JW Insider

This topic was created from posts moved from https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90947-forum-participants-we-have-known/

When the topic of proofreading and mistakes and typos came up, I posted the following statement, which triggered a longer discussion about Russell/1914/Chronology and the like. 

On 6/6/2024 at 11:46 PM, BTK59 said:

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,

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?

14 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Despite this, we all enjoy a good laugh at posts, particularly those that lack conviction.

Lack of conviction has never been one of my criterion for laughing at a post.

15 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I suppose humor only takes into account our intentions.

 Never thought about it that way. Never intend to, either. LOL. 

18 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Oh! I was unaware that speaking the truth is considered insulting.

Except when someone is speaking the truth about you. 

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. You were making an unsubstantiated claim based on either a hunch or a narrative necessary to your own view about yourself and others. It's hard for me to believe that, deep down, you even believe that I or Tom might be the Librarian. I am pretty sure you would already have read enough of the Librarian's posts to know this. 

28 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Just a moment ago, you stated that you don't have any objections to disfellowshipping. So, which is it then?

I have no objections to Biblically-supported disfellowshipping. Never have. Never shifted my opinion on that. 

30 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Does this imply that you have a problem with scripture instructing us to "rebuke" our brothers?

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. I'll stick to discussing content, and only bring up the qualities and quirks of individuals if I believe there's an interesting enough connection between the person and their content. In most cases I won't know enough about the individual which is why I usually avoid those kinds of topics. 

38 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Is that why you inadvertently linked "elders" and "typos"? I would love to see your response and get my fifth laugh in, lol!

I didn't link them inadvertently. I said that the Bible says we should criticize elders if we have spiritual qualifications. We are therefore responsible to use our gifts or our talents. If I have zero spiritual qualifications I will not criticize an elder. But if I have gardening qualifications I will offer help and suggestions and criticisms about the plantings around the Hall. I will even offer to help with the new assembly hall being built not so far from me. If I have proofreading qualifications I will offer proofreading criticisms as my gift. Whether my qualifications are good or not will only be known by how people respond, and so far, so good. 

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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 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." Also a researcher for the Art Dept where I continued to work but wasn't good at drawing people's faces. But I could pick a font, make calligraphy and could quickly go to a library or the Jewish Museum in NYC and find out what a first century anvil looked like (for example). 

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.

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.

Widows and orphans (in typesetting) can refer to those words or short lines that hang out by themselves as the last line of a paragraph, or on a page by themselves all alone. Rivers are made from the gaps between words that sometimes line up on three or more adjacent lines, looking like a path through the page, and cause distraction to a reader. 

10 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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.

You have been aware for years that I state I have never banned anyone. You might not believe it of course, but you were aware of my position from previous discussions. Yet, you repeat here that I am showing favoritism to some and banning others. You imply that I am just making excuses for favoritism, and that this behavior with no evidence provided is becoming increasingly obvious -- and you repeat it claiming now that it is MULTIPLE people I have banned by adding -- "with each person you ban." 

So I give you the benefit of the doubt and don't call it an insult yet, even though it clearly was:

• BTK insult #1: JWI is making excuses
• BTK insult #2: JWI is showing favoritism
• BTK insult #3: JWI is banning others making this behavior obvious with each person JWI bans

10 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Then you upvote that dishonesty.

I was guessing that you meant the "laughter" emoji at the reference to my funeral. Still, I guess this was also meant as an insult:

• BTK insult #4: JW upvotes dishonesty

I began to respond:

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Must not be as obvious as you think because I've never banned anyone. I don't even know if I have the power to ban anyone.

This was not an insult. Just a statement of clear fact. It can't be obvious that I have banned someone since I never have banned anyone. I still honestly don't know if I have the power to do so. 

So far, BTK insults: 5.

You responded with:

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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.

So, now you go ahead and try to claim that I was lying via some kind of wordplay that I have never used, but which I have often seen used by others. 

• BTK insult #6: JWI is using wordplay manipulation to deceive

 Anyway, I responded:

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Must not have been that obvious, if even such an astute person such as yourself got it wrong.

