TrueTomHarley

Of course!
Actually, I have gone there off and on and I tell them to be sure to read all my comments. They tell me to....well, they decline my offer.

Yes. This is in the nature of packaging things. It does take time. You think it takes no time if the packaging is done in a parking lot and people have to drive there to fetch it? You think they eat it there in the parking lot because it will take time to transport it home?
Forgive me for this. If you like, you can send a letter to God, supplemented by Bible chapters about feeding and caring, and point out that if he really cared, he would make food that didn’t go bad.
Come, now. You are just flailing away, revealing nothing more than mean jealousy. Why are you like this?
It’s a crime to go the extra mile and bring it to them? What if people don’t have a “waiting car?” Really poor people will not.
In my lifetime I have seen ‘taking care of one’s own’ go from being a laudable trait to a cult-like offense bordering on criminal. Let us rip Galatians 6:10 out of our Bibles, for it is selfish to actually do it: “let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.”
Let us humor you for a moment and grant your premise that Jehovah’s Witnesses are selfish for operating with this verse in mind. Isn’t it the fault of God, who says in this verse that they should begin aid with their own? What really is your beef over this? Aren’t faith-based organizations the ideal distribution channels? Surely you have one. You are the true anointed. Your rivals heading the JW organization are the false ones. Surely there is nothing they do that you don’t do better.
As a person of faith, you will disagree with the premise of this humanist thecounter.org article that we all must bend over backwards to make sure people who reject faith are not offended. You will say let them seek out a faith. That way, if every one does, and especially when they go the extra mile as do Jehovah’s Witnesses, everyone’s needs will be cared for. There will be no poor unattended.
Anyone can apply for this program. All you have to do is be willing to work for others and have your act together sufficiently enough to package and distribute. If Witnesses take the government up on their generous program, truly an instance—they are not all that common, of when government does things right—why do you rail about it? Anyone is invited to do it. There is no excuse for any faith not to, unless there are so few poor in their midst and reach that they are all easily accommodated. So everyone is cared for! And the humanists are not left out either because in abandoning faith they surely have built something better, so they too care for any poor within their midst and reach.
So what in the world is your beef with this? You froth at those who go the extra mile. Why do you not froth at those who do the bare minimum, or even nothing at all?
This is exactly the nasty jealousy that you display at the JW disaster relief program, on the basis that it doesn’t relieve everybody, but operates with Galatians 6:10 in mind. The reason it doesn’t attempt to fix everybody is that it is largely a labor force of volunteers using vacation time. There’s only so much that they can do. What they can do is set the example for others to imitate if they will.
We don’t know how to fix the world’s broken system. People without Bible principles tend not to get along. We don’t know how to help them succeed in the absence of Bible principles, and that is why JWs are primarily a Bible teaching organization. They follow the ‘teach a man to fish’ model, so you will not have to keep giving them fish till the end of time, because we see repeatedly that that model breaks down. 
