Anna

Ok. So how is what you said previously even relevant then? And does it make sense that something that is a complex subject, frequented only by a minority, should play such a decisive role by which all are judged either favorably or unfavorably as @Arauna seems to point out.
And by the way what's wrong with the French brother Gerard Gertoux, is he not competent in chronology?
 

I agree completely, but this is just it, and here is the problem: How many friends that you know actually do this?? As opposed to how many just accept the information they are presented with by the organization? How many friends that you know can actually explain 607 and 1914? Be honest?

I think you might be coming to rash conclusions when you say those trying to disprove 1914 are doing so only to discredit the Slave. I am not saying no one does that, but I feel that those who honestly try to understand WT dates, and then find these dates faulty, do it the other way around. They begin to distrust the Slave on the evidence of their findings. Please don't attack me for saying this as I myself have not found proof for 607 or 587 either way. I am in a completely privileged neutral zone. I am neither for nor against. One thing I have noticed though, and excuse me if I am wrong,  (I may have missed your other posts), but it seems you have not presented any solid counter argument  against  587, only your feelings in that it's like "running after fluff", and criticism and motives of those who present arguments against 607. What you say would not stand up in a trial at all.  It's like the opposition is talking about apples and you are talking about oranges. The opposition is talking about dates and numbers, and you are talking about feelings and motives and evidence on the ground....
I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this at all.
What I find fascinating, and puzzling at the same time though, is how some friends will immediately class others as defectors if they do not believe in 607 or 1914. To give an example, on another forum, one poster made the comment that we should be wary of this one particular JW scholar because he does not support 607. Why it is so imperative to you and others, that in order to belong to this NATION, one has to believe in some specific date? In practical terms, what on earth is the saving attribute of a date? Yes, I know it was supposed to be the establishment of God's kingdom, which is the instrument by which all things will be reconciled to God, but come on, are we to be SO fixated on a date where believing in it or not is the difference between being saved or damned? God's kingdom will accomplish all those things regardless of the date it is established, won't it? As was pointed out quite clearly in the 2017 convention video, we are dedicated to Jehovah God, not a date! Surely a date has no baring on your sentiments above about the NATION ?

I think that if beginning today, the Slave never mentioned the dates 607 or 1914  again, but merely the destruction of Jerusalem, and  God's Kingdom, no one would be upset and think we have gone apostate. Probably no one but a few who are keyed in, and those at Bethel, would even notice. In fact, the new generation of Witnesses as I have observed does not even believe Armageddon will come any time soon. (I have heard some young ones speculate around 50 years). And the generation who believed their children would not grow up in this system, but who have grand children now, have reconciled themselves with the possibility that they will die before Armageddon comes. I think this is good. Because remember, we serve Jehovah, not a date. Abraham never saw the complete fulfillment of the promise made to him either, what makes us think we have to? Don't get me wrong, it would be nice of course, but I refuse to get anxious  for a date, or even an approximate time period. You have probably seen me quote a father talking to his daughter saying "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime but lead your life as if it will come tomorrow". The father is long dead, and the daughter possibly too, as she was born in 1923. You can read her life story in  w04 12.1 Trusting in Jehovah’s Loving Care.
In any case, all this talk about the gentile times calculations are not something Russell came up with. The originator of these calculations was William Miller of the second Adventists. (of course there were others even before him, but Russell associated with Miller). So if we go and dig down to the grass roots, to find the beginning of this idea,  really, we have William Miller to thank for it. But I'm not quite comfortable with that thought. I'm not comfortable with the thought that 1914 evolved from one of the branches of Christendom!
http://www.readex.com/blog/calculating-second-coming-19th-century-america-selected-items-american-pamphlets-1820-1922

I am sure you will agree that because the Bible gives us some numbers and a chronology, it has forever been the quest of believing mankind since the death of Christ, to crack the code of His promised second coming. Especially with the beginning of Adventist movements folks have been trying to figure out the key to WHEN. Russell and his associates were also interested in when. As you probably know, Russell even used the Pyramids to try to calculate Christ's second coming. So the whole period of the Second Awakening revival was focused on figuring all this out. And from that fertile ground came OUR "magical" dates. In fact if you look,  there have been and are "magical" dates floating around all the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming_of_Christ
 
 
 

Yes, the skirts on the right have been photo-shopped to go over he knees of the sisters. I suppose some brothers were getting....ummmm...a little..... excited..... at seeing knees?

