Forum participants we have known

[TrueTomHarley]

54 minutes ago, George88 said:

By the way, Tom, when I did give my best efforts to interact politely and cautiously (walked on eggshells)

Tyrannosaurus eggshells maybe. No eggshell that I’ve ever encountered.

[JW Insider]

I did my one-month penance away from this site, and I'm ready for another 10 years here. LOL.

I hadn't realized that Pudgy also stopped posting the same day. Also, there are dozens of post from George88 that are quoted by others here but when I go back to find the original, they are missing. Looks like JR invoked some of the rules of the forum which may have raised a flag to a moderator. What's left of his requoted comments tells me I probably would not have been much encouraged by the exchanges anyway.

But banning someone like George does almost nothing to remove that kind of vitriol and divisiveness. He still has other active accounts on here anyway. There are times when I think it just makes it worse when old accounts are "reincarnated." Anyone remember these names? 

• 1 Abusive Behaviour

  Moise Racette was warned   March 18, 2023

  Not Yet Acknowledged
•  

• 1 Abusive Behaviour

  Chioke Lin was warned  July 15, 2022

   Acknowledged
•  

  15 Abusive Behaviour

  César Chávez was warned   May 13, 2021

   Acknowledged
• 

  1 Abusive Behaviour

  Leander H. McNelly was warned  March 8, 2020

   Acknowledged

• 1 Abusive Behaviour

  DefenderOTT was warned  October 24, 2019

  Not Yet Acknowledged
•  

  1 Abusive Behaviour

  Sean Migos was warned  October 24, 2019

   Acknowledged
• 

  1 Abusive Behaviour

  Allen_Smith was warned   October 23, 2019

  Not Yet Acknowledged
•  

  1 Spamming

  divergenceKO was warned  October 23, 2019

  Not Yet Acknowledged
• 

  1 Abusive Behaviour

  Foreigner was warned October 23, 2019

  Not Yet Acknowledged

• 5 Abusive Behaviour

  AllenSmith was warned   July 2, 2018

   Acknowledged

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I did my one-month penance away from this site, and I'm ready for another 10 years here. LOL.

Oh sure! Here I was thinking that George had finally tracked you down and burned you at the stake! So much for the funeral talk I was preparing.

 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I hadn't realized that Pudgy also stopped posting the same day.

Oh sure! Here I was taking advantage of the situation to posit you and he were the same! (and then afterwards that I had banned you both) So much for my reliability profile.

 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Looks like JR invoked some of the rules of the forum which may have raised a flag to a moderator.

Gasp! You don’t think JR was banned, do you? He could get pretty outrageous, but underneath it all  he had the heart of a pork chop. I mean, George, yes—of course—but there is hardly a point with him, because like a Whack-a-Mole, he is instantly back. But JR—his sense of honor would prevent him coming back under any guise.

He was so reckless in his posts, I guess I should be glad. But somehow I am not. To be sure, I muted his comments. But I usually ended up checking them out one by one anyway.

Oh wait . . .  You mean Juan. Yes, he almost blew a gasket responding to G’s vitriol. He did it well, too. Not that it had the slightest impact on the latter. (But now I am back to wondering what became of the pork chop. Hope he is well.)

Also hope you have been behaving during your absence and that family is well. Now that you are back, turn on the fire-waterworks: 

https://share.icloud.com/photos/036kN6vQPZ9wfl7PnyWb1BJSg

(Oops. My bad. I should not have posted video from the last theocratic gathering. We’ve been asked not to do that.)

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Oh sure! Here I was thinking that George had finally tracked you down and burned you at the stake! So much for the funeral talk I was preparing.

Is that why you banned him for exposing you all?

JWinsider argued against the unethical practice of disfellowshipping, emphasizing its barbaric nature. It is indeed the same when it comes to banning, as it involves severing ties with someone who stands up and speaks truth to power. 

So, who is right? Can someone who is wrong correct another person?

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He was so reckless in his posts, I guess I should be glad. But somehow I am not. To be sure, I muted his comments. But I usually ended up checking them out one by one anyway.

Why aren't you glad that despite being called out for your reckless post, you are still here with your double standard, while that person has been banned? So, who are you fooling when it's Tom and JWI that have the authority to ban.

