JW Insider

Thanks.
That's certainly not a theme I would agree with. It's inconsistent with the facts. One of the earliest mentions of child sexual abuse was in a 5/15/1970 Watchtower, and there was a previous mention in the 1960's, I forget just where it was now.
I had a feeling that this was case you intended. If you read it carefully, of course, you can see that this was not the case that Brother Knorr got involved with.
During his tenure as president, Brother Knorr became involved in every case where a Bethelite had to be dismissed. The rest of the Bethel family would often hear the reasons why at breakfast, no matter how distasteful. But it was a good reminder that the organization should be kept clean, and that it was good to stay alert to the fact that persons at all levels of responsibility within the organization could become involved in immoral, illegal, and even criminal behavior. This indecent exposure case, however, was not about a Bethelite and we read nothing about N.H.Knorr getting involved.

Sounds like a slight misinterpretation of the TJ position. What is the source?
Also Tlaxcala is about as far away from a U.S. border wall as you can get in Mexico.

It's very true that government (police, investigators, prosecutors, judges, child protection services, etc.) often fails to do their job correctly. 
True again. It's so typical of lawyers to go after an institution when it's not even the fault of an institution, just because that's where the money is. As you know, this goes for a lot of legal issues, even those unrelated to child sexual abuse. Of course, if it can be shown that an institution had hidden the abuse to protect their own assets (coach, priest, cardinal, bank account) or to protect their institution's reputation (a college, a football team, a diocese, a religion) then there should be culpability. In some few cases these vultures swoop in to exact a kind of punishment where the "system" failed, but there is no real justice for all, because this very much a 'hit and miss' process. 
There are cases against the Watchtower that really have absolutely nothing to do with the Watchtower, and should focus just on getting justice for the victim from the abuser. And there may be cases where congregation elders have made a mistake that has nothing to do with their training as elders and they should have known better. Some of these cases should have nothing to do with the Watchtower Society or the organization.
True. Powerful and monied interests can be leveraged on behalf of both persons and institutions, and that can make even good police investigative work meaningless. Victims are typically poorer and abusers can use their own power and influence to buy attorneys that can bully those victims. Victims can be talked into exonerating the abuser, or settling cases with a sack of money and a gag order.  I have a feeling that the HBO documentary on Michael Jackson which may be aired next month will show how money can buy the kind of lawyers and threats that protect abusers. Acosta/Epstein is another case in point.

I will agree that it is all very difficult to deal with, for the Org and for the victims. Do i know any answers, no I don't. 
It's just such a shame that the JW Org is in such a mess. 
And like you say Billy it seems the lawyers are just using the victims as a way of earning more cash for themselves. 
Yes the sun is shining here, I'm in a better frame of mind. :) Have a good day all. 
 

I would be lying if I said I wouldn’t accept payout for merely being TrueTom.
When the rules of the game change, you can hardly blame the small players for adjusting to accommodate them. There was a time, I think you will remember it, too, when nothing was so crass as for lawyers to advertise. It was against their universal code of conduct, possibly even against the law. It explains the phrase “ambulance chaser” - you actually had to chase an ambulance to sign up a client before another lawyer did. You couldn’t just broadcast to the whole wide world that you were scouring the earth for clients.
Someone dear to me was sued several times with regard to rental property, in another matter that had a very long statute of limitations. When what proved to be the final lawsuit came in, the person sought to make defense through his own lawyer. That lawyer contacted several times but could not get a response from the firm bringing suit. Finally that firm admitted that they were having a hard time locating their client. In other words, they were leaving no stone unturned in desperately seeking business and had finally found “aggrieved” ones who’s cases were so tenuous that they couldn’t even be bothered to show up.
This may be your interpretation. I have seen many disfellowshipped ones go through the process and return. Nobody looks down upon them. It causes pure joy to the congregation that normal association may soon resume.
Think of it as a game, if you like, admittedly silly in some respects, but forced upon humans because they cannot read hearts. It is like a teen I knew very well who was disfellowshipped. He lived in the family home throughout. When on one super-cold morning he parked in the KH lot and strode toward the building without a coat, I broke all protocol and said “I know that there’s no contact and all, but did they even have to take your coat?”
He liked that one, and in not too long a time he was reinstated.

