His replies are just getting weaker..Now he is merely trying to use a highly contested scholarly opinion (Revelation was written before 70 ce) as some kind of absolute proof against 3rd's position.

If only his ego would let him quit before it gets too ugly.

This message was deleted at

AlanF is the superficial super-scholar idiot who once argued with me when I said that modern Hebrew is written without vowels.

It's a shame to have to pretend to know something about everything, even when you don't.

LoL..... Did he really? The same AlanF who claimed he took Furuli to task on Bgreek over "parousia".... The "nintendo scholar" should stick to his profession.

Yes, it was Der Fuehrer...er, Feuerbacher himself. Did he really try to take on Furuli? I missed that one. I'm sure the actuality was that Furuli chewed him up and spat him out.

Electronics is one thing, Biblical Greek is a different ball game.....

Solomon

"nintendo scholar"

LOL

I heard Fred Hall gave him and a hard time too. A while back AlanF tried to dabate with Furuli regarding chronology but, AlanF backed off. Also, AlanF is known for using profanity especially when he is wrong on issues.

abrother

This message was last edited at

AlanF said: A guy in the Public Relations Office was similarly unaware and said that he was sure that they would soon be informed. Harry Peloyan became so upset that I dared to call him that he was almost unable to speak, and delivered a rambling monolog on the nerve of us evil apostates in making a molehill out of a mountain (he corrected himself). Ciro Aulicino simply said, "I won't talk to you" and hung up the phone. Those were the most memorable phone calls I made, and others were pretty much the same: No one outside the Writing Department and Governing Body knew anything about the Society's having joined itself to the U.N.

Here he claims Ciro Aulicino hung up the phone on him. I wonder if AlanF used his typical style of communicating like calling him a moron, liar, idiot, and retard. Did he learn these communicating skills from MIT? I rather doubt it. I know someone from MIT and he doesn't speak this way. It just must be part of AlanF's character or lack thereof.

This message was last edited at

Hey ThirdWitness, has AlanF kept his word about showing you Lloyd Barry's signature on the NGO/DPI application form? He claims he has seen it.

I think AlanF sees a lot of things that do not exist.

All

Believe me, AlanF does alot of talking but, it is not coming out of his mouth. Do you know what I mean?

I think AlanF is showing his desperation that nobody is paying him any attention, except people as hate-filled, self-serving, and deranged as he is.

Why do these people think any intelligent, loyal Witness is going to get upset about a library card? Those who do were probably looking for any reason at all to find fault in the first place.

This issue is simply not substantial. Even if it was a mistake, it was an honest one. To resort to such a shoddy, inconsequential matter on which to hinge their failing efforts to "bring down the Watchtower" just shows what fools they be.

Solomon

This message was last edited at

I guess AlanF is an example to all JWs of how all these so-called "apostates" we persecute are really humble, christian, truth-seekers.

(End of sarcasm)

Solomon

I agree with you one hundred percent. If it was a mistake then, it was an honest one. My thought in the begining that probably the brothers made a mistake. If so, who is perfect?

I think some want have an excuse to leave the truth and when they find something that they don't agree or find out that brothers made mistakes then, they are out the the door.

abrother

personally I think if it was a mistake, then it was a mistake "in retrospect" ...in other words, if it were possible to anticipate what your critics are going to make out of something ahead of time, then to not avoid it would be a "mistake" ...and really who would've thought that critics would seize on their "registration".. and by the time these critics are done, they've spun it into joining as in membership. I personally wouldn't have foresaw that ...maybe others would...I know I wouldn't have....

I agree with Solomon and abrother too

... and as they say hindsight is 20-20 ....

This message was last edited at

New chronology from playstation scholar. I call it "xBox chronology". It claims "Jews returned from exile in 538 BCE. "

Wow. Now WTBTS will definitely fall.



This message was last edited at

For those who do not go to JWD, I thought you might enjoy the last exchange between AlanF and myself where he proved himself an outright liar. Here are the last few posts I made answering him.

AlanF words in italics.

This is a strawman for two reasons:

(1) Whether an agreement can be produced, or was even explicitly made, is immaterial to the fact that the U.N. itself has always considered acceptance of associated NGO status as an implicit acceptance of all of the clearly published criteria.