Are you going to take shots at the person as people normally do after they have been banished unjustly? In my perspective, if you have the ability to insult someone, why shouldn't others have the same freedom? What kind of muzzle do you want to impose on others that you wouldn't be willing to impose on yourself? 

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But banning someone like George does almost nothing to remove that kind of vitriol and divisiveness. He still has other active accounts on here anyway. There are times when I think it just makes it worse when old accounts are "reincarnated." Anyone remember these names? 

What about the abusive behavior displayed by TOM, Pudgy, and now Juan, Xero, Many Miles, Miracle Pete, as well as numerous other associated accounts created by Tom and Pudgy? You cannot make any excuses, JWI, for showing favoritism to some individuals while banning others. This behavior becomes increasingly obvious with each person you ban.

Then you upvote that dishonesty.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

JWinsider argued against the unethical practice of disfellowshipping, emphasizing its barbaric nature. It is indeed the same when it comes to banning, as it involves severing ties with someone who stands up and speaks truth to power. 

I don't think disfellowshipping is always unethical. The Christian congregation needs this authority for cases of exceptional wrongdoing, gangrene-like heresy and apostasy, and times when accepting association by someone reprehensible would give the appearance of condoning that person's conduct. But it can be implemented in a "barbaric" manner. I've watched this happen. I worked with Governing Body member, Brother Bert Schroeder, when his practice was to threaten to disfellowshipping persons unless they "snitched" on private conversations they had with friends who were closer to Bert's "political" target at the time. Then the person who snitched was allowed to just walk away unscathed. 

I've seen it used to break apart families where a (young -but-just-over-18) baptized person still lived at home with mental conditions that made it nearly impossible for her to safely live on her own, and yet she was kicked out of the home.

I've seen the threat used on my own sister if she were to tell the truth to hospital personnel that her ministerial servant husband had given her the injuries through a beating. 

I've seen the threat used against a registered nurse, a good friend of my brother, who was told (by Brother James Pellechia of the Writing Department) that she could no longer voluntarily care for a 90-year-old nearly invalid wheelchair-bound brother in a second/third floor apartment in Brooklyn who was disfellowshipped for apostasy, mostly over some negative remarks about Rutherford that he wouldn't recant. (He had been a colporteur under Russell and Rutherford.) The nurse asked my brother (a Bethelite at the time) for help and my wife and I were able to sneak in (partly disguised) to help the disfellowshipped person several times a week, along with another sister who took the other days. He literally would have died without the help.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

it involves severing ties with someone who stands up and speaks truth to power. 

I agree that you have often spoken truth here. However, this is not a congregation. It's a nearly random collection of persons who take an interest in discussing JW-related topics: some controversial, some innocuous. Every one of us who is here is here against the wishes of the Governing Body and we know it. There is therefore no reason to ban/disfellowship over any issue, with the exception of deliberate or targeted abusive behavior intended to hurt or bring harm to someone. But as we are mostly Witnesses here, we have learned to take such abuse in stride. We expect it. And if we happen to doubt or even reject a doctrine or two that most JWs accept, we understand quite well that we should expect to take some "abuse" for it. That's the only kind of abusive behavior I've gotten from the Allen-Smith-persona-like accounts.

I expect it now and then, and don't agree with JR that such a vigilante-styled zealous one needs to identify himself.

I especially don't like the fact that all the innocuous posts from the same individual get lost in the process. That's overkill over and above what's already overkill. 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

You cannot make any excuses, JWI, for showing favoritism to some individuals while banning others. This behavior becomes increasingly obvious with each person you ban.

Must not be as obvious as you think because I've never banned anyone. I don't even know if I have the power to ban anyone. It's possible I do, but when I was offered moderator powers it was to help keep some order in some otherwise chaotic threads that kept going off-topic, and most specifically it was offered to me at a time when Allen Smith appeared to be responding to nearly all my posts with an extra dose of vitriol. I was told that I could use my new moderator powers to remove excessively spiteful posts from Allen. As you are well aware, I never did, but left them all just exactly as awful as he wanted to express himself. Then someone came along and deleted several versions of Allen along with all his past posts in many cases. This removed the foundation of my own responses to him which makes it difficult to make sense of those threads if anyone were go back and try to read them. 

