TrueTomHarley

I will even manage to tie this is with the Voltaire kick that I’ve been on lately.
Voltaire was very taken with Newton’s discoveries and the idea that you derive truth from experience—in this case, truth about the universe from his experiments. Seems obvious to people now, but at the time truth was established by religious teachings and one did not think to look beyond them: What does the Church say about such-and-such? was as far as people went, or were even authorized to go.
Voltaire wrote it was “arrogant” to arrive at truth that way, and only common sense to arrive at truth Newton’s way. He could not possibly have foreseen that it becomes arrogant to think one can learn through experience, too—and this business with Wikipedia illustrates why. 
People choke on “experience.” There is far too much of it to process and we are far too puny to take it all in. It depends upon where we’ve been and what we’ve seen. 
Well, one ought to be able to rise above that—at first glance, that seems reasonable. Through study, reading, “critical thinking,” one can yet deduce truth. If there is one thing your exchange with Aruana proves to me, it is that even so we cannot—for the same reason: the sheer volume of what must be processed, and our insignificant time and ability to do it. 
Study the nature of water while it is in a test tube—yes, then it may be doable. But we dont get to study it in a test tube. We are forced to study it at the precipice that is Niagara Falls—as it cascades over us and overwhelms our instruments. 
If you and Aruana cannot convince each other—both of you with background, time, resources, experiences, and studious natures far in excess of the average person, then it cannot be done. 
And whereas the above illustration with Niagara Falls assumes, so far, that all sources are truthful, and open as what they are doing. they’re not. Everyone just assumes that Wikipedia is neutral, and thereby authoritative. It isn’t. Without explicitly lying, it effectively does so. By not presenting “the other side” of anything, it presents the picture that there is none. So it our determination to search for truth, hampered by the limitations already discussed, we also have to deal with the fact that people are trying to muddy the waters.
It goes back full circle. You can’t determine truth through religion, as Voltaire states? Sounds reasonable. But it turns out you cannot determine it by experience, either—it is equally “arrogant” to think we possess the resources that makes us up to the task. It turns out that you do determine it through religion. Of course, you have to have the right one, and that is mostly a matter of heart, not head.

There are people who live to slander. 
Is there shame in an arrest? Not on the part of the one arrested until he/she is found guilty. If found innocent, the shame may even be on the accusers.
Is it not slander to take an accusation that would otherwise never go beyond some tiny community billboard and re-broadcast it to the whole world news media .org?
In Ann’s defense, she is hardly the first one to do this. It is the new standard of the world and has been for some time. An arrest is synonymous to a conviction in the new world of “journalism.” She can’t possibly have missed the point of the reference to the French Revolution in which a denouncement was enough to send one to the guillotine—she is not stupid.

Mostly I use Wikipedia for details on out-of-the-way topics that you wouldn’t think would be subject to bias—lately it has been to corroborate some background on Voltaire, for instance.
But not always—sometimes I use it as though a base stock, like you would in cooking, to develop a post on some contemporary issue. Others do this, too—pretty routinely—to provide backdrop for points they are making. @JW Insiderand @Araunaare doing that right now with a thread about China and its modern-day & changing role.
It’s an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is—that’s how everyone thinks of it. As such, it is unbiased—that supposedly is it’s mission statement. Anyone can edit it (I’ve never quite understood how that works—well, I guess I do, but I’ve never been interested enough to attempt it, and the premise is that when anyone can do so the result will be complete and unbiased.) Not so, says co-founder Larry Sanger. “Unbiased” went out the window long ago. NPOV (neutral point of view) Is a thing of the past.
He says it here, on this post from his own blog: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
He doesn’t say the website is not factual. Nor does he say it is not objective. But it is not complete. It clearly sides with particular points-of-view. Larry offers about a dozen examples of clear bias, from politics, to science, to health, to religion in which the minority view is run off the road. 
Sigh...this seriously compromises Wikipedia as a base. It is a leftist choir that is preaching there these days, and if you quote the source, which I do all the time, you will be getting a leftist point of view, and other viewpoints either ignored completely or declared wrong. It is not for an encyclopedia to do this, Sanger says. It is supposed to reflect all points of view. It is not to declare a winner. 
Sanger’s background (per Wikipedia (!) ) is not primarily technology, as being co-founder of Wikipedia might imply. It is philosophy, epistomology, and ethics. He is clearly disappointed in the path his creation has taken. 
 