In Jehovah’s Witness congregations, victims, parents, or anyone else, have always been free to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police. The troubling reality is that many chose not to do it. They alerted congregation elders and went no further. Why? Because they thought that by so doing, they might be bringing reproach on God’s name and the Christian congregation.
That situation has been resolved. The May 2019 study edition of the Watchtower, reviewed via Q & A participation at all congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses—it will escape nobody—addressed it specifically: 
“But what if the report is about someone who is a part of the congregation and the matter then becomes known in the community? Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name,” states the magazine.
The problem is solved. Can one bring reproach on God or the Christian congregation by reporting child sexual abuse to police? No. The abuser has already brought the reproach. There will be many who had long ago come to that conclusion, but now, unambiguously, in writing, for elders and members alike, here it is spelled out.
From the beginning, child sexual abuse controversies as related to Jehovah’s Witnesses have been markedly different from those of nearly anywhere else. Incidents have mostly been within the ranks of the general membership, come to light because the Witness organization takes seriously passages as Romans 2:21-22, and investigates wrongdoing within its midst so as to “keep the congregation clean” in God’s eyes, something that they think He demands:
“Do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You, the one preaching “Do not steal,” do you steal?  You, the one saying “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery?” (Romans 2:21-22)
Elsewhere it is the leaders being looked at exclusively. Usually, no mechanism at all exists that the wrongdoing of religious members comes to light. When the police nab John Q. Parishioner, it is as much news to the church minister as it is to the public. When was the last time you read of an abuser identified by religious affiliation unless it was a person in position of leadership?
As I write this, it now appears that the time has come for Southern Baptists to take their turn in the hot seat. Just eight days prior to this writing, a Houston Chronicle headline (February 10, 2019) announces: “Abuse of Faith - 20 years, 700 victims: Southern Baptist sexual abuse spreads as leaders resist reforms.”
Who are the victims? Entirely those who were abused by leaders. The latter “were pastors. ministers. youth pastors. Sunday school teachers. deacons. And church volunteers.” Were any of them just regular church members abused by other regular church members? No. There is no apparatus for that to ever come to light. The church preaches to them on Sunday but otherwise takes no interest in whether they actually apply the faith or not. Doubtless they hope for the best, but it is no more than hope. Only a handful of faiths make any effort to ensure that members live up to what they profess.
It has always been apples vs oranges. That is what has long frustrated Jehovah’s Witnesses. With most groups, if you want to find a bumper crop of pedophile abusers, you need look no farther than the leaders. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, if you “hope” for the same catch, you must broaden your nets to include, not just leaders, but everybody. It is rare for a Witness leader to be an abuser, the rotter in San Diego being a notable exception. It is the rule elsewhere. The most recent Witness legal case, involving a lawsuit in Montana, involves abuse entirely within a member’s step-family that did not reach the ears of the police, which the court decided was through leadership culpability.
To account for this marked difference in leadership personal conduct, this writer submits a reason. Those who lead among Jehovah’s Witnesses are selected from rank and file members on the basis of moral qualifications highlighted in the Bible itself, for example, at Titus 1:6-9.  In short, they are those who have distinguished themselves in living their religion. Leaders of most denominations have distinguished themselves in knowing their religion, having graduated from divinity schools of higher education. They may live the religion—ideally, they do, but this is by no means assured—the emphasis is on academic knowledge.
Add to the mix that Jehovah’s Witness elders preside without pay, and thus their true motive is revealed. Most religious leaders do it for pay, and thus present conflicting motives. One could even call them “mercenary ministers.” Are they untainted in their desire to do the Lord’s work or not? One hopes for the best but can never be sure.
Confounding irreligious humanists who would frame the child sexual abuse issue as one of religious institutions, two days after the Southern Baptist exposé, there appeared one of the United Nations. On February 12, the Sun (thesun.co.uk) reported that “thousands more ‘predatory’ sex abusers specifically target aid charity jobs to get close to vulnerable women and children.”
“There are tens of thousands of aid workers around the world with paedophile tendencies, but if you wear a UNICEF T-shirt nobody will ask what you’re up to. You have the impunity to do whatever you want,” Andrew Macleod, a former UN high official stated, adding that “there has been an ‘endemic’ cover-up of the sickening crimes for two decades, with those who attempt to blow the whistle just getting fired.” Sharing his data with The Sun, Mr. Macleod “warned that the spiralling abuse scandal was on the same scale as the Catholic Church’s.”
All things must be put into perspective. Child sexual abuse is not an issue of any single religion, much less a tiny one where otherwise blameless leaders are perceived to have bungled reporting to police. It occurs in any setting in which people interact with one another. The legal system being what it is, one can prosecute child sexual abuse wherever it is encountered. The tort system being what it is, one prosecutes primarily where there are deep pockets. Arguably, the child sexual abuse issues of the Southern Baptists have taken so long coming to light is because that denomination is decentralized in organization, presenting no deep pockets.
With the May 2019 Watchtower mentioned above, finally the reporting issues of Jehovah’s Witnesses are fixed. Anyone who knows of abuse allegations may bring those to the attention of the police, and regardless of how “insular” or “no part of the world” Witnesses may be, they need not have the slightest misgivings about bringing reproach on the congregation. Both goals can proceed—that of societal justice and that of congregation justice—and neither interferes with the other.
Witness opposers were not at all gracious about this change, that I could see. Many continued to harp on the “two witness” rule of verifying abuse, for example. It becomes entirely irrelevant now. Were it a “40-witness” or a “half-witness” rule, it wouldn’t matter. It is a standard that guides congregation judicial proceedings and has absolutely no bearing on secular justice.
“Well, it only took a landslide of legal threats around the world to force their hand on this,” opposers grumbled, as they went on to claim credit. Why not give them the credit? Likely it is true. Everything in life is action/reaction and it would be foolish to deny the substance of this. Once ones leave the faith, people within lose track of them. It is easy to say: “Out of sight, out of mind,” and opponents did not allow this to happen. They should seriously congratulate themselves. Many have publicly stated that their opposition is only so that Jehovah’s Witnesses will fix their “broken policies.” Now that they have been fixed, one wonders if their opposition will stop.
Members have been given the clearest possible direction that there should be no obstacle or objection to their reporting whatever allegations or realities they feel should be reported. Few journalists will hold out for elders marching them down to the police station at gunpoint to make sure that they do, even if their most determined opposers will settle for no less.  There are some experiences that seem to preclude one’s ever looking at life rationally again, and perhaps child sexual abuse is one of them. The only people not knowing that the situation is fixed are those who are convinced that Jehovah’s Witnesses are evil incarnate whose charter purpose is to abuse children, and they will not be convinced until there is a cop in every Witness home.
With a major “reform” making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of Witness critics lose something huge to them, and the question some of them must face is a little like that of Tom Brady—what on earth is he ever going to do with himself after he retires? A few face withering away like old Roger Chillingsworth of the Scarlet Letter, who, when Arthur Dimmesdale finally changed his policy, “knelt down beside him, with a blank, dull countenance, out of which life seemed to have departed. ‘Thou hast escaped me!’ he repeated more than once. ‘Thou has escaped me!’
This will not be the journalists, of course. Nor will it be the legal people. Nor will it even be Witness critics in the main. But for some of the latter, former members who are vested in tearing down what they once embraced, it will not be an easy transition. They almost have no choice but to find some far-fetched scenario involving “rogue elders” that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that till the cows come home. There are always going to be ‘What ifs.’ At some point one must have some confidence in the power of parents to be concerned for their children, and for community to handle occasional lapses, particularly since governmental solutions have hardly proven immune to abuse and miscarriages of justice themselves. It is not easy to get between a mama bear and her cub.
All told, it would appear that even if the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses practiced child sexual abuse themselves, their “contribution” would be the tiniest part of an overall endemic. But since they do not—since their alleged sins are failing to report on what some members have done, the efforts of their apostates to paint them as a prime source of the degradation is but vengeful. They deliberately construct a damning and inaccurate picture of the faith that others in lands less enamored with human rights act upon. 
 

