Anna

Hi  guy's....  I  just  found  the  answer,  it  reminds  me  of  an  answer  in  the  past !   Here  we  go :
All humans begin life in the womb as females. If no Y chromosome is present in the foetus, then the embryo will continue to develop as and be born as a female. If there is an  Y chromosome present in the embryo, the male sex hormone testosterone restricts the full development of breasts to just nipples, the labia fuse to become the scrotum and clitoris develops fully to become a penis. If the Y chromosome prevails in producing a male, this is not done without a fight. Male babies are weaker as a result than female ones, occounting for the slightly higher death rate in male babies...    That's  it  I  think  ;-)
Good  night  for  today  ~~~~~~~~

Couldn't agree more

Don't know what you mean by this really. Rom 14:12.

My BOOKS, you old hen! You know it very well.
My BOOKS, written by the most astute mind of our times, a person who, despite being undeniably brilliant, is unfailingly respectful of all persons and scrupulously  avoids ad hominem attacks!
My BOOKS, you disgusting and ignorant, diuretec dinosaur! The ones you will not let me hawk in your library! They don't exactly fly off the shelf, you know, as they should, and as they WOULD but for not your petty rules!
My BOOKS, which I pluralize because there are two, soon to be three. The third would come even sooner if I did not piddle away so much of my time here! It must be conceded, however, that I am also writing much of it here, so the relationship is symbiotic.
My BOOKS, which you will only let me display on my profile page! My BOOKs, which ought to be required reading at your pathetic library, instead of the shelves upon shelves of the great philosophers down through the ages! If any of the thoughts they thunk were worth the paper they were printed on, it would be a much better world today, wouldn't it?

... now I know that I am with the right / correct internet forum / team !!!
the best team !!! 
 

