TrueTomHarley

C'mon, Ann! I've got to do everything for you? I found it in two seconds: http://www.economist.com/node/14165460

There are two or three articles on the same subject. Please don't demand I provide links to each one. The overall point is that the sex offender list is of little value. Reasons vary. 1) it is made a vehicle for public shaming and revenge by persons who don't realize that that negates its value as a enforcement tool because too many  people are on it. 

2) Politicians absolutely love the sex offender list because there is no finer way to tell the voters they are 'tough on pedophiles' 3) Assinine, ineffective, or even hurtful (to innocuous persons on the list) provisions cannot be repealed because as soon as that is proposed someone with vested interests will misrepresent it as wanting to hurt kids. The vested interests often are the result of turf wars - every expert wanting to expand the program as much as possible so as to ensure job security.

Don't misunderstand, Ann. Fighting child abuse is a fine thing. Nobody says otherwise. But your people are terrible at it.

Yes, the paragraph quoted bounced back to me because it is from my book, Tom Irregardless and Me, which the Librarian is too mean to let me talk about much. What a battleaxe! I never said the paragraph was the Economist. I said the facts backing it are from the Economist. The paragraph about Arizona is from my book, too. I'm not supplying a link. You do it. For, again, Arizona is a real place. It is in a real country. (The USA) And they are really nuts over there, doing nutty things, because they are frothing mad over a problem they have not been able to solve.

On 3/5/2017 at 1:21 AM, Arauna said:

Become an activist for all the children in Africa who are raped on a daily basis with no-one to stand up for them.  Or focus on religious organizations that are still moving their clergy around even though there now are new laws being put in place to assist them.  Do not focus on the one organization who is really trying to be aware of the problem while not excluding anyone with "repentance" to attend a meeting.

There should not have been another thread. You said it too eloquently.

Anna, who starts the now never-ending thread, protests that she did not deliberately start it. Her remarks were shuffled about by the overlords to make it appear as though she started it. How that came about I haven't traced. Who cares? It should have ended with you.

Don't you hate it when you give so much effort to organize points so well as you have done and then find a few days later it is as though you never existed?

On 3/5/2017 at 1:21 AM, Arauna said:

Do not focus on the one organization who is really trying to be aware of the problem while not excluding anyone with "repentance" to attend a meeting. 

I have seen none of the proceedings so I don't really know. I'm not holding my breath. But I am beginning to wonder, just possibly, if Jehovah's organization might emerge from this in the eyes of the authorites as honest, decent, ready to repair and help, and that the negative buzz about them originates from person who have their own agenda.

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 

Now you're just trolling me.

Not

going 

to

take

the

bait.�

What do you mean, "not going to take the bait?" Are you nuts? 

The paragraph speaks for itself. Granted, it is exaggerated the way I am wont to do, but it is not untrue. (it is called hyperbole when Jesus does it in Luke) It is backed by Economist Magazine. The GB does not author Economist Magazine.

There's more on the absurdity of your single issue focus one one issue and one issue alone:

"Working himself into a lather, he [the god of the sex offender registry] passes a law in Arizona (2016) criminalizing contact with the private areas of any child under 15 regardless of intent. That makes criminals of parents changing diapers, aghast parents point out, but he doesn’t care. No “sane or reasonable prosecutor” is going to misuse the law that way, he says. Besides, if one did, you’d have your day in court to point out your lack of ill intent; it would be a fine defense. It is reassuring to know that the sane and reasonable prosecutors will leave you alone, but what about the insane and unreasonable ones? What about the political hacks or young firecrackers keen to show they are tough on pedophilia? What about the prosecutor who knows the charge is ridiculous, but wants to string it along anyway as a bargaining chip for an unrelated crime? Sometimes you think the god of registries is helping the god of the adversarial judicial system so that the latter’s devotees do not suffer unemployment. “Just try repealing the law,” the god of registries taunts, “just try it, and I’ll tell the voters that you love pedophiles.”

