JW Insider

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.

Well I got an answer from the brother with connections to Chile and elsewhere in South America, but it's very hard to believe. The answer is so odd that I hate to offer it yet as an explanation.
So I also called about 12 different KH numbers, including an Assembly Hall number and the main number for Chile on JW.ORG (which matches the number on the "infamous" letterhead). I recorded the messages I got on each number. Some rang 'forever' and some had "no service" messages, and two had recorded messages after which I could have left a call-back number, but didn't. I am still going to have to call again next week, to attempt further verification.
The friend I met with definitely knows about the Internet "hoopla." The son-in-law who was a Circuit Overseer there has come back to the USA more than once with his wife (my friend's daughter) due to a medical condition treated here. They have gone back, but each time to a different assignment, sometimes in different countries of South America. So I couldn't get an exact response about "a firsthand" experience with the topic in Chile since 2014. Neither of his daughters (or sons-in-law) are currently in Chile. 
So here was the answer that still needs more verification (mostly because I find it hard to believe). He stated it very matter-of-factly, and didn't seem to see a problem with it at all.
Circuit Overseers are evidently told to strongly encourage the display of the flag on specific mandatory days ONLY in those areas where there have been past legal issues in the area regarding enforcement. Enforcement is not uniform, even though it applies to all buildings. Other circuit overseers have been told to strongly discourage the display of the flag on the premises of a KH, with certain exceptions regarding property ownership by individuals volunteering a property's free use as a KH.
I asked about why he thought an inconsistent policy would be encouraged. His answer to that question was what really seemed more disconcerting:
"Because if some congregations do and some don't, the government will see that this is a matter of conscience, and will realize that they [local JWs] aren't being ordered to handle the matter one way or another [based on a directive] from the [Watch Tower] Society."
I didn't have the heart to point out that this is a strange way to prove that something is really a matter of conscience.

Well I got an answer from the brother with connections to Chile and elsewhere in South America, but it's very hard to believe. The answer is so odd that I hate to offer it yet as an explanation.
So I also called about 12 different KH numbers, including an Assembly Hall number and the main number for Chile on JW.ORG (which matches the number on the "infamous" letterhead). I recorded the messages I got on each number. Some rang 'forever' and some had "no service" messages, and two had recorded messages after which I could have left a call-back number, but didn't. I am still going to have to call again next week, to attempt further verification.
The friend I met with definitely knows about the Internet "hoopla." The son-in-law who was a Circuit Overseer there has come back to the USA more than once with his wife (my friend's daughter) due to a medical condition treated here. They have gone back, but each time to a different assignment, sometimes in different countries of South America. So I couldn't get an exact response about "a firsthand" experience with the topic in Chile since 2014. Neither of his daughters (or sons-in-law) are currently in Chile. 
So here was the answer that still needs more verification (mostly because I find it hard to believe). He stated it very matter-of-factly, and didn't seem to see a problem with it at all.
Circuit Overseers are evidently told to strongly encourage the display of the flag on specific mandatory days ONLY in those areas where there have been past legal issues in the area regarding enforcement. Enforcement is not uniform, even though it applies to all buildings. Other circuit overseers have been told to strongly discourage the display of the flag on the premises of a KH, with certain exceptions regarding property ownership by individuals volunteering a property's free use as a KH.
I asked about why he thought an inconsistent policy would be encouraged. His answer to that question was what really seemed more disconcerting:
"Because if some congregations do and some don't, the government will see that this is a matter of conscience, and will realize that they [local JWs] aren't being ordered to handle the matter one way or another [based on a directive] from the [Watch Tower] Society."
I didn't have the heart to point out that this is a strange way to prove that something is really a matter of conscience.

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.' "

I confess I haven’t actually been following this thread in any depth. One would think that would prevent me from weighing in.

Right. So they are effectively being told what to do, (in order to show the government it's a matter of conscience for the congregation) therefor where does the matter of conscience come into this? It's another one of those paradoxes! Actually it's more like a contradiction.

