Pudgy

You know George88, et al, ad nauseum, as much as you choke when asked a simple, direct question that would require a simple, direct answer conflicting with your agenda, you may want to get a portable oxygen tank, and some of that aquarium type air hose for your nose.
I hate Zombie Movies, so I find it disconcerting, yet strangely entertaining, to watch THIS one.
…   and don’t fall asleep while eating a ham sandwich!
 

Hey! Don't make fun of my favorite punch line!
PLUS, it's true!

Oh, don't get me started! I can hear,
"Have you ever been in earshot of a grandfather joke? Call 1-800 blah, blah, blah, and get in line for your huge payout! Get what's coming to you! Call now! Don't wait! Time limits are closing! Call NOW! NOW!"

Even worse is the one about the genie that emerged from the lamp and granted a wish.
The finder wished for a bridge to Hawaii, since he had always wanted to visit but got seasick and was afraid to fly. Whereupon, the genie calculated the difficulties of building such a bridge, the quantity of concrete required, driving piles into shifting seismic plates, etc, and said he couldn’t do it. Please make another wish.
The fellow then wished he could understand women, something he had long wanted to do but had never been able.
’You want that bridge two lanes or four?’ the genie said.

For true Jehovah's Witnesses, you bet I have. I entrust those who claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses but lack conviction in their beliefs to the guidance of God.
Perhaps that why you checked mark someone to kick them off as not to impede in your research, sounds like bad form. 
People simply need to judge for themselves the type of conduct a person possesses, whether it is in the past or present, especially within this forum.
Mean-spirited, they can be the judge of that. I find it difficult to understand why individuals continuously defend one another with falsehoods. Nonetheless, this behavior is futile, as no one can deceive God.
 

I downvoted your lie, not her sentiment. What motivates you to persist in playing your word games?
 

First warning!!! LOL

It seems like you and JWI have probably orchestrated the same fate to remove others. However, your preference for a harsh person over a defender of truth speaks volumes about you. This says a lot more about you than it does about those who have been deleted because of your actions.

More deflection from you.
I have the answer, why don't you? It is not me defending COJ by accepting his data, it is you.
Shifting blame when confronted with your mistakes is shameful. If you reject the Watchtower Chronology you previously mentioned, that's your decision. However, it's unreasonable to expect others to believe in your flawed reasoning.
If you disagree with me, then prove to the viewers anywhere in the tablets mentioned that they state, "the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587 BC by words rather than calculations," just like how Jerusalem is mentioned in the Babylonian chronicles. Do not avoid, reject, or divert attention, but rather provide a straightforward answer without responding with another question. Answer it directly.

I'll try one more time, just so it may be even more obvious to anyone who cares: that even for a Witness who claims the following (below) they will still dodge the question:
Imagine, having made a thorough analysis of all available data, and still being unable to bring yourself to answer a simple question. Instead, you rely on tired old tactics of poisoning the well by calling the evidence "apostate." Or pretending the evidence somehow comes from COJ. Or making the empty claim, without evidence, that the data is being distorted. 
Figured as much.
You don't give any evidence about "their true purpose." You appear to disagree with the Insight book where it says that inscriptions about two eclipses are "helpful" in determining chronology (at least when it's a specific BCE date we can agree with). 
So one more time, for you or anyone else who is interested. Find any fellow Witness who has studied the issue and ask the question:
What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? 

Let's turn our attention away from hate and self-pity and focus on mature content that exposes the hypocrisy of those who claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses, allowing viewers to see the true nature of those who control this site.

What is your excuse for sending "warnings" to others and then deleting them to avoid being exposed as dishonest? Stop trying to make excuses for your and Tom's inappropriate behavior when it comes to randomly deleting people.

Who is in charge of overseeing those moderators who defend individuals like you, even though they themselves behave like lunatics? Eventually, your findings must be comprehensible to rational individuals trying to make sense of all this chaos.

OMG! Way more than a total mess. The lunatics would come out! There wouldn't be sufficient moderator controls for the tsunami release of pent-up raw emotion. The server facilities would be smoked! There'd be hands sticking out of windows waving white handkerchiefs.

It would be a total mess, much like this forum sometimes gets.

Not holding my breath for that one, at least not for a comment section that publishes publicly.

