Posts by Duncan

49

Update on Alan Feuerbacher's heart attack that he had last Sunday

by AndersonsInfo in

jw
friends

alan'swife, julie, talked to the cardiologist this morning.

the news about alan's heart is good.

he described the heart attack as mild and said that although there is damage to the lower portion of his heart, the pumping action probably won't be affected much.

Duncan

As BluesBrother said:

"AlanF ... the Greatest Poster!"

Get well soon, Alan.

Duncan.

(just one of a huge whole bunch of people who REALLY appreciate everything you have done.)

20

Are you CONFRONTED by Elders? 7 points to practice

by Terry in

remember that old movie, the adventures of robin hood with erroll flynn?.

there is a scene where robin wants to cross a creek by walking across a log used as a bridge.

friar tuck is determined to stop him.. the are both standing on the log over the creek opposing each other with not-all-too-friendly banter.. somebody is going to end up in the water!.

Duncan

Really excellent post Terry.

well thought-out, well expressed.

21

i'm a new chap here, one of the old h2o refugees who seem to have been streaming to this place recently.. englishman suggested i post my "christmas shopping" post as a kind of introductory-hi-and-how-are-you.

hope you like it, despite it not being terribly seasonal at the moment.. i'll look forward to posting here in the future (original stuff i mean, not just reheated "greatest hits" like this).

Duncan

Hi everyone

I thought I'd bttt this old post, since it's that time of year. Bttt-ing this is almost traditional now.

In fact, Mrs Duncan and I are just about to leave for this year's Christmas shopping jaunt at Watford Harlequin.

Merry Christmas to all.

Duncan.

25

" ...but did you know that God has a name? A personal name?" Nine Billion of them.

by Duncan in

jw
friends

this post - and i warn you now, its a longish essay - is going to be all about names.

but to get started, a little quiz: - what do the following all have in common?.

mount fuji, the river avon, the sahara desert, lake niassa.. .

Duncan

Yes. I don't understand what you mean.

I said: " I am having some trouble understanding your point."

I made a guess at what you might mean, but hoped you would clarify.

If all you meant to say to ME was: "what is YOUR point?" - then let me tell you:

I post some thoughts on a topic that I find interesting, and I hope the readers will find interesting; maybe I'll make some people see something in a new way; I'm only hoping that the post will be informative and entertaining.

Duncan.

31

Morning Is Breaking ...

by snowbird in

jw
friends

it is about 5:15 in the am, cdt, here in alabama.. a bird is chirping; a rooster is crowing; the fans are humming.. i've got laundry and floors - i cooked on yesterday.. my daughter has kh meetings and brought-home work.. what about you?.

syl.

Duncan

Hello Syl.

It's just about mid-day here in the UK, a cloudy, wet and miserable-looking Sunday lunchtime in London.

Just about to go and get the weekly shopping at our local Tesco.

Oh, it's an exciting life, alright.

Duncan.

25

" ...but did you know that God has a name? A personal name?" Nine Billion of them.

by Duncan in

jw
friends

this post - and i warn you now, its a longish essay - is going to be all about names.

but to get started, a little quiz: - what do the following all have in common?.

mount fuji, the river avon, the sahara desert, lake niassa.. .

Duncan

Dear Coolcurrent,

Thanks for your reply, but like the previous two chaps, I am having some trouble understanding your point.

It seems to be - "there are many questions in this world that we don't know the answer to, and none of us can claim to be the cleverest person in the world; therefore: ...er... God exists, and the Witnesses are right!"

Is that it?

25

" ...but did you know that God has a name? A personal name?" Nine Billion of them.

by Duncan in

jw
friends

this post - and i warn you now, its a longish essay - is going to be all about names.

but to get started, a little quiz: - what do the following all have in common?.

mount fuji, the river avon, the sahara desert, lake niassa.. .

Duncan

Dear everyone,

many thanks for your replies.

Hello 20571pnt428571 (snappy posting-name there!), you quote, from Ezekiel:

"...the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘that my rage will come up into my nose. 19 And in my ardor, in the fire of my fury, I shall have to speak. Surely in that day a great quaking will occur..."