Again, just a statement of fact. And to make it clear you weren't being insulted I made mention of how astute you are. 

As an aside, I don't think it's an insult to point out that when I use certain descriptive words (like "astute') for the first time here almost all the "Allen-Smith-styled" accounts will return that word to me in some way, and I have often said this might be a form of echolalia. No one else does this, but Allen did it, Moise did it, Billy the Kid did it, and at least 20 other Allen-styled accounts. And guess what:

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Your understanding of the situation is astute.

I admit that the phenomenon of echolalia came up in a course I took many years ago. Otherwise I would not likely have noticed. I could give about 150 to 175 examples from the Allen-styled accounts.

Aside completed.

You had gone on next to say: 

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Obviously, you will never publicly admit it,

Another direct claim that I am lying.

BTK insult #7: JWI will continue lying (claiming NOT to be the Librarian) because he will never publicly admit it.

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

the truth will ultimately prevail, which is what truly matters.

You've only posted a few out of hundreds.

I 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.) 

55 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

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!

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. 

The problem is not that people are insulting you, but that you have indeed made ridiculous statements and claims. When people make ridiculous claims in public, they can expect ridicule. That's what ridiculous means. You can be glad that the form of ridicule you receive is merely a bit of laughter.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

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

I will again admit that this too made me laugh a bit. Not at you, but at the ridiculousness of the claim about who started insulting, and the fact that you gave yourself a score of 0 insults, which only highlighted your own double standard. Although I doubt this was on purpose;  i don't think you were aware of it.

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:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Not all criticism is worthy of condemnation though. If one has spiritual qualifications they should criticize an elder under some circumstances, according to the Bible. If one has proofreading qualifications, they probably should criticize the publications under some circumstances. I criticized a mistake on the website yesterday, and it was fixed the same day in time for the Wednesday mid-week meeting. I got an acknowledgement of appreciation for my criticism. It's no big deal. 

Yes. Thanks for asking. Up until yesterday, the Mobile app allowed you to look up the Meetings under Library and when you clicked on the Song it would stream either Meetings, Vocals, Instrumental, Children, or Chorus depending on what selections were available for that particular song. 

Well, Tuesday you were able to select a Chorus version of Song 111, the last song for the midweek meeting. And of course some persons, in preparation for the meeting, will play the chorus version so that that they can practice the song with words. The Vocals version will often be a solo performer who might improvise a bit. The Chorus version will not improvise so often. The Chorus version of Song 111. (Our Reasons for Joy) starts out "Our reasons for joy are abundant." But the original chorus version, some might recall, sang it as "Our reasons for joy are abounding." It was originally written this way to sound better with the next line The joy in our heart is well-founded." So that a B-rhyme or "slant-rhyme" was implied between abounding and well-founded.

But those words were awkward sounding, and the printed version changed abounding to abundant. But the mobile app still pointed to the old Chorus version. When reported it was removed and only the Meetings version (instrumental) and Vocals and Children version remain. Those ones are all correct. 

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. 

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. 

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

3 hours 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.

Seems doubtful since I never believed it was always unethical, nor have I ever believed disfellowshipping itself was ever barbaric. That's not even a word I would use when the once-blind person that Jesus healed was disfellowshipped from the Sanhedrin. It was wrong, but not barbaric. The only types of uses that I consider barbaric are of the type that I mentioned. There are probably others but I was not privy to the details of that many other cases.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

If you have reconsidered banning George while Pudgy remains unbanned, you cannot justify your action as an act of Christian conduct.

My position is that none of us should be banned. We are almost all reprobates from my perspective. If this were a Christian congregation, I would be disfellowshipped too, because there are things I will say here "in the congregation of reprobates" that I would never think of saying in a Christian congregation, nor even to a closest friend, unless they could convince me that they were asking honestly and in good faith, and able to understand the consequences if they chose to agree with whatever understanding I admitted to having at the time.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Why would lies be allowed to persist? Can you provide an answer?

