JW Insider

That is what I remember, too. In fact, that's in the Proclaimers book:
*** jv chap. 15 p. 220 Development of the Organization Structure ***
At a convention in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1941, shortly before his death, he spoke about the matter of leadership, saying: “I want to let any strangers here know what you think about a man being your leader, so they won’t be forgetting. Every time something rises up and starts to grow, they say there is some man a leader who has a great following. If there is any person in this audience who thinks that I, this man standing here, is the leader of Jehovah’s witnesses, say Yes.” The response was an impressive silence, broken only by an emphatic “No” from several in the audience.

I'm only asking about how or why Rutherford would say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1941.
Your report about it said:
 

In response to the question posted. I looked everywhere for the article in question. I’m afraid it might have been held in my hard drive that crashed, and al thel information I held dearly, was lost. Likewise, I’m not referring to the article in 1931 Gold Age which states if someone would ask a fellow service worker who they were, they would answer, "I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."
This was meant to be a cry of separation among all those groups that were being falsely identified, such as Russellites, Millennial Dawn People, ISBA, etc. to that of the Ecclesiastes tabernacle of Rutherford.
I cannot recall if it was the Ohio convention or the St Louis convention. Since I cannot produce the article, I can only say, I sincerely apologize. I have made an unintentional bad report. That was not my intent,
This in no way impedes anyone if they wish to ridicule me. It’s your right. If for some reason, I ever come across that article, that stated, “am I one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the audience replied, NO! In a loud voice, I will be no more than happy to share it here.

I'm only asking about how or why Rutherford would say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1941.
Your report about it said:
 

That sounds like it should have been at the St. Louis assembly. Where does Rutherford say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

I don't like the idea of banning anyone. In fact, most of "Dmitar's" divisive and contentious interference in discussions is already the direct result of his having been banned several times in the past.
He was already banned under one of the original sets of names he used here (Allen Smith) and this made him so angry that he has continually come back with alternate names. Many of those names/accounts have also been banned. I stopped counting after about 40 of his alternate names. A few of his alternate names have rarely been used except to up-vote his own accounts and down-vote members who he doesn't like or who have exposed him in any way. Most of those names are still available to him because they have never been banned.
It's one of the reasons I never recommend banning anyone. If his "Dmitar" account were banned, his usual practice is to start a new account, or re-activate one or more of these other accounts and come back even more contentiously and with more hostility. For bringing up this idea, you, @Matthew9969, could then expect 40 or 50 down-votes on things you have said in the past, and to have most of your future posts "stalked" for down-votes and probably anything he can think of that will cause strife and dissension. If you don't respond in the exasperated manner he expects, you can count on several weeks of false attacks claiming that you did react inappropriately.
He puts a lot more energy into his posts than most people realize. Because of exposing him again here, he will likely do what he usually does: display a lot of egotism, envy, hostility, jealousy, fits of anger, stirring up trouble, divisions, etc. When he notices that his own anger might be a giveaway of his personality, he will begin to accuse others almost randomly of many of the same things he has been exposed for doing. In fact, almost comically, this means that if he has been exposed for "projection," he will then begin accusing others of projection, too. For anything that he has been rightfully accused of, he will hold a longstanding grudge and make sure he accuses his exposers with the same words.
So, what I'm trying to say is that banning just doesn't work. It just results in more and more projection, blame-shifting, and passive aggressive hostility, which has often blown up into real abusive hostility, which then gets him banned and then he starts the cycle all over again.  

That sounds like it should have been at the St. Louis assembly. Where does Rutherford say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

That sounds like it should have been at the St. Louis assembly. Where does Rutherford say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Surely he will respond to love and acceptance. How’s that project going anyway?