Now, I personally have no issue with those who operate otherwise. When I pass a soup kitchen I do not mutter bad things about it. I say good things about it. I say that they are focusing on a specific good thing that we are not, and so how can you criticize that? I do not. I may observe that it is a stopgap measure, but that certainly does not make it unpraiseworthy. 
There is in my neck of the woods such an agency called the House of Mercy. It is run by a nun, or maybe a former-nun. I have nothing but praise for it. She shakes down whoever she must to procure supplies and help those who are truly down and out—with feeding and lodging. Recently she was worried that a gigundous shipment of canned goods that she has come to rely upon, supplied by the Latter Day Saints church in Salt Lake City, might not come this year. And then it did. Will you praise the Mormons? I will in this instance. It is a very good deed they do. However they are also the most political of faiths—the most consistently Republican as rated by the same Pew organization that ranks the Witnesses as the most apolitical, and they have a lot of beliefs that take time to get ones head around and that most churches will deride them as a cult almost to the same extent they will deride JWs as one.
I don’t have a problem with someone trying to make this world’s broken distribution system work. However, I will not go so far as to hurl stones at the people who have invented an entirely new channel that does work. The Watchtower has published an apt illustration of parents who hire a babysitter to care for their children, and on returning home they find the children not cared for, as the babysitter is busy painting the house. Even though the house needed painting, they are not happy. Tending to the children was the assigned task. If the babysitter wants to paint the house AND care for the children, that works fine, but that good work cannot be done INSTEAD of caring for the children.
I personally had mixed feelings when I heard this illustration because I had been saying something very similar for a long time and I thought maybe they had stolen it from me. Of course, they are welcome to it, and indeed, it is an obvious enough comparison that it might well occur simultaneously to different people. It actually improved upon mine because mine didn’t involve people. Mine involved hiring a contractor to reroof the house and later find that he has painted it instead. Theirs involves people, which is better, but it is also worse, because hiring a babysitter is always associated with caring for the kids physically. The parents do not hope for the babysitter to care for them spiritually, and usually are relieved to find that he/she hasn’t made that attempt.
The JW organization puts emphasis on caring for ones spiritually, so that in applying Bible principles they will correspond to the man who has learned how to fish. Of course, giving a man a fish also has a place, and as stated, I  am not one to criticize it, as you do the organization that teaches people how to fish. But if you only give them fish you make them dependent upon yourself for life, and the first time you fall down on “your” job, they blame you for it. Better teach them Bible principles that will enable them to fish, and the best foundation for Bible principles to stick is to fortify them with accurate knowledge about God.
And if I feared that the organization has stolen my illustration, it is not so bad as a recent speaker who related how at another Hall he had laid a $20 bill on the speaker stand along with his outline because he meant to use it as an illustration of how counterfeit is so hard to distinguish from real, and that the fact that there is much counterfeit money does not prove that there is no such thing as real money. However, the chairman, upon spotting the bill, removed it to Lost and Found, so that when the speaker took the stand, he could not use his analogy. “He literally stole my illustration,” he told us.
 