An agreement cannot be produced. That is the point. Try getting a loan by just filling out an application without signing an agreement as to how the loan will be paid back.

and (2) Thirdwitness deliberately misrepresents what I said. What I said was that the act of applying for Associated NGO status constitutes an agreement to abide by the criteria, whereas he turns this act into another sort of agreement (apparently he is demanding a written agreement). But the very act of accepting the Associated NGO status IS the agreement.

The act of accepting the associated status means that the DPI has determined that the NGO meets the criteria. Therefore if the DPI says the criteria is to 'support' the charter of the UN (which by the way is not worded that way in the 1994 brochure) it does not mean what you say it means. The DPI has determined what it means by accepting that NGO.

Did the Watchtower Society, by its acceptance of Associated NGO status and various other actions, agree to abide by criteria such as promoting and respecting all aspects of the U.N. Charter? Indeed it did,

Then show us that agreement signed by Lloyd Barry that you said you saw. Show us the original application signed by Lloyd Barry that you said you saw. Or even show us a blank application with a place for a signature agreeing to support the UN. Are you a liar? So it would appear.

First, I've already shown via U.N. materials, in my post # 4761 on page 21 of this thread, that the U.N. considers that the "very act of applying for Associated NGO status, when the criteria clearly state that such application is an agreement to promote and respect the U.N. Charter, constitutes an agreement to abide by the criteria."

I notice you use quotation marks here when you say, "very act of applying for Associated NGO status, when the criteria clearly state that such application is an agreement to promote and respect the U.N. Charter, constitutes an agreement to abide by the criteria." as if you are quoting some UN statement. Is that true? Or are you once again using an old wiley apostate tactic making things appear different from what they really are in an attempt to mislead the readers.

When any NGO applies for association, it receives a pile of written material explaining the Associated NGO's responsibilities, which include things like promoting and respecting the principles of the U.N. Charter. Therefore, if an Associated NGO claims ignorance of the requirements, it is lying.

That is an assumption on your part. Especially back in 1992. There has not been a brochure shown from 1992 and it is even doubtful that the WTS was sent such a brochure. And we know for sure that the 1994 brochure did not say 'support the principles and charter of the UN'. So yes the criteria did indeed change between 1994 and 2001 at least in the wording on the brochure. As for 1992, who knows how much it changed from then until 1994.

To mislead their readers, many critics of Jehovah's Witnesses, such as AlanF, quote from the current version of the DPI's NGO brochure and falsely claim that those requirements are what the Watchtower Society originally signed up to in 1991. The requirements given by the brochure for the DPI's NGOs include the requirement that the NGO "must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN". Critics quote this brochure as the “proof” that the Society secretly knew they were supporting the United Nations in all their endeavors. They claim that this requirement was in place since before 1991, and has remained unchanged ever since. Is this claim true?

No. The critics are lying. They simply hope that you won't think too much about it, and that you won't delve a little deeper and discover the evidence that the NGO world has changed considerably since 1991. We do not have the brochure from 1991, but we do have a copy of the 1994 brochure, which is considerably different from the current version which the apostates quote.

In fact, the 1994 brochure even testifies to the very fact the requirements and expectations of the DPI's NGOs were changing. Page six of the 1994 document says this:

“A new relationship between the UN and NGOs is now being created. We have seen this new relationship begin to mature. NGOs are taking on important new responsibilities.”

Indeed, the above statement proved accurate. For if we compare the current (2005) brochure to the 1994 brochure, we see major changes. For example, the 2005 brochure says the following:

“What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles;”

Apostates often use the above quote, and repeat it endlessly as “proof” of the Watchtower Society's support of the UN. Yet this appears in the 2005 brochure, do we know if it appears in the older brochures? We already stated that we have a copy of the 1994 brochure, so does that phrase appear there? No, not at all. On the contrary, in the 1994 brochure we find that the above statement has replaced the following original statement:

“Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”

Notice the difference. In 2005, NGOs must support the principles of the UN Charter. In 1994, the NGOs must simply share the same ideals.

Some have pointed to page 7 of the 1994 brochure where it says, that for the NGO must show that they "can prove, during the initial two years of association with DPI, that they support the United Nations by featuring U.N. information in their publications and outreach activity."

