# Concerns about AF, Part 2

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

Posted by AP [AP] on November 17, 1999 at 08:27:39 {xx2d.1sWpQ0hi4VK0MIQMAe0EfOyQM}:

: GREG
: Everything that is said above, with respect to my relationship with Albert Schroeder is a lie.

: AF
Really. Do you or do you not have a personal friendship with Albert Schroeder?

RESPONSE
Let’s review “what was said above,” which I called a lie:

: AF - Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder, and I've been told that he clears his manuscripts with Schroeder before publishing them. Schroeder, of course, has long been known for setting forth his own opinions without getting the approval of the rest of the GB, but his long-standing position and unquestioned loyalty to the Society protects him. While I wouldn't describe Greg as a protege of Schroeder, their relationship gives him a measure of protection.
AF

RESPONSE
Now, if I say, which I did, “Everything that is said above, with respect to my relationship with Albert Schroeder is a lie,” how is it that you can ask me: “Really. Do you or do you not have a personal friendship with Albert Schroeder?” As in most of your other replies, you fail to get the most salient of points, and it is hard for me to imagine how anyone could take you seriously in view of this. Other than being his spiritual brother, I have no relationship with Schroeder. I have never met with, spoke to or otherwise corresponded with him.

: AF
Have you or have you not submitted a good deal of written material to the Society, at least some of which Schroeder read and approved?

RESPONSE
I have submitted SOME (not “a good deal”) material to the Society, but I have no idea who reads it.

: AF
Did he give you any kind of go-ahead, formal or informal, for you to publicly defend JWs in writing?

RESPONSE
No. No such “go-ahead” was ever given, or sought.

: AF
If you deny any of these things, what do you say if I give Bert a phone call and report back here what he has to say? No hedging, now, and no using theocratic warfare.

RESPONSE
AF, that is what you should have done in the first place. Prior to spreading lies about a person, it is usually a good idea to know what you are talking about. After you call Brother Schroeder, I expect a public apology for spreading misinformation about both of us, and for failing to check out the facts before sharing these things with others.

: GREG
: AF has spread misinformation from sources that tell lies, without even bothering to check with me, to see if what he has been told is accurate. Of course, who would be in a better position to know the truth of the above, than me?

: AF
Alright, perhaps I should have checked with you first. I will admit that I was a bad boy and simply wanted to give you a little poke and see how you'd respond. Nothing wrong with a little challenge, eh?

RESPONSE
Well, we are getting close to an apology. That’s good! But, AF, you did not write what you said about Schroeder and me, to me; you wrote them to someone else. So how could you have said what you said with the INTENTION of ‘seeing how **I** would respond’?

From the above, it seems that you are willing to admit that you will purposefully post information about others that is unverified, to someone else, with the hope that one of the persons affected by the unverified information will read the post and respond. Sorry, but challenges are made directly to a person, or should be, by normal debating or discussion standards! I think you should just admit that your sources lied to you, and you took what they told you as fact, without verifying it, even though you say we should verify everything the Society tells us, no matter how much we trust them. I agree with you on this, but you are apparently unwilling to apply the same standards of verification to others, that you would have us apply to the Society.

: GREG
: So, by all means read my response to AF, ignore the spin machine that is bound to show up, and remember that AF has sources that have lied to him.

: AF
I think that readers will see in your main response that, if I'm a spider, you're a tornado.

RESPONSE
We appreciate your opinion, AF. But the spin you are involved in now, to justify yourself and your sources, is almost superhuman. But at least you here state your opinion as an OPINION, not as fact, which you have a strong tendency to do.

: GREG
: I am sure AF is a nice guy,

: AF
My wife thinks so. So do some of my friends.

RESPONSE
“ Some” :-) Just out of curiosity, would those friends include JH? He is not really qualified to say who is
truly a “nice” person!

: GREG
: but I think he has misinformed you folks not only about my relationship with Albert Schroeder, but about many other matters.

: AF
We will see how you respond to my direct questions. No cheating, now.

RESPONSE
What I have said in previous posts about this issue was quite sufficient to explain the truth of the matter. Now you have more information than you need, to see that your sources are liars, and that you have spread their lies to others, misinforming them about me in the process. An apology is surely in order, and your sources should be evaluated using the same methods of condemnation you use against the Society. After all, they would had to have “deliberately deceived” you, since there is no other way to account for their misinformation. This story could hardly have been concocted by “accident.”

:: GREG
: This is my view and opinion, based on my consideration of what he has written thus far. It is for you to accept or reject.

: AF
As always.
AF

RESPONSE
As always for me, but not for you, AF. You rarely present your views in this way, and that is part of the problem.