 
 
 
 

Trump himself passed them out in our congregation.
[No, I’m kidding—there will always be someone to take it seriously] 
And if there was anything hush-hush about the program, that never reached my ears. I posted both here and on my own blog of it.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/05/produce-from-the-usdaisnt-that-nice.html
In our service group, when an elderly sister remarked on how the brothers had bought this food, the one with oversight told her it was not they—they were just distributing—it was a government program that they had signed on to.
I do get the concern, (not of Witness, for she just wants to deride her rivals) but of the ones who originated her source material, that maybe there is someone who needs the food more. And that certainly could be. The part where Bro Hendricks says ‘we advised those who received packages not to turn them down’ and later presents the rationale that they will be inclined to underestimate their own burden—“downplaying any private struggles with food insecurity”—I can see that, too. (My wife and I are not destitute, but we are retired and we do live off social security—living modestly as Witnesses do, so that the stipend is far from huge) I responded the same way that Hendricks suggested some might respond: there will be others who need it more—and we were told that if that is the case, we could share with neighbors and others. I know of ones who have done this. How many? No idea. People of faith tend to take to heart Jesus’ counsel to not let the right hand know what the left is doing and not to blow a trumpet in front of them whenever they give. At some point you have to put faith in the “little people” to do what is right.
Since JWs are the lowest income group of all faiths (and Witness sneers over that too, no doubt), even if aid went no further than they and their immediate associates, it would hardly be a travesty. But, as indicated, they were encouraged to share if they felt there were others who could benefit more.
The trick is finding these ones. The solution of leaving it up to the individual to share with cases that he/she personally knows of is probably as efficient as any, and It may be the most efficient. If you are poor, you will likely live in a poor neighborhood, and will know of serious cases of need. If you are a Witness not poor, you will know of some who are, because Witnesses are a tightly knit community, and can find out about such hard cases through them in the event that none are in your immediate area.
Witness’s concern is only to slam JWs, but the tone of the article is irreligious in general, and whatever potential abuses of USDA rules it describes are not those of Jehovah’s Witnesses, even of such lesser charges as swapping the government logo for a religious one. The box we received plainly said ‘Farmers to Families—USDA.’ (and I am glad I took a picture of it for my prior post, because you know that Witness would not mention it)
Those church outfits will have to speak for themselves, and I noticed that some had no comment, in contrast to Hendricks, who did. Still, doesn’t jealousy account for much of the article’s tone, that communities of faith are motivated to have effective distribution channels that far outstrip those of non-faith, those purely secular? Says the article: “Many food banks and other nonprofits have complained that they’re incurring significant, unexpected expenses related to storage and last-mile delivery.” Not to be unfeeling, but whose fault is that? 
Faith, love of brother, and love of neighbor has moved ones of the JW organization to overcome these “unexpected expenses related to storage and last-mile delivery.” The packages I’ve received have been delivered directly to my door, and I have indeed shared some with others who were not recipients. JWs thus set an example showing secular outfits how it can be done. All those outfits need to do is find similar selfless people.
Of course, they do have some. I’ve nothing but praise for secular food relief organizations. But they don’t have such selfless ones in anywhere near the abundance as does the Witness faith-based community, and that is why massive lines have accompanied some distributions—one wonders if in some cases the aid received is not offset by the cost of gasoline in retrieving it. 
In the early days of the pandemic, before monitory relief came from the government that temporarily took the pressure off many, I wrote a check to one of these food banks. I don’t like the idea of people going hungry. I wanted to give, and I did so. Yet, as I did so, I had to come to grips with the certain knowledge that inefficiencies built into such programs would dilute my contribution. It pains me that this is the case. I wish it were not. I wish they could draw upon enough people in the overall community to solve distribution issues—it’s produce, after all—it can’t sit around forever. At heart, the issue is that non-faith does not move people to be selfless to the same extent as does faith, and the article seems to me an expression of jealousy that such is the case. Is it so shocking that that when people of faith give they want to call attention to what implanted that generous spirit within them? The article appears even to have even political overtones, complaining at the perceived shortfalls of a Trump administration program.
Of course, if there are abuses of the system, then someone ought lower the boom on whoever is committing them. “Saving” people in the parking lot, soliciting donations for the program, offering prayer sessions as a condition, things that Witnesses do not do, does sound as though it might violate the spirit or even letter of the program. And are parishioners poor to start with, as JWs in the aggregate are, or are some well-off? All proper matters to look at, it seems. But at present, this looks to me like another article—I have seen many—that highlights the abuses of some churches and by headline suggests that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the worst of them, even though Witnesses steer clear of such shenanigans.
I wouldn’t know just what is the case with “Heather,” whose complaint triggered this article. But I reflect back upon when I was working in a group home that hired a new assistant manager. In short order, I began to feel some heat, and in time I went to the house manager about it. “For some reason, I think she is trying to get me fired,” I told her. The manager thought that unlikely. She asked me why that would be, and I truthfully told her I didn’t know. But I then mentioned that it turns out she and I know hundreds of people in common, for she was once a member of my faith. “Oh,” the manager said, and instantly her tone changed. She said no more, I said no more, and I heard no more, until a week or two later that that asst manager had been discharged. The hostility of some ex-JWs is hard to fathom.
 