The sister on the right is named Waldo.

I am still of the opinion that this secular date of 607 doesn't matter that much. Millions of JWs believe it was when the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judea was desolated, and the year the last Davidic king was deposed. For many years now, I've known that there is overwhelming evidence against this date, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened 20 years after the date that our publications promote. Again, I don't think anyone should make a big deal about a date, and the date is "in the same ball-park," only a couple of decades off. That's less than 1% error for an event that happened about 2,624 years ago.
Millions of Witnesses who accept it do not have any reason to look into it to make sure about it. Why should they? Witnesses should have no reason to be skeptical of the publications, and the publications state very clearly that 607 is the secular date for this Biblical event, without question. I think that it is to be expected, therefore, that most of us will merely defend the date 607 because of the way it is presented in the publications. It appears to be what we should do. It is transparent on this forum that defending 607 has become another way of defending "slave" itself, which has become part of the belief and faith that we naturally defend from a scriptural point of view:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . . So all of us have that scriptural desire and reason to defend our beliefs, which is why I am sure that you and Arauna and others are presenting your views honestly, and with the right motive. My own reason for concern is not so much about the date itself, as explained above, but just an explanation of why I myself cannot honestly promote it. For me it's much more about honesty than the date itself. Looking very carefully and prayerfully at our own explanations in our publications I can see no Biblical reason to concern ourselves with either 607 or 587 or 539 or 537, whether the dates are correct or not. These dates are only as valuable to us as say 1513 B.C.E. or 740 B.C.E.
But I also believe I see evidence that the "slave" does not believe in 607, either. I believe the "slave" must feel trapped into this belief and have not yet found a clear way out. I base this opinion on the way in which the writers deal with evidence that reveals that the writers don't want the evidence questioned because they know what will be found. This shows a fear of the evidence. The very careful way in which they dealt with Furuli's evidence in October and November 2011 was very revealing. Even Insight shows that the writers knew more than they could say.
In fact, it is made to appear that this secular date has scholarly support. In many scholarly publications you will see a "c." for "circa" or "about" in front of a date, or else a range of dates is mentioned so that you can know that there is a measure of uncertainty. The Insight book does this too, in places -- but NEVER for 607. Here's an example:
*** it-1 p. 192 Ashkelon ***
In the prophecy of Amos (c. 804 B.C.E.) prediction was made of defeat for the ruler of Ashkelon. (Am 1:8) Secular history shows that in the succeeding century Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria made Asqaluna (Ashkelon) a vassal city. Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) uttered two prophecies involving Ashkelon. While Jeremiah 47:2-7 could have seen some fulfillment when Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city early in his reign (c. 624 B.C.E.), the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:17-20, 28, 29 clearly indicates a fulfillment subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Zephaniah’s prophecy (written before 648 B.C.E.) also foretold a coming desolation for Ashkelon, along with other Philistine cities, after which the remnant of Judah would eventually occupy “the houses of Ashkelon.” (Zep 2:4-7) Finally, about 518 B.C.E., Zechariah proclaimed doom for Ashkelon . . .
In fact, the 607-date chronology is inserted into quotes and references from authorities as if it were referenced from there when it was not.
*** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***
According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99) In this same area, a few years earlier, Pharaoh Nechoh had taken King Jehoahaz captive. (2Ki 23:31-33) Then in 607 B.C.E., with the fall of Jerusalem, . . . *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle). (2Ki 24:11, 12; 2Ch 36:9; Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 102) *** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) *** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
That year, 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was laid desolate, was a significant one in the counting of time until Jehovah, the Universal Sovereign, would set up the world ruler of his choice in Kingdom power. . . . One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.). Grayson and Pritchard, although referenced as authorities, actually offer contrary evidence, showing that the event marked here for 624 was actually 604, 625 was actually 605, 617 was 597, and the event marked here for 588 is actually 568 -- therefore the date marked 607 would actually be 587.
So although the Jerusalem event marked 607 was actually 587/6, according to all the referenced authorities found in Insight (these and dozens of others, including those not referenced), the Insight book chooses to refer to 607 as if it has never been questioned. Insight mentions the date 607 authoritatively, about 150 times.
To keep 607 in the limelight and evidently to avoid questions about thinking about the Biblical definition of the 70 years, the Insight book not only says 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, but also claims it was his "1st year" by another reckoning. Compare these two claims from Insight:
*** it-1 pp. 1185-1186 Image ***
Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream . . . *** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.). So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was both 625 and 607 according to the Insight book. Yet Grayson, Pritchard and a thousand other sources would agree that it was 605.
Also, to keep 607 in the limelight the events of 598 and 589 through 587 are sometimes tied to just 607 as the "pivotal" year. For example, note that this last siege lasted for a year and a half, and a siege prior to this was about 10 years earlier. 
*** it-2 p. 1065 Tammuz, II ***
It was on the ninth day of this fourth month (Tammuz) that Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. after an 18-month siege. Insight often admits that the siege was dated 2 years earlier and 10/11 years earlier, but notice the shorthand sometimes preferred for referencing Jerusalem's siege:
*** it-1 p. 1242 Jackal ***
Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. brought the stress of famine, with the result that mothers treated their own offspring cruelly. Thus Jeremiah appropriately contrasted the cruelty “of my people” with the jackals’ maternal care.—La 4:3, 10. The point, of course, is that the one date most in question of all dates that the Society uses, is always presented as if it is the one date least in question. It is repeated 150 times in the Insight book alone. And dates that fall within the period, including 625, 624, 617, 609, 607, 539 and 537 (more likely, the actual dates 605, 604, 598, 589, 587, 539 and 538) -- these dates make up the majority, by far, of all the dates ever mentioned in the entire Insight book, including all mentions of 29 C.E. and 33 C.E. put together.
Compare the case of 607 carefully with how we deal with evidence or "no evidence" in other doctrinal matters. I thought it was very revealing. In matters like "stauros" and several others, for example, the publications don't show the same fear and avoidance of the evidence.