I don’t admire him. I use him. And I think he is okay with that.
I also have sought to understand him.
If anything, I admire you & and a few other very similar personas, for the tenacity to defend the current governing arrangement, which I also defend. But admiring or not admiring has little to do with anything. If my goal is to admire and not admire and to demonstrate my loyalty or lack thereof, then I hang out exclusively with the real flesh and blood people of my circuit, who all like me, barring perhaps a few who think me a windbag. (but how can they be faulted for that?)
He spills a lot of dirt. I would never spill the dirt that he does. And lest John B start frothing over this, it must be pointed out that everyone everywhere in every field of activity has some dirt that they could spill. It will always be a question of whether they choose to do it or not.)
But the fact is that he is not going away. So how do I come to grips with that? Should I simply repeat ‘Liar! liar!’ when the tone of his writing does not suggest lying? Notice what I said (and you quoted):
I didn’t say that his information was accurate. I said that HE deems it accurate. I didn’t say that John was right. I said that there were times when HE thought he was right.
There is much I like about JWI, but also much I don’t like. I think he is too swayed by the pretentions of journalism that the cockroaches disappear when you shine the bright light of journalism upon them. I think they just go somewhere else, leaving the illusion that something has been solved, which presently enough generally turns out to be but an illusion.
I hate to say it. I really really really really hate to say it, but I think someone I might truly like in person is @James Thomas Rook Jr.if you could only muzzle him, which seems unlikely at present. He is unpretentious, and that is a quality I am drawn to.
The Internet is not the congregation. You cannot make it behave as though it is. Brothers look like fools when they insist upon it. In a sense of strict organizational loyalty, none of us should be here, you no more (or less) than JWI. (or me)
I hope that the brothers enjoy what I write, but rarely are they my main intended audience. Nor, when I address villains, are they my intended audience. It is the unaligned & often misinformed people that I seek to address, and the relative success or futility of this will probably never be known.) To that end, I sometimes distance myself from certain loyal ones who declare their loyalty (often with heat) but otherwise bring little to the table. (and I don’t think of you as one of them- you bring plenty to the table) In real life, I would hang out with them. But the Internet is not real life.