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.”

RESPONSE
AF, no one has a greater supply of and makes more frequent use of red herrings than do you. Few others substitute logical discussion with insults and ad hominems better than you. All you do is continue to make matters worse for yourself by refusing to apologize for spreading lies and misinformation, and you are also lying about the nature of my answer. You also lied about your “awareness” of the second Travis post (see below). I could not be any worse, for you.

I specifically denied the very things you had asked. THEN you asked a series of question, all of which fall within the scope of my complete denial. For example, if I denied what you said, namely, “Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder, and I've been told that he clears his manuscripts with Schroeder before publishing them,” then all of the questions you ask are irrelevant and merely red herrings on your part designed to confuse others about the situation in which you presently find yourself, namely, as one who relies on unverified misinformation, and who spreads that information to others without the slightest hesitation. Indeed, you listed your questions as follows:

: AF
I’m using normal English words in a normal manner and I assume that you can understand such usage.

RESPONSE
This is truly a switch from your normal habit, which is to write one thing and then when you get caught you flip-flop and claim you really MEANT to say something else. So, try to keep this approach of “using normal English words in a normal manner” in the rest of your replies; I do not allow the redefinition ploy. I ALWAYS take what you say as though you were “using normal English words in a normal manner,” even if you later spin like a top in order to avoid contradiction or some other fallacy in what you claim.

: AF
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?

RESPONSE
No to both questions.

: AF
Do you consider Albert Schroeder your friend?

RESPONSE
I consider all of my brothers and sisters my friends. My friendship with Brother Schroeder is the same as that which I have with a brother or sister from any other part of the world, but whom I have never met.

: AF
Do you think that Albert Schroeder considers you a friend?

RESPONSE
I hope so!

: AF
Have you ever submitted written material to the Society?

RESPONSE
Of course.

: AF
Have you ever submitted written material to the Society for the purpose of getting its official opinion of it?

RESPONSE
No, not really. I may have wanted to know their thoughts, but usually if I send something to them it is an “FYI” sort of thing. But your question has nothing to do with your claims about my relationship with Schroeder. It is, again, a red herring.

: AF
Have you ever submitted written material to the Society or to any Watchtower official for the purpose of getting their unofficial opinion of it?

RESPONSE
No.

: AF
Has the Society ever rendered its opinion, formally or informally, on any material you have submitted to it?

RESPONSE
Your question is, again, irrelevant to the point at hand. But any replies that they give to what I send are usually the commonly given, “Thank you for your interest,” etc.

: AF
Has any Watchtower official ever given his opinion, formally or informally, on any material you have submitted to him?

RESPONSE
Not to me.

: AF
Did Albert Schroeder read any of your book manuscripts prior to publication?

RESPONSE
No.

: AF
Did Albert Schroeder approve any of your book manuscripts prior to publication?

RESPONSE
No.

: AF
Did Albert Schroeder put his initials on any pages of any of your manuscripts prior to publication?

RESPONSE
No. That ends your list of questions, and so I expect you will give a speedy and public apology for relying on sources who lied to you, and for spreading those lies without checking with the parties involved. I expect your apology to be written “using normal English words in a normal manner.”

: AF
Now let’s deal with your frothy objections to my use of the Biblical “two witnesses” theme.

RESPONSE
Excellent. You have a lot of explaining to do on this one.

: AF
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.

RESPONSE
You are missing the point, AF, and your partial quotation of the above post is part of the problem. So I understand why you would think that to be “boring.” But, let’s not take the easy way out. Here is what you wrote to AC:

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"?

END OF QUOTE

RESPONSE
The first problem with what you wrote above is that you are way out of line when you say, “he did not quite deny anything about being involved with Schroeder.” That is utterly ridiculous and a much greater insult to the reader’s intelligence than your dogmatic claims regarding the Kingdom and Truth books’ statements. I specifically denied your claims, namely, “Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder, and I've been told that he clears his manuscripts with Schroeder before publishing them.” How in the world did you misconstrue my clear denial of these two items, by saying, “he did not quite deny anything about being involved with Schroeder”?

It is the mishandling of such simple and clear facts that permeates your arguments, and which explains why you are having such a difficult time understanding the real issues.

: AF
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.

RESPONSE
Sorry, but many on this board regularly accept what you say without knowing anything about the subject, or without having checked into the facts. Indeed, I exposed this kind of non-thinking in several previous posts, asking for replies from several persons, on specific issues, and I received absolutely nothing in the way of a critical interaction with several serious flaws in their and your argumentation. So, maybe you had better “think again.”

