Unethical quote from Nature, the magazine? (page 3)

Fatfreek

Sanduleak: Hi, are there any scans of these two Awake! articels in 1966 and 1968 ?? I'm very interested to get good scans ... because everybody says: "The society never said '1975' in it's literature!"

Welcome to our forum -- but whoa! The quotes above are indeed valid but not in context . Please do not use it for illustrating anything other than that. I was spoofing the shoddy practice that the WT used which inspired this thread to illustrate exactly how unethical it is. Using that for anything other than a spoof, we would be as guilty as they are.

By the way, for quotations not found on your WT library CD, check out the replacement web site for Quotes.ca which the Society shut down for "alleged" copyright violation.

http://www.reexamine.org/quotes/

Fats

sanduleak

@Fats

Thank you for this information. I did'nt recognize this, because im not english.

Thank you, too, for the links and information. They are well known to me. I copied the whole website content of quotes, a short time before they are closed by the WTS. ;-))

rebel8

Great find! I will add it to: http://jwinfo.8m.com/misquotes.htm

And it's a great idea to write to the authors who are being misquoted!

Fatfreek

Hmmm .... good site there, Rebel. I will add it to my list of bookmarks.

By the way, when (and if) the authors of Nature reply, I will be happy to post what they say here. I have the feeling they won't cut the WTBTS any slack.

Fats

skeeter1

Is the Society bringing forth an argument that forensic science (such as DNA matching) is not reliable?

Perhaps this is thier latest defense to the child molestation suits?

Skeeter

Fatfreek

Skeeter: Is the Society bringing forth an argument that forensic science (such as DNA matching) is not reliable?Perhaps this is thier latest defense to the child molestation suits?

Exactly the reason that I was researching DNA on their library CD. I was looking to see if the Society had softened the "two or three witnesses" position to allow DNA as, say, the "second witness".

Too unreliable, they postulate, in court cases. By inference, I interpret their position to mean that human witnesses are more reliable.

Fats

badboy

I forgot to mention I subscribe to this magazine.

JUST RENEWED THE SUBSCRIBTION!

Fatfreek

BadBoy: I forgot to mention I subscribe to this magazine.
I'm assuming you are talking about Nature. Is that correct? If so, can you do us all a favor? Only subscribers are allowed to open their articles. That's the reason I was only allowed to view (and copy) the directly adjacent context of those two quotations. Oh, I could've paid $30 for each but I'm on a fixed income.
It would be good if you, or some other subscriber to Nature, would be kind enough to copy and paste more surrounding context than what I posted earlier.

In case you need it, their site is here: http://www.nature.com/index.html

Fats

Fatfreek

This is their archive link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/

Fats

badboy

I MIGHT SOME TIME,MUSN'T FORGET,MAYBE IF I HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN THE DETAILS EG NUMBERS ETC ,I WILL!

Unethical quote from Nature, the magazine?

Share this