 Not sure what you have in mind, but lies persist because people often lie. If someone says something that appears to be a lie, then we either ignore it or we ask them for evidence, or we defend against it, or we research the "lie" ourselves and decide whether we should keep our feelings about it to ourselves, or we wait and see if someone else will take up the mantle. I've seen several lies on here that I just didn't care enough about to be concerned. Too trivial. Or I knew that telling the truth would just create unnecessary trouble and attacks. We can't all be each other's keeper.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Why criticize the Edler arrangement, the Governing Body, and the Watchtower when we all recognize our imperfections?

 If there are things to criticize or correct, some will feel the need to criticize or correct. And some won't. It's no big deal since this is not a Christian congregation. In effect, you are criticizing the GB for being here when the GB have recommended that we not be here. So am I.

Not all criticism is worthy of condemnation though. If one has spiritual qualifications they should criticize an elder under some circumstances, according to the Bible. If one has proofreading qualifications, they probably should criticize the publications under some circumstances. I criticized a mistake on the website yesterday, and it was fixed the same day in time for the Wednesday mid-week meeting. I got an acknowledgement of appreciation for my criticism. It's no big deal. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

But since you and Tom are the librarian

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. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

That has been obvious well over 5 years now.

Must not have been that obvious, if even such an astute person such as yourself got it wrong.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

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.

I would never claim to be. But I will publicly admit that I have never manipulated anyone's posts. I have taken a couple down, but they were repeats like when someone accidentally posts the same post 3 times. I have also moved posts to new topics many times, and in a couple of cases I have removed the posts that requested the move, or thanked me for making the move, because these make no sense after the move is completed. But even for these, I would only do that for persons who wouldn't be prone to complain or wouldn't get paranoid about a post being taken down. If I thought the person might wonder about a lost post I will announce what I'm doing in a post, and if there are no complaints within a day or so I will also take down my announcement post. 

If you know of any posts that were manipulated, point it out immediately and the admin(s) should be able to find an edit history so they can know who did it. I don't have access to an edit history but I assume that every such event is logged in the db. Not just admins, but moderators do have the ability to edit another person's post because I was once asked to edit a typo in a post where the author had passed the time limit for editing and I could still edit it for them. That's happened only about three times in 10 years.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

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?

I don't know what comments you refer to. Not the one from Tom, although I can guess, nor the one from Pudgy. I almost never interact with Pudgy, and even with JTR many of my "subtly offensive" posts to him were just hints that I didn't like a lot of his incessantly off-topic cartoons. in fact, the only recent time I recall interacting with Pudgy was to complain that his cartoon was completely off-topic and he responded that it was supposed to be obvious satire intended to lighten the mood from such a serious topic. But I also like some of his humor, too, I just don't respond to much of it.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

which are equally insulting and offensive as George's comment,

You might be referring to a specific comment of George's that I didn't see. There is no specific post referred to in the "Reports" section which I can see. And there are times when an admin or moderator(or Librarian?) will hide an ostensibly offensive post, and that gives it a pinkish border to a moderator like me, while others can't see it at all. I have seen these, but I see no such offending post in George's case. If someone requoted that post, then maybe I can go back and see it, but I didn't completely read this topic yet.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Why bother defending your position when you know you can't justify it?

I have no reason to defend my position. Just stating how I feel about banning, etc. I could be wrong about it, and I don't mind being corrected if I am. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

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.

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. I thought this was between J.R. and George88. Banning someone could potentially be justified, although I would never do it. And I have only one account/name/title here. I wouldn't do it under any account/name/title even if I had more than one. I don't think it's my place. I was never offered the authority and I think it's better to deal with content a person posts more than worry about the people behind them. It's sometimes funny and/or revealing when people use sock puppets for manipulation or satire or use them to build up a vote-reputation, so that's fair game for discussion. But not to attack people, and not to ban them. If the rules said only one account and no sock puppets that would be a different matter to the admins/owners, but not something I would worry about.  

