TrueTomHarley

Some things are too trivial to spend time on. One blows past it instead, accept the common sense explanation that anyone with common sense would accept, and move on. You don’t have to sanitize everything. Let the anal people try to spin gold out of what is at worst a Rutherford faux pas. All you really need do is demonstrate that they are anal. Such things don’t interest me. I have come to feel that an anal person will never stop being an anal person. Don’t indulge them unless your purpose is for something greater.

Nah, not for my sake anyway. Scoundrels always disassociate remarks from the settings in which they were written so as to create a false impression. I’m willing to accept that in JR’s bluntness (for he certainly was that, wasn’t he?) he failed to steer around some negative stereotypes of the day. It wasn’t his purpose to give PC lectures. It was his purpose to remove roadblocks to the spread of the Bible message.

No. Lloyd certainly seems to me a nasty piece of work. Still, he represents kicking over the traces and partnering with authority, rather than submitting to it. Those things are all the rage today. I never engage with him for the sake of engaging with him. There is always another purpose. And it doesn’t happen often. The important thing is to never retaliate. Then his nastiness stands out all the more clearly.

As you may know, the current organization purposes that many of its deeds will extend right into the new system. I’ve been assigned to work on this problem. I just about have it figured out.

Here is all that anyone needs to know about Evans: The most abusive of the major players is Lloyd, though perhaps that is because we have already crossed paths enough for me to consider him my nemesis. He is certainly not the most abusive of the minor players. One of the Redditt latter said: “F**k you! Call me:” and then supplied phone and email. “It is not as though you have given me fine incentive to do so,” I replied. Did he seriously expect a response? What is it with these characters? One thing that will be said of my remarks is that I do not run anyone into the ground, I do not call anyone a liar, nor do I call anyone I disagree with a “disgusting human being,” as Lloyd does with me in a heartbeat. TTH: It is the common mark of a zealot to demand full agreement in every particular and denounce anything falling short of that as evidence of “a disgusting human being.” It is common practice for such a one to slash & burn, while offering nothing in replacement. LE: Tom, you stood up for Rutherford over his vile antisemitism, so it's no surprise to see you standing up for written, documented policies that put children within reach of the most depraved of humanity. You are an utter disgrace. Thankfully, nobody's listening to you. TTH: It’s a little too soon to tell who is listening. You will probably never know, nor will I. There are many people in the world. They form & change points of view as new things comes to their attention. Nobody turns on a dime. LE: As obnoxious as Tom’s sniveling apologetics for antisemitism and the cover-up of abuse may be, laced as they are with dishonesty, cowardice & a total abandonment of logic & humanity, it’s hard not to pity him. He’s a boy in a man’s body trying to feel important. He raised the antisemitism charge several times, apparently thinking that it got under my skin. It refers to a letter Rutherford wrote in 1933 to an infant Nazi government in which he assured them that Witnesses were apolitical and not a threat. He did not avoid derogatory stereotypes of the day regarding Jews. This was long before anything of the Holocaust took shape, and a former director of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, Rabbi Michael Barenbaum, has declared it insignificant to the overall picture. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/the-1933-letter-to-the-fuhrer.html TTH: Aside from those minor points I am actually very likable. And [I finally indulged myself] the anti-semitism charge is drivel, you infantile idiot. I noticed some tweets had vanished and I am unaccustomed to seeing this: LE: Ste blocked you due to realizing what I’ve known all along: that you’re disingenuous & bereft of reason & humanity. I’m entertained by you, which is why I’m not blocking you. Ste thought he could persuade you and has better uses for his time and indulging your brain farts. Hmm. Could that be? Nah: TTH: I didn’t come after him. In no way was I a troll. I have never had to block anyone in my life, even if they were not entertaining. No, I think it is for my first reason. [that he had tagged some journalists and now he didn’t want them to see answers to charges he had made] But Lloyd told me that Ste blocked me because I was odious and that he “has the right to manage his social media experience,” as though his Twitter feed was an artistic tapestry that would hang on his wall for posterity. TTH: Demonization & abuse of the ideological enemy happens everywhere. It is played out in many areas, most notably today (but not limited to) national politics of right vs left. It is a good thing to follow these other concerns, both sides, for it enables one to see the overall picture. LE: Again, I’m not demonizing you. I’m merely giving you a rare dose of reality. You’re little more than an anomaly lurking in the Twitter shadows terrified of going public lest your elders give you a spanking in the back room. It bothers me not whether you wit or carry on, because—follows a gif of a Spongebob character: “Nobody cares!” TTH: I would say that writing two free books IS going public. The pen is mightier than the podcast, especially when the host of that podcast has an affinity for taunting gifs. I mean, how far is one going to get on such a podcast? LE: As you know, the podcast invitation has long since been withdrawn now that I know how disingenuous and morally-bankrupt you are. And it’s cute that you think the public are remotely interested in your e-books, one of which lauds you as the self-proclaimed vanquisher of apostates. Just how stupid does he think his followers are? He worked tirelessly to get me on his podcast and was as nice as pie until it finally dawned upon him that I was not going to take the bait. That invitation would reappear in two seconds if he thought that I would take it now. He lives to tear to shreds those he opposes, and his followers know and relish it. After an interval, when he thought my back was turned (but it wasn’t) he tweeted to a chum: LE: I love your ability to see the best in people but Tom’s not really a nice guy IRL or elsewhere. If you’re a “nice” JW and you discover Rutherford’s antisemitism, you keep quiet and chalk it down to human imperfection. Tom, on the other hand, defends & minimizes it. Nasty sigh… TTH: You blockhead. It’s the same thing! “Human imperfection” WAS my defense! What! One should be crucified for human imperfection? Don’t misunderstand. I didn’t knock the ball out of the park. I think it is pretty clearly demonstrated who the bigoted bully is, but that does not mean more will not side with him then with me, for the topic is nasty, the article is actually well-done, and the figures within are portrayed as ones who have suffered mightily in their unrelenting quest of whistleblowing. That sort of thing plays well today. Besides, he had already clearly shown his bullying tactics when he tweet-bombarded certain woman’s groups for 52 straight days with counsel that they should denounce WT for some council to women that he found appalling. He even kept hammering them after one of them said: ‘We’ll look into it.’ He even kept hammering after I appended my tweet to his: “It’s as though Lloyd says: G*d****t, ANSWER me when I’m talking to you!!” But he has tons of followers. There is considerable infighting in that community and I suspect his side puts up with his swaggering because he gets the job done. No, I didn’t hit any grand slam home runs. On the other hand, I didn’t tell myself that I was going to. I simply appeared to present a contrasting take. Otherwise, the take is monolithic, and it is presented over and over and over again.

