JW Insider

"The Ship" you were commenting about here reminds me of the same issue you brought up regarding whether the "ark" would be seen as an organization. I mentioned speaking to an 80+ year old elder who is a good friend of mine from Bethel. When we just spoke, he mentioned that when he taught Gilead classes, he once asked the class what would happen if anyone taught the "truth" of almost any paragraph from "The Finished Mystery." The class was in agreement that the person would be disfellowshipped. So he asked, then what was it that Jesus would have seen in the group so that he would choose to bless this particular ministry? I told him that I would have guessed that it was neutrality/no-War, no-Trinity, and no-Hellfire. He said that there were other groups who also taught those same three doctrines. I said I didn't know there were any that taught all three at the same time. But do I really know that there weren't such groups in Argentina, Poland, Scotland, etc. Maybe he would be driving at the value of the USA location, which didn't seem likely. But his only point was that all we can assume is that it had to be their love of Jehovah and his Son. That's what will always be the most important as doctrines continue to change. 
I hadn't given it too much thought that way. I always figured it was at least our core set of doctrines, but I still agree that it was a good point for discussion.

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 haven't checked for sure, but I think the actual owner of the site is not a Witness and doesn't really get involved in any discussions unless those discussions get flagged by someone. If no one complains (by "Reporting" a post) the owner will never know what anyone is writing. I think that The Librarian is a Witness, but I'm sure he is in the same situation of not having time to monitor thousands of posts in hundreds of threads, some going on for a hundred pages. The Librarian has offered moderator functions to a couple people here, including me, and maybe we are supposed to try to keep order. But I personally just don't see the point in trying to remove posts or try to get people banned. They will just come back under a different name, and act worse than before. NoisySrecko/Dmitar/WalterPrescott has been clearly been itching to try to embarrass Pudgy about his arrest and, as we've all seen, Walter will just get bolder and more brazen under a new name if anyone tries to call him out on his unchristian behavior.
If you tell Walter he has slandered, he will just say that it's everyone else doing the slandering.

Wow that group sounds terrific…..I like Shultz tho I have not read of him much lately….I still have a book of his here to read….saving it for when and if the internet goes down…..I really hope those scholars are humble enough to let a little pooping seed picker in amongst them…. 

Not that Walter will care about my opinion, but I believe his input has always been valuable when it comes to the subject of Bible Student history. If you'll unblock him, at least for this topic, you'll see a bit of antagonism here and there toward Schulz, Persson, Penton, etc. But I expect you will also see a lot of good points made, assuming you have more than a "xero" interest in the topic, of course.

There are bits and pieces of this in our publications. It's only when you put all the pieces together and hear PSL Johnson's side of the story that some of the apparent discrepencies start to make sense. Persson discusses this episode at great length (of course), considering the 1973 Yearbook, 1975 Yearbook, Proclaimers, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (1958), Faith on the March (1957) and the old Watchtower publications from 1916, 1917, and 1918. But he also quotes extensively from contemporary Bible Student sources and recent Bible Student sources such as the one's that @WalterPrescott has quoted from.
In fact, most of the paragraphs that Walter has been posting are taken directly from the writing of Rolando Rodriguez. You can find them here: https://millennialmessengers.wordpress.com/tag/charles-taze-russell/
and much of it repeated on a forum here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thepresenttruthforum/the-fiery-cloudy-pillar-t4686.html?sid=a8e09c4a4332c2aea4e21c85819a15ac
Persson acknowledges contact with Rodriguez for his book and credits him with providing some historical document(s).
I think it's easy to get the idea from what's been said that PSL jumped out a window due to a mental breakdown. This is a conflation of several things that have been said about him in our publications. In fact, PSL apparently never jumped out of a window, but let himself down from the balcony where his feet could reach the fence, and then let himself down from the fence, also without jumping. He did this because he was being trapped in one of the London Bethel rooms with the door blocked, and under guard, likely both to keep him from being able to participate in a planned court hearing the next day, and to resolve a matter about some missing money. And Hemery, the person still managing the London Bethel, and an adversary in the court case, apparently wanted to go through his letters and papers in his briefcase before the court hearing took place. Hemery ended up doing just that.
Nobody was hurt, and Rutherford did not treat PSL as if he really had serious mental problems when he got back, as you might expect if everything said about him was true. Rutherford just didn't want him going back to the London Bethel where he had seen (or likely caused) so many problems.
[Edited to add: I was wrong on this point about Rutherford not dealing with PSLJ as if he had serious mental problems. Rutherford was actually quick to deal with PSLJ as insane and mentally unbalanced, but Rutherford was inconsistent, and seemed to soften his position toward him. This hadn't made sense to me originally, and I was partly influenced here by the comments of a brother I spoke to at length about this very recently after reading this portion of the book. But Persson's book provides a detail that I take as an obvious clue as to the reason for Rutherford's inconsistency. Persson doesn't appear to draw any conclusion from that detail, but it makes me think that it was not just an absent-minded inconsistency on Rutherford's part. It served a purpose.]
If you read the 1973 Yearbook, it looks like Hemery's account (the only one given) is an attempt to add a lot more dramatic flavor to the episode than most Watchtower-style writing. It's as if he wanted to write like an amateur Mickey Spillane.