I think that this is the kind of passage that thoughful, Christian people shudder when they read - it's an embarrassment, really. Do you think that the Great Supreme Being of our universe actually has any need for rage and fury? Do you think it becomes him? That He can't achieve His ends without making a spectacular fool of himself?

I don't know about you, but on those occasions when I have witnessed a fellow human being simply overcome by fury, when someone really loses it and just flies into an uncontrollable rage, that person is forever dimished in my eyes, I can't ever look on them the same way. Stop projecting human frailties on to your God.

Hi Syl, thanbks for posting a reply! Everyone's getting 10 on the quiz today.

Poppers, thanks for your thoughtful reply, also. You said:

...God, who by definition must be unknowable, yet people think they know God because they think they know his name and stories associated with him? Preposterous.

Pretty close to what I believe, too. I didn't want my post to get too deep, too lost in the swamps of philosophy, which is easily done, but I did want to make the point that there's so much more to think about, in pondering this Name business than the standard Witness line "Well you have a name, and I have a name, why shouldn't God have a name? " which might be fine for six-year old children, but is dreadfully shallow and unsatisfying for proper grown-up people.

regards to all,

Duncan - the Not-Very Mighty, and The Tries-Not-To-Get-Furious One. (but he has his moments, I guess, like all of us)

25

" ...but did you know that God has a name? A personal name?" Nine Billion of them.

by Duncan in

jw
friends

this post - and i warn you now, its a longish essay - is going to be all about names.

but to get started, a little quiz: - what do the following all have in common?.

mount fuji, the river avon, the sahara desert, lake niassa.. .

Duncan

This post - and I warn you now, it’s a longish essay - is going to be all about names.

Well, One Name in particular.

But to get started, a little quiz: - What do the following all have in common?

Mount Fuji, The River Avon, The Sahara Desert, Lake Niassa.

If – like me – you are a fan of the BBC’s panel quiz show QI, you might know the answer. It featured in a recent show.

For everyone else, the answer is this: They are tautologies, they’re tautological names. They mean:

Mount Mount, The River River, The Desert Desert, and Lake Lake.

“Fuji” being the ancient native Japanese word for mountain, “Avon” being the original Celtic word for river – and so on. In fact, on the show Stephen Fry mentioned a great many more examples of the same thing. It’s very common with geographical names.

And, I guess, it’s not hard to figure out why this happens. Way back in history, to the indigenous people living in the shadow of the mountain, or in the desert, their lives were absolutely dominated by that thing. Their worldview wasn’t sufficiently large for them to have any notion that there could, elsewhere in the world, be another mountain or another desert. THEIR mountain was just “The Mountain” in whatever tongue they had; their desert was just The Desert.

Later on, explorers would come their way and ask the natives what the name of the mountain was – and they would answer, in their tongue, The Mountain. So we got these compound-names: Mount Fuji, and Lake Niassa, and so on.

( As an aside here, it would have been perfect if this held true for the River Nile, too. We could tie it into a biblical name. Alas, no. The ancient Egyptians called it Iteru - which means, of course, “The River” - but the name Nile was given to it by the Greeks, apparently, and has come down to us in the modern day. Never mind.)

The point I am trying to make in all this is fairly simple:

When there is only ONE of something, it doesn’t need a name. Names are only used to distinguish between many things of the same type. When there is only one of something, it doesn’t get a name – only a title:

The Moon. The Sun. The Sky. The World.

Of course, we now know – with our new-fangled fancy science - that there are many, many moons in the Solar System - and all of those moons have names. But our moon is just The Moon. We now know that all those stars in the night sky are suns just like our sun, and we have given them all names. But our sun doesn’t have a name - it’s just The Sun.

It’s not as if, when I say to you - “Oh look, the sun is shining!” - that you’re likely to be confused, wondering which of all the stars in the Galaxy I am talking about.

****0000****

I must admit, this next thing I’m going to say is not a terribly original insight - it’s pretty much a commonplace observation. But, here goes: the conception of God, his personality as depicted in the Bible, over the whole period of history covered by the bible, shows major changes and developments over that time. Never mind that many literal-minded modern-day Christians, including the witnesses, try to maintain that the Bible reveals an unchanging and consistent concept of “The One True God” throughout its pages, most sensible people can see that this is not true.