If you have a definite statement to make, you do not start with “maybe.” Your statement sheds no light on anything other than you hate the JW organization, which we all knew already.
In fact, if the counter.org article that began this thread is correct, there were none that did follow their view of USDA. They all had food distributions in their parking lots, you had to fetch the food quickly before it rotted, and run through a gauntlet of prayer services or ‘soul-salvations’ in the process. Only the JWs complied with the requirements of the program, insofar as the article states.
I have no idea where this comes from. I think Witness just made it up. It is not in any of the articles cited and if there are any statements about food being discarded, they are not associated with JWs. At the same time, if there were to be found any instances of this I would hardly be shocked. Have you ever had food in the fridge go bad because you did not eat it (or distribute it to someone else) in time? But on a large scale? No.
However, if you want me to state that the Watchtower did not go all out to fix the world’s broken system, I will concede the point. That does not mean that they abused anything, and it seems from the counter.org story that they were the only group that did not.
Can we agree that since JWs comprise .01% of the world’s population, what they do or do not do will not make a difference to the world’s success? If they did nothing but offer flowers to passerby on the street, they would not spoil the world’s efforts to save itself.
Frankly, I don’t see what’s so horrendous about even the “abuses” the article attributes to some church groups. Even if I find those abuses distasteful, still food is distributed to anyone who comes to fetch it. The counter.org article just reflects jealousy, in my view, that people of faith will do more to solve ills than do secular people, who are more apt to address it through massive agencies and then spend the rest of their lives on lawyers prosecuting the abuses and corruption that inevitably occurs. If people of faith want to call attention to what implants the generous spirit within them, why should the humanists not be able to live with that? They just loath God. Sometimes I think they would rather let people starve than to see them fed but preached to.
The problem with getting the food out is one of distribution, not supply. Here, Witness reveals herself as the hateful wench that she is as she repeatedly says, “Who needs organization?” Duh. That is exactly what is needed—it is not a supply challenge, but one of distribution—and that’s what Jehovah’s people excel at, and that is why they get the food out more effectively than anyone else. 
Now, to take up Witness’s statement again as a speculation, not as an indictment that it obviously lacks the strength to become, though she thinks it does—let us entertain it as a speculation, though the counter.org gives no hint of it...
The counter.org is a secular humanist organization, and as such I can readily believe it would pass over without comment any faith-based organization doing the work “properly.”. They are just jealous that people of faith will do what they cannot motivate their own to do on a scale large enough to get the job done, and so they malign the people who are getting it done. Even the Watchtower, with its firm stand on God’s kingdom as the ultimate answer, will say things of the greater world like, “True, some good has been accomplished, but....” But the counter.org article highlights nothing but what it thinks is bad.
So I’ll entertain Witness’s thought as a speculation: 
Maybe. What she means is that maybe there are some faith groups who are helping the world’s broken distribution system and keep their mouth’s shut about God as they are doing it. And maybe there are. More on this later, hopefully today, but maybe not till tomorrow or even Monday. My wife is after me to do some things that she foolishly thinks need doing. After I wet-vac all the rainwater in the house, hopefully I will have time to complete this comment.

