JW Insider

OH!
Some of what looks like water is actually "OH" not H2O, and this hydroxyl can be a real "OH-OH."
The link you gave mentioned:
But it was unclear whether that hydrogen was in the form of hydroxyl – the chemical that makes up drain cleaners – or in the form of H2O, or water.
The NIH.gov site cites a biochemical journal about hydrogen peroxide (HOOH), which adds this:
. . . to generate hydroxyl radicals (OH.) from H2O2 has been investigated . . .
And all this, of course, was presented, just as a setup for the old H2O2 joke:

True. That's one of the most exquizit moves in Scrabble.

That's what was supposed to attract the cheaters...
I'll fix it...😊
 

Not bored. But I might be giving myself a diversion just to avoid responding. I tend to muddy the waters sometimes. Of course, I know there are probably a lot of people who want to discuss 1914 and China, maybe both under the same topic heading. 😁
I'll wait for the upcoming Neutrality talk before I say anything more on politics, though.

My edit buttons include B I U S, and the S is the strikethrough. But you don't need it. I think it's better to just erase the used tiles. Seems easier. For example, let's say I responded to QUETZAL with BANJAXED (I never knew that word before today; cheating is encouraged!). I merely erased the used letters. The problem is that it is harder to see if a mistake was made in the erasing.
0 Points - Blank tile.
1 Point - A, E, I, L, N, O, R, S, T and U.
2 Points - D and G.
3 Points - B, C, M and P.
4 Points - F, H, V, W and Y.
5 Points - K.
8 Points - J and X.
10 Points - Q and Z.
The color-codes here are
Triple Word Triple Letter Double Word Double Letter
                                Player 1   Player 2                                   QUETZAL 120 BANJAXED 91                                                         B                                       A                                       N                                       J                             Q U E T Z A L                                     X                                       E                                       D                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     A A A A A A A                         B C C   D D D                             E E E E E E E E E E                 F F G G G H H                           I I I I I I I I I   K                     L L L M M   N N N N N                 P P   R R R R R R                       S S S S   T T T T T                       U U U V V W W   Y Y                   [ ] [ ] O O O O O O O O                                                           Sorry, I added the O's on the last line (after the two [blanks] instead of after the N's.

Which calls for ZODIACAL. Hey this is so fun, I might just play this one out myself.
21x3=63, plus OX (9), plus DE (3), plus ID (3) = 78 plus 50 point bonus.
                                Player 1   Player 2                                   QUETZAL 120 BANJAXED 91                                 FRESHLY 140 ZODIACAL 128                 B                                       A   F                                   N   R                                   J   E                         Q U E T Z A L S                                 O X   H                                 D E   L                                 I D   Y                                 A                                       C                                       A                                       L                                                                           A A A A A                         B   C     D D                               E E E E E E E E E                   F G G G   H                             I I I I I I I I   K         TOTALS 260   219         L M M   N N N N N                 P P     R R R R R                         S S S   T T T T T                       U U U V V W W     Y                   [ ] [ ]   O O O O O O O                                                            

This was made from a Google Spreadsheet which will be shared between players so that a person with the link can edit it. (Will be sent by PM to whomever wants to play, and each updated screen can be displayed here after every valid play is made.) After any play, the player can tally up their points and will need to cross out the letters they used from the letter "pool."
The first two items are just an example. Let's say the first player plays QUETZAL in such a way that they get 120 points. (Double letter score on the Q and double word, and a 50 point bonus for using all their tiles.) Let's say the next player plays XI in such a way that the X counts for 16 (double letter) for the word AX, and 16 again for the word XI, and also makes LI, for a total of 34 points. And every letter used gets a strikethrough, or gets greyed out in the pool it was chosen from. After that play the game board would look like this:

                                Player 1   Player 2                                   QUETZAL 120 XI 36                                                                                                                                                                                                               Q U E T Z A L                                     X I                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               A A A A A A A A A                       B B C C D D D D                         E E E E E E E E E E E E                 F F G G G H H                           I I I I I I I I I J K                   L L L L M M N N N N N N                 P P Q R R R R R R                       S S S S T T T T T T                     U U U U V V W W X Y Y Z                 [ ] [ ]                                                                            
Obviously, the first player has a great advantage in taking out the best letters. A final score will probably reflect this, and perhaps should be accounted for with a "handicap." Perhaps the handicap could be that the first play is split evenly among the two players, or a percentage of that first score is given to the player who goes second.
It's also possible in most browsers to actually just edit the game right here for each new play and then copy the final board now and then to the next post. You might need to check the scoring against an actual board, or look up the letter values on Google.
 

