JW Insider

Pudgy is right. It's not written in the same words. It's written the way I quoted the same sentiment from the February 15, 1919 Watch Tower, p.51. In fact, the timing of that article might even make someone guess that it was a way of showing agreement with the similar, but much more direct, statement from the "Federal Council of Churches" (FCC) just a few weeks earlier. They both praise the objective/purpose of the League, and both convey that it is in line with the kingdom message foretold in the Bible. Also if you read the entire comment from the FCC you see that they also didn't make it the equivalent of God's Kingdom, just a political expression of it. It was very common in those decades for the Watchtower to express agreement with political happenings that they understood to be aligned with the expectations about the Kingdom. This was especially true of Zionism, movements with respect to "capital vs. labor," and various politicians of the time who were even depicted as the near equivalent of "prophets."
Edited to add an example:
For example, the 1924 Golden Age (now Awake!), on page 149, says:
We understand now, why Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, ceases not in his discourse to defy the devil, and throw (morally) an inkwell into his face, as the deceased Luther did. We understand also why the Premier of the Labor Party turns his back on the League of Nations, of which formerly he was an apostle, and draws near to the Americans whose eyes are opened.
Judge Rutherford cites, in addition to prophecies from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Amos, from Mr. MacDonald: "There is neither betterment nor peace in Europe. The governments are powerless. The year 1924 is worse than 1914." Again he [Rutherfod] quotes the prophet David Lloyd George: "A new chapter opens in the history of Europe, with a climax of horror such as the world has never witnessed."

Pudgy is right. It's not written in the same words. It's written the way I quoted the same sentiment from the February 15, 1919 Watch Tower, p.51. In fact, the timing of that article might even make someone guess that it was a way of showing agreement with the similar, but much more direct, statement from the "Federal Council of Churches" (FCC) just a few weeks earlier. They both praise the objective/purpose of the League, and both convey that it is in line with the kingdom message foretold in the Bible. Also if you read the entire comment from the FCC you see that they also didn't make it the equivalent of God's Kingdom, just a political expression of it. It was very common in those decades for the Watchtower to express agreement with political happenings that they understood to be aligned with the expectations about the Kingdom. This was especially true of Zionism, movements with respect to "capital vs. labor," and various politicians of the time who were even depicted as the near equivalent of "prophets."
Edited to add an example:
For example, the 1924 Golden Age (now Awake!), on page 149, says:
We understand now, why Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, ceases not in his discourse to defy the devil, and throw (morally) an inkwell into his face, as the deceased Luther did. We understand also why the Premier of the Labor Party turns his back on the League of Nations, of which formerly he was an apostle, and draws near to the Americans whose eyes are opened.
Judge Rutherford cites, in addition to prophecies from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Amos, from Mr. MacDonald: "There is neither betterment nor peace in Europe. The governments are powerless. The year 1924 is worse than 1914." Again he [Rutherfod] quotes the prophet David Lloyd George: "A new chapter opens in the history of Europe, with a climax of horror such as the world has never witnessed."

Pudgy is right. It's not written in the same words. It's written the way I quoted the same sentiment from the February 15, 1919 Watch Tower, p.51. In fact, the timing of that article might even make someone guess that it was a way of showing agreement with the similar, but much more direct, statement from the "Federal Council of Churches" (FCC) just a few weeks earlier. They both praise the objective/purpose of the League, and both convey that it is in line with the kingdom message foretold in the Bible. Also if you read the entire comment from the FCC you see that they also didn't make it the equivalent of God's Kingdom, just a political expression of it. It was very common in those decades for the Watchtower to express agreement with political happenings that they understood to be aligned with the expectations about the Kingdom. This was especially true of Zionism, movements with respect to "capital vs. labor," and various politicians of the time who were even depicted as the near equivalent of "prophets."
Edited to add an example:
For example, the 1924 Golden Age (now Awake!), on page 149, says:
We understand now, why Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, ceases not in his discourse to defy the devil, and throw (morally) an inkwell into his face, as the deceased Luther did. We understand also why the Premier of the Labor Party turns his back on the League of Nations, of which formerly he was an apostle, and draws near to the Americans whose eyes are opened.
Judge Rutherford cites, in addition to prophecies from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Amos, from Mr. MacDonald: "There is neither betterment nor peace in Europe. The governments are powerless. The year 1924 is worse than 1914." Again he [Rutherfod] quotes the prophet David Lloyd George: "A new chapter opens in the history of Europe, with a climax of horror such as the world has never witnessed."