If Tom was dishonest, or Pudgy was abusive I wouldn't defend it, but just like with you I wouldn't want to see them banned. And if someone thought it was absolutely necessary (which I doubt) then just like with George, I wouldn't want to see the content banned. I thought George had spent a good deal of time on the site rebuilding a better reputation and had also posted a ton of interesting content that had nothing to do with whatever happened here. I found it tedious to go through this last exchange with J.R., especially since I didn't agree with J.R. on the basic point. If someone wants to be a zealous OT-prophet-styled vigilante for truth and justice, who are we to try to stop him. Gamaliel could have told us that. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

2 hours 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.

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. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

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.

Must not be as obvious as you think because I've never banned anyone. I don't even know if I have the power to ban anyone. It's possible I do, but when I was offered moderator powers it was to help keep some order in some otherwise chaotic threads that kept going off-topic, and most specifically it was offered to me at a time when Allen Smith appeared to be responding to nearly all my posts with an extra dose of vitriol. 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, but left them all just exactly as awful as he wanted to express himself. Then someone came along and deleted several versions of Allen along with all his past posts in many cases. This removed the foundation of my own responses to him which makes it difficult to make sense of those threads if anyone were go back and try to read them. 

I may never know if I actually have the power to ban anyone because I will never use it even if I can.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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. 

I don't think disfellowshipping is always unethical. The Christian congregation needs this authority for cases of exceptional wrongdoing, gangrene-like heresy and apostasy, and times when accepting association by someone reprehensible would give the appearance of condoning that person's conduct. But it can be implemented in a "barbaric" manner. I've watched this happen. I worked with Governing Body member, Brother Bert Schroeder, when his practice was to threaten to disfellowshipping persons unless they "snitched" on private conversations they had with friends who were closer to Bert's "political" target at the time. Then the person who snitched was allowed to just walk away unscathed. 

I've seen it used to break apart families where a (young -but-just-over-18) baptized person still lived at home with mental conditions that made it nearly impossible for her to safely live on her own, and yet she was kicked out of the home.

I've seen the threat used on my own sister if she were to tell the truth to hospital personnel that her ministerial servant husband had given her the injuries through a beating. 

I've seen the threat used against a registered nurse, a good friend of my brother, who was told (by Brother James Pellechia of the Writing Department) that she could no longer voluntarily care for a 90-year-old nearly invalid wheelchair-bound brother in a second/third floor apartment in Brooklyn who was disfellowshipped for apostasy, mostly over some negative remarks about Rutherford that he wouldn't recant. (He had been a colporteur under Russell and Rutherford.) The nurse asked my brother (a Bethelite at the time) for help and my wife and I were able to sneak in (partly disguised) to help the disfellowshipped person several times a week, along with another sister who took the other days. He literally would have died without the help.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

it involves severing ties with someone who stands up and speaks truth to power. 

I agree that you have often spoken truth here. However, this is not a congregation. It's a nearly random collection of persons who take an interest in discussing JW-related topics: some controversial, some innocuous. 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 expect it. And if we happen to doubt or even reject a doctrine or two that most JWs accept, we understand quite well that we should expect to take some "abuse" for it. That's the only kind of abusive behavior I've gotten from the Allen-Smith-persona-like accounts.

I expect it now and then, and don't agree with JR that such a vigilante-styled zealous one needs to identify himself.

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. 

I did my one-month penance away from this site, and I'm ready for another 10 years here. LOL.

I hadn't realized that Pudgy also stopped posting the same day. Also, there are dozens of post from George88 that are quoted by others here but when I go back to find the original, they are missing. Looks like JR invoked some of the rules of the forum which may have raised a flag to a moderator. What's left of his requoted comments tells me I probably would not have been much encouraged by the exchanges anyway.

But banning someone like George does almost nothing to remove that kind of vitriol and divisiveness. He still has other active accounts on here anyway. There are times when I think it just makes it worse when old accounts are "reincarnated." Anyone remember these names? 

