# *AP and AF

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

Posted by AF [AF] on November 17, 1999 at 14:52:35 {xx2d.1sWpQDjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:

In Reply to: AP and AF posted by Friend on November 17, 1999 at 12:05:01:

: To me this whole question is not one of preponderance of evidence or/versus absolute proof. I think exclusion is the question.

Basically I agree with you. Let me just say that when I talk about “preponderance of evidence” I’m talking about all of the evidence that it takes to establish something in the eyes of reasonable people. Whether that comes in the form of one or more positive pieces of evidence, or by excluding the other possibilities so that only the one is left, a la Sherlock Holmes, makes no difference to my argument.

: To me what AF has contended above is that he can establish that the Society deliberately spread falsehoods to the point of excluding other less indicting and legitimate conclusions. That extent goes beyond preponderance of evidence but falls short of absolute proof one way or another.

As I’ve carefully explained, “absolute proof” is non-existent in real life. It exists only in the realm of pure logic, such as math. To me, “preponderance of evidence” is as you say here:

: That constituting a preponderance of evidence is that which a reasonable person can conclude as more probable based upon weight of evidence. It is a degreeof proof rather than absolute proof. Absolute proof is unquestionable conclusions based upon evidence.

Again, such proof comes only in the realm of pure logic.

: In cases of establishing dishonesty we must exclude incompetence and/or mistake because intent is exactly that which is attempted to be established. If we cannot exclude incompetence and/or mistake then can we convince a reasonable person to denounce something as dishonest, as we have? I say convince to denounce because that is what is being attempted in this case. We are not just saying that, “In my opinion this is dishonest,” we are saying, “I can prove to you that this is dishonest!” In that case we have already denounced in our own mind, which means we have excluded in our own mind other less indicting conclusions. In that case, for us to prove the same to others then we must likewise prove our conclusion to the exclusion of the less indicting.

Quite so, and I certainly contend that this is what I have done. GS simply rejects the evidence, and has failed to comment substantively on what is probably the most damning evidence: that the Society produced non-English versions of the two 1940s books that contained “explanations” that are different from and contradictory to that supposedly given in the English books. I’m not sure that you’ve even looked at that evidence, so I’ll quickly refresh you:

The 1943 English book sort of said that the reason the beginning of the gentile times was being changed from an unspecified time in 606 B.C. to the autumn of 607 B.C. was that in Nebuchadnezzar’s time the year began counting in the fall. In the four non-English versions of this book, these dates were changed to 607 and 608 respectively, in a way that is clearly nonsensical. I now have in my possession photocopies of the German (no printing date is specified) and Norwegian (printed 1947) versions, and an original of an Arabic version (no printing date is shown). Each shows 607 and 608 in place of 606 and 607. I’ve verified that the Spanish version showed these dates, too. I also verified that in each of these books the 607 date is used throughout for the end of the gentile times, whereas in the English version the date was given as 606 up through page 239, and was given as 607 thereafter.

It should be evident that the translators of the non-English books had to change all appropriate occurrences of 606 to 607 and of 607 to 608. Why would they do this? The only reasonable conclusion, given the way the Society works, is that they were told to do it by someone in Brooklyn, probably the author of the English book. They certainly would not take it upon themselves to do it. Therefore we have a number of people who had to be deliberately instructed to make these changes. Since the changes resulted in an even more nonsensical “explanation” than in the original, it is evident that the nonsensical changes were made deliberately.

Now, one might raise the question of whether the translators knew that the changes were nonsensical. Let’s use a “reasonable man” test. Anyone capable of translating a technical religious book from English into another language is certainly intelligent. Therefore we should expect that if the “explanation” in the English book were understandable and correct, and the non-English explanations were contradictory to it, the translators would recognize that fact and inform the author. On the other hand, even GS has recognized that the “explanation” given in the English book is nonsense since he can’t explain it, so we can hardly expect the translators to have understood it. Therefore they must have recognized it as nonsense. And being intelligent people they would have recognized the non-English “explanations” as nonsense as well. Therefore they deliberately cooperated in publishing nonsense. Similarly, the author of the English book, namely Fred Franz, must have known that the English and the non-English “explanations” cannot both have been true, since they were mutually contradictory. Franz, or some other WTS official, had to deliberately decide to authorize the publication of a number of nonsensical non-English “explanations”.

Now if you can come up with a scenario that offers a reasonable explanation showing how all of these Watchtower writers, from Fred Franz to the many translators, could all be so completely incompetent as to publish nonsense in English and many other languages, I’d like to hear it. In my opinion, these men were not incompetent – they knew exactly what they were doing and I’m sure that most “reasonable men” would go along with my opinion.