There are bits and pieces of this in our publications. It's only when you put all the pieces together and hear PSL Johnson's side of the story that some of the apparent discrepencies start to make sense. Persson discusses this episode at great length (of course), considering the 1973 Yearbook, 1975 Yearbook, Proclaimers, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (1958), Faith on the March (1957) and the old Watchtower publications from 1916, 1917, and 1918. But he also quotes extensively from contemporary Bible Student sources and recent Bible Student sources such as the one's that @WalterPrescott has quoted from.
In fact, most of the paragraphs that Walter has been posting are taken directly from the writing of Rolando Rodriguez. You can find them here: https://millennialmessengers.wordpress.com/tag/charles-taze-russell/
and much of it repeated on a forum here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thepresenttruthforum/the-fiery-cloudy-pillar-t4686.html?sid=a8e09c4a4332c2aea4e21c85819a15ac
Persson acknowledges contact with Rodriguez for his book and credits him with providing some historical document(s).
I think it's easy to get the idea from what's been said that PSL jumped out a window due to a mental breakdown. This is a conflation of several things that have been said about him in our publications. In fact, PSL apparently never jumped out of a window, but let himself down from the balcony where his feet could reach the fence, and then let himself down from the fence, also without jumping. He did this because he was being trapped in one of the London Bethel rooms with the door blocked, and under guard, likely both to keep him from being able to participate in a planned court hearing the next day, and to resolve a matter about some missing money. And Hemery, the person still managing the London Bethel, and an adversary in the court case, apparently wanted to go through his letters and papers in his briefcase before the court hearing took place. Hemery ended up doing just that.
Nobody was hurt, and Rutherford did not treat PSL as if he really had serious mental problems when he got back, as you might expect if everything said about him was true. Rutherford just didn't want him going back to the London Bethel where he had seen (or likely caused) so many problems.
[Edited to add: I was wrong on this point about Rutherford not dealing with PSLJ as if he had serious mental problems. Rutherford was actually quick to deal with PSLJ as insane and mentally unbalanced, but Rutherford was inconsistent, and seemed to soften his position toward him. This hadn't made sense to me originally, and I was partly influenced here by the comments of a brother I spoke to at length about this very recently after reading this portion of the book. But Persson's book provides a detail that I take as an obvious clue as to the reason for Rutherford's inconsistency. Persson doesn't appear to draw any conclusion from that detail, but it makes me think that it was not just an absent-minded inconsistency on Rutherford's part. It served a purpose.]
If you read the 1973 Yearbook, it looks like Hemery's account (the only one given) is an attempt to add a lot more dramatic flavor to the episode than most Watchtower-style writing. It's as if he wanted to write like an amateur Mickey Spillane.