The WHO may not be fooling around this time! But that's under another topic. (FWIW, my favorite of theirs was Behind Blue Eyes.)

I think you are right. This was the main issue that the "Stand Fasters" publicized. The Watchtower and Rutherford said that there was no problem in buying War Bonds, because it showed we were "friends" with the United States.
But I notice the date on the pamphlet you posted. January 1919. So this was also just about the exact same time when the Watchtower had declared its basic "support" for the League of Nations. In effect, the Watchtower was calling it 'the political expression of God's Kingdom on earth." Naturally they didn't think it in any way "replaced" God's Kingdom, but thought of it as a kind of expression of God's Kingdom because it had the same shared purpose and goals. The February 1919 Watchtower said:
“We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower,  February 15, 1919,  p.51
l have seen it pointed out that it was also a crazy coincidence that the Watchtower was here "wondering admiringly" at the League, even using the same words about its "wonderful" expressions and that we cannot but "admire" it's high principles. This was an unfortunate use of words when we consider that the 1984 New World Translation translated Revelation 17:8, purportedly about the same League of Nations, as follows:
(Revelation 17:8)  The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world.
The Stand Fasters claimed that Rutherford's attitude and words were compromising toward the world and its politics.

The Who just may be my favorite group of all time. Lots of memorable tunes. Like
I went back to my mother
I said, "I'm crazy, Ma, help me"
She said, "I know how it feels, son
'Cause it runs in the family"
Just taking bout my g-g-generation. I can see for miles and miles an miles.

Actually I contacted your parents long ago. “As soon as that kid is out of our hair…..” they told me.
 
His parents told me the same thing. 

Alright. Let me be even clearer. I have never even tried to get you banned. I have never even tried to get any account of anyone banned. I have never tried to get any of your account names banned. I have never tried to get any variation of the account name "Allen Smith"  banned.
I was opposed to having the "Allen Smith" account(s) banned, and still am. I wish they could bring it back. I was also surprised (and annoyed) that they just removed almost all the content that you had contributed. Much of it was very valuable and I could tell you had put a lot of thought into it. I thought this was most unfair.
I do understand where one could get the impression that I was trying to get various new names banned, because I would point out when a new account was really just Allen Smith coming back under a new name. I think you figured that if Allen Smith was banned, then I could have only ONE reason to point out that, "Billy The Kid" for example, was the same person/account. You thought that was to try to get the new account banned.
It wasn't the reason, ever. I never pointed it out until after I made it clear that I never wanted "Allen Smith" banned in the first place. Also, you might not have noticed that I never even pointed this out until waiting several weeks watching how you would handle your new account. (Your early new accounts made it obvious since they were often just "AllenSmith" with a number attached at the end.) It was when other people noticed that additional accounts also sounded like you that I chimed in with ways that any of us could verify that those suspicions were true. Also I noticed that you would come very close to denying that these accounts were the same person, but without directly lying about it. I have to admit that this would irritate me, so I wold call you out with evidence that would confirm the suspicions others were having. But I would not immediately point out new accounts that were yours because I figured you might use one of more to really attempt a fresh start. (By that, I mean not so often trying to be divisive and negative and insulting about others.) When you would get right back into making ugly, insulting and judgmental accusations, I would begin to point out that what you were doing, without waiting for someone else to raise the suspicion first.
Since I've gone on this long, I might as well clear up one other thing, too. You have many times complained that I made fun of your various spelling and grammar mistakes. I always denied this, because I thought I was being so careful never to make fun of any of those things. I realized later why you thought I was making fun of you, and why you thought I was lying whenever I denied it. It's because pointing out these "consistencies" was a way to easily identify your accounts. I was pointing out various consistent spelling errors and grammar quirks across several of the accounts that I already knew were you for other reasons.  For me, I never thought of this as making fun. I never thought of it as a way to show superiority of grammar, as you claimed. It was just a very useful way of confirming suspicions. And you may recall that it was actually others who first pointed out a couple of these points (e.g., excessive commas, etc.) but I did "pile on," as they say, and have pointed out about a dozen other indicators, over the years.
I thought that others should know where you were coming from, and why you spent so much time complaining about why Allen Smith had been banned, for example, when it was off topic. So, yes, I have often "piled on" and provided some of the reasons that I recognized your accounts.
Now that I have said this, I think I can make a promise I'll try not to break. It's this: I will do my best to avoid the subject of multiple accounts altogether. I won't point out any reasons again about accounts that are run by the same person as other accounts.