"PART 5 of 4" --  a.k.a. PART 5 of 6
[Sorry for miscounting the number of PARTS. Looks like it will take 2 more, this one and a last one. Had to go back to the previous chapter of his book, Crisis of Conscience, to make sense of what R.Franz is saying about the REASONS for the Mexico/Malawi discrepancy. He presents multiple factors. When I read/skimmed the book 20+ years ago, I thought he was supporting the popular "real estate" theory. On a second read, it appears that he is giving weight to about 4 different factors.]
p.161-2: R.Franz suggests that most of the Governing Body appeared not to have known about the policy in Mexico which had been set up nearly 20 years earlier by Brothers Knorr and Fred Franz. By 1978, the Governing Body had attempted to resolve the issue of alternative civilian service several times when R.Franz presented this information about Mexico to the rest of the Governing Body as part of a presentation on that issue of "alternative service."
p. 162: R.Franz offers the conundrum, that if the leadership of the WTS really believed in their rigid stance taken in Malawi over a political party card then it would seem that at least some of the Governing Body might have been moved to reconsider whether they should also take a more rigid stance against bribery, lying and claiming to be a part of the military's first reserves in Mexico. On the other hand, if they really believed that the lenient policy stance taken in Mexico could rightly be based on conscience, then surely some of the members of the Governing Body might have been moved to reconsider whether the issue in Malawi, too, could be a matter of conscience.
After all, brothers and sisters were being tortured, raped and killed for the rigid stance in one country while brothers were freely serving as Branch personnel, District Overseers, Circuit Overseers and elders if they illegally bribed and lied to indicate that they were part of the political war machine in another country.
p.162: When R.Franz brought up the matter of Mexico in the discussions about "alternative civilian service" he was surprised that there was absolutely no word of disapproval about the situation in Mexico by the same Governing Body members who were so forceful and unyielding, and uncompromising when it came to alternative service. There were no expressions of dismay against the double standard applied to Mexico compared to Malawi, even though the third (1972) and fourth (1975) waves of persecution had hit Malawi Witnesses.
p.162 R.Franz considered the reasons for the lack of change or concern after all of the Governing Body members were made aware, and the following is the first part of his conclusion, in his own words: [emphasis added in all quotations below]
Once more, I do not think the matter simply resolves down to personalities, the individual members involved. I have come to the conclusion that this outlook is in reality a typical product of any authority structure that takes a legalistic approach to Christianity, enabling those sharing in the authority structure to see double standards exist without feeling strong qualms of conscience. To their credit, brothers in Mexico were disturbed in their consciences at learning of the intense suffering of Witnesses in Malawi who refused to pay a legal price in a lawful way for a party card of the government running the country, while in Mexico they themselves were illegally obtaining a military certificate through bribes. Those in Brooklyn, at the “top,” in the so-called “ivory tower,” however, seemed strangely detached from such feelings, insensitive to the consequences to people from such double standard. p. 163: The backdrop of the entire discussion in the context of attempting to resolve the issue of alternative civilian service in 1978, 1979 and 1980 is specifically referred to in a previous chapter in his book, and is referenced again here.
[Note that there is an emphasis on the "individual members involved" which would seem to belie his claim above that it was NOT a matter that resolves down to the personalities involved. On this second reading, I realized that I had ignored the word "simply" which is subtle, but changes the meaning completely, especially in the context of the unusually high level of information about the individual members, and the specific points made about them.]
All Governing Body members were fully aware of the policy in Mexico by the fall of 1978. Almost a year later, in September of 1979, the Governing Body again resumed discussion of the undecided issue of alternative service, this time brought to the fore by a letter from Poland. . . .  Ted Jaracz said that “our brothers are going to have problems and they look to Jehovah’s organization for direction,” that there was need to avoid diversity of opinions, that we should not give the brothers the idea that the Governing Body was saying, ‘go ahead and submit’ to alternative service orders. Carey Barber voiced the view that “there is no room here for exercising conscience, it is something where we just have to go right on through” without yielding. Fred Franz said our “conscience has to be Bible trained” and stated again his support for the traditional position against any acceptance of alternative service. By now, Ewart Chitty was no longer a member of the Body, having submitted his resignation in accord with the Governing Body’s wishes. Grant Suiter was absent from the session, both he and Chitty having voted for a change in policy at the November 15, 1978, meeting. But there were two new members on the Body, Jack Barr (from England) and Martin Poetzinger (from Germany), and they were present at the September 15, 1979, session.  When a motion was finally presented, the vote was split right down the middle, eight in favor of changing the policy, eight (including the two new members) against doing so . In 1980, on February 3, the subject was once more placed on the agenda. By this time more than a year had elapsed since my visit to Mexico and Albert Schroeder had made another annual visit there. The Mexico Branch Committee members again expressed to him their concern about the practice of bribing to obtain falsified documents of military service, and Schroeder related this continuing situation to the Body after his return. Remarks by the various members during the session made it evident that no two-thirds majority would be attained either way on the alternative service issue and there was not even a motion made. The matter was “shelved.” From . . .  