Anna

Why would I suddenly not understand Tom's sense of humour if I have been posting on here for as long as Tom?  I also messaged you to let you know who is who since you were new here. That should have told you that I was familiar with most of the posters.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt 🙂

Quite the opposite. Orwell never lived and worked for communism. He even worked for British Intelligence for a time ratting out communists. He had some interest in democratic socialism, free health care, etc., which is a far cry from communism. But he was a confused, racist, antisemitic, conflicted man. And his issues with Stalin especially, which was the primary driver for writing "1984," were not about Stalin's communism, but about fears of Stalin's supposed capitalism. (A lot like some of the fears people have of China's market-oriented communism that you mention later in your post.)
What you and I have seen is apparently pretty much the same thing. But this has nothing to do with your consistent inability to provide any evidence whatsoever for you repeated claims against Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Ethiopian biologist, public health researcher and official who has served since 2017 as Director-General of the World Health Organization. Merely repeating someone else's racist rhetoric, apparently without any attempt or ability or desire to look into the lack of evidence, is the kind of thing that can make one guilty of warmongering and racism themselves, without even knowing what they are doing. Just because he is African, and knowing that some Africans are corrupt, should be seen as a vile and despicable reason for accepting anything bad someone has claimed about an African person. In this case, I think you need to look at evidence, not just racist or hateful claims.
We actually agree on the immoral world and big brother dystopia, and I'm sure we agree 100% on the Akua Donkor video and article in the original topic here. But believing the worst about those who give evidence of being the worst, doesn't give us the right to just automatically believe the worst about those who give evidence of trying to act honestly. Those with the wherewithal to look into this will probably find that just as many people are fooled by far right media as are fooled by far left media.
I can tell already that you know absolutely nothing about what I consider to be valid research methods.
It should never be about articles, it should be about evidence. There are a lot of people in the world today who hear a video on Youtube that starts out "This is news that is being suppressed . . . " and they eat it up as if it's going to be true. Some Youtube videos will be well-researched and might even provide video evidence. But even video evidence is something to be careful about. I can think of dozens of examples, but you might even remember how this one was shared and retweeted millions of times:
https://factcheck.afp.com/no-not-video-chinese-soldier-beating-uighur-muslim-having-copy-koran
Turned out in that case that the video of a Chinese soldier beating a Uyghur Muslim for having a copy of the Quran, was actually "fake," as stated here:
A video that has been viewed more than a million times since it was posted January 1, 2019 on social media purportedly shows a Chinese soldier beating a Uighur Muslim for having a copy of the Koran. The video is actually from 2017 and shows an Indonesian soldier hitting a thief.
Even here, one should be skeptical of the claim that it wasn't what it was purported to be. But when the original video is found, and you can see it really was from a couple years earlier, and that the earlier video didn't have a Chinese flag pinned inside it, you are just starting to get somewhere with evidence. And if you know the political war-mongering or ideological reasons why it is so common for this type of fraud to be promoted, then it might make sense in fitting into another pattern of evidence. It actually still becomes only a tiny bit of evidence of the probability that that real evidence must be scarce if it has to be doctored and faked. But tiny bits of evidence never tell a whole story. It's a lot of work weighing evidence, and we end up trying to find people we can trust to do this, since no one has time to do it all themselves. And then we must remember, again, how easy it is to be fooled when we trust people. People will often build a trustworthy reputation on a specific matter, only to squander that trustworthiness in the promotion of their own ideological agenda.
That's a common far-right claim, but the specifics usually lead to a dead-end, mostly because they show a complete (sometimes purposeful) misunderstanding of all schools of Marxist thought.
Quite a harsh judgment. I hope I'm not judged even more harshly for pointing this out. Weighing evidence is, by definition, the consideration of as many possibilities as we can. Yet, we all have limitations. However, a person can go too far in the direction that your claim might take them. Not you personally so much, but I've seen it happen where people will say that their own far-right conspiratorial sources are much better than research and press, because all these trusted channels are controlled by untouchable powers. Sometimes this turns out to be true, of course. But I've seen some of these same persons turn against just about any science research just because a lot of science papers are biased towards the their powerful sponsors. They end up being driven into their own echo chambers, but not realizing they are being led there by a cacophony of dangerous voices. 