@Thinking, Eoin Joyce is the name of a person from UK (England) who contributed his comments here for several years. He indicated often that he was fed up with the lack of spiritual value in most of these discussions. (Which is all the more obvious lately.) He changed his account name from Eoin Joyce to "Gone Fishing" when he stopped commenting for a few months. Then he changed it to "Outta Here" when he got even more serious about leaving here for good. I believe that, by now, he has completely left the forum.
I can't hazard a guess as to why WalterPrescott assumed that someone from Australia was from the same neck of the woods as someone from England. But he has done this before, under several of his own previous account names, where he will make wild guesses about who is really the same as someone else. I think it is related to the fact that it's quite obvious to many of us when he tries to pass himself off as a different person, thinking perhaps that no one will notice that he is the same as AllenSmith/BillyTheKid/NoisySrecko/Dmitar and about 30 other different attempts to disguise himself under different account names.
For a while, he kept many of these identities simultaneously, and I could actually see the evidence for when he logged out from one name and logged back in with another. He tried to keep up the appearance of some intentional differences between some of those accounts, but he sometimes messed it up and used a characteristic of one account on another one.  For this new "WalterPrescott" account, he has borrowed a feature from @Cos, a Trinitarian, who often signed his posts with the fish symbol: "<><". Walter has already pointed this fish out as if it is evidence he isn't really "Allen Smith" but he probably doesn't realize that this kind of thing doesn't really work when there so many other giveaways, including a complete inability to "clothe himself with a new personality."

I think you are right. This was the main issue that the "Stand Fasters" publicized. The Watchtower and Rutherford said that there was no problem in buying War Bonds, because it showed we were "friends" with the United States.
But I notice the date on the pamphlet you posted. January 1919. So this was also just about the exact same time when the Watchtower had declared its basic "support" for the League of Nations. In effect, the Watchtower was calling it 'the political expression of God's Kingdom on earth." Naturally they didn't think it in any way "replaced" God's Kingdom, but thought of it as a kind of expression of God's Kingdom because it had the same shared purpose and goals. The February 1919 Watchtower said:
“We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower,  February 15, 1919,  p.51
l have seen it pointed out that it was also a crazy coincidence that the Watchtower was here "wondering admiringly" at the League, even using the same words about its "wonderful" expressions and that we cannot but "admire" it's high principles. This was an unfortunate use of words when we consider that the 1984 New World Translation translated Revelation 17:8, purportedly about the same League of Nations, as follows:
(Revelation 17:8)  The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world.
The Stand Fasters claimed that Rutherford's attitude and words were compromising toward the world and its politics.

