JW Insider

Reminds me that we did pre-assembly work for the JW summer conventions in Springfield, Illinois almost every year from 1971 to 1976. It was on the racetrack and we started setting up 1.5 to 2 weeks before the actual assembly to prepare signs and wiring for our own sound system, special electrical and "sewer" lines from a cafeteria kitchen area carved out of the parking lot, etc. 
Got to stay overnight a few times as "security guards" during the days leading up to the assembly when they still had a few races scheduled. We got to attend a race for free and I saw both Bobby Unser and Al Unser in the same race, not from the stands or announcer's box, but from our own sound system booth, right up against the edge of the racetrack. I had not followed racing but this was just a couple years after Bobby Unser had set a 195 mph record at Indy.
Another story. My brother and I both had guard duty at Bloomington, MN in pre-assembly work and we snuck into the Vikings locker and found a covered hot tub in the middle of the floor. We opened it and it was full of room-temperature, unopened bottles of champagne in lukewarm water. About 100 bottles or more. My brother said they had just lost the division championship game earlier that year that, otherwise, would have qualified them for the Super Bowl. No celebration, I guess.

Donald Trump. From 1983-1987. Worked for Arthur D Little, a consulting firm out of Cambridge/Boston, for a few years, and worked the "Trump" account for the Trump Organization, also through RSA (NYC Landlord's Association) representing Fred/Donald Trump, the Harry/Leona Helmsley, Samuel LeFrak, Peter Kalikow, etc. (Kalikow bought the NYPost from Murdoch). I met Fred and Donald Trump, and Kalikow, and at least a dozen NYC landlords who were much wealthier than the Trumps, but whose names are not so well known. 
I gave two data analysis presentations over those years with Trump in the boardroom. He asked legitimate questions and although already known for an ego in the media, on these occasions he did not come across the way he is now portrayed (and the way he portrays himself).
The job developed from a college internship with the Bureau of Labor Statistics where I ran SQL and SPSSx queries on huge US Census Bureau datasets, and DHCR datasets. (NYC Department of Housing).
Funniest thing during this period happened when I saw a RFP in the NYT for some data analysis project the city needed run on the DHCR database. RSA also owned data on every rental property in NYC. I made a proposal that I could do this for $20,000 which would pay for the access to the databases and the time on a mainframe (actually a mid-size Honeywell, not technically a mainframe). If done right this should have left a couple thousand for myself. On checking with the landlord's association for permission/access, I was told that the contract was already theirs and that it was for somewhere north of a million dollars. But I was hired to do the same work at $20 an hour which quickly turned into my first full-time job after college.

Sorry, JWI. I couldn't resist. I mean, someone has way too much time on their hands:
 

Got it all covered!
I don't believe anybody about anything.
Works for me!
 
...... and a LOT less work!
 
 

News outlets, even those who support global warming (climate change) science, have contributed to the belief that we should not trust 99 scientists out of 100 by so often giving nearly 50 percent of their coverage to the nay-sayer instead of only 1 percent. And some news outlets, appealing to older conservative audiences, like FoxNews, will focus only on the 1 percent, as if only 1 of the 99 is telling the truth and the other 99 must have a hidden agenda. And it's still mostly non-scientists who write the news and decide how to "position" "dramatize" or politicize these various reports. 
This is also the case of a Greenland glacier that had been rapidly thinning for 20 years but has spent the last 3 years slowing down and therefore actually getting thicker in parts. Some news outlets have pointed to the anomaly as if it might create doubt about the general pattern. Of course, the report about this glacier came from the same scientists that their audience is supposed to always mistrust. So the focus is on how this anomaly surprised "the scientists" as if they were dumbfounded about how they could have been so wrong.
Since we are being taught to only trust news outlets instead of science outlets, how about this one from Forbes? https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/03/26/the-good-bad-and-ugly-of-greenlands-jakobshavn-glacier-slowing-and-gaining-mass/#153ea8922179
But even before reading this much better article in Forbes one should read carefully the claims made in the FoxNews version:
The glacier — known as Jakobshavn, which sits on Greenland's west coast — is still contributing to sea level rise, but it's losing less ice than expected. . . .
But this crisp change won't last forever. Once the NAO climate pattern flips back, the Jakobshavn will likely start melting faster and thinning again, the researchers said.
"Jakobshavn is getting a temporary break from this climate pattern," Josh Willis, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the principal investigator of OMG, said in the statement. "But in the long run, the oceans are warming. And seeing the oceans have such a huge impact on the glaciers is bad news for Greenland's ice sheet."
The FoxNews article admits that the glacier lost 500 feet in height (think of a 50 story building) but gained back 100 feet largely through snow accumulation.
Between 2003 and 2016, its thickness (from top to bottom) dwindled by 500 feet (152 meters).
But in 2016, the waters flowing from Greenland's southern tip to its western side cooled by more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit . . .
In all, Jakobshavn grew about 100 feet (30 m) taller between 2016 and 2017, the researchers found. But, as mentioned, the glacier is still contributing to ocean level rise worldwide, as it's still losing more ice to the ocean than it is gaining from snow accumulation, the researchers said.
The Forbes article is better in that it avoids the sensationalism of only focusing on the quotes of scientists who were surprised at the anomaly, and also quotes scientists who claimed to realize that this type of thing is expected. (There are always going to be 'exceptions that prove the rule.')
The more important surprise is a more dangerous one, in that it shows just how sensitive glaciers are to water temperatures, and therefore this is worse news than expected. The Forbes article adds: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/03/26/the-good-bad-and-ugly-of-greenlands-jakobshavn-glacier-slowing-and-gaining-mass/#153ea8922179
He's right and that's ugly.
The article points out that this glacier alone contributed 1 mm to this 90 mm rise since 1995. Also:
It is important to remember that oceans are also not the only driver of Greenland's melt. A 2019 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is a stark reminder that Greenland is melting four times faster than expected. The OMG tends to focus on ocean process, but other scientists studying Greenland's climate highlight other key factors too (atmospheric warming and more humid atmosphere, more liquid water clouds, darkening surface from earlier melt). While "the pause" is "relatively" good news and a good lesson on the role of regional variability within a dynamic climate system , it must not be overplayed or spun to some narrative that climate change is not happening or has reversed.

