TrueTomHarley

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

Writers get away with a lot of things. It's like scientists and scholars, being disheveled is expected and accepted.

It is not generally known that I am a writer. The first book is only two years old. And I have never done anything to call specific attention to the blog. They just cut me slack - apparently because they think I am an all-around good guy. I am a peacemaker, not inclined to push and shove,  and that reputation goes far today.

Truth be told,  the books are not exactly flying off the shelf as they ought. I need better marketing.

The ebook version of the Russian book will be free at first - it is public interest. It will be the first book that I get into print.. Self-published as a paperback is a piece of cake. As to hardcover, I will pursue it once I figure how to go about it. 

1 minute ago, Anna said:

He would and did. Lol. Your congregation must be a little more straight laced

Well - not from the platform, I hope. Or, at least, not in public prayer.

1 minute ago, Nana Fofana said:

I sort of came away with the impression I wasn't allowed to make light of "Goodfellas" or maybe Warren Beatty?  

I haven't had the pleasure of meeting those two, yet.

39 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea why I  was 'disciplined' , but it's so much better than topix, even with all the thespianics?

GASP! Not you, too??! It wasn't because you made light of anyone, was it? hehehehe :))))))

25 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

LOL! It just doesn’t do anything to get my old mustache back, by unblocking my account!!

yeah, Alan is a bit of a hothead at times - no one would dispute that. But when he is on, he is on, and his input is both unique and valuable.

I can join he and Nana to form a WNM Trinity for the infamous thread I was put in charge of where I was apparently expected to play nice with apostates and declined to do it and so the whole thread disappeared.

Having said this, and as much as I rib @The Librarian (the old hen), she has a tough job, I think does she the best she can.  I would vacate - as I did on one other site - if people here were as steadfastly nasty as they were there. She prevents that from happening, so if I have to take a shot now and again, I'll go along with her wishes until I can't - and I doubt that situation will arise.

I think a lot of ones here are unstable, and a few are downright crazy. I do not exclude myself from this statement - I am not without issues. They must be cut some slack. But to carry on too much about rebukes given is to be the same as those who bitch endlessly about the GB. Somebody has to drive. She has earned her seat. It is not for me to change her, but to go elsewhere if we absolutely can't get along. That is why I try to get along.

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And, although it's pure speculation, it wouldn't be the first time something like this happened.

Let there be no doubt as to who runs the show. Delilah harps on something day and night and Samson will do whatever he must. It works in settings good and bad.

21 minutes ago, Anna said:

At the mid week meeting last week I asked him what was so outstanding about Bathsheba. He said she was out, standing under the shower.

While I would not speak so at the Kingdom all, and neither would he, there is a time a place, and sometimes we can get wound up too tight.

If your husband was a news figure in this day and age, his career would now be over. No matter how 'unreasonable' God's people can get, they can't hold a candle to the unreasonableness of the general world.

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

I will sacrifice my number 28 by saying, between you and Anna, I have had my account BANNED.

Don't worry about it, Alan. There are many more numbers. Why - they go all the way up to 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!

I actually thought the @The Librarian's explanation of your ban was also a veiled rebuke to me, for she was annoyed that I had unnecessarily drawn some blowhard into the thread so as to demolish his schpiel. I decided to lay low for awhile. One can be caught up too much into things.

5 minutes ago, Anna said:

He said he's never known in his life any sister to be bothered about telling people what to do. Everyone cracked up and agreed.

I like the guy already.

2 hours ago, Sharon Washington said:

My own situation was a bit different

You were not the one I had in mind, and I frankly think we overdo it on personal neat-as-a-pin dress and grooming. But that is how it is with any group of people. Not everything goes your way and one simply must avoid being the bull in the china shop.

At times in my life I have been a little bit 'out there' in terms of grooming, yet I have never once had anyone call it to my attention, and I have enjoyed a few priviledges.  You may like the following story: one such time my wife and I came to a packed assembly hall where a branch committee brother was the speaker. He gave a very hard-hitting talk - the blunt sort with observations that would not appear in print, and if he had adopted the same tone as to dress and grooming, he could have pointed to me as Exhibit A. I was well overdue for a haircut and whenever that happens I will run product through my hair and sweep it back once with my fingers - I get freebee haircuts from a relative but sometimes I must wait for him to fit me in and neither he nor I get around to it.

Because we arrived down to the wire, if not slightly over it, the attendants put us in one of the few seats available - up front and directly in front of the branch brother. I didn't particularly want to speak with him - I am not one of those who goes for selfies with the speaker - but after prayer I turned about and I was face to face with him. So I said some genuine pleasantry, thanking him for coming and such, and he said "I wasn't too hard on you folks, was I?"

"We'll adjust," I told him.

2 hours ago, Sharon Washington said:

P.S.  I pay close attention when singing to prevent me from belting out the wrong words to ‘old songs’ I think I know.

You are a better person than I am.

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I have a computer friend who I can arrange to come over and show him the problem shortly.

Sorry. He is busy helping me today

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Those 'greater minds' haven't benefited you any as far as scholastic honesty and integrity are concerned, unfortunately, even when your face is repeatedly slammed with the scriptural and historical evidence.

If those greater minds are as unrelentingly unpleasant, condescending and just plain nasty as this fellow was, you frankly must wonder just how great can they be. 

Definitions of 'wisdom' differ. I think he would gag on the one James supplies at 3:17, to say nothing of Proverbs 11:2. 

 

In general, it is a good thing not to tell others what to do. I see no problem in re-wording a song to avoid giving that impression.

The article is not  endorsing that view. It is merely acknowledging some people would have it. And some would. Many cultures are that way. Some Witnesses would feel that way.  And some backgounds - almost to the person they would feel that way. Take, for example, a woman from a Muslim background. Imagine how comfortable she would be singing out instructions for her husband to follow.

