by AlanF 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
the attitude is, I am afraid, like one that I might have said at one time , "if the Society say it, then it must be right" . Quite simply we had such faith in that organisation that we were prepared for them to make their own rules.
Like those who , when confronted with the Org's involvement in the UN, "They must have had a good reason"...These people are unable to differentiate between God , and the WTS..
When you purposly misquote someone, you are lying about what they said. The WTBTS are liars and have been for years. At this point the only thing that their publications are good for is hanging them out to dry with their own words.
J
Thanks Blondie. It looks as if Johnathan Rauch has a book out in support of gay marriage, which in itself could explain why the quote is not attributed. But I couldn't open the first file so I'm not sure about the context.
But as you say, they so often quote without attribution that readers have a hard task following up the quotes if the want to check for proper usage.
does anyone know the law regarding public misquotation?
are you allowed to do this, or is it upto the iscretion of a court / judge to decide if it harms the original party before any action can be taken?
steve
bttt
Alan F
The Society when quoting from sources by direct quotation and attribures that reference is in accordance with academic conventions. Further, when a writer chooses to use another piece of reaearch or part thereof of that material, it does not mean that both parties are in agreement or that permission must or sought. There is a, intellectual fredom when it comes to direct quotations with only the caveat that the quoation is exact and that the source is attributed.
When it comes to paraphrasing or commenting on another piece of work then it is incumbent on the writer to understand or comprehend the other writer's viewpoint in that immediate and overall context. This is necessary when the writer may have an opposite view or intention to the original piece. However, it is often the case that the original writer may make honest admissions that are of use or value to another piece of work which differs considerably from the referenced work.
In any event, accuracy in the use of other sources and attribution is mandatory whether by direct quotation or paraphrasing. It is then up to the reader to determine whether such use is appropriate. In all of my years of reading WT publications I have never found a single case of misrepresentation.
Your comments about the alleged misrepresentation of thiele are wrong. The immediate context is as follows:
Ptolemy was not an historian and is known primarily for his works on astronomy and geography. As E. R. Thiele states: "Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical purposes not historical purposes. He did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of Babylon or Persia..."
So, in this limited context the Society's comments and the fact that Thiele's admission appeared in an Appendix rules out any misrepresentation.
scholar JW
In all of my years of reading WT publications I have never found a single case of misrepresentation.
Spin... Scholar... Spin!
Bryan
Have You Seen My Mother
Scholar is no scholar - but I think he is an apologist....tell you what scholar - print out this thread and take it to your elders and ask them to give you an answer about arguing with apostates on line... I am sure they will attribute it in context....
Jeff
Perhaps "scholar" can explain the most curious statement from the 01.March 2004 WT re: the pre-1914 anointed having allegedly "calculated" that Jesus was "about to make an appearance". (second study article, paragraph 6; this is recycled for the benefit of loyal JW's in the 2005 "Examining" book(let) comments for 14.Sept.) Since the pre-1914 anointed believed that his "parousia" had already begun in 1874, and the Watch Tower Society continued to publish books which concurred with that view until at least 1929 (Prophecy), I fail to understand the meaning of the WT statement. Perhaps this would qualify as a misrepresentation (admittedly of their very own sources). To me, it appears to be a deliberate attempt at deception.
