TrueTomHarley

Go back and read what you missed. It is the most valuable material here. 
And nobody, nobody, but nobody who knows me personally thinks me “self-righteous.”
Ask @Witness, who said she loves me so (not inappropriately—it was a manner of speaking) following a recent post. Even though she thinks I drink far too much of the “kooklaid.” Even though we have had some fearsome tussles. Even though she thinks me deluded as can be
But she does not think me self-righteous. Nobody does. 
Of course, Alan does. But he is so full of insults for anyone not coming around to his point of view that it doesn’t count.

Go back and read what you missed. It is the most valuable material here. 
And nobody, nobody, but nobody who knows me personally thinks me “self-righteous.”
Ask @Witness, who said she loves me so (not inappropriately—it was a manner of speaking) following a recent post. Even though she thinks I drink far too much of the “kooklaid.” Even though we have had some fearsome tussles. Even though she thinks me deluded as can be
But she does not think me self-righteous. Nobody does. 
Of course, Alan does. But he is so full of insults for anyone not coming around to his point of view that it doesn’t count.

Sigh....
He’s back. Arguing with every single point, as was his wont, even the ones inconsequential to the thread—like the retort to the unreasonably chatty greeting from JWI with mention of concern of his atheism. 
This is the fellow that The Librarian told me privately, “Please stop arguing with Alan.” She knew what I was then finding out—that under no circumstances will he ever yield the final word. I did stop, and sure enough, he went away.
But he’s back.
Leading off with an insult to Trump, no less, though it has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and will likely fall flat to an apolitical audience, and those not apolitical will divide 50/50, so that he will unnecessarily antagonize some that he is trying to convince. Still he must get it in, and thus reveals—much as I hate to attribute wisdom to @James Thomas Rook Jr. that he has full-blown TDS and identifies with the leftists.
He’s back.
Oozing with contempt for anyone with whom he disagrees: “So are you claiming you don't worship the Governing Body? Don't let your fellows know, or you'll be disfellowshipped for apostasy,” he taunts. 
 

Every word emanating from my keyboard is laden with value. They positively reek with the stuff.
All words from any other source should be disposed of. There is one or two Dilberts from JTR that are pretty good, but other than that.....out to the curb with everything except my posts!
My favorite memory with Alan is when he was carrying on about his atheism and evolution, and I came onboard as Dr. Adhominem or someone to discuss learnedly with him the problem of persuading the rank and file about evolutionary psychology, since there really is no evidence and its little more than wishful evolutionist thinking—to see how long I could pull the scam before he knew he was being had. It went for two or three comments. Of course, it was completely unfair on my part, but he has such a blustering manner and a manifest need to prove himself RIGHT on EVERY SINGLE DETAIL, even those having nothing to do with the thread, that I couldn’t resist.
Call THAT not contributing anything of value?
Now watch him respond that he knew instantly that Dr Adhominem was a fraud, for it is very important to him to NEVER be in the wrong over ANYTHING.
I mean, the guy has a personality that smacks  of waving a red flag before a bull. And he has NO sense of humor. A “juggernaut,” Witness called him. It will be very hard for me to refrain from saying much. I will try my best, but it will be hard. It is a huge consumer of time, so I’m not eager to commit that sin again, and besides, I don’t want to get The Librarian (that old hen) mad at me once more.
 

This must be extremely stressful to you, since the link you supplied points to 13 specific areas of inquiry, all but the first thought to be possible hotbeds of CSA, and the religion you despise is not among them.

