TrueTomHarley

Well, maybe there is something redeeming about them yet.
Being flesh, it is so easy for attention to go to our head. I have had enough bad experience in life that I don’t think I am easily vulnerable. When your head is stuffed into the toilet, upon extracting that head, you do not say, “I guess I taught that toilet a thing or two, didn’t I?”
Still, I take nothing for granted, From time to time, brothers I do not know who have enjoyed this or that post want to Zoom with me. I won’t. Email is enough. It would be very easy to be leader of a movement. I won’t do it.
I tell such people tongue-in-cheek that with me it is 2 Corinthians 10:10, that while they might find my writing “weighty and forceful,” my personal presence was weak and my speech contemptible.
When I pulled that on Nemo—for from the moment I saw him he tried to lure me on his podcast, and I never had any intention of going, but I strung him along for a while, he taunted me for the longest time on how I thought my words were “weighty and forceful.”
He is so abusive. But I got in my licks.
Like when he tweeted certain woman’s groups the same “countdown” message for 50 straight days and they ignored him. His own people said ‘if they choose not to respond, you have to respect that.’ Finally I appended to his tweet, “It’s as though he says to these women, ‘G*******t, answer me when I’m talking to you!’”

Speaking of the name, I did today block @originalJehovah on Twitter. He had responded to a tweet of mine with something snide. I told his two friends who had commented on the new thread before I had seen it, that I hoped he didn’t mind the block, and that it was not for anything he said. Rather, it was for his insolence toward the Divinity, as expressed through his handle.
(It was probably 4Jah)

Well, maybe there is something redeeming about them yet.
Being flesh, it is so easy for attention to go to our head. I have had enough bad experience in life that I don’t think I am easily vulnerable. When your head is stuffed into the toilet, upon extracting that head, you do not say, “I guess I taught that toilet a thing or two, didn’t I?”
Still, I take nothing for granted, From time to time, brothers I do not know who have enjoyed this or that post want to Zoom with me. I won’t. Email is enough. It would be very easy to be leader of a movement. I won’t do it.
I tell such people tongue-in-cheek that with me it is 2 Corinthians 10:10, that while they might find my writing “weighty and forceful,” my personal presence was weak and my speech contemptible.
When I pulled that on Nemo—for from the moment I saw him he tried to lure me on his podcast, and I never had any intention of going, but I strung him along for a while, he taunted me for the longest time on how I thought my words were “weighty and forceful.”
He is so abusive. But I got in my licks.
Like when he tweeted certain woman’s groups the same “countdown” message for 50 straight days and they ignored him. His own people said ‘if they choose not to respond, you have to respect that.’ Finally I appended to his tweet, “It’s as though he says to these women, ‘G*******t, answer me when I’m talking to you!’”

Speaking of the name, I did today block @originalJehovah on Twitter. He had responded to a tweet of mine with something snide. I told his two friends who had commented on the new thread before I had seen it, that I hoped he didn’t mind the block, and that it was not for anything he said. Rather, it was for his insolence toward the Divinity, as expressed through his handle.
(It was probably 4Jah)

The physicist (Neil) was right. You can tell evil as it feeds on itself w/it's ideas and expressions. Spiritual autophagy produces progressively predictable response patterns as these have chosen themselves as their own root.

Every so often I check Lloyd’s tweets—I have rechristened him Nemo. To my surprise, he has denounced the (huge) reddit forum as not a safe space for ex-JW’s. I think it is because someone there called him out on how overbearing and self-important he has become.

