Anna

Instead of being guided by an extensive manual of what to do and what not, I try to follow, in this order:
  (Romans 6:14). . You are not under the law [RULES] but under an undeserved kindness. . . [PRINCIPLES] Common sense is the least common of the senses. But, as @James Thomas Rook Jr. has said very well, many times I cannot behave openly because  (Romans 14:21)  "It is best not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything over which your brother stumbles. . ."
 
What @Jack Ryan mentions I would summarize as follows:
The vast majority of JW's sincerely believe that we will be the only ones to be saved (those who were inside the ark lived, no one outside the ark survived). And stick to this and other similar models to believe that. Normally they are those who believe that we are better than others and, not infrequently, their way of being is in some measure pharisaic. Others, however, think that a God of love, that the Judge of the whole Earth, cannot be so strict. A little with the doubts that Abraham presented to the angel walking towards Sodom. I have to admit that I have belonged to the first group for a long time.
Of course, the statements in our publications are, almost exclusively, in support of the "hard" stance, the one quoted by Jack Ryan.
 

Well you've got to be reasonable.  The question is; is our employment closely and consistently tied with false religion. One off things don't count I'm sure.  One thing is fixing a church HVAC, and another is specializing in polishing church steeples.

Well you've got to be reasonable.  The question is; is our employment closely and consistently tied with false religion. One off things don't count I'm sure.  One thing is fixing a church HVAC, and another is specializing in polishing church steeples.

Read the club guidelines and that might give you an idea. It is up to you what you want to discuss, and the tone you want to set, especially when you create your own topic. No one is going to make you be part of any discussion, helpful or unhelpful. It is up to you what discussion you join. And the good thing is, if you don't like the club, then there is a button at the top right hand corner which says "leave club" and that will delete your membership.

So it's pretty easy to separate truth from fiction just by accepting what the Governing Body has claimed about themselves in print. We don't have to make anything up. If they claim a certain thing about themselves, they put it in print, and there is no problem separating truth from fiction, here.
But this does not mean that we shouldn't "obey" them. They are elders, they are desirous of a fine work. We don't obey them because they have claimed to be prophesied about in a parable that Jesus made, however. We "obey" their faithful lead, as we contemplate how their conduct turns out. We obey by imitating their faithful conduct.
(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
If we are humble, we will submit to the instruction given by those who are faithful and discreet. This should be true of all elders, who are all faithful stewards.
(2 Thessalonians 3:9) . . .Not that we do not have authority, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate.
1 Peter makes it clear, that to a certain extent being a faithful steward applies not just the elders, but also to every one of us:
(1 Peter 4:10, 11) . . .To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, let him do so as speaking pronouncements from God; if anyone ministers, let him do so as depending on the strength that God supplies;. . .
But, none of us, who is really a faithful and discreet steward, will ever recommend ourselves as someone who is approved, and who must therefore be obeyed. We obey in the sense of following faithful examples and Christian instruction.
(2 Corinthians 10:18) 18 For it is not the one who recommends himself who is approved, but the one whom Jehovah recommends.
 

Perhaps it will be a little expensive to call few of you across the Ocean :)) .... and with my slow mind and weak English .... i think i will stay on text :)))))

This will definitely stir the proverbial hornet's nest....

