The Librarian

Airbnb technology is the exact opposite of what the current real estate zoning, design, investment infrastructure want to see occur.
San Francisco is fighting fiercely against these disruptive tech companies. Ironic isn't it that technology is a double edged sword for the City by the Bay?

via .ORGWorld News

The housing crisis in SF is manufactured for purposes of gentrification and pushing Latino communities, for example, out to Oakland. The city takes its housing crisis very seriously!
My daughter worked for a man whose company was sold a couple years ago to a a hedge fund for about $30 million, and he is now flipping buildings in SF with his money. The city is geared to only cater to the very rich.
(Not that the couple didn't cheat the system to compete with "hotels" but this couple is being used as a "warning" to others who try to do the same.)

I won't speak for the @admin since he is probably not even aware of this "controversy" right now....
BUT....
I just can't imagine Jesus Christ creating JesusChrist.org to publish his words... and then tell everyone that nobody has the legal right to copy his words.
If anything EVERY KING of Israel was to MAKE A COPY of the scrolls.... to what purpose? TO SHARE THEM.
The Watchtower Lawyers are thinking of JW.org as a money making for profit corporation instead of the charity and group of like minded bible students that it should be and was at one time..
 
When the apostles were angered that others were preaching the gospel of Jesus what did he tell them? 
"Round up the Christian Lawyers" ... NO!!! 
 
Advertise, Advertise , Advertise the King and His Kingdom......hmmm...... 
 

@Jesus.defender topic bumping and repeating the same stuff over and over is not allowed and does not help your case at all. Please do not continue this practice.

John 10:33 “The Jews did say that they were stoning Jesus because he although being a man, make himself a god...”. However you forgot to mention what was Jesus answer to them at John 10:36” do you say to me who the Father Sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme, because I said I was God’s Son.’
 

Menschen in Peru, die Quechua sprechen, kommen Jehova durch die Neue-Welt-Übersetzung und Literatur in ihrer Muttersprache näher.
Quelle

Quelle

JW Public Talk J Rutherford Historic Talk Freedom 1938.mp4  
More from 1938:
More about Joseph "Judge" Rutherford:
 

According to our understanding of the bible, humans were the ONLY beings created in God’s image. Adam and Eve were the only “perfect” creation and therefore the only beings immune from sickness and death. Animals were always subject to sickness, disease, and death, so Dino-cancer does not conflict with JW doctrine at all.

Awake 73 March 22 p.12 "the spirit of competition between players can lead to unpleasant circumstances...in some homes tensions linger long past checkmate...Chess has been a game of war since it originated...the games connection to war is obvious....a play substitute for the art of war...there is a danger of stirring uo competition with one another even developing hostility with one another something the bible warns against....What effect does playing Chess have on one? Is it a wholesome effect? ....there are questions regarding it that each one who plays chess should consider."

 

On The Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin
 
The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions.
1. Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action; for it is continually occuring to the player, 'If I move this piece, what will be the advantages or disadvantages of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?
2. Circumspection, which surveys the whole chessboard, or scene of action; the relations of the several pieces and situations, the dangers they are respectively exposed to, the several possibilities of their aiding each other, the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or the other piece, and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.
3. Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired, by observing strictly the laws of the game; such as, If you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand. And it is therefore best that these rules should be observed, as the game becomes thereby more the image of human life, and particularly of war . . .
And lastly, we learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favourable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after long contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory from our own skill, or at least of getting a stalemate from the negligence of our adversary . . .
If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay. You should not sing, nor whistle, nor look at your watch, not take up a book to read, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may disturb his attention. For all these things displease; and they do not show your skill in playing, but your craftiness or your rudeness.
You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying that you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes: for this is fraud and deceit, not skill in the game.
You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself, by every kind of civil expression that may be used with truth, such as 'you understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive;' or, 'you play too fast;' or, 'you had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.'
If you are a spectator while others play, observe the most perfect silence. For, if you give advice, you offend both parties, him against whom you give it, because it may cause the loss of his game, him in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follows it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think until it had occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the pieces, show how they might have been placed better; for that displeases, and may occasion disputes and doubts about their true situation. All talking to the players lessens or diverts their attention, and is therefore unpleasing.
Lastly, if the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules above mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself. Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a perilous situation, etc. By this generous civility (so opposite to the unfairness above forbidden) you may, indeed, happen to lose the game to your opponent; but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection, together with the silent approbation and goodwill of impartial spectators.