I don't like the idea of banning anyone. In fact, most of "Dmitar's" divisive and contentious interference in discussions is already the direct result of his having been banned several times in the past.
He was already banned under one of the original sets of names he used here (Allen Smith) and this made him so angry that he has continually come back with alternate names. Many of those names/accounts have also been banned. I stopped counting after about 40 of his alternate names. A few of his alternate names have rarely been used except to up-vote his own accounts and down-vote members who he doesn't like or who have exposed him in any way. Most of those names are still available to him because they have never been banned.
It's one of the reasons I never recommend banning anyone. If his "Dmitar" account were banned, his usual practice is to start a new account, or re-activate one or more of these other accounts and come back even more contentiously and with more hostility. For bringing up this idea, you, @Matthew9969, could then expect 40 or 50 down-votes on things you have said in the past, and to have most of your future posts "stalked" for down-votes and probably anything he can think of that will cause strife and dissension. If you don't respond in the exasperated manner he expects, you can count on several weeks of false attacks claiming that you did react inappropriately.
He puts a lot more energy into his posts than most people realize. Because of exposing him again here, he will likely do what he usually does: display a lot of egotism, envy, hostility, jealousy, fits of anger, stirring up trouble, divisions, etc. When he notices that his own anger might be a giveaway of his personality, he will begin to accuse others almost randomly of many of the same things he has been exposed for doing. In fact, almost comically, this means that if he has been exposed for "projection," he will then begin accusing others of projection, too. For anything that he has been rightfully accused of, he will hold a longstanding grudge and make sure he accuses his exposers with the same words.
So, what I'm trying to say is that banning just doesn't work. It just results in more and more projection, blame-shifting, and passive aggressive hostility, which has often blown up into real abusive hostility, which then gets him banned and then he starts the cycle all over again.  

What a joke…listen…I’ve butted heads with JWI a few times but ..I have never seen him express anger…in Fact i would say as much as I’ve disagreed with him at times..his fruitages  are finer than mine or yours …
 
 
 
 

You are right. The Atlantic readers are already primed to think of anyone who questions anything about the safety of the vaccines as an anti-vaxxer. This term is so often misused that it's a perfect pejorative. Because then they can also be classed with right wing conspiracy nuts, and then the media can seek out the small minority of persons with crazy beliefs that the vaccine magnetizes their arm, or that each vaccine includes a tiny microchip. (Of course, in Sweden there really is a micro-chip that thousands of Swedes wear under their skin. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/658808705/thousands-of-swedes-are-inserting-microchips-under-their-skin)
Therefore the question in the title of their article only needs to be rhetorical; it doesn't need to be answered. It makes Malone "crazy" just for the juxtaposition. It's curious that a fellow scientist says that he's hurting his chances to win a Nobel prize for his close and unique involvement with the invention of mRNA vaccines, and his related patents. Nobel himself (a Swede) is credited for inventing dynamite 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean he was happy with all the ways it was being used. Would The Atlantic have run an article "Alfred Nobel claims to have invented dynamite. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?"
Whether Nobel himself personally had such specific reservations I don't really know. Albert Einstein thought he knew when he said:
The problem of the inventor’s and scientist’s social responsibility was taken up by Albert Einstein in a speech in 1945, after the atom bombs were dropped over Japan in August of that year. Einstein pointed out that the physicists in 1945 were in a situation which much resembled that in which Alfred Nobel once found himself. Einstein drew his conclusion from this: “Alfred Nobel invented an explosive more powerful than any then known — an exceedingly effective means of destruction. To atone for this ‘accomplishment’ and to relieve his conscience, he instituted his award for the promotion of peace.” https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/
I wouldn't expect a scientist to have always said the right thing in speeches or on social media. Obviously there is ego and pride at play here, too. But most of his credentials are admitted by the article.
But the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt. It claims he is known for lucid explanations but faults him for those comments about his positions that are made by others (YouTubers or Twitter followers). It faults him for having money. It faults his wife for using all caps in a response that defends him. It faults him for giving interviews to the only people who will grant such interviews. There seems to be a need to bend over backward to find fault. And a couple of false statements thrown in there, too. Such as when he was temporarily deplatformed from LinkedIn. The article says it was for false statements, when it was directly the result of verifiably true statements and questions. (Like questioning whether someone being on the board of both Pfizer and Reuters could result in a conflict of interest.) LinkedIn apologized to him and restored his account.
And of course, Dr. Malone is still not an anti-vaxxer. He got the vaccine himself. He still works on vaccines. He believes the vaccine has its place for the vulnerable, but is potentially dangerous and not studied fully enough for risking it on children and persons less at risk from Covid itself. And of course he is very well aware that the vaccine will NOT always keep one from getting the infection, and it will not keep one from spreading the infection. And he actually agrees with the point made in the Atlantic article, that the good appears to outweigh the risks for those who have the vulnerability factors already mentioned. 
At least the article doesn't do what so many have done in other media outlets (and social media, of course) which is to just simply lie about what a person has said or done in order to make them look less credible.