November 1977, until February, 1980, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses had tried on six separate occasions to resolve the issue without success. What, though, of the people affected by the policy that continues in force, those of what the Watchtower had called “the rank and file”? Could they also “shelve” the issue? To the contrary, the inability of the Body to achieve that indispensable two-thirds majority meant that male Jehovah’s Witnesses in any country of the world who acted according to their conscience and accepted alternative service as a proper government requirement, could still do so only at the cost of being viewed as outside the organization, equivalent to expelled persons. It also meant that the Governing Body as a whole was willing for the twenty-year-old policy in effect in Mexico to continue in effect while a totally different policy in Malawi remained unchanged. [The previous chapter, on "alternative service," gives a better sense of the reasons for the frustrated tone of R.Franz' concerns in this chapter. It seems that the exact same Scriptural issues were brought up again and again from several sources, and usually resulted in a majority of the Governing Body voting to change the policy. But a simple majority, even multiple times, is not enough to overturn a current policy; it has to be more than 66.666%.]
p.135:  After mentioning that R.Franz had presented 14 pages of historical, Scriptural and lexicographal evidence that would lead in favor of the change in policy, letters from various branches had been coming in with specific questions about various alternatives offered in the countries which those Branches served, and these letters often referred to the same lines of Scriptural reasoning. The significance of a two-thirds majority is highlighted in the previous chapter. If the "alternative service" vote was 9 in favor of changing and 4 not in favor, the change would still not be made because even though that's over two-thirds, three GB members were not present to vote. On November 15, 1978, 11 of 16 voted for the change, which WAS a two-thirds majority, but then one GB member changed his mind after an intermission. [Percentages added in the quote below.]
At the October 11, 1978, meeting, of thirteen members present, nine voted in favor [69.23%] of changing the traditional policy so that the decision to accept or reject alternative service would be left to the conscience of the individual; four did not vote for this. The result? Since there were then sixteen members in the Body (though not all were present) and since nine was not two-thirds of sixteen, [56.25%] no change was made. On October 18 there was discussion on the subject but no vote taken. On November 15, all sixteen members were present and eleven voted for changing the policy [68.75%] so that the Witness who conscientiously felt he could accept such service would not be automatically categorized as unfaithful to God and disassociated from the congregation. This was a two-thirds majority. Was the change made? No, for after a brief intermission, Governing Body member Lloyd Barry, who had voted with the majority in favor of a change, announced that he had changed his mind and would vote for continuance of the traditional policy. That destroyed the two-thirds majority [62.5%]. A subsequent vote taken, with fifteen members present, showed nine favoring a change, five against and one abstention [60.0%]. Six sessions of the Governing Body had discussed the issue and, when votes were taken, in every case a majority of the Governing Body members had favored removal of the existing policy. The one vote with the two-thirds majority lasted less than one hour and the policy remained in force. As a result Witness men were still expected to risk imprisonment rather than accept alternative service—even though, as the letters coming in from the survey showed, they might conscientiously feel such acceptance was proper in God’s sight. Incredible as it may seem, this was the position taken, and most members of the Body appeared to accept it all as nothing to be disturbed about. They were, after all, simply following the rules in force. A year later, on September 15, 1979, another vote was taken and it was evenly divided, half for a change, half against. [50%] (p.135) [The further details about "alternative civilian service" are quite interesting, but an important point that relates the discussion of Mexico and Malawi is this point about whether matters of conscience really are based on conscience. The focus on the one changed vote of one single member of the Governing Body becomes representative of how nearly 100% of Jehovah's Witnesses would "follow their own conscience" in one direction, whereas, if that one member had not changed his vote, then nearly 100% of Jehovah's Witnesses would "follow their own conscience" in the opposite direction. Several of the Branch letters also admit, perhaps inadvertently, that it was never a matter of following their own conscience, but they always give assurances that they are only following the direction from the Society's headquarters. A survey of various Branches around the world had revealed that the majority understood that from a Scriptural viewpoint the evidence showed that "alternative service" was acceptable. Some "cognitive dissonance" is fairly obvious in Watch Tower Society's publications about alternative service and the purchase of the Malawi party card, where it was always emphasized that it was each individual's conscience. -- g72 12/8, yb99 p.175, w98 8/15 p.17 ]
*** yb99 p. 176 Malawi ***
It was obvious from the outset that these officials were hoping that Brother Vigo would tell them that the Watch Tower Society had clearly told its members that it was wrong to buy party cards. Instead, he stressed that the Society does not tell anyone what to do and that each person must make his own decision on the matter.
*** w98 8/15 p. 17 Strengthening Our Confidence in God’s Righteousness ***
Feelings of Having Suffered Needlessly
6 In the past, some Witnesses have suffered for refusing to share in an activity that their conscience now might permit. For example, this might have been their choice years ago as to certain types of civilian service. A brother might now feel that he could conscientiously perform such without overstepping his Christian neutrality regarding the present system of things. 7 Was it unrighteous on Jehovah’s part to allow him to suffer for rejecting what he now might do without consequences?. . . 9 In modern times, there have been some Witnesses who were very strict in their view of what they would or would not do. For that reason they suffered more than others. Later, increased knowledge helped them to expand their view of matters. But they have no reason to regret having earlier acted in harmony with their conscience . . .
