Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Jehovah's Witnesses. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Books Critical of the Group

This section is for discussion in regards to primarily the editorial of Raymond Franz's book 'Crisis of Conscience'. Below is a line by line examination of WHY I edited what I edited.Duffer 3 July 2005

"Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, a former Governing Body member of the Watchtower organisation for nine years (the highest level of Jehovah's Witnesses)."

I added the following: "who was expelled from the headquarters and later disfellowshiped (excommunicated) for teaching divergent views." This was added to give readers a perspective of where Franz was comming from, and why. Obviously if he wasn't expelled, he probably wouldn't have written a book. Duffer 3 July 2005

Reply to Duffer. Point one, your entire motives are see through, and are negative POV, incorrect and Ad hominem. I suggest you read his books before you speak more unchristian slander and defamation, all put together for purely 'poisoning the well', in a typical ad hominem logical fallacy. Raymond Franz chose to resign from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses on 22 May 1980; he was not "expelled". You can read, and see his letters, about the whole incident in his book, Crisis of Conscience in the book's chapter Point of Decision. He was later disfellowshipped when in another congregation, in a new location, over a year and a half later on 31 December 1981. He was disfellowshipped for the Watch Tower "crime" of eating a meal with his employer, who was an ex-witness; it had nothing at all to do with spreading dissenting views or any such thing. This is all covered in his book in the chapter Aftermath with many scanned Watchtower letters as proof. None of his material in his books has ever been challenged or refuted by the Watch Tower Society. You Duffer should really get your facts correct before you start spreading slander and gossip, especially as you claim to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Your behaviour is often aggressive, confrontational, and unchristian. Point two, the only reason you inserted your false information is as an ad hominem attack to poison the reader from the book, which is just an example of negative propaganda, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the factual information and critical discussions in his books. Posted Central 4 July 2005

According to Times Magazine http://www.jwfiles.com/franz-article.htm, he was thrown out of Bethel. So perhaps a more suitable sentence would read: "..who was expelled from his duties as a Governing Body member and forced to resign from Bethel for teaching divergent views, later to be expelled entirely from the congregation in an unrelated matter." I'll leave that up to you to edit. I admit I wrong about his DFing, though not wrong about his forced exodus from Bethel. Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

LOL at Duffer, to quote you "according to Time Magazine", are you for real? How about actually doing some REAL research and getting the actual facts of the incidents. Raymond Franz resigned from the Governing Body; he was not "expelled". Why don't you write to them and ask for an answer? All his letters are there in his book, but you seem totally uninterested in the truth, but more keen on perpetuating JW rumour and gossip laced with a toxic dose of slander. A group of people could get a whole plethora of quotes from "worldly" magazine sources to state that Jehovah's Witness are child raping cult weirdoes etc., but what does that prove? Nothing! Your desperation to slander and incite hatred is astounding. You haven't even read Ray Franz's books, and you claim to be a Christian JW, and are pontificating about his life of which you base on mere gossip and fear inspired propaganda. Keep it coming Duffer; you are giving a fine Witness in slander, bitterness, and cult-like behaviour. I'm sure your millstone is ready and waiting to be hung on your neck. Also, all your points are ad hominem, and you have only added your slander to try and smear the book's content. Your slanderous Ad hominem insertions is a POV straw man, and definitely not suitable for Wikepedia. Posted Central 4 July 2005

It's "slander", "bitterness, and cult-like behaviour" to quote a Times magazine article? You say: "Raymond Franz resigned from the GB..." I said: "..was forced to resign from Bethel..". We're both correct, I just portray the whole picture, he did resign but it was forced. It's not like the GB would allow such a dissenter to continue at Bethel. Duffer 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Duffer, you know well it's your entire outlook that is the problem, so why are you coming out with this weak red herring about Time Magazine? There are thousands of magazines in this world and any amount of quotes can be extracted, and they prove little to nothing, as there are just as many opposing ones available too. I see you are also trying to back track on the alleged "expulsion" you were so keen to tell the world. Pressure to resign is not the same as sacking or expulsion. They could have disfellowshipped him there and then if they had a grain of evidence against him, but they had none. He was hounded out, and chose to resign, and get away from the witch-hunt that he has seen against others for daring to have a private conversation in a private house about a private matter. If you give a damn about truth, go and read it, all the Watch Tower letters are scanned as proof. None have been challenged ever by the Watch Tower Society, and they would rip into him with their rabid lawyers if they had a crumb of evidence, but they have none! Get used to it. You have proven to all here you are acting like an unstable religious fundamentalist who goes ape when his leaders/religion are criticized, and that kind of behaviour Duffer, is very, very cult-like, and certainly not what Jesus taught us to be like. Posted Central 6 July 2005

"This book gives an insight into the authority structure of the religion."

If Duffer's comments about Ray Franz are Ad hominem, then what are Ray Franz' comments about "the authority structure of the religion"? The point is Mr. Franz has a background that should give any reasonable reader cause to question his motives and credibility. --DannyMuse 3 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Danny, are you serious? Raymond Franz was on the Governing Body for 9 years, and travelled all over the world to a multitude of the Society's branches and offices. He is extremely experienced and knowledgeable of the authority structure and the hierarchy of the religion. So, what's your point? You don't even make one. Your next sentence is one of the most circular false reasoning I have seen you post: "The point is Mr. Franz has a background that should give any reasonable reader cause to question his motives and credibility." His background would give him more credibility than anyone else, and his books don't rely on "appeal to authority" as you falsely assume. His books are fully documented with proof for what he states. As for your next bit, "reasonable reader" is classic logical fallacy of 'appeal to flattery'. I suggest you read his books, even if for research purposes only, then you would be in a better position to actually comment about motives, rather than speculating the worst, as your mind appears inclined to do so, regardless of the total lack of evidence to back your presumptuous and false conclusions. Posted Central 4 July 2005

I amended to it: "(as it stood 25 years ago)". This is also true. Franz was DFd in 1980. What Franz writes about the inner procedings of the Governing Body might not be accurate for today. Doctrine has changed. Policy has changed though, admittedly as it sits, the addition is out of place, and Franz technically does give an insight into the organizational structure from his point of view (with a boot in his butt and his face through the screen door..).Duffer 3 July 2005

Duffer, your hostile vicious comments and your nature are disturbingly unchristian, and they are inaccurate. The latest version of Crisis of Conscience was published in June 2002, and is up to date. June 2002 is not "25 years ago". The book covers the entire range of the development of the Watch Tower Society-from its beginnings-to its current organisational hierarchy in mid 2002. Also, the vast majority of the book is not about the structure or the group, it is far more about its activities, doctrines, and practices etc., which are also covered up to the latest publication in mid 2002. Please stop with your additions of lies, ad hominem attacks, negative POV, and often sadistic sabotage. If you are a typical JW, you are not giving a very good example of your religion and God. Especially revealing were your comments: "with a boot in his butt and his face through the screen door.." You demonstrate sadistic, sick and ignorant statements that you seem to delight in making, and seek to disseminate into the minds of others. As Jesus said: "By their fruits you will know them". Posted Central 3 July 2005

