TrueTomHarley

If you would work on that adhominem of yours a bit more, you’d find that the people launching “ad hominem attacks” would get bored and desist.

To me, this is tops among the fine points you bring to the table. I don’t necessarily endorse them. But that is only because I do not have the background or sources that your have. You state things that no one else does, and you state them persuasively. You help me envision the truly monumental changes that we may soon have to adapt to. I appreciate that. Meanwhile, as long as we remain busy in Jehovah’s service, as you, me, and several others are doing, we can hardly go wrong. He knows when his time has come, even as we struggle to read the tea leaves.

When speaking with others of a different point of view, it is important to treat them with a modicum of respect. It is important not to taunt and ridicule and insult. Of course, if such is your only object, then it is okay to do these things, but not if your goal is to persuade. It is important to present oneself as cognizant to the laws of civility. That way, in the event that you actually do make a valid point, you find that it is not rejected out of hand by persons who simply resent how ill-mannered you are. My greatest fear is that Alan’s cherished evolution is right and that he is the final product of it. If so, kiss goodbye any future for the human race, for that is ensured, not by big dumb animals with horns ramming each other to prove ‘who’s da man?’ but with ordinary persons of moderate intellectual abilities and superior social skills—the latter of which our boy Alan has not a speck. Arguably, this point highlighted above is valid. It is not a game-changer, but neither is it ridiculous. It may be that the “apostate” brush paints far too broadly and many regarded as such do not strictly fit the bill. They fit another bill, that of fomenting divisions, displaying an unyielding spirit to the point that unity and progress ceases, elevating self to godhood, or some such woe. It is in the Book somewhere—certainly the overall spirit should cover it. It is sort of like that StarTrek episode where Picard snapped: “Those Stenchiites have been beating us over the head with that blasted treaty for days! There must be something in it that can benefit us!” There was. Provision in the treaty called for arbitration of disputes, the plaintiff to choose the arbiter, and so Picard chose the Sleepyites, now in the 2nd year of their 20 year hibernation state. For some reason that I do not recall, time was of the essence, and so the Stenchites yielded on their legalistic point. Legalism only takes you so far, and is counterproductive if pushed beyond that point. It is like looking at those solid electrons that dissolve into mush if examined too closely. @Arauna is right when she concedes that Witness has a huge reservoir of verse, but she is totally unable to put them to any practical use. It is the same with AlanF. Yes, he knows a lot of facts and he shows off with them to the most anal degree, but when push comes to shove, what can he show for them? An ability to destroy a WorldNewsMediaForum thread, and not much more. He, like Witness, is good at tearing down (though in different ways). But can he build? Don’t make me laugh. He ladles contempt on any who would stick to an arrangement that they know to be fallible. What in the world is wrong with him? Or his disciple, 4Jah2Me, who puts even “make mistakes” and “errs” under the electron microscope and discovers worlds of difference between them! He says—for he has not yet shed everything, as he presently will—that the end is at least ten years off. In that time, God will be able to raise up a pure anointed who represents him without flaw. I say, “Go for it!” Maybe you can start it up in your basement—as a collaboration with Witness. Ten years down the road I’ll take a look, and if in fact, you have pulled off the trick, I will join you. Meanwhile, I will tell Kim Jung Un to hold off on the nukes, Trump to stop carrying on so others hate his guts, Xi to dismantle social rating and be nicer to those in his camps, Putin to “cut it out,” Greta to just be patient for a few more years. Yeah, go for it 4Jah2Me! I’m sure it will happen that way. Meanwhile, trash the good while holding out for the perfect. Michael Hart wrote about Plato and his ideal government as realized in his concept of philosopher-kings, notable for their ability to convert their academic book-learning into practical results. The concept has never actually been implemented, Hart said. I wrote that it had been. Anyone familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses will realize at once that his idealist concept fits almost to a tee their Governing Body. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/plato-and-the-governing-body.html I’m serious with regard to 4Jah2Me. Ten years for God to make a better anointed that has enough Holy Spirit to satisfy him? Fine. Run with it. I’ll stay where I am in the meantime because JWs are quite plainly in the vanguard, even with their blunders. Besides, I don’t know how many of their blunders are actually blunders. I do note that John rejoiced that “SOME of your children are walking in the truth.” That’s a pretty weak statement. Don’t you think he would rather have said, “ALL of your children are walking in the truth?” Were the “some” that left all due to the ineptness of that early Christian governance? Or was it the best that could have been expected then (and now) in the course of letting light shine in a world that prefers darkness? “When the son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on earth?” Jesus asks. “Not if I can help it!” Alan says, with an upvote from 4Jah2Me. So bring me what you have in ten years, and if it is the same, only minus the imperfections, count on my support. I’ll bolt. I’m not vested here. I am tired of guys who “make mistakes and err.” I want to be where they don’t make mistakes and they don’t err. Get cracking on it, and if there still is a system of things in ten years, I’ll join you.