It doesn't seem like that, at all. I have only given warnings to "AlanF" and I think just two to "Patiently Waiting for Truth." Never tried or wanted to try removing anyone, though. Removing someone from a forum such as this is pointless because they can just come back under another name -- often with a vengeance. Also, it bruises their egos, which is extremely important for those on forums who concern themselves with upvotes and downvotes. Those with bruised egos also never stop talking about those people who got kicked off unfairly. It's for the same reason I don't fully support our current shunning policy, either, except for certain types of cases. But this is nothing like a congregation. It's probably more like a place for anyone to add any kind of comments to jw.org if jw.org had a comments section.  

I’d say I gave these guys from Metallica pretty good advice. The deal is even better today. They no longer have to shave off those beards, but still, if they get their act together, might be assigned to write, not one, but two, original songs in view of their background.
I don’t know what became of Cesar, anyway. He was a very difficult guy to please, downvoting most anything.

"Dad jokes" are supposed to be ultra corny so that their kids groan, mostly in embarrassment.
That grizzled farmer one is a "grandfather joke" that I first heard from my grandfather. It's very funny. Although, I'm not sure, but I think it might actually be illegal to laugh at those grandfather jokes these days.

When AlanF, in full evolutionist mode, savaging anyone who ‘refused to learn,’ made a similar statement, I said, “It’s just you and me, you blowhard! plus maybe a half-dozen more. What! Do you think you are Clarence Darrow, arguing Inherit the Wind?’
Quite a mission you’ve chosen for yourself. Are you having success?
’Come here, come here, gather round—so I can tell you why you shouldn’t be here!’
Yeah. Everyone has their own reason for being here. I use the site as a writing workshop and some of what I create here later appears elsewhere in better form. Meanwhile, I rub shoulders, learn, and share, just like you. Notwithstanding some occasional trash-talking, hopefully I am never mean-spirited in doing so.

Not me. I think it can be useful for some people and sometimes can even be funny. It's often entertaining, and it can have serious uses, too. It can be revealing in interesting ways related to psychology and human interaction. I think the world and Witnesses too need to be ready for an onslaught of fake people, fake news, fake information, and no one will have the time to figure out who's really who online, or even on the news. People can scrub their own accounts and try to start fresh (like a certain NYT's "journalist" who was just outed as a propagandist for Israeli intelligence). I don't like Nikki Haley's "true ID" proposal because people use identities as protection from harassment, political persecution, religious persecution, or even from being shunned by loved ones in their local congregation over the things they are learning. 
Sock puppets don't bother me. I personally don't want to use one. But there are times when their use can be informative. I've seen you use one in a good way, even very recently, to raise a question, and make an informative comment, and sometimes that keeps a conversation going for a good purpose. It's only when people under any of their names are being obnoxious, divisive, causing dissension, being nasty, etc., that I have a problem. Also, there are some people here who don't respond well to a string of downvotes at everything they say. And there are some who use their sock puppets for no other reason than to build up their reputation with upvotes, which doesn't hurt anyone. But I don't like to see a person get discouraged or offended at constant downvotes so I will sometimes "out" a person for doing that because then they will know it's ONLY this or that person, and it's not a "real" response.
Here's an example that could feel offensive to @Arauna:

Notice that I said nothing controversial, and added that I hoped Arauna would say something to us about how she is doing these days since we hadn't heard from her in a while. But you downvoted it. Is she going to think that some new person doesn't like her and doesn't want to know how she is doing? In the past another one of your identities told her multiple times that she was foolish for disagreeing with you. She got used to that from you. So if she knows it's just you again, she won't be overly concerned. 

I think you missed the point. A sock puppet, as you know, is used as a secondary ACTIVE account. Pudgy was the name JTR used AFTER JTR stopped using the JTR account. 

LOL. Pudgy JTR has had two names on this forum, but never used both at the same time.

That's quite an admission. And I'm sure you know that you could be disfellowshipped if you made this same  "unequivocal" statement and stuck to it publicly in your congregation after "counsel" or "reproof."  So I seriously hope you are careful about it, especially as you earlier mentioned that you hope to have your theory published someday. 
 Actually, you have found evidence that Jerusalem met it's fall in 597 not it's end, not its destruction that the Bible says came about 10 years later. You haven't proven the Bible wrong yet. Those Babylonian Chronicles mention that Nebuchadnezzar went up against Jerusalem in his 8th year. So if you say his 8th year was 597, where does that put his 18th year, 10 years later. Sounds like 597 minus 10 is 587 is what you are saying his 18th year was. Unless you are manipulating something for other purposes. 
*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, . . . at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon

 

I think you are forgetting that a specific, identifiable lunar and/or planetary configuration that happened in a specific year in history actually is a historical fact relevant for that period and region. It's an event.