(The 1998 Watchtower article above was also quoted by R.Franz in the chapter on alternative service.)
p. 136:
For another 16 years the policy remained in effect, until the May 1, 1996 Watchtower abruptly decreed that acceptance of alternative service was now a matter of conscience. During those 16 years, thousands of Witnesses, mainly young men, spent time in prison for refusing to accept assignments to perform various forms of community service as an alternative to military service. As late as 1988, a report by Amnesty International stated that in France, “More than 500 conscientious objectors to military service, the vast majority of them Jehovah’s Witnesses, were imprisoned during the year.” For the same year, in Italy, “Approximately 1,000 conscientious objectors, mostly Jehovah’s Witnesses, were reported to be imprisoned in 10 military prisons for refusing to perform military service or the alternative civilian service. That is just a partial picture. If that one Governing Body member had not changed his vote in 1978, virtually none of these men would have gone to prison—for the branch office committees’ reports give clear evidence that it was not the personal, individual consciences of these young men that produced the imprisonment. It was the compulsion to adhere to an organizationally imposed policy. The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance. One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate with family and friends, . . .  It represents an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural position, imposed by organizational authority. Had there been a frank acknowledgment of error, not merely doctrinal error, but error in wrongfully invading the right of conscience of others, and of regret over the harmful consequences of that intrusion, one might find reason for sincere commendation, even reason for hope of some measure of fundamental reform. Regrettably, the May 1, 1996 Watchtower nowhere deals with these factors and contains not even a hint of regret for the effects of the wrong position enforced for over half a century. (p. 136)  p. 137: Highlighted below is the point that Scriptural evidence was not considered to be as important as maintaining traditional policy:
In place of apology, the organization instead seems to feel it deserves applause for having made changes it should have had the good sense (and humility) to have made decades earlier, changes that were resisted in the face of ample evidence presented from the Scriptures, both from within the Body and from Branch Office committees. Some of these Branch committees presented not only all the Scriptural evidence found in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, but even more extensive and more carefully reasoned Scriptural evidence. They did this back in 1978 but what they wrote was, in effect, shrugged off or discounted by those of the Governing Body who held out for maintaining the traditional policy then in place. (p.137) Summary of PART 5 of 6:
To R.Franz, the basic issue was the problem of considering current policy to have the greatest value. He claims that this comes from creating a legalistic organizational arrangement that emphasizes rules instead of conscience, even where the Bible gives clear evidence that the rule is incorrect. The legalistic arrangement therefore produces an emphasis on those rules as opposed to a true interest in the feelings and well-being of the brothers and sisters. They become merely "rank and file" -- who must simply follow instructions -- in the view of detached persons in their "ivory tower."  While it is true that personalities played a part, it was not simply the individuals making up the Governing Body. R.Franz elsewhere gives evidence that there can be a level of manipulation to hold onto current policy instead of making changes, and this can come from the fact that any new persons on the Governing Body are likely to make sure their vote is in line with the vote of F.Franz, considered the "Oracle" of the Society. [An expression that many, myself included, heard at Brooklyn Bethel in the 70's and 80's.] Another factor is the idea that the free use of one's conscience was not even the guiding principle in Mexico, where they were told to continue with the policy in place. It was put in terms of "conscience" but the letters show that it is guided by strict adherence to the current policy. The explanation for this is the idea, that "Bible-trained conscience" was evidently seen by Fred Franz, as a euphemism for imposing policy as of much higher importance than using one's individual conscience. R.Franz implies that F.Franz uses the term "Bible-trained conscience" to mean current Watch Tower policy. R.Franz finds further evidence of this, especially spelled out in the previous chapter, showing how the Watchtower announces the change in policy as a change in the way an individual's conscience can now allow him to act.
R.Franz finds further evidence of the "ivory tower" legalistic mentality in the way that individuals are told how they should feel about their previous suffering and, instead of a hint of apology, the same articles pointed out how a false understanding of Scripture is sometimes a more effective way to lead Jehovah's people than a true understanding of Scripture. This is seen from the end of p.137 to the middle of 138:
Even error—if it is Watch Tower error—is presented as somehow beneficial. This same 1996 Watchtower discusses the organization’s earlier erroneous interpretation of the “higher powers” or “superior authorities” of Romans chapter 13, which interpretation rejected the clear evidence that these referred to human governmental authorities and insisted that the “higher powers” referred only to God and Christ. This wrong interpretation had replaced an even earlier, correct view and was taught from 1929 until 1962. The May 1, 1996 Watchtower (page 14) says of this wrong understanding:         Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period [that is, the period of World War II and of the Cold War]. This in effect says that to have had the right understanding, the understanding the apostle Paul intended when he wrote his counsel, would either not have been sufficient in guiding, or would not have been as effective in protecting against unchristian action, as was the erroneous view taught by the Watch Tower organization! (p.137-138)

