OK. I understand that point, and as I said in several of my last posts, there is plenty of wrong info in Measen's work, and it is not corrected by other authors that make use of him.
Yes. I would agree that Maesen (and other authors) included some bad assumptions about what the Bible Students were actually teaching. Maesen even admitted some of the weaknesses of the argument as I pointed out earlier. But these authors we have seen so far get a lot of things wrong, either due to how anxious these authors are to prove their assumptions, or from a serious lack of understanding of Bible Student teachings (or both).
I mentioned earlier that I already understand your position on this a bit better. You agree that there is commonality, but you have noted some cases where these similarities are much more divergent than the author claims. So I completely understand, with that explanation, why you say it's wrong to call this "influence."
Personally, I would still use the word "influence" only because so many of the remaining points of similarity are not so easy to dismiss or counter, and even though some of these assumptions made by these authors still contain mistakes, they are much less serious than the errors you (and I) have already pointed out. Also, I have already agreed in the very first post that the points of commonality were a misuse of the Watchtower's intent for these same doctrines. It's just that I believe someone can also be "influenced" by some teaching, and then distort it so greatly, so that you might not even recognize where the "influence" came from. I can think of other cases where you might call this same type of process "influence" but I don't want to get too far off topic.
This is a little off topic, but you asked a few questions earlier in this "thread" that I skipped. I can at least try to answer direct questions.
I didn't copy that (Horowitz) book while at Bethel. That was from a university library where I maintain alumni access. Also, Horowitz doesn't accept "this gossip" in that book, which is about Russell's particular form of Zionism, based on Russell's speeches and writings. I copied the book because I didn't have time to read it, and because I didn't want to check it out to take home (because I don't live that close to Massachusetts). Also, I get a very cheap rate on photocopies there.
You also asked why I read the COJ book. Initially, I read the manuscript with the idea that I would find the time to do some research and counter the very weak or specious arguments I expected to find. The person who first allowed me to see a small copied portion of it thought the person should be disfellowshipped just for writing it. The person (in Writing) who gave my wedding talk and let me see the whole thing believed that someday someone should be able to respond to it, but by then I already knew I wasn't at all equipped to help, and he didn't show it to me with the idea that I would ever get such an assignment, anyway. It was way out of my league at the time, but I have since obtained and read many if not most of the reference sources to check whether it was accurate, and I also obtained and ran several different software programs to double-check the dates for calculations of eclipses and planetary positions from astronomical diaries quoted.
You also asked for what purpose I defend people like "Barbara Anderson." I don't defend people (unless I know enough about them). I defend ideas that appear to be based on evidence. But I'm very skeptical of anything anyone says unless it matches evidence, and even then I know that new and additional evidence can always come along someday and change what I think to be true. I know of a few things that Anderson has said that I don't believe at all based on contrary evidence. I also know of a few things she has said that I thought wouldn't be true, but turned out to have more evidence than what I previously believed. So far I've been impressed with her ability to do research and I therefore understand why the Watch Tower Society trusted her with so much research. But this doesn't mean I automatically trust anything she says in the future. I automatically assume bias, as I do with anyone, and I recognize biases in my own thinking, too.
I really don't care where Rutherford is buried. That's probably why I don't remember reading anything on Anderson's site about that particular fact. I think I recall a request to the city of San Diego to bury him at Beth Sarim, but I thought the request was denied. I assume that the Watch Tower Society has the correct information on that subject. I wouldn't expect them to be that concerned about it anyway. Even if the WTS or someone else has said something incorrect about it, it's not a Biblical or doctrinal issue, anyway. It has nothing to do with the effects of our publications or preaching work. It's just more trivia.
Δευτέρα 23 Ιανουαρίου
Υπάρχει εκείνος που μιλάει αστόχαστα σαν να δίνει χτυπήματα με σπαθί.—Παρ. 12:18. http://wol.jw.org/el/wol/dt/r11/lp-g/2017/1/23
Monday, January 23
Thoughtless speech is like the stabs of a sword.—Prov. 12:18. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dt/r1/lp-e/2017/1/23
Lunes 23 de enero
Existe el que habla irreflexivamente como con las estocadas de una espada (Prov. 12:18). http://wol.jw.org/es/wol/dt/r4/lp-s/2017/1/23
Segunda-feira, 23 de janeiro
Palavras impensadas são como os golpes de uma espada. — Pro. 12:18. http://wol.jw.org/pt/wol/dt/r5/lp-t/2017/1/23
Понедельник, 23 января
Иной, говоря бездумно, ранит, как мечом (Прит. 12:18). http://wol.jw.org/ru/wol/dt/r2/lp-u/2017/1/23
Poniedziałek 23 stycznia
Jest taki, który mówi bezmyślnie, jakby zadawał pchnięcia mieczem (Prz. 12:18). http://wol.jw.org/pl/wol/dt/r12/lp-p/2017/1/23
Lundi 23 janvier
Il existe tel homme qui parle inconsidérément comme avec des coups d’épée (Prov. 12:18). http://wol.jw.org/fr/wol/dt/r30/lp-f/2017/1/23
Montag, 23. Januar
Da ist einer, der gedankenlos redet wie mit Schwertstichen (Spr. 12:18) http://wol.jw.org/de/wol/dt/r10/lp-x/2017/1/23
Lunedì 23 gennaio
C’è chi parla sconsideratamente come con i colpi di una spada (Prov. 12:18) http://wol.jw.org/it/wol/dt/r6/lp-i/2017/1/23
Måndag 23 januari
Det finns de som talar tanklöst, som med svärdsstötar. (Ords. 12:18) http://wol.jw.org/sv/wol/dt/r14/lp-z/2017/1/23
23 Ocak Pazartesi
İnsan vardır, kılıç saplar gibi düşüncesizce konuşur (Özd. 12:18). http://wol.jw.org/tr/wol/dt/r22/lp-tk/2017/1/23
E hënë, 23 janar
Ka nga ata që flasin pa u menduar si me goditje shpate.—Prov. 12:18. http://wol.jw.org/sq/wol/dt/r41/lp-al/2017/1/23
Понеделник, 23 януари
Който говори необмислено, сякаш пронизва с меч. (Пр. 12:18) http://wol.jw.org/bg/wol/dt/r46/lp-bl/2017/1/23
Luni, 23 ianuarie
Vorbirea necugetată a unui om este ca străpungerea unei săbii. (Prov. 12:18) http://wol.jw.org/ro/wol/dt/r34/lp-m/2017/1/23
Lunes, Enero 23
May isa na nagsasalita nang di-pinag-iisipan na gaya ng mga saksak ng tabak.—Kaw. 12:18. http://wol.jw.org/tl/wol/dt/r27/lp-tg/2017/1/23
Well, I not going to argue what a reference number should be to the listing and where it should be applied for easy reference. That still doesn't alleviate the fact that "false" data is being applied to any book that references Maesen Reseach, or how this person in the" Africana" wrongfully applies the WTS teachings. That is the "main" point.