This, too, is real and easily searchable onliine. Arizona is a real place. It is in the USA. It is in the southwestern portion of the USA.. 

The paragraph shows how inept authorities are in leaving no stone unturned. But don't search it, Ann. Be very smart. 

Don't

take

the

bait!

Many things are proven by ignoring evidence to the contrary.

On 3/5/2017 at 8:52 AM, Ann O'Maly said:

The point of reporting is to prevent further abuse to that particular child or other children by that individual perpetrator, to call the abuser to account, to penalize him/her, and for him/her to be publicly registered to alert the community to the potential danger to other children.

Almost everyone on the public sex offender register is harmless or of minimal risk. From the first book:

" Most people were quite naïve when the epidemic suddenly burst upon the scene – unheard of one day, Public Enemy #1 the next. Determined to leave no stone unturned rooting out pedophiles, the god of the sex offender registry has arisen in the United States. Unfortunately, he is another idiot. The nature of his game changes from state to state. The name you spot on the sex offender registry that you assume is that of a child rapist is really just the adult who, as a teen, texted half-dressed photos of herself to schoolmates. Or he is the fellow who, as a teen, had sex with his underage girlfriend. Or she is the dope who streaked naked across the football field. Or he is the drunken clod who peed in public. Or he is even the character who put his hand on a child’s rear end – not good, but perhaps not worthy of a sex offender registry where he will water down efforts to track violent predators; historically he has been controlled by parents alerting children to let no one touch them inappropriately, not even Uncle Feely (This is the topic of another ‘Caleb and Sophia’ video - everyone should have the tools to safeguard children that Jehovah’s Witnesses have; Caleb and Sophia learn to say No! and then tell a parent) - or he perhaps really is the serial child molester, but probably not – that scoundrel is hidden in a sex offender list so long that it is worthless to law enforcement"

The source for much of the above is a 2009 Economist, April issue, easily searchable. I've nothing against the world's efforts to combat pedophilia - how could one oppose that? But they screw up everything they touch and I am unwilling to hail them as the Grand Panacea.

(As an aside, it is annoying when one is asked 'the reason for edit.' What do they think it is? It's because you screwed it up the first time. When I edit my book for typos or whatever, Smashwords does not ask me the reason for my edit.)

This is a bit of a cheap shot. I, too, was a draft 'dodger' as I took advantage of the legitimate 2S student deferment. The country had the same ridiculous prejudice that it does now: only college people matter. 

Some connected or savvy kids proactively joined the military and chose spots which assured them relative or absolute safely. Ordinary 18-year-olds were who weren't paying overclose attention were sucked up into the war machine as hamburger.

I hastily misread this as 'Colin Kapernick' and was all set to comment: 

"Everyone knows of some injustice somewhere. Why should anybody stand?"

before I noticed it wasn't him at all, but the Uber guy. Here in Rochester, we don't have Uber.

22 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

JWs have a panel of elders who then report to the Service Committee and fill out forms and tell other elders, COs, wives, etc.

 

 

Back in the day before Brother Libraria threw me off the BOE for selling my books during congregation meetings, this did occasionally happen. My wife never knew nothing, as was the pattern, but there was one wife who sometimes knew more than I did. She eventually stopped prying for information when her husband died.  I suspect the continual elder training schools squeezed that leakiness trait right out of whoever was doing it because I, who know a lot, have not heard of that problem in 20 years. 

Listening to Jack Fluen’s funeral talk, I began to wish I was giving it. In time, I realized this is the internet – I can do what I want:

“I hope that when I die I have as many who will say nice things about me as I have heard in the last few days talk about Jack. They’re here tonight, people he hung out with. Also here is his immediate family, and especially his daughter. This talk is for you.

Jack’s parents are here, too. Comfort the parent who has lost a son to death, for it was not supposed to be that way. The parents are supposed to go first. This talk is for you, too.