If you have a definite statement to make, you do not start with “maybe.” Your statement sheds no light on anything other than you hate the JW organization, which we all knew already.
In fact, if the counter.org article that began this thread is correct, there were none that did follow their view of USDA. They all had food distributions in their parking lots, you had to fetch the food quickly before it rotted, and run through a gauntlet of prayer services or ‘soul-salvations’ in the process. Only the JWs complied with the requirements of the program, insofar as the article states.
I have no idea where this comes from. I think Witness just made it up. It is not in any of the articles cited and if there are any statements about food being discarded, they are not associated with JWs. At the same time, if there were to be found any instances of this I would hardly be shocked. Have you ever had food in the fridge go bad because you did not eat it (or distribute it to someone else) in time? But on a large scale? No.
However, if you want me to state that the Watchtower did not go all out to fix the world’s broken system, I will concede the point. That does not mean that they abused anything, and it seems from the counter.org story that they were the only group that did not.
Can we agree that since JWs comprise .01% of the world’s population, what they do or do not do will not make a difference to the world’s success? If they did nothing but offer flowers to passerby on the street, they would not spoil the world’s efforts to save itself.
Frankly, I don’t see what’s so horrendous about even the “abuses” the article attributes to some church groups. Even if I find those abuses distasteful, still food is distributed to anyone who comes to fetch it. The counter.org article just reflects jealousy, in my view, that people of faith will do more to solve ills than do secular people, who are more apt to address it through massive agencies and then spend the rest of their lives on lawyers prosecuting the abuses and corruption that inevitably occurs. If people of faith want to call attention to what implants the generous spirit within them, why should the humanists not be able to live with that? They just loath God. Sometimes I think they would rather let people starve than to see them fed but preached to.
The problem with getting the food out is one of distribution, not supply. Here, Witness reveals herself as the hateful wench that she is as she repeatedly says, “Who needs organization?” Duh. That is exactly what is needed—it is not a supply challenge, but one of distribution—and that’s what Jehovah’s people excel at, and that is why they get the food out more effectively than anyone else. 
Now, to take up Witness’s statement again as a speculation, not as an indictment that it obviously lacks the strength to become, though she thinks it does—let us entertain it as a speculation, though the counter.org gives no hint of it...
The counter.org is a secular humanist organization, and as such I can readily believe it would pass over without comment any faith-based organization doing the work “properly.”. They are just jealous that people of faith will do what they cannot motivate their own to do on a scale large enough to get the job done, and so they malign the people who are getting it done. Even the Watchtower, with its firm stand on God’s kingdom as the ultimate answer, will say things of the greater world like, “True, some good has been accomplished, but....” But the counter.org article highlights nothing but what it thinks is bad.
So I’ll entertain Witness’s thought as a speculation: 
Maybe. What she means is that maybe there are some faith groups who are helping the world’s broken distribution system and keep their mouth’s shut about God as they are doing it. And maybe there are. More on this later, hopefully today, but maybe not till tomorrow or even Monday. My wife is after me to do some things that she foolishly thinks need doing. After I wet-vac all the rainwater in the house, hopefully I will have time to complete this comment.

I hope things work out for you both..and wherever you go I know Jehovah will be with you 

Oh dear, as someone here would say. I don’t know whether it is worth your time or not but I do know I will miss you if you leave.
As for me, I’ve tried to leave numerous times but the old hen always sings her siren song and lures me back:
”Oh mother, tell your children, not to throwww away their decorum,
Spend your life in sheer misery on the old hen’s world media news forum.“
 

Oh dear, as someone here would say. I don’t know whether it is worth your time or not but I do know I will miss you if you leave.
As for me, I’ve tried to leave numerous times but the old hen always sings her siren song and lures me back:
”Oh mother, tell your children, not to throwww away their decorum,
Spend your life in sheer misery on the old hen’s world media news forum.“
 

Actually it sounds like the WT was one of the few organization’s doing it right. Outfits accepted the food boxes but were unwilling to take on the costs of distribution. The only example (from thecounter.org article) of actually bringing the food to the recipients, rather than making them come to some parking lot to retrieve it, is the WT. 
And since (weren’t you ridiculing them over this?—if not, your allies were) JWs are the lowest income faith, almost by definition they will be among the intended beneficiaries. As Anna said, in her congregation, food boxes were delivered to the most needy. Same here. And then, if it turned out they felt others needed it more, they were encouraged to share with any of those they knew of.
If there were any foodstuffs left to rot or spoil, it had nothing to do with JWs.
From the article:
“The USDA paid generously, in part, because it wanted those companies to take on the job of distributing the boxes as well. The plan was called "truck-to-trunk." The companies were supposed to take their food boxes directly to local food bank distribution points and drop the boxes into the trunks of waiting cars.”
Witnesses did better than that. They delivered it directly to homes.
”During the pandemic, many food banks have been running short of volunteers to do this job.”
Didn’t happen here.
“But many food banks, including Cooper's, said that food box contractors refused to do it. Some of them didn't even have the refrigerated truck required to do the job.“
Again, not so here.
No one outfit can do everything, but JWs fully comply with the program, and waste nothing. There were apparently many that did not, and if the story is correct, some of them never intended to. Any faith-based organization guided by Bible principles is not going to forget Galatians 6:10: “let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.” Since you claim to be a true anointed, surely you know this. 
You’re just a bitter old crow.
 
