Noble Berean

7 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

We learned not to do it again. Have you noticed any other years since ballyhooed as the big one?

Step 1 is not touching the oven door. Step 2 is realizing that the oven shouldn't be touched because it's burning hot

While the organization doesn't assign end dates anymore, that doesn't solve the underlying issue...that the GB wants to eat it's cake and have it too.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

To answer this objection, the WTS knew it had to address the 1975 issues again, but remind us that this was the fault of individuals speculating on their own, and not the fault of the WTS.

What is it then? The organization wants unquestioned loyalty, but when it goofs up that's on individual JWs? You can't have it both ways. It's a contradiction. This isn't the only time that the org plays two sides of the coin.

It's dishonest for the organization to suggest that 1975 enthusiasm was generated by some rank & file JWs. That's the implication from that convention video. Any active JW knows the organization is tightly controlled, and those at the top are in control of the wheel. WT literature promoted 1975 as an end-date and endorsed JWs who sold off property and made life adjustments in expectation of it. JWs who believed in an impending end and made major life adjustments did exactly what the WT encourages JWs to do today: "Listen, Obey, and Be Blessed."

So, what did we learn from the 1975 failure? How is our situation today any different than it was 42 years ago? JWs continue to hang onto the words of the GB like gospel, and that attitude is still promoted in our literature. The GB was wrong about 1975, but ultimately people moved on. But as our time is reduced in this system, our decisions have greater weight, so correct direction matters more.

7 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That is actually hilarious

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I have read somewhere in publications how dfd family member can come to meeting in the same car with rest of the family, but he/she can not seat with them in KH, but separate in some other corner of hall, not in the same seats as rest of family. Then when meeting is over he/she can seat in the same car to go back to home.

Imagine how this sound and look so bizarre and unnatural and crazy rule to obey :))))

Got a reference for that?

This video indicates that 252 JW congregations have closed in Germany since 2015. Is this a legit statistic? What is causing this decline?

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

Good scripture, but to be honest not sure how it would apply to disfellowshipping, since that is a protective and disciplinary action, which is also meant to bring the person back. 

If our goal is to get people back, why would we treat them like they don't exist at our meetings? Outside of the meetings I can understand why our association should be limited, but our meetings seem like the one place where we should be supporting a spiritually weak individual.

13 minutes ago, Anna said:

But maybe we should make this another topic.

Sorry how do I go about that?

2 hours ago, John Houston said:

But later whe it came to my knowledge that Noah was a drunk, even for one time, I would not be incensed at him for this reason, but still grateful that he did just so in building the ark and made the way for my salvation. What happens now is between him and Jehovah.

I highly doubt would've approved of Noah if he was a drunk. I think it's a lot more likely that his drunken incident was isolated and not indicative of his regular behavior. Noah was only human, and I can't imagine the PTSD of being the sole family to survive a worldwide cataclysm. I would drink.

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

I think, in my opinion, those who are nasty and vindictive are those who feel they have been wronged (injustice and all that) and are shunned by their families. Remove the shunning, and I think that would take the wind out of their sails.  Then there are others who just have the need to insist on everyone seeing things their way, and get very upset if you don't agree with them, regardless whether they are shunned or not. 

Perhaps it's not a good idea to take a look. It might bring some rather controversial topics to light...

P.S. Unless you mean discussing the psychological aspect of it rather than any specific reasons...

 

Really good point. Do our extreme shunning policies give exJWs a justification for leaving the religion and staying away?

I think of 1 Corinthians 10:31-33: "Therefore, whether you are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, just as I am trying to please all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage, but that of the many, so that they may be saved."

Our org always focuses on stumbling fellow JWs, but the scripture indicates we are not supposed to stumble anyone...Jew, Greek, or Christian. When I reflect on the disfellowshipping video at the convention, doesn't our extreme stance cause great stumbling? JW parents aren't even supposed to pick up the phone when their daughter calls? Imagine if that daughter was terminally ill or had suffered a personal tragedy. Or maybe she just needed some support at a dark time? That would make most bitter. It seems our love extends only to some.

And when the prodigal son returned to his father, he didn't wait around for some committee to approve fellowship. He embraced him immediately.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

How do you think they understand the story?

(Sorry for breaking up my responses like this. I'm in the middle of something, and just keep coming back to read and answer periodically)

I believe many will perceive the story exactly as it's presented in the video. It was an end-date that was promoted by "some" rank & file JWs--publishers in congregations like yours and mine. The good JW in the video doesn't become tempted by this hysteria and sees that the Scriptures indicate no man knows the day or hour of Christ's coming. Those that left the org over the frenzy are easily written off as weak in faith.

