Posted by J.H. [JH] on November 08, 1999 at 10:56:52 {Nq8EnQ8RVAwxcT1WLj/AHR5JhS9/hc}:
In Reply to: AF's "Witnesses" posted by GregStafford on November 08, 1999 at 07:54:49:
Greg,
You are totally out to lunch, as you always are. All this impotent noise is just to take attention away from the fact that you exposed yourself as a proven liar and a fraud. And no moderator can FPP in hand censor that message :- all participants on this board now knows it to be a fact.
The use of anonymous witnesses is accepted both in acedemic studies and -- as everybody knows --in journalism. To this day, nobody except the journalists involved (and possibly one editor) knows the identity of famous "Deep Throat", the source that revealed the criminal behaviour of ex-President Nixon and his staff. A typical quality newspaper or newsmagazine is filled with articles that builds on anonymous sources, whose identity is known by only a few journalists, perhaps only one person.
It all comes down to the credibility of the reporter. When a journalist claims that certain quality sources tell so-and-so, the reader typically assumes this to be the case. The reader has no choice. In those instances where it is revealed that journalists have forged sources, it has cost them their reputation and their jobs, sometimes their freedom. The forged Hitler diaries is an example that shook the otherwise reasonably reputable Stern magazine.
To demand that sources be revealed is totally absurd. Source protection is rule numero uno in journalism, and also in academic studies of sensitive issues. In some countries, like Sweden, journalistic sources even have constitutional protection, and an outing carries stiff penalties.
Even scholarly work very often relies on anonymous sources. An anthropologist may name some of his sources, e.g. natives in a particular "primitive" tribe, but other scholars simply has to believe she or he is telling the truth. And generally, there is no reason to doubt such work.
It should be extremely obvious to you why Alan's sources cannot be revealed. You know it to be a fact that such a thing could cost them their families and cause great personal harm. To think about, even insist upon, such a thing just shows you've lost touch with reality.
You can feel free to think that Alan has lied and just invented his sources. So is everybody else. But fact is, and you know it, all participants on this board save perhaps a few fanatical JWs know that Alan F's character is far beyond such methods. He is simply the trustworthy person, who would never even imagine making up such claims.
Agains Alan's credibility we have your credibility, Greg, or rather lack thereof. We know, since you have yourself proven it to us, that you are willing to lie, cheat, distort and misrepresent yourself for no other reason than to give yourself false praise. One can imagine what you'd be willing to do to protect yourself.
So you know that if you pit your own credibility against Alan's, even your own fellow-religionists will not put their stakes on you. A tragic situation, isn't it?
So do what you want. Make the claim that Alan's sources are wrong or misinformed, and some may even believe you. But don't make yourself look even more stupid than before by claiming that Alan intentionally tells untruths, or by demanding that he reveal confidential sources.