Sister in Brazil

On The Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin
 
The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions.
1. Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action; for it is continually occuring to the player, 'If I move this piece, what will be the advantages or disadvantages of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?
2. Circumspection, which surveys the whole chessboard, or scene of action; the relations of the several pieces and situations, the dangers they are respectively exposed to, the several possibilities of their aiding each other, the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or the other piece, and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.
3. Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired, by observing strictly the laws of the game; such as, If you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand. And it is therefore best that these rules should be observed, as the game becomes thereby more the image of human life, and particularly of war . . .
And lastly, we learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favourable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after long contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory from our own skill, or at least of getting a stalemate from the negligence of our adversary . . .
If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay. You should not sing, nor whistle, nor look at your watch, not take up a book to read, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may disturb his attention. For all these things displease; and they do not show your skill in playing, but your craftiness or your rudeness.
You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying that you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes: for this is fraud and deceit, not skill in the game.
You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself, by every kind of civil expression that may be used with truth, such as 'you understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive;' or, 'you play too fast;' or, 'you had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.'
If you are a spectator while others play, observe the most perfect silence. For, if you give advice, you offend both parties, him against whom you give it, because it may cause the loss of his game, him in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follows it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think until it had occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the pieces, show how they might have been placed better; for that displeases, and may occasion disputes and doubts about their true situation. All talking to the players lessens or diverts their attention, and is therefore unpleasing.
Lastly, if the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules above mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself. Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a perilous situation, etc. By this generous civility (so opposite to the unfairness above forbidden) you may, indeed, happen to lose the game to your opponent; but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection, together with the silent approbation and goodwill of impartial spectators.

On The Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin
 
The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions.
1. Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action; for it is continually occuring to the player, 'If I move this piece, what will be the advantages or disadvantages of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?
2. Circumspection, which surveys the whole chessboard, or scene of action; the relations of the several pieces and situations, the dangers they are respectively exposed to, the several possibilities of their aiding each other, the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or the other piece, and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.
3. Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired, by observing strictly the laws of the game; such as, If you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand. And it is therefore best that these rules should be observed, as the game becomes thereby more the image of human life, and particularly of war . . .
And lastly, we learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favourable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after long contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory from our own skill, or at least of getting a stalemate from the negligence of our adversary . . .
If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay. You should not sing, nor whistle, nor look at your watch, not take up a book to read, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may disturb his attention. For all these things displease; and they do not show your skill in playing, but your craftiness or your rudeness.
You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying that you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes: for this is fraud and deceit, not skill in the game.
You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself, by every kind of civil expression that may be used with truth, such as 'you understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive;' or, 'you play too fast;' or, 'you had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.'
If you are a spectator while others play, observe the most perfect silence. For, if you give advice, you offend both parties, him against whom you give it, because it may cause the loss of his game, him in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follows it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think until it had occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the pieces, show how they might have been placed better; for that displeases, and may occasion disputes and doubts about their true situation. All talking to the players lessens or diverts their attention, and is therefore unpleasing.
Lastly, if the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules above mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself. Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a perilous situation, etc. By this generous civility (so opposite to the unfairness above forbidden) you may, indeed, happen to lose the game to your opponent; but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection, together with the silent approbation and goodwill of impartial spectators.

