TrueTomHarley

I believe it goes without saying. 
“And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works,  not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom.” 
However, I have come around to seeing your point. I will tell Bethel to award diplomas to elders upon being appointed. They obviously are the ones qualified to do it. Not only do they specialize in advanced and applied Bible study for 150 years, but they have the added qualification of showing that they can DO something with it, something that is often lacking in more traditional schools of higher learning.
What is a diploma? Essentially, is it anything more than a paper testifying that you have successfully answered someone’s 80 questions? So why should you ask the questions? What in the world do you have to offer? 
No. They qualify to ask the questions. And award the diplomas, should they ever choose to. 

When I first experienced this, it was at a Regional Convention. It made a huge impact. 
Looking down at the songbook, you see only the songbook. Looking at the monitor—in this case it was the overhead scoreboard—you also see thousands of fellow Christians singing along with you. It adds a strengthening uniting feature.

Just wanted to add - it is I interesting that many smart kids also are good in music. Music lights up many parts of the brain in scans.  It is also the last skill to die off in Alzheimers.
I think that training in music teaches discipline and focus and this benefits children in other fields. All children should learn music for a while if possible.  It is remarkable that so many Jews learn music and many play in ensembles (it teaches people to listen to others and work together to produce something with esthetic value).  It is not surprising to me that they have a higher average IQ than other nations.

I am reminded of LeRoy Green—he would have said something like this. Leroy Green, who in the mixed congregation would drawl on without the slightest self-consciousness about “working for the white man” down in Mississippi. LeRoy Green, who retired from the railroads after 30 years with an intact pension. LeRoy Green, who in his 80s, was sought after by the younger brothers so they could jam with him. LeRoy Green, who, as I learned from relatives at his funeral, turned down an offer to tour with B.B.King, out of concern for his family and spirituality. LeRoy Green, with the most deep and infectious “hee-hee-hee” laugh you have ever heard, who I tried to line up to one day give my own funeral talk. It would have been one not to miss. I would have raised myself up from the dead to hear it: “Hee hee hee. Yeesss, that Tom Harley, he was a good ol boy. But he’s deeead now—D-E-A-D!”
Unfortunately, LeRoy Green died first. He would have been one to say—I think I do recall him saying it—that keeping up with theocratic publications was the equivalent of a 4-year college education.

I am even almost to the point of doubling down on that statement that reading the Awake is the equivalent of a 4 year college education. Every so often I still hear some old-timer repeating it—usually one with little secular education. it is a ridiculous statement on the surface and opponents have been beating us over the head with it from Day 1. If we dig a little, however, we see that it is not so ridiculous, and in some respects—the important ones—it is even spot on.
Where did that statement first appear? It certainly was never an official statement of policy. I think it was someone’s personal observation and expression of appreciation for what is published. Maybe it was included in someone’s life experiences or in some short snippet piece like that old “Watching the World” series. Does anybody know? Like @The Librarian (that old hen)?
For education to be any good, you have to be able to do something with it. It should add up to something. But like juxtaposed waves, much of the product of higher education cancels itself out. It results in opposing philosophies and schools of thought that can barely coexist, that fails dismally those of the greater world caught in the crosshairs It is a building that someone lays down blocks by day and his adversary takes them apart at night, a field that someone sows fine seed by day and his enemy sabotages with weeds at night. What good is it? If you look at individual components, you are impressed. If you look at collective results, you are unimpressed—you may even be disgusted. 
In contrast, the Bible education Witnesses enjoy serves to unite them. The secular education of each individual might be less than the world average, but it is offset by being cumulative, cooperative, not competitive. Nor is it lacking in anything truly of practical use. Would anyone say that the JW organization is lacking in engineering skills? In digital skills? Environmental skills? Architectural skills? Managerial skills, and so forth?
Moreover, when one Witness knows something of practical use, he freely passes it along to others. This does not happen in the overall world where paywalls are the norm. Knowledge there is not given away—one must pay an enormous amount to be privy to it. College expenses (in the US) incurs debt that is not discharged for decades, and in some cases, never is.
A prime sticking point in US-China trade negotiations is the claim that the Chinese do not respect intellectual property—they rip off the technology of others. Can anyone imagine the American Bethel and an Asian Bethel getting into such a spat? It is inconceivable. If the US Witnesses know it, Asia gets it free. If the Asian Witnesses know it, the US gets it free.
Don’t go telling me about the excelling value of this world’s education. It rises to higher peaks—no question about it. But then it negates the value of those peaks by failure to provide the moral underpinnings that each Witness gets for free in the Awake.
(Of course, Awake is not anything like it used to be. It has been scaled way back. But the point still stands. All you need to is broaden the subject from just a magazine to the entire resources of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization. Surely that is fair. After all, the education of the Awake was never compared to a single college—it was compared to the entire world’s educational system.)