Yes. Of course. Is no more complicated than that, although dressed up as pious concern and godly respect for this technical point or that.
It is always good if letters to the foe are short and sweet. I like how you typically do that as I also try, with but occasional caveats. You see what happens. He goes into hysterics, screaming over words, making ever more shrill and poorly supported charges, if supported at all. He wets himself in the presence of all.
Best to let him stew that way. Respond with pith to select short quotes. He wants miles-long verbiage on each one of his many complaints, all of which he has raised many times before, and it is best to just let him wet himself.
Let your short remarks be as persuasive and cheery as possible, as his are as shrill and bitter as possible. In the unlikely event that anyone will want to untangle all this verbiage, it will be clear how things are. That doesn’t mean you will “win.” Many people prefer the whiny claptrap he spins, with contempt for anything that smacks of cooperation. So be it. The purpose is simply to lay down thoughts persuasively and let it be seen that he really doesn’t know how to think.
In short, you know that this is a Witness forum, even if an avant garde one that the organization itself probably does not care for. The keeper (that old hen) is a Witness. She is a “theocracy dies in darkness” Witness, to be sure, who believes in dialogue, even with riffraff, but she is a Witness. A whiny little girl like him fills up pages, but should he move on he is easily be replaced with other whiny little girls. A Witness who brings original content to the table has little fear of going out of style.

You have it all backwards, as usual.

She is what I say she is.
Long ago when she accused me of hawking my books because I was hawking my books, and I almost left—after several days I said I was going to spin a new fiction of her as a mean, over-the-hill has-been of a school librarian who doesn’t like children and is counting down the days to her retirement. Moreover, her mischievous pupils knew that full well, I chief among them, would undertake mischievous tricks like replacing her gin with milk of magnesia. 
I told her if she ever got tired of it, I would mend my ways. She never has. Alas, at this point even if she did, it might be too late. I am too settled into a routine and cannot change, @Anna

Yes. Of course. Is no more complicated than that, although dressed up as pious concern and godly respect for this technical point or that.
It is always good if letters to the foe are short and sweet. I like how you typically do that as I also try, with but occasional caveats. You see what happens. He goes into hysterics, screaming over words, making ever more shrill and poorly supported charges, if supported at all. He wets himself in the presence of all.
Best to let him stew that way. Respond with pith to select short quotes. He wants miles-long verbiage on each one of his many complaints, all of which he has raised many times before, and it is best to just let him wet himself.
Let your short remarks be as persuasive and cheery as possible, as his are as shrill and bitter as possible. In the unlikely event that anyone will want to untangle all this verbiage, it will be clear how things are. That doesn’t mean you will “win.” Many people prefer the whiny claptrap he spins, with contempt for anything that smacks of cooperation. So be it. The purpose is simply to lay down thoughts persuasively and let it be seen that he really doesn’t know how to think.
In short, you know that this is a Witness forum, even if an avant garde one that the organization itself probably does not care for. The keeper (that old hen) is a Witness. She is a “theocracy dies in darkness” Witness, to be sure, who believes in dialogue, even with riffraff, but she is a Witness. A whiny little girl like him fills up pages, but should he move on he is easily be replaced with other whiny little girls. A Witness who brings original content to the table has little fear of going out of style.

I actually think the statement is a little clunky—for it doesn’t account for the reversal— and that i could have written it better, along the lines I have already said. 
Still, it is such a white-hot issue, and some are trying to milk it for various reasons, that maybe it is just as well not to risk looking “defensive”—state what has been stated, and move on. 
It is a good deal to have resolved. I am sure they are happy to do that. I am sure victims are happy, too. That is the nature of any reconciliation. People are happy when it is done.
I liked how Holly Folk did not shirk from taking on lawyers. Essentially, if you have money, someone will devise a means to take some of it. It will not be a completely fictional means, for that will seldom produce results. It will be something that is real, but overstated, exaggerated, and legitimate cases will be mixed with more dubious ones. It is in lawyers’ interests to portray people as victims, whatever happened to them was not their fault. Accordingly the “cult” mantra is hugely popular with them. At times, one wonders if they to some degree have invented the idea, for they surely benefit from it.
It is not just CSA. That is but a tiny part of the iceberg. In my community, there are about twenty legal firms that advertise on media, and some of them do it virtually non-stop. I can remember a time when manufacturers were the prime sponsors of TV shows. Now they are sidled aside by lawyers. What does that tell you as to the nature of society?  It amounts to a global society-wide transfer of funds, with barristers netting a third.
I was a defendent in such a case. I don’t think many people have not had some such experience, unless they have taken care never to do anything in life. This one involved a house I rented out. Insurance kicks in and you have little to do with it, but if you don’t know that in advance, it is very disconcerting. Even knowing it in advance, it is not comfortable. The suit was for $6 million and the settlement was for $200K. “How can the insurance companies afford this?” I asked my agent. “They can’t,” was the reply. “They just keep raising their rates.”
”My lawyer got me 5 million dollars, 18 times what the insurance company offered.” Such ads are staples on TV. In satire, I append the following to them: “All my neighbors rejoiced with me. Then they opened their premium bills.”
My teenage daughter’s car was hit—not her fault—and within days the other insurance company was hounding me to “settle.” Settle what? I was not accustomed to this new normal. They offered thousands of dollars if only I would settle. Finally I told them, “I don’t think this is going to cost you a dime. Pay a few chiropractic bills and that will be the end of it. But I am not signing anything away, for I don’t know what the finale will be.” They paid a few bills. I never did settle. There was never any reason to. I was probably a chump. I probably should have hit them up for as many thousands as I could. I just didn’t know that mindset, and concepts like “honesty” got in the way. The latest prompting from TV lawyers is that you call them immediately after your doctor to find out what “your accident is worth.” I am of the generation where you didn’t call them at all. You had insurance, the other party had insurance, you relied upon them for fair compensation, and were seldom dissatisfied with the result.