Whereas the latter-day, New Testament God - the modern God, if you like - is all mercy, beneficence, goodness and tender loving-kindness (The Apostle tells us simply that “God is Love”), the God of the Old Testament, sad to say, was not such a noble character. He was Mighty alright, but had chronic anger-management issues: he was easily offended, short-tempered, and always a little too ready to resort to violent solutions. He even sometimes did things in the fury of the moment that he later regretted.

And in fact, going back even earlier, to the very earliest biblical depiction of God - the one in the Garden of Eden - God appears there to be not very much more than a powerful man. He seems to be man-sized, he walks with Adam in the Garden “ in the cool of the day”. He can be hidden from (they’re behind the bushes!) He has to ask “Where are you?” And, instead of simply banishing Adam from the Garden with supernatural force, he has to post a guard with a sword at the gate.

So, I would say It’s pretty much undeniable that, as for God’s personality, there’s a definite arc of character-development that goes on through the course of the Bible. But I want to develop this idea a little further, and talk about the difference between the very-early and the later Israelite conceptions of God’s place in the universe, and this is an idea that brings us back to our theme of names.

Given what I said a little while ago about the nature and purpose of names, I can’t help but think that it is an absolutely extraordinary notion, indeed a truly bizarre idea, that the Great God of the Heavens, the Supreme One, Infinite in his Matchless Majesty, Alone and Peerless in his Magnificence, utterly unlike any other, would have any need for ... a name.

A name? A NAME?

What, so that you don’t get Him mixed up with any of those other Unique, Infinite, Peerless (etc.) Supreme Beings?

A moment ‘s reflection makes us realise that the idea of God needing a name absolutely flies in the face of the whole notion of Monotheism. But the modern concept of there being Only one God - “One is One, and all alone, and evermore shall be so!” - would have been, I think, very alien to the ancient Israelites.

For them, the other Gods were not mere figments, make-believe non-entities conjured from the foolish imaginations of the surrounding nations. The other deities weren’t “gods” in quote marks. They were every bit as real their God. Only difference was THEIR God - Jehovah, Yahweh, whatever - was the pick of the bunch. He was better, stronger, possessing greater mightiness. He had the most powerful forces; He was Lord of Hosts, Jehovah of Armies. It wasn’t that the others were non-existent, it was just that the Israelite God was Best (the most scary).

And, of course, in THAT context, having a name, a personal name, makes perfect sense. You had to “call upon the Name of Jehovah” because you wanted to make sure you got through to the right God.

And all that stuff about Jehovah being a “Jealous” God, “exacting exclusive devotion” now makes sense as well. What kind of Omnipotent Sovereign of The Universe gets jealous? Who’s He got to be jealous of?

But, if he’s competing for recognition in a veritable marketplace of deities, well, of course, he’s going to demand strict devotion, and he’s going to react furiously to any defections to the opposition. I think it’s pretty clear that the early Israelites were – like all the tribes about them – promiscuously polytheistic. By which I mean that they believed in, rather than worshipped, many gods. And that’s why THEIR God had to have, and why they made such a fuss about, his Name.

****0000****

Modern scholars seem to be agreed that it was the Persians who brought the concept of monotheism to the Israelites. The idea that there is only One True God, as opposed to a heavenly Pantheon populated by multitudes of competing deities, was a strong and powerful one and it relentlessly rolled over and replaced the older, more primitive ideas. I guess you might say that the Israelites got “New Light” on this one.

So, whereas you read in the books of Exodus and Judges furious denunciations of the surrounding nations and their Gods, and many episodes where Jehovah instructs His People to make war on them, by the time you get to Isaiah, a few hundred years later, and - crucially - after exposure to the Persians/Babylonians, you come across this almost comedy-routine concerning the Nations’ Gods:

Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal,
he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says,
“Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.”

From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships.
He prays to it and says, “Save me! You are my god!” (Isaiah Chapter 44).

The Nations Gods have now become “gods”. They’re not even worth taking seriously, they’re simply ridiculous. There is – of course! - only One True Sovereign Lord, He is the Most High, and all the rest are imaginary.