You know, I think this comment reveals a lot. It is all about themselves with these guys. They simply MUST get their story out! They are incapable of setting aside personal interests for the sake of something greater than themselves. Everyone wants their own story to prevail. That is not hard to understand. I do, too. But sooner or later, one must concede that life does not revolve around ME. Submission to authority, and benefiting from discipline is a constant theme of the Bible. It is as Brother Mick Jagger says: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you’ll get what you need.” I want to be center of the universe. I don’t need to be. I don’t know why the announcement was modified. I would not be surprised if it is a response to relentless attacks of opposers framed legally. Why would they care about specific wording? They just want something that will get the job done. “No longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” works. If, through word or deed, you are no longer witnessing for Jehovah, can anyone say that you are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

That was the point—to demonstrate that he knows things others do not.

“This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved.” This includes straw men. Even them you cannot resist insulting! They changed that They do change things and are very open about it. The only one getting exorcized over it is you. It is the topic of yesterday’s daily text. They are running a show that no one else even attempts to They adjust things that don’t work out as anticipated. There is nothing that you do not comment on at the most absurd and tiresome length.

I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do. Is this long comment what it looks like? Is this fellow really doing lengthy commentary on the greatest scholar that he can envision—himself? He quotes himself and provides edifying commentary how many times? Count em—one, two, three, four.......TEN! It’s no wonder nobody likes to see him come around. Even those who agree with him can’t possibly pat him on the back as much as he does himself.

This is too juvenile. If you appoint someone who turns out to be a clunker, you say, “Guess that wasn’t so inspired after all,” and let that be the end of it. I wrote it up here: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/08/the-loaded-words-infallible-inspired-and-perfect.html There are people here who are like children that learn that there is no Santa Claus, and so they resolve to never ever celebrate Christmas again. Adults, however, do not cease celebrating for this reason—they fall back to the “greater meaning” of Christmas, and so forth. They realize that Christmas is much bigger than Santa Claus—he is something only for children. Indeed, if the only problem with Christmas was that there is no Santa Claus, then we would be celebrating the day, some of us. Some would. Some wouldn’t. In this case, the “no Santa Claus” is learning that the GB is made up of men who can make mistakes. Most never doubted that in the first place. But those who did and who truly love God and the core beliefs that identify Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jehovah’s Witnesses alone manage to make the adjustment without undo fuss, if only by reiterating the words of Peter: “To whom else shall we go?” Who else thinks the thoughts and does the deeds of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Go back and read what you missed. It is the most valuable material here. And nobody, nobody, but nobody who knows me personally thinks me “self-righteous.” Ask @Witness, who said she loves me so (not inappropriately—it was a manner of speaking) following a recent post. Even though she thinks I drink far too much of the “kooklaid.” Even though we have had some fearsome tussles. Even though she thinks me deluded as can be But she does not think me self-righteous. Nobody does. Of course, Alan does. But he is so full of insults for anyone not coming around to his point of view that it doesn’t count.

