TrueTomHarley

Davey the Kid, working in the cheese room, had published his book on how to make cheese. Don't know if he ever made money off of it. John and I went to visit him at the farm. We were all in our twenties and John had been raised a Witness. I asked him during the drive down whether he had ever thought of applying to Bethel. He said no. He said that those who went to Bethel did so because they couldn't cut it in the real world and wanted someone to look out for them. I, new in the truth, rebuked him. What an unnappreciative attitude! Later, during our visit, Davey asked me if I might like to apply to Bethel someday. "No, Tom thinks only losers go to Bethel, who can't make it anywhere else," John replied for me!

If it were not for my Vow against Ad Hominem attacks, I would state the opinion that JTR is piece of work.

Alright, just on general principle I will not 'like' anything from JTR. I will not do it. Just when you think he is finally offering up something worthwhile, he slams you with some crass graphic. So I won't like this one, either. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. On the other hand......it is kind of funny

In some cases, it is 'crank out the dough.' Some Bethelites do extraordinarily well in business after their of special full-time service. Sometimes it is for the advancement of the good news. Less frequently it trips them up spiritually. Davey the Kid, from the first book, 'took over' Bethel while he was there. He simply had the ability and personality that everything he touched turned to gold. In another context, he once told me: "It's my gift - they never say no." He left Bethel to marry, in the days when you could not do both unless you were Brother Knorr. He loved his Bethel days. But he told me he had always felt cheated at not being able to make his own way financially. He made up for it afterwards. He never became wealthy. That was not his goal. But he never had the slightest difficulty supporting himself and his family as he made extraordinary contributions to kingdom interests in these parts.

Sometimes when I call and people are obsessed that my motive is to convert them, I try to counter that. "If it will help, let us agree up front that there is no way on God's green earth that you are going to become a Jehovah's Witness like me. You know it. I know it. So you won't have to worry about me sneaking in tiny hooks to that end." Sometimes that helps. Every Witness knows that the odds of any given person converting are extraordinarily thin. It's icing on the cake if they do, but even that they cannot do without a solid year of study behind them. The main motivation is to declare the good news of the kingdom. When there is obvious human suffering, and you feel you hold the key to its alleviation, you may try to offer that key. What's so sinister about that? I will concede, however that many of our people are not too discreet. They are like the early Christians who .... oh, wait ....they weren't too discreet either.

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?

Even so, with you referee for me when I take on the Librarian in DEBATE, the ugly old hag? IT IS SHE WHO STARTED THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! CONFISCATING MY LIGHTER! ALL I WAS DOING WAS LIGHTING THE CANDLES ON MY BIRTHDAY CAKE. LAST WEEK I TRIED TO LIGHT ALL THE MANY CANDLES ON HER CAKE AND THE LIGHTER RAN OUT OF FUEL!!! Once again, James, you must turn that frown upside down. I'm too peaceful to debate.

I CHALLENGE @The Librarian TO A DEBATE!!!! YES, YOU HEARD ME, YOU OLD BATTLEAXE!!! A DEBATE!!! THAT"S THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO SETTLE THIS! RIGHT HERE! RIGHT NOW! A DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!! JTR WILL REFEREE!

"If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion...he is obsessed with arguments and debates about words".....(1 Timothy 6:3-4) "Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates"... (2 Timothy 2:2) "So I desire that in every place the men carry on prayer...without anger and debates"...1 Timothy 2:8 Since I am constrained to follow scripture, I am overturning my king. Excellent! You debate my side. Let me know how it turns out. Argue hard. Don't be stupid. I don't want to lose this one.

Rather, I think it important to stick with the original theme of this theme. My last reply was a noble attempt to do that. Look, if you want to take on the Librarian, be my guest.I don't want to sit in detention for a month.