1. My mother taught me TO APPRECIATE A JOB WELL DONE. "If you're going to kill each other, do it outside. I just finished cleaning."

2. My mother taught me RELIGION. "You better pray that will come out of the carpet."

3. My mother taught me about TIME TRAVEL. "If you don't straighten up, I'm going to knock you into the middle of next week."

4. My mother taught me LOGIC. "Because I said so, that's why."

5. My mother taught me MORE LOGIC. "If you fall out of that swing and break your neck, you're not going to the store with me."

6. My mother taught me FORESIGHT. "Make sure you wear clean underwear, in case you're in an accident."

7. My mother taught me IRONY. "Keep crying, and I'll give you something to cry about."

8. My mother taught me about the science of OSMOSIS. "Shut your mouth and eat your supper."

9. My mother taught me about CONTORTIONISM. "Will you look at that dirt on the back of your neck?"

10. My mother taught me about STAMINA. "You'll sit there until all that spinach is gone."

11. My mother taught me about WEATHER. "This room of yours looks as if a tornado went through it."

12. My mother taught me about HYPOCRISY. "If I told you once, I've told you a million times. Don't exaggerate!"

13. My mother taught me about the CIRCLE OF LIFE. "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out."

14. My mother taught me about BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION. "Stop acting like your father."

15. My mother taught me about ENVY. "There are millions of less fortunate children in this world who don't have wonderful parents like you do."

16. My mother taught me about ANTICIPATION. "Just wait until we get home."

17. My mother taught me about RECEIVING. "You are going to get it when you get home."

18. My mother taught me MEDICAL SCIENCE. "If you don't stop crossing your eyes, they are going to freeze that way."

19. My mother taught me ESP. "Put your sweater on; don't you think I know when you are cold?"

20. My mother taught me HUMOR. "When that lawn mower cuts off your toes, don't come running to me."

21. My mother taught me HOW TO BECOME AN ADULT. "If you don't eat your vegetables, you'll never grow up."

22. My mother taught me GENETICS. "You're just like your father."

23. My mother taught me ROOTS. "Shut that door behind you. Do you think you were born in a barn?"

24. My mother taught me WISDOM. "When you get to be my age, you'll understand."

25. My mother taught me JUSTICE. "One day you'll have kids, and I hope they turn out just like you."

How many of these did your mother teach? AND how many did you teach your children?

Psalm 83:18 "May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth"
The online King James Bible has retained the name Jehovah in this verse.  
The name Jehovah is represented by four Hebrew consonants known as the Tetragrammaton.
Jehovah means "He causes to become"

An epitaph
The inscription reads: "Si Gabbor, a priest of Shahar at Neirab. This is my image. Because I have served him with integrity, he [Shahar] has given me a good reputation and a long life. On the day of my death, my mouth could still speak and I saw with my eyes four generations of my descendants. They were weeping and grieving over me. They put no silver or bronze objects beside me; they put nothing but my clothes on me, so that my tomb would not be violated. Whoever thou may be, O thou who harmest me by moving me, may Shahar and Nikkal and Nusku make thy death shameful and may thy descendants perish."

This funerary stele presents
under a long inscription in Aramaic
a figurative scene with a priest seated at the banquet.

The cult of the moon god, Sîn in Akkadian,
is already well established in the Aleppo region of Syria.
In the long dedication the deceased takes stock
of his life and says his desire for a beautiful death
and to enjoy the rest in the Hereafter without its remains being desecrated.
Material used   basalt
Location Room 302, Sully Wing, Louvre Palace, 1st arrondissement of Paris, Paris, Metropolis of Greater Paris, Île-de-France, Metropolitan France, France Collection Department of Near Eastern Antiquities of the Louvre https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/stele-priest-si-gabbor
 

7 & 8 ... obviously!