I think you might be coming to rash conclusions when you say those trying to disprove 1914 are doing so only to discredit the Slave. I am not saying no one does that, but I feel that those who honestly try to understand WT dates, and then find these dates faulty, do it the other way around. They begin to distrust the Slave on the evidence of their findings. Please don't attack me for saying this as I myself have not found proof for 607 or 587 either way. I am in a completely privileged neutral zone. I am neither for nor against. One thing I have noticed though, and excuse me if I am wrong,  (I may have missed your other posts), but it seems you have not presented any solid counter argument  against  587, only your feelings in that it's like "running after fluff", and criticism and motives of those who present arguments against 607. What you say would not stand up in a trial at all.  It's like the opposition is talking about apples and you are talking about oranges. The opposition is talking about dates and numbers, and you are talking about feelings and motives and evidence on the ground....
I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this at all.
What I find fascinating, and puzzling at the same time though, is how some friends will immediately class others as defectors if they do not believe in 607 or 1914. To give an example, on another forum, one poster made the comment that we should be wary of this one particular JW scholar because he does not support 607. Why it is so imperative to you and others, that in order to belong to this NATION, one has to believe in some specific date? In practical terms, what on earth is the saving attribute of a date? Yes, I know it was supposed to be the establishment of God's kingdom, which is the instrument by which all things will be reconciled to God, but come on, are we to be SO fixated on a date where believing in it or not is the difference between being saved or damned? God's kingdom will accomplish all those things regardless of the date it is established, won't it? As was pointed out quite clearly in the 2017 convention video, we are dedicated to Jehovah God, not a date! Surely a date has no baring on your sentiments above about the NATION ?