 

There are people who live to slander. 
Is there shame in an arrest? Not on the part of the one arrested until he/she is found guilty. If found innocent, the shame may even be on the accusers.
Is it not slander to take an accusation that would otherwise never go beyond some tiny community billboard and re-broadcast it to the whole world news media .org?
In Ann’s defense, she is hardly the first one to do this. It is the new standard of the world and has been for some time. An arrest is synonymous to a conviction in the new world of “journalism.” She can’t possibly have missed the point of the reference to the French Revolution in which a denouncement was enough to send one to the guillotine—she is not stupid.

I am not suddenly absent Anne and you have done much more than speculate. 
so let me be less cryptic for you.
You are In my opinion a shameful trouble maker with very little sense ........again you say the shame is being arrested for that crime .. again you have presumed he is guilty of that crime...more personal speculation on your part
It would have been much wiser to have perhaps spoken or shared this info privately with some one you could trust ..and waited to see the legal outcome of what you found on the Internet
Many people have been arrested for crimes....the shame comes when one is guilty of that crime.
The shame comes when one rushes with information that may or may not be true...And places it on a public forum ......a fool does that Anne
you started this whole saga and now you hope his family will be okay...you didn’t care a fig about his family when you posted up his mug shot and allegations ..so don’t pretend to now.
I am not participating in this public debacle because of the reasons I have clearly stated.
just for the record ..I am a she and not a he 

Crazy goings-on here. I am getting so many like that my system crashed. You probably don’t see it, though. I am even getting liked from 4J. He has never done anything other than laugh before.
Is this what you mean. Ad nauseum the claim was made that all the studies showed how safe they were. One dogged fellow kept after them—he had to sue to do it—and the facts revealed was that there had been no studies at all. It is a little more detained than that, but that is the gist of it.
https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ICAN-VS-CDC-LAWSUIT-PR.pdf
It is also impossible to sue vaccine-makers. They are protected from lawsuit, and a separate ‘vaccine court’ (funded by taxpayers) handles claim of vaccine injury—which fights every claim tooth and nail.
In this day when lawyers can and do sue everyone under the sun for everything, they CANNOT sue vaccine makers. Does anyone think automobiles would be as safe as they are today if they were immune from lawsuit? We would still be driving Pintos, that burst into flame when hit from the rear, or Corvairs, that flip over if you’ve gotten the tire pressure wrong.

Yes. Looking back on the thread, I see how easy the mistake was to make. Were the misunderstanding valid, you would be absolutely right to rebuke me. I would have done the same. I have at times. 
People don’t have time to read all this in depth. They see a seeming injustice and they jump on it. I do not always speak plainly, and I do sometimes speak too much. 
I would not say that it is only the brotherhood where such things can be sorted out—with both ready to make amends, both ready to walk things back, both ready to apologize without worry about saving face. But I can think of many settings in which such a misunderstanding would not be readily sorted out, and instead would serve as a wedge to trigger further arguments. 
For all the greater world speaks of “coming together,” they tend not to do it very often.

Yes. Looking back on the thread, I see how easy the mistake was to make. Were the misunderstanding valid, you would be absolutely right to rebuke me. I would have done the same. I have at times. 
People don’t have time to read all this in depth. They see a seeming injustice and they jump on it. I do not always speak plainly, and I do sometimes speak too much. 
I would not say that it is only the brotherhood where such things can be sorted out—with both ready to make amends, both ready to walk things back, both ready to apologize without worry about saving face. But I can think of many settings in which such a misunderstanding would not be readily sorted out, and instead would serve as a wedge to trigger further arguments. 
For all the greater world speaks of “coming together,” they tend not to do it very often.