Back again, are you, you foul fowl. It really is “birds of a feather.” I think he is starting wonder about that, too. Oh, I don’t want to pick a fight over it, JTR. The winner of the Darth Vader Fighting Award has made his appearance lately, and any nastiness we might display would fall woefully short of the possibilities he is revealing.

I do not know what JWN is. Can you tell me? Besides Reddit, the two weeks were at JehovahsWitnesses.com. The 3 comments (NOT 12, you blockhead JTR!) were at AvoidJW.com. it is possible I have commented a time or two elsewhere, but I cannot recall. For the most part, I have confined myself to my own blog. I started blogging in 2006, and some early posts reflect that I was working through some issues. I did not seek out opposers, but when they would comment, I developed ways to answer them, not disrespectfully, unless they were real jerks, but also not befriendingly. I wrote about a post a week. Something in the news would catch my interest and I would weave it in with scripture and humor to produce posts that I had never seen the like of before. It is like an artist with paintings. Complete one, throw it up for viewing, and of course you are happy to find people who like it. But that is not why you do it, and I would do the same, like a painter, even if it was completely ignored. I gained a fair number of frequent commenters. I took a leave of absence to deal with a perfect storm of troubles. They and the residuals kept me occupied for several years. When I began posting again, it was little snippets on Facebook, something that had not been around before. One FB friend I knew well from before kept saying: “You ought to write a book.” Another friend has said, “I think there’s a book in that blog.” In time I began doodling paragraphs into what might be a book someday. I did it completely on the iPad that I had bought second-hand from a brother, on Notes, and without keyboard—one letter at a time. In time, as I got more serious about it, I bought a laptop. Mixing about 50/50 previous blog posts with original writing, in 2016 I came out with an ebook, “Tom Irregardless and Me.” Several persons, some known, some unknown personally, gave it good reviews By far the most creative review came from (I’m sure he won’t mind at this point, and if he does, I’ll say I’m sorry) George Chryssides writing under the pseudonym Ivor E Tower. Oddly, though I have written three more books, I have scarcely received another review. I can’t quite figure it. I mean, the obvious explanation is that the writing sucks, but I have had people, even elders, praise them effusively. I even had my strategy in place should apostates flame it with horrid reviews, but I didn’t get them either. It is too bad. I would like some. Ah, well—painter with his artwork and all. While writing this book, I opened a Twitter account. I followed a link that led here and began leaving some comments. For a time, the only way I knew how to get here was to follow that link through Twitter. I started hawking my book, rather shamelessly, and the Librarian (that old hen) at last yelled at me—“enough is enough!” she said. “This is not a book store!” I was stung. I almost left the site for good. In fact, I did, but in time, tentatively came back. It is probably due to some conciliatory posts from @JW Insiderthat I did stay. In time, I floated adding some value-added content not related to any book, and the Librarian signaled encouragement. Thus began a series of outrageous posts characterizing her as a wash-up, arthritic and alcoholic has-been of a grade school librarian who hates kids—with good reason because they torment her relentlessly—and is counting down the days till her retirement. I am the baddest of her pupils, but I am her pupil, after all, so there is a limit to how much she can discipline me. I told her privately that I was going to do this, and that if it became too much, she should let me know. She said that she sort of enjoyed the games, and that she was actually a he. I have probably tested her patience since—she did at one point lay the law down on my “spamming” and when I felt that my contributions to her site buffered me, I linked to a post and said that if I was ever again called for spamming, I would discontinue