"scholar" again drooled:
: Here again you shoot from the hip without taking careful aim. You admit that you have not consulted a Style Manual but rather preferring common sense.
We will now see that my common sense was perfectly in accord with the standards given in two of the style references you referred to. We will see that you're far too incompetent as a researcher even to manage properly to look up reference material. I must say that you're not even incompetent; you're not even in the running.
: Unfortunately, common sense is not to common so you had better consult the Style Manuals that I have referred to.
Done.
The Chicago Manual of Style (15th edition, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2003, p. 594) gives basic rules of thumb for documentation for the two basic systems of listing source references that its authors favor (all bolding is my addition):
Sec. 16.1: ... Ethics, copyright laws, and courtesy to readers require authors to identify the sources of direct quotations and of any facts or opinions not generally known or easily checked...
Sec. 16.2: The essentials. Whichever system is chosen, the primary criterion is sufficient information to lead readers to the sources used, whether these are published or unpublished materials, in printed or electronic form...
Now, "scholar", since your citation failed to give "sufficient information to lead readers the sources used" without them having to look through several editions of Crisis of Conscience -- and you know that most of those readers will not possess more than one edition -- you failed to meet The Chicago Manual of Style's primary criterion of documentation. I.e., your citation explicitly referred to the 2nd edition of 1992, initial printing, whereas it actually came from the revised 2nd edition of 1994, second printing, which was explicitly labeled on the front cover and title page "Updated, Fully Indexed" and which, on the page you cited, contains different material from the initial printing of 1992.
The Chicago Manual of Style gives plenty of specific information about what needs to be included in book citations:
Sec. 17.16: A full reference must include enough information to enable an interested reader to find the book...
You failed on that criterion, "scholar".
A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Kate L. Turabian, Sixth Edition, Revised by John Grossman and Alice Bennett, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996, p. 123) states:
Sec. 8.22: The first time a work is mentioned in a note, the entry should be complete in form; that is, it should include not only the author's full name, the title of the work, and the specific reference (volume, if any, and page number), but the facts of publication as well...
Sec. 8.24: For a book, the first, full reference should include the following information in the order shown:
Name of author(s)
...
Number or name of edition, if other than the first
...
Concerning editions other than the first, The Chicago Manual of Style states:
Sec. 17.79: Editions other than the first. When an edition other than the first is used or cited, the number or description of the edition follows the title in the listing. An edition number usually appears on the title page and is repeated, along with the date of the edition, on the copyright page. Such wording as "Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged" is abbreviated in notes, bibliographies, and reference lists simply as "2nd ed."; "Revised Edition" (with no number) is abbreviated as "rev. ed."...
A Manual for Writers states:
Sec. 8.44: Information concerning the edition is required if the work cited is not the first edition. The information is frequently printed on the title page, but it is often found on the copyright page (the reverse of the title page). Besides numbered editions, there are reprint editions, paperback editions, and named editions.
Sec. 8.45: Numbered edition. Although new editions are usually numbered, they may be designated on the title page merely as New Edition or New Revised Edition (abbreviated in notes, bibliographies, and reference lists as rev. ed., new rev. ed., etc.) and so on. Also found are Second Edition, Revised (2d ed., rev.); Revised Second Edition (rev. 2d ed.); Third Edition, Revised and Enlarged (3d ed., rev. and enl.); Revised Edition in One Volume (rev. ed. in 1 vol.); Fourth Edition, Revised by John Doe (4th ed., rev. John Doe); and so forth:...
It is therefore obvious, "scholar", that the "Updated, fully indexed" edition of 1994 of Crisis of Conscience would need to be cited in accord with the above standards.
A section from A Manual for Writers that is relevant to different pagination in various editions of a book illustrates the basic principle of giving the reader sufficient information to uniquely pinpoint the reference:
Sec. 8.46: Reprint edition: Works that are out of print may be reissued in special reprint editions. Since the pagination is often different from that of the original, it is important to note which edition is being cited. Notes, reference lists, and bibliographies should include the reprint information and also give the date of the original publication and if possible the original publisher...
You failed on these criteria, "scholar". It's obvious that when a scholar has available a "2nd ed." of 1992, and a "2nd ed. updated" of 1994, if the latter is used for a citation, it is misleading to give the impression that it is from the former.