Why would I suddenly not understand Tom's sense of humour if I have been posting on here for as long as Tom?  I also messaged you to let you know who is who since you were new here. That should have told you that I was familiar with most of the posters.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt 🙂

Why is it so hard, for some of the JWs on here to simply admit that yes, 1975 was a debacle, and a  mistake made by  imperfect people, eager to see the new world. There is nothing wrong with that kind of eagerness. Rather than denying and defending that 1975 was not a debacle, why not talk about what this teaches us, and how it can help us on a personal level to avoid getting sweap up by that kind of reasoning in the future? If the conventions suddenly started mentioning 1930 as a possible date for Armageddon, because of some calculations pertaining to the generation, for example (or any other calculations for thay matter) how would we react? Emma mentioned we would just wait and see. Well yes, that is definitely an answer, and can be the answer for absolutely anything  that we are not sure about. But maybe it should go deeper than that. Maybe we should look at ourselves, and refresh the reasons why we are in the truth in the first place. Like those who are now ex-JWs should have done prior to 1975...

Why is it so hard, for some of the JWs on here to simply admit that yes, 1975 was a debacle, and a  mistake made by  imperfect people, eager to see the new world. There is nothing wrong with that kind of eagerness. Rather than denying and defending that 1975 was not a debacle, why not talk about what this teaches us, and how it can help us on a personal level to avoid getting sweap up by that kind of reasoning in the future? If the conventions suddenly started mentioning 1930 as a possible date for Armageddon, because of some calculations pertaining to the generation, for example (or any other calculations for thay matter) how would we react? Emma mentioned we would just wait and see. Well yes, that is definitely an answer, and can be the answer for absolutely anything  that we are not sure about. But maybe it should go deeper than that. Maybe we should look at ourselves, and refresh the reasons why we are in the truth in the first place. Like those who are now ex-JWs should have done prior to 1975...

I have a feeling you are not being entirely honest. Have you listened to Charles Sinutko's talk? If so, what do you have to say about it? And tell me, how many times did he mentioned the year 1975, and in what context?

I have a feeling you are not being entirely honest. Have you listened to Charles Sinutko's talk? If so, what do you have to say about it? And tell me, how many times did he mentioned the year 1975, and in what context?

Thus far, I've seen it open up a variety of confusion 🙂

It is shocking, but then should we be surprised when people do that? After all, it wouldn't be the first time.
I have stopped reading those kind of posts a long time ago.....if Derek intends to stay here, maybe he should do the same.
 
This is not a place for that kind of righteous indignation. This is a place for discussion. If he feels righteously indignant, then he should be able to express that in ways that makes a person think. Otherwise the discussion may just end up being:
"You're an idiot"
"No, you're' and idiot"  etc....
So you are right, he does not belong here.
 

Wait... what? Minimal is the goal? Now you tell me?!?!?!?

It was a hypothetical situation I used for the sake of illustration. Or did you really assume I thought I knew your circumstances?
And if you think you are being humorous with your reply, then I don't believe that, it appears more like you have nothing better to say. 
If you don't have a proper answer, then it's ok to say you don't know. After all, you have been lecturing others about humility...

Is that what you call it? Do you know each other?

I would hope that we will have learned our lesson, and remember Jesus's words.. "concerning the day and hour nobody knows..."  So setting any kind of date, by anyone, would hopefully be seen as plainly wrong.

There were probably many prior to 1975 that had a similar attitude, but they were looked down on as lacking faith. And they were told that "now was not the time to be  toying with the words of Jesus that "concerning the day and hour nobody knows..." * It was those who sold their houses to quickly pioneer before the end came who were praised.