It is my bad @Thinkingfor saying jumping and thanks JWI for the correction. Just goes to show how fleeing out of a window or balcony becomes jumping out of it. That is what had stuck in my mind, I did not mean jumping as in jumping from a great height in danger of hurting oneself, but figuratively speaking as in running away....it sounds more dramatic but easily givers a false impression. I had wanted to read the whole account again for accuracy but I was on my phone and all my files were on the computer. The account is in a booklet called Harvest Siftings that was later reprinted in a WT of the same year I believe.
Here it is in PDF file of Harvest Siftings. It will give you a good idea of what transpired during that period, at least from the point of view of Rutherford and others. The bit about the window saga is on page 6.
https://ia600902.us.archive.org/5/items/WatchtowerLibrary/booklets/1917_shf_E.pdf
 
 

There are bits and pieces of this in our publications. It's only when you put all the pieces together and hear PSL Johnson's side of the story that some of the apparent discrepencies start to make sense. Persson discusses this episode at great length (of course), considering the 1973 Yearbook, 1975 Yearbook, Proclaimers, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (1958), Faith on the March (1957) and the old Watchtower publications from 1916, 1917, and 1918. But he also quotes extensively from contemporary Bible Student sources and recent Bible Student sources such as the one's that @WalterPrescott has quoted from.
In fact, most of the paragraphs that Walter has been posting are taken directly from the writing of Rolando Rodriguez. You can find them here: https://millennialmessengers.wordpress.com/tag/charles-taze-russell/
and much of it repeated on a forum here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thepresenttruthforum/the-fiery-cloudy-pillar-t4686.html?sid=a8e09c4a4332c2aea4e21c85819a15ac
Persson acknowledges contact with Rodriguez for his book and credits him with providing some historical document(s).
I think it's easy to get the idea from what's been said that PSL jumped out a window due to a mental breakdown. This is a conflation of several things that have been said about him in our publications. In fact, PSL apparently never jumped out of a window, but let himself down from the balcony where his feet could reach the fence, and then let himself down from the fence, also without jumping. He did this because he was being trapped in one of the London Bethel rooms with the door blocked, and under guard, likely both to keep him from being able to participate in a planned court hearing the next day, and to resolve a matter about some missing money. And Hemery, the person still managing the London Bethel, and an adversary in the court case, apparently wanted to go through his letters and papers in his briefcase before the court hearing took place. Hemery ended up doing just that.
Nobody was hurt, and Rutherford did not treat PSL as if he really had serious mental problems when he got back, as you might expect if everything said about him was true. Rutherford just didn't want him going back to the London Bethel where he had seen (or likely caused) so many problems.
[Edited to add: I was wrong on this point about Rutherford not dealing with PSLJ as if he had serious mental problems. Rutherford was actually quick to deal with PSLJ as insane and mentally unbalanced, but Rutherford was inconsistent, and seemed to soften his position toward him. This hadn't made sense to me originally, and I was partly influenced here by the comments of a brother I spoke to at length about this very recently after reading this portion of the book. But Persson's book provides a detail that I take as an obvious clue as to the reason for Rutherford's inconsistency. Persson doesn't appear to draw any conclusion from that detail, but it makes me think that it was not just an absent-minded inconsistency on Rutherford's part. It served a purpose.]
If you read the 1973 Yearbook, it looks like Hemery's account (the only one given) is an attempt to add a lot more dramatic flavor to the episode than most Watchtower-style writing. It's as if he wanted to write like an amateur Mickey Spillane.

True. And he gets to that of course.
I like to look out for positive things that are "admitted" to be true, even when you might not expect the source to admit those positive things. In this case, it made me think that Rutherford, in 1916, still had a lot of faith in the chronology and in the imminent "manifestation" of Christ's return. If it didn't happen in 1914 as expected, or even in 1915 using Russell's recently shifted chronology, then it was at least expected that Russell would live to see his reward in person. And now that Russell hadn't lived to see the "change/translation/rapture" actually happen, Rutherford must have had faith that the end must still be extremely close. Perhaps he thought there was no time for legal maneuvering and politics.
What would it matter who was president of the Society if the end were coming upon them in just a few days or weeks? 
What I am seeing is that there were several factors that motivated the maneuvering, and it wasn't all centered on Rutherford himself. Others played a large part in what finally happened. [Edtied to add that some of those "manipulations" evidently started out as various factions and disagreements within the current leadership, and it's partly a matter of how quickly Rutherford would side with those who already, like himself, wanted some out and some to stay.]

