From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:29:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.174608.11933@e2big.mko.dec.com>, news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:
> 
> 
> In article <1992Jul24.021230.12499@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes...
> >In article <1992Jul23.171952.6592@e2big.mko.dec.com>, news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:

{Very long dialogue about whether Mark will listen to Corey deleted}

>         Why should I, or any other Witness, for that matter, be all that
>     thrilled with hearing yet another disgruntled ex-Witness tell us that
>     he thinks our "sect is a load of bollocks?"  Do you suppose that we
>     haven't heard that before, and that we don't think we'll ever hear it
>     again?  If something comes across the radio or TV that I've heard many
>     times before and consider of no value, do I need to hear the whole
>     thing again (or even most of it) before feeling that I've heard enough
>     before I shut it off?  Or if a program which I don't care for as a rule
>     comes on, even though the episode is new, do I need to see the whole
>     thing out of 'fairness' before I can justify shutting it off?
> 
>         Now please note that this isn't the same as saying that I'm
>     shutting off something I HAVEN'T heard before, or have absolutely NO
>     CLUE as to it's contents, as a knee-jerk reaction.  
> 
>         *I* have never said that I am unwilling to hear what Corey has to
>     say [as of this point in time].  But that's NOT to say that after some
>     point, the jist or drift of the conversation may not convince me to
>     change my mind about FUTURE exchanges.

Andreas' comment certainly seemed to be saying that he wasn't going to 
listen to Corey anymore because he was an apostate, and your reply certainly
seemed to be agreeing with that position. If you never meant that you were
not going to listen to him for that reason, then I'm sorry that I misunderstood 
you and we will all look forward to hearing your responses to Corey's
future postings. Your organisation does not have a very good reputation
when it comes to it's treatment of 'apostates'. Maybe that reputation is
unfounded, if so, it will be Witnesses like you who will show us how
open-minded, undogmatic and unauthoritarian you really are. We will be 
watching  with great interest.

> >>         I don't claim to have checked every reference myself; but I did
> >>     just recently check a specific reference that Steven J. Edwards
> >>     included in a posting of his.  The reference was to an article in an
> >>     issue of Scientific American.  I read it for myself and posted my own
> >>     conclusion -- and my underlying reasons for concluding -- that the
> >>     quote was NOT dishonest.  If you want to begin a dialogue with THAT
> >>     quote, just let me know.
> > 
> >Okay, you've got my E-Mail address. Go for it.
> 
>         Just so I know for sure, did you come across that posting of mine?
No, I missed it.

> >> >        I found that your sweet little book is a bizarre collection of
> >> >out-of-context quotations, misquotations, misleading quotations, non sequiturs,
> >> >errrors of fact and just about every other dirty intellectual trick known
> >> >to man. (I'll substantiate this statement in long and glorious detail if you 
> >> >wish.) 
> >> 
> >>         Well, I'll tell you what; I agree to go through them with you, but
> >>     ONLY one at a time, with the preference of doing so privately and as
> >>     time and resources permit.  If you dump them all at me at once like you
> >>     did to the people who came to your door, forget it.
> > 
> >How about we do it, one point at a time, on talk.origins, then we should get a
> >lot of useful feedback by experts in the appropriate fields. Good idea?
> 
>         One reason I'd rather NOT take it to talk.origins is that my goal
>     [at the moment] ISN'T to get into a debate about creation and
>     evolution, but rather to prove that the WBTS is NOT being dishonest in
>     it's quotes [in the book in question].

Fine, then we'll stick to that question. Keep an eye out for a posting on this
subject here on t.r.m. very soon

> >>					It's
> >>     true that you probably got them thinking; but you also have to admit
> >>     that you set them up, because there's no way that they, as j-random
> >>     Witnesses showing up at your door, would have been prepared ahead of
> >>     time to go over all of your counter-evidence in detail.  You silenced
> >>     them by steam-rolling them.
> > 
> >Hang on a second! These bozos turn up on my doorstep at an ungodly hour on a 
> >Saturday morning and tell me they have a book that proves evolution to be a 
> >big lie. I say that I'm pretty sceptical about that, and they challenge me to
> >prove anything in the book was wrong. So I did. If they weren't prepared to 
> >back up their little book, then they were very stupid to challenge me in that
> >way. I did not steamroll them, they had plenty of imput into the conversation,
> >and it wasn't as though I was prepared myself in any way. If anyone intended
> >to do some steamrolling it was the JW's, who weren't expecting to talk to someone 
> >who knew what they were talking about, and were hoping to steamroll them into 
> >believing their pseudo-scientific crap. 
> 
>         OK ... you've got a point.  I'm not too proud to say "sorry"; it
>     was wrong of me to insinuate that you were planning aforehand to trap
>     them.
> 
>         I'm sure they DID show up on their own accord; but you invited them
>     in of YOUR own accord to confront them with your reseach [presumably
>     all in one shot].

No, we went through 'Life: Did it get here by Creation or Evolution?' page by
page and chapter by chapter. They had as much to say as I did, if not more. 
 
>					When you did your research, you had the luxury to do so at
>     your own leisure, outside the bounds of a confrontational situation
>     with another person.  I doubt very much whether there was any
>     opportunity to 'give and take' during their visit.  You gave and they
>     took.

Were you there Mark? I don't remember that you were. Perhaps I am
reasonably well read on the creation/evolution question (at least, for a
medievalist who specialises in 14th century poetry), but if these people 
were coming into my house with the intention of convincing me that
evolution is a fraud, then we should expect that they would know what 
they were talking about. What they knew would probably bamboozle
the average Joe, but it was clear to me that they were simply parroting 
sophistry. When I put a few of the quotes which 'proved' that evolution
was on it's last legs back into context, they had to admit that their book
was very misleading. One even said,'That's bad, we'll have to talk to
someone about that. We'll get back to you about it next week.' That was
four months ago. 

>         Had you not already had it, they would have left you with a book to
>     read at your convenience.  Did you leave them with a copy of your
>     research so that they COULD actually rebutt what you said?

I wrote down the bibliographical information on six basic books addressing
this controversy and told them which local libraries held these works. They
seemed very uncertain about reading this material, but said that they would
'if we get time.'

Tim O'Neill
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:13075 talk.origins:8952