• 1 Abusive Behaviour

  Moise Racette was warned   March 18, 2023

  Not Yet Acknowledged
•  

• 1 Abusive Behaviour

  Chioke Lin was warned  July 15, 2022

   Acknowledged
•  

  15 Abusive Behaviour

  César Chávez was warned   May 13, 2021

   Acknowledged
• 

  1 Abusive Behaviour

  Leander H. McNelly was warned  March 8, 2020

   Acknowledged

• 1 Abusive Behaviour

  DefenderOTT was warned  October 24, 2019

  Not Yet Acknowledged
•  

  1 Abusive Behaviour

  Sean Migos was warned  October 24, 2019

   Acknowledged
• 

  1 Abusive Behaviour

  Allen_Smith was warned   October 23, 2019

  Not Yet Acknowledged
•  

  1 Spamming

  divergenceKO was warned  October 23, 2019

  Not Yet Acknowledged
• 

  1 Abusive Behaviour

  Foreigner was warned October 23, 2019

  Not Yet Acknowledged

• 5 Abusive Behaviour

  AllenSmith was warned   July 2, 2018

   Acknowledged

8 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Any comments, thoughts or otherwise? 

As George88 said, it's all just speculation. Charles Taze Russell thought that Jesus was "conceived" on or about December 25th, which was an early Bible Student rationale for celebrating Christmas. Russell thus held the belief that Jesus would have born around 9 months later, between late September and early October.

Currently, our publications place Jesus birthday around October 1st. 

Our publications also speculate that the "first Adam" was born around October 1st, or Tishri 1 of the year 4026 BCE.

*** it-1 p. 45 Adam ***
"That was in the year 4026 B.C.E. It was likely in the fall of the year, for mankind’s most ancient calendars began counting time in the autumn around October 1, or at the first new moon of the lunar civil year." [Tishri 1]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

As I mentioned before, since the exact date is unknown, it is reasonable to consider anywhere from 6 to 1 B.C.

This is also true. A date as early as 5 or 6 BCE is speculated because the Bible says that Herod the Great was still alive. So far, all the evidence points to Herod's death in 4 B.C.E. See Wikipedia footnote resources for example.

Note that 30 years prior to the beginning of Tiberius' reign in 28 C.E. would take us to 3 B.C.E., but this was counting to the time of Jesus' baptism, and we only speculate that it was 3.5 years from his baptism to his death. Also, Luke said "about" 30 years of age. This is also one of the reasons many scholars put Jesus death closer to 30 C.E., not 33 C.E. 

Not to say that it is wrong, but the WTS publications have spent considerable effort trying to overcome the Herod (and Quirinius) evidence in order to maintain the claim that it was more likely around 2 B.C.E. It might be that 2 B.C.E. makes a better fit for the 70 weeks of years prophecy, but even here we begin counting that prophecy from a year that is about 10 years different from the secular evidence. 

*** it-1 pp. 463-467 Chronology ***
Jesus’ appearance as the Messiah came in the precise year foretold, perhaps about six months after John the Baptizer began his preaching in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” (Lu 1:36; 3:1, 2, 21-23) Since the Roman Senate named Tiberius emperor on September 15 of 14 C.E., his 15th year ran from the latter part of 28 C.E. well into 29 C.E. (See TIBERIUS.) The evidence, then, is that Jesus’ baptism and anointing took place in the fall of the year 29 C.E.
Since Jesus was “about thirty years old” at the time of his baptism in 29 C.E. (Lu 3:23), his birth took place 30 years earlier, or about the fall of the year 2 B.C.E. He was born during the reign of Caesar Augustus and the Syrian governorship of Quirinius. (Lu 2:1, 2) Augustus’ rule ran from 27 B.C.E. to 14 C.E. The Roman senator P. Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, the first time evidently coming after P. Quintilius Varus, whose term as legate of Syria ended in 4 B.C.E.
 

This conflicts with the evidence from secular chronology and historians of the time. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Quinctilius_Varus

Later he went to govern Syria from 7–6 BC until 4 BC with four legions under his command, where he was known for his harsh rule and high taxes. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judaea after the death of the Roman client king, Herod the Great, in 4 BC.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius

After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus from the tetrarchy of Judea in AD 6, Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria, to which the province of Judaea had been added for the purpose of a census.^[2]

Some pix I snapped earlier today although most of the small babies are hiding until feeding time. There are none in the first picture, but if you look closely at the second picture, you might be able to pick out about six of them.

