TrueTomHarley

Well....it's true. But bits and bytes are cheap.
I do apologize to you, though. You are engaging with a slightly different aim and approach, and I allow myself to be distracted sometimes. I appreciate your bringing all of your talents to bear.
Sometimes I must limit my participation in this or that thread (not this one) rather than 'shooting from the hip.' If I am not prepared to follow comments reasonably closely, which I often am not - sometimes because I regard them as blowhards,  sometimes because I simply do not have the time, sometimes because I don't want to go the way of Jehosaphat, sometimes because I really ought be doing other things - I ought not intrude with flippant remarks of which I am not prepared to follow through. 
Though sometimes I throw in remarks just to see where it goes. Sometimes it goes places. Other times it dies an instant death.

"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)

"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)

Well....it's true. But bits and bytes are cheap.
I do apologize to you, though. You are engaging with a slightly different aim and approach, and I allow myself to be distracted sometimes. I appreciate your bringing all of your talents to bear.
Sometimes I must limit my participation in this or that thread (not this one) rather than 'shooting from the hip.' If I am not prepared to follow comments reasonably closely, which I often am not - sometimes because I regard them as blowhards,  sometimes because I simply do not have the time, sometimes because I don't want to go the way of Jehosaphat, sometimes because I really ought be doing other things - I ought not intrude with flippant remarks of which I am not prepared to follow through. 
Though sometimes I throw in remarks just to see where it goes. Sometimes it goes places. Other times it dies an instant death.

Well....it's true. But bits and bytes are cheap.
I do apologize to you, though. You are engaging with a slightly different aim and approach, and I allow myself to be distracted sometimes. I appreciate your bringing all of your talents to bear.
Sometimes I must limit my participation in this or that thread (not this one) rather than 'shooting from the hip.' If I am not prepared to follow comments reasonably closely, which I often am not - sometimes because I regard them as blowhards,  sometimes because I simply do not have the time, sometimes because I don't want to go the way of Jehosaphat, sometimes because I really ought be doing other things - I ought not intrude with flippant remarks of which I am not prepared to follow through. 
Though sometimes I throw in remarks just to see where it goes. Sometimes it goes places. Other times it dies an instant death.

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

"Wait, this one belongs somewhere else in the Dewey Decimal system," frets the Librarian - the old biddy, hunched over her cards. Well - yes, I guess it does.
At least it is not 'TrueTom vs anyone' (yet)

Why would not autism be counted as a modern day plague? 
Depending on your source, (I cite the most extreme for dramatic effect) what was once 1 in 10,000 has become 1 in 29.
You can reduce the numbers on both ends, especially the first, by tricks of semantics....'autism' vs 'autism spectrum,' for example. But the disparity is still astronomical. 
Given that autism victims do not die, but instead usually require lifelong care, it is but another 'plague' that will bankrupt society, even apart from its human cost.

Starting with the basics, we have a quote like the following from the source: "The Divine Name Yahweh" already mentioned above. For ease of reading I'll transliterate instead of merely trying to reproduce Hebrew and Greek characters.
THE proper name for God as the covenant God of Israel is represented by the tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH). The original pronunciation is uncertain. By inference from its contracted forms in compound names -- יו (YW) or יהו (YHW) at the beginning, or יה (YH) or יהו (YHW) at the end1 -- it appears to have been pronounced Yahweh, and this is confirmed by independent testimony to its transliteration as 'Iabe2 or 'Iaoue.3 The tetragrammaton occurs some 5321 times in the OT and a separate short form of the divine name  יה (YH), 25 times.4
We count 6,823 instances of YHWH rather than 5,321. But in general we agree with the ideas mentioned. The Foreword in the1950 NWT says that Yahweh is preferred as more accurate, although Jehovah is kept for recognizability and consistency.
The footnotes included in this quote might be good for future reference:
1For the philological reasons for connecting these forms with יהוה, see J. Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Sprache, p. 611; B. Stade, Hebrew Grammar, par. 113; S. R. Driver, Studia Biblica, 1, pp. 4-6.
2Pronounced so by the Samaritans according to Theodoret of Cyros. See Quaestio 15 in Exod 7: kalousi de auto Samareitei IABE, 'Ioudaioi de AIA
3So Clement of Alexandria. See Strom. 5, 6, 34: to tetragrammon onoma to musticon ho periekeinto hois monois to aduton basimon en legetai de 'Iaoue.
4The forms יהו and יהה (probably erroneous) are found in the Elephantine Papyri.
I should mention that it's likely that in a discussion of this type, that either form, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," will be used interchangeably. I prefer Jehovah as a common usage pronunciation, but as stated in another recent thread even the Watch Tower publications have said that Yah-weh' is likely more accurate:
*** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 ***
While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'"
as the more correct way, we have retained the form
"Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since
the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with
other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton
JHVH.
 