You need to relax. He relates "first hand knowledge" of the organization 25 years ago. It does NOT matter what the latest edition of his book is as he NO LONGER HAS "first hand knowledge"! Contrary to the description of the book on the JW page. As for my "boot" comment, it was a joke that puts context into what Franzs' point of view was/is (a bitter apostate). Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me with your condescending remarks Duffer. You are obsessed on the "authority" bit, and all Franz's information is accurate and up to date. If you claim otherwise, then bring forth your proof. If not, be quiet. You haven't even the balls to read the books, and fail to realise how ridiculous you sound, coming out with fake critiques of something you have almost zero knowledge of. As the Proverb's quote states, go and get educated before you speak about a matter. As for calling him a "bitter apostate", where is your evidence? You have none! If someone called you a "child raping deviant", but brought forth no evidence, would you feel it was reasonable for all to circulate this about you, and post it on message boards, especially if they were JWs? You have shown you are full of slander and unchristian motives. You need to look at your own life before you claim to be an expert on someone else's, that you clearly know extremely little of, and have no intention of actually getting your facts right; you are more concerned about spreading negative propaganda, which is cult-like behaviour, and totally unchristian. Posted Central 4 July 2005

Why are you even continuing to argue this point? Read what I wrote: "..admittedly as it sits, the addition is out of place..", and actually read the changes I made before reverting them. If you had, you probably would have noticed that I STOPPED mentioning "25 years" several edits ago. Besides, you speak nothing of the fact that the editorial, as it previously stood, claimed that he STILL has "first hand knowledge" of the innerworkings of the Governing Body. That's an outright falsehood. Duffer 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Duffer, the word "STILL" was never in any of the edits, so why are you making that one up? Posted Central 6 July 2005

"The book allows the reader a view of the decision-making sessions of a religion's inner council, and the powerful, sometimes dramatic, impact their decisions have on people's lives."

I removed: ",and the powerful, sometimes dramatic, impact their decisions have on people's lives." For obvious reasons. Say something like: "and the impact those decisions have on people's lives" but don't go overboard with spurious hyperbole like "powerful" and "sometimes dramatic". If you can't get away with it in the main article, obviously you can't get away with it in the references.Duffer 3 July 2005

"It looks in detail at the history of the organisation, how its doctrines and practices have arisen, and how they have changed/reversed over time."

I changed: "changed/reversed" to: "evolved". As it literally IS an evolution of doctrine. Though this doesn't accurately reflect the fact that our doctrines have been reversed before.. perhaps an amicable sentence would read: "how its doctrines and practices have arisen, evolved, and in some cases have been reversed." I think that's the one that accurately conveys all the facts.Duffer 3 July 2005

Are you bored, or just trying to antagonistically sabotage for the sake of it? There is nothing wrong with the original listings, as the moderator was happy with them, so why should they change. Posted Central 3 July 2005

I don't see how this change antagonizes anyone. I don't see how your comments properly address my addition. Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

"It also looks deeply into the Watchtower's history of Armageddon prophecies, uproots highly controversial information with full scanned proofs, and their often negative affects on the lives of Jehovah's Witnesses."

I've said it twice already, i'll say it again. Aquaint yourselves with my comments to "Eyesopen" in the "Bias, Accuracy, Objectivity, Scrutiny" discussion on this page. Specifically where it says: "There is "prophet" that interprets and relays interpretation of biblical prophecy. There is "prophet" in the sense of the word prophesy, this is the one you are ascribing to us." Jehovah's Witnesses have never been guilty of doing anything more than misinterpreting the word of God. They have been wrong many times in their INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL PROPHECY, that is NOT akin to the libel of PROPHESY! Obviously, and most important, ACCURATELY changed the sentence to read: "the Watchtower's previous interpretations of biblical prophecy..". I removed entirely: " uproots highly controversial information with full scanned proofs, and their often negative affects on the lives of Jehovah's Witnesses." Should either remain out or re-worded to something like: "This book claims to show legitimate, highly controversial information, and the impact that it has on the lives of individual Jehovah's Witnesses." "..negative affects..", pure bombast. Is objectivity really that hard?Duffer 3 July 2005

Duffer: Prophecy is a noun (meaning 'a prediction'). 'Prophecies' is the plural word meaning predictions. Hey-isn't English simple! All the dates that came from the Watch Tower Society were predictions of Armageddon, they were prophecies (predictions) claimed to have come from God's Word regardless of whether they came from scripture, Divine revealing, the size of Egyptian pyramids, or the number of spots on a lady bugs back (it's all in the interpretation ;-). The word 'Prophecy' is correct and needs no redefining. Posted Central 3 July 2005

The word "prophecy" in this context is libel and you know it. "Prophetic interpretation" is far more accurate, and best of all NPOV! Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Duffer, you mean "FALSE Prophetic interpretation". I will change it to "Armageddon predictions". Posted Central 4 July 2005

They are not spurious "armageddon predictions", they are interpretations of biblical prophecy. The editorial mentioned nothing of "false interpretations", it just said: "prophecy", if you want to convey the fact that those interpretations were incorrect, then by all means do so, but if it's out of line I will change it. Duffer 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Duffer. Many of the early predictions and dates were from the sizes of pyramids in Egypt, and as you are well aware, none of them were in the Bible, that's why the world is still here. The Watch Tower's leaders acted just like false prophets in the Bible, they claimed to speak for God's will, dates, and plans, and put Him to shame with their endless nutty date setting, all claimed to be "not our dates, but those of God, we interpret nothing, Jehovah is the interpreter". What utter blasphemy! Posted Central 6 July 2005

"An extensive fully documented research into the Watch Tower organisation from someone with high level, first hand comprehensive experience."

Removed entirely for the sake of redundancy. Really, read the very first sentence in the editorial. It's the exact same thing, pick one. Frankly this one sounds better than the opening sentence.Duffer 3 July 2005

In Search of Christian Freedom - I changed: "prophecy" to: "prophetic interpretation". Really, how is anyone benefitting from such obviously false libel? Are you critical? Fine, at least be accurate.Duffer 3 July 2005

Again Duffer, Prophecy is a noun (meaning 'a prediction'). 'Prophecies' is the plural word meaning predictions. All the dates that came from the Watch Tower were predictions of Armageddon, they were prophecies (predictions) claimed to have come from God's Word. The word 'Prophecy' is correct and needs no redefining. Posted Central 3 July 2005

Again, in this context it is libel and you know it, if you were at all concerned about NPOV you would have no objections to my change. Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Duffer, what is "in this context" supposed to mean? It's merely a subject heading, not a commentary, so it can stay. As for "libelous", you are losing the plot! If anyone was misrepresented it was God, as His name was used over and over in the Watch Tower false dates, and I'm sure He will sort the ones responsible out in due time. Posted Central 3 July 2005