And is it any wonder that, from about this time forward, the use of God’s personal Name starts to be abandoned? By the time we fast-forward to Jesus’ time, six hundred years later, it has completely fallen out of use.

Of course, the collective tribal memory cannot admit to itself that the idea of the Personal Name has become an embarrassment, a reminder of their previous primitive notions, now seemingly pagan. The vague disquiet that is felt with regard to the Name has somehow translated itself into a pious feeling that this Name is too sacred, too holy to be spoken by mere men. It becomes traditionally taboo. It is only spoken rarely, and then in strictly controlled circumstances: the readings of the ancient scrolls in the synagogue.

Funnily enough, it appears that the Jews , by this time, have come to regard the speaking aloud of the Holy Name in rather the same way that modern-day witnesses feel about one of their members who absent-mindedly forgets himself and says “Good Luck!” or even “Saint Peter”. It clashes on the ears and sensibilities. (You’ll no doubt remember the Monty Python sketch in “Life of Brian” where the townspeople all want to stone the blasphemer who has spoken the name “Jehovah” out loud. “Right, no one is to stone ANYONE until I blow this whistle! Even if – and I want to make this QUITE clear – even if they DO say Jehovah!” ** tons of rocks**)

****0000****

There is a very famous science fiction short story, written by Arthur C Clarke in 1953 that has always been a favourite of mine, and is very relevant to this discussion. It is called “The Nine Billion Names of God” and has, I believe, something profound to say about labelling things with names, and – in particular - giving a name to God.

There follows spoilers, so if you have never read it, you can do so now by clicking:

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/the-nine-billion-names-of-god-arthur-c-clarke/

The story describes the adventure that a pair of computer engineers have when they take on an assignment with a monastery of Tibetan monks. In accordance with their philosophy, the monks believe they have been tasked with writing out all the possible Names of God. They reckon there are nine billion of them, and they have been at the task for 300 years. They had expected to be busy doing this for many centuries to come, until they hear about western computer technology, which can help them speed up the task, bringing it down to a matter of days. This is where our two chaps come in.

The kick in the story is all to do with what the monks imagine will happen when they succeed in their bizarre task. They are convinced that, when they have finally completed writing down all nine billion names, something truly earth-shattering will happen. Simply put, when all the names are known, written down, filed away and organised – captured and tamed you might say - then there will be no literally further point to anything. The Universe would simply stop, there being no knowledge, events, information or happenings left to occur. It’s the End of Everything. The story comes to a climax just as the computer completes its program...

The deep truth that the story suggests to me is that in naming something, in some way we diminish that thing. A name draws boundaries around a thing – it defines it. It becomes labelled and is made accessible - “oh, yes, it’s one of those” . The naming of something is the beginning of control over that thing.

You remember that old joke that features the poor spotty patient lying in a hospital bed surrounded by a team of doctors?

“ Great news Mr. Blenkinsop! We have FINALLY discovered what you disease have!

We’re calling it Blenkinsop’s Disease!”

Something that’s Nameless has some strange and dreadful power over us, but once we’ve given it a name we are reassured, we have begun to understand it and get our head around it. Patients are always relieved to know that their illness has a name. If it has a name, then it’s known, someone somewhere will be an expert – there will be a treatment. Armed with a Name, we can look that disease in the eye, and set about defeating it. To Name is to Tame.

All that being the case, surely mortal man ought to think long and hard before he presumes to Name his God? Isn’t putting a name on God an attempt to limit him, to label him, to set boundaries, to understand Him in terms convenient to us, to drag him down to our level?

And who on earth ever thought that using the personal Name of God to address Him was an appropriate thing to do? Names aren’t just functional labels – they are much more nuanced than that – they are all tied up with ideas connected to status and honour.

Very few people in this world would consider it appropriate to address the Queen of England to her face as “Elizabeth”. Or indeed the President. Come to that, most people would think it a bit disrespectful even to address their own parents by their personal names. “Mum” and “Dad” aren’t names – they are honorifics. And quite right, too. And here we’re talking about mere people, never mind the Supreme Divinity.

****0000****

So, let’s wrap this whole thing up by turning our attention to the modern-day people who bear – or imagine they do – God’s Personal Name.

