Evacuated

Or dropped out for many of them. Of course, that doesn't count as much because several still got into some colleges that were hard to get into, which implies either family money or privileged educational opportunities during "high school" which are often the equivalent of American college credits. And Malcolm X says he read Rutherford's books and listened to him on the radio, so obviously he didn't need to go to college.

What do these have in common:
Abhijit Naskar Frank Bender Jimi Hendrix Oliver Evans Abraham Lincoln Frank Lloyd Wright Joachim Raff, Oliver Heaviside Alan Moore Frank Zappa Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Orson Welles Alfred Russel Wallace Frederick Douglass John Clare Orville Wright Amadeo Giannini Frida Kahlo John Harrison Paul Gray Ameer Hamza Shinwari Garfield Wood John Huston Paul Keating Amos Tversky Georg Philipp Telemann John Smeaton Paul Thomas Anderson. Andy DiGelsomina George Bernard Shaw Jorge Luis Borges Penn Jillette Antonie van Leeuwenhoek George Green José Saramago Peter Behrens Arnold Schoenberg Gerda Alexander Joseph Needham Publilius Syrus Artemas Martin Gert Verhulst Julian Assange Quentin Tarantino August Wilson Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji R. G. LeTourneau Benjamin Franklin Granville T. Woods Karl Marx Rabindranath Tagore Benjamin Kidd Gustave Eiffel Kató Lomb Ray Bradbury Benjamin West Hans Zimmer Keith Moon Richard Linklater Bohuslav Martinů Harlan Ellison Kevin Smith Robert Franklin Stroud Booker T. Washington Havergal Brian Kishore Kumar Robert Lewis Shayon Buckminster Fuller Heinrich Jacoby Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky Rodney Mullen Caroline Herschel Heinrich Schliemann Kurt Cobain Roman Polanski Charles Darwin Heitor Villa-Lobos L. Ron Hubbard Rudolph Dirks Charles G. Dawes Henri Rousseau Le Corbusier Sean Parker Christopher Columbus Henry Ford Léon Krier Sir Terry Pratchett Christopher Hughes Henry Knox Leonardo da Vinci Srinivasa Ramanujan Christopher Langan Henry Walter Bates Lewis Mumford Stanford R. Ovshinsky Christopher Nolan Herbert Spencer Louis L'Amour Stanley Kubrick Claudio Arrau Herman Melville Ludwig Mies van der Rohe Steve Irwin Craig Ferguson Hermann Hesse Luis Barragán Steve Jobs Danny Elfman, Heston Blumenthal Luis Buñuel Steven Soderbergh Dario Argento Horace Trumbauer Machado de Assis Steven Spielberg Dave Grohl Howard Phillips Lovecraft Malcolm X Sunay Erdem David Bowie Iannis Xenakis Marshall Mathers Tadao Ando David Fincher J.A. Rogers Mary Anning Thomas Alva Edison Django Reinhardt J.B. Fuqua Maxim Gorky Thomas Henry Huxley Edward Elgar Jacque Fresco Michael Faraday Timothy L. Pflueger Eileen Gray Jakob Böhme Michael Scott Toru Takemitsu Eliezer Yudkowsky James Cameron Mikhail Krichman Vasily Vladimirovich Petrov Elon Musk James Marcus Bach Moshe Feldenkrais Vincent J. Schaefer Eric Hoffer James Watt Nasir Jones Viollet-le-Duc Ernest Hemingway Jane Jacobs Nathaniel Bowditch Walter Pitts Errol Flynn Jean Michel Basquiat Nazir Naji Wilbur Wright Feodor Chaliapin Jean Prouvé Nobuo Uematsu William Blake Ferdinand Waldo Demara Jeff Loomis Noël Coward William Kamkwamba Francis Barry Byrne Jim Jarmusch Noel Gallagher Woody Allen     Olavo de Carvalho Yuri Kondratyuk

It's ALWAYS later than I think ... that's why I wear a wristwatch.