When my wife and I were married in the early 80s, she always had a fish tank. So we continued the tradition with a 55 gallon tank for some pretty saltwater fish, but they eventually died after a few years. Pretty while they lasted and pretty expensive too to keep replacing them, so we changed to lightly brackish water for mostly cichlids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brackish_aquarium_fish_species

We also tried "kribensis" in the lightly brackish water, where they can live, but supposedly don't breed. But they did breed, and it was fun to watch literally dozens of little babies in a tank that also contained aggressive cichlids trying to get them and the parent kribensis opening up their mouths to sweep in all the babies and carry them off to safety in their mouth. We had so many babies that we had to keep giving hundreds up for adoption at a local fish store. Here's some info about them. 

Kribensis cichlids (Pelvicachromis pulcher) are small, colorful, and easy-to-care-for fish that are native to the African waters of Cameroon and southern Nigeria. They are known for their vibrant spawning dress, and their Latin name translates to "fish with a beautiful belly". During spawning season, the female kribensis has a cherry-red belly, while the lighter parts of her body turn bright yellow, and the colors on her fins are more pronounced.

 

 

 

These days we have had success with both a saltwater tank and a cichlid tank. But we never had any cichlids breed a brood of babies for several years. But my wife said we should no longer use tap water in the tank, not even filtered tap water. (My wife actually had a filter put in the basement so that the kitchen tap and refrigerator water is filtered, but she actually filters it again in a large "Burkey" filter for coffee and drinking.) I always thought it was too much trouble for tap water that I have tested for all kinds of chemicals and found to be just fine.

 

GETTING TO THE POINT, finally

 

But here's the reason I mention it. Just some weeks ago, we started replacing all water with bottled spring water and purified water until at least 35 gallons of the 55 have now replaced the old double-filtered tap water we had used previously. And "suddenly" after all these years, we are getting babies again, 3 overlapping generations have begun in just the last two months. And they grow fast.

 

12 hours ago, Nobody You Know said:

I read on another site that at least one Bethel insider is saying that the Governing Body is going to start allowing birthdays.

Never heard it. But I have my doubts only because this same topic came up at Bethel many years ago around mid-1979 during the Bible reading of Job and a morning text comment by Brother Franz regarding the "yearly" feast days for each of Job's sons. The fact that he added the word "yearly" started the unfounded rumor. 

Then, of course, rumors swirled after the following statement made about celebrations with piñatas, allowed at the time only for Witnesses in Mexico but not California when I used to live in Southern California. That changed in 2003:

*** g03 9/22 p. 24 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition ***
When considering whether to include a piñata at a social gathering, Christians should be sensitive to the consciences of others. (1 Corinthians 10:31-33) A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. Understandably, opinions may vary from one place to another. Hence, it is wise to avoid turning such matters into big issues. The Bible says: “Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.”—1 Corinthians 10:24.

This was the conclusion of an article that admitted the association between piñatas and Christmas traditions. Curiously, the article also noted that the Mexican piñata was not strictly related to Lent, Christmas, and the struggle against Satan, and blind faith, but had an older origin celebrating the BIRTHDAY of the war god Huitzilopochtli.

*** g03 9/22 pp. 22-24 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition ***
Breaking the piñata became a custom on the first Sunday of Lent. It seems that at the beginning of the 16th century, Spanish missionaries brought the piñata to Mexico.
However, the missionaries may have been surprised (as we were) to find that the native people of Mexico already had a similar tradition. The Aztecs celebrated the birthday of Huitzilopochtli, their god of the sun and war...
As part of their strategy to evangelize the Indians, the Spanish missionaries ingeniously made use of the piñata to symbolize, among other things, the Christian’s struggle to conquer the Devil and sin. The traditional piñata was a clay pot covered with colored paper and given a star shape with seven tasseled points. These points were said to represent the seven deadly sins: greed, gluttony, sloth, pride, envy, wrath, and lust. Striking the piñata while blindfolded represented blind faith and willpower overcoming temptation or evil. . . .
The Piñata Today
Later, the piñata became part of the festivities of the posadas during the Christmas season and continues as such to this day. (A star-shaped piñata is used to represent the star that guided the astrologers to Bethlehem.) Breaking the piñata is also considered indispensable at birthday parties. . . .
We found that for many people in Mexico, the piñata has lost its religious significance and is considered by most to be just harmless fun. In fact, piñatas are used in Mexico on many festive occasions, not just for the posadas or for birthdays. 

