Similarities with what is going on today.

[Arauna]

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

ust tells me, you're afraid of him!

Fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom!  Not of people..... 

[Arauna]

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

no one here has the expertise to challenge him on a serious bible discussion.

That was only his personal opinion.  If I recall correctly he had a lot of verbal abuse - and he went too far!    None of us wanted him off!   The only reason people are kicked off here is when they really go over the boundaries of mild abuse to extreme abuse. 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

You can spin it anyway you want. Now, you are twisting your own words. The point being, you, Anna, TTH, and many others have asked the Librarian to ban people, mainly Allen Smith, that can't even use his own name because it is permanently blocked by whatever means.

Alright. Let me be even clearer. I have never even tried to get you banned. I have never even tried to get any account of anyone banned. I have never tried to get any of your account names banned. I have never tried to get any variation of the account name "Allen Smith"  banned.

I was opposed to having the "Allen Smith" account(s) banned, and still am. I wish they could bring it back. I was also surprised (and annoyed) that they just removed almost all the content that you had contributed. Much of it was very valuable and I could tell you had put a lot of thought into it. I thought this was most unfair.

5 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

and criticize why many accounts have been made.

I do understand where one could get the impression that I was trying to get various new names banned, because I would point out when a new account was really just Allen Smith coming back under a new name. I think you figured that if Allen Smith was banned, then I could have only ONE reason to point out that, "Billy The Kid" for example, was the same person/account. You thought that was to try to get the new account banned.

It wasn't the reason, ever. I never pointed it out until after I made it clear that I never wanted "Allen Smith" banned in the first place. Also, you might not have noticed that I never even pointed this out until waiting several weeks watching how you would handle your new account. (Your early new accounts made it obvious since they were often just "AllenSmith" with a number attached at the end.) It was when other people noticed that additional accounts also sounded like you that I chimed in with ways that any of us could verify that those suspicions were true. Also I noticed that you would come very close to denying that these accounts were the same person, but without directly lying about it. I have to admit that this would irritate me, so I wold call you out with evidence that would confirm the suspicions others were having. But I would not immediately point out new accounts that were yours because I figured you might use one of more to really attempt a fresh start. (By that, I mean not so often trying to be divisive and negative and insulting about others.) When you would get right back into making ugly, insulting and judgmental accusations, I would begin to point out that what you were doing, without waiting for someone else to raise the suspicion first.

Since I've gone on this long, I might as well clear up one other thing, too. You have many times complained that I made fun of your various spelling and grammar mistakes. I always denied this, because I thought I was being so careful never to make fun of any of those things. I realized later why you thought I was making fun of you, and why you thought I was lying whenever I denied it. It's because pointing out these "consistencies" was a way to easily identify your accounts. I was pointing out various consistent spelling errors and grammar quirks across several of the accounts that I already knew were you for other reasons.  For me, I never thought of this as making fun. I never thought of it as a way to show superiority of grammar, as you claimed. It was just a very useful way of confirming suspicions. And you may recall that it was actually others who first pointed out a couple of these points (e.g., excessive commas, etc.) but I did "pile on," as they say, and have pointed out about a dozen other indicators, over the years.

I thought that others should know where you were coming from, and why you spent so much time complaining about why Allen Smith had been banned, for example, when it was off topic. So, yes, I have often "piled on" and provided some of the reasons that I recognized your accounts.

Now that I have said this, I think I can make a promise I'll try not to break. It's this: I will do my best to avoid the subject of multiple accounts altogether. I won't point out any reasons again about accounts that are run by the same person as other accounts.

[Anna]

5 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Anna, TTH, and many others have asked the Librarian to ban people

I have never asked the Librarian to ban anyone. 

One thing I would like to know; why do you write G-d? Are you a secret Jew? There is no good reason if you are a JW. Well actually there is no good reason for a Jew either, only something they made up. Why do you do it?

[Pudgy]

 

 

I don’t think Allen to Walter will be happy until his next name is Zod, and you bow down before him and grovel, admitting everything is everybody else’s fault.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Ya know guys, trying to read all this rubbish is more painful than the 4 hours I've just spent in A&E. I've been told to take the meds and just rest, so I came on here. But this is all so, well, pathetic. 

I hope you are all well  . 

[TrueTomHarley]

15 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Ya know guys, trying to read all this rubbish is more painful than the 4 hours I've just spent in A&E

I can think of a solution to that little problem.

[Arauna]

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I won't point out any reasons again about accounts that are run by the same person as other accounts.

No - I think us plebs want to know when people are trying to bamboozle us.  I get suspicious when I see the same characteristics in the writing. But I do not like to do that kind of research....to see who it is. So I welcome it when someone points out that someone is toying with us - which is a deceit and unchristian.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

No - I think us plebs want to know when people are trying to bamboozle us.  I get suspicious when I see the same characteristics in the writing. But I do not like to do that kind of research....to see who it is. So I welcome it when someone points out that someone is toying with us - which is a deceit and unchristian.

Well I would change my name back to my real name if it was allowed, and I still have no idea who banned me or why. 

Being banned without even one warning does give a person a good reason to come back with a false name, and in my case I was not allowed to return using my real name. If the forum boss had contacted me before banning me maybe the situation could have been sorted out.  Billy the Kid on here pretending that I was threatening the GB then total ban, no warning. The Boss Elders (or higher ranks) run their forum as they see fit, which is fair enough. And other 'admin types' here, it seems, can alter people's comments, move comments, remove comments, so who is to know what is genuine or not. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I welcome it when someone points out that someone is toying with us - which is a deceit and unchristian.

Uh oh.

”Hey, you guys keep it down back there!” TTH hollered to A Nice Guy, Dr. Adhominem, Bill Ding, Tom Foolery, Dr. Max “Ace” Inhibitor, and a host of others.

[Arauna]

1 hour ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Being banned without even one warning does give a person a good reason to come back with a false name,

I agree, one should at least get a warning that one is overstepping the line.  I myself have overstepped the line I set for myself, so I can feel for you.  I think it happens when someone specifically was badly targeted in an abusive way for a period of time and the victim said something on the thread itself.  It need not necessarily be a private complaint. 

So I hope you can continue here and be your normal  self. ...even if we do not always agree. 

[JW Insider]

When posts get flagged for deletion, moderators, including me, can still see the posts with a pink background. When I see one of these I capture the screen, because there are always going to be people who say that words might have been changed, that moderators edited things, etc. And when a post disappears people can make up anything about who said what first, or whether they got a warning or not. It's just a simple key press and I've captured a screen, and I never even look at it. I have about 1,000 of these.

What happened to @Patiently waiting for Truth (PWFTT) was unfortunate, because it started with a discussion of God's judgment on the GB. I think the Librarian realized that religious discussion is often about life and death judgments that will be carried out by angels or Jehovah himself. They shouldn't be confused with personal threats. But a rather harsh-sounding judgmental post was flagged (by BillyTheKid) and this was treated as a kind of warning, after which, since PWFTT didn't back down, he lost his entire account. What makes this unfair, in my opinion, is that just a day or so ago, WalterPrescott told PWFTT that he should get his demons exorcised, and he and others have often indicated that he will not survive Armageddon, to which PWFTT has several times replied that he expects to die in this system anyway, and does not expect even to be resurrected.

One last time, I'll post what was considered the warning, and if you know who "BillyTheKid" was, it will make more sense. When legal intervention is threatened, I think that account owners and perhaps some moderators, too, will prefer to play it safe, and just delete offending posts and sometimes offending accounts, too. BTK also lost his account a while later for what was considered abusive behavior.