As usual, J Alward has hit the nail somewhat to left-field of its head. He opines;
Thus, I think most Jehovah's Witnesses would understand that the publication of the articles was a form of theocratic warfare, and would heartily approve.Unfortunately he doesn't recognize that their letter to him is more of the same. Most JWs would laugh heartily at the idea that their worldly defender has been so easily duped into defending them. Most exJWs are simply amused that an inexperienced outsider like Joe thinks that he can set the record straight for us poor biased, dumb, exJWs. Incidentally, theorcatic war strategy is just another name for simple deception or lying and Alward's apparent gloryfying of it shows just how much he respects truth and objectivity.
What did Alward expect the WTS to write; "Dear Mighty Joe Alward, we lied to everyone else, but now that you, that valiant seeker after truth has written to use, we will tell you the plain unvarnished truth, and so we admit to our duplicity." ??? Is he so arrogant as to have expected such a response because of his evidently ingratiating letter?
Or would they resort to the same Theocratic War Strategy that they have employed all along? As usual, the letter from the WTS contains neither verifiable facts nor documentation and is therefore totally meaningless. It is a mere expression of the party line and a typical example of how the WTS refuses to address the issues honestly. So why did Joe bother publishing it? The only things that it demonstrates are that Joe is clueless and the WTS knows it. After all, a true scholar would have demanded evidence rather than, somewhat fawningly it seems, soliciting opinions that confirm his own bias. I'd love to watch Joe cross-exmine Slobodan Milosevic. In any event, that Joe has published the letter without noting that it contains no proof or actual evidence speaks much about his skills as an investigator.
It's also interesting that the WTS thanked Joe for apparently expressing his preconceived opinion that the WTS was innocent of any guilt. Hardly the approach taken by an unbiased person who's interested in getting to the bottom of a matter, now is it? Researcher bias is a very dangerous thing.
It's also very curious that a self-proclaimed skeptic of Christianity is such an ardent supporter of the WTS.
All in all Alward here shows himself not only to be incompetent as a researcher but a dishonest one to boot.
Herbert