It looked to me like there was more to the government's case. Apparently the brothers assigned to do the HLC work in Spain were creating a database of doctors sympathetic to bloodless surgery. But it was done by compiling information gathered from questioning doctors, questioning staff, and questioning the experience of Witness patients with those doctors. The amount of cooperation in the way they answered questions, and the patient experiences were all used to produce a list of those assumed to respond well in situations listed. The data from both patients and doctors was used to make assumptions about how those doctors would treat cases assumed similar by the the HLC. It was being shared without permission. This had come up before and the HLC had been called out for this in 2014 and 2017. So the HLC promised to destroy the database. A followup shows that the HLC is still making use of the database that they never destroyed, and they are still collecting data.
I think the penalty is especially for lying about the destruction and (dis)continued use of the database.

It looked to me like there was more to the government's case. Apparently the brothers assigned to do the HLC work in Spain were creating a database of doctors sympathetic to bloodless surgery. But it was done by compiling information gathered from questioning doctors, questioning staff, and questioning the experience of Witness patients with those doctors. The amount of cooperation in the way they answered questions, and the patient experiences were all used to produce a list of those assumed to respond well in situations listed. The data from both patients and doctors was used to make assumptions about how those doctors would treat cases assumed similar by the the HLC. It was being shared without permission. This had come up before and the HLC had been called out for this in 2014 and 2017. So the HLC promised to destroy the database. A followup shows that the HLC is still making use of the database that they never destroyed, and they are still collecting data.
I think the penalty is especially for lying about the destruction and (dis)continued use of the database.

In Spain, legislation is extremely protective and protects individual liberties and the rights of citizens. One of these rights is the "protection of personal data". That is, when a third party wants to obtain my information (name, address, for example) or much more importantly (my religion, medical issues, financial issues) I have to authorize him. Otherwise it is prohibited and is punishable.
That's why in Spain we do not use the forms of preaching records to record "not at home", return visits, etc. We did it on personal sheets, and lately we are recommended to do it on the mobile or tablet to be more discreet. Still, legally, if I write down "Ms. Maria, street x, interested," you should ask her for permission to have that information. In short, a real problem. None of us do that.
And that brings us to the fine. What the Hospital Liaison Committees have done is illegal. They have done it in good faith, but it is illegal. They have interviewed doctors and collected information from patients (Witnesses) and, without their consent, they have taken note of these data, they have collected them in an electronic file, and (of this I am not sure) they have transfer this data to third others.
All this is penalized. Here when you enter the door of a doctor the first time the first thing they do is to extend a form where you authorize the query to keep your data.
What saddens me in particular is the lack of orientation that the headquartes has given to the brothers who attend this work. Only a small form would have sufficed, asking the interested parties if they give their consent to the fact that the interview information could be collected and stored for later use. Let's see if they do it in the future, because this fine affects a small community in this country, but luckily the government agency has not investigated the rest of Spain.

