Auld Soul: If you meant authority in the sense you now assert, the proper usage would be:
dilaceratus: As an authority he has a commensurate responsibility to...
What I wrote was: "With that authority comes commensurate responsibility..." Read by someone fairly literate, this would be easily understood as: "With that [power and influence conferred by respect, long-established reputation, and mental superiority] comes commensurate responsibility..."
As in, for example, in Milton's Paradise Lost:
Truth, wisdom, sanctitude severe and pure,
(Severe, but in true filial freedom placed,)
Whence true authority in men; . . .You appear to contradict yourself, in chiding me for what you feel to be too formal a word choice (on an "informal board"-- as opposed to, say, JWO?), and then immediately chastising me for what you (incorrectly) perceive to be poor usage. Is the "good communication" you speak so longingly of some sort of code for, "Speak slowly, former Jehovah's Witnesses present"? Hillary_step seems to think otherwise.
Is there any chance you will resist posting another reckless accusation about the content of my posts until you have given it at least a half an hour or so to sink in?
Hillary_step: You describe AlanF as posting a thread that amount to 'bullying'. Now a person can only be bullied by words on a discussion board and not actions obviously. Words are received and processed intellectually. Get my drift?
Perhaps you can describe for me some stimulus that is not processed intellectually. Whether agonizing or orgasmic, any experience that is to be described must first be intellectualized. Your designation is meaningless.
Still, to follow your line of rationale, it would be dangerous for anyone's "intellectual health" for them to not immediately post whatever speculation popped into their head, however harmful, scurrilous, or untrue it may be. Should we conclude, then, that your own imagination is lacking, or that your own intellectual health compromised?
Given these admissions, the speculation proposed by AlanF is not out of the bounds of possibility. Or do you think that it is? Please state your position.
Having no evidence other than a claim by Thirdwitness that his work was collaborative, I haven't the slightest idea whether it might be possible or not. It is surely unlikely, given the Tyre argument, previous e-Watchman affiliation, and participation in the screwy Jehovah Ring. Mightn't it be improbable, but not impossible, that AlanF is a racist? Or that Raymond Franz was selected by Fred to serve as a Goldstein? Or that Scholar is none other than Peter Carey, having some fun? Please state your position.