Well there, scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus! You've once again done a magnificent job of showing how grossly dishonest the Watchtower has convinced some of its cult followers to become. You've actually gone so far as to try to justify dishonest quoting practices. Once again I must ask: Have you no Christian shame?
You said:
: Your accusation that the Society misleads readers by its improper use of souces is childish or infantile.
Not at all. It's demonstrable fact -- which demonstrations I've done for years, such as the illustrations in this thread proving that the Creation book misquoted various people. A demonstration of facts is never childish or infantile.
: The Society quotes exaxtly what these references or sources say
I've shown why quoting exactly does not imply scholastic honesty. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that Jehovah's Witnesses are now endorsing evolution.
: and the use of such sources does not imply that those sources are in agreement with the context.
Well it should, you lying moron!
I've already pointed out, in the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/87780/1.ashx , that the January 1, 2003 Watchtower contained an article "What Can Help Us to Handle the Word of the Truth Aright?" (pp. 27-28) which absolutely contradicts your dishonest philosophy. You can read that thread for a fuller context, or look up the complete article yourself.
You say:
"The Society quotes exaxtly what these references or sources say and the use of such sources does not imply that those sources are in agreement with the context."
But the Society correctly points out in that Watchtower article that this is dishonest:
"The advertisement accurately quoted the critic?s words, but it lifted them out of context and thus grossly misrepresented his view."
Once again we find you not only engaging in and justifying dishonest practices, but going far beyond the Watchtower Society in doing so -- and even disagreeing with a Watchtower article.
Your statement says something fundamental about the mentality of Jehovah's Witnesses: honesty is of no real importance to them.
: It is simply the fact that in writing about an idea, argument or concept it is quite appropriate to use another quote or source if that partiular quotaion cam be used in support of your idea or argument.
Not if it unfairly makes the source appear to support an idea that it doesn't. The Watchtower said exactly this. Do you disagree with The Watchtower?
: The author of the original idea may be an atheist or evolutionist but may make honest admissions about certain weaknesses or a lack of evidence so another writer who believes quite an opposite view is at liberty to appropriate that particular idea.
Yes, but only if the quoter makes it clear that the source disagrees with the conclusion made. It is simply dishonest to claim that an ardent evolutionist supports the notion of a supreme creator. It is dishonest to claim that a magazine article that supports the reliability of radioactive dating is also saying that humans might have been around for only a few thousand years. And it is dishonest to claim that an ardent supporter of the reliability of Ptolemy's Canon also said that it is unreliable.
: Intellectual or academic honesty demands that the quote be maded accurately and that the source is correctly attributed.
That's only one requirement. There are others.
: To illustrate: Edwin Thiele a prominent SDA scholar and perhaps the greatest chronologist of the twentieth century in Christendom was a staunch advocate of Ptolemy' Canon. He used the Canon and the Assryrian king-lists as the two primary sources along with many secondary sources for his MNHK, in three editions. He was passionate about Ptolemy and his Canon but in an Appendix he made a simple brief note that made certain admissions about the Canon.
Not admissions -- as if something had to be admitted. Rather, clarifications, so that readers would know why certain kings were omitted from the Royal Canon -- because the Canon's purpose was not to give a complete historical list, but only to supply a continuous series of kings for astronomical dating purposes.
: Some years later,the writer of the Aid book article on Chronology said to have been Raymond Franz wrote in a section on Ptolemy's Canon which took a position against the Canon and used the Thiele's quoted Note in support of the fact that the Canon was not primarily an historical document and that Ptolemy was no historian.
You're misrepresenting what the Aid book's author did. We've been over this several times already, so your bringing it up again without acknowledging the deficiencies of your claims is thoroughly dishonest.
The Aid book's author's purpose in quoting Thiele was not merely to give a bit of neutral information -- as you dishonestly imply -- but to support his claim that Ptolemy's Canon is unreliable. A neutral quote would serve no purpose in supporting that claim.
: This quotation was exactly made and correctly sourced
Right, but it misrepresented Thiele's view by removing it from its proper background context -- which you have admitted is the case -- and this is thoroughly dishonest, as the above-referenced Watchtower article points out.
: but Thiele was most upset and felt that the Society had misrepresented him.
That's because it had!
: Too bad!
Too bad for the Society that it was caught on its lie, and too bad for you that this topic has shown the entire readership of this forum how completely dishonest a cult-brainwashed person can be.
: The Society does not need Thiele's permission or approval in quoting him
Irrelevant to the point that their use of him was dishonest.
: nor should Thiele expect that his readers must be in agreement with his thesis.
Again irrelevant.
But simply honesty -- as The Watchtower states -- demands that an author's view not be misrepresented by out-of-context quoting.
: The reader is entitled to read his research and make a judgement and has the intellectual liberty to use it that information or part thereof as the reader sees fit
It's entirely true that if Jehovah's Witnesses want to engage in dishonest quoting practices, they're free to do so.
: this methodology creates knowledge and new research.
LOL! Not at all. It creates the opposite.
: The scholar simply builds on the work of others or stands on the shoulders of predecessors otherwise knowledge stagnates and putrefies.
And dishonest ones will always be found out and exposed. That's what happened here.
: So, Thiele's honest admission alerts the reader to certain facts about the Canon and whether the reader can use it fully, ignore it or use it selectively.
Readers will note that you've resorted to fuzzy, meaningless generalizations.
: So it is with all forms of written knowledge: The reader alone is the final arbiter as to how that source is relative to a former context and a new context,
Not really. There are objective standards of judging honesty of quoting. A few readers might decide that a particular quotation is marginal, but most will come to some sort of definitive judgment.
But I think that it's obvious, even to you, that no college professor teaching a writing course would ever judge that the Society's use of Thiele was other than a total misrepresentation.
: all that he demands is that the quote be accurate and properly referenced. The reader can make his own mind whether any misrepresentaion is justified.
Wrong. Other posters have pointed out in various threads that most readers expect full disclosure of the context. Without such full disclosure, a reader, in order to evaluate the validity of a quotation, must have full access to the quoted material -- which is sometimes difficult or impossible. For example, how many JW readers of the Aid book would have had copies of Thiele's book? How many such readers would have gone to the library to check every one of the Society's quotations in the Aid book? How many would have expected the Society to unfairly quote some sources, so that such checking even had to be done? Not many. That's why it is particularly important, when an author is writing for a completely braindead audience like the JW membership, to give a complete and honest account of the context of quotations. But this also shows precisely why the Society does not give a full accounting -- it doesn't want JWs to check up on it, because they might well come to conclusions the Society doesn't want.
: When I read all of the editions of Thiele before going to bed with my cup of Milo I rejoice and exclaim:What bliss! It is truly blissful to know that Ptolemy's Canon must be treated with caution.
What a dork. And what a fine example of what a Christian should not be!
AlanF