Even as a child, growing up as a witness, I can remember thinking that some of the stuff you heard and read about the name Jehovah was a bit off-the-wall. It seemed to me that, just as it was possible to be guilty of “idolatry” with respect to a flag or national anthem, the attitudes displayed to the Divine Name came pretty close to exactly that - we made a fetish out of the Name, if not an Idol.

Also there was that business where you were supposed to call out the name “ Jehovah! Jehovah! ” when you were (or imagined you were) under demon attack? It was always clear to me that the more nut-case elements down the Hall - the people who always had demon stories to tell - believed that the name itself had actual magical properties. This always seemed just a step away from believing in Witchcraft to me, magic spells and magic words .

And further than that, if you took any sort of scholarly attitude to studying the bible at all, pretty soon you would come to the conclusion that the name itself - the talisman “Jehovah” - was an awful, botched mistranslation. Even from the Society’s own literature you could pretty quickly discover that the Divine Name was actually something more like “Yahweh”, and not Jehovah at all.

How could that be showing any respect to God, getting His Name wrong like that ? The Society would say “It doesn’t matter - the intention is what counts . Jehovah is how the name has become known throughout the world , and we should give due honour to that Name - as it has become. This shows the right attitude” But how could that be right?

To bring it back to parents again – my Dad’s name was John. Let’s say I had been tasked with introducing him to some audience or readership, and due to an unfortunate typographical error, that audience had got the impression that his name was Jane. The right response on my part would be to try to correct that error in the most elegant and dignified way I could, and let those people know his real name. What would certainly not be respectful or appropriate would be for me to turn round to him and say: “Well, gosh, that’s bad luck. But they know you as Jane now. So, you better get used to it!”

It was Rutherford who first made a big deal about the Divine Name, and the suspicion lingers that he was – as always – just looking for a way to differentiate his religious group from all the others. And so much of what he did and taught as doctrine turns out to have been simply marketing. Making a big fuss about the name “Jehovah” , the adoption of the name Jehovah’s Witnesses, now looks like nothing more than an expedient way of creating a distinctive identity for his followers.

Remember: Rutherford was all “Advertise! Advertise! Advertise!” And you can’t help but think that the name “Jehovah” was really just a tool, a part of that publicity campaign. And it certainly was successful - ask anyone in the modern world what they first think of when they hear the name Jehovah and it’s the Watchtower-sellers they’re going to mention first.

So, let’s just reflect on that a moment:

The Divine Name, the Sacred Name, has been pressed into service as a marketing instrument of the Watchtower Society. A publicity device, designed to maximise public exposure, employed for a very tawdry, very twentieth-century commercial purpose: a trade-mark for the Watchtower publishing business.

The Watchtower took what was to the Israelites (the original custodians of the Name, the original people of the bible) The Wondrous, The Glorious , The So-Sacred-It-Couldn’t-Be-Spoken, The Ineffable, The Most Utterly, Utterly Holy Divine Name...

...and they turned it into a Brand.

15

[2nd attempt] "We missed you SO much at the meeting...."

by Duncan in

jw
friends

how do some people *effortlessly* control others?.

and then there comes that first meeting they miss.. .

naked baby!

Duncan

Hi, Breakfast of Chamions - glad that you could see when you were being used as an instrument of control, and reacted against it. You have to hope that there's lots more of that decent human capital among the ranks of the elders in the organisation. But, I guess there are plenty of hard-ass types as well. And let's hear it for Typhoon Lagoon - scandalously neglected and under-discussed in these forums!

Fortis and Liber - sorry to hear about your sadness in recalling your relationship with your mum. But, at least if we can see the control tactic for what it is, you are immune to its power.

Thanks to all who replied.

Duncan.

15

[2nd attempt] "We missed you SO much at the meeting...."

by Duncan in

jw
friends

how do some people *effortlessly* control others?.

and then there comes that first meeting they miss.. .

naked baby!

Duncan

"Whoa, whoa! What's just happened here? Do you need an ambulance or something? What happened?"

"No, it's nothing. But, uhmmm... have you got a Kleenex or something?"