all participation here. I said that, blogging since 2006, I have become a news source in my own right, and I would not put up with it. However, I also showed myself sensitive to her concerns. I would do it less, I said, never just a link in itself, and only include one where there was good reason for it—also that there would be no, or greatly limited comments on my blog, so that if anyone went there and wanted to comment on it, they would have to come here. I just wanted to keep all my stuff in one place, I pleaded. I wasn’t trying to steal her readers. My followup ebook, “No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash” was written too hastily, and was an ill-advised attempt to appeal to newsy and current events people. I reworked it substantially to make it the most autobiographical of my books. It, too, is about 50/50 old blog posts vs original writing. Little of it was written here. I kept writing more and more here. Our problems began in Russia. I began to post about it in my blog. Others, especially a @bruceq, posted many Russian woes here, and I contributed to those threads. On Twitter, I discovered Anton Chivchalov, who, from Belarus, was following events minutely, and does to this day. I thought of writing a short brochure of sorts—nothing big—a collection of news releases about the ban, with maybe some melodramatic cover in black, as though an iron curtain was again crashing down. I kept expanding the idea into another ebook, centered around the theme of our letter-writing campaign that all Witnesses would take part in but no one else could ever appreciate the atmosphere. I described to my graphic artist a vision of a child writing Putin, as though writing Santa Claus, (children are always best, not just in themselves, but in what they symbolized—Jesus said you must become as young children) thinking a thought balloon occupied by Putin, not Claus. She returned with what is pictured below. See how clever it is, with Putin seeming to have bangs, like a child, and it is actually the kid’s hair? She is a fine and imaginative artist and I would recommend her in a heartbeat. “Dear Mr. Putin” is the only complete history of JW persecution from just before ban until about a year after. But I had by that time decided to include reasons JWs were opposed in Russia (CSA has NEVER entered into the picture there) since they were largely absent in the Supreme Court trial, in Part II, as well as a third section presenting a witness. All of it is written for non-Witnesses primarily. Little of it centers on doctrine—where there is doctrine, it is just enough to bridge points. Russia is not demonized, in the event the book ever finds an influential read there. (JWI—the old commie, gave it praise for breaking free from the Western point of view, not easy for a Westerner, and I appreciated the thumbs up in that regard.) Other faiths are not put down—JWs are presented as the canary in the coal mine—what starts with us may well spread to them, and they are shaking in their boots. And as stated before, when I stumbled into this site, via Twitter, I was aghast at all the “apostates” operating here with impunity, on what claimed to be a Witness site, and I went after them with ferocity. As a result of one battle, the Librarian placed me heading a thread that she entitled “TrueTom vs the Apostates.” I tried to get out of it, to no avail. So I warmed to the task and went after them with such heat—it was the unlikely trinity of O’Mally, Witness, and Rook—until Admin made the Librarian pull the entire thread and slap me with an “Abuse” label that explicitly said was to follow me forever and ever, but after a time, disappeared. In time, this became the ebook, “TrueTom vs the Apostates!” It is a more tightly written book than Dear Mr Putin, with about 50 short chapters as opposed to the former’s 16. Part I of that book was mostly written here, some as complete posts, barely modified for the book. Part II is old posts of mine from the blog—close enough to the theme of skewering apostates that I figured it would fit nicely. I have about three other books in mind, all of which will probably be on the drawing board for some time. There may even be a “TrueTom vs the Apostates!—Round 2” someday. Does that answer your question?