If they remain clean and without defilement they are OK.  Any subversive behavior, and other elders will look into it. ... and he/them may get "fired".   I have read stories on this forum how people were let go from Bethel.  No-one is above this.... and if they take too long to act..... Jehovah will!   Read the letters to the seven congregations in book of Revelation.  Jehovah and Jesus are watching everything..... Yes He is slow to anger - so trust HIM that he will sort things (if it is needed ) at the right time.  Of course he is not hypercritical as some people are - he remembers that we are flesh.  Some brothers are hypercritical when things are not done in the way they suggest.
Too much fleshly thinking out here..... People do not trust Jehovah.  I have lived a long life in the truth and I have seen oppressive brothers and how they were given time to change..... but in the end Jehovah maneuvered things so cliques were destroyed.  As long as you just do what is right and not contribute with your death-dealing mouth to breaking down other people's faith!  Things sort themselves out without our own "important" views of when and how things should be managed.

Well one reason would be the scrripture at Dan. 10:20-21 (You quoted partially.) The angel speaking here mentions the princes of Persia and Greece in the same breath as Michael "your prince". (the prince mentioned at Dan. 12:1). The context itself indicates to me that these "princes" are all spirit creatures and the angel speaking these words provides an insight on what is going on "behind the scenes" as it were.  Isn't that reasonable? 

Thank you for clarifying this fact.
I did not share that report.  There is only the assertion it contains: "The man, who was a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses," that catches my eye.
I would look for some corroboration or clarity as to relevance of this statement. It seems to be as unconnected to the details of the report as the man's shoe or hat size as it stands.
However, as you have stated, this is a mis-posting of material so I will leave the discussion. Treat this response as a return of courtesy. 

Having been a reporter in my salad days -  I have seen the disgusting articles they call "reporting" these days.  I did not read your reporter's article because I guess it singles out the JWs...... which is acceptable in the climate of the reporting world these days....... Leave out all the relevant information and only focus on the ONE you want to malign. This is true of politics or any subject these days.  It is not pure reporting because there is a "spin" on everything.
You are well aware that other organizations were also part of this inquiry and that it was not only JWs who were brought in to testify. The authorities wanted to investigate the different procedures which organizations were following in the past, so that they could close the legal gaps which still exist in the legal system.   Their report will definitely not conclude: the legal system has been remiss in providing  qualified investigators or psychologists to deal with reported  cases.  No, they will of course focus on large organizations who have been trying to deal with cases themselves for the past 40 years. You are also well aware that there are many organizations who have NOT even tried to deal with child abuse cases such as boy scouts and sports clubs, to name only two sectors of society. 
Mr. Rook we have been on this forum for about 2 years and you have been on threads which discuss child abuse and you must have seen at least one of my contributions which have highlighted the facts that there were no proper laws in place to get convictions in cases of child abuse.  Even if JWs told the police about these cases (without a law in place to compel reporting of the matter) the infrastructure in most first world countries was not in place to assist the child and get a testimony on camera with a proper psychologist to assure the child was not coached (in divorce cases).  And most importantly: to ensure the child does not become an awful victim for a second time  by being cross-examined in court and having to face the perpetrator in court - who often is someone they know and love.
Self-appointed social warriors like you, which advertise their overbearing sense of justice, are usually the ones who are insensitive and have not made sure of their facts regarding the victims of a crime.  The country you live in (USA, I presume) had laws, which protect the child, instituted as late as 2003..... yet people  like you and most reporters judge most large organizations by these new laws and do not compare it with the inadequate laws, which were in place for 40 years prior to that. 
In the late 70s there was an awakening in the press when people (for the fist time) started talking publically about child abuse.  Before this time the subject was taboo. It was the sex revolution of the 60s which made it possible for people to openly start talking about sex. Only much later, the first inefficient laws were put in place (in first world countries) but cases were rarely reported and cases rarely ended in conviction. Organizations who wished to confront the issue, handled it themselves.  Other organizations did not care because there were no proper laws in place to warrant a reporting of a crime.
When reporting became obligatory - only I some countries, large organizations were to stop handling it themselves..... yes, it is true our organization was slow to respond in these  countries because the laws are so different in many countries (and the taboo of talking about private things were still set in many peoples minds)....Our organization has rectified tis problem and we have legal representatives to advise on the various laws in each country.  Did you know - many countries now have laws in place BUT they are not even followed up by the police - even if reported. The elders still handle these cases to try to get justice for the victim and clean the congregation of wickedness.
Have you seen the scandals in the UK where people were reporting sex crimes against young teenagers to the police for the past 16 years and NOTHING happened because the police were afraid of being accused of racism/islamophobia? This year there has been some convictions of large sex rings because of the outcry........ ON the other hand - an old case which was badly handled by elders many years back before reporting was obligatory (child sex abuse is so difficult to prove as its nature is secret and perpetrators deny it - so special skills are needed to convict)  received unending coverage by the TV and press. 
Would you like your child to be interrogated by either a policeman or a psychologist if they are abused? Even today the psychologists /infrastructure is not always available to assist in many first world countries. In these old cases people complain that it was inadequately handled by elders.  At least they tried to help but could not find enough evidence.  As I said above... the nature of the crime is secret and it is hard to be sure without being an expert. One must be careful to judge these cases too quickly - especially in nasty divorce cases.  There are two sides to every case. In many of these old emerging cases I doubt the legal system would have got them a conviction either..... but at least they now have made BIG money off of it....
So, make sure of your facts before you accuse the Witnesses of injustice and condoning wickedness. As far as possible we try to remove the wicked one from amongst us.  And from my past experience regarding your comments on this forum - Mr. Rook, you are the first to condemn the witnesses for shunning the wicked ones who show no repentance. 
 