It looked to me like there was more to the government's case. Apparently the brothers assigned to do the HLC work in Spain were creating a database of doctors sympathetic to bloodless surgery. But it was done by compiling information gathered from questioning doctors, questioning staff, and questioning the experience of Witness patients with those doctors. The amount of cooperation in the way they answered questions, and the patient experiences were all used to produce a list of those assumed to respond well in situations listed. The data from both patients and doctors was used to make assumptions about how those doctors would treat cases assumed similar by the the HLC. It was being shared without permission. This had come up before and the HLC had been called out for this in 2014 and 2017. So the HLC promised to destroy the database. A followup shows that the HLC is still making use of the database that they never destroyed, and they are still collecting data.
I think the penalty is especially for lying about the destruction and (dis)continued use of the database.

It looked to me like there was more to the government's case. Apparently the brothers assigned to do the HLC work in Spain were creating a database of doctors sympathetic to bloodless surgery. But it was done by compiling information gathered from questioning doctors, questioning staff, and questioning the experience of Witness patients with those doctors. The amount of cooperation in the way they answered questions, and the patient experiences were all used to produce a list of those assumed to respond well in situations listed. The data from both patients and doctors was used to make assumptions about how those doctors would treat cases assumed similar by the the HLC. It was being shared without permission. This had come up before and the HLC had been called out for this in 2014 and 2017. So the HLC promised to destroy the database. A followup shows that the HLC is still making use of the database that they never destroyed, and they are still collecting data.
I think the penalty is especially for lying about the destruction and (dis)continued use of the database.

It looked to me like there was more to the government's case. Apparently the brothers assigned to do the HLC work in Spain were creating a database of doctors sympathetic to bloodless surgery. But it was done by compiling information gathered from questioning doctors, questioning staff, and questioning the experience of Witness patients with those doctors. The amount of cooperation in the way they answered questions, and the patient experiences were all used to produce a list of those assumed to respond well in situations listed. The data from both patients and doctors was used to make assumptions about how those doctors would treat cases assumed similar by the the HLC. It was being shared without permission. This had come up before and the HLC had been called out for this in 2014 and 2017. So the HLC promised to destroy the database. A followup shows that the HLC is still making use of the database that they never destroyed, and they are still collecting data.
I think the penalty is especially for lying about the destruction and (dis)continued use of the database.

It looked to me like there was more to the government's case. Apparently the brothers assigned to do the HLC work in Spain were creating a database of doctors sympathetic to bloodless surgery. But it was done by compiling information gathered from questioning doctors, questioning staff, and questioning the experience of Witness patients with those doctors. The amount of cooperation in the way they answered questions, and the patient experiences were all used to produce a list of those assumed to respond well in situations listed. The data from both patients and doctors was used to make assumptions about how those doctors would treat cases assumed similar by the the HLC. It was being shared without permission. This had come up before and the HLC had been called out for this in 2014 and 2017. So the HLC promised to destroy the database. A followup shows that the HLC is still making use of the database that they never destroyed, and they are still collecting data.
I think the penalty is especially for lying about the destruction and (dis)continued use of the database.

Who said that? A donkey?
 

