# Concerns about AF, Part 3

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

Posted by AP [AP] on November 17, 1999 at 08:28:48 {xx2d.1sWpQ0hi4VK0MIQMAe0EfOyQM}:

::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!
: AF
They’re not obvious to me. Please explain so that our readers may know your reasons.

RESPONSE
Well, since I have done so twice already, what is the point? Phone conversations can be recorded, caller-ID can give out phone numbers, and you have no good reason for not making use of private email, which underscores the reality of the two intentions just mentioned. Please stop asking for information that I have already given several times.

: GREG
: 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.

: AF
You only issued a very general denial that could include or exclude pretty much anything you please.

RESPONSE
AF, this is getting ridiculous, even for you. My denial was specifically in reference to what you had claimed. I have already gone over this several times, and have nothing further to say. If you cannot see this, there is no way you are going to get other, more complex points.

: AF
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?

RESPONSE
Nothing, obviously. That is why I specifically denied the very things you claimed, without being slippery at all. You simply blew the issue out of proportion knowing that many on this board do not have the capacity to sift through repeated logical rejoinders to your illogical and incorrect statements, which I have highlighted above. You are simply not telling the truth about what I denied, in hopes of covering over your mistakes (i.e., red herrings).

: GREG
: … ? 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.

: AF
Really. Name them. Which of these books set out, as I said, specifically to defend Jehovah’s Witnesses?

RESPONSE
Produce your witnesses or apologize, first. You have much to explain, and there is no sense in giving you more subjects to complicate. Just focus on your apology and response, for now.

:: 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),

: AF
I would venture that it’s as legendary as your patience and ability to argue.

RESPONSE
I will go along with that!

: GREG
: and your hopeless and inept appeal to the biblical principle of two witnesses is about as laughable as it gets.

: AF
Your thorough misunderstanding (or perhaps, deliberate misrepresentation; you pick) of what I said is what’s laughable.

RESPONSE
As long as you have convinced yourself of that, then I am sure you will not progress at all.

: GREG
: Of course, a sincere apology for lying could erase all of that.

: AF
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
That is another lie! I did not attempt to deceive anyone, and I only attempted to hide my posting from my brothers and sisters, out of respect for their conscience. But you bungled that too, lying about and misrepresenting the situation, by claiming not to have been “aware” of what you and I both know you were well aware of. You have failed to make your point in your two examples about deliberate deception, and from there you have spiraled out of control into one mistake after another. But since most on this board sympathize with you already, what have you go to lose, that you have not already lost?

: GREG
: . . . You are lying and everything you said about me and Schroeder was a lie.

: AF
Prove it by answering the questions I posed above. The ball is now in your court.
AF

RESPONSE
I did, and you are. Now the ball has been slammed back in your court, and time has expired. You and your sources have lost. Now, let’s see if you are good loser, or not.

: AF
Posted by AF [AF] on November 09, 1999 at 22:11:02 {4Hfg918T5g1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: "one and only one" posted by AP on November 09, 1999 at 20:10:30:

: GREG
: I thought we might all take a moment or two and reflect on a small part of AF's response to my apology. On the issue of his misleading others about my TWO Travis posts, he replied, in part:
:: AF:
:: My, my. Your ability to fit so many errors of fact and logic into a single paragraph is impressive. For one thing, I never said that I didn’t read your 2nd Travis post; I did say rather clearly that I do not remember reading it.

: GREG
: Aside from the meaningless puffery in the first sentence, which he so often substitutes for genuine argumentation,

: AF
Oh, I assure you, as a factual statement about the content of your statements it was quite meaningful.

RESPONSE
Assurance from you is not very comforting or convincing. Again, your opening words are just another red herring, puffery in place of logical argumentation.

: GREG
: AF would actually have us believe that only a couple of days after the Travis posts, he did not remember the second one!

: AF
Indeed I did not remember such a piece of triviality. I attempted to explain why I did not in this post. The fact that you've entirely ignored everything I said except the parts you think make me look bad speaks volumes about your interest in the truth. My memory for what I consider trivial details is notoriously bad. My wife Julie and my daughter Julie regularly remind me of my lapses. Why don't you call one of them (you have our phone number) and ask them about my memory for such things? Oh, I know. You're afraid to talk to women and little girls, aren't you!

RESPONSE
Anyone who would employ their wife and daughter in such a disrespectful comment as the above has some serious problems, beyond those already documented.

: AF
And as I said, you have yet to explain why my not remembering and reposting your 2nd post was of any consequence. Can you do that? Of course not. Your continuing diatribe falls because of it.