Take note, @The Librarian. Take a screenshot. Save it for posterity. Show it to your grandchildren.
JWI made a comment and he only used ONE WORD!
I’ve heard of turning over a new leaf before, but this takes it to a whole ‘nother level.
”There were too many...um...uh....notes,” the prince told Mozart.

The only way to learn the truth about whether "global warming" is real ... and whether it is a naturally occurring phenomena that mankind can do NOTHING about, or is caused by human interaction with the environment, which may or may not be able to be stopped or reversed, is to YOU PERSONALLY educate yourself with the math, physics, chemistry, meteorology, and ocean sciences, and orbital mechanics, etc.,  ..... to be able to tell the difference between hoax, fraud, fake science, and religious hysteria and hallucination that this issue has become.
And then sit down and draw sketches, accumulate data ... possibly completely wear out a scientific pocket calculator .... or two, and then correlate what you PERSONALLY know with astronomy, and other related sciences ... comparing the physics of other planets' atmospheric meteorology to see if conclusions by others make sense, or have any validity whatsoever.
If you are not willing to YOU PERSONALLY do this ... and take a decade, or 20 years, or the rest of your life ... then your opinions will be based on FAITH .... NOT SCIENCE.
FAITH in the opinions and conclusions of others .... the new global religion of "Man Caused Climate Change".
Faith in the opinions and conclusions of others, where you have not PERSONALLY proved it yourself, is not TRUTH.
Seek ONLY THE TRUTH.  
In science, and in religion, and in all things.
However, although you will fail to get the correct answers ...... intellectual integrity can also be accomplished by not caring, to the point you do not believe anybody, about anything.
... and is a LOT less work.
 
 
 

I guess I really have egg on my face now. Right?
At least I didn't interpret it as the result of Billy the Kid's six-shooter, and a quick draw with exceptional aim.

TTH, Am I going to have to actually go back and read this entire thread? I tried to avoid reading it, by only scanning for comments on the Chilean flag portion. But it has become pretty obvious that I have been referenced by others more often than I have even made comments here in this thread. Don't know why I ever became a sub-topic here.
The rebuke was effective. I will be holding my cards close to the vest for the next few weeks. If I feel that my conscience is still clean, and there is no more reason to speak up anywhere about the things I have seen and heard, then I will happily remove myself completely and no longer comment in public about the controversies and issues that I currently think should be brought to light. For the record, I have not participated on any other public forum (with minor exceptions several years ago) before coming to this one when it was jw-archive.org. So this would not be a matter of merely moving to another forum.
Luke 17:3 of course says something like: "So watch yourselves. 'If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.' "
Taking a strong stand or using a "loaded" bit of vocabulary has often triggered BTK (and persons just like him) to re-use the exact same words or expression back at the person he was conversing with. Although it was buried deep within your post, I read this, above, and fully expected BTK to use the same expression back at you. He came very close.
That minor quirk might relate to what you say below about another person that BTK reminds you of, but it is intentionally easy to disclaim this one as meaningless. It's just a friendly reminder that other similar reactions might not be unexpected. In my opinion, it's only one of literally hundreds of examples.
You are not implying it at all, but if BTK is AllenSmith "reincarnated," then I am very happy he is still here. Both Allen and BTK have very often provided unique insights that have been valuable in providing additional sides of an issue. But there may also be a dark lesson to be learned in the idea that a person can feel very distraught by having a past persona wiped out, and his prior comments removed as if worthless. It is probably akin to the removal of a person who has been disfellowshipped for matters of conscience, leaving them with no way to return, as if they have been wiped off the face of the earth, with loss of all prior connections that meant a lot to them. It's no wonder that we've seen people here refer to the process of disfellowshipping and shunning as a type of "murder." It must be worse for a person who feels that a forum is akin to a congregation in need of shepherding. (Sorry, my cards are showing again!)
I should add that BTK's comments also remind of AllenSmith in another way. When he quotes from other sources, or when he runs a comment through a Microsoft product before posting it here, those comments will reformat with extra gaps between paragraphs. When I checked the html "source code" of Allen's comments, they previously matched BTK's "source code" and have been the only ones on the forum that contained the following <class> and <span> definitions. Both of the following examples are from above in this thread:
----------------------------
<p class="MsoNormal">
            <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:major-bidi;mso-hansi-theme-font:
major-bidi;mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi">I would say, you demand as much as Anna, James, JWinsider when it comes to the role an Elder and the governing body has within Christ Church.</span>
<p class="MsoNormal">
            <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:major-bidi;mso-hansi-theme-font:
major-bidi;mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi">As for knowing people are liars, I agree and I treat everyone as such. I don&rsquo;t hold preferences as you do. I don&rsquo;t admire apostasy as you do.</span>
This gives away another research trick but it's a simple and useful one for cyber forensics. By contrast. Here are your own, TTH. Mine are the same, with no extra mso options:
<p>
            We&rsquo;re on the same side, really, going about the same thing in different ways. I am not going to allow a division be made between us. I&rsquo;m just not.
        </p>
----------------------
This is not any indication that BTK is doing anything wrong. No matter what, he is completely within his rights to speak up as he does, and I appreciate it. If someone is going to publicly present an opinion or information they believe is true, it is always important to have someone with a different or opposite opinion providing their own information. It is what we often need to keep from just merely falling for the first (or last) opinion we hear on a topic. It's one of the reasons I always argued to keep Allen from being removed, as admins can attest.
BTK is trying to root apostasy from this site. I think there has been too much apostasy on this site, too. But I also think all apostates should have a place to express their views in public as it also provides a double-check on the men who may have judged them as apostate. I think that even within the congregation all disfellowshippings for apostasy should be argued in front of the entire congregation so that the rebuke of the majority can be clear. Accessible public forums may be the next best thing. I also think that all of us should be able to comment from the heart about anything stated in the congregation or on jw.org. There is no current forum for many of us to comment honestly from the heart, and no comments section on jw.org. The only comments allowed in a congregational setting must be completely supportive even if the paragraph contained information that was clearly unscriptural. In some cases those unscriptural ideas have already been corrected over the years, but in other cases they would have been corrected more quickly if all persons felt comfortable answering honestly from the heart.
Of course, BTK has the idea (that we keep going back to) that no one should be allowed to publicly disagree with a current Watchtower doctrine, policy, or practice. He even appears to believe that past mistakes and corrections were possibly part of Jehovah's plan, so that they were not really mistakes, after all. He also thinks that someone is literally apostate if they disagree with the current eschatology. Of course, our eschatology is tied so closely to teachings about the anointed, the great crowd, the faithful slave, specifics of prophetic explanations, the definition of generation, etc., that his position could be understandable.