I do not know what JWN is. Can you tell me?
Besides Reddit, the two weeks were at JehovahsWitnesses.com. The 3 comments (NOT 12, you blockhead JTR!) were at AvoidJW.com. it is possible I have commented a time or two elsewhere, but I cannot recall. For the most part, I have confined myself to my own blog.
I started blogging in 2006, and some early posts reflect that I was working through some issues. I did not seek out opposers, but when they would comment, I developed ways to answer them, not disrespectfully, unless they were real jerks, but also not befriendingly. I wrote about a post a week. Something in the news would catch my interest and I would weave it in with scripture and humor to produce posts that I had never seen the like of before. It is like an artist with paintings. Complete one, throw it up for viewing, and of course you are happy to find people who like it. But that is not why you do it, and I would do the same, like a painter, even if it was completely ignored. I gained a fair number of frequent commenters. 
I took a leave of absence to deal with a perfect storm of troubles. They and the residuals kept me occupied for several years. When I began posting again, it was little snippets on Facebook, something that had not been around before. One FB friend I knew well from before kept saying: “You ought to write a book.” Another friend has said, “I think there’s a book in that blog.”
In time I began doodling paragraphs into what might be a book someday. I did it completely on the iPad that I had bought second-hand from a brother, on Notes, and without keyboard—one letter at a time. In time, as I got more serious about it, I bought a laptop. Mixing about 50/50 previous blog posts with original writing, in 2016 I came out with an ebook, “Tom Irregardless and Me.” Several persons, some known, some unknown personally, gave it good reviews By far the most creative review came from (I’m sure he won’t mind at this point, and if he does, I’ll say I’m sorry) George Chryssides writing under the pseudonym Ivor E Tower. 
Oddly, though I have written three more books, I have scarcely received another review. I can’t quite figure it. I mean, the obvious explanation is that the writing sucks, but I have had people, even elders, praise them effusively. I even had my strategy in place should apostates flame it with horrid reviews, but I didn’t get them either. It is too bad. I would like some. Ah, well—painter with his artwork and all.
While writing this book, I opened a Twitter account. I followed a link that led here and began leaving some comments. For a time, the only way I knew how to get here was to follow that link through Twitter. I started hawking my book, rather shamelessly, and the Librarian (that old hen) at last yelled at me—“enough is enough!” she said. “This is not a book store!”
I was stung. I almost left the site for good. In fact, I did, but in time, tentatively came back. It is probably due to some conciliatory posts from @JW Insiderthat I did stay. In time, I floated adding some value-added content not related to any book, and the Librarian signaled encouragement. Thus began a series of outrageous posts characterizing her as a wash-up, arthritic and alcoholic has-been of a grade school librarian who hates kids—with good reason because they torment her relentlessly—and is counting down the days till her retirement. I am the baddest of her pupils, but I am her pupil, after all, so there is a limit to how much she can discipline me.
I told her privately that I was going to do this, and that if it became too much, she should let me know. She said that she sort of enjoyed the games, and that she was actually a he. I have probably tested her patience since—she did at one point lay the law down on my “spamming” and when I felt that my contributions to her site buffered me, I linked to a post and said that if I was ever again called for spamming, I would discontinue all participation here. I said that, blogging since 2006, I have become a news source in my own right, and I would not put up with it. However, I also showed myself sensitive to her concerns. I would do it less, I said, never just a link in itself, and only include one where there was good reason for it—also that there would be no, or greatly limited comments on my blog, so that if anyone went there and wanted to comment on it, they would have to come here. I just wanted to keep all my stuff in one place, I pleaded. I wasn’t trying to steal her readers.
My followup ebook, “No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash” was written too hastily, and was an ill-advised attempt to appeal to newsy and current events people. I reworked it substantially to make it the most autobiographical of my books. It, too, is about 50/50 old blog posts vs original writing. Little of it was written here. 
I kept writing more and more here. Our problems began in Russia. I began to post about it in my blog. Others, especially a @bruceq, posted many Russian woes here, and I contributed to those threads. On Twitter, I discovered Anton Chivchalov, who, from Belarus, was following events minutely, and does to this day.
I thought of writing a short brochure of sorts—nothing big—a collection of news releases about the ban, with maybe some melodramatic cover in black, as though an iron curtain was again crashing down. I kept expanding the idea into another ebook, centered around the theme of our letter-writing campaign that all Witnesses would take part in but no one else could ever appreciate the atmosphere. I described to my graphic artist a vision of a child writing Putin, as though writing Santa Claus, (children are always best, not just in themselves, but in what they symbolized—Jesus said you must become as young children) thinking a thought balloon occupied by Putin, not Claus. She returned with what is pictured below. See how clever it is, with Putin seeming to have bangs, like a child, and it is actually the kid’s hair? She is a fine and imaginative artist and I would recommend her in a heartbeat.
“Dear Mr. Putin”  is the only complete history of JW persecution from just before ban until about a year after. But I had by that time decided to include reasons JWs were opposed in Russia (CSA has NEVER entered into the picture there) since they were largely absent in the Supreme Court trial, in Part II, as well as a third section presenting a witness. All of it is written for non-Witnesses primarily. Little of it centers on doctrine—where there is doctrine, it is just enough to bridge points. Russia is not demonized, in the event the book ever finds an influential read there. (JWI—the old commie, gave it praise for breaking free from the Western point of view, not easy for a Westerner, and I appreciated the thumbs up in that regard.) Other faiths are not put down—JWs are presented as the canary in the coal mine—what starts with us may well spread to them, and they are shaking in their boots.
And as stated before, when I stumbled into this site, via Twitter, I was aghast at all the “apostates” operating here with impunity, on what claimed to be a Witness site, and I went after them with ferocity. As a result of one battle, the Librarian placed me heading a thread that she entitled “TrueTom vs the Apostates.” I tried to get out of it, to no avail. So I warmed to the task and went after them with such heat—it was the unlikely trinity of O’Mally, Witness, and Rook—until Admin made the Librarian pull the entire thread and slap me with an “Abuse” label that explicitly said was to follow me forever and ever, but after a time, disappeared. 
In time, this became the ebook, “TrueTom vs the Apostates!” It is a more tightly written book than Dear Mr Putin, with about 50 short chapters as opposed to the former’s 16. Part I of that book was mostly written here, some as complete posts, barely modified for the book. Part II is old posts of mine from the blog—close enough to the theme of skewering apostates that I figured it would fit nicely. 
I have about three other books in mind, all of which will probably be on the drawing board for some time. There may even be a “TrueTom vs the Apostates!—Round 2” someday.
Does that answer your question?