RESPONSE
If you cannot see how the second post which attempted to EXPLAIN the first post, or give others a clue as to what was going on and who to contact for more information, is of extreme consequence, then there is no hope for you to understand my response. Indeed, the relevance of the second post is why you did not draw attention to it, and did not attempt to restore it. You were trying to deceive people, like you are doing now. I KNOW you were “aware” of it, because even if you did not read it (which I am sure you did), I TOLD YOU ABOUT IT in an email that was sent to several people on the same day of the posts! On 11-03-99 I told you and several others:

Subj: Re: Any way forward?
Date: 11/3/99
To: barjonah11@hotmail.com
CC: alanf@bestweb.net (AND OTHERS)

Thank you for your emails. I assure you, I had no intent to deceive anyone. I posted the two posts under the TRJ45 name so that the board would KNOW that I was, from here on, to be known as TRJ45. I had to post the new name quickly, as received the call while responding to Cygnus, and I knew he would reply soon, so I had to have "someone" ready to respond. I posted as a defender of the things I had said, so it would be a smooth transition to taking over for myself, if that makes any sense.

After I posted the second post, which I did to alert people to what I was doing, and have them email me if they were unsure, I realized that my name showed up with the two messages. That was the end of that!

I wanted to avoid stumbling my fellow Witnesses who expected me to comply with recent changes, and at the same time do what I felt was right, namely, defend the truth.

I made a mistake in how I chose to handle the pressure I felt, and which I did not expect.

You may share this email with others, if you feel so inclined.

Best Regards,

Greg

END OF EMAIL

RESPONSE
I know you received and read this, for your responded on 11-04:

Subj: Re: Any way forward?
Date: 11/4/99 1:02:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: alanf@bestweb.net
To: GregStffrd@aol.com
CC: barjonah11@hotmail.com

...

Thanks. That sparked some interesting thoughts for me. More next
time.

Alan

END OF EMAIL

RESPONSE
So, now that we all know what many of us already knew, that is, you are a liar, can you do yourself a favor and apologize?

: GREG
: Indeed, he is now saying that “I never said that I didn’t read your 2nd Travis post; I did say rather clearly that I do not remember reading it.” Is this what AF really said?

: AF
Indeed it is, as we will see.

: GREG
: My friends, can someone explain how the above is consistent with what we next read:
::: AC
::: What is your justification for not giving a complete picture by posting both posts?

:: AF
:: Are you entirely braindead? As far as I'm aware, Greg made one and only one post under the name ‘TravisJ45’. If you're aware of another, be sure to point to it.

: AF
I think that it's fairly obvious to any normally mentally endowed English speaker that the phrase "as far as I'm aware" means that the speaker is unaware of other possibilities. It does not mean that the speaker discounts other possibilities. Now, if a person is unaware of other possibilities, it can only be for two reasons: he never knew of them, or he knew of them and forgot.

RESPONSE
As we have seen, there is no way you could have forgotten, for even if you did not read it yourself, you were told, in detail, about the other post, and you responded to what was said! Then two days later you are all of a sudden “not aware” of the second one? AF, stop lying, please. It is already difficult for me to continue speaking with a person who misquotes sources and who presents fallacious arguments, but rank dishonesty like this has got to stop, now.

: AF
The fact that I allowed for other possibilities is proved by my statement, "if you're aware of another, be sure to point to it." In fact, my statement was a clear invitation and challenge to correct any wrong impressions I might have had. I admit it was sarcastic, but I was only having a bit of fun at Adam's expense.

RESPONSE
Yes, we know you often do that in place of seriously considering the issues, and that is a problem. But the real issue here is you are lying, and the email proves it. It is just too bad you had to dig such a deep hole for yourself before you were buried in it.

: AF
But you know how that is, don't you?

RESPONSE
What I know is you have consistently lied on this board about me and to me.

: AF
In fact neither you nor Adam ever pointed to another, nor did you, Greg, ever manage even to post the gist of your 2nd Travis post. Why not?

RESPONSE
Another lie, as evidenced by my email.

: AF
It came out only when the H2O "bot" fortuitously and against the wishes of H2O administration unexpectedly restored all the deleted posts, much to your embarrassment.

RESPONSE
Hardly. Restoring both posts, which you failed to do, proved my point and was an embarrassment to your attempt at deception, and repudiated the misinformed slander of Gedanken, JH, and others. It took me a day or so to realize just how badly everyone had missed the point, due in part to your deception. But when your arguments are being torn apart I guess you had to do something to distract everyone from the real issues.

: GREG
: No, I don’t mean to draw your attention to AF’s typical, response-beginning insult,

: AF
Come on, Greg. You like the tete-a-tete and so do I. Posturing like a rooster is rather fun, no?

