TrueTomHarley

I would not call it “dumb” if I were you.
The four windows reminds us of the four angels on the four corners of the earth holding tight the four winds of the earth. The carpet covering the dirt of the floor reminds up of the love that is to cover the sins of others. The blue reminds us of heaven where those 4 angels hang out on a nice day.
”You were running well. Who hindered you from keeping on obeying the truth?”
 

Of course! That is why I know that Trump is a slaveholder. Because George Washington was. Historians just try to top it off with a positive note on the end. They don’t fool me. Those abused slaves may not have been revealed, but I know that they’re there.
Think hard about THAT, Mr 4Jah2Me. You dope—if JWI was so concerned about “a positive note at the end,” he wouldn’t have given his negative note in the first place!

I would not call it “dumb” if I were you.
The four windows reminds us of the four angels on the four corners of the earth holding tight the four winds of the earth. The carpet covering the dirt of the floor reminds up of the love that is to cover the sins of others. The blue reminds us of heaven where those 4 angels hang out on a nice day.
”You were running well. Who hindered you from keeping on obeying the truth?”
 

Of course! That is why I know that Trump is a slaveholder. Because George Washington was. Historians just try to top it off with a positive note on the end. They don’t fool me. Those abused slaves may not have been revealed, but I know that they’re there.
Think hard about THAT, Mr 4Jah2Me. You dope—if JWI was so concerned about “a positive note at the end,” he wouldn’t have given his negative note in the first place!

How it really WAS.
Or to be more specific, how it really, on occasion, was.
You have a way of zeroing in on just a single sentence without regard for ones just before and after. Did you overlook this one?
 

No, they are banned and prosecuted in Russia on account of their friends.
Even that is largely a straw man issue. Child sexual abuse is the premiere export of the planet, No group is unaffected. The lists that you carry on about began as efforts to snuff it out in the congregation and make sure that molesters could not simply slip undetected from one congregation to another, as they could (and still can) anywhere else. Nobody else has faces charges of not reporting it of members because nobody else has ever endeavored to keep track of it.

How it really WAS.
Or to be more specific, how it really, on occasion, was.
You have a way of zeroing in on just a single sentence without regard for ones just before and after. Did you overlook this one?
 

There is some piece of information not supplied. What it is I have no idea. But one would not be disfellowshipped for leaving one’s husband, whether he was violent or not.
Add adultery into the mix and that might well be. I do not say that adultery IS the missing piece here, but there is a missing piece.
Where you read that was in one of several post from detractors critical of an article in the December 2018 study edition of the Watchtower. I wrote up a reply to that on my own blog. It may also be here—many posts like that I also put here—but I cannot locate it:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/did-the-watchtower-give-women-bad-advice-.html

There is some piece of information not supplied. What it is I have no idea. But one would not be disfellowshipped for leaving one’s husband, whether he was violent or not.
Add adultery into the mix and that might well be. I do not say that adultery IS the missing piece here, but there is a missing piece.
Where you read that was in one of several post from detractors critical of an article in the December 2018 study edition of the Watchtower. I wrote up a reply to that on my own blog. It may also be here—many posts like that I also put here—but I cannot locate it:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/did-the-watchtower-give-women-bad-advice-.html

If that’s the case, I’m painting my entire house that way and I’m making everyone jump in front of it.

The one exception is my sweatshirt reserved for special occasions sporting the logo
     Supplemented with a small image at lower right of a hen
 

If that’s the case, I’m painting my entire house that way and I’m making everyone jump in front of it.

The one exception is my sweatshirt reserved for special occasions sporting the logo
     Supplemented with a small image at lower right of a hen
 

I think you have to stretch it to say the kid is “big business.”
This is a kid who hustles, and @James Thomas Rook Jr.is not wrong to give him an attaboy. Still, jw.org itself would not countenance it. They are on record as to how they feel about use of their copywrited images. To be sure, they probably have bigger fish to fry.
To me it is distasteful to wear anything like that—I am not a billboard. Still, people are like that everywhere and there is no sense in making a big issue over it. Look at how many people wear logos of commercial products or their favorite team.

The one exception is my sweatshirt reserved for special occasions sporting the logo
     Supplemented with a small image at lower right of a hen
 

I think his being fat was the root cause of why the world around him ended up shaming him instead of hailing him as a hero.  
 
then i think of paul blart mall cop and watch the entire nation poke fun at fat white men who are nice people. 
 
while everyone loves people like snoop dog who are always too high to remember to eat and promote drug use and a life of crime. 

