Anna

If I didn't know better, I'd say you didn't have a disgusting and filthy mind.
The reason I stood up for Allen Smith and all your (his) aliases was made very clear. I always defended your right to say what you wanted. Of course, you had to know, and still know, that the content of what you were saying would be open to countering opinions that could contain criticism, facts and evidence. Even if some of the statements made by some of your aliases have been deleted, none of my own were, and this is how you can see that I never insulted you of made fun of you. I never made fun of your grammar either, which is something that some of your aliases kept repeating, and for which you always failed to produce evidence. I admitted that I could not always understand what you were saying. Several people here had the same problem understanding you sometimes, not just me.
I have apologized to you every time you have pointed out an error. This goes for all your aliases. And I'm not saying this because I think you have never pointed out an error. There have been several occasions when you were right and I was wrong. I still apologize for these mistakes, and have corrected them. By the way, I do not ask the same of you. You could say whatever filthy and disgusting things that might come into your mind. I might point them out, and sometimes I might just ignore them, but I won't ask you to apologize. 
This reminds me of typical corporate-sponsored news outlets, and other forms of propaganda, in which people obviously believe, hypocritically, that if they repeat a falsehood often enough, it will probably have some "sticking" effect.
Thanks. I have already done so from the first day you took up this last alias. But it does make it a bit easier to refer to you again, Allen.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that @JW Insider works for both sides in a different sense. I like the way Paul put it:
(1 Corinthians 9:19-23) . . .For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, in order to gain those without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others. Early Christianity started out in the context of Judaism, which had become steeped in end-of-the-world eschatology, and the legalism of the Pharisees. But end-of-the-world eschatology, although dangerous to Christianity on its own (per Jesus), still naturally drew out crowds of people who sighed and groaned over the injustices of their world. They wanted a new heavens and a new earth, and they wanted it as soon as possible.
So early Christians would be mistaken to focus on eschatology, but many good Christians, desirous of a new heavens and new earth, would naturally come to Christianity through this path.
Jesus gave several illustrations showing why focusing on eschatology was so dangerous to true Christianity, and we have the words of Peter to explain how Christians must transform into those who would be the very same type of person they ought to be, whether the parousia came in their own lifetime, or whether it came 1,000 years after their own lifetime.
Another major focus of Jesus' illustrations and teaching was about legalism. Early Christianity was still steeped in Judaism, and still attempted to put Christians under law, even after it was recognized that the Judaic system didn't apply to gentiles.
Jesus' illustration in Matthew 24:45 of the unfaithful servants --who would beat their fellow slaves and try to lord it over them when the master was gone-- is a good illustration reminding us of the dangers of both eschatology AND the dangers of legalism/Pharisaism.
Paul played both sides of Pharisaism/legalism because he was accused of being an apostate from Judaism. So they asked him to pay for some legalistic customary preparations for the persons going with him to the Temple.
(Acts 21:20-24) . . .but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. So rather than claiming that the GB have gone off track, I believe they are continually getting more and more ON track. I believe they naturally started partly off-track as would be expected with a very eschatological Russell and a very legalistic Rutherford. But all the while, it was the right kind of heart condition being attracted to and joining into the religion -- a religion with a greater focus on the type of person we ought to be for Jehovah, for ourselves and for one another. This was much like the form of Judaism that naturally made persons fit for transformation into Christianity. Legalistic Judaism was like a tutor leading to Christ. But we must still be transformed.
Paul played both sides in order to win more persons over to Christ. To Jews he became a Jew. To Greeks he became a Greek.
Still the core of the religion itself is one that does perhaps the best job of all religions in fighting the machinations of the Devil: avoiding taking one side over another in politics and war, pointing out the unchristian influences on supposedly Christian traditions, and pointing out the value of Christian morality, and unity of purpose in preaching, meeting together, etc. To me these are the most important things. Granted the Pharisaism still keeps us hanging on to rules (like turning in time so that our right hand and our left can distinguish different types of Christian service, and misuse of the two-witness rule so that mercy and protection of children has often been sacrificed, etc.). And eschatology will keep rearing its head now and then, too.
But these things are getting better over time, getting more on-track, not off-track. Pharisees don't want to be questioned, but we must all take our Christian duty and responsibility very seriously. We must question. We must make sure of all things. And we can only expect more questioning as more persons from all walks of life keep coming into the organization. I find that this forum is still a fair enough place to question and get feedback to help test whether those questions are on the right track.