Well I got an answer from the brother with connections to Chile and elsewhere in South America, but it's very hard to believe. The answer is so odd that I hate to offer it yet as an explanation.
So I also called about 12 different KH numbers, including an Assembly Hall number and the main number for Chile on JW.ORG (which matches the number on the "infamous" letterhead). I recorded the messages I got on each number. Some rang 'forever' and some had "no service" messages, and two had recorded messages after which I could have left a call-back number, but didn't. I am still going to have to call again next week, to attempt further verification.
The friend I met with definitely knows about the Internet "hoopla." The son-in-law who was a Circuit Overseer there has come back to the USA more than once with his wife (my friend's daughter) due to a medical condition treated here. They have gone back, but each time to a different assignment, sometimes in different countries of South America. So I couldn't get an exact response about "a firsthand" experience with the topic in Chile since 2014. Neither of his daughters (or sons-in-law) are currently in Chile. 
So here was the answer that still needs more verification (mostly because I find it hard to believe). He stated it very matter-of-factly, and didn't seem to see a problem with it at all.
Circuit Overseers are evidently told to strongly encourage the display of the flag on specific mandatory days ONLY in those areas where there have been past legal issues in the area regarding enforcement. Enforcement is not uniform, even though it applies to all buildings. Other circuit overseers have been told to strongly discourage the display of the flag on the premises of a KH, with certain exceptions regarding property ownership by individuals volunteering a property's free use as a KH.
I asked about why he thought an inconsistent policy would be encouraged. His answer to that question was what really seemed more disconcerting:
"Because if some congregations do and some don't, the government will see that this is a matter of conscience, and will realize that they [local JWs] aren't being ordered to handle the matter one way or another [based on a directive] from the [Watch Tower] Society."
I didn't have the heart to point out that this is a strange way to prove that something is really a matter of conscience.

I will be happy to. But at 2pm today I'm actually driving out of state to meet an elder whose 2 sons-in-law are/were(?) circuit overseers in Paraguay and Chile respectively. One was the "Home Overseer" for several years, but I don't recall whether that was the one or Paraguay or Chile. The purpose of the visit is unrelated, but I will definitely remember to ask him about the Chilean flags.
I can't imagine that he doesn't know. But if not, I volunteer to call one or more of the KH's in Chile. BTW, at most it's a very low charge, sometimes just a few cents to call through Google Phone, or other IP phone services.

https://www.diarioconcepcion.cl/ciudad/2018/09/13/no-izar-bandera-nacional-puede-ocasionar-multas-de-hasta-240-mil.html
Possibly related:
 

What you have here is very similar to what I was about to show, but of course, I picked slightly different reference points on the flag for reasons that I thought were reasonable, but don't think would be worth the trouble to explain. The pole and flag still seem nearly perfect to me (using the points I chose). Doesn't mean much, since we should be looking for a preponderance of evidence as JTR calls it, not just a couple items here and there. But I admit that I had not seen all the supposed evidence when I questioned HQ. I presented it as if it was just a couple possible examples both in 2016 and earlier this year.
That reminds me, that on the additional view of another Hall at 2789 Mexico Ave, shown above with an EMPTY flagpole, I find it interesting that Google Street View took the picture just a few months before it became marked as a Kingdom Hall. Note that there was no flagpole in the June 2014 photo from Google, but there is one per an ex-JW (I presume) who took a picture in September 2014. This would mean that either the picture was altered, or the brothers at the Hall had installed the flagpole as a part of opening up the KH. I see no evidence that the photo was altered, especially as it was just one of several pictures of various degrees of quality.  But this would have been an easy one to alter, if someone wanted to. But then, why create a slightly off kilter flagpole. BTW, Chile has their own street mapping application, and they have recently added street view, but not with this address completed. http://mapas.emol.com/?busxr=Salon Del Reino México 2789