True. And he gets to that of course.
I like to look out for positive things that are "admitted" to be true, even when you might not expect the source to admit those positive things. In this case, it made me think that Rutherford, in 1916, still had a lot of faith in the chronology and in the imminent "manifestation" of Christ's return. If it didn't happen in 1914 as expected, or even in 1915 using Russell's recently shifted chronology, then it was at least expected that Russell would live to see his reward in person. And now that Russell hadn't lived to see the "change/translation/rapture" actually happen, Rutherford must have had faith that the end must still be extremely close. Perhaps he thought there was no time for legal maneuvering and politics.
What would it matter who was president of the Society if the end were coming upon them in just a few days or weeks? 
What I am seeing is that there were several factors that motivated the maneuvering, and it wasn't all centered on Rutherford himself. Others played a large part in what finally happened. [Edtied to add that some of those "manipulations" evidently started out as various factions and disagreements within the current leadership, and it's partly a matter of how quickly Rutherford would side with those who already, like himself, wanted some out and some to stay.]

I had read about that in one of the old WT. It was quite crazy reading....Johnson jumping out of a window in London bethel to get away from the brothers who had come to ask him questions. Apparently it was in the local newspaper, reported by a passerby who saw him jumping, lol

In the book, Persson notes that he first noticed a discrepancy in the book "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" (jp) in the late 1960's, and that's when he first took an interest in our modern-day history. But he started his research in 1973 (still a Witness, of course) when he began writing to those who still had some first-hand knowledge or documentation. He planned to write the book in the late 1970's, he says, but was delayed with other matters (unspecified). There are many indications from his research that he was very serious about this project for many years prior to 2014.
I called an older brother from Bethel in his 80's last night and we spoke for about 2 hours about things he knew about the matter. I'd heard things from an elderly elder in the 1970's at Bethel (my "Table Head") but the elder I spoke to last night actually did a lot of historical research, and his writings are still being used in the current publications (but it's things he wrote several years ago; he is "retired" and not actively writing any more). He didn't know about the book, but won't get it or read it because he thinks of Rud Persson as an apostate. But he's happy to answer any questions. 
When at Bethel, I was just one of several Bethelites who taped interviews (about those "olden days") with persons like Maxwell Friend, Fred Franz, and Grace DeCecca because we could give non-outline Sunday talks in the congregations in those days, and I gave a couple of talks in several congregations based on excerpts from several hours of those interviews. This same brother I spoke to last night had helped me organize the excerpts.

I thought I wouldn't do this, but since you asked, I found the answer interesting.
In 1915 Rutherford felt himself a "defender of the faith" in a very literal sense. He had written a defense against most of the attacks on Russell in 1915. When Russell died, in 1916, it looks like Rutherford was genuinely concerned to do the right thing, scripturally. I hadn't known that P.S.L. Johnson was actually a very good friend of Rutherford's at the time. (Later they had a big falling out.) So when Russell died, Rutherford went to his good friend because he trusted him to know the prophetic types better than anyone, and wanted to know if Russell would have a successor. (They had both just recently met in Maryland at the time Russell died. Johnson lived in Ohio, but was in Maryland on a "Pilgrim" visit  and Rutherford was there on business.)
Johnson told Rutherford that he didn't know about Russell having a successor, but he would study the "types and anti-types" and get back to him. And they both traveled fto NY in the next couple of days to get to the funeral. It might seem naive to look at "types" for a kind of "sign" as to what to do next, but it was new to me that Rutherford did not at that moment come across like the bombastic, brash person we sometimes think of from later months. Even though we have recently dropped "type/antitype" doctrines, it is interesting that they would use these as a kind of "Urim/Thummin" before they made a decision, and not just find "types and antitypes" to explain or justify or "scripturalize" decisions or events that already happened.
When they felt "lost" they turned the Bible, and Rutherford turned humbly to someone he thought of as smarter than himself on scriptural matters. (PSL Johnson was considered to be the most brilliant of the Bible Students at the time.)
Also, I learned from the book that the board of directors actually tried to run things the way that Russell had outlined in his "last will and testament." Johnson said that this lasted about a week. It wasn't just Rutherford who were rejecting Russell's will.