Not true at all! I have already discounted about half of what you say here.

I know this wasn't to me, but I'd like to answer. You know that I don't think it is the organization itself that keeps us apart from the world. I think of the organization as tainted by the world in many ways, too. It's not a magical "ark of the covenant" to have in our possession. It has been and will be run by humans with many failings. And to be an organization in this world it has to associate with non-believers, and worldly people, in much the same way that Paul said:
(1 Corinthians 5:10) . . .Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world.
That said, an organization though in this world can very clearly promote being "no part of the world." Just as any Christian can associate with non-believers in the world. An organization can put "Read God's Word the Holy Bible Daily" on the side of its factory buildings. It can put Bible messages on carts that are set up all over big cities. It can promote Bibles, tracts, and magazines that show why one should not participate in wars, divisive politics, unclean habits, immoral behavior, etc. Not saying much of anything while sitting/standing next to a cart is only ONE of many methods used to promote Bibles, tracts, and magazines.
I wonder what you think of the American Bible Society, or even other religious Tract Societies of the 19th and 20th centuries. I agree that the actual spiritual organization that Jehovah and Christ sees does not require the physical Watchtower organization, per se. But I also think that if you put a group of Christians together they will certainly begin considering ways to get the good news of the Kingdom out to as many people as they can over a given time period. A pooling of resources so that willing persons can make use of efficiencies of scale in printing and distributing kingdom related messages will be inevitable. This doesn't mean that the organization is the source of salvation, it's just a reflection of the love for the message and the attempt to share it worldwide as efficiently as possible.
I also think it's true that not every Christian will be working at the center of such an organization, nor will all of them believe that they need to participate in the exact same ministry as the average person associated with the organization. Some will look into ways that TV, Internet, and streaming video can be used to get a message promoted. Some will feel more comfortable helping their neighbors in other ways if they don't feel called to any kind of teaching ministry. I believe that even these ones, who may not participate in all recommended aspects of ministry promoted by the organization will still prefer to attend congregations to learn what is taught by others. And I believe that the teachings they will be attracted to with the most Christian appeal will include some of the teachings I mentioned before: no war, no divisive politics, no hellfire, no Trinity, yes to high moral standards, yes to associating with like-minded Christians.
The organization Jehovah and Jesus looks for is invisible, I agree. It includes direct communication with Jehovah in our personal lives (through prayer, study, and our requests for a measure of holy spirit) for guidance, in the same way that the Governing Body directly communicates with Jehovah (through prayer, study, and their requests for a measure of holy spirit). We are not "brought to Christ" through the Governing Body. We are responsible for our own spiritual lives. We are each to be concerned with what sort of person we ought to be, not based on what someone else tells us:
(Philippians 2:12, 13) . . .keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For God is the one who for the sake of his good pleasure energizes you, giving you both the desire and the power to act.
(2 Corinthians 5:9, 10) 9 So whether at home with him or absent from him, we make it our aim to be acceptable to him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad.
(Galatians 6:4, 5) . . .But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.
But I also don't think that all we do is somehow negated by associating with others of like faith who are just as well meaning as we are, and who are also persons we can help strengthen and comfort and encourage, just as they can also do for us. Do you really think that even associating with fellow Witnesses is so bad that Jehovah cannot see our hearts, and find us in his "invisible" organization, too?
(Romans 11:2-6) . . .Do you not know what the scripture says in connection with E·liʹjah, as he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Jehovah, they have killed your prophets, they have dug up your altars, and I alone am left, and now they are trying to take my life.” 4 Yet, what does the divine pronouncement say to him? “I have left for myself 7,000 men who have not bent the knee to Baʹal.” 5 So in the same way, at the present time also, there is a remnant according to a choosing through undeserved kindness. 6 Now if it is by undeserved kindness, it is no longer through works; otherwise, the undeserved kindness would no longer be undeserved kindness.
 

