We must be very
selective about what we consider worthy of our attention. (The ‘preacher’s WE’)
Especially could
those (What weird grammar) who are new to the Internet (Why new? Is this to
imply that the GB are experienced and the reader is a dolt?) conclude that a
report or a news item, however strange or sensational, is true simply because
it is online or because a friend sent it via e-mail. (How patronising)
It is also unwise
(Comma missed) to forward recordings or transcripts of Bible talks. (Why?
Because the current light might be superseded and the WBT$ do not want to be
liabe for it?)
Furthermore,
forwarding research material, verses extracted for Bible study, or answers to
use at congregation meetings would detract from the value of each individual’s
personal preparation. (Yes, can’t have the R&F missing a chance to be
brainwashed or give them extra time. Funny how the WBT$ doesn’t like anything
recorded in any media whatsoever!)
And what should
you do if you find slanderous (Really?) news about Jehovah’s organization on
the Internet? Such material should be firmly rejected (How do you know if it’s
slanderous unless you investigate?)...Jesus, (Appeal to authority) who was the
object of false accusations, warned his followers that enemies would persecute
them and “lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against [them].” (So, that was
Jesus. What has Jesus got to do with the WBT$? Is this non-sequitur hour?)