It does not say support the UN by supporting the principles and charter of the UN. It does not say support the UN by supporting all their endeavors. The support spoken of is by writing articles about the UN. In other words the word support as defined in Websters dictionary in this case means 'to provide corroborating information'.

And remember it is the DPI that determines themselves whether they believe an NGO meets their criteria. The DPI looks at the information and decides themselves. So they are the ones who determine exactly what they mean when they use the word support.

More to come.

This message was last edited at

What does it mean to 'support' the UN as used by the DPI in stating their criteria. Well, remember Oleg Dzioubinski, Information Officer of the DPI told us that Ngo's with the DPI 'can criticize the UN'. And remember Isolda Oca also of the DPI talked to an opposers of JWs and even the opposer admitted that "the gist of the conversation was... 1) It is not unusual for organizations that are in disagreements with the United Nations to become an NGO with them." We know this thanks to the efforts of a known apostate which many of you have relied on for you WT/NGO/DPI/UN information, Randy.

But keep in mind, that all of the above is based on the 1994 brochure, not the 1991 or 1992 brochure if one does exist. There is evidence that NGOs were not always sent brochures. Did the WTS receive a brochure when registering with the DPI in 1991 or 1992?

In 1999 the Secretary-General published a report in which he stressed the need for a brochure to be sent to all NGOs:

“It was also proposed that each NGO should receive an orientation/welcome booklet and/or session upon obtaining formal status with the UN. The information should include specifics about the NGO liaison offices in the UN system, including names, contacts, locations. The booklet should reinforce mutual rights and responsibilities, as well as practical guidelines for the functioning of NGOs within physical structures and protocols of the UN, including how to follow debates and so forth.” — Section 24

We wonder why in 1999 the Secretary General should have “proposed” that each NGO should receive a welcome booklet or brochure including “specifics” about the UN system and “practical guidelines” and “protocols” for NGOs, if the NGOs were already receiving such a booklet prior to this.

Perhaps receipt of this booklet was sporadic, perhaps it was not sent every year. Perhaps the Watchtower Society didn't even receive one when their status was granted in 1992. What is certain, however, is that they certainly did not receive the 2005 brochure which opposers constantly quote from — the Society couldn't have possibly received that version 13 years earlier, for we know it's contents have changed. When opposers quote from the 2005 version as proof that the Watchtower Society supported the UN — they are simply wrong. Whatever was said in the 1991 brochure which the Society received — if they received one at all — it certainly did not say that. Further, when it is claimed the NGO requirements did not change, this is also clearly wrong for the UN has said they changed.

Continuing on with AlanF's comments which are in italics.

Second, in various communications from U.N. official Paul Hoeffel, including and especially one dated 4-March-2004 (UN_Letter_4_Mar_2004.pdf"> http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/UN_Letter_4_Mar_2004.pdf ), Hoeffel explained the U.N.'s official stance regarding the Watchtower organization's acceptance for Associated NGO status with the DPI:

By accepting association with DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities. . .


This seems like pretty damning evidence, doesn't it. However, we must remember that these statements were made in 2004 and after the fact. As we saw earlier, in no place on any of the forms signed by the Society was anything said about “support and respect of the principles” of the UN charter. Those statements simply are not there on the original forms even though AlanF lies and says that he saw an original application signed by Lloyd Barry. Some may deny it, but the facts speak for themselves.

Why did Mr Hoeffel not make it plain and state that the 1991 forms did include such requirements and show us these requirements on those 1991 forms? Why does Mr. Hoeffel not supply us with the agreement used by his office in 1991 showing where the officer of the WTS would have signed agreeing to meet the criteria that he states? That would have been definitive proof. Why doesn't he send us the 1992 brochure instead of quoting information from a 2004 brochure? Can it be because the 1991 forms have no such agreement and that the 1992 brochure has no such criteria of 'supporting the principles and charter of the UN'? So far, that has proven to be the case for no one has brought forth those documents although AlanF lies and says that he saw an original application signed by Lloyd Barry.

Who really is being untrustworthy and trying to “hide the facts”? Is it the Watchtower Society, whose explanation agrees with the 1991 evidence? Or is it not the DPI, and opposers like AlanF, who has wrongly insinuated that the criteria to support the UN as a DPI NGO was on the original application — when we know for a fact that it was not?