I do not know what JWN is. Can you tell me?
Besides Reddit, the two weeks were at JehovahsWitnesses.com. The 3 comments (NOT 12, you blockhead JTR!) were at AvoidJW.com. it is possible I have commented a time or two elsewhere, but I cannot recall. For the most part, I have confined myself to my own blog.
I started blogging in 2006, and some early posts reflect that I was working through some issues. I did not seek out opposers, but when they would comment, I developed ways to answer them, not disrespectfully, unless they were real jerks, but also not befriendingly. I wrote about a post a week. Something in the news would catch my interest and I would weave it in with scripture and humor to produce posts that I had never seen the like of before. It is like an artist with paintings. Complete one, throw it up for viewing, and of course you are happy to find people who like it. But that is not why you do it, and I would do the same, like a painter, even if it was completely ignored. I gained a fair number of frequent commenters. 
I took a leave of absence to deal with a perfect storm of troubles. They and the residuals kept me occupied for several years. When I began posting again, it was little snippets on Facebook, something that had not been around before. One FB friend I knew well from before kept saying: “You ought to write a book.” Another friend has said, “I think there’s a book in that blog.”
In time I began doodling paragraphs into what might be a book someday. I did it completely on the iPad that I had bought second-hand from a brother, on Notes, and without keyboard—one letter at a time. In time, as I got more serious about it, I bought a laptop. Mixing about 50/50 previous blog posts with original writing, in 2016 I came out with an ebook, “Tom Irregardless and Me.” Several persons, some known, some unknown personally, gave it good reviews By far the most creative review came from (I’m sure he won’t mind at this point, and if he does, I’ll say I’m sorry) George Chryssides writing under the pseudonym Ivor E Tower. 
Oddly, though I have written three more books, I have scarcely received another review. I can’t quite figure it. I mean, the obvious explanation is that the writing sucks, but I have had people, even elders, praise them effusively. I even had my strategy in place should apostates flame it with horrid reviews, but I didn’t get them either. It is too bad. I would like some. Ah, well—painter with his artwork and all.
While writing this book, I opened a Twitter account. I followed a link that led here and began leaving some comments. For a time, the only way I knew how to get here was to follow that link through Twitter. I started hawking my book, rather shamelessly, and the Librarian (that old hen) at last yelled at me—“enough is enough!” she said. “This is not a book store!”
I was stung. I almost left the site for good. In fact, I did, but in time, tentatively came back. It is probably due to some conciliatory posts from @JW Insiderthat I did stay. In time, I floated adding some value-added content not related to any book, and the Librarian signaled encouragement. Thus began a series of outrageous posts characterizing her as a wash-up, arthritic and alcoholic has-been of a grade school librarian who hates kids—with good reason because they torment her relentlessly—and is counting down the days till her retirement. I am the baddest of her pupils, but I am her pupil, after all, so there is a limit to how much she can discipline me.
I told her privately that I was going to do this, and that if it became too much, she should let me know. She said that she sort of enjoyed the games, and that she was actually a he. I have probably tested her patience since—she did at one point lay the law down on my “spamming” and when I felt that my contributions to her site buffered me, I linked to a post and said that if I was ever again called for spamming, I would discontinue all participation here. I said that, blogging since 2006, I have become a news source in my own right, and I would not put up with it. However, I also showed myself sensitive to her concerns. I would do it less, I said, never just a link in itself, and only include one where there was good reason for it—also that there would be no, or greatly limited comments on my blog, so that if anyone went there and wanted to comment on it, they would have to come here. I just wanted to keep all my stuff in one place, I pleaded. I wasn’t trying to steal her readers.
My followup ebook, “No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash” was written too hastily, and was an ill-advised attempt to appeal to newsy and current events people. I reworked it substantially to make it the most autobiographical of my books. It, too, is about 50/50 old blog posts vs original writing. Little of it was written here. 
I kept writing more and more here. Our problems began in Russia. I began to post about it in my blog. Others, especially a @bruceq, posted many Russian woes here, and I contributed to those threads. On Twitter, I discovered Anton Chivchalov, who, from Belarus, was following events minutely, and does to this day.
I thought of writing a short brochure of sorts—nothing big—a collection of news releases about the ban, with maybe some melodramatic cover in black, as though an iron curtain was again crashing down. I kept expanding the idea into another ebook, centered around the theme of our letter-writing campaign that all Witnesses would take part in but no one else could ever appreciate the atmosphere. I described to my graphic artist a vision of a child writing Putin, as though writing Santa Claus, (children are always best, not just in themselves, but in what they symbolized—Jesus said you must become as young children) thinking a thought balloon occupied by Putin, not Claus. She returned with what is pictured below. See how clever it is, with Putin seeming to have bangs, like a child, and it is actually the kid’s hair? She is a fine and imaginative artist and I would recommend her in a heartbeat.
“Dear Mr. Putin”  is the only complete history of JW persecution from just before ban until about a year after. But I had by that time decided to include reasons JWs were opposed in Russia (CSA has NEVER entered into the picture there) since they were largely absent in the Supreme Court trial, in Part II, as well as a third section presenting a witness. All of it is written for non-Witnesses primarily. Little of it centers on doctrine—where there is doctrine, it is just enough to bridge points. Russia is not demonized, in the event the book ever finds an influential read there. (JWI—the old commie, gave it praise for breaking free from the Western point of view, not easy for a Westerner, and I appreciated the thumbs up in that regard.) Other faiths are not put down—JWs are presented as the canary in the coal mine—what starts with us may well spread to them, and they are shaking in their boots.
And as stated before, when I stumbled into this site, via Twitter, I was aghast at all the “apostates” operating here with impunity, on what claimed to be a Witness site, and I went after them with ferocity. As a result of one battle, the Librarian placed me heading a thread that she entitled “TrueTom vs the Apostates.” I tried to get out of it, to no avail. So I warmed to the task and went after them with such heat—it was the unlikely trinity of O’Mally, Witness, and Rook—until Admin made the Librarian pull the entire thread and slap me with an “Abuse” label that explicitly said was to follow me forever and ever, but after a time, disappeared. 
In time, this became the ebook, “TrueTom vs the Apostates!” It is a more tightly written book than Dear Mr Putin, with about 50 short chapters as opposed to the former’s 16. Part I of that book was mostly written here, some as complete posts, barely modified for the book. Part II is old posts of mine from the blog—close enough to the theme of skewering apostates that I figured it would fit nicely. 
I have about three other books in mind, all of which will probably be on the drawing board for some time. There may even be a “TrueTom vs the Apostates!—Round 2” someday.
Does that answer your question?