It's an inaccurate depiction of events, because it leaves out one crucial thing. JWs didn't get the 1975 theory out of thin air. A frenzy generated by local brothers just doesn't make sense knowing what we do about the org. The enthusiasm was generated by the organization which promoted "Stay alive still '75!" and endorsed an Armageddon-prepping mentality in its literature. These JWs--now painted as negative examples--were doing exactly what we're admonished to do today: "Be loyal to the slave!" While our organization doesn't promote an end-date, it still expects unquestioned loyalty in other areas. Has the organization really changed its attitude that much from 1975? Have JWs really learned from it? Or are we destined to repeat it as a new generation rises up?

It's very weird to see a WT produced video that actually shows a JW questioning the direction of the organization against Scripture. It's clearly not framed that way in the video, but anyone with actual knowledge of the event knows that this person wasn't questioning "some" JWs in local congregations but the organization--those taking the lead! So, it's definitely an odd choice to show at a convention--especially when a lot of JWs lived through that era. I almost wonder if there was a version of the script that involved the organization, but during the production references to the org were specifically removed.

22 minutes ago, Anna said:

I feel if the GB were trying to minimize their role in a failed date they would have not brought it up again, especially not when you say "many adult JWs did not experience 1975". Why not just bury the old dog.

In the Internet age, nothing can be buried. The whole convention was combating disillusionment. I think the org knows that, and they're worried about people viewing anti-JW websites and blogs. They come up on the first page of Google. By addressing controversial matters directly, they have full control over how the story is framed, and the story presented will satisfy most JWs. Then, they're less likely to consider other sources on the matter, or they may discredit other accounts as apostate exaggerations. I have family that lived through 1975, and the convention video bothered them a bit. Not faith-shaking, but an annoyance. They knew people who sold off property and made major life adjustments. They did so earnestly and in good faith that the organization was telling the the truth. They were essentially painted in a negative way in the video--as overly extreme. But that kind of faith in the organization persists till today. What's changed since then? Are people freer to question what they hear from the org?

32 minutes ago, Anna said:

Anyone can go back and check this if they want.

On the WOL? Are you referencing the exact quotes supporting 1975 preppers or the admission of guilt?

1 hour ago, Anna said:

In view of all that, it seems to me the intent was to make individuals aware that in the end they have to rely on what they know from the scriptures. This was confirmed by what Br. Jackson said. Also, on another thread, it was established that not only is "truth the truth no matter who says it", but rubbish (garbage) is rubbish no matter who says it also.

The message of trusting the Bible over men is a good one, but why not go all in? Why not admit the source of the 1975 frenzy? It wasn't just some loony JWs...it was the organization that promoted the idea in their literature. It didn't come from nowhere. It cheapens the message to show only a half-truth.

1 minute ago, Anna said:

Apostates send letters to Bethel, regularly.

And they almost certainly read websites like JWSurvey, JWFacts, etc. I believe they even sued one. They have an awareness of what critics are saying.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

this is interesting. revised Bible text ? it can be, and it is very tricky when someone change text to adapt it to understanding in particular moment of time. 

WT made few revising on Bible text from first printing. How many problems will come in a future if some problem of past error on translation we can see now, today. And how many more problematic changes and interpretations that has been done according to bad translation are already here but we are not see it yet, maybe some other people saw before us :))  

But isn't revision a good thing when it leads to clear understanding? We're constantly learning more about the Bible as we dig into it and research it.

23 hours ago, Anna said:

So the brother was relying on HIS knowledge of the scriptures (as presented by the GB) and did not get involved in the "hysteria" of that time. Maybe he was already pioneering at the time, but he definitely did not start spending his money as if he was never going to need it again. It even seems that he kind of went "against the grain" of what others may have been telling him to do, I am not sure, I would have to look at that video again....

The GB never bring up things unless there is a specific reason for it. So no doubt there is a lesson for us in that video that they want us to recognize .

I have to imagine that 1975 video was created with the intent to minimize the GB's role in promoting a failed end date. Which is definitely the worst blunder our organization has ever made. In the video, it is never the GB that promote the date but the average-Joe JWs. So, the blame is on them, not those taking the lead. That's just not honest history--more like revisionist history. And since many adult JWs did not experience 1975, they take the organization at their word. Now, they'll put the blame on those few "loonies" who went too far rather than the org which promoted the date in its literature heavily.

23 hours ago, Anna said:

“Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction”.