I would not be so sure that genuine victims will get a better deal with this program. It may be that handling complaints on a case-by-case basis, as was being done, will be more to their advantage. Governments with their agencies, not to mention lawyers, tend to seriously erode funds meant for victims. Plus, it has already been revealed that those churches that did sign on, to much fanfare, are subsequently dragging their feet and are being as uncooperative as possible. CC is right. These things tend to be facades, with everyone taking bows while raiding the till, and the victims don’t fare nearly as well as you might think.
It may turn out to be more like the vaccine court in the U.S. Though you can sue a manufacturer for every other defective product, you cannot sue for a vaccine injury. Pharma managed to legislate themselves immunity. There is a vaccine court for redress, funded in part by surcharges on each vaccine given. Ask any injured party and they will tell you that their cases are almost invariably denied, and it is only by fighting it out with lawyers that they may, after a few years, get a few thousand dollars, seldom very much. This is true even in cases of permanent paralysis.

You are calling God AL these days?
It’s called translation. You know (well—YOU probably don’t, but everyone else does) that John becomes Johann in some languages, Ivan in others, and is modified in many countries.. You would get up on your high horse over that and prefer to be called ‘Mighty4Jah?’
It is true, however, that when people began truncating TrueTom to TTH, in time a group of morons arose to claim that no one really could know if it was TrueTom or not.
It only became worse after it was discovered  I had released some notes without signature. Lawyers came along and said ‘since he didn’t put his name everywhere, we’ll assume it is not anywhere.

Of course. You commendably refrain from ad hominem attacks, but I don’t. He is such a do-do. In any group of several million people, you will find many examples of anything. One must run the comparative numbers before reaching any verdict. You don’t reach your verdict first then ask around to assemble buttressing facts.
 
There is probably something unsavoringly sexist about this remark. Having said that, I thought the same. If sexist, it is not necessarily in an unflattering way, as in supposing women don’t think. With me, and probably with you, it was in a complimentary way, as in men are so likely to bluster on about their overpowering thinking ability, but women, though they will think every bit as much, seldom make such a display about it. 
She has favored me with a direct message or two. She has a background and brings much to the table. She says she personally knows Witness and gives me insight on that one.
 

I’ve never seen it.  

While he was here, he sided with you almost always.