: The problem in this case with applying preponderance of evidence toward a claim is that probability does not exclude other explanations that may not be the most probably but nevertheless have some reasonable degree of legitimacy. I hold that for AF’s contention to be established he must prove intentional deception to the exclusion of incompetence and/or mistakes. I do not think AF has done that and I think he agrees that while his conclusions may be evidenced as probable it does not go to the extent of excluding incompetence and/or mistakes.

For your general discussion to hold in our specific case, someone will have to provide a reasonable explanation for the above facts I set forth about the contradictory “explanations” set forth in the English and non-English books.

: I agree with GS that AF should apologize for some of his remarks.

I don’t think that I have anything to apologize for. I’ve straightforwardly set out my conclusions and the reasons for them. I’ve answered all questioners to the best of my ability. Seeker summarized the situation fairly well.

: AF, It was never a valid position to say that Greg’s “blanket denial” in respect to Schroeder was less then what it addressed, namely every aspect of your claim.

Sure it was. I have a great deal of experience dealing with JWs and how they often try to deflect specific questions by giving general answers. I’ve already explained all this.

: It was never valid to claim that TravisJ45-II was trivial to TravisJ45-I.

I explained this too. Didn’t you read what I posted? I said that, having read over all of the stuff on the board, including GS’s “farewell” post, in my opinion it was too trivial to save on disk on my computer. It was obviously even too trivial for me to remember it, since I didn’t remember it until it was restored to the board by the auto-software.

: Indeed, I hold that the fact of a second immediately following explanatory TravisJ45-II was more damning that the initial TravisJ45-I, at least it should have been held very suspiciously.

You thought so, and with hindsight I agree, but at the time I thought it was comically trivial. That’s why I didn’t save it. You can believe that or not, it’s no skin off my back.

: I can hardly convince myself that your sharp mind was as oblivious to that as you claimed.

I already explained all of that in great detail. I didn’t read GS’s email until 4:00 a.m. and then I barely skimmed it. That’s why I didn’t reply to the content, except to say that I’d think about it some more. By that time I had already been on the computer for six hours and as I told BarJonah in an email around that time, I was dead tired and about to collapse. I had also been up until between 2:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. many nights during the previous weeks. I am not superman. Do you know how much ribbing I take from my family because of forgetting things?

: Also, if it is true that you received that email as GS posted, then you cannot reasonable expect us to believe that you were as unaware of TravisJ45-II as you claimed afterward, or that it was trivial. For this you owe an apology.

No apologies will be forthcoming for this ridiculous lunacy. I didn’t remember – it’s that simple. I didn’t remember the next day because I hadn’t saved the 2nd post to disk, in contrast with the others. I straightforwardly said that if a 2nd post existed, GS or one of his buddies should produce it, or at least summarize the contents. They never did. All GS did was to claim that it was a magic bullet that would have explained everything, which you agree is ludicrous – it made matters worse.

: I will not be personally affected one way or another if you apologize or not. I just wanted to state my view for you and others to see because I have done the same in respect to GS.

Well, you need to get some facts straight by rereading the posts where I already explained my actions in painful detail.

: Now I suggest we all swallow our puny egos and discuss issues. Let’s forget about which individual is right or wrong and hear what each has to say. We can disagree and consider ourselves right, but that is about as important as whether it rained one year ago yesterday. Far more important is the discussion itself.

Fair enough. You might start by dealing with the issue of the non-English translations of The Truth Shall Make You Free as I explained above. If you need photocopies of the German, Norwegian and Arabic versions, let me know how to get them to you.

AF

Follow Ups:

- **AP and AF Tantalus 17:56:28 11/17/99 (0)
- **AP and AF Gedanken 15:38:50 11/17/99 (4)
  - ***AP and AF Friend 15:55:44 11/17/99 (3)
    - ****AP and AF Gedanken 16:12:50 11/17/99 (2)
      - *****AP and AF Friend 17:13:05 11/17/99 (1)
        - ******AP and AF Gedanken 17:37:45 11/17/99 (0)
- **AP and AF Friend 15:29:09 11/17/99 (4)
  - ***AP and AF AF 20:36:25 11/17/99 (3)
    - ****AP and AF Friend 21:38:39 11/17/99 (2)
      - *****AP and AF AF 07:52:42 11/18/99 (1)
        - ******AP and AF Friend 09:30:06 11/18/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **AP and AF

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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