TTH, I just told myself (and others) that I should stay away from all controversial topics that might reflect negatively on current Witness doctrine, at least for a few weeks. I don't think this topic counts, since I'm not even taking sides on whether JWs do more or less than their reasonable share. (I'm guessing, like you, that JWs do better than the average person in this regard, but I'm not trying to make any claims.) In fact, perhaps it's a good idea for me to just limit my comments to non-JW topics like climate change, politics, physics, computer science, and economics whenever I get the urge to kick my feet up on the desk and relax over here on the forum.
I could care less what Lloyd Evans thinks about climate change, unless he is some kind of expert on the topic who might be ready to bring something new or important to the table. I haven't looked into that part of the discussion and probably won't try to. If he's just criticizing JWs, then it's probably a complete waste of time on such a topic. But I have no problem if JTR is drawn into a discussion on the topic, because I'm sure he knows more than I do about it. And that's the beauty of a forum where you can dialogue with persons who know more than you. For me, it's an ideal way to test and/or prove whether what I think stands up to counter-evidence. 
So if you don't mind, I'll start out with my take on what you just said:
I thought for a second that you might be joking on this claim. The world most definitely does not split down the middle on climate change. It probably seems that way in the United States, of course, because we are here bombarded with propaganda that pretends that it's a political issue. And the United States has had a long history of promoting political issues that split the population down the middle. But even the majority of persons in this country more honestly answer "I don't know" when typical climate change questions are asked. Those who have been fooled into thinking it's a political issue are apt to believe they know something about it when they don't. It's a very small percentage of the population who actually know anything more than the political propaganda that only pretends to know.
If we just count the people who have truly studied the scientific factors with respect to climate change, then we truly do get a split of about 98 percent who fall on side of human-influenced climate change. Only about 2 percent of scientists who have studied a wide range of climate related factors will deny that humans have had or can have any significant influence on climate. And only about 0 percent of such scientists believe that significant "global warming" does not exist. 
An old "divide and conquer" propaganda trick when trying to overcome the "impossible" is to find a couple of persons who will present themselves as experts and make a contrary claim to the scientifically tested claim. Then even if the skewing is 99 percent to 1 percent, the propagandist can still claim that "some experts hold an opposing opinion." Now you are just moments from using propaganda outlets, such as established news organizations to do the rest of the dirty work for you. News outlets love controversy and drama because news sells best when it is really entertainment instead of news. Also, news outlets can be made to look balanced by finding a representative of both sides of a controversy. So if the actual score is 99 to 1, propaganda outlets will make it look like 50/50. The 1 percent get just as much media attention as the 99 percent. When this happens often enough, someone will say: "the world is pretty much split down the middle on this topic."
It works like a charm, and climate change is only one of many such topics manipulated by propagandists.
Over the last few decades, there has been better understanding of the data and much improvement in the way the models reflect and predict reality. But this is not the reason that the term "global warming" sometimes takes a backseat to "climate change." The real reason is propaganda. Propagandists appeal to the stupidity of most of us by saying things like: "Ha! ha! These scientists still believe in global warming when it's freezing out today, and I have a snowball from an unexpected snowfall." Stupid people, who are usually the target, not the source of such propaganda will often fall for it. In fact, global warming just means that the average yearly temperature around the globe at literally 1,000s of different measuring points, measured daily, will all be averaged together to get a global average temperature for the entire year (or day, week, month, decade, etc). This global average is trending upward at a rate that is much faster and higher than most of the models predicted. But it does not necessarily follow that the average global yearly temperature will rise EACH year, or that there will not be unexpected cold waves and snowfalls. In fact, almost all global warming models all along have predicted that while global warming occurs it will follow that some areas will see colder and unexpected changes. This does not change the average global yearly temperature just because some areas still see a lot of cold, or even extra cold. For all the extra cold seen in some places there will be an excess of heat in other places making up for it.
For example, there were many times in the last few years when the temperature on the North Pole was warmer than the temperature in New York, when measured at the exact same time. But it is also true that some of the cold winds that usually effected the North Pole had trended southward and brought colder temperatures to parts of Canada and the United States. Some new cold temperature records were recorded to the south, while the North Pole reached temperatures in the 70's Fahrenheit.
Global warming is the same as climate change, and the data has come out just as models had predicted. Global warming has been a known fact for decades. It is not just 98 percent of climate specialists agree with, but 100 percent agree with it. The question has been whether man has caused a significant part of it, or can cause an improvement or change in the other direction. It is on this question where 98 percent of the scientists agree that man is influencing it, and 2 percent say no.
There have been some bad practices in science in most areas, but usually this is about scientists who are lazy and don't want to go through the selfless tedium of collecting their own real data. There are bad actors like this in all fields and it's just as prevalent in areas of science, schools, universities, labs, and of course authors, students professors who want to make a quick name for themselves, etc. Data is faked. No doubt about it. Data is often copied and adjusted and randomized within expected ranges to make it look like real work was put into it. But a second person or group comes along and can poke holes in it.
But the types of issues with data fraud that come up in climate science are much more common from the 2 percent trying to disprove global warming. These are paid for by the fossil fuel industry. Millions of dollars are poured into producing a propaganda network of studies that obfuscate data, cherry-pick datasets of anomalies to "prove" the opposite of what the full set of data indicated. Reports that don't go the way of the oil companies have been hidden, given false summaries, forged, and dishonestly edited.
The money machine behind the oil industry makes sure that all investigation of their fraud is squashed, and that even the most minor mistakes of actual climate scientists are blown out of proportion.
Most scientific innovation and energy innovation these days comes out of China. China is still not able or ready to wean themselves from dirty energy but their scientists realize the urgency. The US and Russia are too tied to their petroleum economies, and capitalist economies like these always fight change due to the effect of change on corporate profits. National interests become corporate interests. Corporate interests become the driver of politics and propaganda in places like the United States and Russia. Germany has done well in trying to wean off a petroleum economy. Other European nations see the advantages, but are at differing stages.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of oil, coal, and natural gas, and natural gas is relatively cheap. Even to manufacture and transport solar and wind renewables still takes a lot of electricity and oil. When you drive an electric car you still ultimately get that electricity from coal in this country.
So I think the corporate and political propagandists of this world will drive change as slowly as possible, and if left to their own devices, would drive the planet to destruction.