Amazing that the head of Pfizer knew about all these adverse effects and even deaths, and still claimed publicly that there were no deaths. Also, while it's true that there were several reporting defects and this concerns millions of vaccines administered over about a 3.5 month period covered in the report(s), you can still tell from the average "delay" that most of these adverse effects happened within 24 hours of the jab.

(Proverbs 26:17) . . .Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his.
When I was a kid back in the 1960's, this verse never made me think of Internet discussion forums. Yet, the style of a certain participant here, who will not be named (though he has had dozens), is always the first thing that comes to mind.
[edited to add: But, of course, I also know that it isn't fair to focus on only one example, when there are many others, including myself who just can't pass up a good discussion, even if not the least bit furious about it.]

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I believe that almost all the current vaccine types intended for Covid-19 have been proven, at least in the short term, to do more good than harm for a select group of individuals who have not previously had the virus itself, and/or who have the typically identified comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, advanced age, cancer, prior respiratory issues, etc.
However, because these vaccines really can produce better outcomes for some, many people apparently do not understand why there should be any limitations on its use. The NYT has finally included some dissenting opinions about the efficacy of the vaccines (without ridiculing them) in a recent discussion among Israeli doctors and an ex-health minister. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-vaccine-4th-dose.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
It admits that several scientists have claimed that boosters may make it more difficult to fight the virus.
But that's not the news I refer to here. It's the 3-hour interview (below) that Joe Rogan had with Dr. Malone, who was the man who invented (got several patents for) the mrna technology on which many of the vaccines are based. If anyone has spent any time at all discussing the virus or the vaccines, or spent any time listening to news reports about them, then this could easily be the most important information ever presented about these topics.
It's here:
Dr. Robert Malone interviewed by Joe Rogan
  I think everyone ought to at least give it an hour, especially considering the many hours that other news sources that we will be exposed to.

Oh so my discussions are not good enough lately . 

Amazing that the head of Pfizer knew about all these adverse effects and even deaths, and still claimed publicly that there were no deaths. Also, while it's true that there were several reporting defects and this concerns millions of vaccines administered over about a 3.5 month period covered in the report(s), you can still tell from the average "delay" that most of these adverse effects happened within 24 hours of the jab.

There are at least a dozen good YouTube downloading programs, and most are free. I have a couple of them, one free, and one I paid $7.99 for a couple of years ago. I'm not trying to promote any specific one for a couple of reasons.
1. YouTube puts in its terms of service that you aren't supposed to download their videos except those you own. This is mostly to keep competitors from starting their own service by stealing a lot of videos or breaking copyright rules against video owners. (Funny, because Google bought YouTube BECAUSE it was still gaining most of its popularity from copyright infringement, and they used internal algorithms to promote all the infringement they could get away with -- except where corporations forced exceptions, or monetization for Google was possible.)
2. A product I use might not be as good (or safe) as ones that are available now, and anyway I don't really trust software that tests perfectly clean from viruses and adware when it first comes out, but then might easily slip in some adware, virus, or undisclosed data collection, after it gains a good reputation. For that matter even anti-virus and anti-adware software has been known to slip over to the "dark side," which was likely part of their plan all along. 
If you search Google for "YouTube Downloader" or "Free YouTube Downloaders" or things like that, you will usually get sites that give a nice list. Like this one that gives 5 of them: https://www.techradar.com/best/free-youtube-downloader
Be aware, of course, that even these apparently useful lists are usually created by (or funded by) one or two of the items in the list, therefore you won't find those items on any other list. It's also ploy to make new or obscure programs look like they belong in a list with more reputable software. So always check multiple lists to get an idea of the most reputable suggestions.
I also use a program on my iPhone that strips the audio from a video into an MP3 so that I can listen to the video while driving. (I make a two-hour drive between New York City and upstate every weekend, which is 4 hours in total. That's nearly 8 hours of listening at 1.75 speed.)