Saudi Arabia, with the help of the United States and the UK, has been directly and indirectly killing civilians in Yemen and creating a humanitarian crisis that has become so bad, that the United States had begun to distance itself from direct involvement. This started back nearly a decade ago when the ruling party of Yemen was a very small minority that was very pro-Saudi. Yemen is poor, but still had economic deals with Saudi Arabia that were profitable to the Saudi's. That small minority rulership was ousted and this created kind of a civil war in Yemen, with the Saudi's backing the ousted party.
The new party is sometimes called the Houthi rebels, but most of it has more likely been just a group of civilians who have realized that there is more than enough majority support from a larger portion of the country (for a show of strength) than there was in the small ousted minority. But Saudi Arabia has billions in weapons that it bought from the U.S. But Saudi Arabia was short on jet pilots, refueling tankers, military intelligence agencies, willing armies, etc. So the US offered jet pilots, military intelligence, targeting, refueling stations, etc., so that the bombing of Yemen is as much a US operation as a Saudi one.
This has created more starvation, more disease, and more "accidental bombings" of children's school buses, hospitals, weddings, funerals, etc., for as long as the US was helping with the targets.  Of course, the Yemen people have been getting some help. Since the US helped to create the great humanitarian crisis through such terrorism, the Yemen people can't ask for help from the US, and have therefore gone to enemies of the US. (Iran? Russia? etc.) This is perfect for the US, because the Boltons and Pompeos have been able to say that it is therefore necessary to offer enough help to Saudi Arabia because anti-US forces must be dealt with somehow. 
Also, we can probably expect that this particular "win" by Yemen in hitting Saudi Arabia in the pocketbook (Aramco oil) will result in a way for the Boltons and Pompeos to get back into a more hawkish position. Therefore it will probably get more Western press than previous "wins" by Yemen when missiles have slipped through the cracks. Although Bolton is personally out for the moment, his positions have a better chance of still winning out over Trump's recent moderations, and forcing Trump to go back to a Bolton/Pompeo position on Yemen, Iran, etc. This works for as long as Yemen is always tied as a proxy to Iran/Russia etc.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/drone-strikes-spark-fires-at-saudi-oil-facilities-11568443375
 

I believe that the illustration of the Faithful and Discreet Slave applies to the Governing Body. But I also believe that it is presumptuous for anyone to limit the meaning of the Faithful and Discreet Slave to the Governing Body. In fact, making such a claim of BEING the Faithful Slave before Jesus returns to confirm who has actually been "the faithful slave" is presumptuous, and is therefore a sign of being indiscreet. It is the very definition of being "discreet in one's own eyes."
(Isaiah 5:21) . . .Woe to those wise in their own eyes And discreet in their own sight!
1 Peter 5:3 was referenced by you and it says:
(1 Peter 5:3) 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, . . .
Referring to oneself as "governors" (i.e. a "Governing Body") is exactly what "lording it over" would be expected to look like. So it's not being faithful to this Bible verse, nor to the original illustration of the "faithful and unfaithful steward/slave" in Luke and Matthew. That same point is made in the NWT cross-referenced verse:
(2 Corinthians 1:24) 24 Not that we are the masters [lords/governors] over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.
When you mention not wanting to be seen like the Gentiles in Jesus time, you probably recall that this included the titles we might use to identify ourselves as the Gentiles and Jews of Jesus day liked to do:
(Matthew 20:25-27) 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.
(Luke 22:27) 27 For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? . . .
(Matthew 23:7-10) . . .. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.
The Governing Body members, through the publications and public conventions, continually point out that they are the ones taking the lead over the congregations, and that correct teaching only comes through the hands of a few, rather than just pointing to how well these teaching match the teachings of Jesus himself. We should consider whether this might actually be the very kind of "overreach" that Jesus warned about. 
I see nothing at all wrong with the idea of the committee(s) of elders who preside over matters for the collective congregations, just as there is nothing wrong with the committee(s) of elders who preside over matters that come up for local congregations. But it is our Christian duty to question the food served, especially to comment on any concerns with respect to how well it matches the teachings of Jesus, the congregations' true Leader and Teacher.
As servants (slaves) the ones preparing such meals should expect and desire to be questioned about the ingredients of the meals they distribute, they should humbly seek out the input of others with respect to the content and quality of the meals prepared and distributed by such stewards.
In reality, there is no parable of the "faithful and discreet slave." It's really a parable of the "faithful slave/steward vs. the unfaithful slave/steward," and it everyone's responsibility to act like the faithful one, and not the unfaithful one.  All of us need to be faithful rather than unfaithful stewards. In fact the parables are MORE about what it means to be the UNFAITHFUL steward. In the parable of "Who really is the [true] neighbor?" this is only a little bit about the untrue neighbor, and MORE about who really is the "TRUE neighbor," using the example of the good Samaritan. But in this parable about "who really is the true steward?" it's about faithfulness, but it's even MORE about examples of UNFAITHFUL stewards, and various levels of unfaithfulness.
That said, it's still true that overseers, including the Governing Body, take on a greater responsibility as stewards. And this also increases the responsibility to act even more faithfully, humbly and discreetly. A slave would never ask for obedience to themselves, only that we obey Christ's leadership. Therefore, as we see how the example of any overseer's faith works out, we obey the lead of those elders. (Hebrews 13:7)
While it's true that we are all stewards, every overseer, especially, is God's steward.
(Titus 1:7) . . .For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation, not self-willed, . . .
There should be no stewards who set themselves up as a kind of human tribunal:
(1 Corinthians 4:2, 3) . . .In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . . .
Paul wrote to congregations in Corinth where certain persons were trying to be too influential in "governing" the faith of those in the congregation, going right back to 2 Cor 1:24 already quoted above.

