My comments on the quote are as follows. First, let's quote the NWT passage involved.
45 “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU , He will appoint him over all his belongings.
48 “But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ 49 and should start to beat his fellow slaves and should eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, 51 and will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his part with the hypocrites. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.
Ok, that out of the way. Now, from the 2004 Watchtower study:
Yes, the “evil slave” came from the ranks of the faithful slave. How?
What in the Parable of the Slave indicates that the slave discussed is a class of people? And furthermore what supports the interpretation that the "evil slave" comes from the "ranks" of the faithful slave? Even if you believe that this is referring to a "class," in fact only one slave is ever mentioned in the parable, and that one single slave either passes or fails. It doesn't support in any way the notion that the slave could somehow split in two, partly passing and partly failing.
Before 1914, many members of the faithful slave class had high hopes of meeting with the Bridegroom in heaven that year
As pointed out by others, this is because that was the official doctrine of the Bible Students. To believe otherwise would have been to be an apostate.
As a result of this and other developments
Why mention the "other developments" and then not specify what those developments were?
Some of these turned to ‘beating’ their former brothers verbally and consorting with “confirmed drunkards,” religious groups of Christendom.
Where is the proof that the "beating" somehow indicates verbal dissent? And where is the proof that "confirmed drunkards" refers to "religios groups of Christendom"?
He [Jesus] rejected them, and they lost out on their heavenly hope.
How do we know this? Did Jesus tell you that?
They first had to endure a period of weeping and gnashing of teeth in “the darkness outside” the Christian congregation.
Where is the evidence that those who didn't follow Rutherford, or who stopped following Russell, endured a period of "weeping and gnashing of teeth?" How was their post-Bible Student experience consistent with that description?
a few other anointed individuals have shown a similar bad spirit, identifying themselves with the “evil slave.”
The phrase "identifying themselves" sounds like it's something they announced, but in reality, it's a label that the Society applied to them, based on their interpretation. No "anointed" person has ever left the Society and announced "I am part of the evil slave now."
Rather than becoming embittered, however, they were readjusted. (2 Corinthians 13:11)
Where is the scriptural basis supporting "readjustment"? I'm sorry, 2Cor13:11 doesn't cut it, just because a scripture mentions "readjustment" doesn't support the idea that proper worship of God requires constant adjustments in core eschatological understandings.
It's such ballocks. Because the scriptures themselves don't support the interpretations the Witnesses impart, believing these teachings requires--REQUIRES--that you accept that there are additional revelations, additional inspiration, beyond Scripture, and that the Society is the sole owner of those revelations.