TrueTomHarley

In the end, the analogy of swatting flies is spot-on. You do it for a variety of reasons - to demonstrate your technique, and because you hate flies. 
You do not imagine that in so doing you are eradicating flies. In fact, one must be careful not to trigger a local brother's illustration: "Kill one fly, and 50 come to the funeral."
It works for me.

You are falling down on the job (though I may not have read everything) You have not carried on about birthdays nor miracle wheat.

One can never say that God is not using other groups of people. Some he is using as toilet paper.
I rarely view any apostate source because hatred skews objectivity. It is like expecting CNN to give the lowdown on Trump, or Breitbart to do the same on Obama. At most, you say "Alright, just what 'fact' do these liars think they have uncovered?" Usually it is better to skip it entirely and wait for something from an impartial source.
A sound byte with no context, followed by reams of cherrypicked quotes? It reveals the mind of a 10 year old. 
These are exactly the same idiots who insist the Gospels are full of contradictions because they are too infantile (or deceitful) to realize the effects of time, perspective, purpose, and audience. The entire Bible is rife with contractions to persons of similar intellect, and especially ill motive.

Actually, I think that few do. Most shoot from the hip. I do it myself.
de Vienne and Shultz's book is a chronicle for posterity. This is a here today, gone tomorrow thread. Unsurprisingly to participants here, I notified the author about this thread. Perhaps surprisingly to some, she remarked she had no interest in commenting, and made no further statement. 
Just because you can debate does not mean you do it at every opportunity, as though it were the essence of life - especially when it is with ones who have already demonstrated that they have minds like concrete - all mixed up and firmly set.

Participation here has a long last jarred my conscience to write the review I promised. I left this one with Amazon today:
This book resonated with me. I once lived within 100 yards (but also 100 years) of Nelson H Barbour’s Church of the Strangers. The tiny gazettes of the tiny towns surrounding Rochester, New York, from which the authors extract quotes as readily as a child extracts popcorn from the bag, vanished ages ago, and even some of the towns with them. Others have been assimilated into Greater Rochester.
These are the days when ‘many would rove about,’ as Daniel 12:4 states, free to explore biblical doctrines, free from the disapproving gaze of national European churches that they left not that many decades ago. C.T. Russell, ‘founder’ of Jehovah’s Witnesses, emerges as the main character by sheer force of output, but nobody of that era is ignored, both individuals the authors came to regard as likeable and those otherwise.
These are serious, no-nonsense researchers who dismiss Wikipedia as an “online ‘encyclopedia’ of doubtful worth.” Potential for disaster abounds, the shoals are treacherous here because most who have written of Russell and crew have beliefs, and in most cases their beliefs dictate their scholarship. The authors make no such blunders. As to religious motive, or who had God’s blessing, they don’t go there. “I question everything including commonly believed ‘facts,’” the co-author says. “many of those proved absolutely true. Some proved false.” It is clear that she savors separating the sheep from the goats and she thanks with gusto those who helped her in her quest.
The Watchtower organization cooperated to a degree with this book but ultimately declined to comment on it. The authors speculate it is because they are ‘incurious about their own history.’ As a practicing Witness today, I would agree with that. It is a ‘look forward, not backward’ type of thing. Broad strokes are enough when it comes to the past. Though I relish the detail exhaustively researched here, I am essentially that way, too. No matter. It serves as a reference work – and there are none better, IMO – even for the “incurious.” ‘A Separate Identity’ is a work I highly recommend.
Having reviewed their work, can I depend upon them to review mine? Will they, better yet, mentor me as a new author - show me the ropes? I'm not holding my breath. They have already said they would not do it, before I unconditionally said I would review theirs. They display little taste for the light style of writing that is mine, and none whatsoever for the zany. The few times I have corresponded with de Vienne, she answers me one word for every ten of mine. I think they even groused about Smashwords.

