Anna

If that's the case it's more understandable. Of course, many of these abused ones go on to inflict abuse themselves, which according to your own statements, would make them "mentally diseased" too. But I was referring especially to the inordinate hatred of all elders that he shows, when no one can rightfully blame all elders.
When I said "certifiable" I was referring specifically to some very disturbing stories about the "leader" of silent-lambs. These are not stories coming from JWs, but from what I have read coming from exJWs, too.

This is probably true (up to a point). I think of the anti-God books of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, although I have no idea if these persons were ever religious. They are "apostate" if they left a ideology of faith and have disowned that ideology. Although I haven't read the books, I understand they are based on very simplistic argumentation that doesn't even try to understand scripture before trying to make fun of it.
But if we take your definition too far we would have to include men like Brother(s) Russell, Rutherford, Fred Franz, Ray Franz, and even David Splane, and many others. Every time there is an adjusted belief, it means that the previous belief is now considered to have been misleading. For proof of that, what would we think of someone who still tries to deliberately teach the previous teaching before it was adjusted? We would have to admit that the person was deliberately misleading away from the teaching of God and Christ.

I agree. And you even not need to be obsessed or zeal with/for something, but still doing wrong thing.
That is what i have in mind. But also is important where you are in that moment (spiritual and literal place). If such person is observed from/by people who not belong to same ideology it could be viewed as "fanatic" (zealous or obsessed, it would not be too much difference)  
Even inside own group, various levels of "spirituality" that individuals (and others around) have and shows, that individuals see as desirable and good, as the qualities that people around and god himself expecting of us to have them, can be in range from, what fellow brotherhood consider as, normal, role model zeal to something what can be very confusing and doubtful.    

True. We do however have a positive and negative connotation. In the case of someone obsessed with criticizing an organization made up of mostly good people, doing good things, that is a negative connotation of the word obsession. On the other hand, being "obsessed" about doing JHVH's will would have a positive connotation. In general though obsession seems more negative that positive, therefor zeal in this case would be a better choice in my opinion. Of course you can also be zealous for the wrong thing (apostle Paul when he was Saul).
And then there is the perfume 😀
Yes, all people are sinners and can do horrible things. We all know that. His obsession is unreasonable because he isn't going to change people is he? Plus half the things he says are false, and badly argued. As an example, he puts down the Witnesses for not joining the rest of the world in support of LGBT groups, clearly something condemned by God. Then again he doesn't care what God thinks, as he is a self proclaimed atheist....

This requirement is in harmony with a suggestion from Ronald J Sider in his book, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Concience” in which he explores the question: “Why are Christians living just like the rest of the world?” Their conduct is so shocking that it should “drive us to our knees in repentance,” he says.
The specific remedy that he offered was: “Make it harder to join.” So he does not agree that just saying you have a personal relationship with Christ is enough. 
This is just one of four proposed remedies he offered. As it turns out, Jehovah’s Witnesses employ them all. And yes, they do go a long way in cleaning up the mess of words not matching deeds that afflicts the evangelical world. I wrote about it here:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/12/four-suggestion.html
 

A brother in charge of the PR department at Bethel for a while told me that probably 90 percent of those who drift away because they no longer believe what they once believed are never heard from again. The 10 percent who make noise probably make noise mostly because they are angry that they have been cut off from the love of their family. They can no longer see their grandchildren, their children, parents, or grandparents, or cousins, aunts and uncles. To him the apostate problem was the loud voices, the negative interviews they gave, and the protests at assemblies and headquarters. He thought we could resolve almost all of the apostate problems if we merely changed the one rule about cutting of the natural affection of the family. There was some vacillation on this point for a while.
In those days, he said that the only two serious negative issues to deal with for a PR department were "blood and blood." (Meaning blood transfusions and blood relatives.)
His worst nightmare was when a baby died, or a child died, when all evidence showed that it was because the parents refused a blood transfusion. Pregnant mothers died from lack of a transfusion, too, after a delivery, and this was almost as bad. Custody issues also tended to focus on the way one parent, the Witness, would handle a blood related emergency. The other topic, stated above, was about cutting off family members who were disfellowshipped.  Today of course, there might be other issues people are speaking up about, such as CSA.
I tend to agree that it is mostly those who harbor some kind of anger who rant on about 1874, pyramids, the Millions/1925 campaign, Miracle Wheat, Salon Society, Beth Sarim, Blood, Transplants, etc. A tiny percentage had their own issues with blood, but the people who scream about blood policy the most are those hurt by being rejected from family ties, not because they had any experience with the blood issue. Today, I'm guessing that most of those who make noise about CSA have never had a personal negative experience with CSA.
Obviously there are exceptions, and who knows about the 90-percent/10-percent estimate anyway?
But I think we should be careful about judging everyone who leaves by the noise that the noisiest apostates make. I've never seen a crowd of apostates bigger than 40 or so, and some of these same persons make plans to travel around the world to keep the numbers of protesters looking large. Compare that to the MILLIONS now living who no longer believe the JW doctrines.
I also get the feeling that many of the loudest voices don't really even believe that CORRECTING Witness doctrines is all that important. Perhaps "Witness" and "Pearl" are exceptions, but I think most of the loudest voices don't really think that correcting JW doctrines is any more important than correcting Catholic or Mormon doctrines, because they most likely have no specific Christian anchoring of any kind. But they focus on JWs because that's where their anger or even hatred is focused.
I read something from one of the loudest voices against CSA (whose last name is a type of tree). There is a real hatred for elders. It's obvious. At the assembly, we were told that it wasn't about those who had drifted, but those who "push" away and show prideful arrogance and bitterness. I think we've seen cases where prideful bitterness and arrogance and hatred have been nurtured to truly become a mental disease. Diagnosable and certifiable. I won't point to any specific names, but there's that guy who stuck his name on "silent lambs" for example, if the stories I've heard are true.
Still, we can't judge generally of the millions who have drifted away, and just don't want to revisit something that has become painful to them. Even among the brotherhood, there is more and more evidence of perhaps hundreds or even thousands of Witnesses who are PIMO (Physically in, mentally out). A few months ago, I had no idea that there was such an expression, but I just "reddit" and discovered that there are many who plan to leave quietly, without raising their voice, and not making a scene. Mostly it looks like they do this to keep the family bonds intact. Relative to "sickness" it reminds me of this verse:
(1 Corinthians 11:30) 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and quite a few are sleeping in death.