I think that part of the problem is that apostates are driven by a variety of motivations, and there is therefore a wide range of quality in their work. I have never heard of this book by Casarona, but from what you have shared, it seems to be the kind of book you could thumb through very quickly and reject as one of those that grasps at straws and just presents anything negative without doing much research, merely copying the worst claims he has heard about.
For example, Richard Wheelock did not jump from a third floor factory window as so many people think. He jumped from a window in the Towers Hotel. He had been suffering from depression from many years before this happened. He had even threatened suicide going as far back as the time when his fiance, Audrey Mock, left him to marry Brother Knorr.
It's stupid to blame the Society directly for factory accidents. These are usually human error. There are probably only a very few cases where legal liability might have reached "to the top." But it would be rare to get credible public knowledge of such events, because it would be rare for the family of a Bethelite to make a case against the entire Watchtower Society for a wrongful death. I can't imagine my own parents even thinking of such a thing if anything had happened to me there.
Yes, there were suicides even when I was there, but only two, I think. The numbers of Bethelites were greatly increased in the 1970s and there was a thought going around that congregation elders were purposely encouraging Bethel service to young brothers whom they termed "damaged goods." They thought that the spirituality at Bethel would fix them. In some cases it was evidently mental issues stemming from sexual abuse catching up to them. And we'll never really know what it was in this lifetime.
It appears that those were your words, not Casarona's. If so, I don't think it's fair to try to judge the faith of someone who suffers from deep bouts of depression. For all we know it was confident faith in the resurrection that motivated his suicide.
I do think, of course, that some ex-JWs, non-JWs, and apostates are definitely out to give Bethel, or the Watchtower Society, a bad review. But no matter their motive, I think we also need to look at the quality of their research. I remember when Jim Penton wrote a book about the history of the persecution of Witnesses in Canada. It was considered an excellent book and was available in the Bethel Library. Penton was considered an excellent historian and of course there was pride in that a professor or PhD had written such a good book. The Watchtower even said:
*** w77 1/1 p. 11 Insight on the News ***
“A Debt of Gratitude”
● Writing in the Toronto “Star” of October 4, 1976, Stuart Shaw mentions the book “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada: Champions of Freedom of Speech and Worship,” by James Penton, associate professor of history at the University of Lethbridge. Shaw explains that it discusses the intense persecution of the Witnesses in that country from 1939 to 1956, “first at the instance of the federal government and then at that of the government of Quebec.” . . .  Referring to the recent book, however, and shedding some light on the underlying cause, Shaw comments: “Penton argues convincingly, citing official correspondence and documents of the period, that the real reason was entirely different. The King government was under heavy clerical pressure—from the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but also from some Protestant clergymen—to suppress these ‘heretics.’”
Of course, when Penton later criticized certain aspects of the organization, he was disfellowshipped, and suddenly his books, even if they were better researched, were no longer argued convincingly, and he had somehow turned into a sloppy historian. 
I think that motivations and biases can be important to understand, but mostly it's about the quality of research and presentation of evidence. And sometimes we might have to ignore some conclusions a researcher might draw from the evidence, but still find the presentation of evidence itself valuable. 
Also, if no one finds anything specifically wrong with a book or research, or makes no attempt to counter the evidence, then it is probable that they are just complaining about the person BECAUSE the evidence itself is too strong to deal with.

I have never asked the Librarian to ban anyone. 
One thing I would like to know; why do you write G-d? Are you a secret Jew? There is no good reason if you are a JW. Well actually there is no good reason for a Jew either, only something they made up. Why do you do it?

I think that part of the problem is that apostates are driven by a variety of motivations, and there is therefore a wide range of quality in their work. I have never heard of this book by Casarona, but from what you have shared, it seems to be the kind of book you could thumb through very quickly and reject as one of those that grasps at straws and just presents anything negative without doing much research, merely copying the worst claims he has heard about.
For example, Richard Wheelock did not jump from a third floor factory window as so many people think. He jumped from a window in the Towers Hotel. He had been suffering from depression from many years before this happened. He had even threatened suicide going as far back as the time when his fiance, Audrey Mock, left him to marry Brother Knorr.
It's stupid to blame the Society directly for factory accidents. These are usually human error. There are probably only a very few cases where legal liability might have reached "to the top." But it would be rare to get credible public knowledge of such events, because it would be rare for the family of a Bethelite to make a case against the entire Watchtower Society for a wrongful death. I can't imagine my own parents even thinking of such a thing if anything had happened to me there.
Yes, there were suicides even when I was there, but only two, I think. The numbers of Bethelites were greatly increased in the 1970s and there was a thought going around that congregation elders were purposely encouraging Bethel service to young brothers whom they termed "damaged goods." They thought that the spirituality at Bethel would fix them. In some cases it was evidently mental issues stemming from sexual abuse catching up to them. And we'll never really know what it was in this lifetime.
It appears that those were your words, not Casarona's. If so, I don't think it's fair to try to judge the faith of someone who suffers from deep bouts of depression. For all we know it was confident faith in the resurrection that motivated his suicide.
I do think, of course, that some ex-JWs, non-JWs, and apostates are definitely out to give Bethel, or the Watchtower Society, a bad review. But no matter their motive, I think we also need to look at the quality of their research. I remember when Jim Penton wrote a book about the history of the persecution of Witnesses in Canada. It was considered an excellent book and was available in the Bethel Library. Penton was considered an excellent historian and of course there was pride in that a professor or PhD had written such a good book. The Watchtower even said:
*** w77 1/1 p. 11 Insight on the News ***
“A Debt of Gratitude”
● Writing in the Toronto “Star” of October 4, 1976, Stuart Shaw mentions the book “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada: Champions of Freedom of Speech and Worship,” by James Penton, associate professor of history at the University of Lethbridge. Shaw explains that it discusses the intense persecution of the Witnesses in that country from 1939 to 1956, “first at the instance of the federal government and then at that of the government of Quebec.” . . .  Referring to the recent book, however, and shedding some light on the underlying cause, Shaw comments: “Penton argues convincingly, citing official correspondence and documents of the period, that the real reason was entirely different. The King government was under heavy clerical pressure—from the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but also from some Protestant clergymen—to suppress these ‘heretics.’”
Of course, when Penton later criticized certain aspects of the organization, he was disfellowshipped, and suddenly his books, even if they were better researched, were no longer argued convincingly, and he had somehow turned into a sloppy historian. 
I think that motivations and biases can be important to understand, but mostly it's about the quality of research and presentation of evidence. And sometimes we might have to ignore some conclusions a researcher might draw from the evidence, but still find the presentation of evidence itself valuable. 
Also, if no one finds anything specifically wrong with a book or research, or makes no attempt to counter the evidence, then it is probable that they are just complaining about the person BECAUSE the evidence itself is too strong to deal with.