I have occasional, and dwindling participation on a Reddit site that I learned was the primary source for a certain reporter. “If he gets his stuff there, I’ll go there and leave him something less accusatory,” I said. Beyond that, I spent a few days at another large website as an experiment, and they welcomed me with open arms until they learned I was not there to join (as they had assumed) after which they were unrelentingly hostile. I was there only a week or two. Even lesser experience with another, one that @James Thomas Rook Jr. caught me on and stated I had left 12 comments there. (It had been 2 or 3) This is when he thought he could embarrass me. I said 3. He said 12. I said 3. He responded that he was a former engineer and used to precision and it was 12! I replied that “if you are a former engineer and no longer are, possibly it is because you cannot count!! It was 3!” We have been at it ever since, the old pork chop. I also said (upon learning he had been an engineer in the water department) that with his counting skills, I am sure that there is not a flushing toilet in his entire town! I would have said more, but @JW Insider interjected: Of course, I have my own blog, the jewel of the internet: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com I had to shorten, even eliminate at times, my own comment section so the The Librarian (that old hen) would not accuse me of spamming when I linked to it. But that’s okay. I don’t get many anyway. I don’t allow the same free-for-all there that goes on here,

I know little specifically about any these characters, but I see the name Ann Omaly again. She is one of the three “apostates” from the original “TrueTom vs the Apostates” thread that got me into trouble when I asserted with some ad hominem detail that while were they managed to unite for a common cause, they probably would not be able to stand each other were they to meet in public. Who is Ann? She is the inspiration for my reclusive @Top Cat O'Malighan character, but I still do not know who she is

It sure does my heart good. Yes, and I am taking diligent notes. I may be a washed-out has-been, but I will rise again!

Look, I like you, and all. I really do. Besides, I owe you for constructive criticism of my books. I share your prioritization of the overall picture and your frustration at some ragged human edges. So should I play this way? Hmm. Ah, well, I have a touch of OCD. Everyone knows it. I’ll ask for forgiveness later: “Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them. Then Jehovah said to Satan: I mean, come on! There! Now, a couple of caveats. Of course, he is not the devil. Nor is it the whistleblower talk that prompts the characterization. It is the atheism in combination with his relentless opposition—he has spurned and opposes EVERYTHING, not just characters of the past that appear squirrelly. And his plain self-worship, as manifest by his need to correct every little detail....who does THAT remind you of? Nor, obviously, are you Jehovah—any more than I am. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/11/oh-no-i-would-never-presume-to-compare-myself-with-the-most-high-god.html

Every word emanating from my keyboard is laden with value. They positively reek with the stuff. All words from any other source should be disposed of. There is one or two Dilberts from JTR that are pretty good, but other than that.....out to the curb with everything except my posts! My favorite memory with Alan is when he was carrying on about his atheism and evolution, and I came onboard as Dr. Adhominem or someone to discuss learnedly with him the problem of persuading the rank and file about evolutionary psychology, since there really is no evidence and its little more than wishful evolutionist thinking—to see how long I could pull the scam before he knew he was being had. It went for two or three comments. Of course, it was completely unfair on my part, but he has such a blustering manner and a manifest need to prove himself RIGHT on EVERY SINGLE DETAIL, even those having nothing to do with the thread, that I couldn’t resist. Call THAT not contributing anything of value? Now watch him respond that he knew instantly that Dr Adhominem was a fraud, for it is very important to him to NEVER be in the wrong over ANYTHING. I mean, the guy has a personality that smacks of waving a red flag before a bull. And he has NO sense of humor. A “juggernaut,” Witness called him. It will be very hard for me to refrain from saying much. I will try my best, but it will be hard. It is a huge consumer of time, so I’m not eager to commit that sin again, and besides, I don’t want to get The Librarian (that old hen) mad at me once more.

Sigh.... He’s back. Arguing with every single point, as was his wont, even the ones inconsequential to the thread—like the retort to the unreasonably chatty greeting from JWI with mention of concern of his atheism. This is the fellow that The Librarian told me privately, “Please stop arguing with Alan.” She knew what I was then finding out—that under no circumstances will he ever yield the final word. I did stop, and sure enough, he went away. But he’s back. Leading off with an insult to Trump, no less, though it has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and will likely fall flat to an apolitical audience, and those not apolitical will divide 50/50, so that he will unnecessarily antagonize some that he is trying to convince. Still he must get it in, and thus reveals—much as I hate to attribute wisdom to @James Thomas Rook Jr. that he has full-blown TDS and identifies with the leftists. He’s back. Oozing with contempt for anyone with whom he disagrees: “So are you claiming you don't worship the Governing Body? Don't let your fellows know, or you'll be disfellowshipped for apostasy,” he taunts.

