Evacuated

Can an unbaptised publisher marry? (asked by @Jay Witness,)
Yes.
1Tim.4:1-3:
"teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron. They forbid marriage"

Jehovah's spirit and their determination.
Ezekiel 3:9
"I have made your forehead like a diamond, harder than flint. Do not be afraid of them or be terrified by their faces, for they are a rebellious house.”"

Depends on Caesar's law.
PS I would like to know which educated doctor was in a position to really say he could offer a "life-saving" blood transfusion?

As Jesus instructed them at Matt 10:14:
"Wherever anyone does not receive you or listen to your words, on going out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet."
Then they move on through the neighbourhood to "search out who in it is deserving". Matt 10:11.

It's possible that "most" of them are "Witness kids" if you mean just over 50% which is "most" in a technical sense. But when you look at the baptisms at assemblies it seems in my experience to at least slightly favor those converted from outside Witness families -- although quite a few do often have connections to Witness families: cousins and other relatives.

Free speech or course but you are just creating debate abiout personal preference and really seeking to impose your personal views on others in matters of conscience.  Short comment? Stop wasting peoples time!

No "ring of truth" apparent to me despite the copious repetition. Untruth never "rings true" no matter how often the pull is tugged.

This is a simple statement and really answers @Anna's question.
The debate is obviously far from over, but as an interim observation, from reading all the various arguments and responses to questions about the chronology endorsed by the Watchtower articles on this matter, two things are apparent (at the moment ) to me.
1. It is NOT posssible to reconcile the Bible Chronolgy used by Jehovah's Witnesses with all current attestations of secular history. This would appear to be the case for ALL interpretations of Bible Chronology. The torturous explanations I have seen presented arguing against JW Chronology are, for the most part, complex, lengthy, and tedious, similar to the kind of argumentation found in 19th and early 20th century Society publications . Also whilst purporting to be factual, both sides use the same liberal sprinkling of irrelevant terms such as "honest", "dishonest"; "most modern"; "reputable" and other irrelevant descriptors that would be more at home in an argument about the scientific basis for the theory of evolution.
2, The crux of objection to the Bible Chronolgy as used by Jehovah's Witnesses is a disagreement with the Witness view of the year 1914 CE as the time for the establishment of the Messianic kingdom in Jesus Christ's hands, in heaven, and the commencement of the "last days"  period of this current human system of government under the influence of Satan the Devil. Intertwined with this is a disagreement with the view that the period of time of 2520 years commonly termed the "Gentile Times", elsewhere the "appointed time of the nations", commenced in the year 607BCE and terminated in the year 1914CE.
I just do not believe that working out where we are in the stream of time has to be as difficult as objectors claim. None of the opposers arguments presented so far have the "ring of truth" about them. 
 

Who would these things be disturbing to?

More to the point:
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions
Australian RC Final Report 2017 - Jehovahs Witnesses.pdf

More to the point:
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions
Australian RC Final Report 2017 - Jehovahs Witnesses.pdf

I know some who don't, but it is not a rule. I for one would never miss the Sistine chapel! 
While out on the ministry in England, as teenagers, we would sometimes stop and go inside a church and look for God's name in the big Bible by the pulpit. We would leave it open at Psalms 83.
 

You're right, but of course that isn't the point being made.
All of Babylon the Great is "holy" from the standpoint of its supporters. All of Babylon the Great will be dismantled by the political entity of the day in harmony with Jehovah's expressed judgement.
And there is no need to bring Jehovah's estimation of what is Holy into the equation because, at the time of Jerusalem's penetration by the Roman army, he had long cast off the old temple arrangement with the success of Jesus mission to earth. In fact, the event described at Matt.27:51; Mk.15:38; Lu.23:45 33 years earlier indicated very clearly that Jehovah had stripped away the "Holy" status of that edifice. Jesus’ baptism, in 29 C.E., had already anointed, or set apart, that heavenly, spiritual reality originally represented by the Most Holy of the earthly tabernacle and of the later temple, (Hebrews 9:11, 12), and this is the temple sanctuary described at Rev 11:19 wher the missing "ark of the covenant" is finally located (figuratively of course).
So then, at the time of Jersusalem's end from 66CE to 70CE , the literal  "Holy" and "Most Holy" compartments of the temple were just relics of the past, "holy" indeed in the eyes of the adherents to the redundant Jewish religion of the time, but nevetheless as profane as any other religious eduifice of the day in the eyes of Jehovah God. Actually. it had been long marked for destruction as is Christendom and all of Babylon the Great today.

Duh?????
They do??? But not to worship.........(No brainer that one I would have thought.)