You are right. The Atlantic readers are already primed to think of anyone who questions anything about the safety of the vaccines as an anti-vaxxer. This term is so often misused that it's a perfect pejorative. Because then they can also be classed with right wing conspiracy nuts, and then the media can seek out the small minority of persons with crazy beliefs that the vaccine magnetizes their arm, or that each vaccine includes a tiny microchip. (Of course, in Sweden there really is a micro-chip that thousands of Swedes wear under their skin. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/658808705/thousands-of-swedes-are-inserting-microchips-under-their-skin)
Therefore the question in the title of their article only needs to be rhetorical; it doesn't need to be answered. It makes Malone "crazy" just for the juxtaposition. It's curious that a fellow scientist says that he's hurting his chances to win a Nobel prize for his close and unique involvement with the invention of mRNA vaccines, and his related patents. Nobel himself (a Swede) is credited for inventing dynamite 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean he was happy with all the ways it was being used. Would The Atlantic have run an article "Alfred Nobel claims to have invented dynamite. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?"
Whether Nobel himself personally had such specific reservations I don't really know. Albert Einstein thought he knew when he said:
The problem of the inventor’s and scientist’s social responsibility was taken up by Albert Einstein in a speech in 1945, after the atom bombs were dropped over Japan in August of that year. Einstein pointed out that the physicists in 1945 were in a situation which much resembled that in which Alfred Nobel once found himself. Einstein drew his conclusion from this: “Alfred Nobel invented an explosive more powerful than any then known — an exceedingly effective means of destruction. To atone for this ‘accomplishment’ and to relieve his conscience, he instituted his award for the promotion of peace.” https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/
I wouldn't expect a scientist to have always said the right thing in speeches or on social media. Obviously there is ego and pride at play here, too. But most of his credentials are admitted by the article.
But the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt. It claims he is known for lucid explanations but faults him for those comments about his positions that are made by others (YouTubers or Twitter followers). It faults him for having money. It faults his wife for using all caps in a response that defends him. It faults him for giving interviews to the only people who will grant such interviews. There seems to be a need to bend over backward to find fault. And a couple of false statements thrown in there, too. Such as when he was temporarily deplatformed from LinkedIn. The article says it was for false statements, when it was directly the result of verifiably true statements and questions. (Like questioning whether someone being on the board of both Pfizer and Reuters could result in a conflict of interest.) LinkedIn apologized to him and restored his account.
And of course, Dr. Malone is still not an anti-vaxxer. He got the vaccine himself. He still works on vaccines. He believes the vaccine has its place for the vulnerable, but is potentially dangerous and not studied fully enough for risking it on children and persons less at risk from Covid itself. And of course he is very well aware that the vaccine will NOT always keep one from getting the infection, and it will not keep one from spreading the infection. And he actually agrees with the point made in the Atlantic article, that the good appears to outweigh the risks for those who have the vulnerability factors already mentioned. 
At least the article doesn't do what so many have done in other media outlets (and social media, of course) which is to just simply lie about what a person has said or done in order to make them look less credible.

A quick aside:
The reason that the NYT article I mentioned above included questions about the vaccine from Israel can easily be guessed. Israel is just about the most vaccinated country in the world, already beginning on the 4th jab. But due to Israeli apartheid, Palestine, right next door, has had great difficulty reaching "adequate" vaccination levels. Yet, Palestine is doing better than Israel with Covid-19. For those who read Hebrew and pick up some of the more obscure sources in the Israeli press, you can even find a sinister side to some Israeli expectations. Some had concluded that keeping it difficult for Palestinians to get the vaccine might result in greater deaths of Palestinians. This is not a bad outcome for Israelis who will privately share a Hebrew expression that states: "To kill an Arab is a blessing." 
[The university at which I studied Hebrew for 3.5 years has a high American-Jewish population, and although these are Americans who often have a strong prejudice against Israelis, there were also Israelis in the Hebrew classes, who joked about that same expression above. Also, separately, when I had joined a study group at the home of a Jewish family (where we studied physics) the home-owner (father of one student) learned that I spoke Hebrew, and his first question to me was. So now you know how to say: "To kill an Arab is a blessing."?]