Baptism is only possible for those who have made those initial steps first. Obviously, not every single person on earth will have been given the chance to even take the first step. Therefor the WT statement cannot apply to those people, but it applies to those who are able to take the steps leading to baptism. That is the context.

It most certainly  does: "This means trying to motivate people to make the truth their own by applying what they learn, dedicating their life to Jehovah, and getting baptized. Only then will they survive Jehovah’s day".—
Obviously getting baptised cannot apply unless they have first  made the truth their own, applied what they learn, and dedicated their life to Jehovah.
 

I believe the statement that William was aligning himself with was that of Peter. 
You asked your question wrong. Do you think that verse has any merit, or is it all nonsense? Do you object to working in harmony with that scripture?

Kabbalah? Mysticism and meanings in numbers and letters...... 
A watering down of the word of God by teachings of men.  Jesus himself rejected the "oral tradition" of men which was later written down as the Mishnah.
Rabbis practiced the kabbalah which is closely linked to mystic teachings of the East.
Need I say more? 
 

Why not take over this store for your headquarters?
It even has a True Harley!

Hmm. Would this do for a headquarters? Look how some apostate put up a “no-left-turn” sign (into the store!) That might harm book sales—I’d have to take that down.

I like the description at 2Tim.2:17: "their word will spread like gangrene" (Gk γάγγραινα: gangraina). Doesn't seem to present any translation difficulty?

Yes. I wrote up a post on this at the time and included how other translations handled the verse. An excerpt:   (from https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/who-is-mentally-diseased.html )
“Moreover, “mentally diseased” was placed in quotation marks, indicating it was not meant as a medical diagnosis, but as an adjective to suggest a manner of thinking. Nor is the term anything original. It is merely a repeat of the Bible verse 1 Timothy 6:3-4....“If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words.”
...Douay-Rheims says ‘sick about questions and strifes of words.’ In view of the context, what sort of ‘sickness’ do you think the translator had in mind? Tuberculosis, maybe? Or is it not a sickness of thinking, so that ‘mentally diseased’ is not such a bad rendering after all? NASB...offers ‘morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words.’ Does ‘morbid,’ when applied to thinking, suggest balance and soundness of mind? Or is ‘sickness,’ even ‘mentally diseased,’ more to the point?”
Here’s a few other translations:
‘diseased’ (Emphasized New Testament; Rotherham)
‘filled with a sickly appetite’ (Epistles of Paul, W.J.Conybeare)
‘morbid appetite’ (A New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People; Charles Williams)
‘morbid craving’ (An American Translation; Goodspeed)
‘unhealthy love of questionings’ (New Testament in Basic English)
‘morbidly keen’ (NEB)
‘unhealthy desire to argue’ (Good News Bible).
“Do any of these other versions suggest soundness of mind? So the NWT’s ‘mentally diseased’ is an entirely valid offering, even if more pointed than most. Plus, once again, the term is an adjective, as it is in all other translations, not a medical diagnosis. Context (in that Watchtower article) made this application abundantly clear.”