There should be no reason for you to do that, nor I. There are plenty of things wrong or misleading on both of those sites. In fact, I see that AD1914 has merely taken a lot of articles from JWFacts and Hatton, and AlanF, and just re-posted them verbatim.
That's what you should do. And you appear to have access to a lot of research materials, so that's great.
No one is asking you or anyone else to buy into anything, but at least I see that we agree on the topic of the earth's creation. The Watchtower says that the creative days were of unknown length, and that these days didn't begin counting until perhaps many millions or even billions of years after which time the earth was "formless and waste." There is nothing wrong with this perspective we learn from the Watchtower. It is perfectly fine from a Biblical view, as a "day" can have a variety of meaning. I don't remember reading anything different in R.Franz perspective, so I'm guessing that he would have agreed with us, too.
I'm sure there are always new and better ways to explain things. Certain questions come in that show a need for focusing on something that was only mentioned briefly before. New books and new quotes are available that weren't available in 1967. I'm sure you already knew all this, so I'm not even sure why you are asking.
Why? Why should I find other avenues to criticize the Org? I'm only going to question areas where prayer and study and meditation and Bible reading have led me to think that certain strongly entrenched doctrines ought to be questioned. The Watchtower has often said that it welcomes such questioning. The Bible makes it our Christian duty to make sure of all things. 
It's for the same reason that I welcome your own questions and criticisms of those areas that I have brought up. But I often wish that you would actually offer Scriptures, reasoning, or even counter-arguments. Instead, you seem to have an obsession with making false statements about things I've said. Perhaps you just have trouble understanding me. But if that's the case, don't just jump to conclusions about what I said, or what I think Russell said, or the Watchtower said, etc. Just ask! I'd be happy to discuss any of these things.
But instead you seem bent on making claims like the one above that says that I think the Org is wrong and only I am right. It's completely false, of course, and I'm sure you know that. But why waste your time on such things even if it were true. If a person says something you disagree with, it's better to discuss the thing, not whether the person always thinks he is right. 
Here again, why be so obsessed with persons who have agreed with something I've said, here and there? I think a lot of people have noticed this absurd obsession you appear to have with up-votes, down-votes, and such things. I'm not here for any of their up-votes or to get anyone to hang on every fiber of my words. There have been people here in the past, Alan [Allen] Smith for one, who was so obsessed with up-votes and down-votes that he created multiple accounts just to practice vote-spamming, where he targeted a few people with literally hundreds of down-votes and employed those same multiple accounts to create hundreds of up-votes for himself. It was a funny quirk of his, and the Librarian or admin pointed it out publicly. But I'm not concerned about it myself. I'd point out the exact same scriptural concerns even if I never got an upvote. And there are others who probably would point out some of the exact same concerns if I weren't even here.
The thing I would appreciate is having someone respond to the reasons my "false demonstrations" are false rather than going after me for bringing them up.

It's my impression that we both enjoy the back and forth. I hope it's not just me.

LOL. I got so confused when both TTH and I used the word "shrill" within a couple days of each other. I started thinking maybe Allen Smith was right after all when he used to say I was the same person as TTH, among several others. I think Allen could have tried to convince me that it was just him and me running the entire forum.
I never said it doesn't matter. You either forgot what I said, or made it up, or I forgot what I said. Or I could have said something you misunderstood. Even so, I accept that it matters very much to me that we don't "do dates." But I would only impose this on myself, I don't think it matters so much that I should impose my view on others in the congregation. But I'm happy to present how much it matters to me if called upon to do so.
The "Clarification of Our Beliefs" does not have anything to do with what I was referring to. I was referring to specific admissions of past errors about dates in several other specific places in the Watch Tower publications. In addition, I was also referring to specific things that the Watchtower admitted can be dangerous and un-Christian, including 'serving with a date in mind.'

Now don't let that get to your head, because you ain't nothing until you have at least 300K followers on Instagram