I would not have posted the arrest report, and I would not have posted it exactly for the reason that @Thinkingsays. Thanks to @Annafor clearing that up— it was another who posted it, and that is the person I referred to as “not exactly someone who loves Jehovah.” As for JTR, I think it is pretty clear that he did, screwy though he was in many ways. 
Is it in anyone’s vital interest to know what Ann posted? Is anyone here endangered by not knowing? I would not have posted it.
And, the other person called a “sex beast” from another thread—the one who was convicted for touching offense, not just porn, some decades past and who had never repeated them, the one whom the judge said that his past had finally caught up with him and that he had no choice but to send him to prison, as though if he had a choice, he might choose a less harsh punishment—that one would appear to give the lie to the mantra that a person cannot change. He can. He evidently did. Long ago. So you would almost think more attention would be paid to the wholesome teachings and moral atmosphere that prevailed so as to mold him into a different person.

“What we have here is a failure to communicate,” said Cool Hand Luke, before they shot him dead. 
You don’t want to do that. What I meant is that there are many platforms that do not appear to recognize the applicability of Proverbs 11:13:
“a slanderer goes about revealing confidential talk,But the trustworthy person keeps a confidence,”
but instead they carry on as though confidential talk should be revealed to all. It is not something I have any control over—other than whether I should participate on this site or not, and I’ve explained many times why I do.
No, but you can read her collective comments, and certain things become pretty clear. By doing that, it is as though you have super powers.
Look, I was chastened by your remark. “Point well made,” I said. What more do you want? No one else backed down any. Nor was I the one to fan the flames in the first place. 
 

If that’s was Tom was saying or wanted to say, he would have said it. 

Yes it probably was that way. Ah. Now, things make more sense. Thanks for that bit of light.

Yes it probably was that way. Ah. Now, things make more sense. Thanks for that bit of light.

“What we have here is a failure to communicate,” said Cool Hand Luke, before they shot him dead. 
You don’t want to do that. What I meant is that there are many platforms that do not appear to recognize the applicability of Proverbs 11:13:
“a slanderer goes about revealing confidential talk,But the trustworthy person keeps a confidence,”
but instead they carry on as though confidential talk should be revealed to all. It is not something I have any control over—other than whether I should participate on this site or not, and I’ve explained many times why I do.
No, but you can read her collective comments, and certain things become pretty clear. By doing that, it is as though you have super powers.
Look, I was chastened by your remark. “Point well made,” I said. What more do you want? No one else backed down any. Nor was I the one to fan the flames in the first place. 
 

I think Thinking thought you were talking about JTR, whearas in fact you were talking about Ann O' Maly 😂. Another classic example of how misunderstandings can happen. It stems from trying to be too diplomatic and not mentioning names. Sometimes it's good to be straightforward. One thing is sure, this thread is teaching quite a few lessons 😁
 

Nobody ever thinks about such things on social media. The actual news media has long since set the example of relaying accusation as though it were conviction.
Nobody ever thinks of such things. Until it happens to them. Then they think of it.