7 & 8 ... obviously!

So true in many countries. That's part of what I meant when I said that ...
It seems they've found weasel-words to show that something might look like idolatry but it technically does not fall under their definition of idolatry. This is so different from the words the Bible uses such as "abstain" from idolatry, or "flee" from idolatry, or "guard yourselves" from idols. There's no room left for staying that close to idolatry but using technical definitions to claim it's not.

I used to wonder about Catholic churches being filled with statues and people praying to them. Surely they were aware that idolatry was wrong. So I questioned this and found out that apparently the Catholics do not view their statues as idols, but merely as symbols or reminders of past saints etc. 
The Catholic reasoning is that:
"An image is not an idol unless two things are present… (1)The image, must represent a false god. (2) The image, must be worshiped.
Then what about bowing down and praying in front of a statues of Mary, for example. Is that worship?
According to Catholic reasoning no, it's not because: There are two Biblical requirements of worship (1) full submission, and (2) sacrifice. 
This occurs at Holy Mass when: "This is where we Catholics fully submit ourselves to Yahweh (The Holy Trinity), and offer up the sacrifice of the Eucharist".
Bowing down is an act of respect, and prayer is supplication, not worship.. 
This would all be OK, however, in the case of the Pachamama, the Pope, by calling the statue merely a symbol of something, is watering down his own Catholic principles, because the Pachamama already fulfills the first criteria for an idol in that the statue represents a fertility godess.....not only that, but the rituals that honor Pachamama also involve "sacrifice" where grain and other produce is offered and "The final step of the ceremony is the burning of the offerings so that they can return to their origins, rising into the sky while the remaining ashes are buried in the earth to complete the cycle".
Interesting observation from Wikipedia: After the Spanish colonization of the Americas, they forced conversion to Roman Catholicism. As it is a syncretic religion, the figure of the Virgin Mary was associated with that of the Pachamama for many of the indigenous people.

Even the Devil can be right once in a while. Massimo Introvigne is already on jw.org in half a dozen places.

Yes. I think that you have hit upon the reason that the quote about peace and security was considered "Satanic." It was haughty in the sense of being far too optimistic and ambitious. Perhaps the words "supremely" and "vision" also give it a religious sense.
"In+ these+ Goals+ and+ targets,+ we+ are+ setting+ out+ a+ supremely+ ambitious+ and+ transformational+ vision.+ We+ envisage+ a+ world+ free+ of+ poverty,+ hunger,+ disease+ and+ want,+ where+all+life+can+thrive.+"
Of course, we know from the context that we are likely trying to read into it things that just aren't there, if we try to make too much of the supremely flowery rhetoric.
But, do we really know what is the demarcation line for calling an organization evil and disgusting? Is it the grand scope of the optimism? The scope of the effort? Is this because they envisage the whole world to be better, not just limiting their efforts to a small country here and there? 
We don't call a school teacher evil and disgusting if he or she spearheads a project for a cleanup of a park, or a tree planting effort. But what if all teachers in several different countries support the idea of an "Earth Day" where several hours of that day every year are used for the promotion of such projects? What if the teachers optimistically claim that such efforts will save the world from a climate crisis? What if it turns out that the funding and promotional materials for these "Earth Day" efforts come from policies and think tanks at a government level, and these governments are haughty enough to think they can achieve these good things without God?
(I noticed that even evangelists like Billy Graham and others have felt a need to counsel their audience that Earth Day is not evil. Here's another:
So should Christians care about Earth Day? Yes.The contemporary environmentalist movement has often been flawed and clumsy and sometimes evil, as any movement made up of fallen sinners tends to be. But, at the core of it, is a concept Christians ought to recognize.
But there is always a conspiratorialist somewhere who will be happy to find evil in anything. Here's an example:
Don Stewart’s letter (News Messenger, April 22, page A5, “Celebrate Earth and not Lenin”) argued that Earth Day is connected to Lenin’s birthday as both fall on April 22. Celebrating Earth Day shows you are a red Communist and plotting much evil in the world of capitalism.
Snopes.com even had to produce an article against that idea, since Lenin had supposedly murdered and "composted" his girlfriend. Other pro-capitalists found other political reasons for calling Earth Day "evil." https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/04/earth-day-evil/
The UN policymakers and think tanks look at the world as a bunch of projects. When they look at poverty, they see how some government policies have succeeded in a short amount of time in bringing very poor countries on their way out of poverty, from say 80% below a UN-defined poverty line only 8% still in poverty.  Or other countries bring the meaningful amount of free health care from 50% of their population up to 100%. Or free education of children that was available for 20% of a population is now available to 100%. So the UN recommends some of those same ideas to other member countries in such a way that doesn't bring any specific God or gods into the equation.
But for us, if the UN wants to promote projects they see as good, they will always be seen by some of us as "evil and disgusting." Even if member countries think this is a good thing in the eyes of their God, bringing God into the equation is a sure way of bringing prejudice and sabotage to these projects.
And what if they did bring God into the equation? Wouldn't that just make them more evil and disgusting in the sight of most of us? The United States Supreme Court and other government agencies put up a sign that says "In God We Trust." Does that make them any more or less Satanic in our eyes?
I know we don't tie the term Satanic to all political organizations and entities as we have done in the past, but especially when it comes to the UN, we are apt to use words like evil and disgusting. We can do this, while at the same time praising their efforts.
Rutherford looked at the British armies occupying Palestine in the early decades of the last century and saw them as the "disgusting thing;" "the abomination of desolation." At the same time the Watchtower temporarily praised the League of Nations, using words saying, in effect, that it was the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth.
I see the United Nations as just another governmental organization about which we need to stay neutral. We can watch it as we would any government on earth. We can see its failures and see its successes. And we can see how people put too much faith in it, and their own governments. But if we start calling it specifically evil and disgusting then we are not neutral. We are not idolizing the UN if we point out its successes, just as we are not demonizing it when we point out its failures. 