I think that if beginning today, the Slave never mentioned the dates 607 or 1914  again, but merely the destruction of Jerusalem, and  God's Kingdom, no one would be upset and think we have gone apostate. Probably no one but a few who are keyed in, and those at Bethel, would even notice. In fact, the new generation of Witnesses as I have observed does not even believe Armageddon will come any time soon. (I have heard some young ones speculate around 50 years). And the generation who believed their children would not grow up in this system, but who have grand children now, have reconciled themselves with the possibility that they will die before Armageddon comes. I think this is good. Because remember, we serve Jehovah, not a date. Abraham never saw the complete fulfillment of the promise made to him either, what makes us think we have to? Don't get me wrong, it would be nice of course, but I refuse to get anxious  for a date, or even an approximate time period. You have probably seen me quote a father talking to his daughter saying "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime but lead your life as if it will come tomorrow". The father is long dead, and the daughter possibly too, as she was born in 1923. You can read her life story in  w04 12.1 Trusting in Jehovah’s Loving Care.
In any case, all this talk about the gentile times calculations are not something Russell came up with. The originator of these calculations was William Miller of the second Adventists. (of course there were others even before him, but Russell associated with Miller). So if we go and dig down to the grass roots, to find the beginning of this idea,  really, we have William Miller to thank for it. But I'm not quite comfortable with that thought. I'm not comfortable with the thought that 1914 evolved from one of the branches of Christendom!
http://www.readex.com/blog/calculating-second-coming-19th-century-america-selected-items-american-pamphlets-1820-1922

I am sure you will agree that because the Bible gives us some numbers and a chronology, it has forever been the quest of believing mankind since the death of Christ, to crack the code of His promised second coming. Especially with the beginning of Adventist movements folks have been trying to figure out the key to WHEN. Russell and his associates were also interested in when. As you probably know, Russell even used the Pyramids to try to calculate Christ's second coming. So the whole period of the Second Awakening revival was focused on figuring all this out. And from that fertile ground came OUR "magical" dates. In fact if you look,  there have been and are "magical" dates floating around all the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming_of_Christ
 
 
 

Short answer .....
 

I think you might be coming to rash conclusions when you say those trying to disprove 1914 are doing so only to discredit the Slave. I am not saying no one does that, but I feel that those who honestly try to understand WT dates, and then find these dates faulty, do it the other way around. They begin to distrust the Slave on the evidence of their findings. Please don't attack me for saying this as I myself have not found proof for 607 or 587 either way. I am in a completely privileged neutral zone. I am neither for nor against. One thing I have noticed though, and excuse me if I am wrong,  (I may have missed your other posts), but it seems you have not presented any solid counter argument  against  587, only your feelings in that it's like "running after fluff", and criticism and motives of those who present arguments against 607. What you say would not stand up in a trial at all.  It's like the opposition is talking about apples and you are talking about oranges. The opposition is talking about dates and numbers, and you are talking about feelings and motives and evidence on the ground....
I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this at all.
What I find fascinating, and puzzling at the same time though, is how some friends will immediately class others as defectors if they do not believe in 607 or 1914. To give an example, on another forum, one poster made the comment that we should be wary of this one particular JW scholar because he does not support 607. Why it is so imperative to you and others, that in order to belong to this NATION, one has to believe in some specific date? In practical terms, what on earth is the saving attribute of a date? Yes, I know it was supposed to be the establishment of God's kingdom, which is the instrument by which all things will be reconciled to God, but come on, are we to be SO fixated on a date where believing in it or not is the difference between being saved or damned? God's kingdom will accomplish all those things regardless of the date it is established, won't it? As was pointed out quite clearly in the 2017 convention video, we are dedicated to Jehovah God, not a date! Surely a date has no baring on your sentiments above about the NATION ?