Third, in its letter to Branch Committees of 1 November 2001, the Watchtower Society implicitly admits that it knew about the criteria for association:The Criteria for Association of NGOs -- at least in their latest version -- contain language that we cannot subscribe to. When we realized this, we immediately withdrew our registration.

If the Society can compare the latest version of the "Criteria for Association of NGOs" with the supposedly different version that existed when it applied for association in 1991, and conclude that the new version contains "language that we cannot subscribe to" whereas the old version did not, then obviously the Society must have known exactly what those earlier criteria were.This, of course, immediately raises the question of why the Society has never produced a copy of the supposedly different earlier criteria so that people can check if it is telling the truth. But because various U.N. staffers and others have shown that the 1991 criteria remained essentially the same through 2001, the Society obviously does not want to contribute to another expose of its lying.

The WTS has clearly answered these questions and have stated that they signed nothing that compromised their beliefs. They know exactly what was on the original forms and so yes they can accurately compare what they signed with the latest version of the criteria in the 2001 brochure. None of the forms say that the NGO 'must support the principles and charter of the UN'. That is not on the original application, that is not on the later accreditation forms, and that is not even in the 1994 brochure. The language did defnitely change as respects the criteria stated by the DPI.

We have proof that it changed from 1994 to 2001. The 1994 brochure says: “Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;” The 2001 brochure says: “What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles;” Did the language in the different brochures change or not? Why, yes, obviously it did. The WTS did not lie. And that is only comparing the 1994 brochure with the 2001 brochure. Much less the 1992 brochure if it even does exist.


Can anyone show any forms that the WTS would have signed which showed that they agreed to support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN? No they cannot. How then can you call them a liar. Anyone who calls them a liar does so without any evidence and therefore they are either mistaken themselves or are exactly what they accuse the WTS of being, an outright liar.

After the application is reviewed by the DPI, the DPI determines for themselves if the NGO meets their criteria or not.That is a separate issue. Both the UN/DPI and the NGO separately agree that NGO meets the acceptance criteria. Otherwise the NGO would not bother to apply -- unless, of course, the NGO was attempting to deceive the DPI into granting it Associated NGO status while knowing full well that it did not meet the criteria. You actually seem to be arguing that the Watchtower engaged in such deception of the DPI. Nevertheless, the DPI's issuance of a letter of acceptance constitutes its acceptance of the NGO's submitted evidence that it meets the criteria, and the NGO's acceptance of the acceptance letter constitutes its acceptance of the DPI's judgment that it meets the criteria.: The NGO does not agree to meet their criteria.Nonsense.

You are partly correct. If an NGO feels like it meets the criteria they ask for an application. If the DPI determines that they do indeed meet their criteria then they send them an application. It is the DPI that makes the final determination. Thus in 1994 it was the DPI that made the determination as to what they themselves meant by 'sharing the ideals of the UN'. In 2001, after the language or wording had changed, they would have made the determination as to what they meant by 'supporting the principles and charter of the UN'. In 1992 they would have made the determination based on the then criteria.

Did they ever mean an NGO must agree with everything the UN does? No, because as Oleg and the woman officer stated NGO's can criticize and even NGO's that dissagree with the UN have registered with the DPI. Does it mean the NGO's must support the UN in everything they do? No, they share their ideals in only the fields which are "in accordance with its own aims and purposes and the nature and scope of its competence and activities.” That is what the UN/ECOSOC has said. The DPI has never said anything different and have apparently even accepted NGO's which dissagree with and criticize them. They accepted the WTS didn't they? The DPI apparently felt that since the WTS shares the ideals of human rights, liberties, and non-discrimination, that they met the criteria.

I did not say that Barry signed a document specifically agreeing to support the U.N.

It is a good thing or you would have shown yourself to be even more of a liar.

I said that he signed an application document, the signing of which is an implicit agreement to support the U.N. Charter, according to all materials given to applicant NGOs by the DPI.

Yes, you did say that and you have not provided that application document. Are you a liar? Where is this promised document? AlanF, is it time to call you a liar. Can you even show us an application that required a signature where Lloyd Barry would have signed his name?