I guess I really have egg on my face now. Right?
At least I didn't interpret it as the result of Billy the Kid's six-shooter, and a quick draw with exceptional aim.

TTH, Am I going to have to actually go back and read this entire thread? I tried to avoid reading it, by only scanning for comments on the Chilean flag portion. But it has become pretty obvious that I have been referenced by others more often than I have even made comments here in this thread. Don't know why I ever became a sub-topic here.
The rebuke was effective. I will be holding my cards close to the vest for the next few weeks. If I feel that my conscience is still clean, and there is no more reason to speak up anywhere about the things I have seen and heard, then I will happily remove myself completely and no longer comment in public about the controversies and issues that I currently think should be brought to light. For the record, I have not participated on any other public forum (with minor exceptions several years ago) before coming to this one when it was jw-archive.org. So this would not be a matter of merely moving to another forum.
Luke 17:3 of course says something like: "So watch yourselves. 'If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.' "
Taking a strong stand or using a "loaded" bit of vocabulary has often triggered BTK (and persons just like him) to re-use the exact same words or expression back at the person he was conversing with. Although it was buried deep within your post, I read this, above, and fully expected BTK to use the same expression back at you. He came very close.
That minor quirk might relate to what you say below about another person that BTK reminds you of, but it is intentionally easy to disclaim this one as meaningless. It's just a friendly reminder that other similar reactions might not be unexpected. In my opinion, it's only one of literally hundreds of examples.
You are not implying it at all, but if BTK is AllenSmith "reincarnated," then I am very happy he is still here. Both Allen and BTK have very often provided unique insights that have been valuable in providing additional sides of an issue. But there may also be a dark lesson to be learned in the idea that a person can feel very distraught by having a past persona wiped out, and his prior comments removed as if worthless. It is probably akin to the removal of a person who has been disfellowshipped for matters of conscience, leaving them with no way to return, as if they have been wiped off the face of the earth, with loss of all prior connections that meant a lot to them. It's no wonder that we've seen people here refer to the process of disfellowshipping and shunning as a type of "murder." It must be worse for a person who feels that a forum is akin to a congregation in need of shepherding. (Sorry, my cards are showing again!)
I should add that BTK's comments also remind of AllenSmith in another way. When he quotes from other sources, or when he runs a comment through a Microsoft product before posting it here, those comments will reformat with extra gaps between paragraphs. When I checked the html "source code" of Allen's comments, they previously matched BTK's "source code" and have been the only ones on the forum that contained the following <class> and <span> definitions. Both of the following examples are from above in this thread:
----------------------------
<p class="MsoNormal">
            <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:major-bidi;mso-hansi-theme-font:
major-bidi;mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi">I would say, you demand as much as Anna, James, JWinsider when it comes to the role an Elder and the governing body has within Christ Church.</span>
<p class="MsoNormal">
            <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:major-bidi;mso-hansi-theme-font:
major-bidi;mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi">As for knowing people are liars, I agree and I treat everyone as such. I don&rsquo;t hold preferences as you do. I don&rsquo;t admire apostasy as you do.</span>
This gives away another research trick but it's a simple and useful one for cyber forensics. By contrast. Here are your own, TTH. Mine are the same, with no extra mso options:
<p>
            We&rsquo;re on the same side, really, going about the same thing in different ways. I am not going to allow a division be made between us. I&rsquo;m just not.
        </p>
----------------------
This is not any indication that BTK is doing anything wrong. No matter what, he is completely within his rights to speak up as he does, and I appreciate it. If someone is going to publicly present an opinion or information they believe is true, it is always important to have someone with a different or opposite opinion providing their own information. It is what we often need to keep from just merely falling for the first (or last) opinion we hear on a topic. It's one of the reasons I always argued to keep Allen from being removed, as admins can attest.
BTK is trying to root apostasy from this site. I think there has been too much apostasy on this site, too. But I also think all apostates should have a place to express their views in public as it also provides a double-check on the men who may have judged them as apostate. I think that even within the congregation all disfellowshippings for apostasy should be argued in front of the entire congregation so that the rebuke of the majority can be clear. Accessible public forums may be the next best thing. I also think that all of us should be able to comment from the heart about anything stated in the congregation or on jw.org. There is no current forum for many of us to comment honestly from the heart, and no comments section on jw.org. The only comments allowed in a congregational setting must be completely supportive even if the paragraph contained information that was clearly unscriptural. In some cases those unscriptural ideas have already been corrected over the years, but in other cases they would have been corrected more quickly if all persons felt comfortable answering honestly from the heart.
Of course, BTK has the idea (that we keep going back to) that no one should be allowed to publicly disagree with a current Watchtower doctrine, policy, or practice. He even appears to believe that past mistakes and corrections were possibly part of Jehovah's plan, so that they were not really mistakes, after all. He also thinks that someone is literally apostate if they disagree with the current eschatology. Of course, our eschatology is tied so closely to teachings about the anointed, the great crowd, the faithful slave, specifics of prophetic explanations, the definition of generation, etc., that his position could be understandable.

True. We don't get a lot of Ellen G White around here. But I admit that I didn't get the point.
I recall that Rutherford thought he was able to figure out that the thing "standing where it ought not" was obviously the British Empire since they were still occupying Palestine well after the Gentiles' time was supposed to have ended, and they should therefore have no longer been dominating the land of Israel.