Ehm? How about...

"in Emmanuel name, amen" :)))))))))

"in Emmanuel name, amen" :)))))))))

I just find it so sad when people DEMAND so much from the GB without thinking that they are here primarily to disperse "spiritual food".   I recall that a brother on this same website made a translation from Russian available as the Russian supreme court case was progressing.  Why did people not watch it when it was available?  I did.  I stopped watching/reading when I read that they were not allowing relevant evidence from the JW's to be presented which confirmed my suspicion that the court case was a total sham! The evidence from the Russian Orthodox church was accepted!
Russia has never changed.  Perestroika was a sham!  Study the history of Russia and you will realize that the communist agenda is alive an well in many of the -isms (philosophies which are now the backbone of society instead of the right and wrong from the bible) - all these --isms are controlling the lawmaking in the West.  Read up about the Frankfort school and how this and subsequent philosophies have undermined the morals of the west.  Some call it "cultural communism."
The sexual revolution, extreme feminism, gay rights and now the equality warriors (with 57 different types of genders) are all part of it!  I read recently - the thinking now is: if one was born gay - and this is now legal - there are people who are born as child-molesters as well.  In California the age of consent has changed to 14 years and an organization to fight for the rights of child molesters was allowed (by law) to practice and lobby a few weeks ago. We are going back to the time of the Canaanites it seems where everyone will be able to do as they feel as long as they do not go against the government.
Soon our Christian rights will be curbed in the West as the extreme far right (in some countries) and the extreme far left (ruling in Europe, Canada) and their extreme policies are both devastating to the future of ALL civilization in the West as we have known it the last 100 years.  Christians will become the scourge of the earth! Mathew did not warn us of persecution for nothing......
 

Quite true! In fact, I am sometimes reluctant to get into a car driven by the average very theocratic Pioneer.
But I would look for more than an aeronautical designer to explain John 3:16 to me.

Agreed! The only thing I would add is let's CONTINUE TO love and build up each other and give Jehovah and Lord Christ Jesus Our Praise!
You make it sound like we are not.....   Which I am sure you didn't mean to.......

Law enforcement will not take any action either if they cannot prove someone guilty. And if they do convict someone of child sexual molestation, then guess what, after serving a prison sentence, sometimes of only 6 moths to a year, they are released back into the community, and unless you have a sex offender tracker, you will have no idea there is one living in your neighborhood.

I thought you might understand what I was saying in this way. But that is not what I meant. As we say, "just one molested child is one too many". However, my point was that there will be a certain amount of crimes committed even among JWs, it is the law of averages. But to call it an "incredibly huge" amount gives the impression there is at least one pedophile in every congregation. When Raymond Franz (former G.B) was asked by a certain campaigner against the Witnesses about child sexual molestation in the organization, it was Raymond's opportunity to really expose this "huge problem". However, and much to the campaigners disappointment, Raymond told him that he did not think that child sexual abuse was a major problem in the organization and that it had been sensationalized. I believe had it been a huge problem, Raymond would have most definitely addressed it in one of his anti Witness books.
I am afraid it is a drop if we spent $80 million dollars on stamps to send letters to Russia. Ask @James Thomas Rook Jr.. The most that was ever asked in a lawsuit was $21 million and that ended up being settled out of court for an undisclosed amount which would have been very much less than that (probably a few thousand). But if we are going to use your argument, then why are former members imposing this on their brothers and sisters? They don't seem to care much that "most of JW members are not rich with money, have modest income" do they?
Are you serious? The organization is about preaching the good news. That is its mission. Problems arising from man's imperfection and the world in general are side issues that have to be dealt with by those who are  involved, and not by every single member of the organization. I mean would you expect every problem to be reported to the whole worldwide brotherhood? If not, then which problem would you chose to report and which would not be reported? The goal is to stop child sexual abuse and other problems. Not to report on the statistics of them. Have you been to this years convention? There was a whole talk based on protecting our children. All those who attended would have heard it, and all those who know that the organization never arbitrarily just puts information out there, will have understood that this talk was given because there is still a problem.