" Here you go. That'll mop it up. What then? What? Wait a minute - is that Duncan? Over there? "

"Yes."

" And he just hit you?"

"He punched me on the nose. Right smack on the nose."

"WHAT? What? Duncan did? He punched you on the nose? Why? Whatever for?"

"I dunno. He's crazy. I dunno. All I said to him was - ‘we really miss you at the meetings..' ."

**** 0000 ****

What I want to talk about today is control. Control. How do some people *effortlessly* control others?

Specifically - how does the Watchtower Society control its members so well? A great big part of the answer, I feel, is all wrapped up in this " we missed you last night at the meeting" business.

You know what I'm talking about. Of course you do. You can't be a JW (or ex-JW) without knowing all about - "we missed you last night at the meeting"...

The reason that I single this particular sentence out - from all the millions of sentences that might be uttered, one witness to another - is that, typically, this is the first sentence, the first time, that new witnesses, or newly interested ones - or bible studies, or whatever - are brought face-to-face with the absolutely non-negotiable control tactics of the Watchtower Society.

You will be familiar with the set-up. Bible-study, or interested-marriage-mate, or intrigued work-colleague, whoever, has just got to the point of attending the first few meetings. They are just getting to understand the witnesses. Typically, they are impressed with the "love" and "fellowship" they feel in the congregation. They are genuinely touched with all the love-bombing that is going on. At last! - they think - real Christians!
And then there comes that first meeting they miss.

It might be work commitments, or family, or something. Perhaps it is just that they don't fancy going out that night - they're tired, ill, or out-of-sorts, or whatever. Whatever it is - THAT night, they just don't want to go.
But then there is a reckoning.

Having established a track-record - even only a few meetings long - of attendance, when they miss a meeting - their FIRST missed meeting - you can be sure that someone, SOMEONE, will come up to them, meeting them on the street, or somewhere, and deliver the line:

"Oh, we really missed you at the Meeting last night!"

Now, it might or might not be actually true. Sometimes, the Elders will see to it that the person entrusted with the task ("Go and have a word with so-and-so, tell them how much we miss them") might be someone of the same age or outlook, so that it might actually (in that particular case) be literally true. "We really missed you."

But that doesn't matter. "Missing you" is never the actual point. What it actually means is:

Do NOT think , not for a minute, that you can just miss meetings, and not have to account for yourself.

And that's the whole point of the "we missed you at the meeting" conversation. To impress upon the newly interested one that you CAN'T just miss meetings. Why weren't you there? What's the problem? And pretty soon the new Witnesses get the idea, even if they don't figure out how they're being manipulated. Sometimes, the best way of controlling people, is by being all " loving" and "concerned" and "kind"

"Oh, we MISSED you SO much..." Who could possibly object to such a caring enquiry?

**** 0000 ****

A few years ago now, before I could afford a car, I would regularly take the bus to get to work. The 8:10, every day. You got to know the other people who would always get that same bus. Every morning, the same people.

One of these people was Wyn. I sort-of half knew her. She worked at the local Town council offices, and I had come across her in my dealings with the housing department. Me and my wife at the time were trying to secure a council flat to live in.

Anyway, quite apart any dealings I had had with her at the Town Hall, what I knew about Wyn, from sitting behind her on the bus, was that she regarded herself as a proper, charitable Christian woman. She was ALWAYS going on about "the power of the Holy Spirit", and "giving a good witness for Jesus" and so on when she spoke to people on the bus. Also that she was a very loud woman.

And so, there is this one morning, when this little old lady gets on our bus. Seventy-odd years old, I would guess, easily thirty years older than Wyn. Well, Wyn just lights up. She gets out of her seat, and closes in on the new arrival, and bellows out her welcome:
"Well, HELLOOOO, Doreen! How ARE you? Haven't seen you in simply AGES!"

Poor little Doreen was visibly shrinking in her seat as Wyn approached. But it was all going to get worse.

"Now tell me, Doreen. How are your piles?" All this shouted at top volume, completely filling the bus.

" Your piles, dear, your piles. How ARE they? Still playing you up?"

Doreen mumbled something inaudible, clearly crippled with embarrassment, but simply not having the wherewithal to shut this woman up.

