Forum participants we have known

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

Yes. Thanks for asking. Up until yesterday, the Mobile app allowed you to look up the Meetings under Library and when you clicked on the Song it would stream either Meetings, Vocals, Instrumental, Children, or Chorus depending on what selections were available for that particular song. 

Well, Tuesday you were able to select a Chorus version of Song 111, the last song for the midweek meeting. And of course some persons, in preparation for the meeting, will play the chorus version so that that they can practice the song with words. The Vocals version will often be a solo performer who might improvise a bit. The Chorus version will not improvise so often. The Chorus version of Song 111. (Our Reasons for Joy) starts out "Our reasons for joy are abundant." But the original chorus version, some might recall, sang it as "Our reasons for joy are abounding." It was originally written this way to sound better with the next line The joy in our heart is well-founded." So that a B-rhyme or "slant-rhyme" was implied between abounding and well-founded.

But those words were awkward sounding, and the printed version changed abounding to abundant. But the mobile app still pointed to the old Chorus version. When reported it was removed and only the Meetings version (instrumental) and Vocals and Children version remain. Those ones are all correct. 

So, my point was that some criticism gets commendation instead of condemnation. But what if I had questioned Psalm 45 for the same meeting? And what if I said that I don't think this is really the marriage of a king, but the marriage of a king's daughter (which may or may not have been to another king)? I might question such a point here on this forum, but it's nothing to call the Bethel Home about. But that's because I could easily be wrong and it's too trivial to worry about. Yet, if I study another issue that I feel is quite important, I might actually feel the need to call them up and question it. 

In fact, I have questioned 4 potential errors in the NWT 2013 Edition, and 3 of these error/typos have been changed in the [latest] printed version. Only one of these got an acknowledgment, so I don't know if others had also reported the others. 

[Anna]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm ready for another 10 years here.

Yay! 

[Anna]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

But since you and Tom are the librarian

I often wonder if there is any point in responding to any of your ridiculous statements, but this one made me laugh 

[BTK59]

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

I often wonder if there is any point in responding to any of your ridiculous statements, but this one made me laugh 

Just picture the joyous laughter elicited by the majority of you people's posts. It's great that the public can witness your non-Christian behavior. lol!

Insults: Anna - 1 / BTK - 0.

Let's keep track of who starts first, Tom or JWI. It's time to face the truth about the way people are treated here, and the double standard that you're willing to embrace to justify such unacceptable conduct.

[BTK59]

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In fact, I have questioned 4 potential errors in the NWT 2013 Edition, and 3 of these error/typos have been changed in the [latest] printed version. Only one of these got an acknowledgment, so I don't know if others had also reported the others. 

Did you know that when Tom assumes the character of Vic the Parrot and speaks to himself, he becomes rather abusive? It's quite amusing!

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

So, my point was that some criticism gets commendation instead of condemnation. But what if I had questioned Psalm 45 for the same meeting? And what if I said that I don't think this is really the marriage of a king, but the marriage of a king's daughter (which may or may not have been to another king)? I might question such a point here on this forum, but it's nothing to call the Bethel Home about. But that's because I could easily be wrong and it's too trivial to worry about. Yet, if I study another issue that I feel is quite important, I might actually feel the need to call them up and question it. 

If we are all imperfect, back in the day when the Watchtower had proofreaders like perhaps you were part of in the writing department, and you made an error like sometimes you actually do here, who would correct your mistake as a proofreader?

I ask because it appears that you are asserting your superiority in judgment, despite being an imperfect human being.

[BTK59]

I believe Juan Rivera expressed a similar concern about George. What authority did George have to criticize people in this context? While George was critiquing the impact of individuals misrepresenting themselves as JWs in good standing, by their actions and behavior, it's evident that even some sisters here are outspoken and are conforming to rules of equality put forth by men, rather than by God. There should be a clear distinction between addressing grammatical errors and addressing errors with personal character. If an Elder has the responsibility to correct misconceptions of another Elder through a committee, it should be carried out through God's Holy Spirit, not by the opinions of those who do not possess such authority from God.

Now what does correcting an Elder have to do with correcting typos?

In the past, typos were corrected through new publications, which former members interpreted as an attempt to conceal something. However, with the convenience of electronic means to correct typos, why do you believe this would have a detrimental impact worth addressing publicly? What sort of dialogue are you looking to initiate in this open forum?

[TrueTomHarley]

52 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

If we are all imperfect, back in the day when the Watchtower had proofreaders like perhaps you were part of in the writing department, and you made an error like sometimes you actually do here, who would correct your mistake as a proofreader?

I ask because it appears that you are asserting your superiority in judgment, despite being an imperfect human being.

One more outrageous claim like that and it is off to Worm City for him.

And, what’s with the angel that was able to spring Peter from prison, opening doors right and left, but was not able to spring the one at Mary’s home, leaving Peter knocking in the street. Have him write Bethel about that.

[BTK59]

8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And, what’s with the angel that was able to spring Peter from prison, opening doors right and left, but was not able to spring the one at Mary’s home, leaving Peter knocking in the street. Have him write Bethel about that.

Hey, that was the same interesting topic in the study article that addressed it. It highlights the significance of God's intervention in Peter's behalf and emphasizes the vital role of God's Holy Spirit in correcting individuals. Given the greater responsibility borne by Elders, their judgment naturally carries a weightier spiritual impact.