 

The problem is that I told the elders I wouldn’t do it. But because I believe the second part of your statement: 
I don’t beat myself up when I break my resolve. And I very much appreciate your kind words on the value of meeting specific accusations. From time to time I get emails stating the same.
When the elders met with me after the meeting, I had no thought at all of putting the experience online, as I have done above. That occurred to me later. 
I just came to think I’d let it stand as a real time example of responding to counsel even if I don’t agree with every aspect of it. The only examples of meeting with the elders that ever appear online are those written by unruly persons already on the edge, like Dathan and those guys, who rail at the attempt at “mind control” and cry ad nauseum over their right to free speech, missing every spiritual point in the process of making theIr dominant fleshy one: “No one’s telling me what to do!”
I don’t resent the counsel at all. I take it for just what it is—loving oversight.  I both accept and appreciate that Jehovah leads his people via a human agency, and I am grateful that there is something that corresponds to verses such as Hebrews 13:17, to “be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.”
As such, I accept they have the responsibility to counsel in line with scripture, and I don’t carry on as though my toes are being stepped on or my rights infringed upon. They represent the human link in the divine/human interface, they do not demand lockstep even though they give pointed counsel. I don’t consider myself above them. They are above me as regards authority.
I appreciate their efforts to check me, and as stated, I would be far worse in the absence of godly counsel to not engage with those who show by word or deed that acquiescence to Jehovah’s standards and all that is entailed is repugnant to them. It does me good to be checked by them, for I do believe that we become who we hang out with. We may not become it instantly, but we do so eventually—if not in point of argument then in forfeiting the Christlike manner—and often even in point of argument, as they are all based on following the trends of the day.
I would like it if there was a little more organizational pushback on some of the charges leveled against us. I’ve said it many times before. But you can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need. 
And I have. I can’t go charging like an enraged bull. But that kind of conduct can get a guy skewered anyway. It does me well to do what I do under the discipline of conforming to theocratic counsel, even if in a few aspects I am not a stellar example of it. I am in other aspects.

You probably are reading it and 4Jah is writing it. Off course they’re not paid.

Well, they did build good roads, those Romans did, and that is said to have aided the spread of Christianity. 
Recently archeologists have unearthed inscriptions of the songs they sang while laying roads down over that untamed earth:
Well, I'm a steamroller, baby
I'm bound to roll all over you
Yes, I'm a steamroller, baby
I'm bound to roll all over you I'm gonna inject your soul with some sweet rock 'n roll
And shoot you full of rhythm and blues
Well, I'm a cement mixer
A churning urn of burning funk
Yes, I'm a cement mixer for you, baby
A churning urn of burning funk Well, I'm a demolition derby
A hefty hunk of steaming junk
Now, I'm a Napalm bomb, baby
Just guaranteed to blow your mind

Oh dear, as someone here would say. I don’t know whether it is worth your time or not but I do know I will miss you if you leave.
As for me, I’ve tried to leave numerous times but the old hen always sings her siren song and lures me back:
”Oh mother, tell your children, not to throwww away their decorum,
Spend your life in sheer misery on the old hen’s world media news forum.“
 

I hate when people do this.
Ford had just assumed the presidency and pardoned Nixon. At a NYC District Convention the next day, the speaker held aloft the NYDaily headlines - "Peace and Security!" and said: "Have you seen this headline??!!!"
It was irresistable. I would have done it, too.

