Hi wasistdas. Much like you, I too am an active JW. I don't share the same opinions as you on certain topics, but certainly we can differ on opinions (it's our constitutional right!)
You mentioned that you would not look at "apostate" material because you don't think that the people who write them (former JW's) can truly be objective in their writings, i.e. they are probably intellectually dishonest. While indeed your reasoning can be true, this is not a good reason not to look at "apostate" material.
The only way one can know whether a persons arguments or claims are true or not is by listening to that argument then finding relevant credible truth to disprove it. For example, you mentioned in a previous thread that some people claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are communist. Did you go about disproving that claim by not giving ear to the claim, or by listening to it and then finding relevant information to debunk it?
Obviously, you believe that the "apostate" books must be false because they were written by former members. They have a "chip on their shoulder" and therefore can't be trusted. Do you also disbelieve the horror stories of people who survived the Nazi concentration camps? Obviously, they have a "chip on their shoulder", so any polemical stories written by these survivors must be false. I'm sure you see the falacy in the argument. Every story written by a Nazi survivor may not be written "objectively" (i.e. from the point of view of a dispassionate third person), but that does not make them false. How the story measures up against the established facts is what proves its veracity. The exact standard should be used when evaluating "apostate" material. Their value should be established on their adherance to truth and fact and not on who wrote it (i.e. if the writer says something bad about the society and it can be verified, then they're right and the society deserves to look bad). So if Ray Franz were to make a "wicked" claim in his book such as the Society falsely predicting the end of the world in 1874, 1878, 1914, 1925 and early 1940, a review of the facts (in Watchtower publications), and not (false) attacks on the possible unreliability of his claims should be used to determine whether taking these claims seriously is adviseable or not. No intellectually honest researcher (including probably the fine English professor you mentioned) would refuse to look at an opposing viewpoint because the one who proposes it. The viewpoint ultimately lives or dies on whether it is truthful or not. Another personal example is my opposition to the drilling for oil in ANWAR. I didn't reach this decision by refusing to listen to anyone who had an interest the oil being drawn, but rather by listening to both sides of the argument and deciding from that.
I truly hope that you will consider what I said. If you are not interested in verifing whether your belief system is sound (because your satisfied the way you are) then that's fine. However, you seem to be a very research minded and concerned about truth. Please make your decision based on evidence and not prejudice. Hell, it's the only reason JW's have won any Supreme Court cases, it's the only way you can truly know the full truth about "THE TRUTH".
P.S.: You mentioned whether one would go to the police station to learn about the fire station, impling one should go to JW sources to learn about JW's. The answer is it depends on the question. If you ask "What percentage of firemen wear mustaches? ("How are the JW meetings organized?"), then sure. If you ask "Do firemen always respond promptly to fires?" or you ask the U.S. Gov't "Do you spend all my money efficiently?" ("Are JW doctrines all solidly grounded in scripture?"), then you might want to look to others for answers.