The original post states that "JW.org Says "Apostates are Mentally Diseased." Whilst true, what is ommitted is that JW.org  is reflecting the Bible's view.
Apart from what has already been quoted, Peter makes reference to that early apostate Balaam who sought to attack God's people. He says that when Balaam was hindered in his attempt to stumble worshippers of Jehovah by a "voiceless beast of burden", the effect was to hinder "the prophet's mad course" 2Pet.2:16. In using the Greek word "paraphronia" Peter indicates that Balaam was engaged in an act of madness or insanity and manifesting a symptom of mental disorder. A related word, "anoia" is used to describe the "sensless rage" of the Pharisees at Jesus' supposed violation of their Sabbath Laws (Luke 16:11), and also by Paul when actually describing the activity of those other ancient opposers of Jehovah's people, Jannes and Jambres. He spoke of them being completely "corrupted in mind" and that this corruption was plainly evident in the "folly" (anoia) of their action against Moses. (2Tim.3:9).
By the same token, modern day apostates exhibit they are "corrupted in mind", clearly exhibiting "folly" along with "senseless rage" and manifestly engaged in a "mad course". 
There is a PC language argument these days for avoiding the use of the word "disease" in connection with mental disorder, even the term "mental illness" is being questioned. This is due to the innapropriate reactions of  people to such terms. Over time, terms may gather an emotive potential which may provoke an inappropriate response in many. This reactive tendency is exploited by propagandists of which Christian apostates are a sub-division.   
However, no amount of feel-good euphemism can disguise the fact that Christian apostasy is abhorrent, contagious, and death dealing, whatever metaphor is used to describe it. Given the facts, it is also a mainfestation of insanity or madness. Many translators seem to agree:
2Pet.2:16:
New International Version
But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey--an animal without speech--who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet's madness.
New Living Translation
But Balaam was stopped from his mad course when his donkey rebuked him with a human voice.
English Standard Version
but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.
Berean Study Bible
But he was rebuked for his transgression by a donkey, otherwise without speech, that spoke with a man’s voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.
Berean Literal Bible
But he had reproof for his own transgression by a mute donkey; having spoken in a man's voice, it restrained the madness of the prophet.
New American Standard Bible
but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet.
New King James Version
but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.
King James Bible
But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
Christian Standard Bible
but received a rebuke for his lawlessness: A speechless donkey spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet's madness.
Contemporary English Version
But a donkey corrected him for this evil deed. It spoke to him with a human voice and made him stop his foolishness.
Good News Translation
and was rebuked for his sin. His donkey spoke with a human voice and stopped the prophet's insane action.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
but received a rebuke for his transgression: A donkey that could not talk spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet's irrationality.
International Standard Version
But he was rebuked for his offense. A donkey that normally cannot talk spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet's insanity.
NET Bible
yet was rebuked for his own transgression (a dumb donkey, speaking with a human voice, restrained the prophet's madness).
New Heart English Bible
but he was rebuked for his own disobedience. A mute donkey spoke with a man's voice and stopped the madness of the prophet.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But the reproof of his violation was a dumb donkey which spoke with the voice of men, restraining the madness of the Prophet.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
But he was convicted for his evil. A donkey, which normally can't talk, spoke with a human voice and wouldn't allow the prophet to continue his insanity.
New American Standard 1977
but he received a rebuke for his own transgression; for a dumb donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet.
Jubilee Bible 2000
and was rebuked for his iniquity; a dumb animal accustomed to a yoke (upon which he was seated), speaking with man's voice, hindered the madness of the prophet.
King James 2000 Bible
But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb donkey speaking with man's voice restrained the madness of the prophet.
American King James Version
But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbade the madness of the prophet.
American Standard Version
but he was rebuked for his own transgression: a dumb ass spake with man's voice and stayed the madness of the prophet.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But had a check of his madness, the dumb beast used to the yoke, which speaking with man's voice, forbade the folly of the prophet.
Darby Bible Translation
but had reproof of his own wickedness -- [the] dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the folly of the prophet.
English Revised Version
but he was rebuked for his own transgression: a dumb ass spake with man's voice and stayed the madness of the prophet.
Webster's Bible Translation
But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice, forbad the madness of the prophet.
Weymouth New Testament
But he was rebuked for his transgression: a dumb ass spoke with a human voice and checked the madness of the Prophet.
World English Bible
but he was rebuked for his own disobedience. A mute donkey spoke with a man's voice and stopped the madness of the prophet.
Young's Literal Translation
and had a rebuke of his own iniquity -- a dumb ass, in man's voice having spoken, did forbid the madness of the prophet.