I haven’t tried to rank them. If I did, I don’t think you would be in first place.
I do take it seriously. I just dial it back a notch or two.
If it is any consolation, I dial JWI’s stuff 2 notches or 3. You don’t think I buy all his stuff, do you? It is but food for thought—sort of like that verse that says you think you know it all after hearing the first witness, and then the other fellow comes along. I don’t know why he goes on and on the way he does—to me, all one need do is see how governments are treating our brothers and extrapolate from there—still, this site is a lab for me. I think it is a lab for you. I think it is a lab for him. As Voltaire said, the most sure way to be dull is to reveal everything—I don’t have to know where everyone is coming from.
I am on a Voltaire kick now. My Great Courses regimen has gone from Bart E to Henry VIII, and now it is on Voltaire. I listen to the CDs while walking the dog, who doesn’t listen himself, and they permit me to be a seed-picker, like they said of Paul at Acts 17:18, who picks up a seed here and poops it out there. I give the appearance of being smart, having something to say on everything, yet if one pressed you or JWI on China, both of you could expand indefinitely. If one presses me, a seed-picker, I change the subject to Gilligan’s Island. Seed-pickers frequently operate on the very edge of their knowledge, but nobody knows that but they. All that is lacking—as I note from watching Zoom commentators on TV—and which I will soon remedy—is to truck in a ton of books from the Goodwill, and make a podcast in which I can barely be seen for their sheer number. “Whoa! Look at all those books!” people will say, “he must be smart!” Mission accomplished. 
Voltaire is a name that I’ve long known of but relatively little about. Now I know a little more, and I find, so my surprise, that some of the things I do, he also did. My head, which was already dangerously large, as Cesar pointed out, 
now gets so big as to take up all the space in the Librarian’s library.
As to at least make a pretense of staying on topic, the daughter of one of my friends served as a missionary in China, along with her husband. Several years ago he told me that the Chinese secret police had infiltrated our congregations there in no time at all, but they also reported to their superiors that there was nothing to worry about, since our people had no interest whatsoever in changing politics. It is a story a little bit at odds with reports coming out of that land now. Maybe it was naïveté to begin with—some starry-eyed brother misreading reality—we do things like that. At any rate, based upon that input, I expressed similar naïveté in Tom Irregardless that I am almost embarrassed to own now. Still, no harm done, I think. It never hurts to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, even if sometimes it is hurled back in your face.
I fall in between you and JWI as regards looking at signs, probably a bit closer to your way. Angels are desiring to peer into these things. It is not for me to tell them to straighten up and get back to work. But the friends can get pretty worked up over things that may turn out here-today, gone-tomorrow. Someone was all excited the other day about Trump brokering a new deal in the mid-east. Does that herald the cry of peace and security? they wondered what I thought. I don’t get worked up over such things. The media has so firmly suppressed the story, for fear of making Trump look good, that few here know much about it, anyway. I try to seek first the kingdom and his righteousness, follow counsel I have found trustworthy, and figure that matters of timing will unfold as they will.
 
 

Nobody ever thinks about such things on social media. The actual news media has long since set the example of relaying accusation as though it were conviction.
Nobody ever thinks of such things. Until it happens to them. Then they think of it.