Participation here has a long last jarred my conscience to write the review I promised. I left this one with Amazon today:
This book resonated with me. I once lived within 100 yards (but also 100 years) of Nelson H Barbour’s Church of the Strangers. The tiny gazettes of the tiny towns surrounding Rochester, New York, from which the authors extract quotes as readily as a child extracts popcorn from the bag, vanished ages ago, and even some of the towns with them. Others have been assimilated into Greater Rochester.
These are the days when ‘many would rove about,’ as Daniel 12:4 states, free to explore biblical doctrines, free from the disapproving gaze of national European churches that they left not that many decades ago. C.T. Russell, ‘founder’ of Jehovah’s Witnesses, emerges as the main character by sheer force of output, but nobody of that era is ignored, both individuals the authors came to regard as likeable and those otherwise.
These are serious, no-nonsense researchers who dismiss Wikipedia as an “online ‘encyclopedia’ of doubtful worth.” Potential for disaster abounds, the shoals are treacherous here because most who have written of Russell and crew have beliefs, and in most cases their beliefs dictate their scholarship. The authors make no such blunders. As to religious motive, or who had God’s blessing, they don’t go there. “I question everything including commonly believed ‘facts,’” the co-author says. “many of those proved absolutely true. Some proved false.” It is clear that she savors separating the sheep from the goats and she thanks with gusto those who helped her in her quest.
The Watchtower organization cooperated to a degree with this book but ultimately declined to comment on it. The authors speculate it is because they are ‘incurious about their own history.’ As a practicing Witness today, I would agree with that. It is a ‘look forward, not backward’ type of thing. Broad strokes are enough when it comes to the past. Though I relish the detail exhaustively researched here, I am essentially that way, too. No matter. It serves as a reference work – and there are none better, IMO – even for the “incurious.” ‘A Separate Identity’ is a work I highly recommend.
Having reviewed their work, can I depend upon them to review mine? Will they, better yet, mentor me as a new author - show me the ropes? I'm not holding my breath. They have already said they would not do it, before I unconditionally said I would review theirs. They display little taste for the light style of writing that is mine, and none whatsoever for the zany. The few times I have corresponded with de Vienne, she answers me one word for every ten of mine. I think they even groused about Smashwords.

If there is one thing all should be able to agree upon, it is that nobody can tell Stephen Lett about gestures. He wrote the book.
Look, I shouldn't comment on this topic because I am only barely paying attention. But why would not the following common sense point apply? If the ring truly represented anything sinister, he would simply remove it and leave it in his locker before doing the broadcast, so as not to get guys like you going.

With a view toward reviewing her work, I am reading the most exhaustive and scholarly treatment of the Russell era that I am aware of (and it is only volume 1)
https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401
I have never seen such detail. It holds special interest for me as I live in Rochester, and was once  withing 100 yards (but also 100 years) of Nelson Barbour. There are frequent mention of towns around where I live - some have merged into Rochester, some have grown, some have disappeared.
I follow the author on Twitter. She tweets excitedly with her coauthor about some tiny little mini-fact that she or he has confirmed. We have briefly corresponded. I tried (I think unsuccessfully) to get her to review my book and ended up volunteering to review hers. It deserves weeks of pondering and I just don't have that time, but no matter. Because I have the history I get the flavor of it quickly. Even so, those devoted enough to meaningfully contribute to this thread (which I am not) will get more out of it than me. 
These days, plenty of people take a factoid or two and spin God only knows what out of it. You can't get away with it with these authors. Their research is exhaustive.

Forgive me for this. It is not to say anything about you. But some things strike me as too stupid to try to get my head around. 
It is no more than 'blindly following' the bus driver. I could have walked, but I am smarter to take the bus. Having done so, I do not feel I have to sit behind him and critique his every decision. Much less, having already left the bus, shouting as with a bullhorn at the passengers remaining. What is your interest in doing so?

If there is one thing all should be able to agree upon, it is that nobody can tell Stephen Lett about gestures. He wrote the book.
Look, I shouldn't comment on this topic because I am only barely paying attention. But why would not the following common sense point apply? If the ring truly represented anything sinister, he would simply remove it and leave it in his locker before doing the broadcast, so as not to get guys like you going.

With a view toward reviewing her work, I am reading the most exhaustive and scholarly treatment of the Russell era that I am aware of (and it is only volume 1)
https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401
I have never seen such detail. It holds special interest for me as I live in Rochester, and was once  withing 100 yards (but also 100 years) of Nelson Barbour. There are frequent mention of towns around where I live - some have merged into Rochester, some have grown, some have disappeared.
I follow the author on Twitter. She tweets excitedly with her coauthor about some tiny little mini-fact that she or he has confirmed. We have briefly corresponded. I tried (I think unsuccessfully) to get her to review my book and ended up volunteering to review hers. It deserves weeks of pondering and I just don't have that time, but no matter. Because I have the history I get the flavor of it quickly. Even so, those devoted enough to meaningfully contribute to this thread (which I am not) will get more out of it than me. 
These days, plenty of people take a factoid or two and spin God only knows what out of it. You can't get away with it with these authors. Their research is exhaustive.