I may never know if I actually have the power to ban anyone because I will never use it even if I can.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Must not be as obvious as you think because I've never banned anyone.

Under your personal moniker JWI, that's correct you haven't. But since you and Tom are the librarian, then under that moniker, Yes! You have. That has been obvious well over 5 years now. You're not the only one with computer skills. Obviously, you will never publicly admit it, just as Tom was reminded by his own words and post which was taken down, about how things are manipulated here.

Regardless of how many times someone has been banned (disfellowshipped) here, the truth will ultimately prevail, which is what truly matters.

You've only posted a few out of hundreds. However, the truth has persisted for over a decade. Why do you choose not to publish the outrageous comments made by others, like the one from Tom, and the recent post from Pudgy that is still being defended here, which are equally insulting and offensive as George's comment, or perhaps even more subtly offensive like you have done yourself?

Why bother defending your position when you know you can't justify it?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I was told that I could use my new moderator powers to remove excessively spiteful posts from Allen. As you are well aware, I never did

What does it imply when you ban that person and their content? Your understanding of the situation is astute. It appears that George's use of abusive language in his recent post about Tom's dishonesty may have led to his ban, while Tom continues to be a presence. Your defense of those involved is noteworthy. It appears to be a clear case of double standards, which, as a Christian, you cannot in good conscience justify.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I may never know if I actually have the power to ban anyone because I will never use it even if I can.

Well, we both know this is not a true statement.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I don't think disfellowshipping is always unethical.

Maybe now that you understand the similarity with a ban, your perspective has shifted. I recall that in the past, you mentioned using the term "barbaric" to express your strong disapproval of it. If you have reconsidered banning George while Pudgy remains unbanned, you cannot justify your action as an act of Christian conduct.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Every one of us who is here is here against the wishes of the Governing Body and we know it. There is therefore no reason to ban/disfellowship over any issue, with the exception of deliberate or targeted abusive behavior intended to hurt or bring harm to someone. But as we are mostly Witnesses here, we have learned to take such abuse in stride.

We are both aware that this is untrue, as George has been banned while Pudgy and other former members are freely spreading slander, disparagement, and maligning the Watchtower, God, and the Bible. The only thing that doesn't change here seems to be the same attitude of noncompliance.

Why would lies be allowed to persist? Can you provide an answer?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I especially don't like the fact that all the innocuous posts from the same individual get lost in the process. That's overkill over and above what's already overkill. 

What is the difference when the same proposition can be applied to those who ridicule God? Why criticize the Edler arrangement, the Governing Body, and the Watchtower when we all recognize our imperfections? Your standards here surpass the ones chosen by God. God may have once selected you, only for you to degrade that choice by replacing it with dissatisfaction and in a public manner. So, where's the spiritual benefit?

I've noticed your previous post in which you posed the same question to the public and acknowledged that you only support about 95% of what the Watchtower offers. In that case, what gives you the authority to undermine the remaining 5%?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

But since you and Tom are the librarian

I am most certainly not the librarian. And knowing the kind of wordplay I've seen some of you guys use I am also not "The librarian" or "The Librarian" or "the Librarian" or "THE LIBRARIAN" or any combination of letters referring to "The Librarian" account. I am as certain as I can be that Tom, TTH, TrueTomHarley, etc., also is not the Librarian. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

That has been obvious well over 5 years now.

Must not have been that obvious, if even such an astute person such as yourself got it wrong.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

You're not the only one with computer skills. Obviously, you will never publicly admit it, just as Tom was reminded by his own words and post which was taken down, about how things are manipulated here.

I would never claim to be. But I will publicly admit that I have never manipulated anyone's posts. I have taken a couple down, but they were repeats like when someone accidentally posts the same post 3 times. I have also moved posts to new topics many times, and in a couple of cases I have removed the posts that requested the move, or thanked me for making the move, because these make no sense after the move is completed. But even for these, I would only do that for persons who wouldn't be prone to complain or wouldn't get paranoid about a post being taken down. If I thought the person might wonder about a lost post I will announce what I'm doing in a post, and if there are no complaints within a day or so I will also take down my announcement post. 