TTH, Am I going to have to actually go back and read this entire thread? I tried to avoid reading it, by only scanning for comments on the Chilean flag portion. But it has become pretty obvious that I have been referenced by others more often than I have even made comments here in this thread. Don't know why I ever became a sub-topic here.
The rebuke was effective. I will be holding my cards close to the vest for the next few weeks. If I feel that my conscience is still clean, and there is no more reason to speak up anywhere about the things I have seen and heard, then I will happily remove myself completely and no longer comment in public about the controversies and issues that I currently think should be brought to light. For the record, I have not participated on any other public forum (with minor exceptions several years ago) before coming to this one when it was jw-archive.org. So this would not be a matter of merely moving to another forum.
Luke 17:3 of course says something like: "So watch yourselves. 'If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.' "
Taking a strong stand or using a "loaded" bit of vocabulary has often triggered BTK (and persons just like him) to re-use the exact same words or expression back at the person he was conversing with. Although it was buried deep within your post, I read this, above, and fully expected BTK to use the same expression back at you. He came very close.
That minor quirk might relate to what you say below about another person that BTK reminds you of, but it is intentionally easy to disclaim this one as meaningless. It's just a friendly reminder that other similar reactions might not be unexpected. In my opinion, it's only one of literally hundreds of examples.
You are not implying it at all, but if BTK is AllenSmith "reincarnated," then I am very happy he is still here. Both Allen and BTK have very often provided unique insights that have been valuable in providing additional sides of an issue. But there may also be a dark lesson to be learned in the idea that a person can feel very distraught by having a past persona wiped out, and his prior comments removed as if worthless. It is probably akin to the removal of a person who has been disfellowshipped for matters of conscience, leaving them with no way to return, as if they have been wiped off the face of the earth, with loss of all prior connections that meant a lot to them. It's no wonder that we've seen people here refer to the process of disfellowshipping and shunning as a type of "murder." It must be worse for a person who feels that a forum is akin to a congregation in need of shepherding. (Sorry, my cards are showing again!)
I should add that BTK's comments also remind of AllenSmith in another way. When he quotes from other sources, or when he runs a comment through a Microsoft product before posting it here, those comments will reformat with extra gaps between paragraphs. When I checked the html "source code" of Allen's comments, they previously matched BTK's "source code" and have been the only ones on the forum that contained the following <class> and <span> definitions. Both of the following examples are from above in this thread:
----------------------------
<p class="MsoNormal">
            <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:major-bidi;mso-hansi-theme-font:
major-bidi;mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi">I would say, you demand as much as Anna, James, JWinsider when it comes to the role an Elder and the governing body has within Christ Church.</span>
<p class="MsoNormal">
            <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:major-bidi;mso-hansi-theme-font:
major-bidi;mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi">As for knowing people are liars, I agree and I treat everyone as such. I don&rsquo;t hold preferences as you do. I don&rsquo;t admire apostasy as you do.</span>
This gives away another research trick but it's a simple and useful one for cyber forensics. By contrast. Here are your own, TTH. Mine are the same, with no extra mso options:
<p>
            We&rsquo;re on the same side, really, going about the same thing in different ways. I am not going to allow a division be made between us. I&rsquo;m just not.
        </p>
----------------------
This is not any indication that BTK is doing anything wrong. No matter what, he is completely within his rights to speak up as he does, and I appreciate it. If someone is going to publicly present an opinion or information they believe is true, it is always important to have someone with a different or opposite opinion providing their own information. It is what we often need to keep from just merely falling for the first (or last) opinion we hear on a topic. It's one of the reasons I always argued to keep Allen from being removed, as admins can attest.
BTK is trying to root apostasy from this site. I think there has been too much apostasy on this site, too. But I also think all apostates should have a place to express their views in public as it also provides a double-check on the men who may have judged them as apostate. I think that even within the congregation all disfellowshippings for apostasy should be argued in front of the entire congregation so that the rebuke of the majority can be clear. Accessible public forums may be the next best thing. I also think that all of us should be able to comment from the heart about anything stated in the congregation or on jw.org. There is no current forum for many of us to comment honestly from the heart, and no comments section on jw.org. The only comments allowed in a congregational setting must be completely supportive even if the paragraph contained information that was clearly unscriptural. In some cases those unscriptural ideas have already been corrected over the years, but in other cases they would have been corrected more quickly if all persons felt comfortable answering honestly from the heart.
Of course, BTK has the idea (that we keep going back to) that no one should be allowed to publicly disagree with a current Watchtower doctrine, policy, or practice. He even appears to believe that past mistakes and corrections were possibly part of Jehovah's plan, so that they were not really mistakes, after all. He also thinks that someone is literally apostate if they disagree with the current eschatology. Of course, our eschatology is tied so closely to teachings about the anointed, the great crowd, the faithful slave, specifics of prophetic explanations, the definition of generation, etc., that his position could be understandable.

Oh, who cares? We talked that stupid subject out ages ago. It has nothing to do with us anyhow, being way there on the other side of the world.
 
Man, judge much?! You are not easy to placate.
 
I don’t make attempts. I do it.
 
They’re not. That’s why I do it.
There! See? Did you accomplish as much over several lifetimes with your scorched earth theocracy?
I even wanted to reproduce the nicest email I received from a couple baptized at the last Regional. The husband initially disapproved of his wife’s study, but turned around upon reading my blog and taking note that it was from a real person who doesn’t eat Bible sandwiches and has a sense of humor. I do get these from time to time. Unfortunately, there is something about Google software that I find infuriating...perhaps its continual attempts to take over one’s digital life, and so I fail to get the full mastery of it, offering resistance which I should know by now is futile. My email life is maddeningly complex, with everyone on earth spamming me over every stupid thing. I put that letter somewhere, perhaps under the auspices of Top Cat O’Malihan, and cannot readily find it.
The point of both is that you don’t have to hose down the field always with vinegar. Honey works sometimes. This is a yo-yo website. Everyone knows that. 
WHAT??!!! And leave me stranded here?
Among the things have gained from JWI is improvement in understanding where some who oppose are coming from. I am very grateful to him for that.

