# *AF's "Witnesses"

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

Posted by Farkel [Keflar] on November 08, 1999 at 11:32:53 {Nq8EnQ8RVAjc7.1TE24IvhKqcjatLo}:

In Reply to: AF's "Witnesses" posted by GregStafford on November 08, 1999 at 07:54:49:

Greg,

What a windbag you are! It is tragic that you resort to such hand-waving and obfuscation of the more serious issues Alan confronted you with and have lately stuck to just one irrelevant theme. Let's cut to the chase and put in a nutshell your claims and evidence.

Alan basically stated that he had one (now two) sources which informed him that you knew Bert Schroeder and that Schroeder collaborated with you in the writing of your book.

You called him a liar for saying that.

Alan said:

:You should note that, while Greg blew a lot of smoke, he did not quite deny anything about being involved with Schroeder. In fact, when I posed a number of specific questions that would have required simple yes-no answers, he answered none of them.

Several others have asked you to answer simple yes/no questions and you have answered none of them to my knowledge, except by saying that everything Alan said about you and Schroeder was a lie.

So, let me pose these two simple questions to you:

1) Have you ever talked with or met Bert Schroeder?

Yes, or no.

2) Have you and Schroeder ever discussed anything about your book together?

Yes, or no.

Alan said:

:Furthermore, I now have the testimony of two independent sources that my statement was correct. Have you ever heard of "at the mouth of two witnesses let every matter be established"?

Any reasonable person can see that since these two sentences are in the same paragraph, Alan was pointing out that two sources are much better than one in establishing evidence. You, of course seized upon this opportunity to toss one of the biggest straw men I've ever seen into the discussion. You did this by screaming at the top of your lungs that, since Alan had quoted scripture he then had to abide by ALL parts of that scripture, including the requirement that witnesses present themselves publicly.

This is not a trial or judicial hearing, Greg. This is a debate. Since you specifically mentioned Deut. 17:6, and DEMANDED that Alan stick to the letter of the law, then you'd better be willing to stick to that same letter of the law. Chapter 17 of this book is talking specifically about a person who commits the act of bowing down to other gods than Jehovah. What happens if that person is condemmed by those two witnesses? That person is stoned to death! Now, since Alan didn't accuse you of bowing down to false gods, and since no one wants to see you get stoned to death should Alan's sources be telling the truth, you can't just pick and choose the parts of that context that you want, and leave out and ignore the parts that you don't want. That is, if you are totally honest. So far you haven't been. No one gets stoned to death for being wrong in a debate.

It all boils down to the fact that Alan was merely demonstrating that two witnesses are better than one and used that verse as a principal.

Now, what if Alan's witnesses were Bethelites with many years of service? What if they publicly stepped forward and identified themselves in order to please your rabid demands? What do you think the society would do if they found out these two people were working with a high-profile opposer of their religion, and divulging information that could be damaging to the society? The society with a 10 minute judicial hearing and the stroke of a pen could totally trash their lives, put them on the street, and remove from their lives virtually everyone they love and trusted.

Do you honestly want something like that to happen, just so you can make yourself look RIGHT? Is your ego so monumental that you would let two people be sacrificed so you could declare yourself a winner in what has degenerated into a petty little DEBATE?

Of course, you might be thinking that Alan totally lied about sources he didn't have at all. Now, if that is the case, why would he even mention that you knew Schroeder? How would that help his case? What damn difference does it make whether you know Schroeder or not? What damn difference does it make whether Schroeder helped you with your book or not? If Alan hadn't mentioned that at all, would it have hurt his side of the debate? NO! It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEBATE! So, again, what MOTIVE would Alan have had for saying it at all, if he didn't have sufficient reason to believe it was true.

By you constantly bringing this issue you, you created a huge red-herring. The focus was on your honesty, and you proved yourself to be dishonest. Rather than admitting it like a men, you have desperately tried to shift the focus on Alan's honesty over a minute issue.

Alan in good faith, said two things 1) That you should call him and discuss his evidence personally, and 2) That if you showed him his sources were wrong, he would publically apologize and never trust those sources at all.

I know Alan personally, and I know this for a fact: he NEVER would breach any confidentiality entrusted to him. His very request for you to contact him so he could present his evidence to you personally is also evidence he is acting in good faith.

What did you do about his request? You REJECTED it, and by doing so, you SABOTAGED his good faith effort to show you his evidence.

It is you, not Alan that is doing the subverting, just like you did for all to see in your two pathetic TravisJ45 threads.

1) You cluttered up the issue by tossing a straw man into the soup, and by taking the part of Deut. 17:6 that you needed to set up your straw man, and rejected the parts that would destroy your straw man.

2) You ignored and even sabotaged his good-faith effort to present you personally with his evidence, and allow you to deny or concur.

3) You've failed to answer every simple yes/no question put before with regards to your relationship (or not) with Schroeder.

And you windbag far too much.

Farkel

Follow Ups:

- **AF's "Witnesses" WW 17:02:01 11/08/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **AF's "Witnesses"

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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