"In this context" means when a religious group is accused of "false prophecy" or even just "prophecy" it is a pejorative to connote a biblical "false prophet." That is libelous, but you already knew that. Jehovah's Witnesses have never been guilty of anything more than incorrectly interpreting biblical prophecy. It's not accurate, it's POV, it's libelous, and I will change it everytime I see it. Duffer 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Duffer, you said: "Jehovah's Witnesses have never been guilty of anything more than incorrectly interpreting biblical prophecy", they were far more guilty, as the dates for Armageddon were always stated to be "God's dates", not the Watch Tower leaders' interpretations. They claim God is the "great interprerer", and they are speaking for him, this is exactly the same for a false prophet in the Bible. They claim to speak for God, and what they said failed to be fulfilled. They are blasphemous, and presumptuous, and God would not touch anyone like that under any circumstances. To quote them: "In Jeremiah's day the false prophets prophesied lies in Jehovah's name and lied against his purpose, foretelling in his name what he had not foretold. Therefore Jehovah was against them. He executed judgment against them at Jerusalem's destruction in 607 B.C. (Jer. 23:25; 27:15) Religious liars like them today cannot escape a like judgment but will meet a like end at Armageddon." Watchtower 1 Feb 1956 p.88 Looks like the Watch Tower Society is doomed then! Posted Central 6 July 2005

The Sign of the Last Days - When? - I changed: "..accompanied by historical facts demonstrating how surprisingly little.." to read: "accompanied by a presentation that purports to show how surprisingly".. Whoever wrote this description of the book obviously is not interested in truth, just "truth" according to Carl O. Jonsson. I changed the wording to an NPOV perspective, first and foremost. I also gave additional reasons: "WWI killed more people than all world wars combined from the beginning of recorded history to 1914 (confirmed 14+million, estimated up to 60+m dead)", not to mention the CONFIRMED military deaths of those that died (80,000 military) from the WORST disease in history (1918, spanish influenza). That's not "WT propoganda" as one anonymous critic ignorantly claimed, that is the facts of the matter according to the Harper Encyclopedia of Military History (4th edition, 1993) by Dupuy & Dupuy (pg. 1083 heading The Cost of The War). Although technically the CONFIRMED civilian+military casualties of that War alone were 14,663,413 (multiply that by 3 and we arive at the most conservative estimate for losses of WWII. same book page 1309). In both cases I relate the barest minimum while several other sources posit far more catastrophic estimates of both wars. Whatever "statistics" Mr. Jonsson wants to posit doesn't change the truth about our century, it is what Dupuy and Dupuy refer to succinctly as the title of Chapter 14: "World War I and the Era of Total War" (pg. 1003). Duffer 3 July 2005

LOL. You never learn do you Duffer? I seriously suggest you actually READ the books mentioned before you claim to know what's in them! You're hilarious, read Proverbs 18:13 it might help if you get information and facts before you answer anymore. Posted Central 3 July 2005

That doesn't address my changes, nor is it ad hom because I specifically offered the military information as a secondary reason. Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Duffer, go and read the book, then come back if you have anyting to say. Posted Central 4 July 2005

Again, address what I wrote. If you can't even defend your reversions of my edits then you need to stop reverting. Duffer 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

For the record, Central, look at the log, I didn't touch the ISBNs. Duffer 3 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)

For the record, Duffer, I never said you did, it was anonymous user 202.63.50.237 who was doing that for some reason. Posted Central 3 July 2003

The way you worded the edit line made it sound as if you were accusing me of it. I just wanted to be clear. Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

On a completely different note, does anyone know how to start a new page, as this one is excessively long, and a new one is needed. Posted Central 3 July 2003

Hmm... This tune sounds all too familiar. Personal attacks against users, attacks on JWs and the WBTS, constantly bringing prophetic interpretation up in unrelated discussions. Reminds me a lot of Eyesopen who, incidentally, hasn't edited since early June... Can't you at least do us the justice of posting under the same name? Your manner of diction and accusation aren't very easily mistaken and a new name certainly does nothing to reenforce your position. -- uberpenguin July 5, 2005 05:24 (UTC)

It's curious. I thought uberpenguin was overreacting and might just be a bit paranoid so I checked. Eyesopen made about 33 edits on WP beginning on 10 April 2005 and ending 6 June 2005. With the exception of two edits regarding Pound sterling articles and a few edits to his own User page every other edit was only to the Jehovah's Witnesses page and its Talk page. User Central began editing on 10 June 2005. 21 of 22 edits are to the Jehovah's Witnesses page or its Talk page. So are they the same user? The Modus operandi is the same, that's for sure! --DannyMuse 8 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)

There's a saying, "Don't try to teach a pig how to ice skate. It only makes you look stupid and annoys the pig." After reading the lengthy exchanges between Duffer and Central I would say that we definitely have a hog on ice here! --DannyMuse 5 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

There is a better saying: "Don't try and teach a Jehovah's Witness to reason, you will only get frustrated, and they will nearly away prefer to wallow in their own psychological excrement, like a pig in mud, trampling the pearls of loving kindness, truth, and Christian rationality into the debased mud, and then they turn around and rip you open for your troubles, deluding themselves they are 'serving God'." Posted Central 6 July 2003

Central, You just made that up! It apparently hasn't occurred to you that if you weren't so argumentative we might actually be able to cooperate and come up with something accurate and informative. Food for thought, no? --DannyMuse 6 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

Hi, Central. I am a Wikipedia system administrator, and I'm not a JW. What seems to be the problem here? Tom Haws July 6, 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Hi Tom. The problem was after an administrator (not sure if it was you) looked at the book listings, and were happy they were neutral, about two weeks later, user Duffer1, decided to sabotage the book descriptions, and add on some totally irrelevant, inaccurate and slanderous ad hominem attacks on the book's author, and he inserted them at the beginning of the book descriptions to try and discredit the content with a blatant ad hominem attack. The ad hominem attacks were removed, and then accusations by Duffer1 were manufactured of having an "edit war", when he was the one to start trashing the page after it was approved. Duffer1 was also the one to start a destruction campaign against the separate page that the critical links and books were on before. He appears to be very fundamentalist and not too concerned about using propaganda and slander to dissuade people from seeing any critical information. His accusations (beside being ad hominem) were also completely incorrect. Duffer appears not to give a damn about accuracy, or relevance, or the fact that ad hominem and propaganda are not acceptable on Wikepedia. JWs usually refer to this trashing and slander as "theocratic war strategy", basically meaning anything goes (including lies and slander) if the end result is to promote the religion. I have removed the ad hominem and I hope it will not return. DannyMuse is also problematic in the same regard, as he appears to not realise when he is using propaganda, (or insults above) but is clear to see it when someone else may use it against him or JWs, demonstrating his interesting double standards (a sad, but typical Watch Tower Society characteristic). Hopefully it is settled now, if Danny and Duffer can get over their very clear insecurities about their faith. Posted Central 7 July 2005

Actually I'm quite secure in my beliefs. Central continually raises the ''Ad Hominem'' issue as if there is never a valid reason to question a persons motives. In fact there is. As the WP Ad Hominem article states there is such a thing as a Valid Ad Hominem argument. It reads, "Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility." It is well documented that Ray Franz is hostile to the organization from which he was expelled. It is a well established legal principle that the motives of a hostile witness are open to question. That being said, the editorial changes by both myself and Duffer have consistently attempted to reword the description of Franz' books for NPOV and have NOT tried to impugn his character. The edits have been to show that the book gives "the author's perspective". --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