I do not know what JWN is. Can you tell me?
Besides Reddit, the two weeks were at JehovahsWitnesses.com. The 3 comments (NOT 12, you blockhead JTR!) were at AvoidJW.com. it is possible I have commented a time or two elsewhere, but I cannot recall. For the most part, I have confined myself to my own blog.
I started blogging in 2006, and some early posts reflect that I was working through some issues. I did not seek out opposers, but when they would comment, I developed ways to answer them, not disrespectfully, unless they were real jerks, but also not befriendingly. I wrote about a post a week. Something in the news would catch my interest and I would weave it in with scripture and humor to produce posts that I had never seen the like of before. It is like an artist with paintings. Complete one, throw it up for viewing, and of course you are happy to find people who like it. But that is not why you do it, and I would do the same, like a painter, even if it was completely ignored. I gained a fair number of frequent commenters. 
I took a leave of absence to deal with a perfect storm of troubles. They and the residuals kept me occupied for several years. When I began posting again, it was little snippets on Facebook, something that had not been around before. One FB friend I knew well from before kept saying: “You ought to write a book.” Another friend has said, “I think there’s a book in that blog.”
In time I began doodling paragraphs into what might be a book someday. I did it completely on the iPad that I had bought second-hand from a brother, on Notes, and without keyboard—one letter at a time. In time, as I got more serious about it, I bought a laptop. Mixing about 50/50 previous blog posts with original writing, in 2016 I came out with an ebook, “Tom Irregardless and Me.” Several persons, some known, some unknown personally, gave it good reviews By far the most creative review came from (I’m sure he won’t mind at this point, and if he does, I’ll say I’m sorry) George Chryssides writing under the pseudonym Ivor E Tower. 
Oddly, though I have written three more books, I have scarcely received another review. I can’t quite figure it. I mean, the obvious explanation is that the writing sucks, but I have had people, even elders, praise them effusively. I even had my strategy in place should apostates flame it with horrid reviews, but I didn’t get them either. It is too bad. I would like some. Ah, well—painter with his artwork and all.
While writing this book, I opened a Twitter account. I followed a link that led here and began leaving some comments. For a time, the only way I knew how to get here was to follow that link through Twitter. I started hawking my book, rather shamelessly, and the Librarian (that old hen) at last yelled at me—“enough is enough!” she said. “This is not a book store!”
I was stung. I almost left the site for good. In fact, I did, but in time, tentatively came back. It is probably due to some conciliatory posts from @JW Insiderthat I did stay. In time, I floated adding some value-added content not related to any book, and the Librarian signaled encouragement. Thus began a series of outrageous posts characterizing her as a wash-up, arthritic and alcoholic has-been of a grade school librarian who hates kids—with good reason because they torment her relentlessly—and is counting down the days till her retirement. I am the baddest of her pupils, but I am her pupil, after all, so there is a limit to how much she can discipline me.
I told her privately that I was going to do this, and that if it became too much, she should let me know. She said that she sort of enjoyed the games, and that she was actually a he. I have probably tested her patience since—she did at one point lay the law down on my “spamming” and when I felt that my contributions to her site buffered me, I linked to a post and said that if I was ever again called for spamming, I would discontinue all participation here. I said that, blogging since 2006, I have become a news source in my own right, and I would not put up with it. However, I also showed myself sensitive to her concerns. I would do it less, I said, never just a link in itself, and only include one where there was good reason for it—also that there would be no, or greatly limited comments on my blog, so that if anyone went there and wanted to comment on it, they would have to come here. I just wanted to keep all my stuff in one place, I pleaded. I wasn’t trying to steal her readers.
My followup ebook, “No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash” was written too hastily, and was an ill-advised attempt to appeal to newsy and current events people. I reworked it substantially to make it the most autobiographical of my books. It, too, is about 50/50 old blog posts vs original writing. Little of it was written here. 
I kept writing more and more here. Our problems began in Russia. I began to post about it in my blog. Others, especially a @bruceq, posted many Russian woes here, and I contributed to those threads. On Twitter, I discovered Anton Chivchalov, who, from Belarus, was following events minutely, and does to this day.
I thought of writing a short brochure of sorts—nothing big—a collection of news releases about the ban, with maybe some melodramatic cover in black, as though an iron curtain was again crashing down. I kept expanding the idea into another ebook, centered around the theme of our letter-writing campaign that all Witnesses would take part in but no one else could ever appreciate the atmosphere. I described to my graphic artist a vision of a child writing Putin, as though writing Santa Claus, (children are always best, not just in themselves, but in what they symbolized—Jesus said you must become as young children) thinking a thought balloon occupied by Putin, not Claus. She returned with what is pictured below. See how clever it is, with Putin seeming to have bangs, like a child, and it is actually the kid’s hair? She is a fine and imaginative artist and I would recommend her in a heartbeat.
“Dear Mr. Putin”  is the only complete history of JW persecution from just before ban until about a year after. But I had by that time decided to include reasons JWs were opposed in Russia (CSA has NEVER entered into the picture there) since they were largely absent in the Supreme Court trial, in Part II, as well as a third section presenting a witness. All of it is written for non-Witnesses primarily. Little of it centers on doctrine—where there is doctrine, it is just enough to bridge points. Russia is not demonized, in the event the book ever finds an influential read there. (JWI—the old commie, gave it praise for breaking free from the Western point of view, not easy for a Westerner, and I appreciated the thumbs up in that regard.) Other faiths are not put down—JWs are presented as the canary in the coal mine—what starts with us may well spread to them, and they are shaking in their boots.
And as stated before, when I stumbled into this site, via Twitter, I was aghast at all the “apostates” operating here with impunity, on what claimed to be a Witness site, and I went after them with ferocity. As a result of one battle, the Librarian placed me heading a thread that she entitled “TrueTom vs the Apostates.” I tried to get out of it, to no avail. So I warmed to the task and went after them with such heat—it was the unlikely trinity of O’Mally, Witness, and Rook—until Admin made the Librarian pull the entire thread and slap me with an “Abuse” label that explicitly said was to follow me forever and ever, but after a time, disappeared. 
In time, this became the ebook, “TrueTom vs the Apostates!” It is a more tightly written book than Dear Mr Putin, with about 50 short chapters as opposed to the former’s 16. Part I of that book was mostly written here, some as complete posts, barely modified for the book. Part II is old posts of mine from the blog—close enough to the theme of skewering apostates that I figured it would fit nicely. 
I have about three other books in mind, all of which will probably be on the drawing board for some time. There may even be a “TrueTom vs the Apostates!—Round 2” someday.
Does that answer your question?

I have occasional, and dwindling participation on a Reddit site that I learned was the primary source for a certain reporter. “If he gets his stuff there, I’ll go there and leave him something less accusatory,” I said.
Beyond that, I spent a few days at another large website as an experiment, and they welcomed me with open arms until they learned I was not there to join (as they had assumed) after which they were unrelentingly hostile. I was there only a week or two.
Even lesser experience with another, one that @James Thomas Rook Jr. caught me on and stated I had left 12 comments there. (It had been 2 or 3) This is when he thought he could embarrass me. I said 3. He said 12. I said 3.
He responded that he was a former engineer and used to precision and it was 12!
I replied that “if you are a former engineer and no longer are, possibly it is because you cannot count!! It was 3!”
We have been at it ever since, the old pork chop.
I also said (upon learning he had been an engineer in the water department) that with his counting skills, I am sure that there is not a flushing toilet in his entire town! I would have said more, but @JW Insider interjected:
Of course, I have my own blog, the jewel of the internet:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com
I had to shorten, even eliminate at times, my own comment section so the The Librarian (that old hen) would not accuse me of spamming when I linked to it. But that’s okay. I don’t get many anyway. I don’t allow the same free-for-all there that goes on here,
 
 

Look, I like you, and all. I really do. Besides, I owe you for constructive criticism of my books. I share your prioritization of the overall picture and your frustration at some ragged human edges.
So should I play this way? Hmm. Ah, well, I have a touch of OCD. Everyone knows it. I’ll ask for forgiveness later:
“Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them. Then Jehovah said to Satan:
I mean, come on!
There! Now, a couple of caveats. Of course, he is not the devil. Nor is it the whistleblower talk that prompts the characterization. It is the atheism in combination with his relentless opposition—he has spurned and opposes EVERYTHING, not just characters of the past that appear squirrelly. And his plain self-worship, as manifest by his need to correct every little detail....who does THAT remind you of?
Nor, obviously, are you Jehovah—any more than I am. 
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/11/oh-no-i-would-never-presume-to-compare-myself-with-the-most-high-god.html

It sure does my heart good.
Yes, and I am taking diligent notes. I may be a washed-out has-been, but I will rise again!

It sure does my heart good.
Yes, and I am taking diligent notes. I may be a washed-out has-been, but I will rise again!