There should be no reason for you to do that, nor I. There are plenty of things wrong or misleading on both of those sites. In fact, I see that AD1914 has merely taken a lot of articles from JWFacts and Hatton, and AlanF, and just re-posted them verbatim.
That's what you should do. And you appear to have access to a lot of research materials, so that's great.
No one is asking you or anyone else to buy into anything, but at least I see that we agree on the topic of the earth's creation. The Watchtower says that the creative days were of unknown length, and that these days didn't begin counting until perhaps many millions or even billions of years after which time the earth was "formless and waste." There is nothing wrong with this perspective we learn from the Watchtower. It is perfectly fine from a Biblical view, as a "day" can have a variety of meaning. I don't remember reading anything different in R.Franz perspective, so I'm guessing that he would have agreed with us, too.
I'm sure there are always new and better ways to explain things. Certain questions come in that show a need for focusing on something that was only mentioned briefly before. New books and new quotes are available that weren't available in 1967. I'm sure you already knew all this, so I'm not even sure why you are asking.
Why? Why should I find other avenues to criticize the Org? I'm only going to question areas where prayer and study and meditation and Bible reading have led me to think that certain strongly entrenched doctrines ought to be questioned. The Watchtower has often said that it welcomes such questioning. The Bible makes it our Christian duty to make sure of all things. 
It's for the same reason that I welcome your own questions and criticisms of those areas that I have brought up. But I often wish that you would actually offer Scriptures, reasoning, or even counter-arguments. Instead, you seem to have an obsession with making false statements about things I've said. Perhaps you just have trouble understanding me. But if that's the case, don't just jump to conclusions about what I said, or what I think Russell said, or the Watchtower said, etc. Just ask! I'd be happy to discuss any of these things.
But instead you seem bent on making claims like the one above that says that I think the Org is wrong and only I am right. It's completely false, of course, and I'm sure you know that. But why waste your time on such things even if it were true. If a person says something you disagree with, it's better to discuss the thing, not whether the person always thinks he is right. 
Here again, why be so obsessed with persons who have agreed with something I've said, here and there? I think a lot of people have noticed this absurd obsession you appear to have with up-votes, down-votes, and such things. I'm not here for any of their up-votes or to get anyone to hang on every fiber of my words. There have been people here in the past, Alan [Allen] Smith for one, who was so obsessed with up-votes and down-votes that he created multiple accounts just to practice vote-spamming, where he targeted a few people with literally hundreds of down-votes and employed those same multiple accounts to create hundreds of up-votes for himself. It was a funny quirk of his, and the Librarian or admin pointed it out publicly. But I'm not concerned about it myself. I'd point out the exact same scriptural concerns even if I never got an upvote. And there are others who probably would point out some of the exact same concerns if I weren't even here.
The thing I would appreciate is having someone respond to the reasons my "false demonstrations" are false rather than going after me for bringing them up.

There should be no reason for you to do that, nor I. There are plenty of things wrong or misleading on both of those sites. In fact, I see that AD1914 has merely taken a lot of articles from JWFacts and Hatton, and AlanF, and just re-posted them verbatim.
That's what you should do. And you appear to have access to a lot of research materials, so that's great.
No one is asking you or anyone else to buy into anything, but at least I see that we agree on the topic of the earth's creation. The Watchtower says that the creative days were of unknown length, and that these days didn't begin counting until perhaps many millions or even billions of years after which time the earth was "formless and waste." There is nothing wrong with this perspective we learn from the Watchtower. It is perfectly fine from a Biblical view, as a "day" can have a variety of meaning. I don't remember reading anything different in R.Franz perspective, so I'm guessing that he would have agreed with us, too.
I'm sure there are always new and better ways to explain things. Certain questions come in that show a need for focusing on something that was only mentioned briefly before. New books and new quotes are available that weren't available in 1967. I'm sure you already knew all this, so I'm not even sure why you are asking.
Why? Why should I find other avenues to criticize the Org? I'm only going to question areas where prayer and study and meditation and Bible reading have led me to think that certain strongly entrenched doctrines ought to be questioned. The Watchtower has often said that it welcomes such questioning. The Bible makes it our Christian duty to make sure of all things. 
It's for the same reason that I welcome your own questions and criticisms of those areas that I have brought up. But I often wish that you would actually offer Scriptures, reasoning, or even counter-arguments. Instead, you seem to have an obsession with making false statements about things I've said. Perhaps you just have trouble understanding me. But if that's the case, don't just jump to conclusions about what I said, or what I think Russell said, or the Watchtower said, etc. Just ask! I'd be happy to discuss any of these things.
But instead you seem bent on making claims like the one above that says that I think the Org is wrong and only I am right. It's completely false, of course, and I'm sure you know that. But why waste your time on such things even if it were true. If a person says something you disagree with, it's better to discuss the thing, not whether the person always thinks he is right. 
Here again, why be so obsessed with persons who have agreed with something I've said, here and there? I think a lot of people have noticed this absurd obsession you appear to have with up-votes, down-votes, and such things. I'm not here for any of their up-votes or to get anyone to hang on every fiber of my words. There have been people here in the past, Alan [Allen] Smith for one, who was so obsessed with up-votes and down-votes that he created multiple accounts just to practice vote-spamming, where he targeted a few people with literally hundreds of down-votes and employed those same multiple accounts to create hundreds of up-votes for himself. It was a funny quirk of his, and the Librarian or admin pointed it out publicly. But I'm not concerned about it myself. I'd point out the exact same scriptural concerns even if I never got an upvote. And there are others who probably would point out some of the exact same concerns if I weren't even here.
The thing I would appreciate is having someone respond to the reasons my "false demonstrations" are false rather than going after me for bringing them up.