1946 Quebecs Burning Hate.pdf

I would like to hear the full talk and the name of the brother who gave it and where
 

(Matthew 9:37, 38) Then he said to his disciples: “Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. 38 Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.”
Are we saying that the Master of the Harvest does not know when to end it? and we have to awaken him?
(Matthew 24:44)44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.
We won't be able to work out when this day will come. See that Jesus said at Matthew 24:44. It will happen at a time we do not expect. Verse 36 says no man would know the day or hour (or year for that matter).  We have to be ready.  It is simple.
Jehovah God will give his Son and the angels the command to reap the harvest at the time he decides. (We must not minimize his role in it.)
(Revelation 14:14-16) 14 Then I saw, and look! a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was someone like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Another angel emerged from the temple sanctuary, calling with a loud voice to the one seated on the cloud: “Put your sickle in and reap, because the hour has come to reap, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” 16 And the one seated on the cloud thrust his sickle into the earth, and the earth was reaped.
So whether a GB member, Bethelite, elder or whoever said it is fulfilled, it is Jehovah's harvest and he will intervene when the work is done TO HIS SATISFACTION.
 

Could very well be. Small world. Especially among JWs. I went to Paris about 10 times for my job, and twice I randomly met Witnesses I knew from Bethel.

I was there for meetings in 1980. Maybe we were in the same room. I sat with Jack and Mildred Barr for the family WT as well.