Yes. It would. Every penny that we spend determines not only matters of climate change, but all of reality.

Okay, TTH, admit when you have overstated it. You told @Srecko Sostar and @JW Insider that Americans were split 50/50 on climate change. In fact, it looks like 2/3 think it exists and is man-made. 1/5 think it is a fraud. 44% worry much about it, down from 60 something. About 1/3, including some who think it is real and manmade, don’t fret about it. With all the ideologues, zealot, and sometimes outright liars trying to skew perceptions in their direction, one looks for new indicators from trustworthy sources. For me, that is statements of the WT that they are now devoting multiple times the resources that they one did to disaster relief. https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/28/gallup-poll-americans-remain-concerned-over-global-warming-44-worry-a-great-deal-about-it/

I don’t spend an inordinate amount of time on videos, but this one almost becomes addictive. It’s the break dancing I love, as though workout gymnasts are really getting into it. I like the pacing, the sudden breaks in tempo, the shifts of one, two, and three persons on screen, sometimes two of the same person. It really is too much.

Sorry, JWI. I couldn't resist. I mean, someone has way too much time on their hands:

Chuck Schumer. Not me. My wife. She ran into him at some community college function and came across him unexpectedly. She was there for other reasons and probably had no idea that he was visiting. She asked him about high taxes in New York--so high that reports are of many people fleeing the state. He told him that yes, many do leave, however they come back later when retired. Why? For the services, he told her. He did not seem to realize that that made the situation worse. They leave when they can put into the pot. They return when they can take from it. There is a certain pundit known to @James Thomas Rook Jr. (I've never met him, by the way, otherwise he would top my list) who maintains that the most dangerous place in the world to be is between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera.

Take note, @The Librarian. Take a screenshot. Save it for posterity. Show it to your grandchildren. JWI made a comment and he only used ONE WORD! I’ve heard of turning over a new leaf before, but this takes it to a whole ‘nother level. ”There were too many...um...uh....notes,” the prince told Mozart.

Well, that’s a new one. I know that AI is smart, but has it even adjusted to my being religious? What must I do to be one of the chosen? Wait. My bad. I misread it. It is me who has to choose, (despite being on this network forever) not be chosen. I was about to ask @Witness. MSFT should be a penny stock.

Okay. Got it. Let me pencil that in the calendar.