Present, too, are many from the Jehovah’s Witness faith that Jack was raised in. This talk is not for them. They won’t be left out in the cold, of course, for they have the scriptures and the scriptures bring comfort. We must be true to the scriptures, but the scriptures are a multi-faceted gem. Turn them just the right way according to your audience. They'll understand.

We must be true to Jack. Jack left behind his Jehovah’s Witness roots long ago and if I carry on as though he were a regular pioneer in the faith, people who knew him well will say ‘who are you trying to kid? he wasn’t that way at all.’ So I won’t do it. But he never turned against the faith, so far as I know, he just didn’t stick with it.

You know how it is with Witnesses when someone leaves the fold: they keep saying ‘come back, come back.’ Some do come back. But some do not and the constant refrain becomes tiresome. So we won’t say that either of Jack. Who’s to say he would have been better off back in the fold? Long term, I guess, I would say it, but who’s to say short term? Sometimes life is a broncing buck and it does it’s best to throw you, whether in the faith or not. Our purpose it to give comfort, not to rehash might-have-beens.

When we get to the offering comfort part, we will start with 1 Thessalonians 4:13 – we’re only going to do 3 scriptures tonight,write them down if it interests you to look up later."

It would go something like that. I won’t flesh it out more because it’s but a dress rehearsal for a talk already given. I would have included a few anecdotes about Jack early on, perhaps two from the present and one from his childhood.

The second scripture would have been from John 11 about how Jesus resurrected Lazarus. We would have taken our time here, because it describes the true nature of death. Jesus said Lazarus was asleep. When asleep, you can be woken up. Jesus woke him up. Imagine the implications for one who dies today.

I don’t know what the third scripture would have been. I would have thought of something. The reason you don’t want to do more than three is because some don’t want you to do any. And more probably don’t care one way or the other, but they will if you bowl them over with excess. Your JW cohorts may say ‘well done.’ but you are not talking to them. The third would have something to do with resurrection, or maybe the paradise. Many things you briefly explain without scriptural support. You would do scriptures for the brothers, but not for his chums and family hear. If you explain it briefly and clearly it is like a jigsaw puzzle coming together that they always thought was an unsalvageable mess. They can track down the rest on their own dime if they want or approach anyone of the brothers in the audience, who will hopefully mill about and not just talk with each other.

“So are you saying, Tom, that he is on your JW paradise waiting list? The obvious answer is ‘how would I know?’ but we do know that if you’ve made any mistakes, your death pays for them. And we know that Jehovah is a good God who wants the best for the person who’s decent at heart.

And then we would have thanked everyone for coming, invited them to hang out for a while so as to comfort one another, and have some pizza. If there was any hesitation at that point, I would have helped myself to the first slice.

In the unlikely event the GB asks me to join them, I am going to decline.

We had people from Texas come into town to work on a Kingdom Hall remodel nearby and they needed a place to stay. Sight unseen, we handed them the keys to our house while we were heading away. Many people would kill for such a brotherhood where you can place such trust in total strangers.

At the Independence Day church, Mr. and Mrs. O’Maly heard of this and decided to do the same. The first guests who stayed at their house broke their TV. The second set of guests tracked mud throughout the house. The third set found the Go Packs and raided the funds set aside.  The 4^th set emptied the house completely and the O’Maly’s returned to four bare walls.

Steamed, they contacted the other Independence Day church. ‘Oh, yeah, that happened to us, too. No, they’re not congregation members – they’re imposters. But we have such a half-assed organization because that crazy Witness person insists that God loves it that way, that any scoundrel can pull the wool over our eyes in a twinkling.’

‘Besides, O’Maly hates us because we don’t handle pedophiles the right way. Stop it! she says. You’re screwing it up! Hand those perverts over to us so that WE can screw it up, like we screw up most of what is already in our laps.’