 

How good is the evidence that the Christian Scriptures contained YHWH or some variation of that Divine Name?
There are probably some non-JWs who believe that there is absolutely no reason at all to even entertain the possibility, and there are probably some JWs who believe manuscripts have already been found with YHWH in the NT.  For most of us, the real answer lies somewhere in between. There is a lot of good research on the issue, and this research might be interesting to some of us, whether or not it is compelling enough for anyone to change their mind.
A previous discussion on the topic became very long and veered off into other topics, too. Hopefully, this attempt will not result in multiple topics or judgmental attitudes about people, and we can focus on the validity of the research itself.
If anyone wishes to participate, they should feel free to copy anything they wrote in a previous thread. A topic about YHWH in the NT will likely also include topics about the pronunciation of YHWH, YHWH in the OT (LXX, Masoretic, DSS, and other manuscripts), the earliest NT and OT meanings of "name," historical linguistic trends, Greek abbreviations, NT translations, usage by early "Ante-Nicene Fathers," and the various alternatives to YHWH, and comments made by anyone else that might seem partly relevant or interesting (Philo, Josephus, Ebionites, Talmud, Gnostics, etc.). It's still a big topic.
The arguments that many find relevant are found in Gerard Gertoux, which can be seen here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf
He references G. Howard, of course, which might even be a better place to start. (HOWARD, Biblical Archaeology Review Vol IV, No. 1). His ideas can be found online here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3265328?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
 

I will not, for I can already spot a dissimilarity. Pedophile victims survive. First Degree Murder victims do not.
Moreover, pedophile victims frequently recover. This is especially true when we are dealing with the non-violent, non-rape pedophilia which hysterical persons lump all together as one with the more infrequent predator sort.
Ancient Greece, as you well know, with all of your 'founding father' comments, is regarded as the cradle of Western civilization,  the first glimmerings of democracy. The sexual abuse of children was a staple of life among those perverts. Had it been First Degree Murder, instead, there would be no Greece and hence no Western civilization deriving from it.

Well, if he's going to post it, he's going to post it. I suspect you (or I) will not be able to talk him out of it. Even the Librarian is afraid of him.

Despite commenting on this thread, I only skimmed it. If heat built up, I don't know about it. It is hard for heat not to build up when discussing the Trinity too for long. I wasn't being critical of you for engaging in the discussion for as long as your like. I have done it myself. I just don't do it anymore. It wears me out. So that means the following excerpt is tongue-in-cheek:
"All computers enjoy getting Tom Pearlsnswine going. I understand the appeal. I do it myself. If I am returning to the car after a long and productive return visit, I will nonetheless say to Tom Pearlsnswine upon entering: “I can’t believe that person won’t admit that Jesus and Jehovah are different!” I pretend not to notice as he reddens – you should see him! You can almost see the steam coming from his ears: “You kept me waiting an hour to argue the Trinity?!”
I didn't really agree to disagree with O'Maly. Instead, I went after her (and her chums) with such ferocity that the same admin who assigned me to that thread pulled me off it, hurled me into the abyss, and the entire thread with it.
I have a Scarlet A (abuse) to show for it, and I wear it as did Hester Prynne (hers was for adultery) from The Scarlet Letter. Like Hester Prynne, it fades in its initial shamefulness, and eventually is taken by some as 'angel.'

