Posted by Seeker [Seeker] on November 17, 1999 at 12:28:18 {xx2d.1sWpQtDlUsHAETc79YAW9JMpc}:
In Reply to: AP and AF posted by Friend on November 17, 1999 at 12:05:01:
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.
I know that in other areas AF has directly gone to GB members or brothers in the Writing Department and pointed out errors. For example, he explained in great detail the deceptions of the Creation book, both with Schroeder as well as with the principle author of that book. Nothing changed. The book continued to be highlighted. Nothing was retracted, nothing was corrected, nothing was commented on. In this case, incompetence and ignorance were ruled out. All one is left with is a lack of caring about accuracy, or perhaps even a deliberate attempt to deceive.
In the case of the 1943/1944 switcheroo of the 607 date, AF cannot go to Fred Franz and point out the error. However, given the way the Society reacted when AF did point out other deceptions, it can be seen to a reasonable extent that truth is not important to them.
Ignorance cannot be appealed to when you point out knowledge. Incompetence cannot be appealed to when you show how to make the changes. When nothing changes after that, you must find other explanations.
Seeker