PART 4 of 4:
[Refer back to photocopies in PART 3 of 4]
p. 156: In August 1969, just after the Malawi persecution, the Mexican Branch asked again for clarification, believing that they had perhaps left out an important point that the Society's HQ in Brooklyn had missed. They wanted to be very sure, so they emphasized the point that they previously had failed to mention:
"However, it was not mentioned in the question that when this document is obtained it places the receiver in the first reserve subject to being called if and when an emergency should arise the army in uniform could not handle. So our question is this: Does this change the policy set out in your letter of June 2, 1960 Page Two which answered our letter mentioned above?" . . . What has been quoted from your letter is what has been followed but it seems that there would be some modification in this when it is considered that these brothers are in the first reserves. . . . [T]he majority of the circuit and district servants and those in the Bethel family have followed this procedure. . . . We will await your answer on the matter." (p. 156-7)
p. 158: In September 1969, the answer to that "post-Malawi" request from Mexico merely repeated the same ideas and said basically that "nothing has changed." The Society wrote back from the Brooklyn HQ saying:
“We have your letter of August 27 (182) in which you ask a question about brothers who had registered in Mexico and are now in the first reserves. The letter that you quoted of February 4, 1960 (120) covers the whole matter. There is nothing more to be said. . . . If their conscience allows them to do what they have done and they are not compromising in any way then you just lay the matter on the shelf. . . . If the consciences of these persons allowed them to do what they did and be registered in the reserves that is for them to worry about. It is not for the Society's office to be worried about it. . . .  If the individuals are not compromising in the sense of taking up arms . . . then the decision rests with them. So leave things stand as they are and have been since February of 1960 with no further comment." (p.158)
[Note, I noticed a subtle point and perhaps trivial point not in the book and will comment about it in this bracketed section: When Fred Franz stopped answering almost all policy questions directly by himself and the Correspondence area of the Service Dept began handling them, Harley Miller began overriding some of the policies that Fred Franz had formulated. (Brothers Pruitt and Malone were friends of mine in the Brooklyn Heights congregation who handled much of the policy correspondence, and I know some of this from them.) Today, the Society will just say something like: "This letter takes the place of the previous letter dated {. . . .} Please destroy that previous letter and replace with this current one."  But in the past they didn't want to make it explicit that they were overriding Fred Franz, the Vice President of the WTS. So what happened from the mid-60's through the 80's is that the Society's previous letter is just completely ignored wherever possible. You just don't refer to it. There are several cases like this. You'll notice that this 1969 letter from the Society begins to sound a little more legalistic in the sense of actually putting some sense of wrongdoing on the individual JWs who entered into such an arrangement but making it clear that the Society is not going to worry about it, and not going to take any action or punish them.
"The responsibility will be upon these individuals if they are ever called up . . . and that is soon enough to take any action. In the meantime these brothers who have registered and who have paid a fee are free to go ahead in the service. Not that we are giving our approval in this matter, but it is their conscience, not ours, that has allowed them to take the course of action they have taken. . . . . it is for them to worry about . . . . not for the Society to be worried about it."
In the previous letter, unfortunately, the writer (most likely, Fred Franz) had used one phrase that could produce legal trouble in the answer the Society have given to the first inquiry back there in June of 1960:
". . . we have no objection."
I gave this to my oldest son yesterday to see if he'd notice it. He's an attorney, and he caught it immediately. Therefore, there can be no reference to the 1960 letter that the Society sent to Mexico unless it explicitly admitted that this was a mistake. Legally, it is also problematic to admit a past mistake due to any potential legal cases that might have arisen between 1960 and 1969. If you look closely, you will see that the 1969 letter from the Society is very careful to refer to the 1960 correspondence only with reference to the original question from Mexico, and never refers to the letter made in response. This is to be expected under the circumstances.]
From a policy perspective, the position taken in Mexico was quite different from the one taken in Malawi when we consider that the military is always considered to a political compromise. Raymond Franz makes this point:
What makes all this so utterly incredible is that the organization’s position on membership in the military has always been identical to its position on membership in a “political” organization. In both cases any Witness who enters such membership is automatically viewed as “disassociated.” Yet the Mexico Branch Committee had made crystal clear that all these Witnesses who had obtained the completed certificate of military service (by means of a bribe) were now placed in the first reserve of the military. The Witnesses in Malawi risked life and limb, homes and lands, to adhere to the stance adopted by the organization for their country. In Mexico there was no such risk involved, yet a policy of the utmost leniency was applied. There, Witness men could be members of the first reserves of the army and yet be Circuit or District Overseers, members of the Bethel family! The report from the Branch Committee in response to the survey makes this clear (as well as showing how common the practice of bribing to get the certificate was among the Witnesses). [Note: In about 1974, I knew a brother in Missouri disfellowshipped for working for a local painting contractor who sent him with a crew to paint an abandoned barracks under threat of losing his job - a real threat, because the previous time he held his ground he did lose his job and managed to get it back. But a second offense was deemed to be the same as non-repentance and he remained DF'd for about 12 months. He was very well-liked and part of an extended family that made up at least 25% of our congregation. I pioneered with his wife who had to quit while her husband was out of work. I also remember the anxiety the congregation, and his wife, had about him being reinstated before 1975.]
p.160-1: Raymond Franz emphasizes that the disparity is about whether or not similar matters, Mexican military cards, Malawi political/loyalty cards, and a more international question of "alternative military service" should be left to conscience or not. Lloyd Barry had quoted a Branch Overseer's memo saying: "I shudder to think of putting these men on their own choice." Yet the letter to Mexico said there is no reason to decide another man's conscience. Yet Branch representatives in Malawi had decided what all native Malawian Witnesses were required to do in their situation.
[This is rather long, will have to add a "PART 5 of 4"]