By any chance, does the Watchtower's time & temp &Read the Bible Daily sign stay up as an item of historical significance? You can't remove a shingle around here if it has been deemed historical.

Tempting though it may be to say such things, in the light of what has happened, Russia would regard this statement itself as being 'political.' Seen through their eyes (which we should always try to do with anyone....okay, almost anyone) their intransigence is not totally baseless. 
Emily Baran's book details how all the typical religious reasons accounted for atheistic Soviet Russia persecuting Jehovah's Witnesses. But there were additional ones. The Communists regarded us also as a political movement disguised as a religion. If that seems paranoid, consider that such views were held during the cold war, the most paranoid of times, when anything from the West (like Brooklyn) was held in deep suspicion by the East, and vice versa. 
Early JW works occasionally picked up on Western terminology, such as 'iron curtain,' which the Soviets themselves would never use. Too, the Soviets got stuck being 'the king of the north,' who puts trust in 'the god of fortresses.' The book of the 1930's, 'Government,' lambasted Soviet communism as 'doomed to fail.' Of course, it said the same about democracy, for its point was the inferiority of all human government, not one in particular, but atheistic Russia could hardly be expected to pick up on the nuances, and they didn't.
These days the antagonism against us is mostly stirred up by the Church, as it always is. But the latent distrust of Witnesses from the political days has never vanished. Indeed, even during the 25 years of Jehovah's Witnesses operating as a 'legal' religion there, the government has never acknowledged the mass deportations of our brothers to Siberia in the 40's and 50's.
So while there are some here who 'spill' more than I would, even assuming I had stuff to spill, they are not the ones who will get us into hot water with Russia.

Nice as newbie N is, he will get his head handed to him on a platter if he does not explore the nuances here before putting in his loyal comment. Ah, well....that's the mark of a newbie. I have misread things far more myself.
'Toto, something tells me we're not in Kansas anymore.'

I am not even willing to accede the moral high ground to these anti-pedophile zealots. Let them claim some progress before we do that. They have succeeded in shaming people, punishing many, and wallpapering the world with sex registry lists. Let them attain some progress in stopping child abuse before we rush to proclaim them heroes.
Though not parallel in all respects, the following is parallel in more ways than not: Nobody claims victory over drugs because many dealers and users have been sent to jail. Instead, they realize that taking out a drug dealer clears the way for ten waiting to take his place. They realize that ever more potent drugs are being devised, and ever more ways to ensnare people. They don’t crow that they are stopping drug abuse; instead, they realize they’re getting their heads handed to them on a platter.
So far, pedophilia is following the same pattern as drug abuse. Ever more sordid and vicious forms are being devised. Persons respected, in various walks of life, are continually being exposed, yet they simply are replaced by others. Those who must track child sexual abuse online in the course of their job describe it as Medusa – one look and it turns you to stone. Moreover, the fight against pedophilia is mostly confined to monied lands. Few care in non-monied lands, as you pointed out.
It is ever like the zealots of this world to charge around loudly, point fingers everywhere, punish some, shame others, and then, on the basis of their good intentions alone, claim victory. Let them actually achieve victory before we hail them as modern saviors.
Let them come to grips with the causes of pedophilia. In a world that relentlessly pushes sex into ever expanding frontiers, crossing same-sex lines, encouraging lifestyles of multiple, ever changing lovers, embracing sexual activity of kids at ages younger and younger, hailing new exciting sexual positions and methods, it is unlikely to find success declaring every form of sex fine and wonderful except ONE THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! The best defense will be the continual Bible training at the Kingdom Hall to keep yourself clean of every sort of fleshly defilement, to be had from the one religion training its members to properly integrate sexuality into their personalities – as neither the focus or life nor something to be frowned upon in its proper context. Ones of that religion should be portrayed as the heroes in this drama (even if flawed), never the villains.
 