Yes. I think that you have hit upon the reason that the quote about peace and security was considered "Satanic." It was haughty in the sense of being far too optimistic and ambitious. Perhaps the words "supremely" and "vision" also give it a religious sense.
"In+ these+ Goals+ and+ targets,+ we+ are+ setting+ out+ a+ supremely+ ambitious+ and+ transformational+ vision.+ We+ envisage+ a+ world+ free+ of+ poverty,+ hunger,+ disease+ and+ want,+ where+all+life+can+thrive.+"
Of course, we know from the context that we are likely trying to read into it things that just aren't there, if we try to make too much of the supremely flowery rhetoric.
But, do we really know what is the demarcation line for calling an organization evil and disgusting? Is it the grand scope of the optimism? The scope of the effort? Is this because they envisage the whole world to be better, not just limiting their efforts to a small country here and there? 
We don't call a school teacher evil and disgusting if he or she spearheads a project for a cleanup of a park, or a tree planting effort. But what if all teachers in several different countries support the idea of an "Earth Day" where several hours of that day every year are used for the promotion of such projects? What if the teachers optimistically claim that such efforts will save the world from a climate crisis? What if it turns out that the funding and promotional materials for these "Earth Day" efforts come from policies and think tanks at a government level, and these governments are haughty enough to think they can achieve these good things without God?
(I noticed that even evangelists like Billy Graham and others have felt a need to counsel their audience that Earth Day is not evil. Here's another:
So should Christians care about Earth Day? Yes.The contemporary environmentalist movement has often been flawed and clumsy and sometimes evil, as any movement made up of fallen sinners tends to be. But, at the core of it, is a concept Christians ought to recognize.
But there is always a conspiratorialist somewhere who will be happy to find evil in anything. Here's an example:
Don Stewart’s letter (News Messenger, April 22, page A5, “Celebrate Earth and not Lenin”) argued that Earth Day is connected to Lenin’s birthday as both fall on April 22. Celebrating Earth Day shows you are a red Communist and plotting much evil in the world of capitalism.
Snopes.com even had to produce an article against that idea, since Lenin had supposedly murdered and "composted" his girlfriend. Other pro-capitalists found other political reasons for calling Earth Day "evil." https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/04/earth-day-evil/
The UN policymakers and think tanks look at the world as a bunch of projects. When they look at poverty, they see how some government policies have succeeded in a short amount of time in bringing very poor countries on their way out of poverty, from say 80% below a UN-defined poverty line only 8% still in poverty.  Or other countries bring the meaningful amount of free health care from 50% of their population up to 100%. Or free education of children that was available for 20% of a population is now available to 100%. So the UN recommends some of those same ideas to other member countries in such a way that doesn't bring any specific God or gods into the equation.
But for us, if the UN wants to promote projects they see as good, they will always be seen by some of us as "evil and disgusting." Even if member countries think this is a good thing in the eyes of their God, bringing God into the equation is a sure way of bringing prejudice and sabotage to these projects.
And what if they did bring God into the equation? Wouldn't that just make them more evil and disgusting in the sight of most of us? The United States Supreme Court and other government agencies put up a sign that says "In God We Trust." Does that make them any more or less Satanic in our eyes?
I know we don't tie the term Satanic to all political organizations and entities as we have done in the past, but especially when it comes to the UN, we are apt to use words like evil and disgusting. We can do this, while at the same time praising their efforts.
Rutherford looked at the British armies occupying Palestine in the early decades of the last century and saw them as the "disgusting thing;" "the abomination of desolation." At the same time the Watchtower temporarily praised the League of Nations, using words saying, in effect, that it was the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth.
I see the United Nations as just another governmental organization about which we need to stay neutral. We can watch it as we would any government on earth. We can see its failures and see its successes. And we can see how people put too much faith in it, and their own governments. But if we start calling it specifically evil and disgusting then we are not neutral. We are not idolizing the UN if we point out its successes, just as we are not demonizing it when we point out its failures. 