If you know of any posts that were manipulated, point it out immediately and the admin(s) should be able to find an edit history so they can know who did it. I don't have access to an edit history but I assume that every such event is logged in the db. Not just admins, but moderators do have the ability to edit another person's post because I was once asked to edit a typo in a post where the author had passed the time limit for editing and I could still edit it for them. That's happened only about three times in 10 years.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Why do you choose not to publish the outrageous comments made by others, like the one from Tom, and the recent post from Pudgy that is still being defended here, which are equally insulting and offensive as George's comment, or perhaps even more subtly offensive like you have done yourself?

I don't know what comments you refer to. Not the one from Tom, although I can guess, nor the one from Pudgy. I almost never interact with Pudgy, and even with JTR many of my "subtly offensive" posts to him were just hints that I didn't like a lot of his incessantly off-topic cartoons. in fact, the only recent time I recall interacting with Pudgy was to complain that his cartoon was completely off-topic and he responded that it was supposed to be obvious satire intended to lighten the mood from such a serious topic. But I also like some of his humor, too, I just don't respond to much of it.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

which are equally insulting and offensive as George's comment,

You might be referring to a specific comment of George's that I didn't see. There is no specific post referred to in the "Reports" section which I can see. And there are times when an admin or moderator(or Librarian?) will hide an ostensibly offensive post, and that gives it a pinkish border to a moderator like me, while others can't see it at all. I have seen these, but I see no such offending post in George's case. If someone requoted that post, then maybe I can go back and see it, but I didn't completely read this topic yet.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Why bother defending your position when you know you can't justify it?

I have no reason to defend my position. Just stating how I feel about banning, etc. I could be wrong about it, and I don't mind being corrected if I am. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

What does it imply when you ban that person and their content? Your understanding of the situation is astute. It appears that George's use of abusive language in his recent post about Tom's dishonesty may have led to his ban, while Tom continues to be a presence. Your defense of those involved is noteworthy.

OK. Maybe I understand a bit better what you meant. I didn't know George used abusive language in his post about Tom's dishonesty. I didn't know Tom had been dishonest about something. I thought this was between J.R. and George88. Banning someone could potentially be justified, although I would never do it. And I have only one account/name/title here. I wouldn't do it under any account/name/title even if I had more than one. I don't think it's my place. I was never offered the authority and I think it's better to deal with content a person posts more than worry about the people behind them. It's sometimes funny and/or revealing when people use sock puppets for manipulation or satire or use them to build up a vote-reputation, so that's fair game for discussion. But not to attack people, and not to ban them. If the rules said only one account and no sock puppets that would be a different matter to the admins/owners, but not something I would worry about.  

If Tom was dishonest, or Pudgy was abusive I wouldn't defend it, but just like with you I wouldn't want to see them banned. And if someone thought it was absolutely necessary (which I doubt) then just like with George, I wouldn't want to see the content banned. I thought George had spent a good deal of time on the site rebuilding a better reputation and had also posted a ton of interesting content that had nothing to do with whatever happened here. I found it tedious to go through this last exchange with J.R., especially since I didn't agree with J.R. on the basic point. If someone wants to be a zealous OT-prophet-styled vigilante for truth and justice, who are we to try to stop him. Gamaliel could have told us that. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I may never know if I actually have the power to ban anyone because I will never use it even if I can.

Well, we both know this is not a true statement.

Sort of right. I'm guessing that I do have the power to ban. Perhaps you have control of an old account that you don't think you will ever use again. If you give me permission I can give it a try and let you know if I was able to ban it. I suspect a strong possibility that I can only report it, and then another person has to approve the ban. I truly don't know for sure, but I was wrong to say "I will never use it even if I can." Because I'd like to know and if someone gives me an account to try, and permission to ban it, I will try to ban it. 

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't think disfellowshipping is always unethical.

Maybe now that you understand the similarity with a ban, your perspective has shifted. I recall that in the past, you mentioned using the term "barbaric" to express your strong disapproval of it.

Seems doubtful since I never believed it was always unethical, nor have I ever believed disfellowshipping itself was ever barbaric. That's not even a word I would use when the once-blind person that Jesus healed was disfellowshipped from the Sanhedrin. It was wrong, but not barbaric. The only types of uses that I consider barbaric are of the type that I mentioned. There are probably others but I was not privy to the details of that many other cases.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

If you have reconsidered banning George while Pudgy remains unbanned, you cannot justify your action as an act of Christian conduct.