Oh dear, as someone here would say. I don’t know whether it is worth your time or not but I do know I will miss you if you leave.
As for me, I’ve tried to leave numerous times but the old hen always sings her siren song and lures me back:
”Oh mother, tell your children, not to throwww away their decorum,
Spend your life in sheer misery on the old hen’s world media news forum.“
 

The problem is that I told the elders I wouldn’t do it. But because I believe the second part of your statement: 
I don’t beat myself up when I break my resolve. And I very much appreciate your kind words on the value of meeting specific accusations. From time to time I get emails stating the same.
When the elders met with me after the meeting, I had no thought at all of putting the experience online, as I have done above. That occurred to me later. 
I just came to think I’d let it stand as a real time example of responding to counsel even if I don’t agree with every aspect of it. The only examples of meeting with the elders that ever appear online are those written by unruly persons already on the edge, like Dathan and those guys, who rail at the attempt at “mind control” and cry ad nauseum over their right to free speech, missing every spiritual point in the process of making theIr dominant fleshy one: “No one’s telling me what to do!”
I don’t resent the counsel at all. I take it for just what it is—loving oversight.  I both accept and appreciate that Jehovah leads his people via a human agency, and I am grateful that there is something that corresponds to verses such as Hebrews 13:17, to “be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.”
As such, I accept they have the responsibility to counsel in line with scripture, and I don’t carry on as though my toes are being stepped on or my rights infringed upon. They represent the human link in the divine/human interface, they do not demand lockstep even though they give pointed counsel. I don’t consider myself above them. They are above me as regards authority.
I appreciate their efforts to check me, and as stated, I would be far worse in the absence of godly counsel to not engage with those who show by word or deed that acquiescence to Jehovah’s standards and all that is entailed is repugnant to them. It does me good to be checked by them, for I do believe that we become who we hang out with. We may not become it instantly, but we do so eventually—if not in point of argument then in forfeiting the Christlike manner—and often even in point of argument, as they are all based on following the trends of the day.
I would like it if there was a little more organizational pushback on some of the charges leveled against us. I’ve said it many times before. But you can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need. 
And I have. I can’t go charging like an enraged bull. But that kind of conduct can get a guy skewered anyway. It does me well to do what I do under the discipline of conforming to theocratic counsel, even if in a few aspects I am not a stellar example of it. I am in other aspects.

They all close after two weeks. Partly it’s a concession to the old hen, who was concerned about my “spamming“ and so I assured her I would take hardly any comments and only for a short time—I’m not trying to lure from her site, which is a valid concern of every webmaster.
And then, too, I just don’t have the time to respond to everything. And while I don’t ban malcontents entirely, I keep a pretty tight rein on them—and that too takes time I don’t have.

You probably are reading it and 4Jah is writing it. Off course they’re not paid.

Alas, Cesar, sometimes I feel that I am becoming one of them.
I told the elders that I would not get into squabbles with these characters, and I said that so as not to be oblivious to theocratic counsel. Yet here I find myself making sporadic ad hominem attacks. Of course, I don’t beat myself up too much over it—If these characters worked on their ad hominems a bit more, it wouldn’t happen. And it is also true that in the absence of theocratic counsel, I would be much worse. But even so, I am allowing personal exasperation to throw barbs here and there after I said I would not do it.
The long response was okay to this thread, of course, because that constitutes as though a letter to the editor. Maybe even the first retort to you-know-who can be overlooked since she is so much the way she is. But the third one was unnecessary and just reflects personal lack of self-control.
“I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me....I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body.  Miserable man that I am!” (Romans 7)
I have to behave better. I said that I would:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/01/a-bad-boy-turns-over-a-new-leaf.html

(Sigh...there goes my fine resolve.)
It has not been, you idiot. Examples of that are scarcer then hen’s teeth.
In plenty of other outfits, it is the rule. In fact, there is no mechanism in those outfits to even to detect abuse within the rank and file.
Please NOTE. Stay on topic, and do not pounce breathlessly on an example illustrating something else to bludgeon everyone once again with what you’ve said countless times already.