No sooner had I posted this:
than Witness posted this:
It is a very helpful link explaining the program.
Now, Witness never ever posts things just to be helpful. In every case, she posts to denigrate her rivals the GB and to assure all that she can do things better. So why does she post this helpful link here?
Everyone knows her m.o. She is in a panic that God’s organization might get credit for this generosity and she wants to make sure that they don’t. She wants to make clear that this is a GOVERNMENT program, NOT a JehovahsWitness program, and that people SHOULD NOT credit her rivals with generosity. 
Chill, you old battle axe, don’t worry about it. I plainly said that it was a USDA program for which I was grateful. USDA is government. Relax. I wasn’t giving your rivals the credit. I even said it represented a “Go to Donald” and I lament that JTR was no longer around, for I suspected that might get him going. The only credit I gave to the elders was for distributing the items.
But does this prompt distribution not show the value of organization, organization that she says ‘Who needs it?’ Why does the USDA do it this way—distribute to non-profits? Because they have a ton of aid to distribute and if they do it all at government facilities the lines will be two miles long. They also face the challenge of letting potential recipients know. So they distribute to non-profits, taking advantage of the communication and distribution channels that they know will exist there.
Will everyone agree here that NOBODY will do this more effectively than Jehovah’s Witnesses? There may be some to do it AS effectively, but nobody will beat them at it. Organizations where all members are known and readily found and where there exist messengers to deliver foodstuffs to each and every one of them cannot be an everyday thing.
My wife and I received a package Saturday around 2PM, after hearing reports of such a program that morning. I can well imagine that there were churches whose members learned of it Sunday morning at services, assuming that they happened to be there, and if they weren’t—too bad. It is not my aim to put them down—frankly I think we do far too much of putting church people down—It is only to point out that the attention of the JW organization to each member is not replicated everywhere. Even where the will exists, the means may not—you have to have volunteers to quickly distribute. There will be some outfits, I have no doubt, that are attentive to those in need and will connect promptly to bring aid. But it will not be universal, and in some cases It will break down completely since it was never built up.
It’s produce. It can’t sit around for days. It has to be handed out to each individual promptly. Members of the Witness community are broken down into service meeting groups, each under the oversight of one or more shepherds, who will know of any among them who is especially needy, and can therefore be prioritized. Apparently, there was plenty for all this time, but that may not always be so, and the elders will know how to best apportion. They are prepared to organize internal relief as was done in the 2nd chapter of Acts—coordinate members sharing with members—so that nobody is overlooked. In this case, the aid came from outside—a provision of Caesar (probably not replicated in too many countries)—and all there was to do was to distribute it promptly. I am very grateful to the government that is attentive to physical needs. Nonetheless, much of it would fall flat without proper expedition.
And Witness says ‘Who needs organization?’ Is she nuts? This is why you need it. This is where, not only it is needed, but you draw yourself as close to it as possible so there will be no question that you are a part of it. You become one of the embers that knows enough to pull toward the main fire so as to remain embers. You don’t pull away from the fire so that, in time, nobody, including yourself, really knows it you are an ember or not.
“Be sure to tune in to the WomanfromtheHills broadcast at 2 PM on Facebook for a discussion which will be the same as last week’s discussion—how my rivals are doing it all wrong and I can do better. Oh—and are you physically hungry? I think there is a government center somewhere in your area where they are handing out food. Get in queue. The line is only two hours in the sun. It may be that you will get some produce before it wilts and you can still be back in time to hear my address on how the Great Eight are good for nothing.”

Very true. And although I am not news media (😀) I made that classic mistake of NOT reading properly, and assuming! Shame on me.

It wasn’t exactly a lover of Jehovah who did this, and for better or for worse, the mission statement of this website is (apologies to the Washington Post) “Theocracy Dies in Darkness.”
Point well made. 

A fine new ally of @The Librarian. Who would have guessed? Like two peas in a pod, they are.

No offense, but isn’t this a first for you? I think Anna raises a good point—if it is someone you know, and thus can see as more than one-dimensional, it makes a difference. Someone else, you posted headlines of being a “sex beast,” despite the touching offense (more serious than this case) being decades in the past and never repeated. “One would think that Epstein and Maxwell would have taught that source what a “sex beast” was,” I mentioned, and you disagreed. 
People are many-faceted. They are not just one thing. If it is judged that JTR has done wrong, there will be a price to pay. Hopefully thereafter he will get his life back on track. I wish him well in that regard. 
This is a ridiculous statement. All it means is that there is sometimes not enough evidence upon which to take action. Why don’t you suspend evidence altogether? If anyone is accused of anything, off to jail they go.
It is all irrelevant anyway. There is no reproach in reporting an abuser to police that he has not already brought upon himself—this was made absolutely clear in that WT of last year, studied by the whole congregation. Thus, regardless of what the congregation does, secular authorities can investigate and possibly punish with their own enhanced methods—examining hard drives, for instance.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/02/the-reproach-of-child-sexual-abuse-falls-on-the-abu.html
The problem of a “culture of insularity” has been solved. If anyone thinks an abuser has pulled the wool over the eyes of elders, there is no stigma in going to outside authorities, as that study article makes clear.