If it were not for my Vow against Ad Hominem attacks, I would state the opinion that JTR is piece of work.

We discussed this issue in our Pioneer school.
The unanimous conclusion was that the Bible indicates clearly that there is more happiness in giving,  but says nothing about there being no happiness in receiving.
Get a life!

It is a classic example of getting slammed for doing the right thing, and it should not be spun any other way.
The way to avoid such messy critiques is to preach to the congregation on Sunday and let that be the end of it. It's up to them what they do with it. That way, if somewhere down the line a member of a religion is busted for child abuse, leaders can truthfully say, like Sergeant Shultz, 'I know notttthhhhiiiiiiiinnnngg!' 
Let them come to consume religion, and no more. Give no thought to disciplining congregants who misbehave. Construct matters so that you never know about these ones.
Fail in your duty to God to produce for him a people spirituality and morally clean. Tell Him: "What you see is what you get. It's not my problem.'
Surely this explains why we never hear religious affiliation for anyone other than JWs when abusers are found out. Nobody else cares about Scriptural direction to maintain cleanliness as a congregation. Nobody else has a clue what their members are up to. When cops nab an abuser, their religion is never reported because few imagine that today's religions should result in clean people; it's not their job. Only Jehovah's Witnesses take it upon themselves to insist upon clean people.
For the most part, former Witnesses who are now enemies and who push this narrative for all it is worth were disciplined at one time for one thing or another, and are livid over it. It's no more complicated than that.
 

My BOOKS, you old hen! You know it very well.
My BOOKS, written by the most astute mind of our times, a person who, despite being undeniably brilliant, is unfailingly respectful of all persons and scrupulously  avoids ad hominem attacks!
My BOOKS, you disgusting and ignorant, diuretec dinosaur! The ones you will not let me hawk in your library! They don't exactly fly off the shelf, you know, as they should, and as they WOULD but for not your petty rules!
My BOOKS, which I pluralize because there are two, soon to be three. The third would come even sooner if I did not piddle away so much of my time here! It must be conceded, however, that I am also writing much of it here, so the relationship is symbiotic.
My BOOKS, which you will only let me display on my profile page! My BOOKs, which ought to be required reading at your pathetic library, instead of the shelves upon shelves of the great philosophers down through the ages! If any of the thoughts they thunk were worth the paper they were printed on, it would be a much better world today, wouldn't it?

My BOOKS, you old hen! You know it very well.
My BOOKS, written by the most astute mind of our times, a person who, despite being undeniably brilliant, is unfailingly respectful of all persons and scrupulously  avoids ad hominem attacks!
My BOOKS, you disgusting and ignorant, diuretec dinosaur! The ones you will not let me hawk in your library! They don't exactly fly off the shelf, you know, as they should, and as they WOULD but for not your petty rules!
My BOOKS, which I pluralize because there are two, soon to be three. The third would come even sooner if I did not piddle away so much of my time here! It must be conceded, however, that I am also writing much of it here, so the relationship is symbiotic.
My BOOKS, which you will only let me display on my profile page! My BOOKs, which ought to be required reading at your pathetic library, instead of the shelves upon shelves of the great philosophers down through the ages! If any of the thoughts they thunk were worth the paper they were printed on, it would be a much better world today, wouldn't it?

My BOOKS, you old hen! You know it very well.
My BOOKS, written by the most astute mind of our times, a person who, despite being undeniably brilliant, is unfailingly respectful of all persons and scrupulously  avoids ad hominem attacks!
My BOOKS, you disgusting and ignorant, diuretec dinosaur! The ones you will not let me hawk in your library! They don't exactly fly off the shelf, you know, as they should, and as they WOULD but for not your petty rules!
My BOOKS, which I pluralize because there are two, soon to be three. The third would come even sooner if I did not piddle away so much of my time here! It must be conceded, however, that I am also writing much of it here, so the relationship is symbiotic.
My BOOKS, which you will only let me display on my profile page! My BOOKs, which ought to be required reading at your pathetic library, instead of the shelves upon shelves of the great philosophers down through the ages! If any of the thoughts they thunk were worth the paper they were printed on, it would be a much better world today, wouldn't it?