Russell did see a difference between "consecration" and "dedication." But it did not become a big deal. In fact, the song "Consecration" as it was sung from 1928 under Rutherford's leadership, was not changed to "Dedication" until almost a decade into the leadership period of Knorr/Franz, in the 1950 to 1966 songbook (with hardly any other words changed in the song). After dropping that song for a while, most of the words were brought back into the latest song "My Prayer of Dedication" (now #50).
I should clarify that I see nothing wrong with buying a church/synagogue/mosque, or reusing or repurposing it for our own meetings. (With appropriate modifications.) And I see nothing wrong with selling a property to someone who wishes to use it however they want. The "dedication" was for a temporary purpose because it was a material object.
I also do not object to dedicating material objects for spiritual purposes. There is nothing wrong with dedicating Kingdom Halls, Assembly Halls, or even houses, cars and fields for such purposes.
I did want to make the point that because there will be more and more of this "turnover" and material transience in the times we live in, that we should be careful not to think of such material things as permanent. We are but alien residents passing through the world, and this world is passing away, not just in the future, but parts of it keep passing away before our eyes. (From human, economic, and even natural causes.)
To quote another of our songs: (#92) we do NOT attach any special significance to the material in the building or its location:
May we present this place to you,
And here may your name be known.
We dedicate this place to you;
Please accept it as your own.
2. And now may we honor you, Father,
By filling this place with your praise.
May glory ascend with the increase
Of those who are learning your ways.
Committing this place to your worship,
We give it our generous care.
And long may it stand as a witness,
Supporting the message we bear.
When I worked in the Art Dept at Bethel around 1980, a brother had drawn an Armageddon-like scene from the viewpoint of everyone attending a meeting and the typical destructive view as seen through the window of Kingdom Hall. This view was rejected by the Writing committee in favor of the more typical image of a stream of Witnesses walking away from a city being destroyed and up into the peaceful hills nearby with all eyes forward to a goal and no one looking back. More recently we have seen images of the Great Tribulation from the viewpoint of groups of Witnesses gathering wherever possible, but there is no special emphasis on Kingdom Hall buildings. 
I think that choice of imagery helps to avoid thinking of the buildings themselves as the "ark of salvation." It's much better to think of pure worship, including association with others, as that "ark of salvation."

(Luke 12:41, 42) . . .Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time?
Interesting. So when Peter asked Jesus, "Are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?" Jesus should have answered, "NEITHER!" It's not to any of you apostles or disciples, because you'll be long dead by the time I return, and it's not to "everyone" either, because it's only going to apply to about two or three dozen people who are around between 1919 and, let's say, 100-and-some-odd years after that date.

It's a little bit more complex than that. Yes, parent's are definitely responsible for their minor children, even when their minor children are out of  sight, the responsibility for what the children do is still the parents, because the parents should be watching them.  However, is an employer responsible for what his employee does outside his employment? If the employee does something bad while on vacation (robs a bank) would his employer bear responsibility? Obviously not. Now if the employer planned the robbery with the employee, and got the employee to carry it out, then the employer will hold some liability. But it is still the employees choice, whether to go along with the plan or not. I don't think the claim "he made me do it" would hold up in court.
It always seems to me that when people try to hold the GB responsible for their choices in life, its like they forget that no one actually MADE them do anything. That it was the persons personal conviction, that whatever the direction the GB gave was correct, and therefor they followed it. We have to make the choice whether to follow it or not. Now if the direction proved wrong, then sure, we can blame the GB for the bad outcome, but it was STILL our choice and we have to get up and move on.

