goodbye AAWA--good luck

by bigmac 203 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “And of course you can prove it's mistaken by ... questioning what other people may or may not know about the value of surveys?”

  Simon,

  Only you know what that question is suppose to represent or mean. In response to what I wrote, it’s nonsensical insofar as I can tell.

  Otherwise, I’m not the participant who alleges an operational delusion at work in the sort of survey Cedar attempts. You’ll have to question that JWN poster for evidence of that claim.

  My point is that the sort of survey Cedar attempts is not necessarily delusional or useless. You have yet to say anything suggesting you know why I say this, and you never question what I’ve actually asserted on this point.

  So what are you getting at?

  What is your point of what I’ve said, if you have one to make?

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  suavojr

  I meant that I can envision a lot of off the cuff comments about apostates and once again the WT will look like the victims.
• 

  Simon

  I’ve answered the questions you presented to me. If not, what have I omitted?

  The question that I actually asked: How the 'survey' is consistent or of any real value beyond entertainment or propaganda purposes.

  As for misinterpretation, I take what people write for what it actually says. I stopped trying to interpret what folks express online a long, long time ago.

  No one does that. Words are used to convey thoughts and are a lossy medium in the hands of all but the most skilled practioners of which I consider no one here to be. They are not the thoughts, they are a representation of the thoughts and are always subject to interpretation. That's why we're cursed with laywers and priests so they can interpret what someone else meant. I believe claiming otherwise to be [insert whatever word means idiotic without you being able to claim it as an insult]. See, I'm unskilled ...

  Simon, that’s a deliberate insult issued to me. I hope it made you feel better to put it out there, and I’m glad I was here to absorb it for your pleasure. It serves no purpose otherwise.

  I actually think your debate technique is to continually exasperate the other party until they eventually voice their frustration and you can then use that as an excuse to claim you have been insulted. I don't think your arguments make the logical sense that you may imagine they do.

  The bottom line is you made the assertion that the survey was consistent and of value so it's up to you to either stick to it and prove that it is, as best you think you can, or else accept that well, we aren't willing to make the same assumptions that you are.
• 

  Simon

  And of course you can prove it's mistaken by ... questioning what other people may or may not know about the value of surveys?

  Only you know what that question is suppose to represent or mean. In response to what I wrote, it’s nonsensical insofar as I can tell.

  Well, you seem to have assumed that your interpretation of it is correct so to clear up your misunderstanding, I'll phrase it differently.

  When asked if you can demonstrate your claim that the 'survey' is consistent and valuable, your response was not to actually provide any reasoned argument but instead to question my understanding of what the value of a survey in general is.

  Whether I recognise or don't recognise the value of a good survey in general is irrelevant to the fact of whether that particular survey is good or not.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “The question that I actually asked: How the 'survey' is consistent or of any real value beyond entertainment or propaganda purposes.”

  Simon,

  Whether Cedar’s survey is actually consistent in means, method and interval is not something I’ve asserted one way or another. If his survey is consistent in means, method and interval then in the end this is where usefulness of Cedar’s survey is to be found.

  My point is that it’s not delusional for Cedar to attempt a survey as he does and think it useful.

  Assuming consistency in means, method and interval, one usefulness of Cedar’s survey would look like this: X of Y moves like Z. It could also look like this: Y is moving to Z.

  What this articulates in how a given population set moves on given issues.

  In the case of Cedar’s survey, the given population set is whatever is the sort of people who respond to the sort of questions he asks answers for.

  The values (sums, results et al) you get from this may or may not tell you anything at all about the general population of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But it can tell you a lot about the population set targeted by the survey.

  “No one does that....”

  I do that.

  “The bottom line is you made the assertion that the survey was consistent and of value so it's up to you to either stick to it and prove that it is, as best you think you can, or else accept that well, we aren't willing to make the same assumptions that you are.”

  Wrong. I have not asserted Cedar’s survey was/is consistent in means, method and interval. You read that onto what I wrote.

  “I actually think your debate technique is to continually exasperate the other party until they eventually voice their frustration and you can then use that as an excuse to claim you have been insulted. I don't think your arguments make the logical sense that you may imagine they do.”

  I’m not debating, and I’m not employing a technique of exasperation. I’ve responded factually and to the point.

  The insult of “So feel free to interpret this as "you win again" (yay)” requires no interpretation, and neither does the excusology you offer above.

  I have no trepidation of a logical examination of a thing I’ve said. I know logic is like math. For those who know it refutation is not complicated. If I’ve made some fallacious argument that soft underbelly is exposed and I know it. If I feared such exposure I’d not express myself.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  james_woods

  Marvin, things that are just plain wrong - and which are repeated again and again - are merely consistently wrong.

  Repeating it consistently does not make what is wrong with it right.

  What is wrong with all the Cedars survey stuff is that REAL JWs will not respond to it - only fringe JWs who are outside the real JW sphere on influence.
• 

  Tylinbrando

  What is wrong with all the Cedars survey stuff is that REAL JWs will not respond to it - only fringe JWs who are outside the real JW sphere on influence.

  My MIL is a real JW. She took the survey. I am neither DF'd or DA'd. I took the survey. I can't imagine we are the exception.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “When asked if you can demonstrate your claim that the 'survey' is consistent and valuable, your response was not to actually provide any reasoned argument but instead to question my understanding of what the value of a survey in general is.”

  Simon,

  When actually asked whether Cedar’s survey is useful my answer is that I don’t know. I’d have to extract information from Cedars about his means, methods and intervals.

  My point from the beginning is that it’s not delusional for anyone to think they could attempt what Cedar does with an expectation of gaining something useful.

  “Whether I recognise or don't recognise the value of a good survey in general is irrelevant to the fact of whether that particular survey is good or not.”

  But whether you can recognize the usefulness of a survey whose information has a face-value fault is relevant. Based on what you’ve writen, you don’t have this training.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  sir82

  Got to admit - few people can "push buttons" as effectively as Marvin.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Marvin, things that are just plain wrong - and which are repeated again and again - are merely consistently wrong.”

  james_woods,

  Not necessarily.

  If a unit of information that’s “just plain wrong” at face value is collected the same way at consistent intervals it can be useful for analyzing the positioning of whatever is producing that unit of information.

  Marvin Shilmer