“Clint Eastwood’s Richard Jewell tries to raise up the little guy. But It takes unnecessary shots in the process,” said the Time review. Readers weren’t having any of it.
“For some reason the same media that helped try to destroy this guy is pretty lukewarm on the movie about it,” tweeted Dan.
“Stephanie Zacharek is one of those writers that's more interested in [dissing] someone who doesn't fawn over the press than getting her facts straight,” added Penny.
William darkly warned: “Beware of journalists angry over this movie. Let's hope they do not become violent because of it.”
Richard Jewell was a security guard at the 1996 summer Olympic Games in Atlanta. He spotted an abandoned backpack. It looked suspicious. He reported it and authorities had enough time to start evacuating the area before it exploded. One died and over 100 were injured yet it could have been far worse. His actions saved dozens, if not hundreds, of lives. For a time he was a hero. But then the FBI began to suspect him. When it did, the Atlanta newspaper poured gas on rumors—and his life accordingly went up in flames. For months he faced media frenzy wherever he went. Stephanie describes him as “portly and friendly” a man who is a bit odd, still “a zealously upstanding citizen with dreams of someday working in law enforcement....[with] no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt.” He died at 44. Can anyone think his undeserved pariah-ship did not hasten his death?
Dmin let out a tentative feeler: “I have often wondered if Richard Jewel was someway under suspicion as a result of "fat shaming"? If he had been more movie star perfect would his actions have brought the same scrutiny and speculation?”
One can also read “job shaming” to the list—Jewell is a wannabe cop, not a real one, “shamed” in the same way that mall policemen are “shamed.” One might even add “class shaming”—Jewell was single and lived with his mother. Was it a rush to judgment from someone who was none of these things—a jab from one perceived to had “made it” in life toward one who had not? Probably the ones who commented were people like me—people who saw events unfold in real time and were aghast at the zeal with which the big little man was crucified.
The movie is a “well-acted picture about a clear act of injustice against an innocent man. So why does it leave such a sour aftertaste?” asks the reviewer. I will venture that it does not to anyone other than a journalist. It does to reviewer Stephanie because it is one of her own who is skewered, the late reporter Kathy Scruggs. She’s not painted fairly, is the complaint, as though the purpose of the movie—of any movie—is to celebrate fourth estate journalism. The more I read the review, the more fed up I become. The profession that points the finger at everyone else has the thinnest skin of all when even one of the three fingers points back.
She writes: “Eastwood shows the utmost compassion for Richard Jewell, the wrongfully accused little guy. But his generosity stops there, and he shows particular vitriol and distaste for Scruggs. She is played as “a brazen smarty, a seasoned pro who zips from here to there, wherever the sirens take her. Her blouse may be unbuttoned a little too low, her skirt is perhaps a bit too short, but it’s all part of the game, and of her personal style. You can certainly make the case that Scruggs ran with the Richard Jewell story too soon, or used poor judgment in revealing his name. But all Eastwood can see is the vixen journo who’ll do anything for a story.”
I think that’s all most people can see in the wake of a speculative hit piece that destroys a person—while their sympathy wears thin with regard to the one who does it. “Scruggs—who died in 2001—was a real person” [as though Jewell was not]. Furthermore, “she’s no longer here to defend herself” [as Jewell was, but it did’t do him a bit of good in the face of a journalistic assault].
It’s clear where Ms Zacharek’s sympathy lies. Was the woman reporter truly a “brazen smarty?” Family and friends say no—she wouldn’t go so far as the implied trading of sex for a story—though they all agree on attributes such as “ball-busting,” “profane,” “loud,” “brash,” “liked to party,” “smoked like a chimney,” fond of  “Johnie Walker Red,” noteworthy for her “short skirts.” No crime in those things, but one might almost think a director could be cut some slack for confusing a person who so closely resembles a brazen smarty with an actual one that he couldn’t tell the difference.
Incredibly, a Scruggs colleague mourns that stress over the article is what killed her—oblivious to the collateral damage that takes out Jewell. “It destroyed her," she says quietly. Then she recalls a pivotal time that Scrugg’s editor “told her she needed to apologize. Instead, she quit." That’s what will infuriate anyone who is not a journalist. ‘Just apologize,’ the editor says. She can’t do it. A real genuine “loud” and “brash” swan dive of a public apology was all that was needed—it always worked for Ralph Kramden. Jewell would have forgiven it all—and if not him, then everyone else—for we all make mistakes and everybody knows it. She couldn’t do it.
Look, everyone sticks up for their own. It is to be expected. It is not wrong of Stephanie to do that. It is even commendable, so long as it does not overshadow everything else. Let Eastwood apologize to her if he is inclined—no harm in that, I don’t think. Warner Brothers outright refuses to. The movie states up front that certain historical events have been dramatized, they point out, as they always are in movies—what is it with people who cannot apologize? Would not life be so much more agreeable if they could? To be sure, sometimes the one seeking apology seeks considerably more than apology; sometimes what is sought is acquiescence to every aspect of a point of view, but apologies can be worded to not go that far if that is what is desired. Maybe no one apologizes anymore for fear lawyers will pounce upon one as a sure admission of guilt.
From the beginning of cinema, directors have that realized a movie needs a villain—otherwise the audience falls asleep. It can’t be all earnest people doing their level best and yet it all goes to hell anyway—what would that say about the world we are supposed to feel good about? What about Sully, another Eastwood movie, that painted the FAA as the villain? Did that one bother the Time reviewer? In fact, the FAA accepted from the beginning that Sully was a hero and did not hassle him at all, but Eastwood needed a villain and—come on! who makes a better villain than the government?
Another Eastwood movie (A Perfect World) even took a shot a my people, and you didn’t hear me complain about it (much), did you? “We have a higher calling,” the Jehovah’s Witness mom says as she disallows her kids to go trick or treating. No Witness in 1000 years is going to say, “We have a higher calling” to her kids—they simply don’t talk that way—so I knew that it was not personal with Eastwood. He just needed a villain. You didn’t catch JWs trying to torpedo A Perfect World on that account, do you, the way the press is waging war against this movie for touching one of its own?
John Hafley I can picture snorting out coffee through his nose. “Are you kidding me, Time? unnecessary shots?” he tweets of the review. “It is a fantastic historic review of how power and the press can destroy the innocent for sex and money. The strong will do what they can, the weak will suffer what they must.” He doesn’t even extend the benefit of the doubt to the reporter, so caught up is he with the plight of the victim.
 

JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
Respectfully yours, Alan
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
Respectfully yours, Allen

JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
Respectfully yours, Alan
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
Respectfully yours, Allen

When the cake deteriorates into crumbs, it is no longer a cake, and my wife rolls it into the casserole for dinner the next day.
Accepted as such. That’s why the same cry of ‘foul’ is made for JTR’s sigh.

JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
Respectfully yours, Alan
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
Respectfully yours, Allen

When the cake deteriorates into crumbs, it is no longer a cake, and my wife rolls it into the casserole for dinner the next day.
Accepted as such. That’s why the same cry of ‘foul’ is made for JTR’s sigh.

HELP!! HELP!! ABUSE!! WHERE IS THE LIBRARIAN?? 
(THAT OLD HEN)

How about, “And she said unto him, ‘It’s not a cake until you mix the ingredients’”? (1 Bettycrocker 5:9)

They have said that they were not behind the ban, and I tend to take them at their word. That is not to say that they did not jump up and down like kids on Christmas morning. They did. But with a certain amount of reserve, because in an irreligious world, the target will eventually be them.
I believe it is an anti-cult movement, primarily irreligious, that spearheads the persecution of us, and then the ROC jumps onboard with a MeToo endorsement. I wrote about it a lot in Dear Mr. Putin, and stories such as these were a prime source:
https://www.scientologyreligion.no/blog/daily-caller-exposes-french-campaign-behind-russias-ban-of-jehovahs-witnesses.html
https://www.standleague.org/news/french-government-confronted-on-its-funding-of-religious-hate.html
I also think that we don’t see it primarily because we put blinders on ourselves by fleeing from whatever is “apostate.” Apostates embrace much of this. They don’t go back to the Church. They go in for “anti-cultism.” The present stand may be scriptural—and as scriptural, it will carry the day—but a downside is that it deprives us of seeing just who the enemy is. 
This departs from JWI’s thread and I don’t want to derail it. He’s “earned” his right to float the ideas that he does, and I sometimes wonder what I would be doing if I had the Bethel background that he does. Everyone brings a different gift. Chronology is not my gig, and I have written that all those dates circa 1900 are like that time you missed the nail with the hammer, and in frustration, swung several times more, again missing each time. That’s flippant, of course, but it just represents my tip of the hat to let others haggle it out. I’ve no problem with him doing it. He’s put the work into it and  is not like 95% of those who carry on about 607–who wouldn’t know a Babylonian conquest from a pin cushion were it not for an opportunity they sense to make it hot for JWs and who get their heads around it only enough to satisfy that purpose. 
Maybe he can branch this thread off into a separate topic. He has the power and the spirit to do it, granted him by the Great Antitypical Librarian.
The excerpt I quoted do not include Abrams most telling words—that (this is not an exact quote, but hopefully close) ‘when news of the verdict was announced, the clergy rejoiced. I have been unable to find any words of sympathy in any newsletters of the churches expressing any sympathy,’ and an observation that the Witnesses had made themselves “prophets of Baal” to them.
And to think that I once just checked the book out of the library, avoiding the $50 cost. It was the 2009 edition, which Abrams expanded to include the Vietnam War, and possibly not all the quotes regarding the Atlanta doings are there. 
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/enemies.html
Rats. This post has quotes from PPA but not the ones regarding the trial. It is back there somewhere in the archives.