My goodness topic wars. (A bit like Robot Wars only funnier) 
We we are all totally off topic of course and we all have our own opinions.
@BillyTheKid46 I honestly don't know who is a Witness and who is an ex-Witness, or who was never a Witness at all
My opinion was that @JW Insider is still a Witness but working for both sides, a bit like Judas did. My feelings are that he/she thinks the JW Org as a whole has the 'truth' but that maybe the GB are going off track. 
As for @Anna , I'm totally confused. I thought she, I presume she is a she, was a Witness as I thought she wrote in the present time about her kingdom hall and elders. 
And you Billy, even you confuse me. Sometimes I think you are a Witness and other times I think you are a religious person but not a Witness.
Hence, everyone, I tell you this, once again. When I upvote or downvote or make reference to a comment, it is ONLY about that ONE comment.  One reason for that is I have a bad memory and cannot remember ten comments back, and a second reason is that a lot of the time,such as now, we are totally off topic anyway, so we cannot be commenting on the actual topic heading.
I do wish people would be their real selves, real names, real photos, etc. It would make my life so much easier. 
Good morning From me in Devon England at 9.30am. I am not a robot    

It really is not about rejecting the organization, it's because not everyone who has faith in God qualifies to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's about rejecting God's standards. For example, you may have faith in God, but believe the Trinity. Or you may have faith in God but see nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas, or practicing homosexuality, or living an immoral life style, or smoking......etc.

It really is not about rejecting the organization, it's because not everyone who has faith in God qualifies to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's about rejecting God's standards. For example, you may have faith in God, but believe the Trinity. Or you may have faith in God but see nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas, or practicing homosexuality, or living an immoral life style, or smoking......etc.

Someone has to take out the trash.

Amateur drivel

Yes, I agree,  that's how it should be, but as you mentioned, Lawyers want to go where the money is, and abusers probably don't have the kind of money they want. JW child abuse cases are attractive to them because of jw.org. Also, I didn't realise but many lawyers go hunting for cases. For instance someone I know is being sued by a credit card company and as soon as the lawsuit was filed with the court she has been receiving numerous letters from different lawyers who want to represent her. Apparently they go down to the courthouse to find cases. Similarly, child abuse lawyers go hunting for survivors so they can represent them in court. This was one reason I believe Zalkin wanted the names of all the alleged abusers held by the org. so he could sift through them and find anything that he could use for himself. And once they find a "suitable" survivor, they no doubt persuade her/him to the effect that they shouldn't feel bad about suing, since they will be suing the organization, and the organization has plenty of money. Then they (the lawyers) go about finding ways to incriminate the org. It's all about making money, but often the survivor comes off worse, especially when there is a settlement. I believe the lawyers take the biggest lump, and since with a settlement there is also a gag order, the survivor can't even complain about how little they got. It's all a big scam and all about lining the lawyers pockets. There is no justice really. The only justice will be with Jehovah. So when someone says "wait on Jehovah" when it is apparent that nothing that can be done for the moment, then that makes perfect sense. Of course it goes without saying that that should never be used as an excuse not to do anything.

I do not know if the ARC did or didn't submit these findings to their legal brief. What I do know is that those letters had a very limited audience. Regular publishers had no idea about these letters, they had no idea how elders were supposed to handle these situations. They were completely in the dark. As a consequence, regular publishers were at the "mercy" of the Elders. The ARC changed that. Now everyone knows the procedure and can be on the same page. It's a pity this transparency didn't happen sooner.

Just noticed this post John. Yes, I acknowledge the org. has made mistakes, and I am sure no Witness on here would deny that the org. has made mistakes, why, even the org. itself acknowledges it has made mistakes. But you on the other hand are saying that the org. is tantamount to Satan's spawn. I don't think that.
 