But you know what? I can provide an application for NGOs with the ECOSOC which the WTS did not fill out because they did not apply for association with the ECOSOC. And on that application there is a place for a signature with an agreement of support. Let me show you. http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/ Click on forms and documents and then click on application in English.

The first page says:

United Nations Nations Unies
NGO SECTION, DESA
1 UN Plaza, Room DC1-1480, New York, NY 10017
tel: (212) 963-8652 / fax: (212) 963-9248

Application for Consultative Status
with the Economic and Social Council

The last page says:

I/we declare that I/we have answered the questions contained in this form to
the best of my/our knowledge.

I/we declare, that if granted consultative status, my/our organization will act
in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and ECOSOC resolution 1996/31.

The undersigned signature/es is/are duly authorized to sign this declaration.

(Signature)

Name(s) and position(s)

Surely if I can find the application for NGOs with the ECOSOC with this agreement on it you can find the application for NGOs with the DPI with the agreement on it. Or at least the application with the place for Lloyd Barry's signature. You have an army of apostates desparately searching for it, don't you? You said that you saw it. Did you? Or are you a bald-face liar? In case anyone is wondering, here is the application for NGO's with the DPI in 1991 according to apostates:

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/scans/1991application.html

Where is the place for the signature where Lloyd Barry signed his name?

This is part of your never ending stream of strawmen.Nevertheless, as of this writing I cannot find the document that Barry signed, but am working on it.

And AlanF you will never find an original application signed by Barry because it does not exist. You as usual are the one off to see the wizard with your scarecrow strawman.

In any case, both GB member Lloyd Barry and Writing Staff member Ciro Aulicino are listed in the 1999-2000 Directory of NGOs ( http://www.randytv.com/secret/alphalist334.jpg ) as the Watchtower Society's representatives. Furthermore, their names are listed in various earlier documents, along with one Robert Johnson, a high-ranking Service Department official. Where do you think the U.N. got those names?

No kidding. Do you think the WTS has evern denied this. Please take a look at this form and you will see why that is the case. http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/scans/2000accreditationform.html and then read this:

Periodically, the DPI required its NGOs to sign the Accreditation Form to state who its representatives would be — to allow them to gain access to the DPI's extensive facilities at the United Nations in New York.

Here we have a copy of the Accreditation Form as it appeared prior to 2002 — before the renewal process began and before the form was changed to become a renewal application. See the form for yourself at this location. As you can see, this earlier version of the form says nothing about supporting the United Nations. The form is merely there to allow representatives of the NGO to access the DPI's facilities. The form itself clearly states:

“This form should be used to confirm your currently accredited representative and/or to authorize newly appointed representatives.”

The form the Society signed each year was obviously not a renewal application. To deny this and continue to insist that they did renew their status each year, would be senseless. Interestingly, also appearing on this earlier form is the following question:

“Please indicate your organization's main area(s) of interest (e.g. development, disarmament, religion, environment, human rights, conflict resolution, women, etc.)”

Some apostates have found lists of UN NGOs where the Watchtower Society is listed, complete with items such as “human rights”, and “women” listed as the Society's areas of interest. They have noticed how these areas of interest have changed in the records from time to time. Therefore, they have argued that it “proves” the Society must have annually renewed their NGO membership because the “areas of interest” kept changing. Yet, as we can clearly see from the form, that question did not appear on a yearly renewal form at all — but on the form to get the representatives their access passes.

It is clear, then, that the Watchtower Society did not reapply for it's NGO status each year, and that the Accreditation Form (prior to 2001/2002) which the Society did sign periodically, was simply to state who it's representatives would be along with their areas of interest for accessing the DPI's facilities.

It is also clear that the Watchtower Society was being truthful when it said “At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form”, and that the forms signed by the Society really did not conflict with Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. We can see the evidence for ourselves.

AlanF's words in italics.

The fact that the Society itself admits knowing the details of the 1991 application criteria, and the U.N. itself notified the Society that its acceptance of Associated NGO status constitutes accepting all of the acceptance criteria -- including agreeing to support the ideals of the U.N. Charter, proves my point. You are the liar.