I think that if beginning today, the Slave never mentioned the dates 607 or 1914  again, but merely the destruction of Jerusalem, and  God's Kingdom, no one would be upset and think we have gone apostate. Probably no one but a few who are keyed in, and those at Bethel, would even notice. In fact, the new generation of Witnesses as I have observed does not even believe Armageddon will come any time soon. (I have heard some young ones speculate around 50 years). And the generation who believed their children would not grow up in this system, but who have grand children now, have reconciled themselves with the possibility that they will die before Armageddon comes. I think this is good. Because remember, we serve Jehovah, not a date. Abraham never saw the complete fulfillment of the promise made to him either, what makes us think we have to? Don't get me wrong, it would be nice of course, but I refuse to get anxious  for a date, or even an approximate time period. You have probably seen me quote a father talking to his daughter saying "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime but lead your life as if it will come tomorrow". The father is long dead, and the daughter possibly too, as she was born in 1923. You can read her life story in  w04 12.1 Trusting in Jehovah’s Loving Care.
In any case, all this talk about the gentile times calculations are not something Russell came up with. The originator of these calculations was William Miller of the second Adventists. (of course there were others even before him, but Russell associated with Miller). So if we go and dig down to the grass roots, to find the beginning of this idea,  really, we have William Miller to thank for it. But I'm not quite comfortable with that thought. I'm not comfortable with the thought that 1914 evolved from one of the branches of Christendom!
http://www.readex.com/blog/calculating-second-coming-19th-century-america-selected-items-american-pamphlets-1820-1922

I am sure you will agree that because the Bible gives us some numbers and a chronology, it has forever been the quest of believing mankind since the death of Christ, to crack the code of His promised second coming. Especially with the beginning of Adventist movements folks have been trying to figure out the key to WHEN. Russell and his associates were also interested in when. As you probably know, Russell even used the Pyramids to try to calculate Christ's second coming. So the whole period of the Second Awakening revival was focused on figuring all this out. And from that fertile ground came OUR "magical" dates. In fact if you look,  there have been and are "magical" dates floating around all the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming_of_Christ
 
 
 

Well duh!

No it's not lost, but I'm afraid you have misunderstood. The article is mainly concerned about websites and apps posing as genuine official JW websites or apps.  Posting links to JW.org on a website such as this is fine. There is absolutely no reason to shut this or any other website such as this down. It's obvious it's not posing as an official JW website, lol. 
But obviously what you have done (or someone else) with overwriting worldnewsmedia.org over a copyrighted WT picture is misleading therefor a misuse of copyright. 

No, it's not there of course. We would not do that. Here is the article:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-april-2018/publications-personal-websites/
I may get sued for this!
Actually I shouldn't because by posting this link I am directing people to our website. So all is good
" Therefore, as the Terms of Use indicates, you may e-mail someone an electronic copy of a publication or share a link to material found on jw.org."

No, it's not there of course. We would not do that. Here is the article:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-april-2018/publications-personal-websites/
I may get sued for this!
Actually I shouldn't because by posting this link I am directing people to our website. So all is good
" Therefore, as the Terms of Use indicates, you may e-mail someone an electronic copy of a publication or share a link to material found on jw.org."

From the April 2018 Watchtower, p. 30-31. This is a bona fide, unadulterated copy (honest). 

What are your thoughts on this article?
Btw, I hope the irony of posting this here is not lost on you guys, lol.

Tom, I am assuming you are asking me this question.
If you remember Br. Splane (in I can't  remember which month's broadcast) explained that the "2nd" generation of anointed would have to be contemporaries of the "1st" generation. This 1st generation would have had to be anointed in 1914 . He used the example of Br. Franz who was born in 1893 and baptized April 1914. Thus, anyone who became anointed during Br. Franz's lifetime and is still alive now, is of the 2nd generation. Br. Franz died in 1992, so anyone who was of the anointed before then (and is still alive) is of the 2nd generation, because their anointed life overlapped with that of Br. Franz. The youngest members whose lives overlapped with that of Br. Franz and who are still alive and who we know of, are in their early 50's (eg. Br. Jackson and Br. Sanderson) So, in theory, this does buy us about 35 years or so, assuming both brothers live to be in their late 80's and the great tribulation hasn't come before then.