Just a placeholder, for something I wanted to look into a bit later:

https://www.villagepreservation.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GVHD3.pdf

17 hours ago, Anna said:

I am trying to figure out under which forum this topic is....

I always take a topic I'm reading, and if I want to share something about a related subject, I just click on "Create a New Topic" from there. If it was about music, I'll make the new topic about music; if it was about JWs, I'll make it about JWs. I don't usually care what Club it's in, if any. I must have been reading a topic about JWs and just clicked "Create a New Topic" without looking at the Club.

When I saw that the topic was not in the JW Closed or JW Open "Club" I tried to move it in the same way I can move a post to another topic. The pulldown menu I get for moving it allows me to move it to the "JW Topics" or JWs Only Topics." [farther down on the list]

I picked "JW Topics" but it didn't move it to the "Club."

Anyway, I wanted it in the Open Club because I wanted George/BTK/etc to feel free to complain openly about it. (I have to admit, this was my actual thought and reason before moving it, because I had referenced him obliquely in the opening paragraph. He has made so many specific condemnations of against Fox News and Trump, for example.)

6 hours ago, George88 said:

The issue in New York was the significant presence of gangs, which led to the perceived necessity for armed security.

You might be right, but I have a feeling it was more of a carryover from the 1940's. This was a rough era for the Watchtower, and opposition could get crazy in some areas of the US. I don't know that they ever had much of a problem with intruders. The guards did their rounds at night, and couldn't turn on any lights, with just a flashlight through dark hallways and corridors. 

At Brooklyn Bethel, every four to six months, all single brothers (under 30, I think) would get an assignment for either night-time dish duty (to help out the overnight kitchen crew) or guard duty. I always traded my dish duty for night-time guard duty because it gave me the morning off the next day, and I hate doing dishes. But we had no weapons and were told never to approach an intruder, just call the police. In fact, it was just a matter of walking around with a key and turning it into a "time-clock" at a location on two ends of each floor, and making that round two or three times during the night. If we found windows open we were to close them, and if we found any lights left on we were to turn them off, of if we smelled an excess of 'flammables' we could turn on a light and investigate. I was told that making these rounds reduced our insurance rates considerably. The closest thing to an intruder I ever found was a Bethelite who had stayed in the Squibb factory building overnight to hide away in a dark place with someone I assumed was his girlfriend. 

13 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I am sitting in my car at a typical WalMart mall, with lots of gunfire going on in the distance.

Same at our Costco. It’s next to a firing range in constant use by local and county police. 

42 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

Dang, why the need for so much security? That truly does sound like a billionair den. I'd be willing to bet those guys were packing heat.i

I doubt it. Bethelite guards used to carry guns in the factory up until the 1960s. I recall a well known story of a brother who shot up a large roll of paper for the printing press because it shot at him first. (Actually it “popped” several times because that’s what tightly rolled rolls of paper will do when they contract and expand from temperature changes. 
 

I’m told that the biggest concern is keeping out protesters. Also the “webmaster” told me that they also are always on the watch for hackers who try to get inside the network to get to the databases. That was the gist of my hacking jokes that started at the top of this thread. 

28 minutes ago, George88 said:

Does this mean they invited Elton John to play candle in the wind? 

I also have trouble extracting a sense of humor from AI tools. 

Don’t know if this happens to you. But when I bring up Gaza I get a version of this AIPAC ad on the page. As I did just now: (I strongly dislike AIPAC)

39 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He even says he drives a Subaru:

I always get confused when a Subaru comes up behind me because in my rear view mirror it says U R A BUS.