I suggested a mom who homeschools her two teenage kids assign them this one, and suggested it would not be easy - they would likely have to go to Supreme Court records. She replied that her boy would be enthralled and dive right into it, but her daughter would say ... this is too much....'if it was important, it would be in the book.' (the girl grinned when this was brought to her attention) I'm with both. There are some things that I dig into with relish. And there are some things about which I say: "who cares?" The girl's anticipated answer reminded me of a brother, likely the dumbest person I ever met, as fleshly as a brother can be and still be a brother, who likely came into the truth simply to placate his wife, as course as he could be, but nonetheless loved by all for extreme generosity and unfailing good humor ....okay? ....got the picture?....cornered me when I was saying something zealous, with: (as if from Moses on high) "a man can only stand so much religion!" As to the thirteenth case, how could anyone possibly know that one? It is as the Eagles sang: "There's a new kid in town." Eoin's star rises, mine continues to sink fast.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the 1940's decreed that Witness children could be required to salute the flag. It unleashed a wave of violent reprisals, ordinary citizens suddenly unashamed to be thugs, so that many legal types began to rethink their decision. It was reversed within the year, as [separate] men of conscience could not abide what they had unleashed. " "The first court to hear the case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia refused to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court decision and ruled in favor of the Witness children: "Ordinarily we would feel constrained to follow an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether we agreed with it or not...the developments with respect to the Gobitas case, however, are such that we do not feel it is incumbent upon us to accept it as binding authority...The tyranny of majorities over the rights of individuals or helpless minorities has always been recognized as one of the great dangers of popular government. The fathers sought to guard against this danger by writing into the Constitution a bill of rights guaranteeing to every individual certain fundamental liberties...We are clearly of the opinion that the regulation of the Board requiring that school children salute the flag is void insofar as it applies to children having conscientious scruples against giving such salute... "The issue was again appealed up to the Supreme Court, and this time that body reversed itself. By a 6:3 majority, the Court ruled that compulsory flag salute was unconstitutional. Their verdict was announced on June 14, 1943, Flag Day." Perhaps there will be some men of conscience in Russia, as well, who cannot abide what they have unleashed.

Suppose I took the crass words you use and threw them around, like Kim and his nukes. Would you like it? Most things are arguable, and as you know, I'm not one to argue. Shiwii wanted to celebrate his birthday. I told him he could. What more can he ask for? Is he upset that some are convinced by the explanations that failed to convince him? What's it to him? Why is he here?

I WAS FURIOUS AFTER THE MEETING THURSDAY AND I HANDED IN MY RESIGNATION!!! JTR HAS BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!!! HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SUCH A FOOL?????? THE BROTHERS TAKING THE LEAD ARE INCOMPETENT LIARS!! THEY ARE IMPOSTERS!!! THEY CARE NOTHING FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE!!! THEY LAUGH AT THEIR WOES!!! FROM THE 'KINGDOM RULES' BOOK: "ON THAT MEMORABLE DAY IN 1943, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WON 12 OF THEIR 13 CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!!!!!" [!!!!! MINE] IF THEY WEREN'T SUCH JERKS, THEY WOULD HAVE WON ALL 13!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* (What is the one they lost? I'll bet even @JW Insider, who knows a lot, doesn't know this one.)

I wondered what was all the fuss about this tract. Then I went to the Thursday meeting. As to the question "What effect did the [Canadian Supreme Court] victory have on our brothers and sisters?' I replied that the jury is still out. It isn't for Canada, but it is for Russia. How comes it that this Quebec case is presented to congregations worldwide as the Russian Supreme Court is to hear our appeal? @JW Insider will know the lead time on this article, but I would be surprised if it is under two years, one at most. Their certainly are a lot of parallels, and perhaps the Russian Court will be instructed by the Canadian Court of long ago. Perhaps it will be moved by "the Court agreed with the argument presented by the defense that "sedition" requires incitement to violence or insurrection against government. The tract, however, 'contained no such incitements and was therefore a lawful form of free speech.'" The tract in question, Quebec's Burning Hate, was considerably hotter than anything Russia has been asked to deal with. You can be sure all is being done that can be done to ensure that relevant Russian officials are aware of this. Perhaps they will empathize, or perhaps they will be chastened by, the "trial court judge, who hated Witnesses, refused to admit evidence that proved the Bouchers' innocence." The Russian court, too, refused to admit evidence proving innocence, most notably that of police planting the 'extremist' literature that they would later 'find' and used as a pretext of arrest. Russia is not Canada. It cannot be shamed for denying free speech. It has not the reverence for free speech as do Western countries. There is a tendency to think that if the actual trial was a perfunctory sham, surely the appeal will be, too. But it may not be that way. The internet may prove powerful. The evidence that the Russian Court refused to see WAS seen by everyone else in the whole wide world thanks to jw.org, and this has to register. Of course, I exaggerate. It wasn't everyone. Far from it. But among legal type people and scholar type people, human-rights type people, and many a political figure, it likely was universal. The only ones who had a moral responsibility to see it are the ones who refused to see it. Surely they are embarrassed as this is brought to their attention. What will their response be?

'Hogwash' is my word, from the second book title. You may not use it.

