# **AP and AF

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

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 17, 1999 at 15:29:09 {xx2d.1sWpQePXjHnUl.IOgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: *AP and AF posted by AF on November 17, 1999 at 14:52:35:

AF

> You might start by dealing with the issue of the non-English translations of The Truth Shall Make You Free as I explained above.

I am not sure I follow your reasoning on that issue. It appears that because dates were changed in non-English versions that that somehow evidences dishonesty. Considering that I always found the relevant material a confused bungled up mess my explanation for decades has been that the change added just one more dimension to the nonsense that was already there. It demonstrated incompetence, extreme incompetence. Until the Society accepts their 1914 chronology as nonsense all they have done on the issue at hand is show ineptitude, in more ways than one too. In my opinion the deepest ineptitude is that the Society expects thinking people to accept its notions on chronology when they cannot. I believe this is a case of blind incompetence fueled by conviction that I mentioned. Whether it is dishonesty is for individuals to decide, which is what you have done and I certainly respect your view.

As for whether you accept or reject my views of what you had to say regarding TravisJ45-II, it makes no never mind to me. As you have, I have expressed my opinion on what I saw with my own eyes. Considering that I did not hold back my views concerning GS, honesty bound me to express myself on your own actions, as I saw them. Your consideration that I perhaps did not read all the applicable posts was generous of you but unnecessary. By now you should know that I tend to investigate before I open my mouth and this instance is no exception. I still feel you owe an apology, but that makes no difference one way or another.

As for whether your arguments established preponderance of evidence specifically to exclude incompetence and/or mistake, again that is for individuals to decide themselves. Saying that your conclusions are acceptable to reasonable people is circular because all you are saying is that those agreeing with you are reasonable. If reasonable or preponderance were that clear then judicial systems would not leave that question to be resolved by jurors. In that setting there is de facto admission that reasonable or preponderance is for individuals to decide, it is subjective.

Of greater importance is the exercise of discussing issues and information. Doing so enables that individuals can make more informed and thought out decisions. Whether any of us agree is an aside.

Friend

Follow Ups:

- ***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 ]