LOL! You take the biscuit Mr Danny Muse! You said: "Central continually raises the ''Ad Hominem'' issue as if there is never a valid reason to question a persons motives". I have never stated this, I pointed out your use of it is totally irrelevant, and does not form a valid point at all. You then go on to demonstrate a wonderful logical fallacy of 'begging the question', or 'circular argument'. My comments are in brackets; you say: "It is well documented (your first lie, and inaccuracy) that Ray Franz is hostile to the organization ( where is your evidence?) from which he was expelled (He resigned, he was not expelled). It is a well established legal principle that the motives of a hostile witness are open to question. (Your red herring to distract the reader)That being said (what 'said'?, you have just assumed your false accusations are true with no evidence at all to back them, and then you build on them as if they are factually established, what a joke! You would be thrown out of court!) You also create a straw man, as Franz's motives are irrelevant, as he proves his points with well-documented facts, not blind opinions or assertions. If you had actually read the books, you would know all this, and stop making a complete ass of yourself. Read his books, and you will be amazed how mild, gentle, and completely void of any bitterness his books are. Your criticism are based on a fantasy, not reality. Go and read them, and you will see how foolish your words really are. Posted by Central 7 July 2005

As a side point, some of the language in the description was clearly over-reaching, claiming to "uproot" doctrines. Clearly, Franz' book has not changed the teachings of the WTB&TS. This is why I changed it to "reveals". Why Central would disagree with these revisions hard to understand. Rather than addressing them edit-by-edit--as both myself and Duffer have done repeatedly both in the comments to the edits and here on the Talk page--he simply reverts them. And so Duffer and I re-revert them. --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

Your said: "This is why I changed it to "reveals". Why Central would disagree with these revisions hard to understand". I did not disagree, that is why I left that word. Uproots, can mean "reveals", "dig up", you just twisted in your paranoid mind to mean something else, and then blindly ignored the fact that I left it the same-DOH! Posted by Central 7 July 2005

That being said, I still don't see why this section is even here. You won't find similar sections on the pages of other religions here on WP. It makes you wonder why some individuals have such an axe to grind with Jehovah's Witnesses! --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

You said: "It makes you wonder why some individuals have such an axe to grind with Jehovah's Witnesses!" Ignoring your obsessive use of circular reasoning by assuming that there is an "axe to grind", if you actually took the time to learn about your religion, instead of neurotically defending it and cloaking yourself with a paranoid persecution complex, you might see some of the less than scriptural doctrines and practices that it promotes, and the distancing this will have on someone's relationship with God, including their ultimate reward. I heavily suggest you actually do some real research and look at all the arguments, not just the Watch Tower's pre-prepared carefully selected material. If you have any faith of substance, you will take to heart the words of the Bible at Romans 8:38, 39 and go and get the books, and do some research. If you fear them that much, then that proves your faith is weaker than a new-born kitten, with no foundation, and of no value to God. Posted by Central 7 July 2005

In an effort to some resolution to this seemingly endless and circular debate I have made some radical changes to the Books Critical of the Group section of the main article. Actually, I'm surprised I didn't notice it earlier, but all of the books listed in this section are published by the same publisher: Commentary Press. So I changed all of the descriptions to the publisher's description from their commercial website. If Central, or any other user for that matter, objects to these descriptions then they should take it up with the publisher of the books. --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

You have deliberately tried to trash the descriptions, Wikipedia is not a book shop, the ISBN links are there for people to buy where they like, you have just inserted your new trashing "radical changes" methods to cause more controversy, and trouble. I have reverted your infantile edits. I am also interested why a loyal JW (allegedly you) would want to even touch an "apostate" (your words) book by messing about with the description, what would Jehovah think if this, "touching the contaminated evil thing"? Posted by Central 7 July 2005

On the other hand, I do believe this calls into question the motive of why these books are even listed in this article. Is it for the dissemination of encyclopedic knowledge? Or rather is there a commercial interest? --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

LOL! Motives? You were the one inserting advisements and prices also! Your then hypocritically blame others for your own corrupting page sabotaging. Those books out of many are there because they are very well written, balanced, and have high academic acclaim, unlike some others that are bitter, and more personalised. For goodness sakes, go and read them, then you might have a leg to stand on. As for now, you are making a colossal fool of yourself, plus, you are giving more publicity to them, which is the opposite of what I'm sure you desire, or is it? Posted by Central 7 July 2005

In response to my edits as described above Central reverted the page with the following explanation directed to me personally:

"Gross commercialisation is not allowed on Wikipedia, your edits are trouble-making stupidity; you are also displaying your sociopath nature. Dannymuse, please see a doctor immediately"

I would agree that Gross commercialization is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is in fact the point I was trying to make about this section. Interestingly, he failed to address the content of the edits which is the real issue, but instead chose to engage in an ad hominem attack on my character. This is interesting as this is a tactic which he has repeatedly accused Duffer1 of doing and which he has described as a logical fallacy.

You said: "Interestingly, he failed to address the content of the edits which is the real issue." What lies and delusion you post. What you really mean is: "He failed to weaken and given way to our cultist bias, and negative character attacks on Franz, page trashing, and JWs fundamentalism and fear of valid balance and criticism. He is not submissive to our biased attacks and so we will ignore his valid replies and delude ourselves we never had one". And I was not using an "ad hominem", I was insulting you just for pleasure, not because it proves you wrong, you do that all by yourself with your cult-like mentality and behaviour. Posted Central 7 July 2005

Nevertheless, the real issue is the content. I suggest that we remove the section entirely as it is inappropriate. Barring that, I would suggest as an alternative that we use the descriptions from the publisher and remove all links to the publisher's website and pricing information. If that is not agreeable, then I am open to any and all reasonable suggestions. Your comments are appreciated! --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I have a better idea, why don't you just leave it alone and stop acting like a religious fundamentalist who is terrified the public will find out the truth about your group. I think the entire JW article needs completely re-writing with much more contributions from ex-members. I will contact all the sites and encourage mass editing if you like? I'm sure there are thousands of ex-JWs who would love to give you a run for your money if that's really what you want Danny—is it? (PS. I'm not an ex-JW, but I know I can find plenty online) If you want major edit wars, then go for it, it will just create more negative publicity for your God and religion, is that your real subconscious aim?) Posted Central 7 July 2005

PS to Central - Please discuss each edit as has been repeatedly requested on Talk pages, otherwise it will continue to be reverted. --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I have. Posted Central 7 July 2005

Central, calling Danny Muse a stupid sociopath and recommending he see a doctor is not appropriate at Wikipedia. Please try to keep in mind that this is not a forum, a bbs, chatroom, or any such locale. This is an encyclopedia. We have serious work to do here that can only proceed in an atmosphere of wikilove. By participating here you implicitly agree to abide by our community standards. You must assume good faith of all other editors, work to make articles truly encyclopedic, and use the talk pages to further the encyclopedia's progress. Let's stop focusing on the other editors and try to focus on the article. Please respect the time and energy of other editors, and try to self-police your own biases. You may want to read what we call our one absolute and non-negotiable policy at WP:NPOV Tom Haws

