Thanks Diogenesister for calling out vienne’s behaviour, it wasn’t necessary but appreciated anyway. :-)
To relate it back to the topic of the thread, vienne had claimed that removal of AMIII’s videos followed a pattern because Raymond Franz’s articles in the Aid book were omitted when it was reissued as the Insight books, and that some books were quietly dropped as quick as possible. The problem with the comparison is that it’s entirely false. Raymond Franz’s articles were in fact included in the Insight books, as four different posters pointed out, and another poster pointed out that it was the Commentary on James that was disused, which was written by Ed Dunlap, not Raymond Franz.
Another obvious difference is that removing AMIII’s videos is going to be noticed by ordinary JWs because he was such a prominent fixture on JW broadcasting. Even if Raymond Franz’s articles had not been included in the Insight books (which they were) ordinary JWs probably would never have noticed. We only know some of the articles that Raymond Franz wrote because he made it public himself. Ordinary JWs are generally unaware of who has written what in the literature, so the comparison doesn’t fit on a theoretical level either, as well as being wrong.
Having pointed out to vienne that Raymond Franz’s articles were not “omitted”, she then claimed they were “rewritten”, and “totally new articles”, under the same title only. I pointed out that the “overseer” articles are similar and even use much of the same wording. She then pointed to the “older man” article instead. But that’s weird because, if anything, the “older man” articles in the Aid book and the Insight volume are even closer in content than the “overseer” articles. Anyone can see for themselves in those articles too, much of the wording is exactly the same:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200013239
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003316
The three articles that vienne mentioned demonstrate the opposite of what she originally said: much of the material that Raymond Franz wrote for the Aid book was retained in the Insight books. That’s interesting because Raymond Franz explained the rationale behind his strategy in the “chronology” article as focussing on undermining the reliability of secular chronologies in order to create doubt and room for Watchtower chronology. That is a strategy that Watchtower still follows to this day, which tells us that Watchtower will still use the rationale, reasoning and actual words of defectors after they leave the religion, if they remain useful. Whether that will also hold true for some of AMIII’s videos I don’t know, because the situation is somewhat different as explained above.
vienne now invites me to produce other articles that Raymond Franz wrote. I don’t know why. It wasn’t me who claimed his articles were omitted, she did. Perhaps, having wasted such a long time trying to defend a mistaken comment, for unknown reasons, she wanted to send me on some sort of wild goose chase too.
Altogether, what a truly bizarre exchange.
btw, vienne mentioned, yet again, that her uncle Bruce would never post on a website such as this. They have made this comment a number of times on the forum. I don’t know why it needs to be said so often. Is there something wrong with this forum? As far as I know, nobody on the forum has ever claimed that her uncle Bruce is posting on this forum, or writing under someone else’s name. So why does she keep bringing it up? She is very eager for everyone to know that uncle Bruce is not posting on this forum. Okay, message received, loud and clear: Uncle Bruce is not posting on this forum! You don’t need to keep repeating yourself, “vienne”. ;-)