Seriously, would that not constitute a violation of neutrality, to be praying for the success of human schemes? It is enough not to be praying against them.
The little quip with the rabbi I threw in as a joke, but it is more than a joke. That’s how 1 Tim 2:1,2 should be understood, I think, that the governments come to understand our apolitical nature and thus leave us be to do our Bible education work.
As much as I am willing to acknowledge the nobility of many human intentions, it is the implementation that is always the problem, not the lofty goals in themselves, which may indeed be lofty. But the implementation falls short, due to Jer 10:23 about man being incapable of directing his own step.
What sticks in my craw about all these human goals is theIr assumption that it is head education (without mention moral sense) that is most needed.  I think back to that brouhaha with Annie O over her preferred CSA video—the one that drew circles around areas of a child that no one ought touch. It’s as though if a child is touched anywhere, he/she ought to consult the chart in his mind’s eye to decide if he should feel bad over it. Better the WT video that speak of a conscience—a conscience that will develop when ones are immersed and take to heart a godly atmosphere.
It was only icing on the cake when her pedantic video brimming with the wisdom of trusting education declared that it was okay if a doctor touched you in one of those hotspots. (whereas the Caleb and Sophia video said ‘let no one touch you inappropriately) “Ask the young women of the US Gymnastics team which video they think would have protected them more,” I said.

Well, I am not sure that I would go that far:
”Rabbi, is there a prayer for the czar?”
”A prayer for the czar? Of course: May.........God.......bless.......the.........czar—and keep him far away from us!”
Just trying to scratch out a little tune, here, without breaking my back.

(Sigh...there goes my fine resolve.)
It has not been, you idiot. Examples of that are scarcer then hen’s teeth.
In plenty of other outfits, it is the rule. In fact, there is no mechanism in those outfits to even to detect abuse within the rank and file.
Please NOTE. Stay on topic, and do not pounce breathlessly on an example illustrating something else to bludgeon everyone once again with what you’ve said countless times already.

Alas, Cesar, sometimes I feel that I am becoming one of them.
I told the elders that I would not get into squabbles with these characters, and I said that so as not to be oblivious to theocratic counsel. Yet here I find myself making sporadic ad hominem attacks. Of course, I don’t beat myself up too much over it—If these characters worked on their ad hominems a bit more, it wouldn’t happen. And it is also true that in the absence of theocratic counsel, I would be much worse. But even so, I am allowing personal exasperation to throw barbs here and there after I said I would not do it.
The long response was okay to this thread, of course, because that constitutes as though a letter to the editor. Maybe even the first retort to you-know-who can be overlooked since she is so much the way she is. But the third one was unnecessary and just reflects personal lack of self-control.
“I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me....I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body.  Miserable man that I am!” (Romans 7)
I have to behave better. I said that I would:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/01/a-bad-boy-turns-over-a-new-leaf.html

Seriously, would that not constitute a violation of neutrality, to be praying for the success of human schemes? It is enough not to be praying against them.
The little quip with the rabbi I threw in as a joke, but it is more than a joke. That’s how 1 Tim 2:1,2 should be understood, I think, that the governments come to understand our apolitical nature and thus leave us be to do our Bible education work.
As much as I am willing to acknowledge the nobility of many human intentions, it is the implementation that is always the problem, not the lofty goals in themselves, which may indeed be lofty. But the implementation falls short, due to Jer 10:23 about man being incapable of directing his own step.
What sticks in my craw about all these human goals is theIr assumption that it is head education (without mention moral sense) that is most needed.  I think back to that brouhaha with Annie O over her preferred CSA video—the one that drew circles around areas of a child that no one ought touch. It’s as though if a child is touched anywhere, he/she ought to consult the chart in his mind’s eye to decide if he should feel bad over it. Better the WT video that speak of a conscience—a conscience that will develop when ones are immersed and take to heart a godly atmosphere.
It was only icing on the cake when her pedantic video brimming with the wisdom of trusting education declared that it was okay if a doctor touched you in one of those hotspots. (whereas the Caleb and Sophia video said ‘let no one touch you inappropriately) “Ask the young women of the US Gymnastics team which video they think would have protected them more,” I said.