All, perhaps the list of books under discussion is appropriate for this article; I'm not sure. I would suggest you try to find book lists in other articles (Mountain Meadows Massacre comes to mind) and follow their format. I think the descriptions given tend to be a little too promotional of the books, and shorter (perhaps single sentence) descriptions would be more appropriate. Feel free to get the input of other seasoned editors. Tom Haws July 7, 2005 20:58 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for the suggestion. I've tried revising the section as per your suggestion. I reviewed the format of the books listed in the Mountain Meadows Massacre article and more-or-less followed that. In fact, I left a brief blurb about each listing in order to try and be fair, which is more than the editors included on the MMM page. Let's see if this flies! --DannyMuse 8 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)

Danny's respectful and content-directed, but action-oriented manner is an example to us all. Tom Haws July 8, 2005 15:15 (UTC)

I see Danny Muse, has removed all meaningful descriptions of the books, which is hardly reasonable. Also Tom Haw's edited the critical section and approved the longer book descriptions on 18 June 2005. Also, in the link given for Mountain Meadows Massacre there are over four paragraphs for one book! Here they are:

"Forthcoming book

A trio of LDS scholars have been funded by the LDS church to write a book, Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, to be published by the Oxford University Press:

Ronald W. Walker (BYU Professor of History),

Richard E. Turley Jr. (managing director of the Family and Church History Department of the Church), and Glen M. Leonard (director of the Church's Museum of Church History and Art).

The three were granted access to documents in the LDS Church archives. According to Turley, a file in the archives confirms that Lee was acting on his own. The file included the notes of a Mormon historian who, at the request of Church leaders, conducted a confidential investigation of the massacre in 1892. Turley said, "There are very candid statements on the part of participants to a Church official under the agreement of confidentiality."

While the trio found additional evidence of church leaders' culpability, Turley stated that "Utahns elsewhere in the territory acted to preserve the lives of other troublesome immigrants . . . Unfortunately, the militia and church leaders of Iron County made different decisions, and their acts demand the strongest condemnation . . . Circumstance may explain their acts; nothing can justify them."

The new sources the co-authors are using will be made public once their book is published. Turley said although the church is cooperating and is funding the research, the work is "not a Church commission"; "The idea to do the book was ours, not theirs." Publication apparently has been delayed as the co-authors have tried to be as thorough in their research as possible. According to Turley, LDS leaders share the authors' desire to bring all available evidence out in the open. First drafts of the book will be circulated for comment among LDS and non-LDS parties, including historians and descendants of the perpetrators and victims. "Open, candid evaluation of that tragedy can produce catharsis, a cleansing spiritual renewal and healing," Turley said, adding that the authors will "present the evidence as we find it - honestly, openly and candidly."

The above is hardly an example of a brief description, and is far greater than the longest has ever been for the Franz books. I have put back a smaller concise, neutral description that should keep all happy. Posted Central 10 July 2005

In reply to Central's comments regarding my edits to this section: I followed the format of the Books and book reviews section on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In fact, I left a brief blurb about each listing in order to try and be fair, which is more than the editors included on the MMM page for the books which are currently available. The section with "over four paragraphs for one book" is for a book that has not yet been published, (see Forthcoming book). I would guess that the editor that included the description felt that an explanation might be in order since the book is not yet available. At any rate, they are clearly NOT the same thing, to say they are is inaccurate and misleading.

I was only trying to follow the suggestion of Tom Haws in an attempt to resolve this disputed section. While Central has toned down his edits, I personally believe the descriptions are too long and too POV. Now we know what I think and what Central thinks. I for one would like to hear from the rest of the group on the issue. Thanks! --DannyMuse 15:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

In my view, we do not need a synopsis of each and every book. I think a title, author, ISBN #, etc., etc. should be sufficient, with perhaps a link to a site such as Amazon.com that can provide its own user reviews, etc. Biased reviewers here only add fuel to a fire that does not need to be burning -- at least this is not the place for them. There are plenty of websites and books offering their own criticism; an online encyclopedia is not the place to promote their ideas within the confines of an expository article. - CobaltBlueTony 17:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so we've got four opinions: the view of two JWs (CobaltBlueTony and myself), and two non-witnesses, Central and Tom Haws. Anyone else care to weigh in on this matter? --DannyMuse 04:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to say all books, and web entries, should have some relevant description of enough content, or no one would know what the books where about. A single paragraph description of the content is not the same as a lengthy review. I think the current book descriptions are ok. If some Jws are not happy, why don't they put some 'positive' books in the positive section as a balance? Reducing book descriptions until they are meaningless, or so vague that no one knows what they are about, is a rather surreptitious form of direct censorship, or reader manipulation at the least, and should not be encoraged. We all need to be honest about our motives for "this or that" change to any Wikepedia article. I also noted a lot of accusations about POV this and that, but if we feel something is POV, surely we have to put forth a good and specific argument against the information, before it is changed to something else. Simply saying, "X is POV, therefore I will zap it" cannot be good enough. One has to give a specific proven point, not a rhetorical claim, but a factual one that can be proven, or it all just ends up like anarchy, and stifles any real debate or reasonable conclusions to debates.Elenap 12th of July 2005

Elenap, Thanks for commenting on this issue. First of all, I totally agree that "all books, and web entries, should have some relevant description of enough content." The questions then are: 1) how much of a description is enough? and 2) what is appropriate to include in the description?

It was in response to this that Tom Haws suggested using the format of the books listed in the Mountain Meadows Massacre article as a starting place.

I do however disagree with your proposal that if the "JWs are not happy, why don't they put some 'positive' books in the positive section as a balance." I don't believe that is a workable solution. If text in one place is inappropriate or excessive then by necessity it would have to be "balanced" by an equally inappropriate or excessive entry with the opposite "weight". That obviously won't work, which leads us back to the initial question of what is adequate and appropriate. And as far as this section being POV, its title, "Books Critical of the Group" proves that it is by definition a POV section. It is significant to note that all of the four books in this section were written and/or edited by ex-Witnesses. There is not a single book listed that could be considered to be from a neutral, objective source. Additionally, they are all published by the same publisher, (which personally makes me question the motives of the original editor that listed them.)

As explained in the WP article Opposition to cults and new religious movements when it comes to the reliability of disaffected individuals that were once members of a group, their "motivations, the roles they play in the anti-cult movement, the validity of their testimony, and the kinds of narratives they construct about their previous groups are highly controversial." Be assured that this is not my personal opinion, but the opinions of social scientists, sociologists, religious scholars, psychologists and psychiatrists. (see Opposition to cults and new religious movements - References for details). Especially suspect are "Individuals who take up a cause for personal gain" by publishing books, etc. Some few entrepreneurs have even made careers by creating organized opposition, for example See Rick Ross.

