Posted by GregStafford [GregStafford] on November 08, 1999 at 07:54:49 {Nq8EnQ8RVA0hi4VK0MIQXxZ4XktaQ.}:
AF's mishandling of a very simple biblical principle can be seen from the following:
QUOTE FROM "Enter Reality" POST
And this leads us to a very important comment made by Alan, in an attempt to justify his spreading of lies about me, here on H2O. Read the following post VERY carefully, please:
Posted by AF [AF] on November 05, 1999 at 21:34:58 {6xiCHW3gJ21EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ****AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Adam Covington on November 05, 1999 at 20:01:38:
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.
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"?
Additionally, via private email I have invited Greg to discuss these and certain private matters so as to "check with him" and find out what he might call "the truth of the matter". As of this writing he has not responded, and it has been two full days since I invited this dialog. Perhaps he's tied up with his PO, or perhaps he's "seeing to a matter".
AF
END OF QUOTE
Now, I contend that the above comments from AF prove that he is either completely incompetent (which I doubt), had a momentary lapse into incompetence (to which we are all subject (except Gedanken and JH), or thinks that everyone reading his reply is so utterly incompetent that we will not notice the deception. Did you notice that AF appeals to “the testimony of two independent sources” to establish the veracity of his claims? Did you further notice that he asked, in reference to Deuteronomy 17:6 (or 19:15), “Have you ever heard of ‘at the mouth of two witnesses let every matter be established’"?
Why, YES, Alan, we have heard of that. Now, WHERE are these witnesses?! WHO are they?! That you would try to pull a fast one by claiming to have held to a biblical principle that refers to two KNOWN witnesses, and apply it to your mystery witnesses, is amazing. It is just this type of illogical reasoning that forms the basis for many of the arguments you put forth in your replies (but not all of what you say can be so characterized). At this point, I no longer believe you have any such witnesses, for you have not produced anyone at all. Until you do, it is you who are responsible for lying to everyone on this board about my relationship with Brother Schroeder. As if that were not bad enough, you claimed: “In fact, when I posed a number of specific questions that would have required simple yes-no answers, he answered none of them.” I answered the precise points you made in your email about having submitted my manuscript to Brother Schroeder for review, by saying that NONE OF it was true!
Now, since you have appealed to the biblical principle of two or more witnesses to support your view, BRING THEM FORTH! Give us their names. Surely you can do that, right? I mean, how would it have looked if an accused person in ancient Israel came before the court and said, “I have two or more witnesses. I really do. But I cannot tell you their names. I cannot bring them forward. You will just have to take my word that they support what I say.”
That you would even try to justify yourself my misusing biblical principles like this should tell any thinking person on this board all he or she needs to know about how you handle biblical data, and how you try to justify the spreading of lies on this board.
END OF QUOTE
AF appealed to "two witnesses" to justify his lying, but where are the witnesses? He will not give them up, and thus his appeal was a false appeal, designed to mislead others. Since he has no witnesses, the blame for lying about me on this board falls at his feet. How does he respond to others who call him on this point? Might I suggest that he does so with A BIT OF arrogance? Consider what he said to AC:
AC:
: I believe the ball is now in your court! Since you now claim to provide credible proof
AF:
You certainly have a problem with the English language! Why is that so many JWs don’t seem to understand clear speech? I know what the trouble is: they do understand but they want to twist things around so as to appear to come out on top.
RESPONSE
The above is the usual non-argument you receive from AF, filled with a false view of the issue, and an attempt to obfuscate by means of JH-style ad hominem.
AF:
Note that I never said that I would provide credible proof. I said that I possess solid evidence that I myself will accept as proof unless I find contrary evidence, and that if Greg would provide details in private that discounted that evidence, I would change my mind and publicly apologize. Of course, I would no longer trust the people who gave me the evidence.
RESPONSE:
There are a couple problems here: 1) AF appealed to the BIBLICAL principle of two witnesses to support his posturing. Now, either he has no idea what that principle involves or he was trying to obfuscate. 2) Why would my private (telephone) remarks change your mind if you have two witnesses against me? Not much faith in your sources, eh? Oh, but you had faith enough in them to lie to the board about me even while I was active on the board at the time!
The genius that informs your above logic is also what gets you in trouble in your one-sided replies. Wait now, hold on just a second. I am preparing another post to H2O, but before I do, and in line with that thought of being "one-sided," maybe you can help me out. Can you or anybody else here point me to those posts, either back a few days or weeks on the board or in the archives, where either you, JH, Gedanken, or RW have ever said ANYTHING positive about the Society? Just one, little thing?
AC:
: for Greg Stafford's association with Albert Schroeder, you now have one of two options.
AF:
No, I have a number of other options, and will not pursue yours.
RESPONSE:
I see, when you are caught in a dead lie you have a "number of other options," but when you are accusing the Society of deception you purposefully limit their options, when in fact others exist? Well, I guess that's ... fair!
AC:
: You must
AF:
I “must”? Is that a threat? Or are you somehow invoking a moral imperative? That’s rich coming from a camp that has demonstrated itself all too willing to deceive the public.