See below - important scripture!
We are reaching the point where human control over others will have no limit (as quoted scripture above indicates) and political and religion are close bedfellows - just like in Babylon when Nimrod merged false religion with hegemony.  They will dictate religion as part of state as they are  doing now in China.
Individuals buy property, get business licenses (just like our organization). This means they are IN the world and have to make a living with "unrighteous riches" .  BUT they are no part of the world.  I have not seen a witness run for office, lobby against LGBT or abortion (even though they do not condone it), participate in demonstrations or vote. 
We are without spot from the political system because we obey the laws as far as possible and do not oppose its mechanisms in activist way. We are also without spot in a moral way because we will NOT go to war or practice abortion or LGBT  - even if it has been legalized and legit in the world.
To tyranize against GB because they conduct business is not taking into account that Jesus said we can use "unrighteous riches" for him. God did not originally plan for man to have a financial system..... so it is unrighteous.
Remember the prophecy of the final situation where we will not be able to 'buy or sell' if we do not conform (morally- the good and bad values of jehovah) to this system and NOT give our worship/ moral obedience to the state. 
Our test will be great because you will become persona non grata when your digital bank account with all your money is locked because you accept the ransom sacrifice of Jesus or do not practice LGBT.   I read of a trans that wanted to sleep with a married man and he called it a hate crime when declined....... this where the world us heading with a possibility of it becoming LGBTQP.  
Those who are without moral spot of this world/society (issue of good and bad and choosing Jehovahs sovreignty against directives of state and wicked society - as Adam chose) will be persecuted. 
 

I think you have watched too much Perry Mason. Was it really that way?
So you feel each party in a judicial case should have his own lawyer, taking a page from the adversarial legal system of today?
“When both sides properly prepare a case, the adversary system can effectively guarantee the revelation of all the facts bearing on an issue. The more experience you have with it, the more you’ll find it a surprisingly scientific method of trial preparation.” — Perry Mason.  (Season 5, Ep 13 The Case of the Renegade Refugee)
Come now, that is not a religious statement? Thrust upon us by a new world of “science” that has despaired of finding impartial judges the like of Exodus 18:26: “capable men fearing God, trustworthy men hating dishonest profit?”
The reason they are hard to find is that the world embraces values to the contrary. Not so in the Christian organization. I will take the congregation justice system any day, which only deals with the spiritual matters that are of no concern of secular courts. But a hostile world tries to frame some of these spiritual matters as grist for the legal mill.
What is happening is that those who refuse discipline are airing their complaints to a world that despises discipline and thereby finding common sympathy. It brings to mind the trademark of those describe in 2 Peter as “apostate”—they “hate” discipline. 
You don’t think that those who came out on the short end of the world’s court system don’t also complain about how they were abused and unjustly sold down the river? It is human nature to do so in a system that downplays responsibilities and upplays rights.
Yes, Bubba. The effort today is to hinder those wanting to stay separate from the world—ideally, even making it illegal to do so.
Several Bible statements would outrage the “anti-cult”-driven legal climate of today:
“But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1 Corinthians 5:11). The Bible writer would be challenged legally today for trying to “control” people; who is he to tell them who they can eat with?
“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 10)  Ditto. He is “controlling people.” Let them greet whoever they want, even those whom HE finds “wicked.”
“It is necessary to shut their mouths, because these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of dishonest gain.” (Titus 1:11) Oh? It is “necessary” to restrict someone’s free speech for the sake of “enforcing” your religion? See you in court, Paul.
From time to time, the earthly organization rewords something—like the disfellowshipping announcement or the questions for baptism—to make clear that members are voluntarily adhering to Bible counsel rather than, as opposers try to present it, suffering the bullying of an “evil” “oppressive” “corporation.” It may fail in this one day, because the intent of those hostile to Christianity is to make the Bible verses themselves illegal, or at least make it illegal for anyone to actually follow them.
The goal is to deprive Christians of organization. That way they can more easily be assimilated into the greater word. This is framed hypocritically, even obnoxiously, as an attempt to liberate them. It is no more better realized today than in Russia, where Jehovah’s Witnesses are not illegal, but only their organization is. ‘It’s not the foot-soldier they want to kill off. It’s only the generals that must go. That way the foot-soldier can more easily switch sides—and he will be all the happier for it,’ so the thinking goes. Of course, a scheme so devious cannot be comprehended by the average person, and the authorities simply feel free to beat up on any Witness.
The goal to “liberate” Christians from the organization they form is more advanced in Russia, but it proceeds along the same path in Western lands. “Liberate” them into what?
Yes. So that the worldwide rot that it has collectively produced does not manifest itself in the congregation.
 