Yes. Of course. He will be merging “Almighty God” with Jesus Chrst presently, if he hasn’t already, and it may not be long after that he sends “Almighty God” to the ash heap entirely to worship Jesus.
There is a scholar somewhere—I wish I could put my finger on it—who says that the very reason LORD began to be preferred over the name was that it facilitates a merging of the two.
Call us old-fashioned, Xero, but we belong to the club that thinks if you put your name 7000 times in your book, it means you want it there, and may not be too thrilled with those who obscure it or even take it out.
By forsaking the Name, is he not distancing himself already from that One, even as he presents himself as holiness on steroids? Is he going down the path of what he does to you, calling you ex-elder, or what CC does to JWI, calling him ex-bethelite? It is an unmistakable sign of dislike and desired distance, and that is why they do it. In discarding the name for the title, is not 4jah all but calling God “ex-confidant?” If he drops the “4Jah” for “4God” we will know for sure.
As to CC, as you know, I go back and forth with him. At the moment, (and I really hope I do not drag him in here with rebukes to all) I am inclined to think he probably is a JW, but exceedingly unbalanced, hung up on one point to the near-exclusion of others. Is there precedent? I wonder. When Phineas pierced the two love-birds through their you-know-whats, and then led the charge to slay a ton of others, did someone at some point have to lay a hand on him and say, “Not them, Phineas! They’re okay. Granted, they are a little squirrelly, but we can put up with them. They have some good in them.” We may just have to put up with him, as we acknowledge that here and there he comes up with powerful points, and he certainly tolerates no rivalry before Jehovah. Who knows what inner turmoil people have gone through? Unless I cannot resist, I not going to squabble with him, even if he takes shots at me.
I dreamt up a fictional character and sometimes when a humanist ex-JW acts up I assign his words to Vic Vomodog, a former compatriot for whom against all reason and counsel, I still retain a soft spot, however so faint. Long ago, we used to pull shoulder to shoulder in the work. But Vic is unrelentingly atheist. He will not do for ex-JWs who still retain a recognition of God. How to solve that problem?
Meet Bob Sowmire, who will serve as the anti-type of 4jah. For some reason Vic and Bob are close—you would think they wouldn’t be able to stand each other, for they have nothing in common and have gone in mutually antagonistic ways. But like 4Jah chumming with Alan, with Srecko, with O’Malighan, with Matthew 4-5784, (you may not have had the honor with the latter two) people who in all other respects he would not be able to tolerate, but the mutual distaste of Jehovah’s people and now his Name unites them, so Vic Vomodog and Bob Sowmire are thick as thieves. 

Of course. You commendably refrain from ad hominem attacks, but I don’t. He is such a do-do. In any group of several million people, you will find many examples of anything. One must run the comparative numbers before reaching any verdict. You don’t reach your verdict first then ask around to assemble buttressing facts.
 
There is probably something unsavoringly sexist about this remark. Having said that, I thought the same. If sexist, it is not necessarily in an unflattering way, as in supposing women don’t think. With me, and probably with you, it was in a complimentary way, as in men are so likely to bluster on about their overpowering thinking ability, but women, though they will think every bit as much, seldom make such a display about it. 
She has favored me with a direct message or two. She has a background and brings much to the table. She says she personally knows Witness and gives me insight on that one.
 

I would not be so sure that genuine victims will get a better deal with this program. It may be that handling complaints on a case-by-case basis, as was being done, will be more to their advantage. Governments with their agencies, not to mention lawyers, tend to seriously erode funds meant for victims. Plus, it has already been revealed that those churches that did sign on, to much fanfare, are subsequently dragging their feet and are being as uncooperative as possible. CC is right. These things tend to be facades, with everyone taking bows while raiding the till, and the victims don’t fare nearly as well as you might think.
It may turn out to be more like the vaccine court in the U.S. Though you can sue a manufacturer for every other defective product, you cannot sue for a vaccine injury. Pharma managed to legislate themselves immunity. There is a vaccine court for redress, funded in part by surcharges on each vaccine given. Ask any injured party and they will tell you that their cases are almost invariably denied, and it is only by fighting it out with lawyers that they may, after a few years, get a few thousand dollars, seldom very much. This is true even in cases of permanent paralysis.