I know you have a question on this, but for some, the comparison with Ex.1:6 is quite sufficient to satisfy the possibilty of the "generation" extending to two groups. The use of the word generation there is quite applicable to all of "Israel" that spent time in Egypt while Joseph was still alive, including his father. But there are some who may restrict the generation mentioned there there to just Joseph's brothers.
So, for some, the definition harmonises with Scripture, for some, it does not. This is what I said.

OK. Need to clarify. Obviously there is a camp that is quite satisfied with the current understanding the Governing Body have of the generation.
There is another camp that patently is not, and is quite zealous in criticising and denouncing Bro Splane, the GB, and anyone else adhering to the explanation offered in the recent Broadcast. 
My question was addressed to the latter group and I was interested not in their criticisms, but in their alternative suggestions.

Thankful for the correction of error actually. Must be holy spirit at work.

secrecy.....I mean, secretary.......where has that secretary gone!!

The answer to your question here is "Yes, of course they can, and they have." This is why the whole debate has been generated.
So really it is quite a simple matter. It is not about understanding the concept. You have ably demonstrated that by your diagram. Others have explained clearly too in the many postings here. It is not about the fact that the term generation has a number of meanings attached. This has been demonstrated here scripturally, and any quick internet search will reveal many ways in which meaning has been attached to the word in a variety of secular contexts.
So what is the problem? It is that the GB has defined the word "generation" by attaching to it a concept which I have not found elsewhere yet.
The concept as I understand it is as follows:
A time span is delineated by events, and, by that delineation, exceeds the life expectation of any single  human alive at the time. It is then held that there are two groups of humans, one experiencing the initiating event, the other experiencing the terminating event. Further qualifiers are that:
BOTH groups consist of baptised, anointed Christians. Additionally, their lives must overlap whilst in that state. Finally, they must be in that state when experiencing either of the initiating or terminating events.  So. What is the crux of this matter? It is not a matter of understanding. It is quite simply that the GB's definition of the word "generation" and the concept they have attached to it is not accepted by all people.
There appear to be 2 basics reasons stated here and they are and/or reasons:
1. To define the word generation in this manner is unacceptable and does not concur with any accepted definition in general usage.
2. This definition is not found in a Scriptural context, and was not what Jesus had in mind when using this term.
However, it is clear that there are others to whom the definition and concept is both understandable and acceptable, and, more importantly, Scripturally harmonious.
It seems that the final arbiter will be the passage of time and events as is often the case with matters of Bible prophecy.

Quite true! In fact, I am sometimes reluctant to get into a car driven by the average very theocratic Pioneer.
But I would look for more than an aeronautical designer to explain John 3:16 to me.

Quite true! In fact, I am sometimes reluctant to get into a car driven by the average very theocratic Pioneer.
But I would look for more than an aeronautical designer to explain John 3:16 to me.

No it is not to OK hit children, particularly with a belt.
If parents are unable to prevent their children' disturbing others for whatever reason in the auditorium, then they should remain outside the auditorium, with their children, until the children are able to behave in a manner that does not disturb others.

It is also good for those speaking to consider who it was that encouraged children to be a part of their audience. Jesus invited children, despite the wishes of the disciples: "People now began bringing him young children for him to touch them, but the disciples reprimanded them. At seeing this, Jesus was indignant and said to them: “Let the young children come to me; do not try to stop them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such ones". Mark 10:13-14.
Then they should seek to also apply the words of Nehemiah 8:8: "And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read." . This includes children, surely?

@TrueTomHarley ??? Is this directed to you???