TTH, Am I going to have to actually go back and read this entire thread? I tried to avoid reading it, by only scanning for comments on the Chilean flag portion. But it has become pretty obvious that I have been referenced by others more often than I have even made comments here in this thread. Don't know why I ever became a sub-topic here.
The rebuke was effective. I will be holding my cards close to the vest for the next few weeks. If I feel that my conscience is still clean, and there is no more reason to speak up anywhere about the things I have seen and heard, then I will happily remove myself completely and no longer comment in public about the controversies and issues that I currently think should be brought to light. For the record, I have not participated on any other public forum (with minor exceptions several years ago) before coming to this one when it was jw-archive.org. So this would not be a matter of merely moving to another forum.
Luke 17:3 of course says something like: "So watch yourselves. 'If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.' "
Taking a strong stand or using a "loaded" bit of vocabulary has often triggered BTK (and persons just like him) to re-use the exact same words or expression back at the person he was conversing with. Although it was buried deep within your post, I read this, above, and fully expected BTK to use the same expression back at you. He came very close.
That minor quirk might relate to what you say below about another person that BTK reminds you of, but it is intentionally easy to disclaim this one as meaningless. It's just a friendly reminder that other similar reactions might not be unexpected. In my opinion, it's only one of literally hundreds of examples.
You are not implying it at all, but if BTK is AllenSmith "reincarnated," then I am very happy he is still here. Both Allen and BTK have very often provided unique insights that have been valuable in providing additional sides of an issue. But there may also be a dark lesson to be learned in the idea that a person can feel very distraught by having a past persona wiped out, and his prior comments removed as if worthless. It is probably akin to the removal of a person who has been disfellowshipped for matters of conscience, leaving them with no way to return, as if they have been wiped off the face of the earth, with loss of all prior connections that meant a lot to them. It's no wonder that we've seen people here refer to the process of disfellowshipping and shunning as a type of "murder." It must be worse for a person who feels that a forum is akin to a congregation in need of shepherding. (Sorry, my cards are showing again!)
I should add that BTK's comments also remind of AllenSmith in another way. When he quotes from other sources, or when he runs a comment through a Microsoft product before posting it here, those comments will reformat with extra gaps between paragraphs. When I checked the html "source code" of Allen's comments, they previously matched BTK's "source code" and have been the only ones on the forum that contained the following <class> and <span> definitions. Both of the following examples are from above in this thread:
----------------------------
<p class="MsoNormal">
            <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:major-bidi;mso-hansi-theme-font:
major-bidi;mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi">I would say, you demand as much as Anna, James, JWinsider when it comes to the role an Elder and the governing body has within Christ Church.</span>
<p class="MsoNormal">
            <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:major-bidi;mso-hansi-theme-font:
major-bidi;mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi">As for knowing people are liars, I agree and I treat everyone as such. I don&rsquo;t hold preferences as you do. I don&rsquo;t admire apostasy as you do.</span>
This gives away another research trick but it's a simple and useful one for cyber forensics. By contrast. Here are your own, TTH. Mine are the same, with no extra mso options:
<p>
            We&rsquo;re on the same side, really, going about the same thing in different ways. I am not going to allow a division be made between us. I&rsquo;m just not.
        </p>
----------------------
This is not any indication that BTK is doing anything wrong. No matter what, he is completely within his rights to speak up as he does, and I appreciate it. If someone is going to publicly present an opinion or information they believe is true, it is always important to have someone with a different or opposite opinion providing their own information. It is what we often need to keep from just merely falling for the first (or last) opinion we hear on a topic. It's one of the reasons I always argued to keep Allen from being removed, as admins can attest.
BTK is trying to root apostasy from this site. I think there has been too much apostasy on this site, too. But I also think all apostates should have a place to express their views in public as it also provides a double-check on the men who may have judged them as apostate. I think that even within the congregation all disfellowshippings for apostasy should be argued in front of the entire congregation so that the rebuke of the majority can be clear. Accessible public forums may be the next best thing. I also think that all of us should be able to comment from the heart about anything stated in the congregation or on jw.org. There is no current forum for many of us to comment honestly from the heart, and no comments section on jw.org. The only comments allowed in a congregational setting must be completely supportive even if the paragraph contained information that was clearly unscriptural. In some cases those unscriptural ideas have already been corrected over the years, but in other cases they would have been corrected more quickly if all persons felt comfortable answering honestly from the heart.
Of course, BTK has the idea (that we keep going back to) that no one should be allowed to publicly disagree with a current Watchtower doctrine, policy, or practice. He even appears to believe that past mistakes and corrections were possibly part of Jehovah's plan, so that they were not really mistakes, after all. He also thinks that someone is literally apostate if they disagree with the current eschatology. Of course, our eschatology is tied so closely to teachings about the anointed, the great crowd, the faithful slave, specifics of prophetic explanations, the definition of generation, etc., that his position could be understandable.

