TrueTomHarley

The trouble with it is that few will want to bury their comments on the profile page of another, hidden from common view. I, for one, am never carrying on a dialogue with any given person. Probably that is true with most others.

It will work for about ten minutes. But I will not be the first transgressor.

Well - you are certainly right about not understanding.

There actually was a Tom Irregardless and I fought for years with him not to say it. I thought my prayer had been answered when an older brother who also used to say it recalled how he had been approached by another who had asked him to look it up in the dictionary. "I never found it," he said - and he never used it again. My heart soared when I heard this. I approached Tom and asked him to look up the word in the dictionary. But times had changed. He found it. True, it was labeled "irregular" but that was a distinction far too subtle for Tom Irregardless. As though he were Trump himself, he doubled down on it!

Fair enough. She answered the questions. And then some.

Why is that? This makes it sound as though you are writing from the grave. Maybe. But they have plenty of fine guidance from older ones. Irregardless, indeed. What a long strange trip its been.

I don't think there is anyone who is not. The only difference is the degree of openness about it. The best reason to stay neutral is our reason. But another perfectly valid reason (though it betrays some laziness) is that it is close to impossible to get an accurate read on anything. Every source skews matters according to pre-existing patterns of perception. To some extent, you can get around this by following diverse sources and not just the home team, but that takes time, and time is precious. Not long ago Putin was in China and said that sanctions against Kim would be futile - Kim would see every single person starve to death before he would give up on arms. He then asked was it for naught Kim sought to missle-up? He knew very well what happened to Saddam Hussein who truthfully swore up and down he had no weapons of mass destruction, but that did not stop his enemies from taking him out and killing a family member or two in the process. Putin then said some other things. CNBC reported everything he said except the Saddam connection, thus letting the impression stand that only sheer madness can explain his actions. They don't all lie, but selective covering of events accomplishes the same thing.

During glasnost, when Russia seemed to change from surly bear to teddy bear. Davey-the-Kid was pressed on who was occupying now the role of 'king of the north.' He replied that it was Bolivia.

Rats.

For some reason that I do not understand (is it my imagination?) I seem to rankle you even more than I do the nefarious JTR, who simply prepares another cartoon - though I would have it the other way around. I consistently find myself agreeing with almost everything you say, and at times being corrected by you. Some things, though, can be taken too far. Though I agree in some measure with it could also be pointed out the king of the south these days bombs more countries than the king of the north. Money, in this instance, powers the south to manufacture weapons as much or more as the north. Publicly traded arms makers must report quarterly - and those quarterly reports better look good, or hordes of stockholders threaten to abandon ship and go look for 'greener' pastures. Corporations reach a point where they must create their own market, and not just wait for the market to come to them, as a private company might do. Hence, the many Washington lobbyists who ever push the perception that there are many many enemies who must be kept in check by weapons, which, as it turns out, can be supplied by the outfit that they represent. It is not just the king of the north who loves weapons.

I don't think I said that I viewed us that way. I said that the Soviet government did. It is in Baran's book and is well-supported. Who cares what I think? The brothers were not trying to operate where I governed. They were trying to operate where they governed. I simply meant to note their point of view, not indicate agreement with it.

During Soviet times when the government was atheistic and could hardly be expected to pick up on religious nuances, it turned out they looked askance at being labeled the 'king of the north' who 'put his trust in the god of fortresses.' They were suspicious - and remain so to this day - that the Witnesses were but a political movement disguised as a a religion, taking orders from US based Brooklyn.

Furthermore, while I am more well-read than many, college had nothing to do with it. I once calculated I had read 55 of the 100 'most important books in history' on a list put out by the BBC. Nobody I encountered had read more. I read almost all of them via 'Books on Tape' while working a humdrum job in which only my body had to be engaged, but my mind remained mine. Possibly I can credit college with stimulating an already existing appreciation of reading. But it's a rather expensive route just to take away that lesson. I'll share it for free: Read. (that'll be $5.99, please) And even with all that reading, I have found Bible-based literature to be the best framework for evaluating everything else, simple though that writing is. Â

It has been my good fortune to ... ah, no. Fortune......Luckily I ....no, strike that. Luck It is my good destiny to .....um, no..strike again. Destiny. What a wonderful quirk of fate that ....uh oh ...Fate   Ah, forget it! Â

As it turns out, I did go to college and I do have a degree. It didn't help me a bit. It is my fault, not theirs. Nonetheless, I'm quite certain that both GF and JWI made more dough than I, and probably even Bellyacher-in-Chief JTR.

I can see you don't know anything about science.

Everyone knows what extremism is and they know that Jehovah's Witnesses are not it. And Jehovah's Witnesses alone were banned as a religion. But others may follow. Every non-majority faith is harassed.