It is for these reasons that I question the inclusion of these particular books here. There are not similar books listed on the WP pages for the Catholic religion, or on the Judaism or Islam pages. So why here? Note that I don't object to having books included that give a critical analysis of our beliefs, not at all. In fact I would welcome ones that are written by an objective, scholarly source. These books are not that. This is after all an encyclopedic work we are all trying to achieve, not a forum for endless debates. That being said, your comments are appreciated and most welcome! --DannyMuse 19:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL, I just have to reply to Danny Muse's reply to Elenap. It's not nice, but I have to speak. When will you get it Danny? Propaganda and logical fallacies are not a reasonable method of influencing people, especially if you are claiming to represent God and be a Christian, so why do you continue with them and your specious reasoning? All the points in your reply can easily be refuted. You said above: "If text in one place is inappropriate or excessive . . ." You have totally failed to prove the premise of your argument, but you then presumptuously assume that everyone will just blindly accept your wanted opinions as facts, and so you come out with a straw man argument about "inappropriate and excessive". You get the medal for surreptitious false reasoning. You then go on with another blatantly false statement: "And as far as this section being POV, its title, "Books Critical of the Group" proves that it is by definition a POV section." Danny, how exactly is something that is 'critical' proof that it is biased or POV? You have failed totally to make even the most basic case for your assumed conclusions; you just jump there with one giant false leap. Criticism is not by default proof of a bias, POV, or non-objectivity as you incorrectly assume. For example, if you said "five plus five is thirteen", someone could objectively and neutrally criticise your ability at maths, and your conclusion, and prove you wrong, without having any biased point of view, or dubious agenda. Facts can be proven false or true, that is the rational basis of objective reasoning. Merely being critical is not a valid cause for rejection of the one criticising, as you manipulatively try and twist into its meaning with more ad hominem. You also ignore the hypocrisy of your argument, as Jehovah's Witnesses have masses of material heavily criticising other religions, so by your default, it should all be rejected as POV, biased, and highly subjective, and of little of no value. You have shot yourself in the foot Danny. You then go on with paragraphs of irrelevant red herrings, straw men, and more ad hominem character assassinations, in true Watch Tower fashion. You should read these Watch Tower articles on criticism and open-mindedness.

You come out with even more logical fallacies, by mentioning subjects that do not apply, and hoping the less knowledgeable reader will fall for your 'guilt by association' machinations. You speak about "disaffected individuals, apostates, and anti-cult movements", as if this somehow applies to Franz, when you have proven nothing. I'm sure I could get a host of quotes telling us all how sick and degenerate paedophiles are, and link that to you, and plenty of people would fall for that one if said over and over enough times, and the trick would have worked, no one would listen to anything you have to say if they believed you were messing about with little children. Your corrupt use of negative propaganda is disgusting, especially as you claim to be a Christian. I suggest you read your religion's articles on propaganda, you might learn to be more objective and less scheming in your arguments.

You then say: "Especially suspect are "Individuals who take up a cause for personal gain" by publishing books, etc." LOL, I nearly fell on the floor with laughter with that one! Hey, Danny, look in the mirror! The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society makes nearly a '$$$Billion$$$ US Dollars a year, a large part coming from its massive literature sales, most to loyal JWs. They also dodge paying their taxes on that massive income, this depleting the local community of needed funds (except in France where they have to pay their taxes, and are calling on "Satan's European governments" to fight Jehovah's scriptural worldly tax arrangements, LOL). The greed of the publishing Watch Tower is terrible, but interestingly not a peep of condemnation from Danny about those Watch Tower "Especially suspect 'Individuals who take up a cause for personal gain' by publishing books". Pure gold from Danny Muse!

You then go on: "There are not similar books listed on the WP pages for the Catholic religion. . ." Since when did JWs love to link themselves with Catholics? Besides Catholics being a specially hated religion by Jehovah's Witnesses, it is completely different in its size, history and doctrines, and its treatment if those who criticise it. There are over 1 billion Catholics, and a 1500 year old religion, with massive tradition etc., why on earth would it be described the same as a 120 year old cult like prophecy obsessed group that treats its internal critics like demon possessed monsters, and then expels them and bans its members from speaking to them? The two groups are light years apart and should not be described in identical fashion.

You go on: "Note that I don't object to having books included that give a critical analysis of our beliefs, not at all." You are having a laugh now, aren't you? You most certainly do object to any critical books. As you well know Danny, any book that is critical will automatically be classed in your mind as "biased, POV and unreliable", thus catch 22 is applied. As you have demonstrated, you are so indoctrinated and brainwashed, you are incapable of objectively seeing anything in this world that is not blurred by Watch Tower glasses. You then go on to say some really stupid stuff in your ultimate point: "In fact I would welcome ones that are written by an objective, scholarly source. These books are not that." Danny, ever heard the phrase, 'blind leading the blind'? You haven't read even one of the books mentioned, and yet you claim to be a qualified expert on them. Your guile and ignorance is as much saddening as it is disgusting. How you dare to claim something is not "scholarly and objective" when you haven't even read it, is astonishing, and perfectly demonstrates the mind-numbing hypnotic power of the cult-like mentality. You are an "expert" on something you know absolutely nothing of, and you expect us to accept this self-deluded stuff? Go away, buy the books, and READ THEM, then, and only then, will you have even a grain of credibility with any points you wish to make. You have overflowed with rhetoric about bias, POV, subjectivity bla, bla, bla., alleged about Raymond Franz or anyone who write critical material on the Watch Tower Society, and you have totally failed to give a single example from Raymond Franz's books, because you haven't even read them! You are like someone who claims he is a Bible scholar, and yet he's never even read a page of the Bible! What a joker you are Danny. You have lost all credibility due to your endless slander, propaganda, and ridiculous comments on something you are completely ignorant of. I'm sure Jehovah's must be proud of you. Please get an education before you embarrass us with your 'critiques' any more. Posted Central 14 July 2005

Central, you do not have to speak. And if it's not nice, you must not speak. Logical fallacies, while ineffective, are not proscribed (forbidden) by Wikipedia policy. But personal attacks are. I adjure you to stick to the issues and reserve your laughter for other venues. We accomplish nothing at Wikipedia by laughing at each other or yelling at each other. This is a serious matter, and I urge you to consider it carefully. Tom Haws 22:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Tom, thanks for your reply. You are correct; I should not laugh at Danny Muse, as it is more depressing than funny to see a cult-like mentality in action, especially on the doors, where many of the public can easily be fooled by Danny's type of false reasoning if they are not careful. I was not making a "personal attack", I was attcking his false reasoning. All my criticism of his false manipulative arguments, and deliberate attempts at deceit all still stand. Interesting, I see you do not criticise him for calling people "idiots, and pigs", why is this Tom? Is there one rule for some and a blind spot for others? Danny needs to realise that if he is to make a case, it has to be rational, not wild negative propaganda, and slippery false reasoning, regardless of his religion training him this way, it is not an excuse for him to use manipulative twisted reasoning here, hoping no one will perceive it. His veiled deceit and lying conclusions to incorrect points he makes all the time should be outed where seen. I apologise if I was rude as I was angry, knowing how many are sucked in by his religion's members specious and often twisted reasoning, but my points all still stand. Regards, Central. Posted 15 July 2005