Now now now. You threw this in as an afterthought and you should have left it out. Why not just say: “I am wise. Everyone else is stupid.”? It comes across as judgmental, Billy. And it serves no purpose. You have been at this for some time now, trying to make people behave on this worldly site as though they are in the Kingdom Hall. How’s that project going, anyway? If you choose to write on this forum, you must not write with only brothers in mind. You must write primarily for the non-Witnesses that might be lurking about. The brothers get their counsel at the Kingdom Hall.
It cannot be done--converting the worldnewsmedia into a congregation. You only shoot yourself in the foot when you try and you leave a not-so-hot witness by saying things like the above. The internet is not the congregation and cannot be made to behave like one. From where did you receive the commission to declare: “Only 40 days more and the worldnewsmedia forum will be destroyed for its great badness”? You didn’t.
It could be argued that you are the most hypocritical one here. I have made no bones about being a bad boy in certain respects. Were I obedient to all aspects of counsel, I would not be here. That is equally true of you, but you don’t acknowledge it. Do you think the GB says: “There are a lot of yo-yos on that ‘out there’ website, but thank God, we have our man Billy to straighten them out”? No. They say: “Oh, man, that TTH is a screwball and now that gunslinger Billy is also carrying on! How come they don’t listen to us and stay on better channels?”
I am encouraged, Billy, and probably you are too, that ‘loyal’ ones seldom appear on this open club. If they come online, they stay in the closed club, which is spiritually more healthy. I like that. Don’t you? It shows an obedience on their part that neither you nor I display.
I have explained to you more than once my reasons for disregarding counsel on internet association. You don’t accept it, but they are still my reasons. I am a brother neither servant nor elder, though I have served in those capacities previously. I am universally liked in my circuit because I am a peacemaker and I am not wound up too tight, though there are probably a few who think I am a windbag. What am I going to tell them—that I’m not? Recently two elders approached me to say they would like to use me more in the congregation, but was there anything to the rumor that I associate with apostates? I told them that there was not, however what I did came close enough that it might easily be taken that way, and if we apply the direction given young people to all adults, then it clearly was that way, so for that sake we all decided it better to leave things just as they are.
I told them why I did what I did—that I learned a reporter who wrote several bad articles about us used a certain apostate Internet forum as his sole source. ‘If that’s the case, maybe others do as well. Maybe I can go there and plant some things that are more balanced,’ I told myself. I have put several long posts there, but afterwards I do not hang out. Each post produces a flurry of protests and I briefly answer a few, but after that I disappear. It is not a course that I recommend for others, and brothers usually get their heads handed to them on a platter when try, being severely outgunned and unprepared for the sheer onslaught that they trigger. It is being disobedient to counsel for me to do it, and I do not try to spin it otherwise. I would not presume to do it but for senior years, a long honed ability to write—if you do anything long enough, you tend to develop a knack for it—and enough humbling circumstances in life that I am not likely to become overly full of myself, much less go the way of these characters.
The rules are different here, Billy. It is not the congregation. If you knocked on a householder’s door who was a known ne’er do well and when he answered you saw some brothers inside, you might say to them: “Um, guys, do you really think that you should be here?” But if they did not respond, what would you do? Would you feel it your place to barge into that householder’s home and make those brothers behave as they ought? It is kind of what you are doing here.
We must respect our hostess here and abide by her rules--the Librarian, that old hen.
Given that I have chosen to be online, I commit no wrong in whatever association I have with @JW Insider. He has committed an extraordinary indiscretion, in my opinion, and I have done my duty as a brother in exhorting, even rebuking him, in the way that is most effective for me—by a skit painting him as the friendly but incredibly naïve poker player who fans out his full house for all to see. That’s about all I can do but it is what a brother should do. It will all be lost on him, most likely, because he sings the "theocracy dies in darkness" mantra more fervently than Jeff Bezos. Do you think that he ought to be disfellowshipped? If so, note that he is not, or at least if he is we don’t know about it, and can therefore with good conscience treat him as in good standing. And why is that the case--that he is not or that we don't know? Because this is the internet, and the internet cannot be made to behave as the congregation. Persons ought not be here if they cannot get their heads around that.
 

Someone changed it. Perhaps they were motivated by your own prediction. 😉

Your entire response here and in one or two earlier posts in this thread appear to be exactly what I would expect to hear from an anointed person. I believe you speak out in the hope that readers will reject the falsehoods and accept truths in their place. Which is fine. Perhaps you also want all readers to reject the entire association with the JW Organization, as you think it has gotten so far off track. This is where I think you are being impractical.
On the first count, obviously we should reject all falsehoods and accept truths to the best of our ability. On the second part, what do you think would be wrong with continuing to associate with the same brotherhood from which has sprung so many truly anointed persons? And then, if one considers himself to be anointed, continuing to bear righteous spiritual fruit (love, joy, peace, etc) that will have a positive and upbuilding effect on others.
I don't consider myself anointed, of course, but this (above) is also the same thing I believe I would try to do if I were. If you believe the GB are creating a "dark place" for other anointed persons, why not be that light in a dark place, as far as it depends upon you? Perhaps you personally are in a situation where you have been kicked out of the synagogue for calling the leaders blind, and it seems nearly impossible or unfruitful to go back. But if other anointed persons decided to merely set a good example of "shining as illuminators" among the same brotherhood in which they were called, do you think it would be wrong for them to remain in the state they were called? Since we were effectively called as slaves into a certain "household of faith" I think 1 Cor 7:19-24 gives a thought that might be related:
(1 Cor 7:19-24) Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what means something is the observing of God’s commandments. 20  In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21  Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. 22  For anyone who was called in the Lord when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise anyone who was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. 23  You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. 24  In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

My throat got dry on the trail the other day so I stopped in at the saloon for a brew. I grabbed my mug, threaded my way through the floozies after telling the barkeep to keep those drinks coming, and settled in for some serious contemplation of the vicissitudes of life.
”Join us for some poker, pardner?” came a friendly voice from the next table. A Chilean flag flew over that table on some days, but not others. Why not indulge him? I took the chair offered and the dealer shot out the cards. The friendly stranger took a quick peak at his then put them face down on the table.
Presently, looking sly as could be, he picked his cards up again and slowly fanned them face side out, and I was surprised to see that he had a full house. I heard some tittering from the floozies, and I weighed his hand against mine with an inward smile. I would hand this gringo his head on a platter.
My conscience started to beat me. This was going to be too easy, like taking candy from a baby, and I don’t cotton to beating up on babies. “Say stranger,” I said. “Did you know that you are doing it all backwards?” 
”Don’t worry,” he replied. “I know what I’m doing. The public has a right to know.”
”Maybe some good will come out of it,” he spoke up again. “The name’s @JW Insider, by the way. Pleased to meet you. Maybe we’ll have the pleasure to meet again someday ,” he said chattily as I raked in every dollar he had laid down.
How’s that for admiring him, @BillyTheKid46? Out here on the trail everything is relative.
“Admirin’s got nothing to do with it.” 