Sigh....
He’s back. Arguing with every single point, as was his wont, even the ones inconsequential to the thread—like the retort to the unreasonably chatty greeting from JWI with mention of concern of his atheism. 
This is the fellow that The Librarian told me privately, “Please stop arguing with Alan.” She knew what I was then finding out—that under no circumstances will he ever yield the final word. I did stop, and sure enough, he went away.
But he’s back.
Leading off with an insult to Trump, no less, though it has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and will likely fall flat to an apolitical audience, and those not apolitical will divide 50/50, so that he will unnecessarily antagonize some that he is trying to convince. Still he must get it in, and thus reveals—much as I hate to attribute wisdom to @James Thomas Rook Jr. that he has full-blown TDS and identifies with the leftists.
He’s back.
Oozing with contempt for anyone with whom he disagrees: “So are you claiming you don't worship the Governing Body? Don't let your fellows know, or you'll be disfellowshipped for apostasy,” he taunts. 
 

...

What they probably say is, “put it on the shelf for now,” Of course! Intelligent people do that all the time. 
I had 4 years of high school and three years of college under my belt when I came across JWs in the course of a summer job. My religious life was now and then attending the Presbyterian Church that my Mom belonged to, and in time, being confirmed there myself. Presbyterianism comes in several varieties—this one was in the liberal tradition and my mom would best be described as attending for the social benefits. (My dad would read the huge Sunday paper, looking forward to some solitary time as Mom herded us off. “Religion is good for kids,” he would say as we cleared out. He never set foot there himself.)
I was indoctrinated in evolution, both from schooling and from church. Do you really think someone in that position is going to quickly accept Adam and Eve? It’s like accepting Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. However, everything else I was learning made so much sense—I loved the way the pieces fit together. It had never occurred to me that they could. Adam and Eve was the lynchpin for much of it, though. 
It provoked, to coin a term that I would not hear until 50 years later, “cognitive dissonance.” However, cognitive dissonance is easily remedied by telling oneself that you don’t need to know everything this instant. You can always “come back to it later.” “Put it on the shelf” if something does not make sense in an otherwise compelling picture—maybe it will later. This proved to be the case with me.
I had fifteen years of evolutionary schooling, with nothing to counter it. I believed in evolution absolutely. I had to “put it on the shelf” while I examined some extraordinarily attractive and convincing ideas and later come back to it.

Sorry. Certain peculiar patterns and personalities emerge. I don’t really think that you are him. I do talk too much, and my wife IS getting impatient about that job I promised to do.

I check their bodies for tread marks daily. Sometimes I have to rub out a few.
I do, too. Few of them are, however. They are not encouraged to be. They are encouraged to align themselves with, “If you know what is true, there is no reason to examine what is falsehood.” There is a serious downside to this counsel, however.
One thing that I greatly admire about the GB is that they go where they are convinced the Bible tells them to go, and they don’t care if there is a downside or not. I do not believe they lay this “follow truth, and ignore falsehood” policy only upon us. I think that they follow it themselves, and look at controversy no more than is absolutely necessary, in accord with Jesus’ “No man at the plow who keeps looking at the things behind is well suited for the kingdom of God,” as modified by Russell into: “If you stop to kick every dog that barks at you, you’ll never get very far.”
They don’t look in the rear view mirror too much. They are thus the exact opposite of crusaders against them, in fact, pundits and policy makers in general, who ONLY look in the rear view mirror, skewering the doers as they do nothing themselves, “holding people accountable,” making them “take responsibility,” but offering nothing positive beyond a new law or two, which the scoundrels immediately find ways to sidestep.
Yes. I made this point to a couple of elders who were trying to dissuade me from “engaging with apostates.” I am not engaging them, I replied, at least not for their own sakes. It is almost always a lost cause engaging them for their own sakes, I have found (somewhat to my dismay). Yet, “apostates” have succeeded in catching the ear of major media. The latter run prominent—even front page—articles against Witnesses, which we may not read, but everyone else does. In pushing back at these articles, you necessarily cross paths with these “apostates,” and in doing so, some perceptions will change. You get a better feel for them. They still remain the enemy, but you get to appreciate how some became so. You have to know where the enemy is coming from. It is the first rule of any military strategy. It is the first rule of any legal strategy, as well. Could it be that when Witness attorneys represent them in court, they have not acquainted themselves with “apostate” reasoning? They are extremely poor attorneys if that is the case. 
The two brothers had not read the barrage of articles, or even one of them, probably, and were inclined to think that what was out there was inconsequential, the product of scurrilous rag sheets. How about the New York Times and the Washington Post? I said. I don’t think that I would be able to desist kicking back at this point. I know how to answer this stuff, or at least I think I know. Moreover, I see that such attacks are almost never answered—certainly not effectively, and usually, not at all. 
I have taken on the role of “apologist” for Jehovah’s Witnesses, and have been put down before on that account. But I respond with “apologist” being derived from “apologia,” which means “speaking in defense.” Those who dismiss Christian apologists, therefore, are simply bullies who think that they should not have a defense.
As an apologist, I do not tell the GB what they are doing wrong. Nor do I know. There are many things that I don’t like, but that does not mean that remedying them to suit myself would improve matters. Maybe it would do just the opposite. I reflect that that there IS no other faith that incorporates the dozen-or-so essential Bible truths that JWI has pointed to—much less anyone that obeys the direction to preach them. Maybe true faith can only exist within a hostile world the way that it IS existing. That is why I hesitate to insist, and often even mention, my “solutions.” They might not be solutions at all.
If I counted my online time, then easily I have been special pioneering for years. But I don’t count it because the Witness organization can hardly be said to encourage it. And for the most part, when brothers think that they will witness online, the effect is horrible, imo. Scrupulously avoiding any matters of controversy, jettisoning anyone who brings them up, they say: “Do you wonder what is the truth about hell?” The answer is NO! Religious people do not wonder, and non-religious people do not care. 
I would be happy if there was not so much dissuasion to take on the “villains.” Villains are what make the show interesting—ask any TV or movie producer. I would not like to see a call to arms to battle the villains, for the villains are relentless, their gripes are unending, and many are slimy—the counsel to steer clear is hardly unwise. But I would like to see the yellow light given should anyone choose to kick back at the points these guys make.
The “even the tiniest bit of poison that we would never want to drink” is not really consistent with the fact that vaccines (and homeopathy, in a different way) operate on this very principle: expose one to just a little bit of the sickness so that when it is encountered later in the wild, immunity will have developed. Instead, we have the ridiculous situation of youngsters falling for the oldest foible of human nature—doing something because they have been advised not to. Sooner or later, they chance upon some “apostate” literature or other material. When they do, and out of curiosity give it a scan, they are floored—not because it is so overwhelmingly persuasive, but because they are totally unprepared for it. They may be seriously stumbled, and from there the situation worsens. The adults who should be able to help them cannot—because they have no idea what is there themselves. All they can say is, “Don’t read that stuff!” Trust me, opponents are very good at exploiting those words. “See?” they say. “They want to make sure your blinders remain firmly in place.”
That’s why my hero in this regard is @Anna. Long ago, she declared that she would keep abreast of “apostate” thinking so that she would be able to help her teenaged son should he ever come across and be stumbled at their attacks. It only sweetens the story that (last I heard) the kid (he can’t be a kid anymore) is happily pioneering and wondering why his mom is hanging out with all those crazies on the internet.
Nor would I say, from this distance, that opposing the villains has harmed her spiritually. It certainly has not done that with me. Quite the opposite. Villains offer a contrast to what is not villainous, and many things are more clearly appreciated for their contrast. “Drink this gloop,” the doctor says. “Never mind if it tastes like you-know-what. It will produce the contrast we need so that we can more readily appraise your health.”
Case in point coming up, after I dodge my wife. She wants me to do some maintenance around the house. What is wrong with that woman? Can’t she see I am busy correcting someone who is wrong on the internet?
 