On The Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin
 
The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions.
1. Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action; for it is continually occuring to the player, 'If I move this piece, what will be the advantages or disadvantages of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?
2. Circumspection, which surveys the whole chessboard, or scene of action; the relations of the several pieces and situations, the dangers they are respectively exposed to, the several possibilities of their aiding each other, the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or the other piece, and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.
3. Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired, by observing strictly the laws of the game; such as, If you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand. And it is therefore best that these rules should be observed, as the game becomes thereby more the image of human life, and particularly of war . . .
And lastly, we learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favourable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after long contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory from our own skill, or at least of getting a stalemate from the negligence of our adversary . . .
If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay. You should not sing, nor whistle, nor look at your watch, not take up a book to read, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may disturb his attention. For all these things displease; and they do not show your skill in playing, but your craftiness or your rudeness.
You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying that you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes: for this is fraud and deceit, not skill in the game.
You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself, by every kind of civil expression that may be used with truth, such as 'you understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive;' or, 'you play too fast;' or, 'you had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.'
If you are a spectator while others play, observe the most perfect silence. For, if you give advice, you offend both parties, him against whom you give it, because it may cause the loss of his game, him in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follows it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think until it had occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the pieces, show how they might have been placed better; for that displeases, and may occasion disputes and doubts about their true situation. All talking to the players lessens or diverts their attention, and is therefore unpleasing.
Lastly, if the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules above mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself. Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a perilous situation, etc. By this generous civility (so opposite to the unfairness above forbidden) you may, indeed, happen to lose the game to your opponent; but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection, together with the silent approbation and goodwill of impartial spectators.

Sad. 
Maybe @Atlantis4 might still have PDF copies of them?

I am sad. This is not just for the loss of this particular book, but also because it reminds me of the saddest episode in the history of Bethel (in my opinion, of course).
There are two books in my opinion that best managed to encapsulate the entire meaning of Christianity and our entire purpose as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Admittedly, I am somewhat of a critical reader and often find things that are easy to disagree with, at least slightly. Usually, it's when our publications make a statement that is not necessarily wrong, but could easily need to be updated in a future publication. This might be for any of the following reasons:
Some explanation was worded as if the meaning of a thing can only be understood in one specific way when in fact the Biblical evidence makes it clear that there are other possible meanings and our conclusion is really speculation. Or when a quote is used but it was misunderstood or misused by the writer. Or when a historical event is referred to as evidence of something when the event didn't really occur exactly as was stated. Or when a concept isn't actually explained or defined correctly. Or when examples are used that can easily become obsolete, out of date, and might later require a new explanation if trends change. Or when a specific date or chronological system is used without Biblical or secular support. (Our date might be correct in those cases, but since we sometimes make use of an alternate dating system without Biblical or secular support, I always feel that at least an explanation of our assumptions should be included, so people know why we give a different date from 99.9 percent of encyclopedias, for example.) But these two particular favorite books, I have always been able to read and re-read without ever noticing anything of the type that might have to be changed in the future. There are no explanations that state that something MUST mean this or that. They are simply full of general explanations of the words of James and Peter in the context of the original meaning to the first centuries C.E., and how these Biblical concepts might be applied to Christians in our era, too. They don't try to brag about our modern-day history. They don't try to prove things about topics that tend to need constant clarification. They are merely about ideas that strengthen our faith and love for Jehovah and Jesus. They always make me appreciate the true value of the Bible itself, and the way that our publications can emphasize the Bible instead of our organizational accomplishments. (There are several wonderful articles in the Watchtower that I love for the same reasons that I love these two books, but these books stand out from most of our other books in this regard.)
So, of course, the books are "Commentary on the Letter of James" and the "Commentary on the Letters of Peter" (which was finally named "Choosing the Best Way of Life"). The first was the only book study book that we didn't study at the Congregation Bible Study (the "Book Study"), although most of the book was reviewed in a series of 15-minute "Instruction Talks." It was supposed to be a "Book Study" book, but a decision was made to replace this 1979 book for the "Book Study" with "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached" (which reviewed the Society's modern-day history under Russell and Rutherford). That was a 1973 book which we were to study for a second time.
This book "Commentary on the Letter of James" was not dropped because it's old. The Watchtower Library includes the books going back to 1971, and still includes 14 books that came out prior to this one. Even the obsolete "Word Government" book (1977), covering parts of Daniel, is still included. The 1973 "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" book had many errors already known about even in 1979, prior to the decision to study it again, and it's still available now. In fact, the "James Commentary" is the only one that has been dropped. I just checked the 2006 WT CD, the 2012, 2014 and 2015. They all still have it along with all the others from the 1970's that are still available now. It was even dropped from the online library at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/56220.  All the other books from the 1970's are still at wol.jw.org.
I didn't check exactly when it disappeared. You might still have had it on the 2016/17 WT Library "CD" download, but it could have been removed if you accepted the regular online update.

