Well, the thing with this matter is, it depends on the audience. A loyal JW hears you saw, "The Society is lying about its own history," which I would say can be easily proven, is still going to shut down their consideration of what you have to say, even if you follow that up with documented proof.
I guess it's better to appeal to tangible proof and then state your conclusion, which they can either accept or reject. But unfortunately for me, I'm not so good at keeping my emotions neutral when it comes to stuff like this. But I generally don't use the word 'cult' in reference to JWs if I'm speaking to a JW unless I'm particularly angry about something.
In some cases probably the Society doesn't know they're lying, but I would argue that in general, they either know or should have known that what they were saying was not true. Particularly in articles geared towards the public, statements are phrased in such a manner that only a person fully aware that he cannot say a certain thing to the public would have written it that way. So it becomes a lie by omission, and with intent, particularly when important, relevant facts are omitted on some particular subject or the statement is phrased in such a way that it clouds the issue.
I would say it's better not to rave and rant about the JWs but rather to rationally put forth factual information. Because I don't want people to believe me because I'm mad about it and I think they should be, too. (Actually I'd prefer they not be mad, because it sucks to be mad all the time about being duped.) I want them to believe the facts, to examine the facts independently of whatever I've said, and draw their own conclusions. Better to encourage independent verification of something, free inquiry into the matter, than to try to get people's emotions riled up and have that stand in place of evidence.
--sd-7