"Did that cream do any good? You know, Mary swears by it! But, these things are sent to try us, I suppose! Anyway, now, tell me all about it." And so on.

And so on for the next ten minutes. We learnt all about Doreen's personal business, her illnesses, her money troubles, and the falling-out she had with her with her daughter-in-law. And you actually couldn't hear a word that poor Doreen said, all the details were broadcast to the bus by this big-mouth, intrusive Wyn.

Never mind about how the poor little old lady felt. I must say that I felt embarrassed and violated by the whole episode, just overhearing it. Wyn's overloud and insolent enquiries into Doreen's private concerns made the whole bus uncomfortable. The massive lack of respect shown to the old lady was, to my mind, simply a form of bullying.

And yet, if I - or anyone - had challenged this woman Wyn - "Come on, missus, leave her alone. Can't you see how you're embarrassing and upsetting this poor lady?" - Wyn would have been dumbfounded and outraged. She was a caring friend! She was motivated by genuine, Christian concern! Surely that was obvious? Wasn't she just innocently asking after her friend's welfare?

Wyn would not have recognised herself as a bully, but she absolutely was. I bet there were legions of Wyn's "friends" who despaired when they caught sight of her bearing down on them. She simply was a naturally domineering, controlling personality. But Wyn no doubt pictured herself as the very soul of Christian "kindness".

And isn't that a little bit like the witnesses, who think they're simply showing loving concern when they say, oh so caringly: " we missed you SO much at the meeting..."

**** 0000 ****

When our kids were younger, for quite a few years we would spend our annual summer holiday in Florida, at Disney. Typhoon Lagoon is one of my favourite places in the world, so many happy memories there.

I remember one occasion, my wife and I lying in the sun, reading or something, while the kids were off riding the flumes. Just nearby to us were a couple with much younger children, pre-school age, and a baby as well. The baby, maybe 12 months old, was toddling along, holding his mother's hand, paddling in a little shallow pool. Apart from his big floppy hat, he had no clothes on.

Two Disney employees, life-guard- types came by, and immediately went into a routine:

"Oh, my! Naked baby! Naked baby! Sound the alert!" The second one made a very accurate, very funny klaxon noise, as they larked around.

"Naked baby! Naked baby! Oh my!"

I have to tell you, it was very, very funny. We all laughed, and that family got a funny story to tell the folks back home - "and then the other one said ‘naked baby, oh my!' it was so funny ".

And as the laughter was dying away, I couldn't help but notice, as the guys walked on, that the mother was putting some shorts on the baby.

My suspicions were pretty much confirmed when, a couple of hours later, while queuing for some ice-cream, I saw the same two young men. It was the same situation, a mother with an unclothed infant, and they went into the exact same routine. Lots of laughter, again. And the same result. The baby was covered up.

Clearly, this was a well-rehearsed act. They did it several times a day. Perhaps it was even something taught in employee-induction - who knows?

I don't know what Disney's beef is with unclothed babies at Typhoon Lagoon. Probably, I guess, something dreamt up by Marketing along the lines of pandering to the very tenderest of consciences among their guests, so that there could never be any possibility of anyone taking offense, but I don't know. But obviously, if you are going to have a policy of no nude babies, the best way to enforce it, without giving needless offense all round, is to get people to comply, while disguising the whole thing as a laugh.

So, is it: "Hey lady! COVER THAT CHILD!" - or go into a funny comedy routine? The best methods of control are always when it looks like you are not overtly controlling anyone.

**** 0000 ****

Which brings us back to "Oh, we missed you SO MUCH at the meeting last night!"

Control, all dripping with the honey-sweet air of "concern", but control nonetheless.

Do you know, I haven't been inside a Kingdom Hall now in for over 35 years. But I still have some JW family, and occasionally see witnesses socially. And they STILL, to this day, try this out on me, or variations on it. Being more generous about it, perhaps, these days, with the prospect of control being off the agenda, they really DO mean it. But the enquiry, even if genuine, is wholly tainted its association with the witness bully/control technique.

And no- I have never actually punched anyone on the nose - I was only funnin' wit ya.

But don't think I haven't been tempted.