"Who are they? (Genuine question)" Eoin asks.
"Corporate propaganda." I think that says it all. I appreciate the frankness. The Librarian, who is not necessarily the same, though he may be, added his site to hers and came under her umbrella, in order to ease up on the hassles of running a site himself. It's practical logistics.
This is the Grand Overlord, the Overlord of Overlords, who yanked me from the thread he or she assigned me to in the first place. The poor and stooped (but never stupid) Librarian, old sentimental hen that she is, pleaded and pleaded in my behalf, for after all, I am her pupil, even if a bad one - but it did her no good. To be sure, I had it coming. I was mean to certain ones. Frankly, I appreciate knowing the rules, even if they are not the 'rules' on my own blog, which doesn't get near the traffic of this one.
In my opinion, anyone observant of Watchtower counsel on association has a screw loose to be here. As it turns out, I do. Plus, an 'extenuating circumstance' or two, which I have previously mentioned. As near as I can see, that is true of other frequent commenters, even if those of some I think are not noble. Perhaps ones more observant of theocratic counsel in this regard, (for I am exceptionally observant in all other regards) will cut me some slack for being a 'bad boy' in view of my 'reasons,' but I would never be critical of them if they did not. The site was here long before I stumbled across it, billed (disingenuously?) as a forum for JWs, and it will be here long after I leave, if I ever do.
Hopefully, the unusual takes and sense of humor I bring will continue to be seen as 'adding value,' particularly now that I refrain from coming after certain ones with a Howitzer. There are far more apostates (some are probably just opposers - which are not the same) around here than I ever dreamed there would be when I stumbled on board - I was initially surprised to find any. I can't make myself be nice to them. I just can't. (I can with opposers) Hebrews 6:6 comes to mind. But approaching the forum with the tools that are mine, I manage to 'coexist," as the bumper sticker says. (I would make all the special characters if I knew how and had the time and interest)

Well of course you are right. If it's something JTR has posted then you can be sure that at least half of the time it's something he got (directly or indirectly) from apostate Web sites. He really should stop that habit, he's not helping himself at all, just helping to feed his already negative experiences and cynical viewpoint...like pouring salt on a wound. And although it's meant in jest many times, and sometimes it IS actually funny, sadly, one day it could bring him down to the point of no return. 

That may be true, but I have mentioned on this forum a few months ago the issue with countries with extremely large populations such as India and China with over 1.3. billion each totaling aprox. 36% of the world's population where for all intents and purposes no one has even heard of Jehovah's Witnesses, and many, particularly in India don't even know what a Bible is. My question was, would Jehovah discard nearly 3 billion people because they have not heard the Good News of the Kingdom?  And if not, how long would it take for those 3 billion (bear in mind the extreme poverty and ignorance in some parts of these countries) to be made sufficiently aware in order to make an informed choice?

@Allen Smith I implore you (again) to please try and make your claim / counterarguments WITHOUT name calling or attacking other posters.
Simply state your possibility or claim and call it good. 
 
 