I also watched the ARC, and I found Br. Jackson's comments to be conflicting with GB endorsed statements by the WT. Now, I do have confidence in my fellow JWs, and I don't think JWs have such blind faith in the GB that they would do something way off-base from the Bible's message. But to suggest that JWs would never do something out of harmony with the Bible? The history of our organization verifies that JWs obediently follow the GB--even when their direction is wrong. Had I been at the ARC, my follow up question to Br. Jackson would have been: What do you suppose JWs should do if they hear incorrect direction from the GB? In the July 15, 2006 WT, it says, "What if we are tempted to murmur because of having doubts about certain teachings that Jehovah’s people hold in common? Then let us not be impatient. The ‘faithful slave’ may eventually publish something that answers our questions and clears up our doubts. It is wise to seek the help of Christian elders."

It's pretty clear that JWs are not to jump ahead of the GB and the org if we have doubts. This "wait on Jehovah" attitude is pretty much the standard view in the org. We can't take matters into our own hands; we have to wait for the org to change. Some are waiting for changes that may never happen. All the while, our conscience is conflict--do we follow our own Bible conscience or keep with the group?

On 11/27/2017 at 7:49 PM, Anna said:

This brings us to the notorious question of interpretation, but by our baptism, didnÂ’t we agree with the interpretation?

But our interpretation is in constant flux, isn't it? If a major thinking changes after baptism--do we need rebaptized? I think the point is our heart condition. If we serve Jehovah out of a loving heart, we don't have to have all the right answers.

On 11/27/2017 at 7:49 PM, Anna said:

But there are some basic things in

 the Bible that have not changed right from the beginnings

 of the Jehovah's Witness religion, and I won't take your

  time, obviously, going through those, but it is important

  to realise what are basic things in the Bible.  For

  example, is the Bible from God?  There is no possibility of

  us changing our viewpoint on that" end of quotes

Yep, that's a basic truth we can all agree on, Br. Jackson . But after that, who decides what's a "basic thing" that should not change? Many things have changed, so much so that the landscape of the religion is pretty different from the start.

On 11/27/2017 at 7:49 PM, Anna said:

That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food.  So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.

 

This just doesn't jive with our organization's teachings. The GB definitively claims it is the sole channel of communication from God. For Br. Jackson to vacillate and suggest that they aren't the sole composite spokesperson is IMO disingenuous. If you asked any JW, "Who are the spokespeople on earth for God?" the answer would not be the one Br. Jackson gave. With a statement like that, you might even get taken to the back of the KH!

Consider what it says in the November 2016 WT, "Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?'" I don't see how much clearer the GB could make it that they are the sole composite spokesperson for God, and they should not be questioned on their direction.

Jumping back to the ARC, it seems apparent to me that Br. Jackson wanted to minimize the GB's controlling ways as much as possible. I've said already that they play two sides of the coin very well: a channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and a human group that errs. When it suits them, like this situation in Australia, they can appear weak to benefit the case. But it's not accurate to the way things are. And you can't have it both ways.

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This is real controversy. But just one among many that came from Watchtower GB spiritual food table. JW living in "spiritual paradise" under rules like this one. :(( 

Questions from readers - WT magazine January 1 1972

Do homosexual acts on the part of a married
person constitute a Scriptural ground for
divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry?
—U.S.A.
Homosexuality is definitely condemned in the Bible as something that will prevent individuals from gaining God’s approval. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10)
However, whether an innocent mate would Scripturally be able to remarry after procuring a legal divorce from a mate guilty of homosexual
acts must be determined on the basis of what the Bible says respecting divorce and remarriage.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ said: “Everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for
adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt. 5:32) On a later occasion he told the Pharisees: “Whoever divorces
his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." —Matt. 19:9.
Thus “fornication" is seen to be the only ground for divorce that frees the innocent mate to remarry. The Greek word for fornication is porneia.
It can refer to illicit sexual relations between either married or unmarried persons. The ancient Greeks, in rare instances, may have understood
this term to denote acts other than illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. But the sense in which Jesus used the word porneia at Matthew 5:32 and 19:9
must be ascertained from the context.
It should be noted that in Matthew chapters 5 and 19 “fornication" is used in the restricted sense of marital unfaithfulness, or illicit relations with another person not one’s marriage mate. Just before bringing up the matter of divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ pointed out that “everyone [married] that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:28)
Consequently, when he afterward alluded to a woman’s committing fornication, his listeners would have understood this in its relative sense, namely, as signifying a married woman’s prostitution or adultery.
The context of Matthew chapter 19 confirms this conclusion. On the basis of the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus pointed out that a man and his wife became “one flesh,” and then added: “What God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Matt. 19:5, 6) Now, in homosexual acts the sex organs are used in an unnatural way, in a way for which they were never purposed. Two persons of the same sex are not complements of each other, as Adam and Eve were. They could never become “one flesh”־ in order to procreate. It might be added, in the case of human copulation with a beast, two different kinds of flesh are involved.