(sorry, Eoin. I admit, I'm not being overnice here. But we are dealing with some who HATE God's organization, which organization says it's not a great idea to be trading words with them in the first place, and this thread is demonstrating why. I will allow, though, that loyal ones have made some excellent points, perhaps spurred on in effort to shut up the scoundrels, and that your input has been among the most valuable of all.)

" and not just supply posts like that from a certain apostate who blasts us with a dozen irrelevant Bible verses and then tries to hook us into his own blog where he presumably has many more. "

I'm sorry, Witness, do you do that, too? i was thinking of someone else.

We had people from Texas come into town to work on a Kingdom Hall remodel nearby and they needed a place to stay. Sight unseen, we handed them the keys to our house while we were heading away. Many people would kill for such a brotherhood where you can place such trust in total strangers.

At the Independence Day church, Mr. and Mrs. O’Maly heard of this and decided to do the same. The first guests who stayed at their house broke their TV. The second set of guests tracked mud throughout the house. The third set found the Go Packs and raided the funds set aside.  The 4^th set emptied the house completely and the O’Maly’s returned to four bare walls.

Steamed, they contacted the other Independence Day church. ‘Oh, yeah, that happened to us, too. No, they’re not congregation members – they’re imposters. But we have such a half-assed organization because that crazy Witness person insists that God loves it that way, that any scoundrel can pull the wool over our eyes in a twinkling.’

‘Besides, O’Maly hates us because we don’t handle pedophiles the right way. Stop it! she says. You’re screwing it up! Hand those perverts over to us so that WE can screw it up, like we screw up most of what is already in our laps.’

Well, it's all anecdotal and I don't pretend to be dropping the 11th Commandment. But IF you have been trained by Bible education, which can be found you know where, and IF your life has not been made so important so that your present demanding career makes it unthinkable to interrupt it for such a duty, you are more likely to provide personal care for your aging parents.

Look, don't argue with me on this one because I will give up - you'll never see a white flag go up so fast. But I had some fonts lying around the house and I had to use them before they went bad so I used them here. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to go to college, go to college. If you get some peer-pressure heat because of it, just accept it as a price that must be paid. That's how it is with any human organization. Not everything goes your way. But you accept it because you know that the Lord's will can be magnified here on earth if his servants are organized, as opposed to as if each person is his own wandering planet.

Nor should you be too quick to blow off the circuit overseer who said of his former fancy pants circuit that there were 100 that went to college and only 3 who remained in the truth. Atheistic, humanistic professors, sexually avant-garde students and faculty alike,  see your naive offspring coming along with stars in his/her eyes and say 'It's Game On!' just like I do with the Librarian whom I fear.

And don't miss the organization's counsel, which arguably could be given more strongly, that it's not just what you should not do, but what you should. Prepare your youngster well ahead of time to choose from career paths available to him and learn what options are available and at what cost. If you are all thumbs yourself, make sure he knows that one can't make a living in all-thumbs. Or maybe it is given. Despite their counsel to familiarize yourself with whatever comes down the pipe, I am drawn to what primarily concerns me.

I like CMP's point, too, that where he comes from, the ones who get to university are serious minded but the ones who take the easy stuff are riff-raff, generally speaking. It's not that way here. Here they just party and malign Trump and take absurd curriculum that has no practical application anywhere. But it is different where he is, apparently.

Bernard Strawman pointed out that Tom Irregardless wouldn't use his word so much if he had some education. But Tom has focused on education that trains morally, the kind of education God's organization specializes in. You can always hire out for smarts when you need them.

When you are caring for your father with dementia and you must blow off a stick of dynamite under him to get him to shower or acquiesce to be cleaned up in any other way, and when you tell him for the 500th time where this one or that one member of the family is, and you have even moved in with him because his house is bigger than yours and in your smaller house he would drive you absolutely crazy with his constant requests for information you gave him 5 seconds ago and besides, he is just about blind, but in his own house it doesn't matter because he knows where everyone is, and in spite of all the upheaval in your life you are still grateful life worked out that way so that you could care for him....

it occurs to you that life would be less likely to have worked that way had you immersed yourself in the type of career that is generally only possible with a fine university education as its underlying base, for with a simple life, you can maneuver it, but with a complicated life, it maneuvers you, and you say 'it's the nursing home for you Pop!' where he will die very quickly disoriented and demoralized, and perhaps even as a pin cushion for whatever Pharma wants to send his way to make him more pliable.

