While iw as enjoying reading Stafford, Hall Flemmings, SolomonLanders, and the rest...... I do wonder why ALL apologetics of any note seemed to have completely dried up?
(You do know that Solomon Landers passed away early last year?) I agree with Focus about the virtual beatings. My take on it is below. Because I'm lazy, I'll c&p my comments from another forum:
... the major reason is the leadership's counsel against engaging with former and current members who are critical of or challenge JW teachings. By calling them the worst name imaginable to a JW, the a-word ('apostate'), which is almost synonymous with 'satanic,' they are instilling a gut-felt aversion to these people and thus closing down JW minds to any criticisms and challenges, regardless of how valid they may be.
Of course, there will always be some JWs who disregard the Governing Body/'faithful and discreet slave's' counsel, but they will be in the minority. However, given the frequent and strongly-worded reminders by the leadership over the past few years, encountering real JW apologists on discussion forums will probably become increasingly rare. I think the glory days of JW debate on the internet (late '90s - late 2000s) are gone now.
------
Moreover, what confidence does a JW defender have any more in arguing the Org's position? With the Org. transitioning and reinventing itself these past few years, and all the recent doctrinal overhauls (likely much more is to come), e.g. the new identity of the 'FDS' and the timing of its appointment or the embarrassing 'overlapping generation' teaching, rugs have been pulled from under the JW defender. What was once thought a solid position no longer is, and some of the new understandings are more confusing than the previous ones. Sensible people will only fight for an argument when they think they have a strong case.