Posted by AF [AF] on November 08, 1999 at 11:54:14 {Nq8EnQ8RVADjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: AF's "Witnesses" posted by GregStafford on November 08, 1999 at 07:54:49:
You know, Greg, every time you post you seem to get yourself in deeper. Rather than answer you point by point, which by now all readers can see is an exercise in futility because of your well-developed ability to drag truckloads of red herrings over the trail of argumentation, I’ll try to get down to a few simple questions and comments. Readers can also see my comments to Adam Covington just a little ways down the board.
First it’s obvious to all except your most ardent admirers that your bluff has been called and you can respond only with what amount to ad hominems and attempts to divert the reader’s attention from the fact that you refuse to answer specific questions. You claim that you’ve answered everything by a simple “none of it is true”, but we know very well that a blanket denial is a standard JW method of not actually answering questions while giving an appearance of doing so. We see on this board many claims that opposition websites are “all lies”, but when the accuser is asked to produce a single example of a lie, he almost always disappears. A blanket denial is very easy to use later when certain specifics might arise that show that the blanket denial was false. The denier can easily claim, “Well, I didn’t mean to include that in my denial. I may have missed it.”
So, Greg, let’s give you another opportunity to get down to specifics. This will allow me to a certain extent to evaluate the veracity of my sources. It will also provide hard evidence in written form on this board that will be recorded for posterity. Note that I can and will verify what you say with various sources that I have not mentioned. I might even get in touch with Albert Schroeder and see what he has to say. I believe that he is basically an honest man, and while he might not want to answer my direct questions, I don’t think he would tell a lie in answer to such questions. I’m going to pose the questions in a rather legalistic manner because you’ve shown a tendency to focus on tiny deviations from precision. Please do not engage in Clintonesque subterfuges such as “define sex”. I’m using normal English words in a normal manner and I assume that you can understand such usage. Here we go:
Have you ever communicated with Albert Schroeder by any means whatsoever?
Has Albert Schroeder ever communicated with you by any means whatsoever?
Do you consider Albert Schroeder your friend?
Do you think that Albert Schroeder considers you a friend?
Have you ever submitted written material to the Society?
Have you ever submitted written material to the Society for the purpose of getting its official opinion of it?
Have you ever submitted written material to the Society or to any Watchtower official for the purpose of getting their unofficial opinion of it?
Has the Society ever rendered its opinion, formally or informally, on any material you have submitted to it?
Has any Watchtower official ever given his opinion, formally or informally, on any material you have submitted to him?
Did Albert Schroeder read any of your book manuscripts prior to publication?
Did Albert Schroeder approve any of your book manuscripts prior to publication?
Did Albert Schroeder put his initials on any pages of any of your manuscripts prior to publication?
Now let’s deal with your frothy objections to my use of the Biblical “two witnesses” theme. I’m not going to include much of the previous posts because it clutters things up, it bores most readers, and all of it is easily available by browsing the appropriate posts. You took issue with my statement,
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"?
Since you’re not on trial – after all, this is just a discussion board where we all freely choose to participate or not – my application clearly is to me and only me. It means that, having had two witnesses tell me essentially the same thing, I have a reasonable amount of confidence that what each told me is true. It does not mean that I accept their word as absolutely solid proof. This is what I have consistently told the board – perhaps not explicitly in every post, but certainly in a sufficient number of them that anyone following these discussions can understand my evaluation of my sources.
If you think for one moment that anyone on this board is going to accept my word about such things without solid proof, you’d better think again. Most people on this forum are here because they’re independent thinkers and will no longer accept the word of anyone who claims to be or appears to be an authority on anything whatsoever. When I mistakes you’d better believe that I hear about it! And rightly so. Therefore, when I clearly state that my sources tell me thus and so, I expect that each reader will take this with a large grain of salt. I expect them to understand that my reference to “two witnesses” is not supposed to prove anything to them except that I personally have confidence. I think that most participants would be highly insulted if I explained such an elementary thing to the board. Therefore your attempt to characterize my statements as if I claimed that they were proved is a very big red herring.