Proper documentation of reprint editions of books is important in order to fulfill the above basic criteria. The Chicago Manual of Style gives some basic rules:
Sec. 17.123: ... Books may be reissued in paperback by the original publisher or in paper or hardcover by another company. In bibliographic listings the original publication details -- at least the date -- are often the more relevant. If page numbers are mentioned, give the date of the edition cited unless pagination is the same...
The 1992 edition of CoC, initial printing, has pagination different from that in the 1994 "Updated, fully indexed" edition. So you failed on that criterion, "scholar".
In light of the above common sense conventions, let us examine your quotation from A Manual for Writers. Under the general heading "FACTS OF PUBLICATION" you quoted section 8.67 as follows:
Please refer to section 8.67 with the heading Date of Publication: I quote the following: "There may also be one or more dates shown in addition to the date of the copyright. Since those refer to reprintings, or new impressions, not to new editions, they should not be given for the date of publication"...
It should be obvious now, in context, that your quotation is misleading. The section is talking about reprintings or new impressions that do not differ from previous editions. Since the revised edition of 1994 of CoC that you quoted from does differ materially and in pagination from the 1992 edition that you incorrectly referenced, section 8.67 does not apply. Quite the contrary, all of the above standards apply.
Now let us see just how infantile and unscholarly your further comments are, in light of the above information from the sources you quoted to back you up:
: But as you are not a scholar
The fact that you claim to be a scholar means nothing in view of your demonstrated inability to look up terms like "citation" and "documentation" in the Index of reference works you claim for support, and then understand what you look up. You're a farce, "scholar". Just like Watchtower writers who fail to cite references at all in most of their material, or misunderstand and misrepresent them, just as you have done here.
: and have not published anything except your web page
And you have? References, please. If you cannot give references, then your double standards will be obvious.
: then you would not need to conform to academic conventions.
Since my online essays are informal affairs and not meant for academic publication, you're right.
: The only people who listen and read your junk are as mindless and faithless as yourself.
Really. In view of your continued history of bad citation, bad writing and bad argumentation on this board, that's pretty funny.
: When you are serious about scholarship then you will be less dogmatic, more humble and open minded.
When you are serious about scholarship, then you will be less dogmatic, more humble and open minded. You might also manage to get citations and arguments correct.
: You have never addressed the issue that a person like myself who ia a active Witness is able to do something that no other Witness has done and that is to undertake undergraduate and postgraduate studies in philosophy and religion.
What's to address? The fact that you've gone against Mommy's advice by going to college? You want a medal for going to college? I bucked Mommy's advice 25 years ago and ended up doing undergraduate and postgraduate studies in electrical engineering, graduating near the top of my class at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (B.S.E.E 1982) and at Oregon State University (M.S.E.E. 1985). What do you think is the more stringent program of study, electrical engineering or philosophy and religion? What was your position in your graduating class? Likely near the bottom, given your putrid writing and research skills.
: Is this in itself, proof that I am capable of independent thought and am able to engage in reflective and critical thinking?
Not at all. On this board you've demonstrated a near-complete inability to engage in independent thought or reflective and critical thinking. Your arguments always reflect complete agreement with Mommy, even when they're dead wrong. You're incapable of admitting to thinking thoughts inimical to Mommy's claims -- which simply means thoughts that disagree with Mommy. In short, "scholar", you're academically "challenged" to the point of being infantile, because your entire focus is not on independent thought but on confirming whatever Mommy tells you.
: You claim to be an expert on the Witnesses then how is this so?
This is easy. Jehovah's Witnesses have been told by the Watchtower Society that they are true religious scholars by virtue of the "wonderful" teaching given by "the faithful and discreet slave" through Watchtower literature and at various meetings. But because it's easy to prove that hardly any JWs have the faintest idea about research, or anything beyond dumb acceptance of whatever Mommy tells them, it's easy to prove that JWs are living in a fantasy world, a world very much reminiscent of the psychological system of self-deception and terror that George Orwell termed "Ingsoc" in his 1948 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In this system of "doublethink", everyone fooled everyone else and, most especially, himself, about all manner of important facts of life, just to survive in the system. Jehovah's Witnesses are an excellent illustration of Orwellian doublethink in action, and you in particular are a fine demonstration of it.
So, "scholar", I suppose it would be asking too much of you to answer for our readers a simple question:
When you failed to give proper citations from Crisis of Conscience and from A Manual for Writers, did you do it out of mere incompetence or because you deliberately wanted to mislead your readers?
AlanF