Central, You apoligized to the wrong person. Anger does not excuse rudeness. That does NOT belong here. --DannyMuse 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I am placing a friendly block on both your accounts for 12 hours to stress the importance of keeping your tongues with each other. I hope you know I love you both. :-D Tom Haws 17:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Summary of changes to the section

Five editors have expressed their opinion on the section content and length. Here is a summary of the results:

Keep as is:

Revise: Shorter descriptions are more appropriate, perhaps a single sentence. Avoid promotional language. We do not need a synopsis of each and every book; A title, author, ISBN #, etc., etc. should be sufficient:

Tally: Three to two to revise. The changes have been made. --DannyMuse 17:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Danny, I have reverted your unjustified changes, as there are millions of people out there who have not given an opinion, and you cannot just throw what appears to be a tantrum because you are embittered by an argument with someone else. You alone do not possess the world's views. If someone got two people to agree with them that the entire JW page was to be banned and removed, would you allow this? Obviously not. The opinions of you, and one other, hardly justify or counteract the possible millions of views of others. Sorry, but you need to address your problems with the other poster, before you go removing text, as it looks like you are just being vindictive, which is not a tangible reason to edit anything. Regards, Elenap. Elenap 15th of July 2005

To whom it may concern, it's true we haven't heard from all 6.whatever billion people on earth, nor do we need to. WP doesn't work that way, nor was it meant to. We have however heard from those WP editors that are interested in this issue. The result is a consensus of the majority regarding what this section should contain. That being said, personal attacks are inappropriate on WP and are certainly not persuasive or logical. I don't respond well to bullying or taunts. Enough said. --DannyMuse 13:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Dearest Danny, I see you have not replied to any of the points put forward in my criticism of your obsessive use of propaganda, unfounded accusations, slander, and your ad hominem attacks to name but a few of your methods. I herby challenge you to take three different examples from either of Raymond Franz's two books, and prove to us using evidence contained in the books that he is "a bitter apostate, vindictive liar, makes inaccurate claims, and writes incorrect material about JWs, or the Watch Tower's Governing Body" as you claim. If you cannot do this, then you should permanently remove yourself, and be barred from Wikipedia, as you have demonstrated, hypocrisy, slander and defamation of character, negative grossly subjective propaganda and multiple lies, all of which discredit your character, and your editing scruples as virtually worthless, and indubitably of no value as a contributor to Wikipedia, as you have proven over and over that you feel content to destroy someone's character (Franz's in this case), his motives, his books, and all without reading a single page of his written material. If someone did the same about Jehovah's Witnesses books, you would be outraged, disgusted, and we would never hear the end to it, you definitely would not stand for it. You would also have utmost contempt for someone who makes up lies, false accusations, and slander about JWs and their books, especially if they had never even read a single JW publication and yet they posted masses of negative claims about them, just like you have about Raymond Franz. YOU Danny Muse, are in NO position to speak, as you have not even read a single book by Raymond Franz, and so have completely and permanently revoked your right to speak, edit, or comment on the matter, of which you have admitted ZERO knowledge about him, his motives, his life or about his books and their Wikepedia entries, which you have the audacity to claim are "inaccurate", and yet you have zero basis for this false claim, but you still cling to it like a rabid Pit bull. Give it up Danny; you are biting at your own air filled fantasies and straw men. Wishing you well, and I hope you come back down to reality soon. Kind regards Central. Posted 17 July 2005 (PS, I will pray for you, and I really mean it)

Central, slander is a serious charge. You shouldn't make accusations that are untrue and that you cannot substantiate. Please desist at once. --DannyMuse 04:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Danny, YOU are the one who loves to slander, where is a grain of proof for all your unfounded accusations about Raymond Franz? You have slandered obsessively. Try taking your own advice before you give it to others! See Luke 6:42. Posted Central 19 July 2005

This thread seems quite prolonged and unproductive. In order to maintain some neutrality, I think that it is useful to say a couple of sentences about what the book is about, but make no comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the book in question. For Franz's book, saying who he is is useful, that the book is about his account of the JW organization's inner workings, and how he explores the tension between personal conscience and religious authority. It can be left up to the reader to determine if he is vindictive, or scholarly, correct, incorrect, etc. Going by what I have found on Amazon, how about if we try this: "... a former Governing Body member of the Watchtower organization. This book gives a detailed account of the authority structure and decision-making practices he experienced while serving on the Governing Body. Raymond Franz gives a personal account of the inner conflict between loyalty to one's conscience versus loyalty to one's organization." Is this sufficiently neutral? boche 19:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

boche, Welcome to Wikipedia, I like your suggestion. Let's try it and see how it flies! --DannyMuse 00:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To all Wikipedia Editors of the Jehovah's Witnesses pages:

FOR THE RECORD: I have chosen to not respond directly to Central's continued personal attacks on myself as that is quite obviously a pointless exercise in futility and frustration¹. Nevertheless, I felt an explanation might be in order for anyone else contributing to these pages. As Central is fond of pointing out ad hominem arguments are a logical fallacy. By the same token anything he says about me is quite frankly irrelevant to the real issue, which is what should be included in the Critical of the Group section. This has been discussed at length above. And, although we clearly we're not able to reach a unanimous agreement on the content, we did attain a majority consensus from those of the current contributors to this page that cared to express an opinion regarding what this section should and should not contain. Anyone that is curious can read the above thread which--as boche has observed--is "quite prolonged". That being said, I welcome any and all reasonable dialogue on the subject. But as long as Central continues his personal attacks on my character I will continue to undo his reverts without further comment. --DannyMuse 04:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

¹ - As an example, Central wrote: "'I was insulting you just for pleasure, not because it proves you wrong' ... Posted Central 7 July 2005" (see above this section)

FOR THE RECORD. Danny, you love to weave more straw men and avoid the real issues at all cost, as you have just beautifully demonstrated. As for me insulting you, it came because of you making provoking insults at me, calling me a " hog and pig" in one of your previous replies on 5 July 2005 15:46 (UTC). If you were using that kind of language with members of the public in the street, you would no doubt be quickly punished and hospitalised for your insulting provocations, and you have also demonstrate why many Jehovah's Witnesses who follow your methods actually incite hate against themselves and their religion due to their shameless insulting and provoking behaviour. You then make more revealing and completely false remarks: "As Central is fond of pointing out ad hominem arguments are a logical fallacy. By the same token anything he says about me is quite frankly irrelevant to the real issue". I pointed out to you, that when I insulted you it did not prove your argumentation wrong (you prove yourself wrong by your manipulative specious methods and lack of any evidence), so therefore, it was not ad hominem at all, but just an insult from your own provoking insults of which you appear to measure by another set of biased scales. Secondly, all the points I have made about your false conclusions and your false logic are all valid as they prove that you are not objective or reasonable at all, and have zero evidence to base your claims on, and are often very slanderous of others (Raymond Franz in this case) with no evidence to back your claims.