In the book, Persson notes that he first noticed a discrepancy in the book "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" (jp) in the late 1960's, and that's when he first took an interest in our modern-day history. But he started his research in 1973 (still a Witness, of course) when he began writing to those who still had some first-hand knowledge or documentation. He planned to write the book in the late 1970's, he says, but was delayed with other matters (unspecified). There are many indications from his research that he was very serious about this project for many years prior to 2014.
I called an older brother from Bethel in his 80's last night and we spoke for about 2 hours about things he knew about the matter. I'd heard things from an elderly elder in the 1970's at Bethel (my "Table Head") but the elder I spoke to last night actually did a lot of historical research, and his writings are still being used in the current publications (but it's things he wrote several years ago; he is "retired" and not actively writing any more). He didn't know about the book, but won't get it or read it because he thinks of Rud Persson as an apostate. But he's happy to answer any questions. 
When at Bethel, I was just one of several Bethelites who taped interviews (about those "olden days") with persons like Maxwell Friend, Fred Franz, and Grace DeCecca because we could give non-outline Sunday talks in the congregations in those days, and I gave a couple of talks in several congregations based on excerpts from several hours of those interviews. This same brother I spoke to last night had helped me organize the excerpts.

I thought I wouldn't do this, but since you asked, I found the answer interesting.
In 1915 Rutherford felt himself a "defender of the faith" in a very literal sense. He had written a defense against most of the attacks on Russell in 1915. When Russell died, in 1916, it looks like Rutherford was genuinely concerned to do the right thing, scripturally. I hadn't known that P.S.L. Johnson was actually a very good friend of Rutherford's at the time. (Later they had a big falling out.) So when Russell died, Rutherford went to his good friend because he trusted him to know the prophetic types better than anyone, and wanted to know if Russell would have a successor. (They had both just recently met in Maryland at the time Russell died. Johnson lived in Ohio, but was in Maryland on a "Pilgrim" visit  and Rutherford was there on business.)
Johnson told Rutherford that he didn't know about Russell having a successor, but he would study the "types and anti-types" and get back to him. And they both traveled fto NY in the next couple of days to get to the funeral. It might seem naive to look at "types" for a kind of "sign" as to what to do next, but it was new to me that Rutherford did not at that moment come across like the bombastic, brash person we sometimes think of from later months. Even though we have recently dropped "type/antitype" doctrines, it is interesting that they would use these as a kind of "Urim/Thummin" before they made a decision, and not just find "types and antitypes" to explain or justify or "scripturalize" decisions or events that already happened.
When they felt "lost" they turned the Bible, and Rutherford turned humbly to someone he thought of as smarter than himself on scriptural matters. (PSL Johnson was considered to be the most brilliant of the Bible Students at the time.)
Also, I learned from the book that the board of directors actually tried to run things the way that Russell had outlined in his "last will and testament." Johnson said that this lasted about a week. It wasn't just Rutherford who were rejecting Russell's will.

I thought I wouldn't do this, but since you asked, I found the answer interesting.
In 1915 Rutherford felt himself a "defender of the faith" in a very literal sense. He had written a defense against most of the attacks on Russell in 1915. When Russell died, in 1916, it looks like Rutherford was genuinely concerned to do the right thing, scripturally. I hadn't known that P.S.L. Johnson was actually a very good friend of Rutherford's at the time. (Later they had a big falling out.) So when Russell died, Rutherford went to his good friend because he trusted him to know the prophetic types better than anyone, and wanted to know if Russell would have a successor. (They had both just recently met in Maryland at the time Russell died. Johnson lived in Ohio, but was in Maryland on a "Pilgrim" visit  and Rutherford was there on business.)
Johnson told Rutherford that he didn't know about Russell having a successor, but he would study the "types and anti-types" and get back to him. And they both traveled fto NY in the next couple of days to get to the funeral. It might seem naive to look at "types" for a kind of "sign" as to what to do next, but it was new to me that Rutherford did not at that moment come across like the bombastic, brash person we sometimes think of from later months. Even though we have recently dropped "type/antitype" doctrines, it is interesting that they would use these as a kind of "Urim/Thummin" before they made a decision, and not just find "types and antitypes" to explain or justify or "scripturalize" decisions or events that already happened.
When they felt "lost" they turned the Bible, and Rutherford turned humbly to someone he thought of as smarter than himself on scriptural matters. (PSL Johnson was considered to be the most brilliant of the Bible Students at the time.)
Also, I learned from the book that the board of directors actually tried to run things the way that Russell had outlined in his "last will and testament." Johnson said that this lasted about a week. It wasn't just Rutherford who were rejecting Russell's will.

