Does it really matter who a person on here is ? Does it matter if a person uses 10 different 'usernames' ?
If a person can bring some info' to the table that is surely good ? Then others can confirm or criticise that info.
But to waffle on about who a person is or is not, what good is that doing any of us ?
I have a theory that this Forum is run by JW Elders. The purpose of the forum being to study the feelings and actions of JW's, Ex-JW's, Apostates, et al. Then those Elders report their finding to a superior body, and it may even get to the GB.
But this theory does me no good, nor anyone else, so I will keep it to myself . Coffee time.
@Arauna Quote " I think that things LOST are a better topic "
But it isn't the topic. You would want it to be because as I've noticed you don't seem to have any things GAINED'
The GB have lumped great weights onto the shoulders of the congregants and the GB nor Elders lift a finger to help.
Just as the Pharisees did, adding negativity but nothing positive.
What I'm showing is that the GB is not motivated by Holy Spirit, and is not moving the CCJW forward. It is stagnant, but wallowing in immorality.
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.
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.
Per Wikipedia, The Constitution says:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
When the Constitution was written, the terms "high crime" and "misdemeanor" were both used in senses that are quite different from the way we've come to think of them today. The original sense came from the laws that the framers had themselves been under, the British laws, which had used the term since as far back as 1386. It was originally a phrase to highlight the fact that almost any kind of "maladministration" --even things we might think of as NON-crimes-- could have a magnified effect due to the "high office" of the official, judge, president, etc. Most of the items that were considered "maladministration" would not be considered much of a problem at all if you or I practiced them. But they could become a perverting of justice or subject the populace to the ill effects in a way that only a person in high office had the ability to do.
When James Madison discussed the formulation of the "constitution" with Mason, they started out with only Bribery and Treason, but Mason argued that the definition of Treason is too narrowly tied to enemies when at war, and that this would hardly cover situations when a president "attempts to subvert the Constitution." So the British term "maladministration" was suggested and then, after discussion, changed it to the more formal British term "high crimes and misdemeanors." According to the Wikipedia article on "Maladministration" it means the following in UK law:
The definition of maladministration is wide and can include:
Incorrect action or failure to take any action
Failure to follow procedures or the law
Failure to provide information
Failure to investigate
Failure to reply
Misleading or inaccurate statements
That's such a vague definition that Madison said it would be the equivalent of just having a President who served at the pleasure of the Senate. It would "normalize" impeachment, and therefore the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was deemed closer to the idea of "subverting the constitution." The phrase was definitely intended to narrow the reasons that the Senate might try to impeach a President, but was also a way to include things that would not nearly reach up to the definitions of bribery and treason.
In Britain the phrase meant abuse of a high office even if the abuse did NOT violate any criminal laws. So this is how legal scholars have also applied it to the US presidency, usually with a focus on any subversion of the Constitution.
The Wiki article on "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" includes the following that gives an idea of how the original framers understood it:
Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."
The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and the Senate is difficult, made so to be the balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.
In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.