Forum participants we have known

[BTK59]

7 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

AlanF would use a sock-puppet on a forum. Wasn't his style, at all.

Do you mean people like James, Thomas, Rook, and Pudgy? Where can I find the comparison photos, JWI?

[TrueTomHarley]

13 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Oops. I thought Thinking was being humorous about AlanF and Billy the Kid, and I responded in kind

Oh, there is so much you have to learn. Trouble is, I’m not sure it’s worth knowing.

18 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Let's see if I grasp the hypocrisy. So you're saying that you refused to learn from someone who was providing accurate information in a form consistent to the ridicule and insults given to that individual by all the participants in your little exclusive club, and instead you people in the closed club chose to listen and keep in this forum a loud and disrespectful person who was sharing false information. Is this statement accurate?

Crystal. (Why couldn’t you have said, like Jack Nicholson, ‘Is that clear?!’)

[BTK59]

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

LOL. Pudgy JTR has had two names on this forum, but never used both at the same time.

So, are you implying that it's not the same individual? Wasn't that silly parrot named Tom? The question is this: a mere triviality for your playful mind.

[BTK59]

1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Crystal. 

I was just curious to understand which type of Jehovah's Witness I am interacting with. Seemingly, a rather unsatisfactory one. Now, the audience can clearly witness and comprehend exactly why individuals must steer clear of this website.

[Many Miles]

13 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Oh, there is so much you have to learn.

That is such an understatement. Problem is, there is so much to learn and we are so puny in the universe my fear is we're not sufficiently intelligent to learn what there is to know.

[Many Miles]

17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Trouble is, I’m not sure it’s worth knowing.

I'm not really that interested in whatever historical soap opera of this forum. Every social platform (including real life in-person platforms) has their share of drama, not to mention foibles we learn of individuals (including our own) along the way. Just rubbing elbows in any forum where I can learn and share is the more important thing to me.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

”Key to me is Jesus words at Matthew 11:25

At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. 

“What other topic is like that, in which young children get the sense of it but the wise and intellectual ones do not? I think it means that a person ought park his/her intellectualism at the door, because it doesn’t help. Per Jesus’ words, it may even hinder.

“In any academic topic I can think of, the wise and intellectual always have a leg up over the young children. Here, they lose out. Translation: Worship of God is not an academic subject and the biggest mistake one can make is to treat it as though it is. . . . 

“So, at least three factors exist that trump intellectualism: obedience, humility, and love. For the most part, those who frame discussion of faith as an intellectual endeavor make no mention whatsoever of these qualities.”

Children, like adults, can be wise and foolish (smart and stupid). Children, like adults, can be good and bad. Children, like adults, can be empathetic and abusive.
In Jesus' time, "children" could "understand" Jesus' teaching, because his theology did not consist of type and antitype models. His theology did not include interpretations that would change because they would prove to be wrong. His theology was not like that of Russell, Rutherford and GB.
His theology "revealed hidden things" that religious leaders obscured with their failed interpretations and ulterior motives.

If today's religious leaders would like to teach people like Jesus, then they themselves must be/become "like children". Because a "child" will understand another "child". As long as religious leaders strive to be "mature, wise and spiritual" as expected of "adults" in the context and standard set by those same religious leaders, then they will not be able to come close to the example of Jesus.

Did Jesus idealize things with his statement and comparison? Maybe.
But with such a statement he did not say that only "worldly people" or members of "Babylon the Great", i.e. those who do not believe in Him in the "right way" will be such "wise and intellectual" and therefore unacceptable to God. This is often the only explanation WTJWorg has when using this Bible quote. WTJWorg thinks of itself and its members as "children" who are "humble" to understand every thing in the Bible.

Unfortunately for all JWs, this boasted attitude is proving to be false. They have been caught many times in the trap of "their own wisdom and intellect".

