# ******AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!!

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

Posted by Dean [DEAN] on November 05, 1999 at 22:17:50 {6xiCHW3gJ2S9VLis9PvA68mLGG7c2I}:

In Reply to: *****AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Gedanken on November 05, 1999 at 18:04:39:

Dean,

First of all it is crystal clear that Stafford is himself a liar based on his now infamous "TravisJ45" post.

(Dean) I believe your being overly harsh with Greg branding him "a liar" based only on his "TravisJ45" post, you seem to be implying that "lying" is an ingrained part of his character which disqualifies any of us from ever trusting him again, would you yourself like to be judged in this manner?. Lets face it, we ALL do things from time to time that we regret and are ashamed of, i'm sure Greg regrets what he did even though he hasn't to date publically stated so.

Further, it is now clear that he will lie to advance his cause and to accrue praise to himself. For
example, do you believe that Stafford is a patient person and the able debater that TravisJ45 claims
him to be? Is it not a lie to do and say what he did and said.

(Dean)How we perceive our selves and how others perceive us are two different things. Based on my limited knowledge of you I may perceive you as being judgmental and dogmatic, you of course would disagree, you most likely consider your self to be a reasonable and fair person and thats fine, the point is that just because we disagree doesn't made either of us liars.

Thus, Stafford is, indeed, a published author who is propagating lies which is what I said. This entire
episode produces a rather acrescent taste in one's mouth.

(Dean) I'm afraid that going by your harsh standards there isn't a published author on the planet who isn't "a liar."

However, if you want to see another
example of how Stafford has lied then you could start with the link below where Stafford claims that
he did not selectively quote The Watchtower in order to advance his claims that the Society
"maintained the proper outlook" with respect to 1975. (P. 308 of his 1st edition.) Any honest reader
would have to conclude that Stafford manipulated the citations to advance his false claims.

(Dean) Again its only your opinion that Stafford selectively quoted from WT, but if you want to see REAL examples of selective quoting take a look at Rob Bowman's and Ron Rhodes books dealing on the subject.
You should keep in mind also that it is in response to the bias shown by these authors and others like them that Stafford wrote his book, to give readers the other side of the story. Again, you have no basis for branding Stafford "a liar", If you believe you do then by your own standards you would have to conclude that Bowman, Rhodes and many others are liars also.

Further, note that Stafford claims to be "very concerned about what was said from the podium."
That does not come across in his book (have you read it?). Thus, he has not only misled people
about what the Society did back then re: 1975 but he has also deliberately supressed and omitted
substantive evidence that his position is wrong. That is intellectual dishonesty. In plain speech, a lie.
Right? Or do you think that the Society has nothing to do with what is said from the podium?

(Dean) Stafford hasn't "misled people about what the society" did at all. It wasn't the societies intention that the brothers understand 1975 as being THE date. as I understand it (I wasn't there at the time) they felt it was their responsibilty to alert people that 1975 marked the end of 6000 years of mankinds existence and that this date COULD be of great significance. I guess you could say that they started a fire that they couldn't get back under control, but it wasn't their intention to do so, Stafford deals with what the Society said, not with what some overzealous brothers may have said from the podium.
So to call Stafford intellectually dishonest re. 1975 I believe is very unfair.

Anyway, thats my two cents worth, I believe you have no solid basis for tarnishing Staffords character in the ruthless way you are attempting to do so.

Kind Regards, Dean.

Gedanken

Follow Ups:

- *******AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! AF 01:47:15 11/06/99 (1)
  - ********AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! Observer 06:01:09 11/06/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *******AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!!

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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