Sorry. Was a misunderstanding, I thought you were talking about a list of doctrines.

I would also guess that 1914 is here to stay because 
1. WW1, which is "on the ground" evidence as Arauna calls it, (even though originally it was supposed to be Armageddon).
2. Jesu's enthronement was invisible, so can't be disproved.
3. Most Witnesses don't have a clue about how we arrived at 1914 and of those who do, have no clue how we arrive at 607, and the few of those who do, have no clue as to why historians arrive at 587....and those even fewer who do, well...they are too few to make a difference...

I am talking about the interpretation of prophesy, especially about assigning specific dates to specific events.. 
I don't remember listing anything though... I think that must have been someone else

I don't think that's neither a fair nor true assumption at all.

But today becomes tomorrow and one day we may be calling this the the manna of old. So really, what you are saying is that what we have now is good enough for the present time, but it could be replaced by something else in the future. In that case, it would be more truthful to call this spiritual food speculations, ideas and conjecture rather than facts and truths. 

I would also guess that 1914 is here to stay because 
1. WW1, which is "on the ground" evidence as Arauna calls it, (even though originally it was supposed to be Armageddon).
2. Jesu's enthronement was invisible, so can't be disproved.
3. Most Witnesses don't have a clue about how we arrived at 1914 and of those who do, have no clue how we arrive at 607, and the few of those who do, have no clue as to why historians arrive at 587....and those even fewer who do, well...they are too few to make a difference...

I don't think that's neither a fair nor true assumption at all.

Except for the times I fell asleep reading this and other threads on this subject, I think ( ... because I know you care so very deeply about whats Ah thinks...) Anna's explanation is the best and most succinct that has real practical value.
Especially item No. 2.
When I teach the Bible, I do not need to teach anything about that ... as some people believe that touching frogs will give you warts ... and some people do not .... and it may be true with some frogs, but not others ... and I will not live long enough to test the supposition ... assuming I cared at all, which I do not.....
It took the Australian Royal Commission to trap Bro. Jackson into a year or more later forcing the GB to admit what is common sense ... that they are neither inspired, or infallible, which is an understatement.
One real reason I have for faith in Jehovah's Witnesses as a collection of people is what we do right, DESPITE being so totally clueless about many, many things.  It's like when a circus clown car wins the Indianapolis 500 race .... the only explanation is divine providence.
I get headaches from watching the "new lights" flash on and off, on and off, on and off ....and it does bother me a great deal when, while swimming through an ocean of Jello, to see others drowning in it, and falling away ... but such is the way of reality when you are dealing with pesky humans ... and I need to stop being so sensitive a snowflake and letting the heat get to me.
So, is the Society's explanation of 1914 accurate or not?    Of course it's not ... it's PROBABLY a constructed fantasy ..... like an air-raid siren that short circuits, and periodically gives false alarms ... and for a hundred years nobody knows how to fix it.
Or, for some strange reason ... it may be completely true. 
Does that mean we get rid of the air raid sirens?
No ....  I have 10 smoke alarms in my house ... and when I boil water in the kitchen or light a candle, some of them  go off, and sometimes I have to disconnect the battery, to keep the noise down
Does that mean I should get rid of the smoke alarms?
No..... it just means I have to know the difference between theory and reality, (coffee water steam, or raging house fire ...) or live life in a continuous fantasy induced panic state.
Same thing.
.....
Oh ... and expect NOTHING from humans.
You will never be disappointed.
Everybody ..... has an agenda.
 

That's an insult to kids!

I don't even have a clue as to how it will be 2018 in a week.