 

Obviously it's aimed at everyone, otherwise the elders would receive this information in the form of a letter to the body of elders. So I don't know what point you are trying to make...?

Painting by Briton Riviere

Painting by Briton Riviere

We are famously loyal. Here’s what happens to the home of whoever says we are not:

Yes, I know they share same genetics. But I think that when God created the domestic animals as per Genesis, he created the dog as a domestic animal 😀. I don't care what science says about the origin of dogs, they say the same about cows, sheep, chickens, pigs.....in that case, what would be the point of Genesis specifically differentiating between wild animals and domestic animals. (Actually, science says that everything came from prokaroytic microbes...)

This is not a tenable statement.
Loyalty implies faithfulness to one’s pledged word or continued allegiance to the institution or the principles to which one feels himself morally bound; the term suggests not only adherence but resistance to being lured and persuaded away from that adherence.
Because loyalty always includes principle, only free moral agents, such as man, made in, and capable of reflecting, Gods image, are able to express loyalty. The capacity to understand and demonstrate true loyalty is bound up in having a personal relationship with the Creator, who alone is (or defines what is) loyal. (Rev.15:4). A dog cannot develop such a relationship with God, and thus can never be spoken of as being loyal.
A dog (and many other animals), can be said to be faithful, for to be faithful means to be dependable, to be constant. Even inanimate objects like the sun, moon, and stars can be spoken of as faithful, as they are in God's word (comp.Ps.89:37). But these things are not loyal.
As stated, only free moral agents can express loyalty as a personal choice, based not only on a personal adherence to the one who is an object of that loyalty, but also on a comprehension of the principles that define its expression.

I love dogs, and I think Jehovah took special care to make the dog a loyal companion for humans, more than any other animal, but I would disagree that humans cannot be as loyal. There are many accounts in history where humans sacrificed their life for another human. In fact it is more of a sacrifice on the human's part since most of the time they are fully aware of what they are doing. Dogs act on their loyal instinct that Jehovah put in them.

Jehovah himself invented joking and  laughs at his own:
Awake April 8 1979: "When you observe the playful antics of baby kittens or watch otters zipping down a mud slide and splashing into a pond, do you not discern something about their Maker? He must be a happy Person. Certainly a God that created a monkey must himself have a sense of humor."
Jehovah also uses humor in his teaching. We can see this at Isaiah 44:14-17
Jesus followed this pattern and injected humor into his teaching also, paticularly in the use of hyperbole (rafters, camels, etc):
WT August 15 2003: "Jesus was not a tight-lipped martinet. He was warm and friendly. For Christians today, a sense of humor can lighten the gloom in times of stress."
And also, a good sense of humor and a positive disposition can help us cope with health problems:
Awake April 22 2005:  "Why is a good sense of humor effective as a healer? Because it is a quality that allows us to handle situations in a positive way, even in the face of unfavorable circumstances.“By including humor and laughter in our daily lives, we maintain our energy level, we alleviate fatigue, and we expel self-pity,” "
It is important to recognise that humor is very personal, just like taste and color. I understood @The Librarianto be injecting a bit of humor with this post, but what may be funny to one person may be taken seriously by someone else, and even seem like an insult to another.  The Awake 8 Sep 1980 is enlightening on cultural differences in humor, and we should, of course, be sensitive to the feelings of others in this regard. Rom.14:1.
But it is important to keep a sense of proportion and not to take ourselves too seriously. Otherwise we may feel unecessarily upset when the other person was only ribbing us!

 

Ya never heard of spare rib???

I agree, that both men and women have the same  number of ribs .... what I was TRYING to explain that the Bible says Jehovah took A RIB (not a portion of a rib) from Adam.   That left him short, one rib.
His children would STILL be born with the usual number of ribs.
There is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE about "a portion of a rib ...", or that " his rib grew back".
NONE WHATSOEVER.

Circuit Overseer told a joke about how Eve would count Adam's ribs while he was sleeping to see if he had another woman.

What.

I think that JWI’s intentions are obvious - to demonstrate how modern printing methods improve upon typewritten lists.

Billy, thank you yet again for showing your true colors.
The worst part of it is, that you are flying a "false flag", in your own mind, to yourself.