Anna

I'm just trying to be fair, and I believe the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie no matter who says it.

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them.
Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against.
This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. 
As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid?
I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake.
Always feel free to correct any mistakes.
According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death.
True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development.
I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.
 

I'm just trying to be fair, and I believe the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie no matter who says it.

I'm just trying to be fair, and I believe the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie no matter who says it.

I'm just trying to be fair, and I believe the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie no matter who says it.

I'm just trying to be fair, and I believe the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie no matter who says it.

And I thought it was an Eden Iguana!     https://encircleworldphotos.photoshelter.com/image/I0000Cii27nwox5w

We thought that all snakes had legs up until they were cursed to travel on their belly and eat dust.

I suppose most of us feel that we want to make some sort of impression when we witness to people. I don't mean "impress" in the sense of "bigging ourselves up" (although, sadly, maybe some seek to do this), more in the sense that we want them to take note of what we are sharing with them.
We do actually care about the people we talk to and the fact that the way of life we recommend  will bring them immediate benefits, let alone the promises for the future. I currently study with a former heroin user. They are almost clear of drug dependency now, on a managed program, and this will be completed by the end of summer. This is completely due to motivation from Jehovah, provided through the Bible Study program, and in the year's duration of the study there have been no relapses to the amazement of support workers. Tobacco, cannabis, and other substance abuse have also been left behind. To see the tangible benefits enjoyed by this person physically, mentally, and spiritually as they get their life back is a real joy.
So it does not matter what method or media is used to bring a person into contact with Jehovah and the healing power of his spirit as expressed through his living word. (Heb.4:12). "True worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth". Remember, "the Father is looking for such like ones to worship him".John 4:24. 
Don't underestimate the power of a tract to spark a fire in an honest heart that cannot be put out . (Compare James 3:5:  "See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze"). My first encounter with Jehovah's Witnesses was by means of a tract that got into my house. It escaped my mother's predatory Roman Catholic surveilance of all things sans Imprimatur and fell into my curious hands. The information it presented piqued my curiosity for the next 12 years until I finally sourced a contact with those who had produced it. Oh yes, it may fall into the category of literature that now embarasses the likes of John Butler, but for me it was the key to a better life with immediate benefits, and a future hope. Here is an extract from the tract. What intrigued me most was who on earth were these sheep that Jesus died for, and what was the creature in the tree with Adam and Eve?
From the day I got that tract, I registered every media mention (and otherwise) of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I never met one until finally I sought them out over 12 years later.
I was 8 years old when I got that first tract. 

 

Truly disappointing, but maybe he (the elder) is normally very good, but was trying very hard to not make (you or whoever it was) intimidated or feel uncomfortable because of his status. You never know.  The person should work with him another time and see what happens. It is best not to form an opinion on the first instance. 
The organization has always said that if your presentation works for you, continue it.  There are so many suggested presentations that it is hard to remember them all.  But I always endeavour to try them.   Most are practical and well thought out.  But I like my presentations the best. When the presentation is truly you own, it comes alive. When one has enthusiasm and uses practical illustrations and one speaks from the heart the person is spellbound and listens well.   Last Wednesday I found myself saying to a sister, who just joined our congregation, on approaching an elderly lady:  "No don't offer the new copy, offer this one (the one on "Will we Ever Feel Safe?"), the old lady's face lit up when she saw the magazine.  (We were offering it for two months and she did not get  a copy) Then again I got the urge to tell the sister, no don't use that scripture, use this.  Micah 4:3,4.   The lady's face lit up again.  (The sister is a very good reader, you should have heard her read it.) I don't know why I did it, I don't usually do it. But it worked.  We had a good chat and the lady sent love to another Witness who is known to her.  I plan to remind the sister to go back to the lady and will go with her if she wants.  We have all ammunition in our bags, magazines of all subjects, tracts, videos, etc.  But I think we are the ones that make the presentations successful, because we can light up the day for people by our zeal and conviction, enthusiasm, our loving interest, etc.  Imagine Jesus giving the sermon on the Mount. He was not dead pan or robot--like. 

Now you did say this however ( @TrueTomHarley )  Quote  "because you are such a pit bull."
So I'm not always silly and I'm not exactly mentally ill, but I am a bit of a dog then  .. 

Yes. When I signed on many years ago. They didn’t sneak up out of nowhere. Their role was known to me and everyone else from Day 1.
That is why you are not a Witness. Everything is exactly as it should be. Given how you feel, you have done exactly as you should. 
Yes. Every Witness takes about a year to do that, studying and trying things on for size. Throughout, they are in their familiar home environment and routine. Perhaps 5% of their time is spent in unfamiliar surroundings. 
College is far more “manipulative” than anything with a Witness connection. Students are typically separated 24/7 from their former stabilizing routine, environment, and family—a classic tool of those who would brainwash. Plus, if you study with Jehovah’s Witnesses, you know full well that you are going off the grid—the very opposite of what brainwashers do. Going to college, on the other hand, is no more controversial than seeking good healthcare.
You keep playing this as though it were your trump card, the coup de grace—as though it was something meant to be hidden. They are very open about it. They have called it “tacking.” As you say, they have called it “new light.” Don’t you think that means there used to be “old light?”
Not usually. Maybe never. I said that your last bit of reasoning was infantile. I said that because it was. I didn’t say you were. 
Not totally, no. No one here, to my knowledge, is calling for anyone’s execution. It is what they stand for that is the target. Everyone knows that. 
Not everything that you say is silly. I have acknowledged that some points you have raised are valid.  Not always to your face, because you are such a pit bull. But I have put them in other writings.