RESPONSE
No. I may return fire but I do so in all seriousness. I am not posturing, just stating things as they truly are. I am quite calm and in control as I type, and if I see distortion or incompetence, especially after I have spent several hours explaining and re-explaining the point, then I will likely cut to the chase and tell you what I think about your attitude and your arguments. I said what I believed about Scally’s nonsensical and silly post, and it was deleted. Well, I can live with that. But his silly post deserved nothing more than a silly answer, and many times the same is true for you.

: GREG
: When one says, with emphasis (AF bolded “one and only one” in his post), that you are aware of “one and only one” Travis post, does that not mean YOU DID NOT READ A SECOND ONE, otherwise you would have been “aware” of it, also?

: AF
No, it does not. It means precisely what the words said: I was aware of only one post. If Adam had pointed out a 2nd post, or you had posted the gist of the 2nd Travis post, the matter would have been put to rest.

RESPONSE
I did, it should have been, and you are lying. You were aware of it, even if you did not read the second one.

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 15, 1999 at 13:17:34 {AS5l1tybL6HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: **Friend's Question posted by AP on November 14, 1999 at 17:24:53:
Apok,
Please read what Observer said carefully. You really are straining credulity and should give it up. Why do you keep telling us that you will "get back" to these points only after you have "dealt with" AF? Can it be that hard to defend material that you have now published twice. Surely you are the master of the subject and should be able to defend your own book and your original research on the spot. After all, we are not talking nuclear physics are we?

END OF QUOTE

RESPONSE
Gedanken, you may have all day to read and post to H2O, but I have a number of responsibilities and I am involved in many lengthy discussions, elsewhere. I get to each one as time allows. I gave you plenty of information in my “Enter Reality” post, all of which you ignored. I even gave you examples from your own posts to me where you misrepresented my book. I have MUCH more to say to you, but it is AF’s turn, and when we are done, you will get yours, as time permits. If you do not like that arrangement, well, too bad. If you choose to go on making light of such conditions, then that is your problem. It is certainly not something I would expect an “academic” to do, even if you are self-proclaimed and nameless one.

Posted by AF [AF] on November 15, 1999 at 12:09:56 {AS5l1tybL6DjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: **Friend's Question posted by AP on November 14, 1999 at 17:36:52:
:: So when one finds that extremely bad errors were made in a basic doctrine like the 1914 chronology, and finds that explanations were given that turn out not to be explanations at all (one JW told me that the 1943-44 material was like a shell game), and finds that the Society is unwilling to deal with the errors today and set matters straight, one can only conclude -- like a jury determining a murderer's motivation -- that some of the errors were deliberate and certainly that the covering up of them was deliberate.

: GREG
: No, that is NOT the "only" conclusion one can reach! THAT is the point I have been trying to explain: it is ONE possible option.

: AF
You keep talking about “other possibilities” but I have yet to see you present anything substantial. Unless you do, these “possibilites” will remain only that.

RESPONSE
Then you are not carefully reading my replies, and that does not surprise me one bit. I made the other possibilities clear in my two responses to you. We’ll see if you have figured out a way around them, yet. But since you have already convinced yourself that there is only one possibility, then any other is simply dismissed by you and others who already agree with you. That is why your appeal to legal principles is basically a joke, since the jury is not made of impartial people. We have two SIDES, not one screened jury. You have not proven anything, and your two examples have failed you. But, not only that, you have will have to prove that even if they were deceptive in these two examples, that Jehovah would not still be using them to accomplish His will, or that what is written in one or more books somehow makes every member of the GB liable for what is in them, even if someone tried to deceive others.

: GREG
: But you cannot prove that it is the ONLY option. Do you see the difference, now? On the one hand you say that it cannot be absolutely proven, but then you turn around and claim that "deliberate deception" IS the "only" conclusion one can reach.

: AF
You do seem to have difficulty comprehending the English language.

RESPONSE
As often and as badly as you mishandle my arguments and the arguments of others, I am beginning to wonder if you speak English or are simply using a translating program.

: AF
My discussion about “absolute proof” clearly centered on math-style proofs where purely logical proofs occur. In real life situations we must use a different standard. That standard involves not absolute proofs but probabilities. It is in terms of these reasonable probabilities that would pass the classic “prudent man” test that I said “one can only conclude …”

RESPONSE
No, that is only your opinion. “Prudent men” to you are only those who agree with you. This has not only been made clear in what you have said to me, but to Friend and others, as I have shown above. One can NOT “only conclude” as you do, using your examples. Your examples are quite capable of other explanations. But your deception on several matters is truly a case where one can “only conclude. . .”