: AF
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.

RESPONSE
I have seen several examples of such persons, but by far the majority of posts that I have read reflect a much different type of person than you here describe. But since you regularly mislead others about simple things that I say, I am not surprised that you are blind to their actions.

: AF
When I mistakes you’d better believe that I hear about it! And rightly so.

RESPONSE
Well, yes, as Friend and I have pointed out to you, you have made several mistakes of fact and judgement, all of which you continue to deny in spite of the simple and clear facts which are presented to you. Where have you ever accepted correction on this board? Perhaps you have, but where? If you have, then I am sure you can accept correction again, now.

: AF
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.

RESPONSE
What you “expect” is not always what happens, in fact. So you need to act responsibly with such information, and to check it out before passing it off as verified fact. Indeed, you did not even check with me! Your appeal to “two witnesses” was a disaster, and showed that even in matters of simple biblical principles you stretch the application beyond what it can bear.

Your appeal to them was in defense of what they said about me, and was put forth in contradiction to what I had denied, and what you had said. Therefore, there is no way you can limit your appeal to YOUR situation, since that situation directly relates to MY situation, as misrepresented by you. The fact is, you misapplied a simple biblical principle, and your witnesses are liars, nameless liars whom you cannot produce, which means that what you said is completely your responsibility, at this point.

: AF
I think that most participants would be highly insulted if I explained such an elementary thing to the board.

RESPONSE
What, you mean if you explained how you misapplied a simple biblical principle about two witnesses, neither of whom you have or can produce, and who lied to you about me? You are insulting everyone by thinking that you can limit your appeal to their testimony ,as one that only relates to your situation. But that is the only way you can hope to avoid having mishandled a simple biblical principle, and since that does not work you cannot avoid it. Just apologize, AF, you will feel much better, I promise.

: AF
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.

RESPONSE
The only red herrings being dragged through this discussion are those you continue to use. I **KNOW** you cannot produce your witnesses, which is why your appeal to the aforementioned biblical principle is really rather amazing, being such a terrible mishandling and misuse of such simple biblical data. Your deception, or ignorance, or both, is quite clear.

: AF
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.

RESPONSE
An email is a private conversation. You may contact me at any time. Your refusal to do so is highly revealing.

: AF
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.

RESPONSE
As I have explained above, you cannot rely on them. But, please, let us know what Brother Schroeder has told you.

: AF
I don’t have absolute confidence in my sources; that’s why I’m inviting you to help evaluate them.

RESPONSE
It is too bad that the above did not characterize what you said in your original post about this subject. Again, please apologize for not checking out your information, before spreading it to others, as if it were true.

: AF
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.

RESPONSE
You obviously did have confidence in them, and likely figured I would not call you on it, which is why you said what you said, the way you said it.

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.

: GREG
: 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.

: AF
I see that your sarcasm detector needs repair.

RESPONSE
Funny, I was not using it! Seriously, it is your red herring reply (to AC) that leads people away from the real issues.

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.

: GREG
: 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
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.

: AF
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?

RESPONSE
How you failed to understand what I said, and its relationship to what AC said, is a genuine mystery. Your analogy has nothing to do with what AC wrote, for AC did not say that a failure to produce your witnesses necessarily means you are a liar. He SIMPLY asked you to do one of two things: produce your witnesses, or apologize for lying. Since you did lie about my relationship with Brother Schroeder, that is what you should do. There is no way to change that. But AC merely allowed you the option of supporting your claims by producing your witnesses. In other words, even without producing your witnesses you could be telling the truth. But AC simply wanted you to do one of two things (see next RESPONSE). So your reply was essentially meaningless in the context of his request, and your analogy was false, on several levels.

: AF
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.

RESPONSE
Fine. But that has nothing to do with AC’s request. He did not say, “AF, either produce your witnesses or you are a liar.” He asked you to 1) EITHER produce your witnesses or 2) apologize for lying. Do you understand, now? Please rephrase what you think I am saying, so I know if you understand me or not.

:: 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.

: GREG
: 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
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.

RESPONSE
Actually, that is precisely what you JUST did!

: AF
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?

RESPONSE
I understand precisely what you do not understand, and where your misunderstanding lead you off the deep end. When you decide to return to what was actually said, and comment about IT, then we can continue the discussion.

END OF PART TWO

Follow Ups:

- *Concerns about AF, Part 2 Al; 17:55:33 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 2 Farkel 09:20:16 11/17/99 (1)
  - **Concerns about AF, Part 2 Julie 14:57:50 11/17/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Concerns about AF, Part 2

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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