YOU Danny Muse, have failed to answer a single point of mine (a typical JW trait), which were about your logical fallacies, your use of slander, your negative propaganda, and your rhetoric. I have asked you again and again for proof of your statements and claims on Franz, and you have dramatically failed on all accounts to bring them on. Here again is the challenge summarized: I herby challenge you to take three different examples from either of Raymond Franz's two books, and prove to us using evidence contained in the books that he is "a bitter apostate, vindictive liar, makes inaccurate claims, and writes incorrect material about JWs, or the Watch Tower's Governing Body" as you claim. If you cannot do this, then you should permanently remove yourself, and be barred from Wikipedia, as you have demonstrated. . . your editing scruples as virtually worthless, and indubitably of no value as a contributor to Wikipedia, as you have proven over and over that you feel content to destroy someone's character (Franz's in this case), his motives, his books, and all without reading a single page of his written material. If someone did the same about Jehovah's Witnesses books, you would be outraged, disgusted, and we would never hear the end to it, you definitely would not stand for it. You would also have utmost contempt for someone who makes up lies, false accusations, and slander about JWs and their books, especially if they had never even read a single JW publication and yet they posted masses of negative claims about them, just like you have about Raymond Franz. YOU Danny Muse, are in NO position to speak, as you have not even read a single book by Raymond Franz, and so have completely and permanently revoked your right to speak, edit, or comment on this matter. . .. If you can bring on proof, then you can have an opinion that the book descriptions are 'this or that' etc., until then all you say is biased POV and unfounded. You have no right to say or edit anything on this particular subject, as you have demonstrated that truth on the matter and literature is not a subject you are interested in. Please read Proverbs 18:13. Posted Central 19 July 2005 (PS. I'm sure you will ignore all this and make up some more straw man to focus on to take the light off your complete lack of evidential backup to your claims about the books and Raymond Franz's character etc. The original book descriptions should stay, as they are brief, to the point, accurate, and give enough information to know the basic book's content. If you disagree then prove it, don't vandalize out of spite as you have been doing.)Also, I see Tom Haws checked the entire critical sections and made some edits on 18 June 2005, and approved the extended book descriptions, which you have totally ignored, therefore it was a yes vote, not a no)

Tom Haws wrote on July 7, 2005 20:58 (UTC):

"I would suggest you try to find book lists in other articles (Mountain Meadows Massacre comes to mind) and follow their format. I think the [extended book] descriptions given tend to be a little too promotional of the books, and shorter (perhaps single sentence) descriptions would be more appropriate."

Danny, can't you read? His edits were on the 18 June, and he was happy with the even longer book descriptions. The later link (7 July) was only there as you had thrown a tantrum weeks later at not wanted any critical material at all, and his link (as I pointed out) gave a four paragraphs description to a book, not a small one paragraph. Funny how you ignore information that doesn't suit your agenda. Central 20 July 2005

To all Wikipedia Editors of the Jehovah's Witnesses pages: I suppose I shouldn't feel that I have to defend myself, but when someone continually makes false accusations it's bothersome. For the record:

Central has on more than one occasion stated that I have claimed that Raymond Franz is "a bitter apostate, vindictive liar, makes inaccurate claims, and writes incorrect material about JWs, or the Watch Tower's Governing Body". I have never made any of those claims. A search of this page using any of those phrases will prove that.

Danny, you repeatedly restored Duffer1's slanderous material and reinstated it, you make other accusations that Franz was "expelled" from the Governing Body, and disfellowshipped for teaching apostate material, all of which is false, but you kept repeating your lies in the hope they would stick, along with all your other accusations about him being bitter, apostate (and giving multiple links to "anti-cult movements") then using bogus false reason saying that all these were not "your opinions" but those of "experts"! Your memory is highly selective, but I understand, as many cult victims take a long time to get their reasoning faculties back.

Central also repeatedly says that since I have "not even read a single book by Raymond Franz" I "have completely and permanently revoked [my] right to speak". Besides the fact that his conclusion doesn't follow from his premise, he has no knowledge of whether or not I have read these books. This is just an assumption on his part. Regardless, it is irrelevant because the discussion on what was appropriate for this section was regarding the content of the book descriptions, not the content of the books.

Danny, you said: "Besides the fact that his conclusion doesn't follow from his premise". How does it not follow? You are ignorant of the facts in the books, so you have no valid opinion to base your attacks on, as you know nothing of the material in the books, therefore you should keep your ignorance to yourself. You then go on to say: "he has no knowledge of whether or not I have read these books. This is just an assumption on his part". No it's not an assumtion, as if you had read them, you would not have put such stupid and grossly inaccurate slanderous claims about the books in the main page in the first place! And you would never have made such a fool of yourself by repeatedly claiming the same things over and over. If you had read the books, you would not have written what you did. Your own words prove your ignorance of the books and their content. You then make another false argument, you said: "Regardless, it is irrelevant because the discussion on what was appropriate for this section was regarding the content of the book descriptions, not the content of the books." You ignore the blindingly obvious; that the descriptions of the books were about their contents!, and their content was something you have proven you know nothing about, therefore, the descriptions of the content you are equally ignorant of and unqualified to comment on. You have failed over and over to give a single piece of substance to any of your claims, and you have failed to defend your claims with any evidence at all, and now you are trying to slide off the subject with more rubbish about 'personal attacks' hoping your new straw man will fool the readers into forgetting what an ass you have made of yourself, and how totally unsubstantiated all your accusations about Franz and his books are. You are just a poor casualty of the Watch Tower's programming. You can recover Danny, but only if you choose to. God will help you if you really want him to and you want the real truth. Kind regards, Central. Posted 20 July 2005

I'm not sure why he feels the need to continue these personal attacks which are clearly in violation of official policy on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, as I have said before as long as Central continues his personal attacks on my character I will continue to undo his reverts. --DannyMuse 15:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

More red herrings and straw men distractions from Danny. You are now playing the wounded martyr in the vain hope you will pull in the gullible into feeling sorry for you enough to forget all the flawed accusations you have been putting out over the weeks about Raymond Franz. Danny, go and read the books then you may comment on their content, and only then. Central Posted 20 July 2005

'''Comments on Basic Editing of Introduction text''' 67.118.1.54:I have tried to add some value to this article several time over the last week only to see my comments removed or reversed. With 25+ years as a JW, I feel fairly confident of making basic points of our faith.

But I think I will not do so much more as I don't understand why such simple facts I add are deleted.

Why is pointing out that JW's view JC as the head of the congregation removed? (Was this removed by a non-JW who finds fault with us not viewing JC as God?) Why is posting simple scriptural references removed? (JW's use the Bible exhaustively to establish our positions, why would scriptural references be removed?) Why must this article say that we reject traditional Christian views of Hell and the soul? Why is explaining what we DO believe about the soul (we are souls that are mortal) and hell (common grave of mankind) quickly removed?

This is such basic stuff that forms the core of JW beliefs.

It's beyond me why this is happening. I am very qualified to add to the value of this article, but if such simple stuff is eliminated, I feel that I'm wasting my time and I will move on to more productive things.