Pretty much like this verse, from this week’s Bible reading:
“They originate with the world; that is why they speak what originates with the world and the world listens to them.” (1 John 4:5)

I believe the statement that William was aligning himself with was that of Peter. 
You asked your question wrong. Do you think that verse has any merit, or is it all nonsense? Do you object to working in harmony with that scripture?

A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very small.

The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.

Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a human; it was physically impossible.

The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah."

The teacher asked, "What if Jonah went to hell?"

The little girl replied, "Then you ask him."

It is far far far easier—and more alluring—to tear down than it is to build up.
However, it is more noble to do the latter.

Yes. I wrote up a post on this at the time and included how other translations handled the verse. An excerpt:   (from https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/who-is-mentally-diseased.html )
“Moreover, “mentally diseased” was placed in quotation marks, indicating it was not meant as a medical diagnosis, but as an adjective to suggest a manner of thinking. Nor is the term anything original. It is merely a repeat of the Bible verse 1 Timothy 6:3-4....“If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words.”
...Douay-Rheims says ‘sick about questions and strifes of words.’ In view of the context, what sort of ‘sickness’ do you think the translator had in mind? Tuberculosis, maybe? Or is it not a sickness of thinking, so that ‘mentally diseased’ is not such a bad rendering after all? NASB...offers ‘morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words.’ Does ‘morbid,’ when applied to thinking, suggest balance and soundness of mind? Or is ‘sickness,’ even ‘mentally diseased,’ more to the point?”
Here’s a few other translations:
‘diseased’ (Emphasized New Testament; Rotherham)
‘filled with a sickly appetite’ (Epistles of Paul, W.J.Conybeare)
‘morbid appetite’ (A New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People; Charles Williams)
‘morbid craving’ (An American Translation; Goodspeed)
‘unhealthy love of questionings’ (New Testament in Basic English)
‘morbidly keen’ (NEB)
‘unhealthy desire to argue’ (Good News Bible).
“Do any of these other versions suggest soundness of mind? So the NWT’s ‘mentally diseased’ is an entirely valid offering, even if more pointed than most. Plus, once again, the term is an adjective, as it is in all other translations, not a medical diagnosis. Context (in that Watchtower article) made this application abundantly clear.”

Yes. I wrote up a post on this at the time and included how other translations handled the verse. An excerpt:   (from https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/who-is-mentally-diseased.html )
“Moreover, “mentally diseased” was placed in quotation marks, indicating it was not meant as a medical diagnosis, but as an adjective to suggest a manner of thinking. Nor is the term anything original. It is merely a repeat of the Bible verse 1 Timothy 6:3-4....“If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words.”
...Douay-Rheims says ‘sick about questions and strifes of words.’ In view of the context, what sort of ‘sickness’ do you think the translator had in mind? Tuberculosis, maybe? Or is it not a sickness of thinking, so that ‘mentally diseased’ is not such a bad rendering after all? NASB...offers ‘morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words.’ Does ‘morbid,’ when applied to thinking, suggest balance and soundness of mind? Or is ‘sickness,’ even ‘mentally diseased,’ more to the point?”
Here’s a few other translations:
‘diseased’ (Emphasized New Testament; Rotherham)
‘filled with a sickly appetite’ (Epistles of Paul, W.J.Conybeare)
‘morbid appetite’ (A New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People; Charles Williams)
‘morbid craving’ (An American Translation; Goodspeed)
‘unhealthy love of questionings’ (New Testament in Basic English)
‘morbidly keen’ (NEB)
‘unhealthy desire to argue’ (Good News Bible).
“Do any of these other versions suggest soundness of mind? So the NWT’s ‘mentally diseased’ is an entirely valid offering, even if more pointed than most. Plus, once again, the term is an adjective, as it is in all other translations, not a medical diagnosis. Context (in that Watchtower article) made this application abundantly clear.”

Why not take over this store for your headquarters?
It even has a True Harley!

Hmm. Would this do for a headquarters? Look how some apostate put up a “no-left-turn” sign (into the store!) That might harm book sales—I’d have to take that down.