There is the person who will not do a single thing unless he sees it in the Bible. It sounds very pious, doesn’t it? Very holy. Instantly it casts aspersions upon the one who will do things not expressly spelled out in the Bible. Noble though it sounds, however, it is but an indication of timidity at best, and rebelliousness at worst. This person is like the citizen of a country who will not do a single thing unless he reads it in the Constitution. He distrusts those idiots on the Supreme Court. What right have they to adapt the Constitution to modern times? They are liars and impostors, most likely, he tells himself. If the Bible does not specifically say that there will be a governing body for 2017, it certainly gives carte blanche. God has always provided some human agency to adapt his Word to those trusting in it. He is not the Grand Idiot, so as to think it obsolete just when the going gets rough. Today, it is Matthew 24:45-47, a passage which admittedly takes some interpretation. I’ve had someone tell me that it is merely a nice little story with the moral to always do your best. ‘It is necessary to shut the mouths’ of certain rebellious scoundrels, Paul wrote to Titus in the first century. Is it no longer necessary? Did the scoundrels all become saints the moment the apostles died? Who today is going to shut the mouths of the liars? Plainly, there is to be an organization in the modern day. So obvious are the benefits of organization - so many things you can do with it that you cannot do without it - that it is inexcusable not to be that way. That being the case, why would anyone resist the idea? All I can come up with is that they really don’t want to stray too far from this world and its definition of what is normal. They aspire to be smilely gumdrops in this system of things, and nothing more. ‘It is not bad how the world is arranged,’ they say. ‘All that is needed is for people to be nicer.’ As a smilely gumdrop, they gush joy and love to everyone. Then it turns out that one thinks Trump is the best hope for achieving his aim and another thinks it is Hillary, at which point they assassinate each other. Or they fall into the mindset of the national king, who will invariably convince them that their fellow religionists in that other kingdom have it all wrong and will not straighten up until their butts are kicked. At heart, they like this system of things. It just needs a little tweaking – that’s all. Nothing drastic. They are like Demas, who departed because ‘he loved this system of things.’ Unlike Demas, who most likely re-assimilated into the world he once left – for we never hear of him again – they do all they can do denigrate the Apostle Paul and the organization he represents. That way they don’t look so bad. ‘How can I put up with someone telling me what to do?’ they explain. ‘Why, they don’t even do birthdays over there.’ It’s a template. I don’t know who specifically fits into it and who does not. I’m not saying you do, Shiwii – how do I know? But it is a template nonetheless. If you like, I’ll say more. I’ve got nothing to hide from you or anyone else.

It's good you have nothing to hide. You do hide your name, however. Is it truly Shiwii?

A villain always imputes racism to his enemies. You, who likely never miss an episode of Rush Limbaugh, ought to agree with that point, for he frequently (and correctly, in my view) points that out. I am (for a change) not necessarily accusing you of this. You did say something about your proposal being 'ludicrous.' James, you enshroud your remarks with such crass snarkiness that is difficult to know your point. If that is by design, so be it. I also make no attempt to avoid 'out there' remarks. But if it is not by design, you should know about it. I never did get around to viewing your video. It had sound to it, presumably. There were other people in the room, and you have demonstrated that you cannot be trusted with sound, any more than you can with graphics.

The only medications I require these days are Rolaids, which I down by the bottlefull after conversing with certain ones. Oh, wait. cool it. Someone else is speaking (shut up, TrueTom already, just shut up.) #helpImtalkingandIcantstop

Uh oh.

He would have us believe that General Patton, looking upon the battle scene, saying "I love it. God help me, I DO love it" tormented himself over the death of every loyal soldier....remember how he pinned the medal on the maimed soldier and kissed him, a man who couldn't possibly have been aware of it, before kicking at the 'yellow coward?' The GB, on the other hand, says: "Look at how they got mowed down at TimBuck2! Isn't that a hoot?"

Oh. Of course. All the casualties of physical warfare are explainable, yet let there be one casualty of theocratic warfare and it can only be because responsible ones are saying: 'Hey, let's make this move and watch the little people suffer....won't that be fun?'

The name is TrueTom. Or if you MUST truncate it, just say True.

(quoting himself...is TrueTom full of himself, or what?) I view of this, it is surprising that JTR rails against the GB, for he admires greatly the campaigns of those who have fought FOR OUR RIGHTS AND OUR FREEDOMS AND YOU SHOULD THANK HEAVEN EVERY DAY FOR SUCH BRAVE MEN, TO WHOM YOU CANNOT HOLD A CANDLE, YOU WORM, yet he completely overlooks the fact that men were mowed down by the thousands by errors, by concerns of the 'greater good,' by pure intransigence. A scene comes to mind from Clint Eastwood's first WWII film in which a cavorting sailor topples overboard and it dawns upon his chums that nobody will save him - he will be left to drown. If JTR approached this as he approaches ones taking the lead in theocratic warfare, he would rail on endlessly. Surely one of the following ships could have thrown him a lifeline if they truly gave a shit about life.