Don’t be naive. My writing doesn’t resemble his in the slightest degree. He writes like a castrated toad with all the analytical skills of a fruit fly. He boasts that he has identified one of the contributors here as crocodile, and the only proof he has is that another ridiculed him for his crocodile tears.
He is a blaggard who uses the science of speech more to blackmail and swindle than teach. I made it the ticklish business of mine to once and for all eradicate this swine.
I happen to know that they had to reshoot that Jurassic Park scene repeatedly because every time the woman reached into the gigantic dinosaur turd, she accidentally pulled out one of his books—this one:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/686882
That is exactly where they all belong, but it was irrelevant to the movie

You might already be aware that TTH is trying to make fun of the excess squabbling by squabbling with himself. 99.99 percent chance, in my opinion, that @Arguis Maxus is just another account that @TrueTomHarley has created for his own "satirical" purposes.

In my opinion I wouldn't necessarily say answering, or investigating opposers claims constitutes hanging out with them. To quote J. Reuben Clark "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought be harmed". We should be confident that our beliefs can stand up to scrutiny, if we don't have that confidence, then that is a problem.

That is all TTH ever does is lie. I am sick of it. He is a disgusting despicable offal-like creature masquerading as a human bean. Yes, “bean” is not a mistake. It is deliberate. I cannot bring myself to call him a human being, he is that repulsive. 
He reeks with B.O and bad breath. And gas? Tell me about it.
Even those of other species know it. Recently I happened upon him walking his pet pig. “Hey, where did you get the pig?” I greeted him.
”I found him at the marketplace,” the pig replied.

@JW Insider did not write TrueTom v Apostates. He did not write Dear Mr. Putin. I wrote them. There were portions that I forwarded to him for comment. To that extent, he had input. His comments were most helpful and every time I ignored them I came to regret it. I got all excited about a statistical factoid from the follow-up Aussie case study. He told me it wasn’t so watertight as I had imagined. He was right and I downgraded it to a suggestive pointer. 
He said that there were a ton of errors—typos and punctuation atrocities—in the manuscript and I was later aghast at how abundant they were. It took me forever to get them out. Even now there are probably a few—but it is time for new things.
Even his instinct about my describing the old bound volumes as the family gods—bulky, toted everywhere, and very seldom used—I came to agree with. I was just being self-indulgent, and no one had ever described them that way but me. Why put anyone off unnecessarily?
His biggest contribution was when I ran by him beforehand the letter that I submitted to the Philly Inquirer in response to their first of what proved to be four incendiary articles. This was a big moment for me. The topic was white-hot, I had never seen anyone not run from it, and I didn’t want to mess it up. For all I knew, they might print it. I respected his insights and incorporated most of them. That letter became the core of what ultimately became a chapter in TrueTom vs the Apostates, “Four Incendiary Articles.”
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/four-incendiary-articles.html
So yes, he has good judgement and instincts about what I consulted him for. Yes, his advice proved valuable. Yes, I am grateful to him for it. No, he did not write any of either book.
Our cooperative role may expand. We came across The Librarian, that old biddy, bending over dusting Gibbon’s “Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire” on a lower shelf in her library. JWI and I toppled the entire bookshelf on her and squashed her flat. You should not expect to hear from her anymore except for some automated posts she may have previously submitted. 
I planted a story that a California law was going to kill the internet. Admin fell for it, and he sold the entire forum to me for only a dollar. JWI agreed to come in for just 50 cents. If I let him do his thing, going on and on and on about some egghead things that I don’t really care about—and after all, he did help me with the bookshelf—I will gain his good will forever.
Yes, it is chronology he is into. But he writes at such length that everyone falls asleep except for other eggheads. He has done the research to expound on what he does, as others have done the research to disagree with him, even the semi-resident titan who doesn’t wish to be described that way. I gather that our view is not the one that predominates in the mainstream scholarly world, but this does not unduly concern me. I am too used to headlines that read: “Everything you thought you knew about such-and-such is wrong.” Matters of scientific scholarship can and have turned on a dime. Besides, even if his most drastic thought proved true, it would amount to no more that a (colossal) misread of the bus schedule. It would not mean that the bus is not coming.

In my opinion I wouldn't necessarily say answering, or investigating opposers claims constitutes hanging out with them. To quote J. Reuben Clark "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought be harmed". We should be confident that our beliefs can stand up to scrutiny, if we don't have that confidence, then that is a problem.

Or, just drop over into another Multiverse, in the extremely rare case that two solar systems collide, and disrupt the systems'  planetary orbits. The advantage is that it can be done with ones' transporter belt, and the 'quivalent of a 9 volt transistor radio battery.
uh ... assuming, of course that you HAVE a transporter belt ....

The perfect time to look for another inhabitable planet, jump off and take a ride to, you know, expand our horizons.

He's being sarcastic about Jehovah's Witnesses, not about God. 

No matter how many ebooks TTH has sold, it is not enough. Besides, the two most recent, one on the opposition to JWs in Russia, the other on their opposition in Western lands, are free—not sold at all.