I check their bodies for tread marks daily. Sometimes I have to rub out a few.
I do, too. Few of them are, however. They are not encouraged to be. They are encouraged to align themselves with, “If you know what is true, there is no reason to examine what is falsehood.” There is a serious downside to this counsel, however.
One thing that I greatly admire about the GB is that they go where they are convinced the Bible tells them to go, and they don’t care if there is a downside or not. I do not believe they lay this “follow truth, and ignore falsehood” policy only upon us. I think that they follow it themselves, and look at controversy no more than is absolutely necessary, in accord with Jesus’ “No man at the plow who keeps looking at the things behind is well suited for the kingdom of God,” as modified by Russell into: “If you stop to kick every dog that barks at you, you’ll never get very far.”
They don’t look in the rear view mirror too much. They are thus the exact opposite of crusaders against them, in fact, pundits and policy makers in general, who ONLY look in the rear view mirror, skewering the doers as they do nothing themselves, “holding people accountable,” making them “take responsibility,” but offering nothing positive beyond a new law or two, which the scoundrels immediately find ways to sidestep.
Yes. I made this point to a couple of elders who were trying to dissuade me from “engaging with apostates.” I am not engaging them, I replied, at least not for their own sakes. It is almost always a lost cause engaging them for their own sakes, I have found (somewhat to my dismay). Yet, “apostates” have succeeded in catching the ear of major media. The latter run prominent—even front page—articles against Witnesses, which we may not read, but everyone else does. In pushing back at these articles, you necessarily cross paths with these “apostates,” and in doing so, some perceptions will change. You get a better feel for them. They still remain the enemy, but you get to appreciate how some became so. You have to know where the enemy is coming from. It is the first rule of any military strategy. It is the first rule of any legal strategy, as well. Could it be that when Witness attorneys represent them in court, they have not acquainted themselves with “apostate” reasoning? They are extremely poor attorneys if that is the case. 
The two brothers had not read the barrage of articles, or even one of them, probably, and were inclined to think that what was out there was inconsequential, the product of scurrilous rag sheets. How about the New York Times and the Washington Post? I said. I don’t think that I would be able to desist kicking back at this point. I know how to answer this stuff, or at least I think I know. Moreover, I see that such attacks are almost never answered—certainly not effectively, and usually, not at all. 
I have taken on the role of “apologist” for Jehovah’s Witnesses, and have been put down before on that account. But I respond with “apologist” being derived from “apologia,” which means “speaking in defense.” Those who dismiss Christian apologists, therefore, are simply bullies who think that they should not have a defense.
As an apologist, I do not tell the GB what they are doing wrong. Nor do I know. There are many things that I don’t like, but that does not mean that remedying them to suit myself would improve matters. Maybe it would do just the opposite. I reflect that that there IS no other faith that incorporates the dozen-or-so essential Bible truths that JWI has pointed to—much less anyone that obeys the direction to preach them. Maybe true faith can only exist within a hostile world the way that it IS existing. That is why I hesitate to insist, and often even mention, my “solutions.” They might not be solutions at all.
If I counted my online time, then easily I have been special pioneering for years. But I don’t count it because the Witness organization can hardly be said to encourage it. And for the most part, when brothers think that they will witness online, the effect is horrible, imo. Scrupulously avoiding any matters of controversy, jettisoning anyone who brings them up, they say: “Do you wonder what is the truth about hell?” The answer is NO! Religious people do not wonder, and non-religious people do not care. 
I would be happy if there was not so much dissuasion to take on the “villains.” Villains are what make the show interesting—ask any TV or movie producer. I would not like to see a call to arms to battle the villains, for the villains are relentless, their gripes are unending, and many are slimy—the counsel to steer clear is hardly unwise. But I would like to see the yellow light given should anyone choose to kick back at the points these guys make.
The “even the tiniest bit of poison that we would never want to drink” is not really consistent with the fact that vaccines (and homeopathy, in a different way) operate on this very principle: expose one to just a little bit of the sickness so that when it is encountered later in the wild, immunity will have developed. Instead, we have the ridiculous situation of youngsters falling for the oldest foible of human nature—doing something because they have been advised not to. Sooner or later, they chance upon some “apostate” literature or other material. When they do, and out of curiosity give it a scan, they are floored—not because it is so overwhelmingly persuasive, but because they are totally unprepared for it. They may be seriously stumbled, and from there the situation worsens. The adults who should be able to help them cannot—because they have no idea what is there themselves. All they can say is, “Don’t read that stuff!” Trust me, opponents are very good at exploiting those words. “See?” they say. “They want to make sure your blinders remain firmly in place.”
That’s why my hero in this regard is @Anna. Long ago, she declared that she would keep abreast of “apostate” thinking so that she would be able to help her teenaged son should he ever come across and be stumbled at their attacks. It only sweetens the story that (last I heard) the kid (he can’t be a kid anymore) is happily pioneering and wondering why his mom is hanging out with all those crazies on the internet.
Nor would I say, from this distance, that opposing the villains has harmed her spiritually. It certainly has not done that with me. Quite the opposite. Villains offer a contrast to what is not villainous, and many things are more clearly appreciated for their contrast. “Drink this gloop,” the doctor says. “Never mind if it tastes like you-know-what. It will produce the contrast we need so that we can more readily appraise your health.”
Case in point coming up, after I dodge my wife. She wants me to do some maintenance around the house. What is wrong with that woman? Can’t she see I am busy correcting someone who is wrong on the internet?
 