I'd like to consider your points about the disparity later, but for now I will address these extraneous points and your question.
I am not reliant on a book by Ray Franz nor do I endorse Carl Olof Jonsson. As you probably are aware from many posts on the subjects where their names come up, I do not think that what either of them have said on any subject is meaningful at all to my relationship with Jehovah or the Organization. As far as I can tell, I'd be, feel and believe exactly the same way if neither of them had ever existed. The Bible says we need nothing to be written to us about chronology because chronology is not to be a part of our faith. Patience and all the other fruits of the spirit, along with reliance on Jehovah and his Word are important. I appreciate what I've learned about patience when I dialogue with you, too, and I often see myself failing in this respect. All of my views on chronology and the Biblically-supported secular dates of events during the periods in question rely absolutely 0% on anything C.O.Jonsson or R.Franz have said. On this subject of Malawi and Mexico, I have no current concerns about it. I think they have all been taken care of.
If Ray Franz brought up some points of concern, then I appreciate that too. After all:
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.
True. It would not be any different, but the truth is that I never say the same thing in any manner. That's because I don't believe you are either a fool nor is Satan your God. I shared and still share many of the same feelings you have about attacks on the Witnesses and attacks on the Governing Body. I think most of what comes up by opposers is a foolish waste of time. But, as I've explained, there are also several areas of concern that we ought to consider. For that matter, I can say for a fact that persons in the Writing Department and a few people on the Governing Body took what he said very seriously and even made adjustments based on some of the things he said. No one in the Writing Department or Governing Body, as far as I know, ever said that anything Raymond Franz claimed was wrong or "riddled" with even one, single misinterpretation as you say. As far as I could tell, everyone in positions of higher responsibility felt that all his facts were correct. The WTS never claimed that anything he said was incorrect in any way.
There was, on the other hand, an attempt to counter some of C.O.Jonsson's ideas, but, of course, in his case, these were not really Jonsson's ideas, but the ideas shared by nearly all the experts and professionals who study the particular range of chronology that he studied. He happens to agree with these others, so there is really no reason to include his name in any discussion of the chronology he studied. It's almost as if someone doesn't like vegetables, yet expert dieticians claim vegetables are healthy, so it's pointed out that Hitler was a vegetarian.

I saved those deleted posts, most of them at least, and I can assure you that you were not deleted for presenting any facts. Perhaps you do not remember, but you were attacking and insulting other posters with a vengeance! In a post above, you say:
Calling people fools and saying that their God is Satan is really quite mild compared to the type of slander, name-calling, attacks and insults you were putting people through. Fortunately, you seem to reserve a good percentage of your venom on me, instead of many of the others, here. Also, you have changed your tone much of the time, so that you now tend more toward a kind of sarcasm and snide comments instead of going right after the person directly. Either way, I hope you stick around (under one of more of your aliases) at least, because the kind of people who are interested in truth and facts can usually figure out why anyone would resort to these diversionary tactics. In that way, the ad hominem attacks actually help. They don't help everyone, of course, but at least such tactics provide a kind of a "touchstone" by which to measure a good rational idea from another kind of idea.

C'mon...surely someone knows the facts!
 

Well....it's true. But bits and bytes are cheap.
I do apologize to you, though. You are engaging with a slightly different aim and approach, and I allow myself to be distracted sometimes. I appreciate your bringing all of your talents to bear.
Sometimes I must limit my participation in this or that thread (not this one) rather than 'shooting from the hip.' If I am not prepared to follow comments reasonably closely, which I often am not - sometimes because I regard them as blowhards,  sometimes because I simply do not have the time, sometimes because I don't want to go the way of Jehosaphat, sometimes because I really ought be doing other things - I ought not intrude with flippant remarks of which I am not prepared to follow through. 
Though sometimes I throw in remarks just to see where it goes. Sometimes it goes places. Other times it dies an instant death.

Now you're thinking. (I couldn't upvote as the JTR thing is wasting time and space). 

I will not, for I can already spot a dissimilarity. Pedophile victims survive. First Degree Murder victims do not.
Moreover, pedophile victims frequently recover. This is especially true when we are dealing with the non-violent, non-rape pedophilia which hysterical persons lump all together as one with the more infrequent predator sort.
Ancient Greece, as you well know, with all of your 'founding father' comments, is regarded as the cradle of Western civilization,  the first glimmerings of democracy. The sexual abuse of children was a staple of life among those perverts. Had it been First Degree Murder, instead, there would be no Greece and hence no Western civilization deriving from it.

Nice as newbie N is, he will get his head handed to him on a platter if he does not explore the nuances here before putting in his loyal comment. Ah, well....that's the mark of a newbie. I have misread things far more myself.
'Toto, something tells me we're not in Kansas anymore.'

This was a separate incident to the 12 hours earlier bomb attack, about 1/2 mile away.  A number of Carts are always at the Arndale Centre (very busy shopping area) for daytime witnessing.
I will be at the Arena next month hopefully.

We were at the Manchestet Arena in 1998 for a convention. It had just been built. My son was 3 years old at the time.
There is supposed to be a convention there in 5 weeks time....!