"Moreover, we need to consider whether the person asking for information is entitled to
a comprehensive answer." Then they go into all sorts of examples to show where it's
alright to lie. (Such lovers of truth)
To be totally fair to the article, it doesn't say that it is okay to lie when someone
is not entitled to the truth. It says "...even in this case, it would have been wrong
for him to tell a lie."
It allows the reader to fill in the gaps. They imply that he would withhold information
to those not deserving it, or perhaps even mislead those who ask for information
when it is not theirs to ask for. The article is trying to say "always be honest"
and they say that misleading someone is dishonest, but they imply when it is okay.
I use their information in my theocratic warfare. The WTS uses deceitful recruiting and
retention tactics, so when I am asked about my activity, they are not within their rights
to have the information. I have redefined "Apostate" to be one abandoning TRUTHFUL religion
for lazy or selfish reasons. This causes the WTS to be apostate, but those who leave it
are not. They are not leaving for lazy or selfish reasons, or they are not leaving any "truth."
SO- when asked about my personal activity, I can answer accordingly.
For instance- ARE YOU STILL HAVING DOUBTS?
No, I agree with the WT (There's so much crap out there, some of it is true)
HAVE YOU READ ANY APOSTATE LITERATURE?
No. (Only slightly misleading, because I have glanced at the Watchtower, itself)