If people are not satisfied with people who taking a lead, who rule, governing over them and their life, because they have double standards and twisting justice in "worldly system", they have chance to replace them by voting. And so on until they find the best people world can offer.
Of course! Voting is the answer! How’s that working out these days?
The Atlantic has run a (disapproving) article on populists—the winners of popular elections
“Right now, the four most populous democracies in the world are ruled by populists: Narendra Modi in India, Donald Trump in the United States, Joko Widodo in Indonesia, and Bolsonaro in Brazil.”
I could be wrong, but I suspect you will not be happy with such voting outcomes. 
“According to our research, populist governments have deepened corruption, eroded individual rights, and inflicted serious damage on democratic institutions,” read the Atlantic banner, as they tallied up 46 of such populist winners.
Your criticism is no more than your humanism speaking. You pull out all stops to slam JWs. It is not as though you have anything better to offer. What you have is considerably worse.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/hard-data-populism-bolsonaro-trump/578878/
 

You may proceed.
The requirements are not high. You must simply make sure that you are not the most unpleasant person here. The mere fact that you raised the above two points guarantees that you will not be.

First of all, before I begin answering, I wanted to say that I have long expected that any JWs who go online to defend their views publicly will see more and more of what is beginning to happen here. The specific challenges coming from you (@4Jah2me), @Witness and @Srecko Sostar (and a few others) have lately seemed like a stronger "anti-JW onslaught" than this forum has seen before. Personally, I think it's a good thing that more and more JWs are prepared for just this type of barrage. At the moment they are all coming apparently from ex-JWs that we would call "apostates." But the Internet easily allows anyone to become capable of bringing these exact same challenges to us. So they are not specifically "apostate" challenges.
Of course, I've brought up some of these same challenges myself, because I think we all need to think about them before we answer with our typical, traditional responses. I believe that we need some doctrinal adjustments, and therefore, I'm not exactly defending the GB position against your challenges. I like it that @TrueTomHarley is standing in for me, but he is probably also concerned that, on my own, I'll end up throwing the GB under the bus.
I'm not talking about some of the minor throw-away complaints (like 'Bible Studies are really just Book Studies' and we're trying to replace the Bible with these books, etc.). The GB challenge is probably the most difficult to address in a way that can rationalize some recent inconsistent statements, the play between spirit-directed and inspired, modern "apostolic" precedent, the GB's request to be trusted while admitting that some of the teachings and processes are bound to be mistaken now and then. And we have the challenge of when and whether conscience comes into play, whether legalism has gone too far, and truly difficult doctrines to defend such as overlapping groups within "this generation" and overlapping blood components with blood fractions, etc.
Yes. The GB dictate to the congregations and, unless the dictate is seen as unconscionable or unscriptural, the members of the congregations are expected to obey. Naturally, this can go too far, but the reason for this should be easy to understand.
For the following situation, for now, you might just want to insert your own view of what a proper Christian is, if you completely reject the possibility that a JW can be a true Christian:
Hypothetically, a Christian may find himself/herself in a place with no fellow Christians to associate with, and all efforts to make disciples might fall on unproductive soil. But let's say that a Christian in this situation is happy and zealous for what he has learned from the Scriptures, has followed Jesus' command to make disciples so that others will know what Jesus taught, and is successful in converting 40 persons to Christianity and they all, because of their Bible reading, want to establish a community congregation to try to follow closely their view of the 1st century congregations as closely as possible. 
As everyone has unique abilities, and was converted at various times, the congregation will naturally have members of various levels of experience, and they likely want an orderly process for meeting and teaching and participating in the activities that they agree are important and consistent with their beliefs. Not everyone will want the same meeting times, not everyone will be teaching from the platform, or leading or suggesting the activities. There will be compromises as to meeting times, topics discussed, the depth or simplicity of those topics, how much to spend on activities, building maintenance, color of carpets, etc.
Most will appreciate that those who qualify as "elders" Biblically, will also be capable of making those decisions in a way that benefits the majority in the congregation, even though it's not perfect, and no decision will be right for all members. Some of the decisions will be compromises, some will be about process, and very mundane things.
But some will be about teachings, and it's likely that new things will be learned, and questions will be asked that make persons rethink something that might have been taught a different way than before.
I hope you can see that, even with JWs out of the picture, you could probably accept this entire situation as a possible, and even normal, Christian congregation. So now we take it a step further:
The excitement and joy in this congregation of 40 soon becomes 80 and 160 as more and more share in Jesus' command to make disciples. They are now spread over 100's of miles, and need 4 congregations. This turns to 400 miles and 20 congregations. We would expect that some of the qualified elders would be chosen and invited to give talks and instruction in some of the other congregations? News of congregation events and experiences in one congregation might want to be shared to build up those in another congregation? Perhaps a newsletter is in order that's shared among all 20 congregations? Perhaps even some of the more successful methods of making disciples could be shared? And these 20 congregations might find it nice to have a chance to gather together will all 20 congregations of those related to them in the faith on special occasions.
It will soon be useful, perhaps necessary, to have certain members of these congregations specifically involved in (assigned to) tasks related to coordination, writing, topics for sermons, administration duties, and some assurances that their doctrines are being "double-checked" against the Bible so that one congregation is not teaching something that another congregation would find unbiblical or even offensive. The doctrine checking would no doubt go to those elders most experienced at teaching and preaching and who had experience visiting multiple congregations.
I believe that most of these ideas would not be offensive to you, when you think of how naturally they occur in various denominations all around the world.
With JWs, a large body of doctrine has been built up, and remodeled, over the last 135 years or so. Those elders who act as elders of multiple congregations instead of just one local congregation will see themselves as the "guardians of doctrine." (The term, as used by Brother Jackson, sounds too much like a protector of traditional doctrines, but I think he truly meant it as guarding the doctrines so that they remain consistent with the Biblical "constitution" even when amendments are necessary.)
What I'm saying is that it is quite natural that we have a GB function. And I don't think it starts with how much they think of themselves, but the very high regard they have for the unique value of the doctrines in their care that makes them accept that they are handling a very special function. So they have looked for a Biblical way to highlight that value and ended up creating a doctrine (in 2012) about the GB being the same as the FDS, not even including the "Helpers." It's based on the one parable that highlights the way spiritual food is distributed to the entire congregation. (It appears they also considered using the parable of the loaves and fishes, but this one has too many participants in the distribution.) To me this is a doctrine that will likely need to be adjusted back to what it was from about 1928 to 2011, where the few in charge of writing and publishing doctrines only spoke of themselves as "representing" the rest of the FDS.
Their function would be the same, however, with or without their current explanation of the FDS parable. But that doctrine itself has caused some problems in that it tends to highlight the importance of 8 persons when the entire focus should be on the overall value of the unique set of doctrines. I don't think any of us should have a problem, however, with the idea that a small group of elders who are seen as "faithful and discreet slaves" would perform many of the same functions as the Governing Body are now forming.
They are elders, and they deserve respect. Most JWs think the GB are the equivalent of the FDS, so this is not a problem anyway. But I'm sure there are many who have already put this idea to the test, and it makes sense to them. Many others have put this idea to the test and they realize, as I said above, that it could be a doctrinal mistake, but would have no great effect one way or another if the doctrine were changes. (In fact, I have found long-time Witnesses who thought this had been the doctrine for nearly 50 years, since the GB arrangement.)
Also, those of us who have remained JWs, even after questioning that particular doctrine, do so because we believe the majority of the basic doctrines being "distributed" are correct, otherwise there are other denominations to look into. My own criteria, based on the Bible, immediately knocks out just about all the other denominational options at a glance.
I don't see the same huge difference. Paul spoke of the removal of the gifts of inspiration. So even if they were inspired, we should not expect inspiration to take the same form today. Also, the GB model themselves, not directly on the apostles, but on the Council of elders at Jerusalem, which was best known for correcting a big mistake that came right out of their own congregation, from under their noses, which Peter and James (not an apostle) had even hypocritically participated in. Also, even the apostles were not "inspired" at all times. 
No one goes to the door with the overlapping generations message. Our message is that the time for this wicked system is short, and that the Kingdom offers the perfect solution, so lift your heads up and rejoice, and if you really want to do some good, join us in spreading that same message to others. 
Haven't seen that invoked for a while. It gets drummed up by exJWs from some old 1950s Watchtower. It's been used again since 2000, but it's in the context of preparation for persecution as a possible way to be "cautious as serpents yet innocent as doves." The basic idea is not to give more information than a person is entitled to, especially so as not to put our brothers and sisters unnecessarily in harm's way.
Yes. I know the quote, and I've heard others like it. It's an imperfect statement made by an imperfect man. But the motivation from context is the idea (perhaps patronizing) that most of us are like children who need a lot of reassurance. A parent wants a child to show trust even though the parent knows that he or she will make mistakes. But because the motive of most parents is loving, those mistakes will rarely outweigh the value of a child's trust in the parent. A good shepherd will show love to the flock under their care as if they are like his "children." I'm not offended because I think the phrase was properly motivated. 