I actually think the statement is a little clunky—for it doesn’t account for the reversal— and that i could have written it better, along the lines I have already said. 
Still, it is such a white-hot issue, and some are trying to milk it for various reasons, that maybe it is just as well not to risk looking “defensive”—state what has been stated, and move on. 
It is a good deal to have resolved. I am sure they are happy to do that. I am sure victims are happy, too. That is the nature of any reconciliation. People are happy when it is done.
I liked how Holly Folk did not shirk from taking on lawyers. Essentially, if you have money, someone will devise a means to take some of it. It will not be a completely fictional means, for that will seldom produce results. It will be something that is real, but overstated, exaggerated, and legitimate cases will be mixed with more dubious ones. It is in lawyers’ interests to portray people as victims, whatever happened to them was not their fault. Accordingly the “cult” mantra is hugely popular with them. At times, one wonders if they to some degree have invented the idea, for they surely benefit from it.
It is not just CSA. That is but a tiny part of the iceberg. In my community, there are about twenty legal firms that advertise on media, and some of them do it virtually non-stop. I can remember a time when manufacturers were the prime sponsors of TV shows. Now they are sidled aside by lawyers. What does that tell you as to the nature of society?  It amounts to a global society-wide transfer of funds, with barristers netting a third.
I was a defendent in such a case. I don’t think many people have not had some such experience, unless they have taken care never to do anything in life. This one involved a house I rented out. Insurance kicks in and you have little to do with it, but if you don’t know that in advance, it is very disconcerting. Even knowing it in advance, it is not comfortable. The suit was for $6 million and the settlement was for $200K. “How can the insurance companies afford this?” I asked my agent. “They can’t,” was the reply. “They just keep raising their rates.”
”My lawyer got me 5 million dollars, 18 times what the insurance company offered.” Such ads are staples on TV. In satire, I append the following to them: “All my neighbors rejoiced with me. Then they opened their premium bills.”
My teenage daughter’s car was hit—not her fault—and within days the other insurance company was hounding me to “settle.” Settle what? I was not accustomed to this new normal. They offered thousands of dollars if only I would settle. Finally I told them, “I don’t think this is going to cost you a dime. Pay a few chiropractic bills and that will be the end of it. But I am not signing anything away, for I don’t know what the finale will be.” They paid a few bills. I never did settle. There was never any reason to. I was probably a chump. I probably should have hit them up for as many thousands as I could. I just didn’t know that mindset, and concepts like “honesty” got in the way. The latest prompting from TV lawyers is that you call them immediately after your doctor to find out what “your accident is worth.” I am of the generation where you didn’t call them at all. You had insurance, the other party had insurance, you relied upon them for fair compensation, and were seldom dissatisfied with the result.

Well said.
The publications not too long ago made much ado about Solomon’s temple dedication speech:
Individuals of “your people Israel, because they know each one his own plague and his own pain; [would] actually spread out his palms toward this house, then may you yourself hear from the heavens, the place of your dwelling, and you must forgive and give to each one according to all his ways, because you know his heart.” (2 Chronicles 6:29-30)
We will never know it all with any given person. But he does. And he uses the knowledge for good.
I’m sure you have taken notice how frequently the verse of Job’s “wild talk” comes up for play, after decades of never hearing of it at all. “If a brother or sister engages in some “wild talk,” don’t be quick to jump to conclusions. You don’t know what they have gone through.” Counsel along such lines has become frequent. 
Before you came along, @Thinkingtold how David Splane had said something to the effect of, “there are those who engage in wild talk, and we may just have to put up with it, because they have been injured and It’s part of their healing process.” I didn’t hear it myself. Thinking may have inadvertently skewed it. But I regard her as a reliable source, and I suspect she is spot-on. It certainly is in keeping with 2 Chronicles 6:29).
 
 
 
 

Well said.
The publications not too long ago made much ado about Solomon’s temple dedication speech:
Individuals of “your people Israel, because they know each one his own plague and his own pain; [would] actually spread out his palms toward this house, then may you yourself hear from the heavens, the place of your dwelling, and you must forgive and give to each one according to all his ways, because you know his heart.” (2 Chronicles 6:29-30)
We will never know it all with any given person. But he does. And he uses the knowledge for good.
I’m sure you have taken notice how frequently the verse of Job’s “wild talk” comes up for play, after decades of never hearing of it at all. “If a brother or sister engages in some “wild talk,” don’t be quick to jump to conclusions. You don’t know what they have gone through.” Counsel along such lines has become frequent. 
Before you came along, @Thinkingtold how David Splane had said something to the effect of, “there are those who engage in wild talk, and we may just have to put up with it, because they have been injured and It’s part of their healing process.” I didn’t hear it myself. Thinking may have inadvertently skewed it. But I regard her as a reliable source, and I suspect she is spot-on. It certainly is in keeping with 2 Chronicles 6:29).
 