Yes. I wrote up a post on this at the time and included how other translations handled the verse. An excerpt:   (from https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/who-is-mentally-diseased.html )
“Moreover, “mentally diseased” was placed in quotation marks, indicating it was not meant as a medical diagnosis, but as an adjective to suggest a manner of thinking. Nor is the term anything original. It is merely a repeat of the Bible verse 1 Timothy 6:3-4....“If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words.”
...Douay-Rheims says ‘sick about questions and strifes of words.’ In view of the context, what sort of ‘sickness’ do you think the translator had in mind? Tuberculosis, maybe? Or is it not a sickness of thinking, so that ‘mentally diseased’ is not such a bad rendering after all? NASB...offers ‘morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words.’ Does ‘morbid,’ when applied to thinking, suggest balance and soundness of mind? Or is ‘sickness,’ even ‘mentally diseased,’ more to the point?”
Here’s a few other translations:
‘diseased’ (Emphasized New Testament; Rotherham)
‘filled with a sickly appetite’ (Epistles of Paul, W.J.Conybeare)
‘morbid appetite’ (A New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People; Charles Williams)
‘morbid craving’ (An American Translation; Goodspeed)
‘unhealthy love of questionings’ (New Testament in Basic English)
‘morbidly keen’ (NEB)
‘unhealthy desire to argue’ (Good News Bible).
“Do any of these other versions suggest soundness of mind? So the NWT’s ‘mentally diseased’ is an entirely valid offering, even if more pointed than most. Plus, once again, the term is an adjective, as it is in all other translations, not a medical diagnosis. Context (in that Watchtower article) made this application abundantly clear.”

Yes. I wrote up a post on this at the time and included how other translations handled the verse. An excerpt:   (from https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/who-is-mentally-diseased.html )
“Moreover, “mentally diseased” was placed in quotation marks, indicating it was not meant as a medical diagnosis, but as an adjective to suggest a manner of thinking. Nor is the term anything original. It is merely a repeat of the Bible verse 1 Timothy 6:3-4....“If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words.”
...Douay-Rheims says ‘sick about questions and strifes of words.’ In view of the context, what sort of ‘sickness’ do you think the translator had in mind? Tuberculosis, maybe? Or is it not a sickness of thinking, so that ‘mentally diseased’ is not such a bad rendering after all? NASB...offers ‘morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words.’ Does ‘morbid,’ when applied to thinking, suggest balance and soundness of mind? Or is ‘sickness,’ even ‘mentally diseased,’ more to the point?”
Here’s a few other translations:
‘diseased’ (Emphasized New Testament; Rotherham)
‘filled with a sickly appetite’ (Epistles of Paul, W.J.Conybeare)
‘morbid appetite’ (A New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People; Charles Williams)
‘morbid craving’ (An American Translation; Goodspeed)
‘unhealthy love of questionings’ (New Testament in Basic English)
‘morbidly keen’ (NEB)
‘unhealthy desire to argue’ (Good News Bible).
“Do any of these other versions suggest soundness of mind? So the NWT’s ‘mentally diseased’ is an entirely valid offering, even if more pointed than most. Plus, once again, the term is an adjective, as it is in all other translations, not a medical diagnosis. Context (in that Watchtower article) made this application abundantly clear.”

There's always a hate group linked with any group of people, organization, school, etc. Even for us in the truth. We already had a run in with ExJws in the past and the county and it's people were on our side. Not to mentioned they turned a non religious dude until an extremely protective defender who now sees all ExJws as enemies. Thankfully his girlfriend ruminates the tension this dude has.
And theres neutral people who just wants to learn about Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, the funniest thing a month or two ago we had a Spiderman cosplayer (a guy in the Spider-Verse suit) asking for a NWT Bible and was curious about JWs to one of the brothers who were outside.
With the things going on now, I can care less about hate groups because they want progress or solutions and go about these things in a way that makes them look like the bad guys. Not to mention the one track mindedness mentality they rock on the daily. 

