Cheepcheep

@Cheepcheep I recently read a little about some AI being used to create better AI. That gave me a few goosebumps.

AI are running right now. The next few generations will be interesting though. One difference between them and us is that they can be dedicated to one task. Whereas humans must coordinate many tasks consciously and unconsciously, which divides resources. I saw one documentary of an AI whose sole purpose was to "think" of all the possible configurations of a specific set of components and to come up with solutions that were cost effective and incredibly efficient. They think of everything we can conceive of and everything beyond that. Then they disregard everything not humanly possible at the current time. But they literally think up billions of possibilities in a short amount of time. Given this, humans have probably already been outsmarted by this 1st gen tech because they would have already simulated every possible outcome for humans and machines. Scary stuff but a cool sci fi movie!

I rather read about uplifting news here rather than tragic ones. News like these has no spiritual value. Let the worldly news focus on disasters, and instead write about good, positive news concerning witnesses. I for one can do without "news" of this sort. We do not need to dwell in depressing matters.
 
Thank You. (Mika 4:4)
J-A L, Sweden

Thanks.
"Our Father HALLOWED be thy name."
A very well known version of the "Lord's Prayer". I agree with your thoughts. Yes, God has no need for anything, and there's nothing we can add to him, as if the created thing could ever do that However, through Jesus, God has asked us to "hallow" his name. Which is where the thought of my post comes from. In our translation:
"Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified."
Jesus said prior to his incarceration:
"I have made your name manifest."
So, in our prayers and by following the example of Jesus, in preach and teaching, we 'sanctify' God's name - that is, we play a role in setting his name apart, and treat it as holy.
So, as you pointed out, sanctifying ourselves is also very important, because God said:
"You must be holy, because I am holy."
What we do individually reflects on God. We have attached ourselves to his name and reputation. I can't say I'm perfect, nor say that I'm a holy or clean person by any measure of the words. But it is what I believe, it is something worth aiming for, while also acknowledging that none of us can actually by holy, in the absolute sense. Thank you for your thoughts.

Definition of vindicate
vindicated; vindicating transitive verb 1a :to free from allegation or blame b (1) :confirm, substantiate  (2) :to provide justification or defense for :justify c :to protect from attack or encroachment :defend   Definition of sanctification
1:an act of sanctifying 2a :the state of being sanctified b :the state of growing in divine grace as a result of Christian commitment after baptism or conversion     If you allow me to say; Do not worry about JHVH as name or He as God. He can take care of himself quite well. JW members, or you as one of them ,  need to take care about personal, private protecting own sanctification because - "The generic meaning of sanctification is "the state of proper functioning."  In the theological sense, things are sanctified when they are used for the purpose God intends. A human being is sanctified, therefore, when he or she lives according to God's design and purpose. Wish  you all best! :))    

Yes. It is now ok to use again.
There was once even a book entitled "Vindication"
 

I'm sure we can, too. It appears that those who worked directly with him supported him. But have you already forgotten your claim so quickly? You said that it could be substantiated that ex-Bethelites who supported R.Franz in the 80's, got DF'd in the process only to be reinstated. As you put it:
Perhaps you have already backed down from this unsubstantiated claim. I think anyone would agree that there were and are R.Franz supporters, though.
Barbara Anderson might be one, I don't know. But she was never at Bethel when he was there. I think she's more of a 90's Bethelite. But she completely lost her belief that this could be the truth, so I doubt anyone could talk her into coming back.
Bill Bowen might or might not; I thought he blamed him for the "two-witness" rule, too. Also, he never was a Bethelite, I don't think. And I've heard he is kind of creepy.
Ed Dunlap. Yes he was at Bethel, yes, the time period is right, and I've read in the R.Franz book that they were good friends, and I knew that they worked together. Not much chance he'll try for reinstatement. He died long before R.Franz did. 
Nestor Kuilan. That could be a candidate. He was good friends with Rene Vasquez, who was also disfellowshipped, along with Cristobal Sanchez. All of them worked on Spanish translation and all of them knew each other. But Vasquez worked outside of Bethel, and handled some Circuit Overseer assignments. That circuit covered the congregation R.Franz was in, I think. When Vasquez came to Bethel, I think he mostly came to the factory building where Sanchez and Kuilan worked (along with both their wives). I remember that Rene Vasquez sold "Shaklee" vitamins and health supplies as did many brothers in the same circuit. He had done this for years, and was one of the first and biggest suppliers in the area. That meant that a lot of other Witnesses who he had helped to get into the business were actually making a portion of their money for Vasquez, and this had become a big question that even made its way around Bethel. It turned out that some Bethelites were also selling Shaklee on the side, in the same way that a couple of sisters were selling Avon products on the side. (We didn't have the "vow of poverty" in the early 1980's.) At their next circuit assembly (in Spanish) Brother Fred Franz gave a talk and made it clear what they should do. He said:
"We get OUR VITAMINS from the Faithful and Discreet Slave!!"  
It wouldn't surprise me at all if R.Franz was the primary one behind the two-witness" rule. I remember some articles that came in for artwork from R.Franz, so I knew a little bit about his style. But I never saw anything specifically on the two-witness rule. Still, from the articles I did see, he was the one who was usually assigned to take on specific portions of "organization books" and some articles on congregational issues dealing with qualifications for elders, ministerial servants, disfellowshipping, reinstatement, and the like. Most of these types of articles were cut down into "Questions from Readers" and never got an "artwork" assignment anyway. A few of his that were full-fledged Watchtower articles would have no artwork, but would only get an assignment for someone to create or choose a special "headline font." Some of the writers interacted with the Art Dept and were "memorable" for their interactions, as they were hard to please. But I never saw R.Franz interact much. If someone (like Swingle) thought one of his articles could use some art, he'd request it, but I don't remember Franz personally interacting with anyone in Art.
LOL. If I can remember anything "juicier" you'll be one of the first to know. Or judging by how many names you appear to be using for yourself on here, you might even be the first through the fourth persons to know.