I wouldn't go that far. Someone could have superimposed the flag onto the picture, but knowing where the flagpole is from another picture now puts the shadow in exactly the right place (in my opinion). Also, I just ran a line from each known shadow projection point (corners, objects) on that front facing wall, and they all spread exactly as expected (nearly parallel, but flared as expected with low sunlight). Also notice that the edges are even attenuated as expected the further distance that the shadow travels to reach the further part of the wall from the flag. Compare that slight blurriness to the crisper shadows of the roof overhang, etc. 
That's a lot of unnecessary work if all they had to do was just not show a flag shadow altogether, or get a picture without shadows. They even caught the depth of the vinyl siding correctly and realized that the zig-zag would have to be exaggerated for the longer angle. If it's faked they got all this down perfectly. That tells me that the shape of the flag shadow itself is likely correct even though we can't see a portion of the flag making a piece of the projected shadow. If they had the abilities required to attenuate and zig-zag the Gaussian blur correctly, then they could have produced a more "expected" shape for the shadow of the invisible portion of the flag. The fact that they did not work to make it more "expected," but left a perfectly reasonable shadow anyway tells me it's not "Photoshopped."
I'm willing to suspend judgment and give more credence to the supposed branch letter's explanation. 
Also, due to my own prejudices, I have tried to be a stickler at avoiding jehovahs-witness.com, even when it comes up as the only source in Google for certain information. But I see that there is more evidence there than was presented previously on this site. For example, quoting:
"Hi, I moved during the past week and searched 21 Kingdom Halls, not including Bethel. I could only obtain a picture of a mast and a waving flag. The picture of the mast (with no flag) is of a Hall that's at Avenida México 2789 in the neighborhood of Puente Alto, Provincia Cordillera, Región Metropolitana, Chile, and was taken on the 21st of September, 2014 at around 6PM."
 

On this picture, I would have sworn that the JW.ORG sign was photoshopped. That would be damaging, if true, but still wouldn't be critical to the point of the picture. I found the location of this Hall on JW.ORG and on Google Street View, but can't see the sign.

The particular picture you showed, however, might or might not be evidence for what it looks like. I don't think it's a coincidence that the picture finds the most damning angle, and yet that angle still doesn't prove what it was apparently intended to prove. Notice how close the flag material is shown to the corner of the Hall. You could not take a picture with it any closer. We also have a shadow that indicates the flag is not as close to that corner as it first appears. And we have a vertical fence bar obscuring the vertical flag pole so that we don't know if it is behind the white fence or in front. The picture therefore appears staged in a way that could be hiding evidence and which could be easily shown one way or another with a second picture that shows which side of the white fence the flag is on.
You have often shown the picture below, and engineers and draftsmen realize that you often need three or more perspectives, and dotted (hidden) lines to get the full picture.

Not sure what this means, but on the topic of the Chilean flag flying at, on or near Kingdom Halls, I don't really believe it. When this topic first came out a couple of years ago, there were some problems with the correspondence that supposedly explained it from an JW standpoint. Also, not all properties where KH's exist are fully owned by JWs. There could be a myriad of reasons that a flag exists on or near a JW property. But I'm not sure they really do.
I followed up on this by calling Patterson a couple of years ago (and the brother said he didn't know if it was true) and speaking to someone more recently in Warwick, who said "that couldn't be true," as far as he knows. But he also didn't know about any Internet-based commotion on the topic.
I told him that I had checked about 20 Kingdom Halls in Chile using Google Street View. Here is one example:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Encinas+1749,+Renca,+Región+Metropolitana,+Chile/@-33.4041048,-70.6907054,3a,75y,108.84h,87.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slfiq6LkMs2Z5CuAmFiG3ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x9662c69f295173ad:0x837dfa74929e385!8m2!3d-33.4041138!4d-70.6904265

Just go to JW.ORG and get the addresses of all the different locations in Santiago, for example: https://apps.jw.org/ui/E/meeting-search.html#/memorial/search/any/Santiago, Chile/-33.43783,-70.650449/@-33.434145,-70.639928,13z
These images were taken when the law was supposedly in effect. Yet, none of them showed flagpoles. None of them showed flags. I checked a few churches, too and none of them show flags either. I checked the one Hall that had been mentioned on this site, too. I'm not even sure about the supposed "law" as described.
There have been several items promoted by JW opposers that should rightly raise some suspicions. It's not usually that hard to look up corroborating evidence these days, even if it's half-way around the world for some of us.
If anyone knows of any different evidence,  I'd be happy to see it. But I have strong doubts that there is any definitive evidence that means what opposers have claimed.
 