Even the Devil can be right once in a while. Massimo Introvigne is already on jw.org in half a dozen places.

I think you are mostly right. And I was only trying to show how unreasonable the results could be if this was taken seriously. However, I doubt that Arauna is alone in a similar line of thinking that there must be something diabolical even in quotes like the following that she found in the UN documents:
To this exact quote, you may have notice that she responded to it by saying:
"SOUNDS LIKE THEY WANT TO BRING PEACE AND SECURITY !  SATANS VERSION OF JEHOVAH'S GOVERNMENT. See below where they talk of peace and security linked with sustainable development."
So, this type of thinking might not be as absent from among us as you indicated.

*** w20 November pp. 14-15 Take Courage—Jehovah Is Your Helper ***
HELP FROM INDIVIDUALS IN AUTHORITY
...
13 What help do we receive? When it is in harmony with his purpose, Jehovah may use his powerful holy spirit to cause people in authority to do what he desires. King Solomon wrote: “A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases.” (Prov. 21:1) What does this proverb mean? Humans can dig a canal to divert the water of a stream in a direction that fits their plans. Similarly, Jehovah can use his spirit to divert the thoughts of rulers in a direction that is in harmony with his purpose. When that occurs, people in authority feel motivated to make decisions that benefit God’s people.—Compare Ezra 7:21, 25, 26.
14 What can we do? We can pray “concerning kings and all those who are in positions of authority” when these individuals are called on to make decisions that affect our Christian life and ministry. (1 Tim. 2:1, 2, ftn.; Neh. 1:11)
I notice that the Watchtower also includes this within the idea of paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, and even the idea of "being ready for every good work" is subsumed under the idea of performing "government" sponsored works:
*** w90 11/1 pp. 11-12 pars. 7-8 The Christian’s View of the Superior Authorities ***
7 Further, Paul’s exhortation to be in subjection to the superior authorities is in harmony with Jesus’ command to pay back “Caesar’s things to Caesar,” where “Caesar” represents secular authority. (Matthew 22:21) It also agrees with Paul’s later words to Titus: “Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers, to be ready for every good work.” (Titus 3:1) Hence, when Christians are ordered by governments to share in community works, they quite properly comply as long as those works do not amount to a compromising substitute for some unscriptural service or otherwise violate Scriptural principles, such as that found at Isaiah 2:4.
8 Peter also affirmed that we should be subject to the secular authorities of this world when he said: “For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation: whether to a king as being superior or to governors as being sent by him to inflict punishment on evildoers but to praise doers of good.” (1 Peter 2:13, 14) In harmony with this, Christians would also heed Paul’s admonition to Timothy: “I therefore exhort, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, offerings of thanks, be made concerning all sorts of men, concerning kings and all those who are in high station; in order that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life.”—1 Timothy 2:1, 2.
Srecko brought up a point about how neutrality might be equated with lack of knowledge, but it is clear that knowledge would be necessary to distinguish whether those community works requested by authorities are not some form of compromise. 