No you, sir, are a liar. The 1994 brochure does not say 'support the ideals of the UN Charter' as you just said. So that was not the criteria in 1994 as set forth in the brochure much less 2 or 3 years earlier. As I pointed out in a previous post yes the WTS knew the criteria when they registered as an NGO with the DPI and the wording clearly had changed by 2001 when they asked to be removed. Again note:

Language used after 2001: “What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles;”

Language used in 1994: “Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”

Language used in 1992: Don't know and there is doubt that the WTS even received a brochure.

How can you call the WTS a liar with no evidence. In fact, the paper trail shows that they were telling the truth. Ask yourself: Did the language change between 1994 and 2001?

All of this was fully established nearly five years ago. My memory of the details of the application and accreditation forms is obviously imperfect.

Obviously. We agree. Thanks for the admission that you do not know the facts at all. Can you imagine what AlanF would say to someone that made such a comment as this. Let me translate this for you in the AlanF language:

I, AlanF, am an idiotic, lying moron who doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about.

The fact is that Barry did sign the original application form and later yearly accreditation renewals. That constituted repeatedly agreeing to uphold the U.N. Charter.

The fact is that you have just made yourself out to be a clear and proven liar. Unless of course you will provide us with the original application signed by Lloyd Barry. It is by no means a fact "that Barry did sign the original application form". The fact is that the original application did not even require a signature just as the WTS honestly and truthfully stated. You have just proven yourself to be what you so loosely accuse anyone who dissagrees with you as being, a moronic liar.

Calling you a liar is a simple statement of fact. So is stating that I find such gross liars disgusting. You constantly use the pejorative term "apostate". Pot, kettle, black. Remove that term from your website and from future posts, and I will refrain from calling you disgusting.

You are an admitted apostate. Not only are you an apostate from JWs. But you have committed apostasy against the Bible by claiming that it is not the word of God. And you have even committed apostasy against Jehovah by claiming he is some mere tribal god of the Jews no different from the false gods of Babylon, Egypt, Assyria etc.

No honest hearted worshipper of Jehovah would ever listen to, much less believe, the likes of you.

I also posted this on JWD and of course it was met with much disdain.

I also have just realized why many of you have left the truth. It is because you worshiped the WTS. You worshiped the organization. And so when you saw that people in the organization were imperfect or saw wrongdoing or what you perceived as wrongdoing being committed, you were stumbled and left Jehovah and his people. On the other hand, true JWs upon seeing the imperfections of men in the organization are not stumbled because they worship Jehovah not the organization.

What made me realize this is all the praise heaped upon AlanF. No one dare disagree with AlanF. AlanF will kick your butt. AlanF will answer for us. Don't mess with AlanF. You merely replaced the WTS with AlanF. You still cannot think for yourself. You still follow in blind obedience. But true worshipers of Jehovah do not follow the WTS in blind obedience. They research and diligently look into the Bible and they see for themselves that the teachings of JWs are in accord with the Bible. They are not blindly following the organization as many of you were who left it. True worshippers of Jehovah are wide awake in their realization that JWs are God's organization.

Of course, some, like AlanF, have replaced the WTS with Carl Jonnson, secular chronology, and his own self. He has even replaced the Bible (not inspired of God according to him) and Jehovah (just a tribal god not unlike the gods of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, or Egyptians) with Carl Jonnson, secular chronology, and himself.

Case in point: AlanF's blatant disregard for the guidelines of the DB. But no one dare correct AlanF. He can call you liar, moron, idiot, f***ing hypocrit, and whatever other name he can think of and then tell you that thirdwitness should be removed from the DB because he disregards the guidelines and is a liar. Then he justifies why he can do it and most here praise his reasoning. Who will speak up against AlanF? Who will tell AlanF that he is the chief breaker of the rules? Will the administrator stand up? Is AlanF above the rules? He's just like your perception of the WTS. He does not have to follow the rules at all. Only the peons like thirdwitness needs to be counseled about the rules. Yes, AlanF is your new WTS. What a laughing stock you opposers of JWs are to honest lurkers and onlookers.

Case in point: the subject of parousia. AlanF was left looking so ridiculous that I was even a little bit embarrassed for him. But dare anyone cross him and tell him he was obviously wrong? No way. He is your new Watchtower Society who you blindly follow. Whatever AlanF says is truth. If AlanF says the sky is green and the grass is blue well then the sky is green and the grass is blue. If AlanF says parousia in Matt 24 should be translated 'coming' despite all the contextual evidence against such translation then AlanF must be right. If AlanF says no 'modern' scholars say that parousia in Matt 24 should be translated presence then it must be right.