: AF
Really, though, you do understand English quite well.

RESPONSE
Not the version you use, apparently. You have your own lexical stock, and say things you do not mean, often. It is really quite amazing.

: AF
Your problem, as most everyone else on this forum can see, appears to be that you just don’t want to admit of anything that could taint your view of the Society. By pretending to misunderstand arguments you can try to deflect the problems into a side path where they’ll never have to be examined – especially by you.

RESPONSE
I have examined everything you have said. You are just trying to distort the picture, again. You are the one who does not want to admit that he was wrong in claiming the Society was deceptive on certain matters, or that other legitimate possibilities exist. THAT is something you absolutely cannot do, and you also cannot apologize for lies that are obvious to everyone on this board, because the facts speak for themselves, and so does my email and your response (see above).

: GREG
: Also, previously when you were explaining the situation about your "two witnesses" you claimed that this was not a courtroom,

: AF
Right, because it obviously is not.

: GREG
: and now you wish to have legal principles, as used in a court of law, applied.

: AF
Once again you pretend not to understand. My reference was not to a courtroom per se, and certainly not to a slavish application of legal principles, but to the general methods employed not only in a courtroom but in most other real life situations to determine someone’s motives.

RESPONSE
AF, you are using anything but “general methods employed not only in a courtroom but in most other real life situations to determine someone’s motives.” Otherwise, you would not have such a hard time admitting you are wrong in stating what the “only” conclusion can be, excluding other legitimate possibilities in the process. Your saying they are not legitimate does not make them so. You simply will not allow them to stand as legitimate, otherwise your challenge fails, as it clearly already has. You have also misquoted material and lied about me in the process. You could not have done any worse.

: GREG
: I will have more to say about this, if the discussion continues.

: AF
Again you claim you have more to say. If you do, just say it and be done with it. I just can’t stand the suspense.

RESPONSE
To borrow an expression from you, used in reference to AC, “are you entirely brain-dead”? I was waiting to hear what you had to say about my offer to move on to more concrete issues, where things can truly be proven. Since you cannot allow yourself to be defeated on such simple points, I will gladly continue to expose you and your arguments in the present discussion, at least one more time. But let the record reflect that I offered to discuss other issues such as the Gentile Times and the blood issue. Instead, you have decided to keep trying to justify your errors, and I will keep explaining where you error, and in the end the discussion will be so long no one will ever read it. But, that is no doubt what you were hoping for. As I said:

: GREG
: So, take your pick: Proceed with your reply, and I will reply after it has been given, and in the meantime I will offer further posts for consideration, with respect to your appeal to the two unknown witnesses, the "Schroeder claims," and other, related issues.

: AF
I’m in the middle of responding to your last big one, if that’s what you’re talking about. Since I can only work on it from home and it’s huge, it’s going to take awhile. As for the Schroeder business, post what you have and let’s run with it.

RESPONSE
You got it and more.

: GREG
: If you are willing to acknowledge that while you believe that deliberate deception is the most likely motivation behind the two examples that are at the core of our debate, but that there are other possibilities, then we can move on to other issues.

: AF
Alright, I’ll acknowledge that there may be possibilities I’ve not considered. But to prove them, you’ll have to give pretty solid evidence and show why what I’ve presented is wrong, instead of merely claiming so.

RESPONSE
I have done that very thing, in both my replies to you. Please stop insulting everyone’s intelligence, and misrepresenting the situation. I have not merely claimed, but articulated my position time and time again.

: GREG
: … you might consider giving a summary of main points, and I will do the same, and we can submit them to barJonah at an appointed time, to complete this present discussion.

: AF
I’m going to present the full complement of information, not a summary.

RESPONSE
Then that is what you will get in return.

: AF
Oddly enough, in your last big post you admitted for all practical purposes that JWs are inspired. It will be interesting watching you try to get away from this admission.
AF

RESPONSE
That you would even suggest that I have admitted as much, shows already that you are completely out of control and about to experience a third fatal crash.

END OF PART THREE

- For more on AF

Follow Ups:

- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 WorldlyWitness 19:10:08 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 Al; 18:16:58 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 Cygnus 14:26:06 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 Cygnus 14:23:58 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 Cygnus 14:22:28 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 Déjà Vu 11:35:35 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 Gedanken 09:56:27 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 Marcos 09:55:45 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 Farkel 09:36:15 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 BooHoo!!!! 09:31:18 11/17/99 (1)
  - **Concerns about AF, Part 3 Jack01 10:02:43 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 3 Gedanken 09:24:17 11/17/99 (1)
  - **Concerns about AF, Part 3 SweetPotato 10:36:07 11/17/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Concerns about AF, Part 3

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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