[George88]

12 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Children, like adults, can be wise and foolish (smart and stupid

Srecko, you made a thought-provoking statement. Instead of pondering whether adults should engage in foolish behavior to protect their fragile egos, let's consider this: Why do people in this community prefer hearing comforting lies rather than uncomfortable truths? It appears that they crave agreement rather than facing the flaws in their beliefs, even when presented by someone who exposes those fallacies like a true Christian. This pattern of behavior can be described as nothing other than resentment.

Take, for instance. Tom and JWI's approach to identity suggests that they expect people to maintain a consistent online persona. It seems as if they believe that anyone who deviates from their established identity by their design of deletion is deserving of their contempt, as they can then easily identify the individual to discard them at any given moment.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Do you mean people like James, Thomas, Rook, and Pudgy? Where can I find the comparison photos, JWI?

I think you missed the point. A sock puppet, as you know, is used as a secondary ACTIVE account. Pudgy was the name JTR used AFTER JTR stopped using the JTR account. 

[JW Insider]

39 minutes ago, George88 said:

Tom and JWI's approach to identity suggests that they expect people to maintain a consistent online persona.

Not me. I think it can be useful for some people and sometimes can even be funny. It's often entertaining, and it can have serious uses, too. It can be revealing in interesting ways related to psychology and human interaction. I think the world and Witnesses too need to be ready for an onslaught of fake people, fake news, fake information, and no one will have the time to figure out who's really who online, or even on the news. People can scrub their own accounts and try to start fresh (like a certain NYT's "journalist" who was just outed as a propagandist for Israeli intelligence). I don't like Nikki Haley's "true ID" proposal because people use identities as protection from harassment, political persecution, religious persecution, or even from being shunned by loved ones in their local congregation over the things they are learning. 

Sock puppets don't bother me. I personally don't want to use one. But there are times when their use can be informative. I've seen you use one in a good way, even very recently, to raise a question, and make an informative comment, and sometimes that keeps a conversation going for a good purpose. It's only when people under any of their names are being obnoxious, divisive, causing dissension, being nasty, etc., that I have a problem. Also, there are some people here who don't respond well to a string of downvotes at everything they say. And there are some who use their sock puppets for no other reason than to build up their reputation with upvotes, which doesn't hurt anyone. But I don't like to see a person get discouraged or offended at constant downvotes so I will sometimes "out" a person for doing that because then they will know it's ONLY this or that person, and it's not a "real" response.

Here's an example that could feel offensive to @Arauna:

Notice that I said nothing controversial, and added that I hoped Arauna would say something to us about how she is doing these days since we hadn't heard from her in a while. But you downvoted it. Is she going to think that some new person doesn't like her and doesn't want to know how she is doing? In the past another one of your identities told her multiple times that she was foolish for disagreeing with you. She got used to that from you. So if she knows it's just you again, she won't be overly concerned. 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Now, the audience can clearly witness and comprehend

When AlanF, in full evolutionist mode, savaging anyone who ‘refused to learn,’ made a similar statement, I said, “It’s just you and me, you blowhard! plus maybe a half-dozen more. What! Do you think you are Clarence Darrow, arguing Inherit the Wind?’

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Now, the audience can clearly witness and comprehend exactly why individuals must steer clear of this website.

Quite a mission you’ve chosen for yourself. Are you having success?

’Come here, come here, gather round—so I can tell you why you shouldn’t be here!’

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Every social platform (including real life in-person platforms) has their share of drama, not to mention foibles we learn of individuals (including our own) along the way. Just rubbing elbows in any forum where I can learn and share is the more important thing to me.

Yeah. Everyone has their own reason for being here. I use the site as a writing workshop and some of what I create here later appears elsewhere in better form. Meanwhile, I rub shoulders, learn, and share, just like you. Notwithstanding some occasional trash-talking, hopefully I am never mean-spirited in doing so.

[Many Miles]

13 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Meanwhile, I rub shoulders,... hopefully I am never mean-spirited in doing so.

Tom you have treated me with vitriolic contempt with every braindead word you write! How is that not mean-spirited to those two working brain cells you're rubbing together? Did you lose one of them? LOL