Your entire response here and in one or two earlier posts in this thread appear to be exactly what I would expect to hear from an anointed person. I believe you speak out in the hope that readers will reject the falsehoods and accept truths in their place. Which is fine. Perhaps you also want all readers to reject the entire association with the JW Organization, as you think it has gotten so far off track. This is where I think you are being impractical.
On the first count, obviously we should reject all falsehoods and accept truths to the best of our ability. On the second part, what do you think would be wrong with continuing to associate with the same brotherhood from which has sprung so many truly anointed persons? And then, if one considers himself to be anointed, continuing to bear righteous spiritual fruit (love, joy, peace, etc) that will have a positive and upbuilding effect on others.
I don't consider myself anointed, of course, but this (above) is also the same thing I believe I would try to do if I were. If you believe the GB are creating a "dark place" for other anointed persons, why not be that light in a dark place, as far as it depends upon you? Perhaps you personally are in a situation where you have been kicked out of the synagogue for calling the leaders blind, and it seems nearly impossible or unfruitful to go back. But if other anointed persons decided to merely set a good example of "shining as illuminators" among the same brotherhood in which they were called, do you think it would be wrong for them to remain in the state they were called? Since we were effectively called as slaves into a certain "household of faith" I think 1 Cor 7:19-24 gives a thought that might be related:
(1 Cor 7:19-24) Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what means something is the observing of God’s commandments. 20  In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21  Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. 22  For anyone who was called in the Lord when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise anyone who was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. 23  You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. 24  In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

Your entire response here and in one or two earlier posts in this thread appear to be exactly what I would expect to hear from an anointed person. I believe you speak out in the hope that readers will reject the falsehoods and accept truths in their place. Which is fine. Perhaps you also want all readers to reject the entire association with the JW Organization, as you think it has gotten so far off track. This is where I think you are being impractical.
On the first count, obviously we should reject all falsehoods and accept truths to the best of our ability. On the second part, what do you think would be wrong with continuing to associate with the same brotherhood from which has sprung so many truly anointed persons? And then, if one considers himself to be anointed, continuing to bear righteous spiritual fruit (love, joy, peace, etc) that will have a positive and upbuilding effect on others.
I don't consider myself anointed, of course, but this (above) is also the same thing I believe I would try to do if I were. If you believe the GB are creating a "dark place" for other anointed persons, why not be that light in a dark place, as far as it depends upon you? Perhaps you personally are in a situation where you have been kicked out of the synagogue for calling the leaders blind, and it seems nearly impossible or unfruitful to go back. But if other anointed persons decided to merely set a good example of "shining as illuminators" among the same brotherhood in which they were called, do you think it would be wrong for them to remain in the state they were called? Since we were effectively called as slaves into a certain "household of faith" I think 1 Cor 7:19-24 gives a thought that might be related:
(1 Cor 7:19-24) Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what means something is the observing of God’s commandments. 20  In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21  Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. 22  For anyone who was called in the Lord when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise anyone who was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. 23  You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. 24  In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

Your entire response here and in one or two earlier posts in this thread appear to be exactly what I would expect to hear from an anointed person. I believe you speak out in the hope that readers will reject the falsehoods and accept truths in their place. Which is fine. Perhaps you also want all readers to reject the entire association with the JW Organization, as you think it has gotten so far off track. This is where I think you are being impractical.
On the first count, obviously we should reject all falsehoods and accept truths to the best of our ability. On the second part, what do you think would be wrong with continuing to associate with the same brotherhood from which has sprung so many truly anointed persons? And then, if one considers himself to be anointed, continuing to bear righteous spiritual fruit (love, joy, peace, etc) that will have a positive and upbuilding effect on others.
I don't consider myself anointed, of course, but this (above) is also the same thing I believe I would try to do if I were. If you believe the GB are creating a "dark place" for other anointed persons, why not be that light in a dark place, as far as it depends upon you? Perhaps you personally are in a situation where you have been kicked out of the synagogue for calling the leaders blind, and it seems nearly impossible or unfruitful to go back. But if other anointed persons decided to merely set a good example of "shining as illuminators" among the same brotherhood in which they were called, do you think it would be wrong for them to remain in the state they were called? Since we were effectively called as slaves into a certain "household of faith" I think 1 Cor 7:19-24 gives a thought that might be related:
(1 Cor 7:19-24) Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what means something is the observing of God’s commandments. 20  In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21  Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. 22  For anyone who was called in the Lord when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise anyone who was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. 23  You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. 24  In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

In some ways, I am impressed that it's a step in the right direction. Allowing for some differences on conscience matters is still better than saying everything must be done a specific way because that's the only way a Bible-trained conscience should allow for. 
The brother is probably 75 to 80, so I didn't press him, but he was the one who used the terms "strongly encouraged" and "strongly discouraged." It's true that it implies that no one was told they must do it this way or that way, but it also implies that "loaded" or "leading" language would be used. We all know that this produces the implied idea: "I'm not telling you what to do, but you you know what you need to do . . . 'wink, wink,' . . . 'nod, nod.' "

In my opinion, many things about "conscience" are problematic and causing questions. If it was original idea from God, when created human, to give to them that "conscience" as reliable instrument for making correct thoughts and deeds in ones life, than this have to be Unique thing and Only way for people how to live the life. 
In the meantime, from first days of human until now, we built empire of laws and rules, commands and similar. Why? To regulate people life in some society. By this we silently agree with conclusion how human conscience is not proper Divine instrument which is adequate to resolve things in mutual dealings, interactions between people. Even JHVH contribute to list of Law about what is forbidden and what is obligated. By such events, "freedom of conscience" was came under power of Ideology (Doctrine) described in The Law. 
Similar situation is also in JWORG. It can't be different. Idea of conscience in Society is in that range too. You can/may have your conscience, but your conscience have to be Trained and Guided by Bible Principles. What are Bible Principles? We (GBFDS) are authorized to explain you how looks and what are Bible Principles. So, your conscience are not any more Divine Instrument given by God, but Learned Behavior in particular group, society. Even in theoretically, religiously given explanation given to "worldly people" how you reject blood, flag salute, military service etc. because of your "Bible trained conscience" that is not as it was said that way. Because, here we have Ideology Law, Doctrine as fundamental stone mark for your choice. Your conscience as private belonging is submitted to One Idea (religious, political, social...).  
In such circumstances (rough, hard, under pressure) it is not our Conscience that giving Resistance, but our Knowledge about issue and/or our Membership to particular ideology or group.
This Chile information's about Society and Conscience Matter are explainable in this frame of how society working and modeling or remodeling members conscience, builds and crashes ideology.