Please don't give me the 'buts' or the 'what ifs,' for I will immediately acknowledge there are a ton of them. Nor is this to lay any guilt upon anyone who has placed parents in the nursing home, for sometimes it must be done. Nor is it any reason in itself to not choose university. It is, though, a reminder that the university course can 'trap' you into doing things or not doing things that you may regret deeply afterwards, since 'this life' today is not the real life, but failing to take care of your parents to the fullest degree you can perhaps is.

(Pop is in the second book. He doesn't know it, but then, he doesn't know anything. He was, however, once a vigorous man who did many things for his children, some of which they appreciated at the time and some of which they appreciated only later)

Ann O'Maly: I am all for protocols. i have no issue with them. But not as a substitute for theocratic procedures, but as a supplement only. The congregation is not an extension of the world's social systems. This is not to say that you ignore them, and it seems that our guy is trying hard to reconcile the two. But you can't flush the Bible down the toilet just because the world has come up with a cool new idea.

I might feel differently if such outside protocols worked, but abundant evidence has been given in this thread that they do not work in the sense of making any appreciable dent in the endemic rate of child abuse.

Though it is crass, I am tempted to plug a book where an author I know well has written extensively on pedophilia, but I am afraid to do it because I am as scared of the librarian now as I was in grade school. But I hope the trick to stay in her good graces is to consistently supply value-added content - if it doesn't work, it doesn't work - and not just supply posts like that from a certain apostate who blasts us with a dozen irrelevant Bible verses and then tries to hook us into his own blog where he presumably has many more. I mean, how crass is that?

A childhood friend of my son died the other day and he is not the first one. This system has not been easy on the younger generation, though it is easier on them than it is on the younger generation still, some of whom have hung themselves and streamed it live on Facebook. It’s a little hard for adults to reassure their children that all is right with the world when they see their classmate on the internet doing that, even though some apostates who have gone atheist try to let on that the world is just getting better and better.

Anyhow, he had strayed far from his Bible roots, though I did remark that I hope when I die I have as many people saying what a good guy I was as he did, and I worried somewhat how the speaker would handle it since it is a bit dicey and I found myself wishing I could give the talk myself, for I am good at that sort of thing, if not much else. What you must do is carry on not too much about his ‘bad decisions,’ (which the speaker did not, though it depends upon whose eyes you view it through) but you must keep an eye upon his non-Witness buddies and his daughter particularly and say: ‘this talk is for them.’ Of course, you cannot be untrue to the Scriptures, but the Scriptures are like a multi-faceted gem – you must search for the proper facet with which to let the light shine through. And you don’t have to avoid ‘bad decisions’ entirely – after all, no one can say that crashing your snowmobile through the ice when it had been warm lately was a good decision.

When you break into the Bible, 1 Thessalonians 4:13 is a fine place to start. ‘For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about those who are sleeping in death, that you may not sorrow just as those do who have no hope.’ Who can argue with that - Witness or non-Witness?

Everyone hung about at the lodge afterwards, and I approached members of the lad’s biker gang, who were visibly taking his death hard. “My son played with him as a kid,” I said, ‘but you would know him better than me – what was he like?’ ‘Better grab yourself some pizza,’ I said later on. Commish said no, for they had to ride and if they ate they might fall asleep. I said don’t take it the wrong way, but that strikes me as humorous and it reminds me of how my ancient Dad now has a lot of Westerns playing in the background, some featuring Ronald Reagan! in which the good guys are always ready to ride at the end of the show.