I will not, for I can already spot a dissimilarity. Pedophile victims survive. First Degree Murder victims do not.
Moreover, pedophile victims frequently recover. This is especially true when we are dealing with the non-violent, non-rape pedophilia which hysterical persons lump all together as one with the more infrequent predator sort.
Ancient Greece, as you well know, with all of your 'founding father' comments, is regarded as the cradle of Western civilization,  the first glimmerings of democracy. The sexual abuse of children was a staple of life among those perverts. Had it been First Degree Murder, instead, there would be no Greece and hence no Western civilization deriving from it.

I will not, for I can already spot a dissimilarity. Pedophile victims survive. First Degree Murder victims do not.
Moreover, pedophile victims frequently recover. This is especially true when we are dealing with the non-violent, non-rape pedophilia which hysterical persons lump all together as one with the more infrequent predator sort.
Ancient Greece, as you well know, with all of your 'founding father' comments, is regarded as the cradle of Western civilization,  the first glimmerings of democracy. The sexual abuse of children was a staple of life among those perverts. Had it been First Degree Murder, instead, there would be no Greece and hence no Western civilization deriving from it.

Celebrate your birthday, then.

I am not even willing to accede the moral high ground to these anti-pedophile zealots. Let them claim some progress before we do that. They have succeeded in shaming people, punishing many, and wallpapering the world with sex registry lists. Let them attain some progress in stopping child abuse before we rush to proclaim them heroes.
Though not parallel in all respects, the following is parallel in more ways than not: Nobody claims victory over drugs because many dealers and users have been sent to jail. Instead, they realize that taking out a drug dealer clears the way for ten waiting to take his place. They realize that ever more potent drugs are being devised, and ever more ways to ensnare people. They don’t crow that they are stopping drug abuse; instead, they realize they’re getting their heads handed to them on a platter.
So far, pedophilia is following the same pattern as drug abuse. Ever more sordid and vicious forms are being devised. Persons respected, in various walks of life, are continually being exposed, yet they simply are replaced by others. Those who must track child sexual abuse online in the course of their job describe it as Medusa – one look and it turns you to stone. Moreover, the fight against pedophilia is mostly confined to monied lands. Few care in non-monied lands, as you pointed out.
It is ever like the zealots of this world to charge around loudly, point fingers everywhere, punish some, shame others, and then, on the basis of their good intentions alone, claim victory. Let them actually achieve victory before we hail them as modern saviors.
Let them come to grips with the causes of pedophilia. In a world that relentlessly pushes sex into ever expanding frontiers, crossing same-sex lines, encouraging lifestyles of multiple, ever changing lovers, embracing sexual activity of kids at ages younger and younger, hailing new exciting sexual positions and methods, it is unlikely to find success declaring every form of sex fine and wonderful except ONE THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! The best defense will be the continual Bible training at the Kingdom Hall to keep yourself clean of every sort of fleshly defilement, to be had from the one religion training its members to properly integrate sexuality into their personalities – as neither the focus or life nor something to be frowned upon in its proper context. Ones of that religion should be portrayed as the heroes in this drama (even if flawed), never the villains.
 

Who doesn't?
Besides, you know full well that beheading is no more than an auxiliary point, nowhere presented as the main reason. These days (thankfully) it recedes even more as a factor when the subject is discussed.
(just in case you are on to something, though, I haven't taken a nap since I read your words)

Not many people do this. I like it. Micah goes up a few notches in my book. [No, not THAT book, you old hag of a Librarian...sheesh! And why don't you mind your own business about how long a thread is? Those trashy romance novels you read all day aren't exactly short, are they?]
It's how I try to operate, as well. Make the best case you can. But there comes a point where you throw it all in God's lap; he knows if he is a trinity or not.
Sometimes people disagree. I can live with that. 

Nice as it is to see our literature cart on the scene, it would have been nicer still to have seen the terrorist leafing through a magazine, stroking his chin thoughtfully, and then snipping the wire on his bomb suit and walking home, magazine in hand.
 

It's an olive branch. I'll take it. I'm not always kind to you. Thank you.