I suggest one start with the Jerry Reed song, When You’re Hot, You’re Hot: Well me and Homer Jones and Big John Talley Had a big crap game goin' back in the alley And I kept rollin' them sevens , winnin' all them pots My luck was so good I could do no wrong I jest kept on rollin' and controllin' them bones And finally they jest threw up their hands and said "When you hot, you hot" I said "Yeah?" When you're hot, you're hot And when you're not, you're not Put all the money in and let's roll 'em again When you're hot, you're hot (La la la la la la la) (La la la la la) (La la la la la la la, when you're hot, you're hot) Well, now every time I rolled them dice I'd win And I was just gettin' ready to roll 'em again When I heard somethin' behind me I turned around and there was a big old cop He said "Hello, boys" and then he gave us a grin 'n' said "Look like I'm gonna hafta haul you all in And keep all that money for evidence" I said, "Well, son when you hot, you hot" He said "Yeah" When you're hot, you're hot And when you're not, you're not You can 'splain it all down at City Hall I say, yeah, when you're hot, you're hot You're hot (La la la la la la la) (La la la la la) (La la la la la la la, when you're hot, you're hot) Well, when he took us inta court I couldn't believe my eyes The judge was a fishin' buddy that I recognized I said "Hey, judge, old buddy, old pal" "I'll pay ya that hundred I owe ya if you'll get me outta this spot" So he gave my friends a little fine to pay He turned around and grinned at me and said "Ninety days, Jerry, when you hot, you hot" 'n' I said "Thanks a lot" When you're hot, you're hot And when you're not, you're not He let my friends go free and throwed the book at me He said "Well, when you're hot, you're hot" I said "well I'll tell ya one thing judge, old buddy, old pal" "If you wasn't wearin' that black robe I'd take out in back of this courthouse "And I'd try a little bit of your honor on" "You understand that, you hillbilly?" "Who gonna collect my welfare?" (When you're hot, you're hot") "Pay for my Cadillac?" Whadda you mean 'contempt of court'?" (When you're hot, you're hot") "Judge" Songwriters: J. Reed When You're Hot, You're Hot lyrics © Hori Pro Entertainment Group

Oh, stuff it, Billy. I can outlast you on this. I am like a hurricane that gathers strength over warm water. I am every bit as crazy as you, only set on a more pleasant and peacemaking course. I write in a more appealing manner. There is only so far one can go in telling everyone else to EDUCATE themselves if they are not too UNINTELLIGENT so as to avoid revealing how APOSTATE they are. I have never detected an ounce of humility in any of your writing. Before you make like a theocratic POTUS set to drain the Internet swamp, you should repent and cultivate some. Let's go back to what you proposed before in another persona: "You keep out of my way and I'll keep out of yours."

You also may have noticed, @James Thomas Rook Jr., that Scott Adams is not so monolithic on this issue as his work suggests. Or perhaps he is doing some reexamination. On Twitter, he has been playing Devil's advocate with his followers lately (some of whom have told him to knock it off), advancing many of the ideas that @JW Insider is advancing.

What impressed me was that he wrote more about God than about math and science combined. I don't know why this would be so. Nor do I think this is among the things that you have proved with your FACTS. You may have proved other things, but not this one. This is opinion. JWI produces different facts to go toe to toe with you. Is he wrong? He may well be, but please don't tell me he is uninformed. The reason that I only weigh in mildly is that I see that people I respect fall both ways on this. It is irrelevant to me since there is nothing I can do about it, and I live frugally enough that were climate change an indisputable fact, I would still be more part of the solution than part of the problem. It is not the core issue for Christians. God will fix it. To that extent, @Srecko Sostar's objection about JWs is right. Where it is wrong is in his assumption that "involved" Jehovah's Witnesses would all come down on his side. They would not. They would divide, and the net effect would be no different that what is now. In fact, (here is another scenario that works against his argument--not entirely consistent with the first one I offered) since JWs are largely the "uneducated," they will not trust the harangue's of the "elite"on this matter, since they have learned from experience that such harangues are rarely in their own interests and usually benefits those elites that issue them.

Because you behaved and said good things and not bad things to me and have never shared pointers on how to construct a nuclear bomb on the theory that the public has the right to know, unlike some partipants here, I will even throw you a bone: Someone on Twitter was grumbling about how they kept interrupting golf yesterday with the results of the Mueller investigation. “Golf is too important to be continually interrupted with this rubbish!” he said. I replied: “You are looking at this all wrong. It was golf. It was a huge “FORE!’ to accusers of the POTUS.” Some things are going your way, aren’t they?

Hey, you old blockhead @James Thomas Rook Jr., you with a mind of concrete: "All mixed up and firmly set."