What they probably say is, “put it on the shelf for now,” Of course! Intelligent people do that all the time. I had 4 years of high school and three years of college under my belt when I came across JWs in the course of a summer job. My religious life was now and then attending the Presbyterian Church that my Mom belonged to, and in time, being confirmed there myself. Presbyterianism comes in several varieties—this one was in the liberal tradition and my mom would best be described as attending for the social benefits. (My dad would read the huge Sunday paper, looking forward to some solitary time as Mom herded us off. “Religion is good for kids,” he would say as we cleared out. He never set foot there himself.) I was indoctrinated in evolution, both from schooling and from church. Do you really think someone in that position is going to quickly accept Adam and Eve? It’s like accepting Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. However, everything else I was learning made so much sense—I loved the way the pieces fit together. It had never occurred to me that they could. Adam and Eve was the lynchpin for much of it, though. It provoked, to coin a term that I would not hear until 50 years later, “cognitive dissonance.” However, cognitive dissonance is easily remedied by telling oneself that you don’t need to know everything this instant. You can always “come back to it later.” “Put it on the shelf” if something does not make sense in an otherwise compelling picture—maybe it will later. This proved to be the case with me. I had fifteen years of evolutionary schooling, with nothing to counter it. I believed in evolution absolutely. I had to “put it on the shelf” while I examined some extraordinarily attractive and convincing ideas and later come back to it.

Sorry. Certain peculiar patterns and personalities emerge. I don’t really think that you are him. I do talk too much, and my wife IS getting impatient about that job I promised to do.

Are you sure that you are NOT John Butler?

I check their bodies for tread marks daily. Sometimes I have to rub out a few. I do, too. Few of them are, however. They are not encouraged to be. They are encouraged to align themselves with, “If you know what is true, there is no reason to examine what is falsehood.” There is a serious downside to this counsel, however. One thing that I greatly admire about the GB is that they go where they are convinced the Bible tells them to go, and they don’t care if there is a downside or not. I do not believe they lay this “follow truth, and ignore falsehood” policy only upon us. I think that they follow it themselves, and look at controversy no more than is absolutely necessary, in accord with Jesus’ “No man at the plow who keeps looking at the things behind is well suited for the kingdom of God,” as modified by Russell into: “If you stop to kick every dog that barks at you, you’ll never get very far.” They don’t look in the rear view mirror too much. They are thus the exact opposite of crusaders against them, in fact, pundits and policy makers in general, who ONLY look in the rear view mirror, skewering the doers as they do nothing themselves, “holding people accountable,” making them “take responsibility,” but offering nothing positive beyond a new law or two, which the scoundrels immediately find ways to sidestep. Yes. I made this point to a couple of elders who were trying to dissuade me from “engaging with apostates.” I am not engaging them, I replied, at least not for their own sakes. It is almost always a lost cause engaging them for their own sakes, I have found (somewhat to my dismay). Yet, “apostates” have succeeded in catching the ear of major media. The latter run prominent—even front page—articles against Witnesses, which we may not read, but everyone else does. In pushing back at these articles, you necessarily cross paths with these “apostates,” and in doing so, some perceptions will change. You get a better feel for them. They still remain the enemy, but you get to appreciate how some became so. You have to know where the enemy is coming from. It is the first rule of any military strategy. It is the first rule of any legal strategy, as well. Could it be that when Witness attorneys represent them in court, they have not acquainted themselves with “apostate” reasoning? They are extremely poor attorneys if that is the case. The two brothers had not read the barrage of articles, or even one of them, probably, and were inclined to think that what was out there was inconsequential, the product of scurrilous rag sheets. How about the New York Times and the Washington Post? I said. I don’t think that I would be able to desist kicking back at this point. I know how to answer this stuff, or at least I think I know. Moreover, I see that such attacks are almost never answered—certainly not effectively, and usually, not at all. I have taken on the role of “apologist” for Jehovah’s Witnesses, and have been put down before on that account. But I respond with “apologist” being derived from “apologia,” which means “speaking in defense.” Those who dismiss Christian apologists, therefore, are simply bullies who think that they should not have a defense. As an apologist, I do not tell the GB what they are doing wrong. Nor do I know. There