As for producing any witnesses for this board to evaluate, as you’ve noted I have explained in detail why I’m not going to do that. Would you have me break my word to those sources? Obviously you would, which is consistent with your attempt to deceive readers of this board.
You asked, “Why would my private (telephone) remarks change your mind if you have two witnesses against me?” I’ve explained that several times now. Let me try again. There are certain things that these people told me that I will not say in public, but I will say to you in private. These things will not compromise my sources, but will help me in deciding whether these sources are reliable, and therefore whether I can rely on them in the future. I don’t have absolute confidence in my sources; that’s why I’m inviting you to help evaluate them. If I had such confidence there would be no point in my arguing with you about it, would there? That’s all there is to it.
You said, “. . . 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?”
I can’t point to any specific posts because we’ve all said so much, but I believe we’ve all said something to the effect that JW-ism is beneficial for people who don’t like to think for themselves.
More seriously, I certainly think that much of what JWs teach is good and beneficial. I think that they’re correct about certain matters where they conflict with other religious teachings. But this forum is all about reform. People don’t need to point out on a discussion board oriented towards reform things that don’t need to be reformed. Thus, such comments will naturally be few and far between. Similarly, I personally think that you’ve done a very nice job in your books in the chapters on the trinity. Of course, I’m no scholar of biblical languages, but that’s my first impression.
To AC:
:: 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.
I see that your sarcasm detector needs repair.
To AC:
:: 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.
My, my. You’ve certainly managed to thoroughly misunderstand the nuances in the exchange between me and Adam. You’ve also introduced yet another big old red herring. Let me explain.
First, I said nothing about invoking any “two witnesses” principle here, nor did my statement in any way imply that it should be invoked. Let’s note again the exchange:
::: AC
::: You must 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. 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.
Clearly our exchange was about divulging sources at all, not about providing “two witnesses” for sources. How on earth did you manage to get that idea out of this exchange?
Second, my “analogy” was spot on because many people have found what I said to be the case: the Society often refuses to divulge its sources even for something as simple and public as statements in its literature. Many have testified on this board that they’ve received no response to requests for such sources. There are JW lurkers on this board who have had the same experience. If they read this and desire to corroborate my words, they can do so.
:: 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.
Actually you’ve demonstrated once again your good use of lapsing into very general and woolly statements that don’t really refer to anything one can put one’s finger on. My statements here referred to something very specific: Adam’s condemnation of me for not divulging my sources. I demonstrated that it may be seen as hypocritical to condemn individuals for not divulging private information, when one would not condemn a group of men for not divulging what ought to be public information. Do you understand?
::AF:
:: . . . 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!
They’re not obvious to me. Please explain so that our readers may know your 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.
You only issued a very general denial that could include or exclude pretty much anything you please. That’s a slippery technique of getting out of answering specific questions. If you decline to answer the questions I’ve posed above, you have no leg to stand on. What are you afraid of?
:: 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?
I already explained why voice communication will be much better than an email. I don’t need to do it again. You’re obviously afraid to talk to me on the phone. Trust me; you won’t die.
: RESPONSE:
: … ? 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.
Really. Name them. Which of these books set out, as I said, specifically to defend Jehovah’s Witnesses?
:: 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),
I would venture that it’s as legendary as your patience and ability to argue.
: and your hopeless and inept appeal to the biblical principle of two witnesses is about as laughable as it gets.
Your thorough misunderstanding (or perhaps, deliberate misrepresentation; you pick) of what I said is what’s laughable.
: Of course, a sincere apology for lying could erase all of that.
That’s about the funniest thing in your entire post, coming from someone who demonstrably and ineptly tried to deceive the entire H2O forum.
: RESPONSE:
: . . . You are lying and everything you said about me and Schroeder was a lie.
Prove it by answering the questions I posed above. The ball is now in your court.
AF