": FOR THE RECORD. Danny, you love to weave more straw men and avoid the real issues at all cost, as you have just beautifully demonstrated. As for me insulting you, it came because of you making provoking insults at me, calling me a "" hog and pig"" in one of your previous replies on 5 July 2005 15:46 (UTC). If you were using that kind of language with members of the public in the street, you would no doubt be quickly punished and hospitalised for your insulting provocations, and you have also demonstrate why many Jehovah's Witnesses who follow your methods actually incite hate against themselves and their religion due to their shameless insulting and provoking behaviour. You then make more revealing and completely false remarks: ""As Central is fond of pointing out ad hominem arguments are a logical fallacy. By the same token anything he says about me is quite frankly irrelevant to the real issue"". I pointed out to you, that when I insulted you it did not prove your argumentation wrong (you prove yourself wrong by your manipulative specious methods and lack of any evidence), so therefore, it was not ad hominem at all, but just an insult from your own provoking insults of which you appear to measure by another set of biased scales. Secondly, all the points I have made about your false conclusions and your false logic are all valid as they prove that you are not objective or reasonable at all, and have zero evidence to base your claims on, and are often very slanderous of others (Raymond Franz in this case) with no evidence to back your claims.

YOU Danny Muse, have failed to answer a single point of mine (a typical JW trait), which were about your logical fallacies, your use of slander, your negative propaganda, and your rhetoric. I have asked you again and again for proof of your statements and claims on Franz, and you have dramatically failed on all accounts to bring them on. Here again is the challenge summarized: I herby challenge you to take three different examples from either of Raymond Franz's two books, and prove to us using evidence contained in the books that he is ""a bitter apostate, vindictive liar, makes inaccurate claims, and writes incorrect material about JWs, or the Watch Tower's Governing Body"" as you claim. If you cannot do this, then you should permanently remove yourself, and be barred from Wikipedia, as you have demonstrated. . . your editing scruples as virtually worthless, and indubitably of no value as a contributor to Wikipedia, as you have proven over and over that you feel content to destroy someone's character (Franz's in this case), his motives, his books, and all without reading a single page of his written material. If someone did the same about Jehovah's Witnesses books, you would be outraged, disgusted, and we would never hear the end to it, you definitely would not stand for it. You would also have utmost contempt for someone who makes up lies, false accusations, and slander about JWs and their books, especially if they had never even read a single JW publication and yet they posted masses of negative claims about them, just like you have about Raymond Franz. YOU Danny Muse, are in NO position to speak, as you have not even read a single book by Raymond Franz, and so have completely and permanently revoked your right to speak, edit, or comment on this matter. . .. If you can bring on proof, then you can have an opinion that the book descriptions are 'this or that' etc., until then all you say is biased POV and unfounded. You have no right to say or edit anything on this particular subject, as you have demonstrated that truth on the matter and literature is not a subject you are interested in. Please read Proverbs 18:13. Posted Central 19 July 2005 (PS. I'm sure you will ignore all this and make up some more straw man to focus on to take the light off your complete lack of evidential backup to your claims about the books and Raymond Franz's character etc. The original book descriptions should stay, as they are brief, to the point, accurate, and give enough information to know the basic book's content. If you disagree then prove it, don't vandalize out of spite as you have been doing.)Also, I see ''' checked the entire critical sections and made some edits on 18 June 2005, and approved the extended book descriptions, which you have totally ignored, therefore it was a yes vote, not a no)
"