Wrote the apostle Paul: “Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.1— ״ Cor. 15:39. While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual “one flesh” with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate.

This hasn't been the attitude in the org for a LONG time. They revised the Bible translation to make it crystal clear. Sexual immorality breaks the marriage bond.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Thank you to the other contributors.

@Gone Fishing has presented excellent reasoning, @JW Insider counter reasoning, @TrueTomHarley realized all too soon this might me one of my "rants" that I don't raise anywhere else and that it could be the next topic for a letter to the GB that I never send, @Noble Berean went straight to the heart of the matter. Thankfully this post has been spared JTR's cartoons because maybe he has not discovered it yet, @Nana Fofana hit the bottle, Allen et al resorted to personal attacks and apportioning down votes left right and center.....so nothing new there, and last but not least Srecko with his obviously biased interpretation, and Bar Avaddhon with his complex interpretations and sometimes difficult to understand discourse but that is not his fault, Google translator needs to do a better job.

I don't have time right now, but when I do I would like to reply to individual posters in more detail...

3 minutes ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

It seems your hypocrisy! is being two-faced. If you have a problem being "sick" see a doctor, and take it out on him. Otherwise, it's just a fool's game not to include everyone in your contagious illness.

If you downvote, you could at least contribute to our discussions

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is the same with those like @Noble Berean who started this line of discussion, with the GB. It cannot be that God works through that group of men? Don't be such a wimp! Extend your logic to Jesus and Paul. Take your Bible and rip out every book after Acts.

Perhaps I haven't been very clear with my wording on this forum. I don't actually disagree with a Governing Body existing over the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. That would be like me questioning why each congregation has an elder body. It is clear that the GB fulfills the role of an elder body over the entire congregation on earth.

What I take issue with is the unquestioned obedience that the GB demands. I have yet to receive satisfactory, Scriptural evidence for this view. Is this how the first century apostles perceived themselves? Any questioning by JWs is compared to the fatal murmuring of Korah and his associates, but Moses was a prophet for Jehovah God. When he spoke to the people, it was like God himself spoke. He was granted the authority by Jehovah to lead the Israelites like God. Jehovah made his divine support of Moses clear when he parted the Red Sea and performed many miracles in his name. When Moses spoke to the people with a thought generated by his own imperfect mind rather than God's, Jehovah actually removed his blessing of the Promise Land. The GB don't speak as prophets, and it is clear they often speak and direct with thoughts generated by imperfect, human minds rather than God's mind. They acknowledge that they have erred in their direction throughout the organization's history. So, how can they expect the same level of obedience that Moses received? It doesn't add up in my mind. Besides, it is Jesus who is the greater Moses and not the GB.

Now, you may say that prophets don't exist anymore, so it's unfair to expect prophets in this day and age. That's true. We no longer need prophets, because we have God's complete word in the Bible. I believe that Jesus Christ's leadership is expressed through the Bible. It trumps all human authority. It is the "check" to us all. The Bible stands alone. In my research, I pondered why Jehovah separated the roles of apostles and prophets into two groups in the first century. I have my own theory that Jehovah did so to prevent one  group from gaining too much authority--sort of like the checks and balances in the US government. But the GB acts as those taking the lead and guardians of doctrine. Instead of the Bible "checking" their authority as an independent entity (like an auditor), it has become completely intertwined with the GB. They have stated that they alone have been granted the capacity from God to properly interpret the Bible's message. So, no one else can use the Bible to check them, because they can simply discredit that individual by saying that he/she was not chosen by God to interpret the Bible. Therefore, their interpretation is invalid.

It's like when the gov't does an internal investigation...we roll our eyes. We know that it won't be too critical against itself, but instead create an outcome that is the most favorable. The GB has interpreted the Bible and structured the org in such a way that gives them maximum control and minimum accountability. They essentially play both sides of the fields: God's channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and the imperfect human group that err. Having to be submissive to a GB who play these 2 conflicting roles is very frustrating for me. I don't know how to work with them.

And while I've said a lot, I just want to be clear that I don't want to usurp anyone's authority--especially in God's religion. My questioning is how I make my faith and my ideology firmer. I'm a work-in-progress. I'm not so dogmatic to claim I have all the right answers. My views are evolving, and I appreciate the discussions on here.

47 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Then why keep doing it with the GB?

There's many more anointed than GB members, but according to the GB salvation comes from strict obedience to them alone. Based on the increasing number of partakers...I wonder if a generation of younger anointed ones is rising up. This seems to be a worrisome trend to the org, because it throws a wrench in their current generation theory. Like I said, I believe the anointed will play a vital role in the future. But I digress...