As you might have guessed, I rarely pay attention to whether something is in the Open or Closed club. The Closed Club is definitely much more pleasant, many less distractions, but I'm sure it gives others the feeling that we have something to hide. The real reason, of course, is to stay away from persons who look for any reason they can think of to start fights, create dissension, highlight GB errors, and turn the subject to false predictions and child abuse. Come to think of it, that's a good enough reason.
There is one other consideration. I prefer to share opinions where they can be challenged from anyone, not just the dozen or so people who regularly participate in the Closed Club. There is also a better chance that someone else, who we don't know yet, is also reading the book and will come along to join in the discussion. That has happened before with discussions of God's name in the LXX, etc.
What I could do, also, is exercise my moderator powers and merely move any posts to a different topic if they are mostly unrelated. I think I'll try that. That goes for memes and pictures that are unrelated too, Pudgy. 😉 Actually, I'm always happy when I see a bunch of unrelated pictures from Pudgy, because it reminds me of how much quicker it is can be to read through a book that has lots of pictures --and they're usually funny! But I feel badly for those who start a serious topic, like Arauna just did, and it so quickly gets taken over by parody covers of children's books.
So, if I end up making a topic of comments on this book, I think I'll try just making a separate topic for the distractions. That doesn't mean people can't attack the book, or attack me for bringing it up. Those posts can remain, of course. But the little squabbles people want to bring up on the side will go to a topic made for that purpose. Assuming I can keep up. 😧

as though that doesn’t happen anywhere else.
as though everyone else celebrates when their wife dies.
Whatever her influence once was, she’s been dead for several years. Her death preceded the release of Volume II. As to parameters, I’m not versed enough in the history to know what they might be.
In the 70s some touring Bethel brother presented a few clips from the PhotoDrama of creation at the Blue Cross Arena [then the Rochester War Memorial]. I was struck by how it appeared to be his own project and that otherwise Bethel would have let the film disintegrate through neglect. Not that anyone was ashamed of it. It was just that they were forward looking and didn’t do much to preserve history. The tone of his remarks was that he had to sort through the basement, or the attic, to assemble what he had, which was not in good shape and soon would have vanished.
The release of the Proclaimers book seemed to signal a shift from neglect of the past to cherishing ‘our spiritual heritage.’ Nothing wrong with that, in my view. It was as though, after assembling the yearbook material for 74 and 75 (Germany and US) it occurred to the brothers, seemingly for the first time, that if they didn’t start preserving records of the past it would soon be lost forever.
Maybe that’s why Rud can find an audience for his expensive book (I should take lessons from him in commanding a price); there’s a relative dearth of official historical material. It’s not my field of interest, but I recognize everyone wants to tell their own story and relate their own ‘expertise.’ As for me, I say, ‘If you have to go back 100 years to dig up dirt, there can’t be too much dirt to dig.’ Alas, they have modern-day allies, who endeavor to dig it up —some would say ‘concoct’—in the present too.

