@williamhconley - I completely agree with you that this was a very, very eye-opening and important disclosure. Not doubt about it. And I would like to see it get more coverage, so I'm glad you re-kindled it.
But we also have to be careful to get our facts straight. 'Close enough' is not really good enough when we have the attention of even one JW. We know that the WT often mis-quotes and misrepresents what people say. Most of us were not taught how to properly verify information and the importance of correct referencing.
Why say it was Connie Chung in the first place? Was that to get people to pay attention more? It had the opposite effect and derailed your thread.
But the original thread that I cited above has been re-activated and over 500 more views in the past 16 days. So that's great.
-Aude.