wannabefree has hit the nail on the head and (thank goodness) grasped the point here. Anyone can play these things down and say they don't matter. The "History Channel" was used as an anology in one post, which Old Goat apparently stands by. However, when you combine what the society do with who they claim to be (God's channel of communication) and what they stand for in their own publications (accuracy and truthfulness, even in "seemingly insignificant details"), THEN it becomes an issue.
I notice his attitude has been commented on by a few posts now, so I don't need to get embroiled in another exchange with him, but here (for the record) are a few of the wackier things Old Goat has come out with recently...
Calling a post silly and calling the man silly are not the same thing.
True, but they're still both belittling, patronizing, and condescending - especially when used to express the idea that your issues are more relevant.
I am interested in seeing the best arguments put forward. Weaker arguments cloud the issue.
Old Goat again asserts that this is a weak argument. For the reasons expressed by everyone above - it isn't. It would be a weak argument were it not that seldom is there a more clear-cut way of showing someone in a direct comparison of picture A with picture B how the society "sanitizes" its own history to appeal to people, in direct contradiction of a sweeping pledge of honesty in a recent publication. In the modern world (from which old goat appears somewhat detached), people like to be shown things clearly and simply, and they like to see things that are in circulation now rather than what was in circulation 50 years ago. This is now, this is current, and it is a clear case of deception, no matter how the society would choose to spin it if they were challenged directly on the issue.
He also makes the case that "weak arguments cloud the issue". I think he puts his cards on the table here. He's upset that this discussion has even been posted because it detracts from the case that he would prefer to make against the society. I'm sure at some point over the years this "old goat" has had his "day in court", and yet the society continues on as before. Maybe his approach all these years has been flawed, and the "little things" DO all add up and help to present people with the real picture that the society don't want us to see. By all accounts the society aren't the only ones who don't want us to see this, bizarrely it would seem that old goat doesn't want us to see it either!! Apparently this information clouds his wonderous exalted arguments and treads on the toes of his personal crusade. In the eyes of old goat, jwfacts is like a streaker on the beaches of Normandy, prancing around and making it difficult for he and his allies to mount their glorious liberation. Sorry old goat, but I don't see it that way. I think you're the only one who does.
If he's so keen on playing the age card (I've been around since such-and-such-a-book, blah blah) then I will too - maybe he should stand aside, take a well earned rest for his decades of effort, and let the young ones have their turn at deciding what is and isn't relevant. In the meantime we value his input, experience and insight - but so long as it is expressed in a way that is respectful and not condescending.