Pinpointing the first single day of the crash ends up giving an incomplete picture of the larger problem. By the end of October 1929 about 25 percent of the value of the market was gone. By 1933 about 80 percent of the peak 1929 market was gone.
Ironically, it was when Roosevelt (FDR) turned to some Marxist ideas from "socialism" that the economy began improving again after 1933. Even more ironically, the big secret of capitalism relies on the largest capitalists continually taking of more and more of other people's money until they finally run out of it, and they cannot drain any more money from the system (mostly from workers). As historian Schlesinger says:
According to historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. the most critical reasons for this economic collapse can be summarized as:
1) Management’s disposition to maintain prices and inflate profits while holding down wages and raw material prices meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in their own productivity. The consequence was the relative decline of mass purchasing power. As goods flowed out of the expanding capital plant in ever greater quantities, there was proportionately less and less cash in the hands of buyers to carry the goods off the market. The pattern of income distribution, in short, was incapable of long maintaining prosperity.
2) Seven years of fixed capital investment at high rates had “overbuilt” productive capacity (in terms of existing capacity to consume) and had thus saturated the economy. The slackening of the automotive and building industries was symptomatic. The existing rate of capital formation could not be sustained without different governmental policies – policies aimed not at helping those who had money to accumulate more but at transferring money from those who were letting it stagnate in savings to those who would spend it.
3) The sucking off into profits and dividends of the gains of technology meant the tendency to use excess money for speculation, transforming the Stock Exchange from a securities market into a gaming-house.
. . .
Source: Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The Crisis of the Old Order, The Age of Roosevelt 1919-1933: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957, pp. 159-160.
 

Pinpointing the first single day of the crash ends up giving an incomplete picture of the larger problem. By the end of October 1929 about 25 percent of the value of the market was gone. By 1933 about 80 percent of the peak 1929 market was gone.
Ironically, it was when Roosevelt (FDR) turned to some Marxist ideas from "socialism" that the economy began improving again after 1933. Even more ironically, the big secret of capitalism relies on the largest capitalists continually taking of more and more of other people's money until they finally run out of it, and they cannot drain any more money from the system (mostly from workers). As historian Schlesinger says:
According to historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. the most critical reasons for this economic collapse can be summarized as:
1) Management’s disposition to maintain prices and inflate profits while holding down wages and raw material prices meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in their own productivity. The consequence was the relative decline of mass purchasing power. As goods flowed out of the expanding capital plant in ever greater quantities, there was proportionately less and less cash in the hands of buyers to carry the goods off the market. The pattern of income distribution, in short, was incapable of long maintaining prosperity.
2) Seven years of fixed capital investment at high rates had “overbuilt” productive capacity (in terms of existing capacity to consume) and had thus saturated the economy. The slackening of the automotive and building industries was symptomatic. The existing rate of capital formation could not be sustained without different governmental policies – policies aimed not at helping those who had money to accumulate more but at transferring money from those who were letting it stagnate in savings to those who would spend it.
3) The sucking off into profits and dividends of the gains of technology meant the tendency to use excess money for speculation, transforming the Stock Exchange from a securities market into a gaming-house.
. . .
Source: Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The Crisis of the Old Order, The Age of Roosevelt 1919-1933: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957, pp. 159-160.
 

It's funny. I have no trouble getting to sleep, but by choice I've always been able to stay up several nights a week and not feel it the next day, and go on as normal. But I've heard that this is not healthy, and at 61, now, I'm beginning to need more than 5 hours of sleep. I began working on a building project a couple weeks ago, and will be for another couple weeks. When younger, I'd come home and find that reading or studying would be an enjoyable way to get some rest, even if it meant losing sleep. But these last couple weeks, I'm actually falling asleep in the evenings even when I want to stay up. This must be the end of the world as I knew it.

I heard he carved it into the bark of a Norway Spruce. If only such a tree could survive the Flood!

1942 New World. However I wasn’t baptized at the convention. Was baptized in a cow trough on a sister’s farm. I did attend (and remember) the convention.  The main talk was  delivered by Br. Knorr via telephone tie-in in Seattle and created quite a stir. 

Sigh...how can people be so ridiculous? NOBODY floods the field with letters for every cause under the sun. EVERYONE does it for the cause they hold most dear.

Each of us, no matter who we are, only have a limited number of mental, emotional, physical, and financial resources.  And only so many hours of our lives, which as time goes on, becomes painfully shorter, and filled with concerns of the day.
OF COURSE THIS IS THE CASE !
Sreko Sostar,  I feel a certain affinity for you because we have seen and experienced many similar things, and have certain common awarenesses ... but will allocate what total resources I have to "Blood or Brotherhood" .... FIRST.
The quickest way to go totally insane is to grieve over things you cannot change ... and as Clint Eastwood, in the Harry Callahan series of movies once said, (paraphrased) ....
" .. A man has got to know his own limitations."