The article first of all mentions "new ones" and "interested ones" we are considerate of. Why would anyone ridicule consideration?

I was looking up at the heavens last night through my telescope and I saw clearly the planet Crazy. Then I looked the other way and saw the red planet Stupid.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I have Grammarly installed and wondering if this is the problem. 

I don't know Grammarly, but I don't think so. It's quirky. Trial & error (and saving stuff before you post - is that what Grammarly does?) will guide you through.

You can quote by highlighting a section & waiting for the quote button to appear. Or quote by copy and paste. 

There are various workarounds. Quoting from various pages I have only managed to work after a fashion. When editing, you also find not all options are open as were for the original.

Much as I hate to say it, probably JTR knows everything about everything on this topic, though no other one.

!

7 hours ago, The Librarian said:

On 12 September 2017, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, called bitcoin a "fraud" and said he would fire anyone in his firm caught trading it. Zero Hedge claimed that the same day Dimon made his statement, JP Morgan also purchased a large amount of bitcoins for its clients.^[157]

the Rothschild maneuver

3 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Move forward Alan, Move Forward. See the Chariot! Don't live in the past

Whatever happens, don't nobody leave the keys in the chariot when it is idling.

2 hours ago, The Librarian said:

Bitcoin was developed to replace the current banking system which has failed most of humankind.

I don't think so, at least not deliberately.

The banking system is a product of the old guard. Bitcoin is a product of the millennials. Few of the old guard even know what it is, really. They may be able to parrot some buzz-phrases they have heard, but few if any would be able to explain just how or why it works.

I feel privileged as though watching a superhero movie with fantastic heroes and villains converging, ready for combat & settling old grudges once and for all. But what will happen if I get up for popcorn or to use the restroom?

(wait till @Top Cat O'Malighan reveals his true identity)

(and just where does the Librarian fit in? What great personage was she back in the day before ruin set in and she gathered some books to start a new persona?)

(and exactly who is @Ann O'Maly and how did she get her paws on every paper that's ever been printed?)

(why does @AlanF call @scholar JW Scholar Pretendus and how did Christopher Hitchens become Yoda the wise?)

(has @JW Insider succeeded beyond his dreams summoning up the spirits, perhaps scaring even himself?)

(who is Neil Galt?)

(Am I full of you-know-what?)

On 1/2/2018 at 12:22 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Haha. You do not know my and Neil's history or the biting insults he's hurled my way in our time. We are both broad-shouldered and we understand each other. 

I actually thought for a time, not paying close attention, that these two might be a married couple. Silly me. 

I am corrected firmly by this observation from Ann on another thread:

"So as usual Neil, your claims do not align with reality."

Or maybe it doesn't prove anything at all There have been times when those words might easily have been spoken to me by Sister Harley.  

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I suspect that this is it. I've noticed that if a person repeatedly points to their own blogs and links to their own books that there is a limit to how much of this is allowed.

I did run afoul of this once with regard to my own books before I learned how to behave.

I self-policed myself recently with regard to an update from @Queen Esther. She started a thread in which there was a report that consensus view of the Russian brothers is that the Family Glory award was given to soften the blow against Witnesses and signal that the government actually knows we are good people. I linked to my own site where I had speculated about this at the time. 

Esther wasn't sure about it and seemed not to like it, so I removed the link and rewrote my comment simply to read that I had mentoned it at the time.

A few times here I have indicated I am writing a book on the Russian situation. It is no longer far off. I started a thread which I think will not incur the wrath of @The Librarian: 'Did Malachi Have Teenagers? - A Russian thread.' Everything relevant to that book will be placed on that thread, save perhaps for one brief comment somewhere when it is finished.

14 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

Ok, twice I have posted proof how the watchtower has misquoted other sources or taken quotes out of context and twice it's not showing up. Did they get deleted, they were after all open source information.

I cannot speak to this. I really don't know. I did see a link you posted that no longer is there. Why it disappeared I do not know. 

But I do know that @The Librarian favors original content. She doesn't like it when people are just lazy and link to some sorehead who they think will do their dirty work for them - especially when it is same-old same-old - something that has been discussed many times before and addressed, but a whiner just wants to repackage it and run it through again.

I like it that the application of Bible principles is always a qualification of authorship in the WT publications or at jw.org. Thus, some brilliant scholar in the world might write in a guest article on nearly any outlet, but it would not happen on jw.org. You have to apply Christian principles in order to have a voice. They would never take a guest post from Top Cat O'Malighan.

Doubtless they miss out on some scholarship that way, but they also safeguard themselves from much error, as it is not uncommon for yesterday's scholarship to be today's trash. I like it when @Arauna mentions motive. It is often the most relevant factor, though persons with ill-motive will dismiss it as ad hominem attack.

Of course, one cannot expect Wt standards to prevail here. It has never been claimed that they do. Nor do I imply that whoever takes the 'right' or 'wrong' side on any discussion is or is not applying Christianity. There is no way to tell. But on jw.org, they always are. It lends that source a huge measure of confidence, granted that their ship may not always turn on a dime. It takes a while to establish that something really is something and not just the tossing of rubbish on the waves and the trickery of men.

On this forum, many can and do tell the GB what to do. This is the internet and people can do what they want. But such correction by the people, though popular today,  is not the Bible pattern. When David truly was being a scoundrel, it was not the people who called him on it, but an already established prophetic channel. 

On 1/4/2018 at 3:45 AM, Queen Esther said:

He also mentioned that there was consensus that the "exemplary family award" that was given to the family of witnesses at the award ceremony was purposely made to be a symbolic gesture that "yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are good people" and as people who have no problem with us

I had a feeling that might be true and wrote about it at the time.