I CHALLENGE  @The Librarian TO A DEBATE!!!!
YES, YOU HEARD ME, YOU OLD BATTLEAXE!!! A DEBATE!!!
THAT"S THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO SETTLE THIS! RIGHT HERE! RIGHT NOW!
A DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JTR WILL REFEREE!

Here's a redemption opportunity. Why did the book mention 12 out of 13 cases when only 4 decisions were handed down that day (apparently)?

I wondered what was all the fuss about this tract. Then I went to the Thursday meeting.
As to the question "What effect did the [Canadian Supreme Court] victory have on our brothers and sisters?' I replied that the jury is still out. It isn't for Canada, but it is for Russia. How comes it that this Quebec case is presented to congregations worldwide as the Russian Supreme Court is to hear our appeal? @JW Insider will know the lead time on this article, but I would be surprised if it is under two years, one at most.
Their certainly are a lot of parallels, and perhaps the Russian Court will be instructed by the Canadian Court of long ago. Perhaps it will be moved by "the Court agreed with the argument presented by the defense that "sedition" requires incitement to violence or insurrection against government. The tract, however, 'contained no such incitements and was therefore a lawful form of free speech.'" The tract in question, Quebec's Burning Hate, was considerably hotter than anything Russia has been asked to deal with.
You can be sure all is being done that can be done to ensure that relevant Russian officials are aware of this. Perhaps they will empathize, or perhaps they will be chastened by, the "trial court judge, who hated Witnesses, refused to admit evidence that proved the Bouchers' innocence." The Russian court, too, refused to admit evidence proving innocence, most notably that of police planting the 'extremist' literature that they would later 'find' and used as a pretext of arrest. 
Russia is not Canada. It cannot be shamed for denying free speech. It has not the reverence for free speech as do Western countries. There is a tendency to think that if the actual trial was a perfunctory sham, surely the appeal will be, too. But it may not be that way. The internet may prove powerful. The evidence that the Russian Court refused to see WAS seen by everyone else in the whole wide world thanks to jw.org, and this has to register. Of course, I exaggerate. It wasn't everyone. Far from it. But among legal type people and scholar type people, human-rights type people, and many a political figure, it likely was universal. The only ones who had a moral responsibility to see it are the ones who refused to see it. Surely they are embarrassed as this is brought to their attention. 
What will their response be?
 

I wondered what was all the fuss about this tract. Then I went to the Thursday meeting.
As to the question "What effect did the [Canadian Supreme Court] victory have on our brothers and sisters?' I replied that the jury is still out. It isn't for Canada, but it is for Russia. How comes it that this Quebec case is presented to congregations worldwide as the Russian Supreme Court is to hear our appeal? @JW Insider will know the lead time on this article, but I would be surprised if it is under two years, one at most.
Their certainly are a lot of parallels, and perhaps the Russian Court will be instructed by the Canadian Court of long ago. Perhaps it will be moved by "the Court agreed with the argument presented by the defense that "sedition" requires incitement to violence or insurrection against government. The tract, however, 'contained no such incitements and was therefore a lawful form of free speech.'" The tract in question, Quebec's Burning Hate, was considerably hotter than anything Russia has been asked to deal with.
You can be sure all is being done that can be done to ensure that relevant Russian officials are aware of this. Perhaps they will empathize, or perhaps they will be chastened by, the "trial court judge, who hated Witnesses, refused to admit evidence that proved the Bouchers' innocence." The Russian court, too, refused to admit evidence proving innocence, most notably that of police planting the 'extremist' literature that they would later 'find' and used as a pretext of arrest. 
Russia is not Canada. It cannot be shamed for denying free speech. It has not the reverence for free speech as do Western countries. There is a tendency to think that if the actual trial was a perfunctory sham, surely the appeal will be, too. But it may not be that way. The internet may prove powerful. The evidence that the Russian Court refused to see WAS seen by everyone else in the whole wide world thanks to jw.org, and this has to register. Of course, I exaggerate. It wasn't everyone. Far from it. But among legal type people and scholar type people, human-rights type people, and many a political figure, it likely was universal. The only ones who had a moral responsibility to see it are the ones who refused to see it. Surely they are embarrassed as this is brought to their attention. 
What will their response be?
 