Yes, I do, and so do elders and others I have spoken with.
This may have been a reality, but not because the elders were known to be doing so, but rather because no one believed they really were doing it. If it was a victims word against an elder, the elder's denial may have been believed over the victim. Big difference.
 
Yes, it was possible because of same answer as above.
You have already forgotten that no one ever said that cases of child abuse were lies by apostates. What has been said is that apostates say that we do not care about child abuse, and that is a lie. Again, big difference.
What I actually said was that no organization purposefully condones child abuse.

I don't know of any cases like that, but I do know (personally) of one prominent, influential elder (no longer living) who was removed as elder because of notoriety, but remained a pioneer. I don't think today he would be pioneering.

I don't know of any cases like that, but I do know (personally) of one prominent, influential elder (no longer living) who was removed as elder because of notoriety, but remained a pioneer. I don't think today he would be pioneering.

No one gives private bible studies to children anymore unless they are the parents. Same with the ministry.
Most churches separate kids from the parents. It is JW kids who stay with their parents all the time.

Being protected from scandal surely does not include remaining an Elder despite clear evidence that they have been guilty of child abuse,  since that is what John was mainly talking about. I cannot see that happening in view of 1Timothy 3:2. A person like that would clearly not qualify, even if the accusation was not true, but there was notoriety. 

Yes, I do, and so do elders and others I have spoken with.
This may have been a reality, but not because the elders were known to be doing so, but rather because no one believed they really were doing it. If it was a victims word against an elder, the elder's denial may have been believed over the victim. Big difference.
 
Yes, it was possible because of same answer as above.
You have already forgotten that no one ever said that cases of child abuse were lies by apostates. What has been said is that apostates say that we do not care about child abuse, and that is a lie. Again, big difference.
What I actually said was that no organization purposefully condones child abuse.

No one gives private bible studies to children anymore unless they are the parents. Same with the ministry.
Most churches separate kids from the parents. It is JW kids who stay with their parents all the time.

“As it is, it is the most common thing in the world to hear of this or that perpetrator picked up who already went though the system that you think is so foolproof—he was already on the sex offender registry, living just down the street and nobody knew it.“
The Economist Magazine tells of one proposed law in Georgia that said no convicted child abuser could live within 1000 yards of a school. It was discarded when someone with a compass did some work and determined that it meant they couldn’t live anywhere.

“An example” is not a tidal wave. And JWI says he knows of...what...three or four? (Billy is choking on his coffee right now) Also hardly a tidal wave.
In an ever-replenishing group currently at 8 million, you are going to find many examples of anything.
You think in such absolutes, John. You cannot do that with people. Any mental health professional will tell you that it only makes trouble for you.
You hone in like a laser on any report of CSA among JWs and publicly say that you care not a whit when it is reported anywhere else. How balanced is that? What is your interest here?
When the world you have chosen gets a handle on CSA, then come screaming at everyone here. As it is, it is the most common thing in the world to hear of this or that perpetrator picked up who already went though the system that you think is so foolproof—he was already on the sex offender registry, living just down the street and nobody knew it. 
Meanwhile, nearly ALL of the attention given to CSA in the greater world is about punishing after the fact. Little is about prevention. Consider that the JW worldwide convention in 2017 gathered every member in the world to spell out detailed scenarios in which CSA might occur, so that parents, the obvious first line of defense, might be vigilant. NOBODY else has done that. 
I do allow that a ‘culture’ should change in which some, although free to report CSA, declined to do it. I agree with JWI that the May Wt goes a long way in clarifying that. I have allowed here that the ones so zealous to “keep the congregation clean” have in some respects made the situation worse:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/04/lessons-to-be-learned-re-child-sexual-abuse.html
 

Yeah. I agree. This NM gig is really stupid . And what do the cops do? Distracting motorists? I mean are they standing in the intersect, trying to disrupt traffic? Bit like those unsolicited windscreen cleaners or something?
oops...here they go....

Not everyone does. The notion of living a happy life (see above photo) does not strike many as being such a bad thing. There are many people who do not have it at all and it is not necessarily clear to all where it is to be found, or even if it is to be found.
Some will be curious as to what is our formula for it. They may or may not cotton to what they read but it can hardly be a horrendous thing to offer it for their examination.

I noticed this question, and I know you were asking TTH, but I would like to say no, I do not believe that this has ever been the case. Now if Jehovah's Witnesses were a child porn ring in disguise, then I might believe it. You, as a reasonable person, and I am assuming you are reasonable, has to see that no human organization (unless it is what I mentioned) will knowingly and purposefully condone child molestation.

I noticed this question, and I know you were asking TTH, but I would like to say no, I do not believe that this has ever been the case. Now if Jehovah's Witnesses were a child porn ring in disguise, then I might believe it. You, as a reasonable person, and I am assuming you are reasonable, has to see that no human organization (unless it is what I mentioned) will knowingly and purposefully condone child molestation.