RESPONSE:
I did not think you would attack yourself so openly AF, what in view of your deception and all. If you cannot understand the meaning of "must" in AC's post, namely, as part of an option-limiting statement, not a threat of some kind (!), then no wonder you cannot figure out my use of words like "creeds" or the Society's reference to "guidance," and other, similar terms.
AC:
: either divulge the names of these two "informants" whom you consider highly credible, or make a public apology for lying on this forum.
AF:
A classic “false dilemma”. When people refuse to divulge their sources for good reason, that does not mean that they’re lying.
RESPONSE:
Again, you have conveniently ripped your own comments from their proper context. (What, then, would lead anyone to think you are not doing the same with what others have said!) YOU, AF, appealed to the BIBLICAL principle of two witnesses to appear and testify on your behalf. So either admit that you were completely ignorant of how that simple principle to which you appealed works, or produce your witnesses. There is no spinning out of this one. If you cannot produce witnesses, then you are the one who spread the lies, and you are, therefore, a liar.
AF:
If your proposed dilemma were true, then we could reject out of hand 90% of Watchtower literature because it contains no source references, or incomplete references, and when someone writes to the WTS requesting a list of such sources the request is usually ignored.
RESPONSE:
That's an interesting false analogy, which seems to be a trademark fallacy of your replies. Please give us an example of an instance where the Society appeals to the biblical principle of two witnesses for something they say, but then fail to provide such witnesses. THAT would be a proper analogy to your situation.
AF:
The Society itself provides the model in another way for refusing to provide the names of individuals who provide information. If you asked the Society for the names of those who wrote Watchtower literature, would they tell you? No. In fact the names of those writers are often kept secret from the Bethel family itself. Only those who are directly involved in Writing, and those whom those men choose to inform personally, know who has written what material.
RESPONSE:
Notice that AF has used a false analogy to steer everyone away from the real issue, and attack the Society in the process. This is a common tactic of those who have no logical reply.
AF:
I already explained to this public forum, and if I remember right, Greg in an email, why I would not divulge my sources. The ultimate sources are individual JWs in good standing who would be severely injured if I divulged who they were. You and Greg and other JWs certainly understand I will not. You yourself are not posting under your real name, am I right? Why not? What are you afraid of? If you’re not afraid to reveal your identity, then do so on this forum by posting your full name, address and phone number, just as I have done numerous times. Let Greg do the same. If you refuse, then it is clear that you do understand why I cannot reveal my sources.
RESPONSE:
No, we do not understand at all why you would appeal to the biblical principle of two witnesses and then fail to produce them! THAT is the problem with which you are faced. If you cannot produce the two witnesses, then the lies that you spread fall at your feet, and until you apologize you are rightly viewed as an unrepentant liar.
AC:
: You had plenty of opportunities to verify with Greg Stafford what your "informants" have claimed, but chose not to,
AF:
What a gross liar you are! I’ve asked Greg several times to provide answers to specific questions on this board which would verify whether my sources are correct. He gave no answers to those specific questions. He suggested in one email that I provide details that would compromise the identities of my sources. I declined for reasons stated above and stated these reasons to Greg. I invited Greg in that private email, and on this forum, to get in touch with me by telephone, since a phone conversation is usually far more productive in this kind of situation because it allows for the normal give and take of conversation. Greg declined.
RESPONSE:
For obvious reasons! But, again, you are in error. I have specifically DENIED everything you said about my relationship with Schroeder in the email you sent out, originally. That means you have to substantiate what you there said, or apologize for lying about it. Since you cannot do either, you are in quite a predicament.
AF:
Here, let’s give Greg the opportunity once again to set matters straight: let him telephone me at home tonight when I return from work, and we’ll discuss this. My number is 914-627-2672 and he should call after 8:00 p.m. EST. By the way, I don’t want our call tape recorded. You understand why.
RESPONSE:
AF, what you SAY you want and what you really want are not necessarily the same thing. It is a very simply thing for you to send me an email and we can discuss whatever you want! Why is that so difficult, AF?
AC:
: and thus posted publicly in hopes of adding to the "sensationalism" of this board.
AF:
Um, no. My purpose was to show that Greg is in an unusual situation in being expressly allowed by a Watchtower official to publish his books defending the Society.
RESPONSE:
"Unusual"? I have a collection of over ten books published by witnesses over the past 15 years which show that my situation is by no means unusual.
AC:
: So whats it going to be, son? Give us the name of these "two witnesses" or publically apologize for spreading lies on the net! It is now upto you to put up or SHUT UP!
AF:
No way am I going to give the names of my sources. The names were given in confidence and I will not break that confidence. Do you want me to break my word? Do you want me to establish a reputation for being dishonest, as certain posters on this board have done?
RESPONSE
Too late, that's already been done quite well by yourself, Alan. Your dishonesty is legendary by now (to all but the H2O spin machine), and your hopeless and inept appeal to the biblical principle of two witnesses is about as laughable as it gets. Of course, a sincere apology for lying could erase all of that.
AF:
So, Adam, the ball remains in Greg’s court. He has only to contact me to clear the air.
AF
RESPONSE:
Okay, as I have done several times already, I contradict you! You are lying and everything you said about me and Schroeder was a lie.
Greg