After reading many experiences, and looking at my own experiences, I really do think that this "general approach" is the best.. Less detail = less arguing. Human emotion for right and wrong will connect with human emotion..
I found two things they understood clearly. These were that WT policies on education and handling cases of child molestation are wrong...... Perhaps two other things also worth mentioning are that at some moment in our conversation, they stated, "well, the brothers are imperfect, there will be some mistakes." I was waiting for those words and it was my green light to repeat them, "yes, I know very well that they are imperfect, and I cannot pretend that they are perfect." And later repeated them again, "well, the brothers are imperfect, there will be some mistakes. So there's no point in arguing about what is printed in the Watchtower, because it could easily be another mistake and be completely changed in an upcoming article."
.... Also, using their own words and thoughts (because you DO hear "they are just imperfect men" ALLLLL the time) and "there will be some mistakes" (so why do we believe them?) They really can't say A..N..Y..thing..... Otherwise, there IS no excuse, right?
Let THEM be the ones having to explain...