The brother in the convention video a few years ago certainly was not only toying with the words of Jesus, but he was actually reminding himself of those words! And he didn't change his schedule and follow those who sold houses and quit their jobs. Watch it starting at the 13:07 mark.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBiblePrinciples/pub-jwbcov_201705_4_VIDEO

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, as evidenced in the video. 
* paragraph 35 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1968602 
 
 

So by your reasoning, it's like if Armageddon came on December 1st 1975. Now imagine we can see into the future like Jehovah can:  A Witness would have knocked on your door Saturday morning December 2nd and planted a seed which would have grown and seen you get baptised a few months later. Well oops.....sorry Derek, obviously too late! By that time you will have been pushing up daisies for several months already.
Does that kind of reasoning make sense to you?

I would hope that we will have learned our lesson, and remember Jesus's words.. "concerning the day and hour nobody knows..."  So setting any kind of date, by anyone, would hopefully be seen as plainly wrong.

There were probably many prior to 1975 that had a similar attitude, but they were looked down on as lacking faith. And they were told that "now was not the time to be  toying with the words of Jesus that "concerning the day and hour nobody knows..." * It was those who sold their houses to quickly pioneer before the end came who were praised.

The brother in the convention video a few years ago certainly was not only toying with the words of Jesus, but he was actually reminding himself of those words! And he didn't change his schedule and follow those who sold houses and quit their jobs. Watch it starting at the 13:07 mark.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBiblePrinciples/pub-jwbcov_201705_4_VIDEO

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, as evidenced in the video. 
* paragraph 35 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1968602 
 
 

Is that what you call it? Do you know each other?

It was a hypothetical situation I used for the sake of illustration. Or did you really assume I thought I knew your circumstances?
And if you think you are being humorous with your reply, then I don't believe that, it appears more like you have nothing better to say. 
If you don't have a proper answer, then it's ok to say you don't know. After all, you have been lecturing others about humility...

I don't call what Derek posts a sense of humour either. Calling people rats, idiots, and judging that they will die....is that a sense of humour to you? 
Sadly, not only do I think he lacks a sense of humour, but he evidently lacks in other departments too....
Now Tom, there's a sense of humour 👍

If I had been at this convention in 1967, and listened to Charles Sinutko's talk (a District Overseer), I would have been convinced the end was coming in 1975. Although he said it was a "possibility" it got drowned out by all the other things he said which made it more of a probability. If we would hear a talk along similar lines today, a prominent brother, perhaps one of the helpers to the GB, mentioning the year 2030 (for example), not once, but several times throughout the talk as a possible year for Armageddon, how would we feel? But it seems that some of us find it hard to be honest with ourselves.
1967 District Convention talk by Charles Sinutko:

Your browser does not support the HTML5 audio tag.
 
On a positive note, Charles Sinutko's life story can be found here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102004607 
Of course there is no mention of 1975, but despite what must have been a disappointment, his faith was obviously not shaken, and he remains a faithful brother.
 

And that is an interesting thought too. What you are saying is that you would have been destroyed? 
I think @Emma Rose might know where I am going with that. Since that has been a topic we have been discussing lately....

I agree. But where did they get the date from? Those who were serving with a date in mind didn't just pull the date out of thin air did they?

It was a hypothetical situation I used for the sake of illustration. Or did you really assume I thought I knew your circumstances?
And if you think you are being humorous with your reply, then I don't believe that, it appears more like you have nothing better to say. 
If you don't have a proper answer, then it's ok to say you don't know. After all, you have been lecturing others about humility...

I don't call what Derek posts a sense of humour either. Calling people rats, idiots, and judging that they will die....is that a sense of humour to you? 
Sadly, not only do I think he lacks a sense of humour, but he evidently lacks in other departments too....
Now Tom, there's a sense of humour 👍

I have even put the finishing touches on the Peace & Security prophesy that I floated by the other day:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/11/uniting-the-four-fundamental-prophesies-of-naturemade-possible-with-trumps-defeat-a-parody.html

Is that what you call it? Do you know each other?