I haven’t tried to rank them. If I did, I don’t think you would be in first place.
I do take it seriously. I just dial it back a notch or two.
If it is any consolation, I dial JWI’s stuff 2 notches or 3. You don’t think I buy all his stuff, do you? It is but food for thought—sort of like that verse that says you think you know it all after hearing the first witness, and then the other fellow comes along. I don’t know why he goes on and on the way he does—to me, all one need do is see how governments are treating our brothers and extrapolate from there—still, this site is a lab for me. I think it is a lab for you. I think it is a lab for him. As Voltaire said, the most sure way to be dull is to reveal everything—I don’t have to know where everyone is coming from.
I am on a Voltaire kick now. My Great Courses regimen has gone from Bart E to Henry VIII, and now it is on Voltaire. I listen to the CDs while walking the dog, who doesn’t listen himself, and they permit me to be a seed-picker, like they said of Paul at Acts 17:18, who picks up a seed here and poops it out there. I give the appearance of being smart, having something to say on everything, yet if one pressed you or JWI on China, both of you could expand indefinitely. If one presses me, a seed-picker, I change the subject to Gilligan’s Island. Seed-pickers frequently operate on the very edge of their knowledge, but nobody knows that but they. All that is lacking—as I note from watching Zoom commentators on TV—and which I will soon remedy—is to truck in a ton of books from the Goodwill, and make a podcast in which I can barely be seen for their sheer number. “Whoa! Look at all those books!” people will say, “he must be smart!” Mission accomplished. 
Voltaire is a name that I’ve long known of but relatively little about. Now I know a little more, and I find, so my surprise, that some of the things I do, he also did. My head, which was already dangerously large, as Cesar pointed out, 
now gets so big as to take up all the space in the Librarian’s library.
As to at least make a pretense of staying on topic, the daughter of one of my friends served as a missionary in China, along with her husband. Several years ago he told me that the Chinese secret police had infiltrated our congregations there in no time at all, but they also reported to their superiors that there was nothing to worry about, since our people had no interest whatsoever in changing politics. It is a story a little bit at odds with reports coming out of that land now. Maybe it was naïveté to begin with—some starry-eyed brother misreading reality—we do things like that. At any rate, based upon that input, I expressed similar naïveté in Tom Irregardless that I am almost embarrassed to own now. Still, no harm done, I think. It never hurts to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, even if sometimes it is hurled back in your face.
I fall in between you and JWI as regards looking at signs, probably a bit closer to your way. Angels are desiring to peer into these things. It is not for me to tell them to straighten up and get back to work. But the friends can get pretty worked up over things that may turn out here-today, gone-tomorrow. Someone was all excited the other day about Trump brokering a new deal in the mid-east. Does that herald the cry of peace and security? they wondered what I thought. I don’t get worked up over such things. The media has so firmly suppressed the story, for fear of making Trump look good, that few here know much about it, anyway. I try to seek first the kingdom and his righteousness, follow counsel I have found trustworthy, and figure that matters of timing will unfold as they will.
 
 

No offense, but isn’t this a first for you? I think Anna raises a good point—if it is someone you know, and thus can see as more than one-dimensional, it makes a difference. Someone else, you posted headlines of being a “sex beast,” despite the touching offense (more serious than this case) being decades in the past and never repeated. “One would think that Epstein and Maxwell would have taught that source what a “sex beast” was,” I mentioned, and you disagreed. 
People are many-faceted. They are not just one thing. If it is judged that JTR has done wrong, there will be a price to pay. Hopefully thereafter he will get his life back on track. I wish him well in that regard. 
This is a ridiculous statement. All it means is that there is sometimes not enough evidence upon which to take action. Why don’t you suspend evidence altogether? If anyone is accused of anything, off to jail they go.
It is all irrelevant anyway. There is no reproach in reporting an abuser to police that he has not already brought upon himself—this was made absolutely clear in that WT of last year, studied by the whole congregation. Thus, regardless of what the congregation does, secular authorities can investigate and possibly punish with their own enhanced methods—examining hard drives, for instance.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/02/the-reproach-of-child-sexual-abuse-falls-on-the-abu.html
The problem of a “culture of insularity” has been solved. If anyone thinks an abuser has pulled the wool over the eyes of elders, there is no stigma in going to outside authorities, as that study article makes clear.