The book "Pay attention to the prophecies of Daniel" told us not to speculate on this. Any suggestions made publicly could well have others spreading ideas. Our society as a group are keeping watch on world affairs and will advise us - if necessary. Daniel was told that the king of the North would come to his end - with no helper.

At the mo', United Nations. Man's last hope for Peace., Ha!Ha!
*** w13 7/15 pp. 4-5 par. 6 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
What will signal the start of the great tribulation? Jesus foretold: “When you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.” (Matt. 24:15, 16) In the first fulfillment, the “standing in a holy place” occurred in 66 C.E. when the Roman army (“the disgusting thing”) attacked Jerusalem and its temple (a place holy in the eyes of the Jews). In the larger fulfillment, the “standing” will occur when the United Nations (the modern-day “disgusting thing”) attacks Christendom (which is holy in the eyes of nominal Christians) and the rest of Babylon the Great. The same attack is described at Revelation 17:16-18. That event will be the beginning of the great tribulation.
 

Jesus Christ
Ph. 2:9: "For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name"
(PS. Another no brainer...This is getting a bit silly!!)

Flip her lid!

LOL
 

I'd think an upright stake had more phallic symbolism. (Ezek. 8:17)
 

Discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.

Obviously, all those who become eligible for Christian baptism, which is an act of faith, must have had knowledge of that requirement imparted to them at some point by someone, as no one is born understanding the need for Christian baptism. Rom.10:17 makes that clear surely:
"So faith follows the thing heard. In turn, what is heard is through the word about Christ."
As for how crucial a study conductor is to one's eventual eligibility for baptism?????
I know more than one that was baptised without going through a bible study program with a conductor in any consistent manner. I had 3 different study conductors, and with one, I actually took the study myself on a number of occasions,  as the person frequently hadn't prepared. I know one person who just got up and said yes to the questions at the assembly about 44 years ago, without having had a study conductor, and has happily served Jehovah ever since. So, in some cases perhaps, a study conductor served as a hindrance rather than a help toward baptism eligibility.
And of course there are those who have had excellent study conductors, gone through a consistent program of study with a couple or more books, got baptised and who were very soon disfellowshipped or drifted away. Were they eligible for baptism? Who knows?
Eligibility for baptism is described fairly clearly in the book of Acts: 
“Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit." Acts 2:38
“Repent, therefore, and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out, so that seasons of refreshing may come from Jehovah himself" Acts 3:19
The baptisms seem to have followed some kind of of instruction by someone in the know, although the time-scale differs. For example, a discourse and evidence of holy spirit was enough for some who had already quite a scriptural knowledge and way of life in the earliest days of the congregation. Acts 2:27-38;41.  Later, after Phillip spoke at some length instructing the Ethiopian eunuch, he was obviously eligible for baptism because, "when they came to a body of water, and the eunuch said: “Look! Here is water; what prevents me from getting baptized?” Acts 9:36. It seems nothing because "With that he [the eunuch] commanded the chariot to halt, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he [Philip] baptized him." Acts 9:38.
Apollos later needed assistance to understand matters more fully because "when Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him."  Acts18:26. Presumably, a suitable baptism followed for Apollos, because a little later, after Paul's instructing some Ephesian disciples of a similar understanding to Apollos, "they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:5.
So it would appear that eligibility for baptism depends on the individual repenting, turning around and (in harmony with the spirit of texts such as Matt.16:24, Rom.12:1, 1Pet.3:21) dedicating or setting themselves aside for a sacred purpose.
A suitably qualified study conductor may well be of great assistance in that process.

 

It's free of charge and without obligation to become one yourself.

This I agree with.
The idea that a chronology dependant on the corroboration of secular academia would be essential to our faith seems to me to violate the principle at 2Tim 3:16-17. So either side of a debate for or against the significance of the year 1914 on that basis seems (also to me) to be only of mild interest.
However, the application of Matt.24, Mk.13, Lu.21, Rev.6 (Horsemen), 2Tim.3:1-5 etc., to events and conditions since the early part of the 20th Century and the tying of these to the arrival Satan and his "angels" to eke out their desperate "short period of time" after their humiliating, heavenly defeat as described in Rev.12:12 is entirely plausible to me, and of far more interest than anything I have heard yet, au contraire.

Come now, surely we all can see the basic meaning there in Pr. 4:18 of the improving path of the righteous ones in contrast with the ever darkening road to destruction v19?  Even the cross reference to Ps. 119:105 makes it clear that God's Word lights the path, and to see this light as becoming brighter, as knowledge, understanding, and application of the same word increases, is no textual stretch.