I also told him about the days long ago when I was in the doghouse with my wife and I looked for some grandiose gesture to try to rectify matters so I visited the Dinosaur Restaurant where Hell’s Angels were reputed to hang out to see if I could recruit them to visit her on twenty choppers and the head guy get out and hand her a dozen long stem roses. The waitress thought it was a really cool idea, and she would tell the guys, but I never heard back. “You should have called us,” the biker at the funeral said, “we would have done it.” I walked away to chat with others and he approaches me to hand me his well-worn biker card – I mean, think of the places it must have been! Believe me when I tell you, I am sorely tempted to pick a fight with my wife deliberately so as to land in the doghouse again so as to hire these guys. Though it will probably happen anyway for I am not the easiest guy to be around long-term and my wife occasionally gets fed up. Others in the congregation say: “that Tom Harley is a great guy, but imagine if you had to be around him 24/7!”

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I thought it just sounded like a reminder about the etiquette of book promotion through forums. I don't think anyone here was too worried about the chance to learn about your book. I liked what I read and I will very likely buy one or both. But once a place becomes known for promotion of books or JW.ORG pins or Sophia book-bags, etc, then the audience here for discussion of issues drops.

Thanks, JWI. It makes perfect sense. But it's still Game On. Hopefully, I will not get tossed out on my rear end if I can manage to use discretion. Perhaps the trick is to be considerate of readers and always give value-added contact. Whatever you ask about the book, do it off-grid through the Message feature. There it will be like whispering in the library. After all, I once successfully set up an after-school necking session with SuzieQ through whispering in the library, all the time with the librarian imagining she had everything under control.

It is the age-old dilemma: You desperately want to misbehave in the library, but how do you do it with the Librarian watching you like a hawk? She's just as mean as she was in grade school. One must be as resourceful as we used to be in grade school. After all, she is sometimes on the phone or doing her nails.

As Sherlock says, it Game On!

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

 

And, yes, I know I'm rambling, because you know all this better than I do. I still tend to avoid the topic because I still find it uncomfortable and embarrassing. 

No. You are not rambling. Your points make perfect sense and show good heart.

Look, there are some who are genuinely aghast at child abuse and participate with good thoughts. But there are also some liars whose concern over chlld sexual abuse is probably not a sham, but it is clearly secondary to their greater goal. They use it to further that goal.

It's greatly time and energy consuming to battle the liars on what is a here today - gone tomorrow internet thread. They're all welcomed here, which I find - odd. Unless I am up for a brawl, I, like you, will not do it. (But sometimes I am up for a brawl)

Eventually, it's all going to go against us. We know that. Jesus followers will be hailed before courts. Why? So they can receive Good Citizenship plaques? Or will it be so as to defend themselves before persons 'lyingly saying every sort of wicked thing' about them? (Matthew 5:11) But the bad guys will always win in this system of things. When Jesus appeared before Pilate, he didn't sweet talk his way out of it, did he?

At the Independence Day Church, they keep no records of child molesters. When they spot a bad one, they show him the door. He leaves and goes to another Independence Day Church in another city. Doesn't the first Independence Day Church warn the second? No. It doesn't have to. In fact, it cannot. Though they sound like branches of the same Church, they are not. They are Independence Day Churches, each an entity to itself, with no central oversight.

A responsible organization, on the other hand, structures itself in a way that this cannot take place. When a slimeball leaves one congregation, he cannot readily enter another with a clean slate, for there is central oversight and the new congregation is alerted. They warn the second congregation. Why do they not warn the whole world? Because the world has such a confusing and inconsistent and ineffective muddle of policies that they cannot get their heads around it. Besides, when one considers Eoin's cited sources, one begin to suspect that perhaps the world is incapable of properly monitoring abusers is because the latter outnumber the former. I mean, they haven't exactly hit a grand slam in their efforts to stem child sexual abuse, have they?

