# *Introduction

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by AF [AF] on November 02, 1999 at 23:09:06 {.c1iAaocfM1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:

In Reply to: Introduction posted by Greg Stafford on November 02, 1999 at 11:49:18:

: I strongly recommend that you read each of the following six responses BEFORE commenting.

This I have done.

: I do not believe has presented a strong case for his claim to have proven deliberate deception on the part of the Society.

We'll have to let readers decide. Since I have some research to do to give a good answer, and my time is more limited than it was, my full response may take a couple of weeks.

In the meantime I'll comment that your response was, well, amazing.

Readers should also note that in any kind of historical research, proving deliberate deception in an absolute sense is impossible if the accused has died or refuses to admit it. However, we can apply the rule of "proved to the extent that a reasonable person will accept". This is the method used to convict criminals in court when a confession is lacking - it's a preponderance of evidence.

I will also warn readers that Greg has used a number of questionable methods to sidestep direct questions and avoid giving answers. Instead he often writes a flurry of words, apparently thinking to confuse the reader with his eloquence, but no answer can be found within. Several people have already commented on this under "Part One".

: I also believe he has misquoted my first edition, and some of the Society's literature,

Interested readers will note that Greg makes this claim a number of times in his responses, but does not actually show where I've supposedly misquoted anything. Instead he uses innuendo and insinuation. Of course, we see this regularly from JW defenders. "It's all lies" they shout, but rarely can they give a specific example.

: and presented extremely one-sided opinions as if they were established facts.

That is a matter of opinion.

: In addition to viewing assumptions and opinions as facts, he has also presented hearsay as fact.

That's not quite true. Let's see:

: Consider what he wrote on H2O back on 10-18-99:

QUOTE
:: ... Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder, and I've been told that he clears his manuscripts with Schroeder before publishing them. Schroeder, of course, has long been known for setting forth his own opinions without getting the approval of the rest of the GB, but his long-standing position and unquestioned loyalty to the Society protects him. While I wouldn't describe Greg as a protege of Schroeder, their relationship gives him a measure of protection.
AF
END OF QUOTE

I'll admit that my wording was poor, but it should be obvious that what I meant was this: "I've been told that Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder, and that he clears his manuscripts with Schroeder before publishing them." The statement about Schroeder is well known among Bethelites and is documented by Raymond Franz in Crisis of Conscience. If you want to label that as hearsay, then take it up with the Bethel community and Franz. Note that hearsay evidence is not necessarily bad evidence. My last statement is obviously an opinion, not a statement that I could prove as an established fact. Do keep in mind that my comments were a hurriedly written, informal response to a question, not a studied response suitable for publication in a refereed journal. I assume you know that there are differences in styles of writing for various audiences, which require different standards of documentation.

: Everything that is said above, with respect to my relationship with Albert Schroeder is a lie.

Really. Do you or do you not have a personal friendship with Albert Schroeder? Have you or have you not submitted a good deal of written material to the Society, at least some of which Schroeder read and approved? Did he give you any kind of go-ahead, formal or informal, for you to publicly defend JWs in writing? If you deny any of these things, what do you say if I give Bert a phone call and report back here what he has to say? No hedging, now, and no using theocratic warfare.

: AF has spread misinformation from sources that tell lies, without even bothering to check with me, to see if what he has been told is accurate. Of course, who would be in a better position to know the truth of the above, than me?

Alright, perhaps I should have checked with you first. I will admit that I was a bad boy and simply wanted to give you a little poke and see how you'd respond. Nothing wrong with a little challenge, eh?

: So, by all means read my response to AF, ignore the spin machine that is bound to show up, and remember that AF has sources that have lied to him.

I think that readers will see in your main response that, if I'm a spider, you're a tornado.

: I am sure AF is a nice guy,

My wife thinks so. So do some of my friends.

: but I think he has misinformed you folks not only about my relationship with Albert Schroeder, but about many other matters.

We will see how you respond to my direct questions. No cheating, now.

: This is my view and opinion, based on my consideration of what he has written thus far. It is for you to accept or reject.

As always.

AF

Follow Ups:

- **Introduction Greg Stafford 07:36:33 11/03/99 (3)
  - ***Introduction Cygnus 13:08:07 11/03/99 (0)
  - ***Introduction AF 10:51:21 11/03/99 (0)
  - ***Introduction Gedanken 09:19:33 11/03/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **Introduction

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]