There are at least a dozen good YouTube downloading programs, and most are free. I have a couple of them, one free, and one I paid $7.99 for a couple of years ago. I'm not trying to promote any specific one for a couple of reasons.
1. YouTube puts in its terms of service that you aren't supposed to download their videos except those you own. This is mostly to keep competitors from starting their own service by stealing a lot of videos or breaking copyright rules against video owners. (Funny, because Google bought YouTube BECAUSE it was still gaining most of its popularity from copyright infringement, and they used internal algorithms to promote all the infringement they could get away with -- except where corporations forced exceptions, or monetization for Google was possible.)
2. A product I use might not be as good (or safe) as ones that are available now, and anyway I don't really trust software that tests perfectly clean from viruses and adware when it first comes out, but then might easily slip in some adware, virus, or undisclosed data collection, after it gains a good reputation. For that matter even anti-virus and anti-adware software has been known to slip over to the "dark side," which was likely part of their plan all along. 
If you search Google for "YouTube Downloader" or "Free YouTube Downloaders" or things like that, you will usually get sites that give a nice list. Like this one that gives 5 of them: https://www.techradar.com/best/free-youtube-downloader
Be aware, of course, that even these apparently useful lists are usually created by (or funded by) one or two of the items in the list, therefore you won't find those items on any other list. It's also ploy to make new or obscure programs look like they belong in a list with more reputable software. So always check multiple lists to get an idea of the most reputable suggestions.
I also use a program on my iPhone that strips the audio from a video into an MP3 so that I can listen to the video while driving. (I make a two-hour drive between New York City and upstate every weekend, which is 4 hours in total. That's nearly 8 hours of listening at 1.75 speed.)

Amazing that the head of Pfizer knew about all these adverse effects and even deaths, and still claimed publicly that there were no deaths. Also, while it's true that there were several reporting defects and this concerns millions of vaccines administered over about a 3.5 month period covered in the report(s), you can still tell from the average "delay" that most of these adverse effects happened within 24 hours of the jab.

Amazing that the head of Pfizer knew about all these adverse effects and even deaths, and still claimed publicly that there were no deaths. Also, while it's true that there were several reporting defects and this concerns millions of vaccines administered over about a 3.5 month period covered in the report(s), you can still tell from the average "delay" that most of these adverse effects happened within 24 hours of the jab.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-12-02-smoking-gun-pfizer-document-exposes-fda-criminal-cover-up-of-vaccine-deaths.html
 
Thanks to the efforts of a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, we now have smoking gun confidential documents that show Pfizer and the FDA knew in early 2021 that pfizer’s mRNA vaccines were killing thousands of people and causing spontaneous abortions while damaging three times more women than men.
One confidential document in particular was part of a court-ordered release of FDA files that the FDA fought by claiming the agency should have 55 years to release this information. A court judge disagreed and ordered the release of 500 documents per month, and the very first batch of documents contained this bombshell entitled, “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.”
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
Or here, mirrored on NN servers:
https://www.naturalnews.com/files/536-postmarketing-experience.pdf
The document reveals that within just 90 days after the EUA release of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, the company was already aware of voluntary adverse reaction reports that revealed 1,223 deaths and over 42,000 adverse reports describing a total of 158,893 adverse reactions. The reports originated from numerous countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Spain and other nations.
Aside from “general disorders,” the No. 1 most frequently reported category of mRNA vaccine adverse reactions was Nervous system disorders, clocking in at 25,957 reports.
 

There are at least a dozen good YouTube downloading programs, and most are free. I have a couple of them, one free, and one I paid $7.99 for a couple of years ago. I'm not trying to promote any specific one for a couple of reasons.
1. YouTube puts in its terms of service that you aren't supposed to download their videos except those you own. This is mostly to keep competitors from starting their own service by stealing a lot of videos or breaking copyright rules against video owners. (Funny, because Google bought YouTube BECAUSE it was still gaining most of its popularity from copyright infringement, and they used internal algorithms to promote all the infringement they could get away with -- except where corporations forced exceptions, or monetization for Google was possible.)
2. A product I use might not be as good (or safe) as ones that are available now, and anyway I don't really trust software that tests perfectly clean from viruses and adware when it first comes out, but then might easily slip in some adware, virus, or undisclosed data collection, after it gains a good reputation. For that matter even anti-virus and anti-adware software has been known to slip over to the "dark side," which was likely part of their plan all along. 
If you search Google for "YouTube Downloader" or "Free YouTube Downloaders" or things like that, you will usually get sites that give a nice list. Like this one that gives 5 of them: https://www.techradar.com/best/free-youtube-downloader
Be aware, of course, that even these apparently useful lists are usually created by (or funded by) one or two of the items in the list, therefore you won't find those items on any other list. It's also ploy to make new or obscure programs look like they belong in a list with more reputable software. So always check multiple lists to get an idea of the most reputable suggestions.
I also use a program on my iPhone that strips the audio from a video into an MP3 so that I can listen to the video while driving. (I make a two-hour drive between New York City and upstate every weekend, which is 4 hours in total. That's nearly 8 hours of listening at 1.75 speed.)