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If anything, the JW.org disproves this. I see their faces all the time, whereas I never used to.

I meant the faceless legal entity that exists in name only. It behaves like a person would...seeking it's best interests. But I'm concerned about the people and not an organization. 

48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He doesn't NEED anything. That is not to say it does not come in handy. Replace Bethel with a pile of rocks, and look to those to 'cry out.'

I get that he can do anything he wants, but I'm concerned about what he has done to verify what he's doing today. Do you think it's at all possible that Jesus could communicate with the anointed directly? And not rely on a centralized GB? If that were the case, would that be acceptable to those taking the lead? 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This statement strikes me as not unlike Peter's in the windstorm - panicking at the unknown and fear-inspiring. Congregation authority was pretty much unchecked in the first century, much to the dismay of Diotrophes and the superfine apostles. As so as the latter succeeded in checking it, it all fell apart.

Is it an unreasonable fear? If unchecked authority was what caused the Clergy class to form, shouldn't we be concerned about the unchecked authority of the GB today? "Oh this time just trust us." I believe power is always corruptive. 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

We do tend to go by rote. How 'concerning' this is is anyone's guess. They don't call them sheep for nothing

It's concerning because the organization promotes a mindset of not questioning anything. That flies in the face of 1 John 4:1. Jehovah wants us to test the inspired expressions. The bereans were called noble for that reason. If it is the truth, it should stand up to critical thought. 

I see the Mark of the Wild Beast as a symbolic mark that civilians will receive when they throw their support behind the Image of the Wild Beast. In the time of the end, the Satanic one-world government (likely the UN) will demand civilians give their full allegiance to it. This will put true followers of Christ in a trialsome situation, because they can only give their allegience to Jesus Christ.

I like that you like your own posts @Queen Esther! Toot your own horn!

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Paul himself, mostly, plus a handful that could testify he had experienced some sort of religious experience, though they were not able to catch any of the words.

Jehovah God gave ample evidence to first-century Christians to verify the apostle Paul's divine backing:

• In Acts 14:10 he heals a man so that he can walk.
• In Acts 19:11-12 his handkerchief causes diseases and demons to be expelled.
• In Acts 20:10-12 he resurrects a boy.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Practically speaking, what do you propose we should do if we allow no one to represent Christ, but insist on communication from Jesus himself?

I admit that I can't dogmatically say that Jesus Christ has no representatives on earth. I just was trying to point out that in the Bible Jesus Christ doesn't need a centralized body to achieve his will, so it throws a wrench into the GB's theory Jesus operates in a pyramid, trickle-down structure. I do believe that Jehovah God has and is still using anointed ones to direct the preaching work and to direct his people. I believe that the anointed will become increasingly important in coming years as guides for his people. I do believe that the worldwide reach of the preaching work by the JW organization indicates that God's temple of anointed is associated with this organization (a religion established by anointed ones and still supported by anointed ones). I see the temple of God as the anointed ones--a people rather than a faceless organization that exists legally (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). God's temple is IMO not contingent on a legally created organization, but is a brotherhood that will exist regardless of what happens to the JW org.

I think the GB has made it pretty clear that we can only make it into the new system by closely obeying their singular direction. There's a very narrow pathway to get to the other side of this system of things, and it's tied to unquestioned obedience of the GB. The organization is very high control with no room for dissent. The GB has set it up that no one can question their direction under threat of expulsion. That alarms me, because when you have unchecked authority things usually don't go well. And I think it's also concerning that JWs don't seem to "...test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). And I am one of those "loonies" that believe the Man of Lawlessness will play some role in the future.

Acts 3:22,23 is referring to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is often called the "Greater Moses". We know that Jesus Christ is our undeniable leader and we should "Listen to him" as it says in Matthew 17:5. Now, how should we expect to receive direction from Jesus Christ today and in the coming years? Is it direct from Christ or from a body of men acting as representatives for him? This isn't meant as an attack on the GB, but I just wanted some clarification on this matter. Because in the first century, Jesus Christ was able to direct Saul/Paul directly to preach on his behalf. He didn't go through a centralized body to see that work done.

Hi @The Librarian I still see posts in threads from users that I've ignored.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He will pummel you nonetheless. That fellow knows law. Don't try to peddle emotion disguised as law before him,  because @Allen Smith will catch you at it every time.

Protest "pummelling," - my foot. It is not exactly badmitten anyone else is playing here. Even you have stepped over the line of sheer pleasantry.

How so? I've been very polite and respectful