Alright. Let me be even clearer. I have never even tried to get you banned. I have never even tried to get any account of anyone banned. I have never tried to get any of your account names banned. I have never tried to get any variation of the account name "Allen Smith"  banned.
I was opposed to having the "Allen Smith" account(s) banned, and still am. I wish they could bring it back. I was also surprised (and annoyed) that they just removed almost all the content that you had contributed. Much of it was very valuable and I could tell you had put a lot of thought into it. I thought this was most unfair.
I do understand where one could get the impression that I was trying to get various new names banned, because I would point out when a new account was really just Allen Smith coming back under a new name. I think you figured that if Allen Smith was banned, then I could have only ONE reason to point out that, "Billy The Kid" for example, was the same person/account. You thought that was to try to get the new account banned.
It wasn't the reason, ever. I never pointed it out until after I made it clear that I never wanted "Allen Smith" banned in the first place. Also, you might not have noticed that I never even pointed this out until waiting several weeks watching how you would handle your new account. (Your early new accounts made it obvious since they were often just "AllenSmith" with a number attached at the end.) It was when other people noticed that additional accounts also sounded like you that I chimed in with ways that any of us could verify that those suspicions were true. Also I noticed that you would come very close to denying that these accounts were the same person, but without directly lying about it. I have to admit that this would irritate me, so I wold call you out with evidence that would confirm the suspicions others were having. But I would not immediately point out new accounts that were yours because I figured you might use one of more to really attempt a fresh start. (By that, I mean not so often trying to be divisive and negative and insulting about others.) When you would get right back into making ugly, insulting and judgmental accusations, I would begin to point out that what you were doing, without waiting for someone else to raise the suspicion first.
Since I've gone on this long, I might as well clear up one other thing, too. You have many times complained that I made fun of your various spelling and grammar mistakes. I always denied this, because I thought I was being so careful never to make fun of any of those things. I realized later why you thought I was making fun of you, and why you thought I was lying whenever I denied it. It's because pointing out these "consistencies" was a way to easily identify your accounts. I was pointing out various consistent spelling errors and grammar quirks across several of the accounts that I already knew were you for other reasons.  For me, I never thought of this as making fun. I never thought of it as a way to show superiority of grammar, as you claimed. It was just a very useful way of confirming suspicions. And you may recall that it was actually others who first pointed out a couple of these points (e.g., excessive commas, etc.) but I did "pile on," as they say, and have pointed out about a dozen other indicators, over the years.
I thought that others should know where you were coming from, and why you spent so much time complaining about why Allen Smith had been banned, for example, when it was off topic. So, yes, I have often "piled on" and provided some of the reasons that I recognized your accounts.
Now that I have said this, I think I can make a promise I'll try not to break. It's this: I will do my best to avoid the subject of multiple accounts altogether. I won't point out any reasons again about accounts that are run by the same person as other accounts.

We have a election tomorrow that’s probably why it’s been up and running mad the last few weeks…that and the monkey pox ….has all started and the COVID restrictions appear to be happening again soon…or threatened….

I am an idiot, as this same character always says, and anyone else who dares to ask him questions or disagrees:  but it seems, no matter what he masquerades as, or which mask he puts on, in the end we  recognize the nastiness in the aliases.  In Africa we say, a leopard does not change his spots....just like in other countries.  Unless there is humility - this never changes. And as we learnt recently, we also need Jehovah's Spirit to change.  We cannot do anything by ourselves. I think this character, whichever one he assumes, cannot get away from that.
So as a fellow human I encourage him to at least try to please Jehovah even if he has no wish to get along with us.  I will do the same. Our time is running out in this system.  It is not worth the strife. We must rather try to encourage one another.
I heard about an interview with doctor Malone (searching for it today), where he talks about the WHO taking over the rule of the world.  WHO is the only UN organization with a constitution (I checked).  The rights given the WHO in this Amended Agreement, which will be voted on next week,  can put the Western world under the most terrible lockdown for a dark winter when fall comes this year - if not before.  (I am not sure of the implementation date - within 6 months or 2 years). Those who are pulling the strings have a timetable they are working on. 
All countries will be forced to comply and I will not put it beyond them, to use and international army on those countries who do not comply.  This reminds me of the abominable thing of destruction, as the second lockdown of Rome came along........ Very few will escape - only those who know Jehovah will. Talk of calling out false germs in food plants, businesses, areas, officials going from house to house to force "sleever" those who have not complied, identifying those humans who are vermin (carrying the germ).  It is germ warfare to bring health and food 'security".  The soft touch will be gone.
It seems the King of the North and some of his alliances will not sign.... but the UN works according to majority vote (democracy).  ALL countries are forced to accept when those who agree accept the terms. .... BUT it seems China has a large stake in it. The current head of the WHO was appointed due to China wielding to much power in this organization. He is pro-China. Those who are working behind the scenes to put him in power may put another in his place or keep him.  I just watch this development...... 