 
 
 

I actually think the statement is a little clunky—for it doesn’t account for the reversal— and that i could have written it better, along the lines I have already said. 
Still, it is such a white-hot issue, and some are trying to milk it for various reasons, that maybe it is just as well not to risk looking “defensive”—state what has been stated, and move on. 
It is a good deal to have resolved. I am sure they are happy to do that. I am sure victims are happy, too. That is the nature of any reconciliation. People are happy when it is done.
I liked how Holly Folk did not shirk from taking on lawyers. Essentially, if you have money, someone will devise a means to take some of it. It will not be a completely fictional means, for that will seldom produce results. It will be something that is real, but overstated, exaggerated, and legitimate cases will be mixed with more dubious ones. It is in lawyers’ interests to portray people as victims, whatever happened to them was not their fault. Accordingly the “cult” mantra is hugely popular with them. At times, one wonders if they to some degree have invented the idea, for they surely benefit from it.
It is not just CSA. That is but a tiny part of the iceberg. In my community, there are about twenty legal firms that advertise on media, and some of them do it virtually non-stop. I can remember a time when manufacturers were the prime sponsors of TV shows. Now they are sidled aside by lawyers. What does that tell you as to the nature of society?  It amounts to a global society-wide transfer of funds, with barristers netting a third.
I was a defendent in such a case. I don’t think many people have not had some such experience, unless they have taken care never to do anything in life. This one involved a house I rented out. Insurance kicks in and you have little to do with it, but if you don’t know that in advance, it is very disconcerting. Even knowing it in advance, it is not comfortable. The suit was for $6 million and the settlement was for $200K. “How can the insurance companies afford this?” I asked my agent. “They can’t,” was the reply. “They just keep raising their rates.”
”My lawyer got me 5 million dollars, 18 times what the insurance company offered.” Such ads are staples on TV. In satire, I append the following to them: “All my neighbors rejoiced with me. Then they opened their premium bills.”
My teenage daughter’s car was hit—not her fault—and within days the other insurance company was hounding me to “settle.” Settle what? I was not accustomed to this new normal. They offered thousands of dollars if only I would settle. Finally I told them, “I don’t think this is going to cost you a dime. Pay a few chiropractic bills and that will be the end of it. But I am not signing anything away, for I don’t know what the finale will be.” They paid a few bills. I never did settle. There was never any reason to. I was probably a chump. I probably should have hit them up for as many thousands as I could. I just didn’t know that mindset, and concepts like “honesty” got in the way. The latest prompting from TV lawyers is that you call them immediately after your doctor to find out what “your accident is worth.” I am of the generation where you didn’t call them at all. You had insurance, the other party had insurance, you relied upon them for fair compensation, and were seldom dissatisfied with the result.

Did you miss the sewing bee she was carrying on about? (Sorry  )

Well said.
The publications not too long ago made much ado about Solomon’s temple dedication speech:
Individuals of “your people Israel, because they know each one his own plague and his own pain; [would] actually spread out his palms toward this house, then may you yourself hear from the heavens, the place of your dwelling, and you must forgive and give to each one according to all his ways, because you know his heart.” (2 Chronicles 6:29-30)
We will never know it all with any given person. But he does. And he uses the knowledge for good.
I’m sure you have taken notice how frequently the verse of Job’s “wild talk” comes up for play, after decades of never hearing of it at all. “If a brother or sister engages in some “wild talk,” don’t be quick to jump to conclusions. You don’t know what they have gone through.” Counsel along such lines has become frequent. 
Before you came along, @Thinkingtold how David Splane had said something to the effect of, “there are those who engage in wild talk, and we may just have to put up with it, because they have been injured and It’s part of their healing process.” I didn’t hear it myself. Thinking may have inadvertently skewed it. But I regard her as a reliable source, and I suspect she is spot-on. It certainly is in keeping with 2 Chronicles 6:29).