In the book, Persson notes that he first noticed a discrepancy in the book "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" (jp) in the late 1960's, and that's when he first took an interest in our modern-day history. But he started his research in 1973 (still a Witness, of course) when he began writing to those who still had some first-hand knowledge or documentation. He planned to write the book in the late 1970's, he says, but was delayed with other matters (unspecified). There are many indications from his research that he was very serious about this project for many years prior to 2014.
I called an older brother from Bethel in his 80's last night and we spoke for about 2 hours about things he knew about the matter. I'd heard things from an elderly elder in the 1970's at Bethel (my "Table Head") but the elder I spoke to last night actually did a lot of historical research, and his writings are still being used in the current publications (but it's things he wrote several years ago; he is "retired" and not actively writing any more). He didn't know about the book, but won't get it or read it because he thinks of Rud Persson as an apostate. But he's happy to answer any questions. 
When at Bethel, I was just one of several Bethelites who taped interviews (about those "olden days") with persons like Maxwell Friend, Fred Franz, and Grace DeCecca because we could give non-outline Sunday talks in the congregations in those days, and I gave a couple of talks in several congregations based on excerpts from several hours of those interviews. This same brother I spoke to last night had helped me organize the excerpts.

Why do I want to attach a laughing emoji to this but somehow feel I shouldn’t?

Maybe I’ll get back to you after I finish Children, picked up a few weeks ago at a ….. um……eclectic book store out in the boondocks where you suspect the owner doesn’t really care if he ever sells a book or not—he just likes to hoard them. Cats roam freely and I’d be a little leery of books on the bottom row. Many aisles are completely impassable. You can only explore the far end by going down an adjacent aisle and doubling back.

That was a great answer…you have a lot of knowledge and experience…and express it so well…
Sometimes it’s like you are two different people…this one…I really like..I actually LEARN from such comments.

I'm convinced. Any of my own comments on the book will be in the Closed section. But not until I've read the whole book, which is taking even more time because I am trying to look up so many of the references. There are usually several on each of the 650 pages.

I know you weren't trying to be funny here, but I always found it kind of hilarious that all of your own accounts have been infamous for never admitting it when you are wrong: always blaming others instead of blaming yourself. I was surprised to find you finally admit to a typo as Dmitar, when someone pointed it out. But there were times when you would even defend an obvious simple typo and say it was on purpose for some far-fetched reason. (This is not a reference to "perils" vs. "pearls"; I think we all knew you really meant what you wrote: "perils." Pudgy, I assumed, was just highlighting your propensity for never saying anything positive about anyone here. )
In this case, I'm referring to this "gem:"
I'm always amazed at how you have never been wrong, and never, ever can admit to a mistake. How, did you put it? Oh, right:

I haven't checked for sure, but I think the actual owner of the site is not a Witness and doesn't really get involved in any discussions unless those discussions get flagged by someone. If no one complains (by "Reporting" a post) the owner will never know what anyone is writing. I think that The Librarian is a Witness, but I'm sure he is in the same situation of not having time to monitor thousands of posts in hundreds of threads, some going on for a hundred pages. The Librarian has offered moderator functions to a couple people here, including me, and maybe we are supposed to try to keep order. But I personally just don't see the point in trying to remove posts or try to get people banned. They will just come back under a different name, and act worse than before. NoisySrecko/Dmitar/WalterPrescott has been clearly been itching to try to embarrass Pudgy about his arrest and, as we've all seen, Walter will just get bolder and more brazen under a new name if anyone tries to call him out on his unchristian behavior.
If you tell Walter he has slandered, he will just say that it's everyone else doing the slandering.

I'm convinced. Any of my own comments on the book will be in the Closed section. But not until I've read the whole book, which is taking even more time because I am trying to look up so many of the references. There are usually several on each of the 650 pages.