No Walter, (am I really taking time out to reply to this nonsense?) you are a troll with ADHD and a persecution complex. Please believe me when I say NO ONE can be bothered to delete content or ban anyone. You are not that important, this site is not that important, no one here is that important.
Once in a blue moon when the Librarian takes a look in here he may have banned someone for breaking forum rules....but I don't even know that. I am just taking your word for it when you say you've been banned. I know for a fact that neither JWI nor me have banned you or deleted any of your content....or anyone else's content.
But you won't believe me of course because you evidently have delusional views of your own importance and grandeur. 
(wasted minute I will never get back)
 
 

That was only his personal opinion.  If I recall correctly he had a lot of verbal abuse - and he went too far!    None of us wanted him off!   The only reason people are kicked off here is when they really go over the boundaries of mild abuse to extreme abuse. 

They have their own standards. It’s not so much humility as it is meeting their standards. Their club consists of published authors and/or scholars with advanced degrees.. I can spin a good story, self publish with typos, shift the gem to see things from a different perspective, but am not really in their league. There has been someone saying he will try to gain me admittance but I’m not holding my breath. If I did gain admittance I am not sure I would participate much. I’m not sure my advocate has the stature to recommend a new member anyway. He talks a good game.
I’m not overly impressed with ‘scholars’ anyway. It’s not the ‘greater gift.’ It’s a fine addition if you have the greater gift down pat but comes across as a little pretentious if you don’t. The twelve were not scholars. Paul (who was) said a Christian should be “a workman [not a professional] with nothing to be ashamed of,” thus choosing his words to favor the non-scholars. God arranged that his son should be born in the Bethehem Manger, not the Jerusalem Hyatt. He could have chosen the latter; he knows a lot of people. But he didn’t.
I don’t think these humble roots are embarrassing shortcomings to pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps from, which is how they are usually presented. I think they are permanent indications of the ones who God chooses. As soon as people fancy themselves ‘scholars’ they are inclined to get too big for their pants. They start to think, as did Rud, “The Branch wouldn’t dare mess with me!” In time they bluster around like Alan F, calling anyone who disagrees a ignoramus.
Have the greater gifts down pat and scholarship is fine. You need scholarship. I get that. But the guys that are topheavy with it wear me out.
I have one of his too. So far as I am aware he does have the greater gifts down pat. He writes Bethel in connection to his research and to a reasonable degree they cooperate. As he is reaching advanced years with poor health he donates rare literature to them. I’m glad he does the work he does. Somebody has to. I’m glad it is him. But I would never have the patience to put something like that together.
They sent a copy of their work to Bethel, to no comment, and his non-Witness niece speculated that Bethel “is incurious as to its own beginnings.” By and large I think that is true. They don’t look behind too much. They look forward.

I have never banned anyone at all. Much less likely I would be to ban anyone who challenges me. I love being challenged, and wouldn't even be here if I didn't enjoy it.
I'm sorry I called your behavior "unchristian." When I refer to the unchristian behavior of others, I'm not saying that I am right myself or that I am even a good judge of who else is acting Christian or not. I refer mostly to how some people tend to appear in their comments. If a person continues to tell untruths, I don't necessarily think of them as a liar; they are often just mistaken. Like your false and mistaken belief that I have banned people. What you do on your own time isn't anything I would try to do anything about. If you are a non-Christian, atheist, or even an apostate (I don't think you are) I still think you should be welcome here. When I mention "unchristian" behavior, which I admit I should not have done, I am referring to a propensity to create dissension, etc.
I think that many of us, including Pudgy, and myself too, have done this to an extent. And this is one reason I would never try to get one person banned over another, it's a kind of judgment call that I would probably screw up, not knowing who was egging on the other to push buttons or get a rise out of them. I see several people who use snide remarks or hints about things that they evidently think will produce a response from another person. But I can't read minds; I can barely understand half of what some people say outright. So I would agree that I shouldn't have used the term "unchristian." I should have just said a propensity to promote dissension, rivalry, petty arguments over words, etc.