are many things that I don’t like, but that does not mean that remedying them to suit myself would improve matters. Maybe it would do just the opposite. I reflect that that there IS no other faith that incorporates the dozen-or-so essential Bible truths that JWI has pointed to—much less anyone that obeys the direction to preach them. Maybe true faith can only exist within a hostile world the way that it IS existing. That is why I hesitate to insist, and often even mention, my “solutions.” They might not be solutions at all. If I counted my online time, then easily I have been special pioneering for years. But I don’t count it because the Witness organization can hardly be said to encourage it. And for the most part, when brothers think that they will witness online, the effect is horrible, imo. Scrupulously avoiding any matters of controversy, jettisoning anyone who brings them up, they say: “Do you wonder what is the truth about hell?” The answer is NO! Religious people do not wonder, and non-religious people do not care. I would be happy if there was not so much dissuasion to take on the “villains.” Villains are what make the show interesting—ask any TV or movie producer. I would not like to see a call to arms to battle the villains, for the villains are relentless, their gripes are unending, and many are slimy—the counsel to steer clear is hardly unwise. But I would like to see the yellow light given should anyone choose to kick back at the points these guys make. The “even the tiniest bit of poison that we would never want to drink” is not really consistent with the fact that vaccines (and homeopathy, in a different way) operate on this very principle: expose one to just a little bit of the sickness so that when it is encountered later in the wild, immunity will have developed. Instead, we have the ridiculous situation of youngsters falling for the oldest foible of human nature—doing something because they have been advised not to. Sooner or later, they chance upon some “apostate” literature or other material. When they do, and out of curiosity give it a scan, they are floored—not because it is so overwhelmingly persuasive, but because they are totally unprepared for it. They may be seriously stumbled, and from there the situation worsens. The adults who should be able to help them cannot—because they have no idea what is there themselves. All they can say is, “Don’t read that stuff!” Trust me, opponents are very good at exploiting those words. “See?” they say. “They want to make sure your blinders remain firmly in place.” That’s why my hero in this regard is @Anna. Long ago, she declared that she would keep abreast of “apostate” thinking so that she would be able to help her teenaged son should he ever come across and be stumbled at their attacks. It only sweetens the story that (last I heard) the kid (he can’t be a kid anymore) is happily pioneering and wondering why his mom is hanging out with all those crazies on the internet. Nor would I say, from this distance, that opposing the villains has harmed her spiritually. It certainly has not done that with me. Quite the opposite. Villains offer a contrast to what is not villainous, and many things are more clearly appreciated for their contrast. “Drink this gloop,” the doctor says. “Never mind if it tastes like you-know-what. It will produce the contrast we need so that we can more readily appraise your health.” Case in point coming up, after I dodge my wife. She wants me to do some maintenance around the house. What is wrong with that woman? Can’t she see I am busy correcting someone who is wrong on the internet?

If people are not satisfied with people who taking a lead, who rule, governing over them and their life, because they have double standards and twisting justice in "worldly system", they have chance to replace them by voting. And so on until they find the best people world can offer. Of course! Voting is the answer! How’s that working out these days? The Atlantic has run a (disapproving) article on populists—the winners of popular elections “Right now, the four most populous democracies in the world are ruled by populists: Narendra Modi in India, Donald Trump in the United States, Joko Widodo in Indonesia, and Bolsonaro in Brazil.” I could be wrong, but I suspect you will not be happy with such voting outcomes. “According to our research, populist governments have deepened corruption, eroded individual rights, and inflicted serious damage on democratic institutions,” read the Atlantic banner, as they tallied up 46 of such populist winners. Your criticism is no more than your humanism speaking. You pull out all stops to slam JWs. It is not as though you have anything better to offer. What you have is considerably worse. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/hard-data-populism-bolsonaro-trump/578878/

You may proceed. The requirements are not high. You must simply make sure that you are not the most unpleasant person here. The mere fact that you raised the above two points guarantees that you will not be.

The investigation was quick and concluded that there was nothing to it. The detained Witnesses had employed “martial arts techniques,” it said, and the abuse they complained of was no more than an attempt to restrain them from doing so.