Nickolas, Thank you for clarifying what you meant by ratcheting up. I've been checking out the WT firsthand (going to their meetings, etc.) for about a year, and I'm convinced that it destroys people. You make a good point that if I'm convinced that it is destructive, I should not struggle with why I should try to communicate with my friend. I sympathize with the dynamic you are experiencing which I agree is like pulling teeth.
FWIW, I am working through the material on websites such as this
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html
but you may already be past that sort of thing. It's helping me because I need to learn the basics of what most rational people consider sound argumentation. I'm hoping to get my thoughts more organized in a dispassionate way.
From reading over your posts on this thread, here is what I see:
1. On one hand, you have agreed not to interfere with her WT activities even though you disagree with them.
2. On the other hand, you have named at least one of her WT activities that you find intolerable - namely the straw being shunning.
This is a tough situation because how can you -not- interfere with something you find intolerable? I guess there are two pieces to what you could do. The first piece is that you could exercise your own choice and associate with the people being shunned. If your wife shuns them, that is her choice, but you are not personally going to do it. The second piece is to attempt to have a dispassionate discussion about it using basic logic as illustrated on websites like the one I mentioned above or just google the term "critical thinking."