I have never banned anyone at all. Much less likely I would be to ban anyone who challenges me. I love being challenged, and wouldn't even be here if I didn't enjoy it.
I'm sorry I called your behavior "unchristian." When I refer to the unchristian behavior of others, I'm not saying that I am right myself or that I am even a good judge of who else is acting Christian or not. I refer mostly to how some people tend to appear in their comments. If a person continues to tell untruths, I don't necessarily think of them as a liar; they are often just mistaken. Like your false and mistaken belief that I have banned people. What you do on your own time isn't anything I would try to do anything about. If you are a non-Christian, atheist, or even an apostate (I don't think you are) I still think you should be welcome here. When I mention "unchristian" behavior, which I admit I should not have done, I am referring to a propensity to create dissension, etc.
I think that many of us, including Pudgy, and myself too, have done this to an extent. And this is one reason I would never try to get one person banned over another, it's a kind of judgment call that I would probably screw up, not knowing who was egging on the other to push buttons or get a rise out of them. I see several people who use snide remarks or hints about things that they evidently think will produce a response from another person. But I can't read minds; I can barely understand half of what some people say outright. So I would agree that I shouldn't have used the term "unchristian." I should have just said a propensity to promote dissension, rivalry, petty arguments over words, etc.

You are right. I should have been more specific. But I  think that what you did quote from Rolando Rodriguez was excellent as background to a lot of the Bible Student groups' take on this time in history.
Of course, as I know you know, we shouldn't just take what the Bible Students say as if it is the final word. When there is a discrepancy, Persson's book gives reasons why there are times when the Bible Student version is more correct and times when the Watchtower's version is more correct.
I wanted to quote some additional paragraphs in addition to the ones you quoted. But anyone who wishes can just look at the same link.
This is a good point. It seems that each offshoot wanted to highlight at least one specific doctrine that was more important to them, and which had caused a minor disagreement. You can also see a sense of who wanted to be thought of as the current "servant" or "steward." It became rather competitive. You can see it in the paragraphs you quoted about PSL's group coming up with Russell as "parousia" [faithful and wise] servant, and then PSL himself as "epiphany" servant, and then an "apokalypsis" servant. You can even detect competition over who would be called the "faithful and wise" servant back in Barbour's time, and the idea had come up among Second Adventists before him.
Who gets to be called "the Servant" or "the Steward" was a big deal, and it's really the main subtext of the whole P.S.L.Johnson versus J.F.Rutherford "contest." Persson's book points out how it was called "ludicrous" that Johnson first brought up this new title in regards to himself, but that Rutherford then went to convention after convention where he would spoke just after C.J.Woodworth would give the talk that always announced Rutherford as "the Steward."
I first heard about the Stand Fast movement in Bethel "morning worship" address by Brother Klein (Governing Body) where he admitted to having "apostasized" into that movement because Rutherford had compromised on political issues. He said that he later apologized to Rutherford and got back into the Watchtower Society.
Persson's book also mentions Brother C.E.Heard and the pamphlet and talk called "The Ship." The book also quotes from it in a few places.
A Bible Students archive site has some of the information about this, too: https://www.biblestudentarchives.com/documents/StandFastHistory.pdf
When I get to that part of the book I'll quote some of the things he says on page 528 through 545 (Kindle edition) about "The Ship" and about Brother C E Heard.

You'll see this a lot among the claims of contemporary and current Bible Student groups. But if Russell did dismiss him, it would not have been due to a specific conflict between them or about his personality at the time. I think it was in Faith on the March where MacMillan implies that Bethel was out of money by the end of 1914, having believed that there would be little need for money in 1915 and that the expensive production of the Photo-Drama had drained the coffers. So a lot of people were dismissed for financial reasons around 1915.
But the importance of Rutherford as legal counsel was still important, and Rutherford was still trusted with contributed writings and public addresses in 1915, so it would not have been like a "disfellowshipping" of any kind.
Bible Students make much of this just to make sure that people don't give too much attention to JWs. It creates a kind of pre-emptive rejection of JWs by Russell.