Actually, I only crossed it out because I wasn't sure I had spelled it correctly.

The same chapter of the Kingdom book that spoke of the first use of 'Kingdom Hall' also spoke of the first time Witnesses met in their own building. A church group had been divided because half followed Russell's teachings and half did not. There were two groups but only one building, and for a time (this was in the 1880's) whoever got to the building first used it for services. I realized that our salvation lay in this account. The tyrannical and mean organization regularly abuses their authority by reminding Witnesses to get to meetings on time, even a little early for the sake of visiting. I realized the answer to the problem was to share our Hall with the Mormons or Catholics or Rastafarians. Then our people will get there early to prevent the others from using it. might it be, though, someone asked, that only one person would arrive early, and not the whole congregation? Not a problem. In that case, he or she can save seats. We're good at that, too.

All these explanations are wrong. It becomes tiresome. Luckily Fortunately for everyone here, I will elucidate. The answer is found in our family folklore. I invited my profane great uncle to a meeting long ago. He attended only one. He sputtered and groused throughout the talk and Watchtower study, just like some on this forum. Afterwards in the parking lot he grumbled to a brother, who turned out to be hard of hearing: "What is this nonsense about a Kingdom? Hell, I don't believe a word of it!" The brother mistook his remark as appreciation. He thought it would make a really cool name for something that had, up to that time, been called a "place." The term caught on. Brother Rutherford heard about it one day and said: 'Yeah. I can live with that."

I'm trying to sell my obsolete neckties to the Society, who brought this all on.

It is not a conspiracy theory. Just look what happened to me: Stuck in an evil time warp. At last I understand.

Arauna asked many fine questions of Witness, none of which were answered. They are not the kind of questions you ask, but they are the kind that strike to the heart of her claimed area of expertise. She is the truly annointed one, she says, so does she do anything that one would reasonably expect an annointed one to do? How can you not ask those things? I looked into this. In fact, I expanded upon it. One question Arauna did not ask of Witness was 'does she provide any nourishing spiritual food?' as the faithful and discreet slave are said to do. It is a good thing she did not ask it, because Witness has. She has provided us the diatribe of that fellow complaining that his permanent home at Bethel did not materialize. THIS is where you ought to demand a transcript, for a transcript allows one to quickly get the gist of something without having to plow through a videoed complaint. I could get no further than 'the Watchtower will throw you under the bus.' Please. To use his vernacular, they never said they wouldn't. They never promised lifetime residency. I live not that far from Warwick. Many responded to the invitation to help in building. All knew that it was not a permanent gig. That point was made clear from the get-go. Nobody had reason to misunderstand it. They all understand the nature of an organization that exists to serve, not to be served. Even were he already a full-time Bethelite, lifetime residency has never been promised. 'Try it for a year,' prospective Bethelites were once encouraged, or, going back, four years. The fact that some have ended up staying a long long time does not mean that anyone crossing the threshhold door has a lifetime connection. For a long time, while brute force was the commodity, many did, but as Arauna says, technology changes everything. Bethel would be robbing the worldwide brotherhood were they not to adapt to changing times and strive to combat bloat. Look, it is not as though I cannot empathize with the kid. The experience of panic that ensues when any phase of life ends is real. 'What will I do next?' is the fear. People handle it differently, but most know the feeling to some degree. High school ends. College ends. Military ends. Grants end. Secular employment ends - many work assignments in the States are temporary, after which the employee is back to square one. Young people have even become used to so-called permanent employment being temporary - the lifetime employment of my Dad's day went the way of the dodo bird long ago. Witness or her friends have used this kid and made him look like a loser. He will actually be one if he does not shake their influence. Have they helped him to readjust and manfully face the next aspect of life, or have they encouraged him to cry like a baby for the sake of their own ax they live to grind? Hopefully, he will recover and move on in life, as all of us must many times for many reasons. However, when he is respectfully employed somewhere and happily readusted to life, perhaps with wife and family, perhaps even restored to full-time service, Witness will still be running this video iimmortalizing him at his lowest - shedding bitter tears, sulking and hitting back at those he thinks have wronged him. He will forever look small, whereas he would probably rather look big someday. And unless there is positive evidence somewhere within the video, there is always the chance that the whole thing is made up - though I am willing to take it at face value. So let no one say Witness does not provide spiritual food. She does.

It works for me. I like it. Or one could just say 'they changed that.' They have never said they don't. Everyone knows Jehovah's Witnesses have thought Armageddon is just around the corner for a long while. It is. It simply turns out that it is one heckuva corner. But there is no question that this human experiment with self-rule will not turn out well.

Hmm. I'm listening to Lynard Skynard and @JW Insider is at the London Museum. That probably says it all.