He probably just yielded to your intransigence. At any rate, despite all of your proof, you failed to convince him. Actually, I tend to fall into your camp on this and would fall into it more firmly were it the core issue today. But it's not. People on both sides pound each other relentlessly over the issue and fail to convince. So I stop short of going the extra mile required to affirm in my own mind that it is as you say. I put my eggs in another basket. It is certainly is a political issue, as you say, and as JWI says it is not. Rephrase it slightly, and even he will agree: it is certainly an issue that is politicized. Yes, I know of the sneaky globalist statements that they are using it to drive idealogical change. That makes sense to me. But it is not my main cause. I already have a main cause. If humans are not ruining the earth by climate change, it is not as though they are too responsible ever to ruin it. It is also not as though they are not ruining it, just by other means. These days, I must restrain myself from being a full-time zealot, not against climate change views, but against vaccine ones. I think it very likely that there are a host of ills to be laid at their feet and when those ills occur, they are more catastrophic and more immediate than climate change. It is the same story of demonization and misportrayal as with other contentious issues. Follow it via Twitter or somewhere else and you find that the "anti-vax" side - (they hate that label and charge, I think correctly, that it is deliberately assigned so as to portray them as loonies, since very few of them are anti ALL vaccines) come off as exceedingly well-informed and reasonable, not at all as the hysterical nuts portrayed by the other side. Don't go against me on this, you calcified blockhead. I will not yield so readily on this one as I will on the climate. You do not keep up, do you? No need to insult, "forcing" me to follow suit, We are now soul brothers, according to Billy. Act like it, please .

He does not know more about it than you. He knows things about it that you do not. And you do not know more about it than he. You know things about it that he does not. It is due to the reality of news sources that do not cover the same facts, each ignoring what does not fit into its prevailing narrative. I can best explain it by referring to a topic I have stronger feelings about. I am undecided about climate change. As stated, the biggest factor for it, in my view, is that the organization has said it is devoting so much more to disaster relief. Not surprisingly, when a white police officer shoots a black suspect, the event is widely covered. Other shootings are not so widely covered. Sometimes they are barely mentioned. Thus comes the perception that white officers are racist and hostile to blacks. Yet a study of the Philadelphia police force during the Obama administration found the statistics revealed no significant aberrations with regard to race. In fact, the stats revealed that black officers were slightly more likely to shoot black suspects than were white officers. They were slightly more likely to experience "threat misperception," was the phrase. So a picture emerges via media that does not reflect the whole truth. It even serves to create a wrong impression. Does such a thing happen with regard to climate change? That recent year when major hurricanes hit Florida and Texas? It was pronounced significant evidence of global warming. Yet the total number of hurricanes that year was abnormally low. Do we see a weather version of "If it bleeds, it leads?" Everyone must do something to sort through the polarized information streams. My own strategy is that, whenever I follow anything on Twitter, I make it a point to also follow its polar opposite. In this way, there are two or three things popularly regarded as almost conspiracy theories that I have come to regard as quite likely. It is not the case that all the scientists are on the side of climate change. What happens is the same as what happens during physical warfare: efforts to dehumanize the enemy. The climate change scientists declare the other scientists not scientists at all, because if they were scientists they would come on board with climate change. If you follow both sides on Twitter you find the 'conspiracy' side well argued, well researched, with abundant studies, data, facts to support statements made. They do not at all come across as the unhinged crackpots they are portrayed as. The pro side tends to be more like.....like....well, like Billy, who froths that the matter is "settled" and that only a science apostate would contradict "established science." I don't think that it is settled at all. Recently a disheartening Pew report related that today's reality goes beyond people not agreeing on the facts. Today's reality is that people do not agree on what the facts are. With no common starting point they can be no agreement. It is very different to get to the bottom of anything, and usually one can identify a person's primary opinions by the news sources he takes in. They report on different things.

I regretted it almost the moment I sent it. Who am I to interject myself? Maybe I should have taken it back, but I usually do not delete things once I've put them out there. I try to dig myself out of the mess I've made later. Ideally, I think it through first. In this case, I shot myself in the foot. It is what it is. No one is saying that anyone is proud about it. That being said: Well, they're people too. Maybe if you "probably would not accept anyway" they somehow had a clue that would be the case. It isn't easy stepping into a situation that you know will be unpleasant, especially if you have many other things that are pleasant that you can occupy yourself with. It may not be wrong to look at it that way, but that does not mean it is helpful. It might be that if you do "make trouble" for her, she will go your way. Or it might be that she will break and/or that your marriage will blow up. Would you prefer that? Take it as real concern for her on their part, and even for you that you do not make what would have to have been a strained marital relationship 10 times worse. OK. It is a good word, I think. If you notice, my word to you was also a good word. I said that she probably loves you "with good reason." Don't misunderstand. Spiritually speaking, I think you have traded in the diamonds for the turds, but that does not mean that I dislike you personally (though - I admit it - at times I have).

Well, don’t give her a hard time, whatever you do. Outside of spiritual things, she probably loves you, and I suspect with good reason.

From the photos I see, much work gets done. Whereas the meme in the US is that of a “Men Working” sign that spotlights 1 man digging a ditch and 5 leaning on their shovels. How is it out there where you are?

Here you are, Srecko. You’ll be heralding this in no time at all, perhaps already. The point is that your people divide up readily with regard to every new thing. Our people don’t. It would b the same with regard to climate change if our people were to join your people.