It's easy to imagine a group of Witnesses who are told by government authorities that they must clean up a polluted lake or waterway before undertaking some large building projects on its shores, or that they must clean up the toxins that can carry runoff into the water to protect animals depending on it. In spite of the recent article about neutrality, when such situation occurred, Witness lawyers (and others) actually lobbied the relevant government authorities for favorable rulings. Lawsuits were initiated by the WTS to overcome the costs of some of these decisions. I know that brothers were called in to gain a lot of knowledge about the situation before some of these actions were taken. But I also talked personally with one of the lawyers involved and it was my assessment that the spirit of Jesus' words here were not taken to heart:
(Matthew 5:40-46) . . .And if a person wants to take you to court and get possession of your inner garment, let him also have your outer garment; 41 and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. 42 ... 43 “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing?
In the future, if WItnesses are told to build buildings that meet certain "green standards" to meet certain SDG's (Sustainable Development Goals) do you think that some Witnesses might rightly lobby against it, because these SDG's were suggested to governmental authorities by the UN, who only promoted them because they were a way of promoting "peace and security"? And we all know that when we support anything that combines "UN" with "peace and security" we are supporting Satan's schemes?
A little bit of knowledge won't hurt us. We should not be ignorant of Satan's designs either:
*** nwtsty 2 Corinthians Study Notes—Chapter 2 ***
we are not ignorant of his designs: Paul does not just say that “we are aware of his designs.” Rather, he uses a figure of speech called litotes, that is, an understatement made in order to give emphasis by saying that the opposite is not true. (An example of litotes can be found at Ac 21:39, where Tarsus is called “no obscure city,” which means an important city.) Accordingly, some translations render this phrase “we are well aware of his schemes” or “we know his wiles all too well,” which conveys similar emphasis.
This is a double-edged argument. Arauna is correct therefore to look to whether any of these "community works" are actually compromising. She correctly said she would have to "go along" with some of them even if she hated where they were coming from. But since we all stand individually before the judgment seat, we should all have a reason for the stand we take.

I think you are mostly right. And I was only trying to show how unreasonable the results could be if this was taken seriously. However, I doubt that Arauna is alone in a similar line of thinking that there must be something diabolical even in quotes like the following that she found in the UN documents:
To this exact quote, you may have notice that she responded to it by saying:
"SOUNDS LIKE THEY WANT TO BRING PEACE AND SECURITY !  SATANS VERSION OF JEHOVAH'S GOVERNMENT. See below where they talk of peace and security linked with sustainable development."
So, this type of thinking might not be as absent from among us as you indicated.

I think we need to be reasonable though. I know there was all kinds of trouble surrounding the initial project, and I don't know a lot about it, but my impression was that since it wasn't our fault (we had not caused the pollution) it would be fair to expect that we should not have to be responsible for financing the clean up....
I think in these and similar instances if we take advantage of any secular means or provisions that help us achieve our goal, we are only doing what some of Jesus's disciples in the first century did also.

Does anybody think that way?  We know not everything the UN does is evil. Not everything the Governments do is evil either, as Paul brings out; "Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it;  for it is God’s minister to you for your good". Wanting to do things "green" is a good thing, so there should be no reason for a Witness to lobby against that..