What do you know?

It's a little bit more complex than that. Yes, parent's are definitely responsible for their minor children, even when their minor children are out of  sight, the responsibility for what the children do is still the parents, because the parents should be watching them.  However, is an employer responsible for what his employee does outside his employment? If the employee does something bad while on vacation (robs a bank) would his employer bear responsibility? Obviously not. Now if the employer planned the robbery with the employee, and got the employee to carry it out, then the employer will hold some liability. But it is still the employees choice, whether to go along with the plan or not. I don't think the claim "he made me do it" would hold up in court.
It always seems to me that when people try to hold the GB responsible for their choices in life, its like they forget that no one actually MADE them do anything. That it was the persons personal conviction, that whatever the direction the GB gave was correct, and therefor they followed it. We have to make the choice whether to follow it or not. Now if the direction proved wrong, then sure, we can blame the GB for the bad outcome, but it was STILL our choice and we have to get up and move on.

Something is only as good as what it is on the inside.  Any structure has value to the Witnesses when it is used for pure worship. I know an old church that was converted to a KH. So it's not about the building, but about what goes on on the inside. Once a building stops being used for the purpose it was built for and is put on the market, it becomes immaterial to the JWs what or who occupies it after that. This proves there is no idolatry or placing of spiritual value on the building itself.

I saw that video .... and I laughed myself silly, and fell over backwards with my feet up in the air, laughing, when the Circuit Overseer said his name was "Neal", and you thought he meant K-N-E-E-L ... so you .....
HahahHAHAhahaha

Yes.

What a slime ball!
My wife and I visited the zoo today. I discovered that for their habitat, conservation, and animal protection work they make use of scads of volunteers. I gathered them together, told them they were all exploited slaves, and they all quit.
Then I went to the hospital and liberated all the slaves there. Then the libraries. Then the nursing homes. Then Meals on Wheels. It’s disgusting how these organizations use and manipulate people! Jack and I will not hear of it!
Meanwhile, a closeby KH just had a massive remodel/build for a couple hundred K or so, with the aid of both skilled and unskilled volunteers, some of whom put in many hours and some few. One of the work overseers told of a neighbor who stopped by, learned of how it had been organized, and expressed amazement. His own church had burned to the ground a few years back. It took two years to begin planning reconstruction. The rebuilt church, hired out to a contractor, of course, ultimately cost them $5 million. 
This fellow was so impressed at what the brothers had organized and at the motivating power of faith. He didn’t even once grumble about “slave labor.”

An interesting article on the Masoretic text:
https://torahapologetics.weebly.com/apologetics--daily-life/january-22nd-2016
 

Lots of 73 year old women have given birth to twin girls. And the twins are at least 30 years old by now.

Oh, for crying out loud. My bad. I “took my eye off the ball” and actually thought you were at a convention. 
“Brothers!!! Let us resolve not to be dumbbells like TrueTom!”

She was soaked by the end of the match.

Depends on what you mean by the question. I am using the term "experiences" loosely, and might even be using the title "Sister" loosely, (as opposed to her "tony" tight pants, of course). Her "field" experiences were only about some of the highlights "on the field of play" and these were to ESPN reporters, not anything I heard privately. (I have never met her.)
In Federer's game, I learned that "derision is a swear at a racket." 

And I got to listen to Sister Selena Williams give her experiences. And a lot of recent "court" cases were discussed by everyone who had a chance to speak. There were even a few experiences about how to use the Net.
P.S. The tickets were free. My old company is a major sponsor, but as a retired person, the best I can still get are tickets up to the quarterfinals. When I was still at work, we could take a whole day off including the finals and sometimes even get a courtside seat. High up executives also had skyboxes at the major baseball stadiums and Madison Square Gardens.

Anyone remember a "Convention Resolution" years ago where we all had to tell out and promise we'd never go into internet chatrooms?
Apparently NOT.
I have been witnessing on Internet chat rooms, with knock-down, drag out theological discussions on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) since 1994 or so, BEFORE THERE WERE BROWSERS and before there was "Windows 95"
Where did you get your "quote" from, Jack ?
Tom Clancy?