My position is that none of us should be banned. We are almost all reprobates from my perspective. If this were a Christian congregation, I would be disfellowshipped too, because there are things I will say here "in the congregation of reprobates" that I would never think of saying in a Christian congregation, nor even to a closest friend, unless they could convince me that they were asking honestly and in good faith, and able to understand the consequences if they chose to agree with whatever understanding I admitted to having at the time.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Why would lies be allowed to persist? Can you provide an answer?

 Not sure what you have in mind, but lies persist because people often lie. If someone says something that appears to be a lie, then we either ignore it or we ask them for evidence, or we defend against it, or we research the "lie" ourselves and decide whether we should keep our feelings about it to ourselves, or we wait and see if someone else will take up the mantle. I've seen several lies on here that I just didn't care enough about to be concerned. Too trivial. Or I knew that telling the truth would just create unnecessary trouble and attacks. We can't all be each other's keeper.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Why criticize the Edler arrangement, the Governing Body, and the Watchtower when we all recognize our imperfections?

 If there are things to criticize or correct, some will feel the need to criticize or correct. And some won't. It's no big deal since this is not a Christian congregation. In effect, you are criticizing the GB for being here when the GB have recommended that we not be here. So am I.

Not all criticism is worthy of condemnation though. If one has spiritual qualifications they should criticize an elder under some circumstances, according to the Bible. If one has proofreading qualifications, they probably should criticize the publications under some circumstances. I criticized a mistake on the website yesterday, and it was fixed the same day in time for the Wednesday mid-week meeting. I got an acknowledgement of appreciation for my criticism. It's no big deal. 

[BTK59]

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I am most certainly not the librarian. And knowing the kind of wordplay I've seen some of you guys use I am also not "The librarian" or "The Librarian" or "the Librarian" or "THE LIBRARIAN" or any combination of letters referring to "The Librarian" account. I am as certain as I can be that Tom, TTH, TrueTomHarley, etc., also is not the Librarian. 

The same kind of wordplay you are using. However, it is inconsequential as we are both aware of the undeniable truth concerning you and Tom. I have no intention of engaging in a futile debate over semantics, only to be "banned" for a single reason, just like George. It is unjustifiable to condone the continued presence of individuals who exhibit unacceptable behavior and yet kick out another for the same offense.

So, continue to defend the indefensible, it doesn't matter to me. It's your game, not mine.

25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

OK. Maybe I understand a bit better what you meant. I didn't know George used abusive language in his post about Tom's dishonesty. I didn't know Tom had been dishonest about something.

More wordplay, not even close to what I meant. The discussion revolved around the topic of eggshells and abusive language. George posted one of Tom's profanity-laden posts to prove that Tom was lying. This must have offended Tom and proven him to be a liar. As a result, he either had you ban George or he took matters into his own hands out of anger. Either way, you people are out to defend your own abusive behavior.

I think you actually upvoted a post by Xero where they used a curse word, but one letter was replaced with the symbol "*". By omitting just one letter, it seems like you unintentionally condone the use of profanity in this context by your upvote.

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Sort of right. I'm guessing that I do have the power to ban. Perhaps you have control of an old account that you don't think you will ever use again. If you give me permission I can give it a try and let you know if I was able to ban it. I suspect a strong possibility that I can only report it, and then another person has to approve the ban. I truly don't know for sure, but I was wrong to say "I will never use it even if I can." Because I'd like to know and if someone gives me an account to try, and permission to ban it, I will try to ban it. 

I appreciate your honesty, but it remains contradictory as you continue to deny it. Although it might sound illogical, having the backing of your fan base is essential, I suppose. Tom has previously proposed that all he has to do to execute the plan is simply put a checkmark in the account. Bam! That person is banned. However, he only practices that with one person. You seem to believe that having power over others (lording over) is a position of superiority. However, it is intriguing how individuals often fail to recognize their own flaws, focusing solely on those they perceive in the Watchtower. It is essential to reflect on ourselves before criticizing others, especially when we lack the authority to do so.

We must do what we believe is the right thing to do. Banning cannot silence the voice of truth.