"Who are they? (Genuine question)" Eoin asks.
"Corporate propaganda." I think that says it all. I appreciate the frankness. The Librarian, who is not necessarily the same, though he may be, added his site to hers and came under her umbrella, in order to ease up on the hassles of running a site himself. It's practical logistics.
This is the Grand Overlord, the Overlord of Overlords, who yanked me from the thread he or she assigned me to in the first place. The poor and stooped (but never stupid) Librarian, old sentimental hen that she is, pleaded and pleaded in my behalf, for after all, I am her pupil, even if a bad one - but it did her no good. To be sure, I had it coming. I was mean to certain ones. Frankly, I appreciate knowing the rules, even if they are not the 'rules' on my own blog, which doesn't get near the traffic of this one.
In my opinion, anyone observant of Watchtower counsel on association has a screw loose to be here. As it turns out, I do. Plus, an 'extenuating circumstance' or two, which I have previously mentioned. As near as I can see, that is true of other frequent commenters, even if those of some I think are not noble. Perhaps ones more observant of theocratic counsel in this regard, (for I am exceptionally observant in all other regards) will cut me some slack for being a 'bad boy' in view of my 'reasons,' but I would never be critical of them if they did not. The site was here long before I stumbled across it, billed (disingenuously?) as a forum for JWs, and it will be here long after I leave, if I ever do.
Hopefully, the unusual takes and sense of humor I bring will continue to be seen as 'adding value,' particularly now that I refrain from coming after certain ones with a Howitzer. There are far more apostates (some are probably just opposers - which are not the same) around here than I ever dreamed there would be when I stumbled on board - I was initially surprised to find any. I can't make myself be nice to them. I just can't. (I can with opposers) Hebrews 6:6 comes to mind. But approaching the forum with the tools that are mine, I manage to 'coexist," as the bumper sticker says. (I would make all the special characters if I knew how and had the time and interest)

It's good you have nothing to hide. You do hide your name, however. Is it truly Shiwii?

I stumbled upon the site through a Google search almost 3 years ago. I started posting on jw-archive.org, and some messages on the site asked posters there to move over to theworldnewsmedia.org. I have received 2 private messages from The Librarian, and I think I remember messaging Eoin once, but I do not know either of them, and no personal info was exchanged. I believe Eoin is likely using his real name, but I have no idea who The Librarian is, much less the aD'-MiN, whose name probably has not been pronounced correctly for several centuries. (Some say ADMIN; some use a differing vowel structure and say IDI-AMIN.) I recognize one "real" person who has posted from the area of a mid-west congregation I am familiar with. And several persons have recognized local names of particular JWs we know in common. But it's not my plan to try to ever concern myself with personal details of anyone who has not chosen to give out those personal details. (That's just about everybody.)
I think that a few people (e.g., Jay Witness) have stated some bits of the history of their affiliation with the Witnesses.

"Who are they? (Genuine question)" Eoin asks.
"Corporate propaganda." I think that says it all. I appreciate the frankness. The Librarian, who is not necessarily the same, though he may be, added his site to hers and came under her umbrella, in order to ease up on the hassles of running a site himself. It's practical logistics.
This is the Grand Overlord, the Overlord of Overlords, who yanked me from the thread he or she assigned me to in the first place. The poor and stooped (but never stupid) Librarian, old sentimental hen that she is, pleaded and pleaded in my behalf, for after all, I am her pupil, even if a bad one - but it did her no good. To be sure, I had it coming. I was mean to certain ones. Frankly, I appreciate knowing the rules, even if they are not the 'rules' on my own blog, which doesn't get near the traffic of this one.
In my opinion, anyone observant of Watchtower counsel on association has a screw loose to be here. As it turns out, I do. Plus, an 'extenuating circumstance' or two, which I have previously mentioned. As near as I can see, that is true of other frequent commenters, even if those of some I think are not noble. Perhaps ones more observant of theocratic counsel in this regard, (for I am exceptionally observant in all other regards) will cut me some slack for being a 'bad boy' in view of my 'reasons,' but I would never be critical of them if they did not. The site was here long before I stumbled across it, billed (disingenuously?) as a forum for JWs, and it will be here long after I leave, if I ever do.
Hopefully, the unusual takes and sense of humor I bring will continue to be seen as 'adding value,' particularly now that I refrain from coming after certain ones with a Howitzer. There are far more apostates (some are probably just opposers - which are not the same) around here than I ever dreamed there would be when I stumbled on board - I was initially surprised to find any. I can't make myself be nice to them. I just can't. (I can with opposers) Hebrews 6:6 comes to mind. But approaching the forum with the tools that are mine, I manage to 'coexist," as the bumper sticker says. (I would make all the special characters if I knew how and had the time and interest)