitely bad, oppressive, a tool of the insecure. There is a tendency for some to try to lever on this basis. Seems to be a kind of convoluted version of what Peter said at Matthew 26:33.
However, I do not think Paul and Barnabas were fear-mongering when they said “We must enter into the Kingdom of God through many tribulations." Acts 14:22, or Paul when he said to the Hebrews, "In your struggle against that sin, you have never yet resisted to the point of having your blood shed." Heb.12:4.
Certainly, Peter counseled vigorously against abject "obedience to men" at Acts 5:29: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.", all the more notable as coming from one who displayed the opposite behaviour at times.
However there is a balance in this matter too, as the same Scriptures counsel children to be "obedient to your parents" (Eph.6:1), slaves to "be obedient in everything to those who are your human masters" (Col.3:22) all faithful Christians to mark those who are "not obedient to our word through this letter" (2Thess.3:14), "to be obedient to governments and authorities" (Titus 3:1); and, finally, to "be obedient to those taking the lead among you" (Heb.13:17).
So when a b(B)rother says obeying instructions in what is of little consequence now is good practice for obeying instructions regarding what might be big consequences later, I don't feel blackmailed by some sort of bogey-man tactic really. I just feel that this is someone giving me a bit of good advice on how to turn a bumpy ride into something a little smoother. But then, that's just me. Everybody has their own way of dealing with and reacting to these things it seems. 
I agree entirely with avoiding the creation of a fear-mongered, man-pleasing attitude.
I endorse fully the need to engage in reflecting Jesus' manner in refreshing our fellow worshippers, working to lighten their "burdens" wherever we can.
But at the same time we need to balance the fact that it was Jesus who instructed a heightened level of alertness in "keeping on  the watch", an avoidance of everyday distractions in maintaining a personally calibrated "whole soul" level of activity, and a full appreciation of the "torture stake" element involved in our acceptance of discipleship. ?

Some good points:
*** w61 11/15 p. 704 Questions From Readers ***
In the resurrection of the “other sheep” on earth, no former married person will have occasion to envy another former married person, as would be the case if this latter one got back his former marriage mate who had remained single, whereas the envious marriage mate does not get back his former partner because this partner remarried and survived Armageddon with his new marriage mate. What the resurrection promises men is, not remarriage, but reliving, and this under God’s kingdom by Christ. Is that not something satisfying? Has anyone a right to demand more through Christ’s sacrifice? Christ died for you, not to marry, but to live! Let us not be swayed or overcome by sentimentalism or emotionalism. Of course, some of these types of questions ended up pushing the idea that the Greek Scriptures were written only to the anointed. This is not a point of emphasis any more. More reasonable answers and non-dogmatism are always welcome, especially when we are willing to humbly admit that we just don't have all the answers.

Interesting and quirky line of reasoning.
Probably stretches it a bit too far to be accurate. What people generally believe about soul and/or spirit is that it/they are an entity with a life of their own...somewhere. We do not believe this at all. That would seem to me to present too fundamental a difference to advocate similarity in concept.
Perhaps the nearest we could get is to liken the dead to be in a digital media archive with as much detail as possible to characterise the individual, and then the resurrection would be like printing them out again in a 3D printer. Although that might put a rather different slant on the greeting mentioned elsewhere: "Hello Dolly!" (Let the reader provide a link).

How can there be an argument about this? Isn't it one of the functions of prayer?
Me too.
I wish someone who actually through those times as a participant rather than a bystander could give us a comment.
 
 
 

Algeria 
Bahrain 
Brunei
China 
Djibouti 
Egypt 
Eritrea
iran 
iraq 
Jordan 
Kuwait 
Laos 
Lebanon 
Libya 
Maldives 
Mauritania 
Morocco 
North Korea
Oman 
Qatar 
Russia 
Saudi Arabia 
Singapore 
Somalia 
Syria 
Tunisia 
Turkmenistan 
United Arab Emirates 
Uzbekistan 
Vatican city 
Vietnam 
Yemen
Tajikistan 
Comoros 
Saudi Arabia 
Afghanistan  
 

True, it said that the mongoose relies on "God-given" defenses and abilities to defeat the cobra. No more anachronistic blaming of the teeth of saber-toothed tigers at least indirectly on Satan and the fall of the first human pair.

This is a much more reasonable approach than the rather quaint efforts to shoehorn the earth's creative week into 6x7000 yr. compartments. By that old reckoning it appears that we are 43 years in to Adam's settlement/cultivation/animal naming/no helper period and still counting.
Incidentally, whilst we are talking about adjustments, did you find the Courage from Creation videos highlighting a rather less disneyesque side to animal behaviour than usual? I mean, what will mongooses do in the New World? Crack Brazil nuts for us? I was disappointed no one mentioned the Honey Badger actually..........

@Gone Away, Thanks for pointing to that thread from last year. I just skimmed it and I think it included just about all I personally would ever want to say about the topic again. I am always tempted to just rewrite from scratch, but not this time. Thanks again.

Out of interest, this term is used in the Chichewa bible to apply exclusively to Goliath in 1Samuel 17:4; 23 (champion), 51 (mighty one).

Probably a lesser risk than my getting killed in my car, driving to Home Depot ... by a factor of about 20,000.
The GOOD news is that Bill can now spend all day, every day ... day in and day out ... 24/7/365 ........ with Hillary.

                 ? .•*¨`*•..¸???¸.•*¨`*•. ?