So by all means, if you happen to spot a typo in one of the Watchtower publications, please get in touch with the writing department to ensure it is corrected. It is important to note, however, that this has no bearing on how Elders interact with each other or how concerns are addressed within the congregation or territory.

[JW Insider]

55 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Just picture the joyous laughter elicited by the majority of you people's posts. It's great that the public can witness your non-Christian behavior. lol!

I have to admit that I laughed out loud a bit when I saw your claim that Tom and I are the Librarian. It didn't make me laugh when Anna admitted that she had the same reaction. In fact, I cringed a bit realizing that you would take immediate offense and try to make a big deal out of it. 

The problem is not that people are insulting you, but that you have indeed made ridiculous statements and claims. When people make ridiculous claims in public, they can expect ridicule. That's what ridiculous means. You can be glad that the form of ridicule you receive is merely a bit of laughter.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Insults: Anna - 1 / BTK - 0.

Let's keep track of who starts first, Tom or JWI. It's time to face the truth about the way people are treated here, and the double standard

I will again admit that this too made me laugh a bit. Not at you, but at the ridiculousness of the claim about who started insulting, and the fact that you gave yourself a score of 0 insults, which only highlighted your own double standard. Although I doubt this was on purpose;  i don't think you were aware of it.

You probably aren't aware that claiming someone is not telling the truth is insulting, except of course when someone happens to make that claim about you. For example, look closely at the exchanges between you and me. Next post of mine:

 

[JW Insider]

10 hours 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.

You have been aware for years that I state I have never banned anyone. You might not believe it of course, but you were aware of my position from previous discussions. Yet, you repeat here that I am showing favoritism to some and banning others. You imply that I am just making excuses for favoritism, and that this behavior with no evidence provided is becoming increasingly obvious -- and you repeat it claiming now that it is MULTIPLE people I have banned by adding -- "with each person you ban." 

So I give you the benefit of the doubt and don't call it an insult yet, even though it clearly was:

• BTK insult #1: JWI is making excuses
• BTK insult #2: JWI is showing favoritism
• BTK insult #3: JWI is banning others making this behavior obvious with each person JWI bans

10 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Then you upvote that dishonesty.

I was guessing that you meant the "laughter" emoji at the reference to my funeral. Still, I guess this was also meant as an insult:

• BTK insult #4: JW upvotes dishonesty

I began to respond:

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

This was not an insult. Just a statement of clear fact. It can't be obvious that I have banned someone since I never have banned anyone. I still honestly don't know if I have the power to do so. 

So far, BTK insults: 5.

You responded with:

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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.

So, now you go ahead and try to claim that I was lying via some kind of wordplay that I have never used, but which I have often seen used by others. 

• BTK insult #6: JWI is using wordplay manipulation to deceive

 Anyway, I responded:

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

Again, just a statement of fact. And to make it clear you weren't being insulted I made mention of how astute you are. 

As an aside, I don't think it's an insult to point out that when I use certain descriptive words (like "astute') for the first time here almost all the "Allen-Smith-styled" accounts will return that word to me in some way, and I have often said this might be a form of echolalia. No one else does this, but Allen did it, Moise did it, Billy the Kid did it, and at least 20 other Allen-styled accounts. And guess what:

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Your understanding of the situation is astute.

I admit that the phenomenon of echolalia came up in a course I took many years ago. Otherwise I would not likely have noticed. I could give about 150 to 175 examples from the Allen-styled accounts.

Aside completed.

You had gone on next to say: 

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Obviously, you will never publicly admit it,

Another direct claim that I am lying.

BTK insult #7: JWI will continue lying (claiming NOT to be the Librarian) because he will never publicly admit it.

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

the truth will ultimately prevail, which is what truly matters.

You've only posted a few out of hundreds.

I assumed that this meant only a few out of hundreds of my posts have been true. Another insult that I am overwhelmingly a liar almost by default.

BTK insult #8: JWI only posts a very small percentage of truth.

At any rate, I don't think I have to spell out the next 20 or 30 micro-insults from you. They don't even make a difference. I'll continue to speak the truth. But I just wanted you to see why it seemed ridiculous for you to claim that other people insult you and you don't insult others. It seemed you had such an obvious double-standard. (Yes, that's an intentional form of me using echolalia. My own definition, not the same form you will see in a dictionary, but perhaps related.) 

[BTK59]

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I have to admit that I laughed out loud a bit when I saw your claim that Tom and I are the Librarian. It didn't make me laugh when Anna admitted that she had the same reaction. In fact, I cringed a bit realizing that you would take immediate offense and try to make a big deal out of it. 

I don't support Anna's cynical comment, but you seem to do that effortlessly. Despite this, we all enjoy a good laugh at posts, particularly those that lack conviction. However, we both understand that you won't change my opinions generally with your views, and I don't anticipate changing anyone's mind here. In the end, we will all be judged accordingly. I suppose humor only takes into account our intentions.

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

You probably aren't aware that claiming someone is not telling the truth is insulting, except of course when someone happens to make that claim about you. For example, look closely at the exchanges between you and me. Next post of mine:

Oh! I was unaware that speaking the truth is considered insulting. Perhaps this reveals more about the person receiving the truth than the person speaking it. Does this imply that you have a problem with scripture instructing us to "rebuke" our brothers? Just a moment ago, you stated that you don't have any objections to disfellowshipping. So, which is it then? It would be beneficial for the public to comprehend your steadfast defense when it concerns your perspective on conformity.

Is that why you inadvertently linked "elders" and "typos"? I would love to see your response and get my fifth laugh in, lol!