Sometimes you make me think you have been living under a rock. I don't know what you mean by unfavorable messages, but it is clear that every Witness generation has been living with the thought that "our children won't make it to high school", it doesn't matter whether this is the 20's 30's 40's..............80's 90's.... you get my drift. Perhaps this is a good thing as it keeps everyone on their toes, but it can also backfire, like crying wolf one too many times. 
Being ready at all times doesn't equal putting a date or time period on it.

It's my impression that we both enjoy the back and forth. I hope it's not just me.

The New Creation, Studies in the Scriptures, is not so different than what was continued until the 1970's and proposed again in the 1980's:
We believe our readers will agree that although the length of these epoch-days is not indicated, we will be justified in assuming that they were uniform periods, because of their close identity as members of the one creative week. Hence, if we can gain reasonable proof of the length of one of these days, we will be fully justified in assuming that the others were of the same duration. We do, then, find satisfactory evidence that one of these creative "days" was a period of seven thousand years and, hence, that the entire creative week would be 7,000 x 7 equals 49,000 years. And although this period is infinitesimal when compared with some geological guesses, it is, we believe, quite reasonably ample for the work represented as being accomplished therein—the ordering and filling of the earth, which already "was" in existence, but "without form [order], and void [empty]." . . .  Evening and morning, Day Six, at its close, 42,000 years after "work" began, found the earth ready for man to subdue. . . .
Edited to add that the December 1912 Watch Tower also explained it similarly:
Six great Thousand-Year Periods or Days have passed since Adam was created, according to Bible chronology. We are now in the dawning of the great Seventh Day or Sabbath Day of human experience. God has promised that this Seventh Day of a thousand years will be very different from the preceding Six Days, in which mankind has experienced a reign of Sin and Death. The Seventh Day of a thousand years is Scripturally called the "Day of Christ," and by many it is styled the Millennium. In it Satan and Sin are to be overthrown, righteousness is to be established by the Redeemer, and mankind, purchased by the precious blood at Calvary; are all to have full opportunity for arising from present degradation to re-attainment of the image and likeness of God, lost in Eden by Adam's disobedience.
The Seventh Day of the Creative Week began with Adam's creation and has already lasted six thousand years, and is to be completed with the thousand years of Christ's Reign. The Seventh Creative Day will be seven thousand years long. Whoever sees this to be a reasonable deduction can easily suppose that the six preceding Days of the Genesis account were, likewise, seven thousand years each. Reckoned thus, the total period from the time that Divine Energy began to operate upon the waste Earth down to the time when the whole work of creation and Restitution will be fully completed, would be 7 times 7,000 years, or 49,000 years.
According to the Bible, that time will be a thousand years hence, when The Christ shall have accomplished His work for mankind to the full and shall deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father. At that moment the fiftieth thousand-year period will begin, with every creature in Heaven and on earth ascribing praise to Him that sitteth upon the Throne, and to the Lamb, forever. How appropriate this will be, especially when we recall that in God's arrangement fifty is the greatest climax of numbers! In Bible usage the number seven is symbolical of perfection, and 7 times 7 represents a completeness of perfection; and the fiftieth or Jubilee following is climacteric.

LOL. I got so confused when both TTH and I used the word "shrill" within a couple days of each other. I started thinking maybe Allen Smith was right after all when he used to say I was the same person as TTH, among several others. I think Allen could have tried to convince me that it was just him and me running the entire forum.
I never said it doesn't matter. You either forgot what I said, or made it up, or I forgot what I said. Or I could have said something you misunderstood. Even so, I accept that it matters very much to me that we don't "do dates." But I would only impose this on myself, I don't think it matters so much that I should impose my view on others in the congregation. But I'm happy to present how much it matters to me if called upon to do so.
The "Clarification of Our Beliefs" does not have anything to do with what I was referring to. I was referring to specific admissions of past errors about dates in several other specific places in the Watch Tower publications. In addition, I was also referring to specific things that the Watchtower admitted can be dangerous and un-Christian, including 'serving with a date in mind.'