*** w20 November pp. 14-15 Take Courage—Jehovah Is Your Helper ***
HELP FROM INDIVIDUALS IN AUTHORITY
...
13 What help do we receive? When it is in harmony with his purpose, Jehovah may use his powerful holy spirit to cause people in authority to do what he desires. King Solomon wrote: “A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases.” (Prov. 21:1) What does this proverb mean? Humans can dig a canal to divert the water of a stream in a direction that fits their plans. Similarly, Jehovah can use his spirit to divert the thoughts of rulers in a direction that is in harmony with his purpose. When that occurs, people in authority feel motivated to make decisions that benefit God’s people.—Compare Ezra 7:21, 25, 26.
14 What can we do? We can pray “concerning kings and all those who are in positions of authority” when these individuals are called on to make decisions that affect our Christian life and ministry. (1 Tim. 2:1, 2, ftn.; Neh. 1:11)
I notice that the Watchtower also includes this within the idea of paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, and even the idea of "being ready for every good work" is subsumed under the idea of performing "government" sponsored works:
*** w90 11/1 pp. 11-12 pars. 7-8 The Christian’s View of the Superior Authorities ***
7 Further, Paul’s exhortation to be in subjection to the superior authorities is in harmony with Jesus’ command to pay back “Caesar’s things to Caesar,” where “Caesar” represents secular authority. (Matthew 22:21) It also agrees with Paul’s later words to Titus: “Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers, to be ready for every good work.” (Titus 3:1) Hence, when Christians are ordered by governments to share in community works, they quite properly comply as long as those works do not amount to a compromising substitute for some unscriptural service or otherwise violate Scriptural principles, such as that found at Isaiah 2:4.
8 Peter also affirmed that we should be subject to the secular authorities of this world when he said: “For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation: whether to a king as being superior or to governors as being sent by him to inflict punishment on evildoers but to praise doers of good.” (1 Peter 2:13, 14) In harmony with this, Christians would also heed Paul’s admonition to Timothy: “I therefore exhort, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, offerings of thanks, be made concerning all sorts of men, concerning kings and all those who are in high station; in order that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life.”—1 Timothy 2:1, 2.
Srecko brought up a point about how neutrality might be equated with lack of knowledge, but it is clear that knowledge would be necessary to distinguish whether those community works requested by authorities are not some form of compromise. 
It's easy to imagine a group of Witnesses who are told by government authorities that they must clean up a polluted lake or waterway before undertaking some large building projects on its shores, or that they must clean up the toxins that can carry runoff into the water to protect animals depending on it. In spite of the recent article about neutrality, when such situation occurred, Witness lawyers (and others) actually lobbied the relevant government authorities for favorable rulings. Lawsuits were initiated by the WTS to overcome the costs of some of these decisions. I know that brothers were called in to gain a lot of knowledge about the situation before some of these actions were taken. But I also talked personally with one of the lawyers involved and it was my assessment that the spirit of Jesus' words here were not taken to heart:
(Matthew 5:40-46) . . .And if a person wants to take you to court and get possession of your inner garment, let him also have your outer garment; 41 and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. 42 ... 43 “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing?
In the future, if WItnesses are told to build buildings that meet certain "green standards" to meet certain SDG's (Sustainable Development Goals) do you think that some Witnesses might rightly lobby against it, because these SDG's were suggested to governmental authorities by the UN, who only promoted them because they were a way of promoting "peace and security"? And we all know that when we support anything that combines "UN" with "peace and security" we are supporting Satan's schemes?
A little bit of knowledge won't hurt us. We should not be ignorant of Satan's designs either:
*** nwtsty 2 Corinthians Study Notes—Chapter 2 ***
we are not ignorant of his designs: Paul does not just say that “we are aware of his designs.” Rather, he uses a figure of speech called litotes, that is, an understatement made in order to give emphasis by saying that the opposite is not true. (An example of litotes can be found at Ac 21:39, where Tarsus is called “no obscure city,” which means an important city.) Accordingly, some translations render this phrase “we are well aware of his schemes” or “we know his wiles all too well,” which conveys similar emphasis.
This is a double-edged argument. Arauna is correct therefore to look to whether any of these "community works" are actually compromising. She correctly said she would have to "go along" with some of them even if she hated where they were coming from. But since we all stand individually before the judgment seat, we should all have a reason for the stand we take.