Another case in point: AlanF said of Lloyd Barry and the NGO/DPI application: The fact is that Barry did sign the original application form ... How many know that AlanF is wrong? But how many will come forth and correct the mighty god who has replaced the WTS, AlanF? No one has yet and many are so well studied on this subject that they know for a fact that AlanF is either mistaken or is an outright liar.

Another case in point: Remember the conversation with Oleg (who I mistakenly called Greg). Do you remember AlanF telling us how the questioning of Oleg and the way it was done was devious? Even when it would be to your benefit to correct Mr. Alan F no one would dare speak against him. AlanF's exact words concerning the questioning of the DPI offficer, Oleg were: Perhaps the problem lies in the ignorant, and perhaps devious manner in which the questions were posed.

Of course you all loved it and agreed wholeheartedly no doubt with the all wise guru of the DB, AlanF, that the questioner, who you believe to be thirdwitness, is both ignorant and devious. I wholeheartedly agree with AlanF for once. I believe the questioner was ignorant of the facts and devious in what he was trying to do. If you will look at this site: randytv-- you will find out just who that questioner was.

Who can stand against AlanF and his followers?

This message was last edited at

3W...thanks for posting the highlights for ones like myself, who find it depressing to the extreme to wade through reading at places like that JWD and H20 and the cafe etc, in order to follow this stuff...I find myself having extreme reactions to criticisms and complainings of any kind these days...much less having to look at the piles and piles of the human train wrecks, that those places are...it is way too depressing

I also appreciate the "rope" you've thrown to any potentially honest hearted readers and lurkers...if there are any I'm sure they can see through the smoke screen with just a little help even...

I now have a new favorite post of all time too....this last one above...I especially loved this part...it was beautifully stated.. and I know it stung bad for a LOT of people over there..as they say "the truth hurts"....

3W said:
I also have just realized why many of you have left the truth. It is because you worshiped the WTS. You worshiped the organization. And so when you saw that people in the organization were imperfect or saw wrongdoing or what you perceived as wrongdoing being committed, you were stumbled and left Jehovah and his people. On the other hand, true JWs upon seeing the imperfections of men in the organization are not stumbled because they worship Jehovah not the organization.

that made my day in a big way...

This message was last edited at

I agree with you Agrarian, that too is my favourite post of ALL TIME !

I'm trying to decide how to edit all this together for the minisite... hmm...

I sure hope you can find a way to get it in...I've read it a couple times through and it really is excellent...it could be a retrofit for Pathways substituting Timothy for AlanF or the cafe substituting Robert for AlanF ...or H20 substituting take your pick...

the first paragraph in the post that I quoted, is very true. There was nothing about that point that isn't absolutely the truth...if anyone is inclined to blindly follow then there will always be things to stumble over. Excellent point.

also true JW's really do just as 3W said in the post...they are aware that Jehovah's organization today and yesterday and going back to Paul's day are made up of Christ's anointed bro's the "Israel of God" ...that are men....as Moses was a man....and David was a man....imperfect and whole souled men. Who have Jehovah's blessing and should have our support, If we had a tendency to idolize ...some critic could pop our bubble of our view of them pretty easily and the fall would be hard....as we see all over the internet the many human train wrecks that make up those places that the Alan F's of the world populate

This message was last edited at

Wow, wow, wow!

This last post by 3W really made my day. Lovely and beautifull. This is a favorite. I'm gonna print it and keep it handy. If that doesn't make any lurker over there with open mind thinks twice, I don't know what will.

Could you paste it here? Thanks.

This message was last edited at

"3W said:
I also have just realized why many of you have left the truth. It is because you worshiped the WTS. You worshiped the organization. And so when you saw that people in the organization were imperfect or saw wrongdoing or what you perceived as wrongdoing being committed, you were stumbled and left Jehovah and his people. On the other hand, true JWs upon seeing the imperfections of men in the organization are not stumbled because they worship Jehovah not the organization. "

AWESOME POST. That is exactly what happened and they will obviously never admit it. LOL.