You may proceed.
The requirements are not high. You must simply make sure that you are not the most unpleasant person here. The mere fact that you raised the above two points guarantees that you will not be.

You do it by putting the turntable in neutral and spinning it backwards with your finger. When you do, you hear repeatedly and very distinctly, “Turn me on, dead man.” (Revolution #9) When you play “Strawberry Fields Forever” forward, you hear at the very end, “I buried Paul.”
The rumor was that Paul, of the wildly popular only-game-in-town Beatles, had died some years ago and that the other three had covered it up, hiring a look-alike to take his place. This look-alike was referred to as “Billy Shears” from the Sgt Pepper’s album, who worried “what would you do if I sang out of tune?” but took solace that he would “get by with a little help from his friends.”
The Beatles cross the street “Abbey Road” in single file on the cover of the album of that name. John leads, dressed in white—he is the preacher. Ringo is next, in black—he is the undertaker. Paul is third—barefoot as a corpse would be, cigarette in hand, though he supposedly quit them years ago—he is the dead man. George is fourth, dressed in workman’s clothes—he is the ditchdigger. The license plate of the VW just over the curb is “28 IF,” the age Paul would be IF he was still alive. The first song of that album, “Come together,” revolves around sounds that could best be characterized as a shovel piling on dirt, as in a burial. References abound to going on without Paul: “He says, ‘one and one and one is three,’ Hold on to his armchair, you can feel his disease.”
The Sgt Pepper’s album cover features the old Beatles looking down upon the new Beatles, renamed Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. The scene is of a burial—“Beatles” is spelled out in floral arrangement, and a host of other famous, though dead, people—Albert Einstein, Mae West, Edgar Allen Poe, about thirty in all—join the old Beatles in looking on.
This is just for starters. Supposedly, the three surviving Beatles had planned this for years, hiding clues in their records.
Why do I know this in such detail? I was a college student at the time. When this story broke, campus life came to a standstill. Kids were glued to campus radio, which cancelled all other programming to run with this 24/7. There was radio tie-in with major schools, which were also at standstills as regards academics activity. Students would call in with the latest theorizing. There were many in our school that cut classes so as not to miss a word. My roommate urged me (unsuccessfully) to install a reverse gear in my record player so as to play all Beatles songs backwards in search of additional clues. Had it been feasible, I probably would have done it.
Outlandish rumors were bandied about and accepted as gospel. The feed station—from UCLA, perhaps—featured unending call-ins and interviews of the latest “research.” On the back  cover of the Sgt Pepper’s album, one of the four—Paul’s replacement, I think—is conducting the band. Superimposed on the cover are the lyrics to the songs within. By this means, “Paul’s” finger points to the words from “She’s Leaving Home,” “Wednesday morning at five o’clock.” If you called a certain number—also listed in the album somewhere, I think—you found yourself connected to hell. I think that if you pressed the matter, you risked losing your soul. Don’t ever let anyone tell you that they are “young adults” in college. They are big children, reveling in the [then] newfound freedoms of drugs and sex, free of parental supervision,  hopefully on their way to becoming adults.
This Beatles’ plot was  the dominating concern of students then and it lasted for days on end.
The weekend came. Maybe it was even some holiday. I went home, about 250 miles away. NOBODY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS! On campus, NOBODY KNEW ANYTHING ELSE! I couldn’t believe how oblivious the out-of-touch farts were to the greatest story of our time! Finally, after a day or two, there was a brief snippet at the end of the “World News Report” and it was in the form of a scolding. Walter Chronkite or his like ran a line of two, briefly acknowledged that the Beatles—those precocious kids—were having a laugh on the world, but what a sick laugh it was.
I wrote this up long ago. It does me good to recall it. Sure—I have nothing else to do with my time:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2010/01/hurry-gwen-theyre-killing-people.html