In the US, one can easily be presented with a “surprise” medical bill upon being released from the hospital. This happens when one of those involved in patient treatment turns out to be a non-network provider. The resulting bill can be tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars for a hospital admittance that was covered by insurance.
I had always assumed—I think most people did, if not all people—that the cause was simply blundering incompetence, that the US health care system is so disorganized, cobbled together haphazard one piecemeal step at a time, that nobody has a grasp on it all, and everyone feels bad about the monster that they have collectively produced, but it is typical inept human social evolution and nobody has a clue what to do about it. 
I never dreamed that it was deliberate. But that turns out to be so. Money flows from this planned mess to the hedge funds that back it. Hospitals themselves become dependent upon the system the former have foisted upon them. It is no more than “follow the money”—something I routinely do in order to get to the bottom of things but forgot to do it here. 
When bills are proposed to correct the abuses—seemingly everyone would back them—instead, opposition is intense:
https://khn.org/news/investors-deep-pocket-push-to-defend-surprise-medical-bills/
 
 

In the US, one can easily be presented with a “surprise” medical bill upon being released from the hospital. This happens when one of those involved in patient treatment turns out to be a non-network provider. The resulting bill can be tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars for a hospital admittance that was covered by insurance.
I had always assumed—I think most people did, if not all people—that the cause was simply blundering incompetence, that the US health care system is so disorganized, cobbled together haphazard one piecemeal step at a time, that nobody has a grasp on it all, and everyone feels bad about the monster that they have collectively produced, but it is typical inept human social evolution and nobody has a clue what to do about it. 
I never dreamed that it was deliberate. But that turns out to be so. Money flows from this planned mess to the hedge funds that back it. Hospitals themselves become dependent upon the system the former have foisted upon them. It is no more than “follow the money”—something I routinely do in order to get to the bottom of things but forgot to do it here. 
When bills are proposed to correct the abuses—seemingly everyone would back them—instead, opposition is intense:
https://khn.org/news/investors-deep-pocket-push-to-defend-surprise-medical-bills/
 
 

There is a certain evil irony to this isn't there?

A dentist !!

@JW Insider did not write TrueTom v Apostates. He did not write Dear Mr. Putin. I wrote them. There were portions that I forwarded to him for comment. To that extent, he had input. His comments were most helpful and every time I ignored them I came to regret it. I got all excited about a statistical factoid from the follow-up Aussie case study. He told me it wasn’t so watertight as I had imagined. He was right and I downgraded it to a suggestive pointer. 
He said that there were a ton of errors—typos and punctuation atrocities—in the manuscript and I was later aghast at how abundant they were. It took me forever to get them out. Even now there are probably a few—but it is time for new things.
Even his instinct about my describing the old bound volumes as the family gods—bulky, toted everywhere, and very seldom used—I came to agree with. I was just being self-indulgent, and no one had ever described them that way but me. Why put anyone off unnecessarily?
His biggest contribution was when I ran by him beforehand the letter that I submitted to the Philly Inquirer in response to their first of what proved to be four incendiary articles. This was a big moment for me. The topic was white-hot, I had never seen anyone not run from it, and I didn’t want to mess it up. For all I knew, they might print it. I respected his insights and incorporated most of them. That letter became the core of what ultimately became a chapter in TrueTom vs the Apostates, “Four Incendiary Articles.”
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/four-incendiary-articles.html
So yes, he has good judgement and instincts about what I consulted him for. Yes, his advice proved valuable. Yes, I am grateful to him for it. No, he did not write any of either book.
Our cooperative role may expand. We came across The Librarian, that old biddy, bending over dusting Gibbon’s “Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire” on a lower shelf in her library. JWI and I toppled the entire bookshelf on her and squashed her flat. You should not expect to hear from her anymore except for some automated posts she may have previously submitted. 
I planted a story that a California law was going to kill the internet. Admin fell for it, and he sold the entire forum to me for only a dollar. JWI agreed to come in for just 50 cents. If I let him do his thing, going on and on and on about some egghead things that I don’t really care about—and after all, he did help me with the bookshelf—I will gain his good will forever.
Yes, it is chronology he is into. But he writes at such length that everyone falls asleep except for other eggheads. He has done the research to expound on what he does, as others have done the research to disagree with him, even the semi-resident titan who doesn’t wish to be described that way. I gather that our view is not the one that predominates in the mainstream scholarly world, but this does not unduly concern me. I am too used to headlines that read: “Everything you thought you knew about such-and-such is wrong.” Matters of scientific scholarship can and have turned on a dime. Besides, even if his most drastic thought proved true, it would amount to no more that a (colossal) misread of the bus schedule. It would not mean that the bus is not coming.