James Thomas Rook Jr.

In the "Old Days" the anal retentive clergy would just threaten you with Hell.

Of course "Insufficient Light" is only discerned from a future perspective. There is the expression "We have perfect hindsight", looking back, but in reality even that is flawed.

It just occurred to me that the expression "New Light" ... because it is constantly changing .... can be accurately accurately described as "Insufficient Light" ..... assuming it is not regressive Tachyons. Let's say you have a "New Light" and you do this four times. Each time you THINK what you know is true, but it turns out in fact, or by political edict, not to be true. If we have "New Light", is what we had before "Old Darkness"?

AllenSmith: For someone like you who not only misunderstands the simplest analogies, but EVERYTHING ... there is nothing I can do in any discussion to help you. What you wrote is a CLASSIC, so I am saving it here in case you come to your senses and erase it. Â

Summons are a polite way of asking for something? HahaHAHAhahaha Next time you get a summons from the local court system, or the IRS ... just ignore it. ...You are in for a REVELATION ! If I point a gun at your head and request in a nice way that you eat dirt ... you may of your own free will eat that dirt ... but if I asked it WITHOUT the gun ... of your own free will you would NOT have eaten that dirt. Sovereign States have the guns to back up their polite requests in the same manner.

This is something ONLY you will know, but something you may want to carefully consider .... If in your heart of hearts you deliberately meant to deceive ... you are in actual fact an evil man.

AlanF: You are now doing what you in earlier posts on evolution castigated, and for which I just gave you an "upvote" ... quote mining. I hope the REAL purpose of your post is to teach the fallacy of quote mining as representing truth ... and NOT asserting the quotes you gave as being truth. If that is true, then your post has real value ... otherwise ... on the face of it ( using the criteria I posted above...) ... it was designed to deceive. Quote miners shovel through tons of gold bearing earth, to find crap.

...... may I suggest that as the issues are debated, that full and complete quotes IN CONTEXT be provided to strengthen one's points being asserted .. with citations for check-able references.. Bad scholarship is still scholarship ... but it is bad in that it is designed to deceive... or deceives by default. Try to be clear enough so that the evidence or fantasys asserted are irrefutable, as if what you write will be used in a court of law to either exonerate you ... or convict you of a Capital Crime, and if you fail, you will be impaled butt first on a wooden stake while still alive. The hours of our lives are too painfully few to suffer fools ... or in good conscience ... be a fool.

Could you please supply more detail? With what you have posted so far, it can be instantly dismissed. Perhaps both quotes in context, so a person who does NOT have any idea what you are talking about, has a clue. Further, if you want to be taken seriously, don't just "give a clue" .... spell it out in unmistakable detail with such clarity and hard facts that whatever you are trying to say becomes defacto irrefutable? With what you have provided so far, it can quite fairly be instantly and completely dismissed.

Fair enough?

I tell you what AlanF, since you have done THAT much research, it is clear one of two, possibly three things: 1.) You are onto something, and we have all missed it, or 2.) You are deliberately lying, and making this stuff up completely out of context, which means you are dishonest, evil, and can be completely disregarded, or 3.) some third scenario that is worse than number two, that I have not discerned. Since you have ALREADY done the research, why not, for a change, give some credibility to your posting by showing the full quote in context. By that I mean several paragraphs BEFORE the listed quote, and several paragraphs AFTER the listed quote. Further, instead of shorthand, spell out "Watchtower and Awake, etc. in your citations. I for one, would certainly entertain anything you have to say, if it does not on the face of it the same appearance of the factual statements that Chancellor Hitler was a vegetarian, a dog lover, and loved his mother, and niece, and made his nation into an industrial powerhouse.....which taken out of context makes him appear a fine person. AS it stands, what you say MAY be true, in context, but the probability is approximately the same with what you have posted so far, as the probability that the Earth is flat, which without PROOF, can be instantly dismissed without any further investigation whatsoever.

And SPECIFICALLY how do you know this to be a FACT, AllenSmith? Remember, Gerritt Losch, GB, was SUBPOENAED to testify on a similar case in California, and even AFTER SUBPOENAED ... refused to testify, and the WTB&TS was fined 11.5 MILLION DOLLARS. SPECIFICALLY how do you know this to be a FACT, AllenSmith, that the Australian Branch Office and Kingdom Halls FREELY turned over 5,000 and more SEALED blue envelopes of confidential data to the ARC ? Hmmmmm ?

ZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzzz

That is quite a thesis you have there ... and what I read seems well considered, but .......

I agree with your sentiments, but the question is absurd and based on a false premise. Any question based on a false premise can be legitimately ignored as a prima fascia absurdity.

The fact that the two "lines" are almost parallel means to me that he has a more conservative investment strategy.

I think you have me confused with someone else. Although most JWs adore and revere, and kowtow to the Governing Body, in defacto worship, I do not. I well know it was an understatement when they finally admitted, forced by Geoffrey Jackson's testimony in the ARC case no. 29 Investigations on Child Abuse, in the Feb. 2017 Watchtower, that they were "neither inspired, or infallible".. I figured that out a half century ago.

You misunderstand AllenSmith ... they WERE sincere upvotes. If I make it into the New System, I plan on going down to the local cemetery and play a GREAT game of Whack-A-Mole. You ought to stay away from trying to use facts, TTH.... it was 1006 PERPETRATORS with over 5.000 cases of abuse. And the WTB&TS of Australia refused to comply with requests for records, and they HAD TO BE SUBPOENAED, and were produced under threat of prison for contempt of court.

I upvoted those two for you AllenSmith .... because you just condemned yourself with your own paw tracks. Now THAT'S entertainment! Have a nice day! ... try not to spit and drool at the same time. Neither you or TTH live in a world of hard facts ... and when you try, you get them wrong.

Hmmmmm... I watched the whole video proceedings of ARC Cases No, 29 and 54 ... and although it was extremely cringeworthy, seeing the Elders, Branch Officials, and Geoffrey Jackson all lying under oath, and looking like deer in the headlights .... I did not find ANY of it boring. I was however embarrassed FOR them. Being on Video looking like idiots, is like a bug being trapped forever in fossilized amber.

I looked at TTH's figures and there is so much wrong with how the problem was set up as to be embarrassing to look at. I weary of giving detailed explanations, so I will just give an analogy. Either you get it or you don't. TTH teaching a class:: "Ok students... If a strong man can dig a post hole in 60 seconds ... how long will it take for 60 strong men to dig that same post hole?" If you answered one second ... the math works out, but it is not reality based.

1.) Reality is what is always behind you with sharp claws and a ravenous appetite, and is ready to eat you alive if you forget it is back there, and get distracted. 2.) All of us live in a fantasy world of our own constructions, to one extent or another. 3. Being able to determine how much... how long... how high ... how deep, etc. and how MANY keeps our opinions in check. ...sometimes. If some idea cannot be expressed in numbers ... hard factual numbers ... then they are ONLY opinions ... and if they are not reality based, Reality will have us for lunch.

Nobility sometimes comes in civilian packaging.

My information is over 40 years old, but I remember a survey taken by the Catholic Church where: 20% were sexually active heterosexuals. 20% were sexually active homosexuals. 20% were sexually active pedophiles. 40% were celibate. Unfortunately I no longer have or remember the source.