@Jack Ryan  You show no respect and honor to our Governing Body Overseers.
Have you considered starting your own atheist club instead of trolling this JW one all the time?
What has God ever done to you to deserve all this gall?

@Jack Ryan  You show no respect and honor to our Governing Body Overseers.
Have you considered starting your own atheist club instead of trolling this JW one all the time?
What has God ever done to you to deserve all this gall?

@Jack Ryan  You will see soon enough when the great tribulation starts and Jehovah destroys you and your kind when he comes in a great rage you spoke about earlier.
"There is where the weeping and gnashing of your teeth" shall occur. It will not be late.... 

You have touched upon a real danger in the very specific ways in which the prophecy is interpreted for imminent fulfillment. I blew up the picture to 400 percent, and agree that Brother Herd is definitely intended, but don't know how much most of us will read into it. But other statements do make the concern about chronology real. The "subtext" is to renew faith in 1914, 1919, the Organization, etc., and equate pure worship (sacred service) with doing things closely associated with the directives we get from the Organization. 
Although our current chronology is based on unsupported interpretations, this does not mean that the book is not useful. In fact, our situation is very much analogous to the points made in Ezekiel. And, in general, I think these important spiritual lessons from Ezekiel are highlighted in a very useful way. Ezekiel was concerned about restoration of pure worship in spite of the very problems and temptations that pulled God's people away from pure worship in the first place, internally and externally. And now, after the temptations of Babylon, and a desolation of both the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judea, it could be even more difficult to imagine such a restoration without Jehovah's intervention.
Also, the clarifications move us into a place where we can get much more value from the book without using it to judge Christendom, or highlight the distinctions between the anointed remnant and the great crowd, for example. One of the clarifications even moves us further from the temptation to specifically apply everything to the beginnings of the Organization under Russell and especially Rutherford in 1917/1918. I think it's clear that all of the clarifications move us closer to truth. Here are just a few of those clarifications.
Note the elimination of dividing the other sheep from the anointed. Also, the earlier "man with the writer's inkhorn" was considered to be Russell himself, then a strong implication that it should be Rutherford himself. This is a welcome change:
Previous understanding: The man with the inkhorn represents the anointed remnant. By means of the preaching and disciple-making work, the anointed are now putting a symbolic mark on the foreheads of those who become part of the “great crowd.”—Rev. 7:9. Clarification: The man with the secretary’s inkhorn pictures Jesus Christ. He will mark the great crowd when they are judged as sheep during the “great tribulation.”—Matt. 24:21. The meaning of the "two sticks" could be interpreted as a reversion to the distinction, but recall that these two sticks are united.
And next we lose the self-righteous judgmental attitude toward "Christendom."
Previous understanding: Unfaithful Jerusalem is a prophetic type of Christendom. Hence, the destruction of Jerusalem prophetically foreshadowed that of Christendom. Clarification: Conditions in unfaithful Jerusalem—such as idolatry and widespread corruption—remind us of Christendom, but we no longer refer to Christendom as the antitypical Jerusalem. Reasoning behind the change: There is no clear Scriptural basis for such a type-antitype approach. And here is one way we have begun removing the specific emphases on 1917, 1918, 1919, 1922, etc., by moving the focus from this period back the 2,000-year period preceding the types of clarifications from about a hundred-year period beginning 1919 .
Previous understanding: In 1918 the persecuted anointed were brought into captivity to Babylon the Great, experiencing a deathlike condition of near inactivity. That short captivity ended in 1919 when Jehovah revived them as Kingdom proclaimers. Clarification: The deathlike condition of spiritual captivity lasted a very long time and began much earlier than 1918. It started in the second century C.E. and ended in 1919 C.E. and basically parallels the long growing season in Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds. We haven't completely removed the unsupported chronology, of course, and the book even references the God's Kingdom book for further support, but I appreciated all the changes nonetheless.

Question sent in to to me....
Answer: Yes. And usually only sisters attend them.

Source