Abbadon:
Cult is simply a four letter word. I have seen nothing scientific in connection with the application of that word. Even cult fighters admit that the word is "loaded". The list of questions suggested for defining "cult" are constructed in a way that produces a dichotomous typology rather than continuous variation along various dimensions. This is not science. Come up with a scale of at least 7 degrees on each of the dimensions you feel identify a cult. For example LEVEL OF CONTROL, OBEDIENCE TO SINGLE LEADER, DEGREE OF ISOLATION etc.
Next examine various religious and secular organizations and rate them all based on "facts" based on published policy or actual practice as determined by both people in the organizations and people who have left. Then create a profile of various organizations.
You might even want to do some multivariate analysis to see what the essential factors are. Then publish your results in a reputable journal of psychology or sociology. Then let's talk about cults. In the mean time we all have our opinions.
At present "cult" is an almost useless label. In the case of JW's you have to consider the fact that the vast majority of the six million members are happy with their "religion".
I meant this thread to be an opinion in response to all the non-sense that goes on here.