So the responsible organization muddles along and does the best it can with regard to the outside world. They report where mandated - it would be so much easier if it were universally mandated - for there are no doubt repercussions if they report when not mandated. I would sue their pants off were my (hypothetical) ill deeds reported when they were not required to be. The responsible organization sometimes stumbles sometimes with regard to the world's requirements, for the world is such a shambles (that is why they left it in the first place) that ones can easily misstep. 

When the responsible organization discovers, to its dismay, that it has some shit-stained underwear in its midst, its reluctance to broadcast the shit-stained underwear to the world is misunderstood by a world where folks routinely strut about in their shit-stained underwear. As though child sexual abuse has been snuffed out everywhere except in the ranks of congregation members, liars feign outrage that the organization thwarts what would otherwise be a perfect world. 

Child sexual abuse is bad, and the organization must work hard to conform to the world's oversight of these matters, though the world has thus far found itself completely emasculated in doing so. No matter. They run the show. The organization will work harder. In the meantime, their efforts to safeguard, at least their other congregations, makes them a perfect target for the great and the small. Especially the small.

'Cats only get fed once a day,' says Pop. He is recalling the barn cats back when he was a boy. They got unlimited cow's milk, but solid food just once a day. Let them get off their rear ends and catch some mice if they are yet hungry.

This statement thoroughly alarmed the cat, which immediately tried to mitigate the damage. 'Objection, your Honor,' it said. 'I demand that remark be stricken from the record! It is irrelevant, biased, and prejudicial! Cat lives matter!'

But his Honor was just as fed up with his own cat, which harasses him 24/7 for more food from the moment he walks in the door. He takes off his robe, hollers 'Honey, I'm home!' takes a step forward and falls headlong over his cat, which has positioned itself to call attention to its own hungry plight.

Imagine – threatening to ban a brother after correctly perceiving he has sometimes used your forum to plug his pro-JW book.

It’s a reasonable policy. Nobody has any issue with it once they understand what it is. Why should your forum become a bookstore? I don’t allow it on my own blog, either.

But when a brother is threatened with banishment for plugging his pro-JW book AND the same forum lays down the Welcome Mat for apostates – well, perhaps there are some who would have an issue with that. Don’t you agree? It isn’t hard to screen for apostates if one has that desire.

When you choose to engage a determined opposer, you must be sure about your goals.

Your goal should not be to persuade him, for that is impossible. He hated Jehovah and/or his organization long before you came along and he will hate it long after you are gone. The specific topic under discussion has little to do with it, for if is resolved he will immediately move on to something else. And when you have gone away, he will return to his original topic. That is why you seek primarily to address, not his topic, but his motive.

Your goal is to improve your internet discussion skills, to teach other like-minded ones and to be taught by them. A secondary goal is to see if you can personally apply the counsel in Romans to keep yourself restrained under evil. Sometimes you find that you cannot, and then it is back to Bible 101 for you.

Much earlier I stated that I would not read supplied links presented here because I was willing to accept that the kernel of them might be true. I said I also knew that the presenting source would underline and bold anything culpable, and would ignore anything mitigating. In fact, this happened. Our brother pleaded with authorities to mandate reporting everywhere, for it would make their job so much easier. Thus it is clear that, if there have been missteps, he feels terrible about it and wants to comply with State requirements. He only pleads that they do what non-Witnesses find almost impossible to do – cooperate, and pass a unified system of requirements for all territories.

Opposers carefully hide this fact, for it is favorable to Jehovah’s organization, which they hate. It took Anna to bring it out.  But should said opposers start another thread, either here or in some other forum where they roll out the red carpet for them, they will again carefully hide this mitigating circumstance.

I mean, I think we have allowed them sufficient promotion of their cause without banning them as apostate spammers, don’t you agree?

Anna said: I know, but no one will notice that really, because the first thing they will see is the topic title followed by "started by Anna"...

That Anna's a real troublemaker.