by AlanF 82 Replies latest jw friends
When I was a pioneer, I was clearly instructed by elders and circuit overseers never to become argumentative with unbelievers.
I was told, present the good news to them and let them make up their minds.
I guess arguing is more en vogue with witnesses now, at least the edumacated ones.
slugs
Joel
I am not ignoring proof, my friend.
If it reconciles yourself to do so, please continue your denial.
AF was supposedly trying to prove that Russell considered himself the FDS.
AF did not have to prove what was reality.
But nothing that he cited upholds his claims.
In all the research I have conducted, I have zero evidence that Russell ever said he was the FDS. True, the 1916 WT said he did so in private conversations. But the 1927 WT says that he did not. I simply do not think hearsay is the best approach when one is trying to put together any historical occurrences.
HEARSAY!? You've probably based your entire life on HEARSAY without even checking the facts. Now you don't consider it "the best approach" for putting together historical occurrences?
Look Duns, if the society implies something in 1916, then in 1927 turns around and says it is NOT "so" and even one person can show that indeed in 1916 it was considered "so", then the society is misrepresenting what was "so" way back when. We aren't talking about a difference in biblical interpretation Duns, we are talking about RE-WRITING HISTORY.
I find it hard to believe that AF expects me to accept his claims about Russell thinking he was the FDS on such slender evidence.
slender evidence? I wonder how much of what you believe today as a JW will be "slender evidence" to JWs a hundred years from now.
Others may have mistakenly thought Russell was the slave. But I find no evidence that he ever said he was.
Yeah, and if Russell never said he was NOT the slave, yet let his followers continue to believe that he indeed WAS, then he must have THOUGHT that he was the slave. ESPECIALLY if he ADMITTED it in private conversations. If you don't believe what was written in 1916, what makes you so sure that you can believe what is being written TODAY in a WT? What are you going to do 30 years down the road when what you cling to today becomes "old light"? No nevermind, I know exactly what you will do.. you will trust the words of others over your own senses.
I also find it odd that the quote about "God's mouthpiece" is almost never quoted in context.
As this is the first time i've encountered this quote, I too would like further explanation from Alan.
I will say this to you though Dunny... At least AlanF isn't claiming to be what your religion demands you believe your leaders to be. (Whether you want to admit it or not).
duns,
Take a break fron the forum and read the book "1984" by George Orwell.
Rewritting history!
Wow, Dummy, you sure know how to lie and distort in arguments. In that, you're one
of the best examples of a JW I've ever seen! You also demonstrate once again how trivial
your mental prowess is.
Take this trivial matter of what "QED" means. In an earlier thread, Maximus expressed
his opinion that the full expression should be "Quod Erat Demonstratum". You expressed
yours that it should be "Quod Erat Demonstrandum". Not knowing Latin, I expressed no
opinion. Knowing Maximus' facility with both English and Latin, and your abysmal ignorance
of even proper English, I concluded that I would go by his opinion. Therefore, in my
first post on this thread, I used Maximus' version to write:
"Conclusion: Russell was an arrogant pseudo-servant of YHWH. Quod erat demonstratum."
You challenged the correctness of that:
"I think that should be 'Quod erat demonstrandum.' "
In other words, I did not challenge the correctness of your use of Latin -- you
challenged mine. And of course, I accepted the opinion of one more learned than I,
Maximus. Having accepted it (properly, it turns out), I replied:
"Wrong. You were already corrected on this by Maximus. It appears that you suffer from
a severe learning disability."
I was wrong in saying "Wrong", because both expressions are correct. But you
claimed that the expression I used was wrong:
"If you cannot get a simple medieval Latin expression right, how can I trust you in
other matters?"
After that, you cited references showing that your usage was corrrect. I've verified
your references and done independent checking on my own that your usage was indeed
correct. However, just as Maximus was incorrect in saying that "... demonstrandum"
is wrong, you are incorrect in saying that "... demonstratum" is wrong. Since
you claim to know Latin, and you went to the trouble to look up a bunch of material on
the Net, and you failed to verify that the latter is correct, that says a great deal
either about your poor research ability, or your honesty. If you couldn't find the
material at all, it proves you're a lousy researcher, because all one has to do to find
reams of examples of either usage is to type the expression at a Net search engine. I
found many dozens of hits on both expressions. And of course, if you found the material
but failed to present it, then you're just plain dishonest.
In either case, you failed to show what you claimed: that "... demonstratum" is
incorrect usage.
Here are some websites that prove that this is correct usage, i.e., that QED is properly
expanded as "Quod Erat Demonstratum":
"The Great Three-Letter Abbreviation Hunt": http://www.atomiser.demon.co.uk/abbrev/q.html
http://www.sff.net/people/wmccarth/apdxb.htm
http://www.geocities.com/mtcicero.geo/speech.htm
http://www.west-point.org/family/bicent/academics.html
Now let's look at the poor logical skills shown by your statement, "If you cannot get
a simple medieval Latin expression right, how can I trust you in other matters?"
Since I know almost nothing of Latin and never claimed to, and I explicitly stated my
opinion that you were wrong because I accepted Maximus' opinion, properly there
can have been no expectation that I personally should have gotten a matter of
Latin grammar right. I never said anything like that nor did I imply such. In fact, I
explicitly cited my source reference, i.e., Maximus.
Your 'logic' is akin to someone saying to one who never claimed to know calculus, but
relied on his mathematician friend:
"If you can't do integrals right, how can I trust you in other matters?"
Or to one who never claimed to know how to forecast weather, but relied on a TV
weather report:
"If you can't get the weather right, how can I trust you in other matters?"
Really, Dummy, your 'logic' is a fine example of a red herring, of comparing apples and
oranges, and of the straw man technique -- examples of attempting to make connections
between things that are not logically connected, or of attempting to turn the argument
into something it is not. In short, you don't know diddly squat about logic.
In sum, Dummy, your demonstrating that "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" is correct usage is in
no way equivalent to demonstrating that "Quod Erat Demonstratum" is incorrect usage. And
my and Maximus' usage of the latter term was correct. And your overall logic is
non-existent. So readers may now easily see the answer to your question, "If you cannot
get a simple medieval Latin expression right, how can I trust you in other matters?" The
answers are simple enough that even you can understand: I did, and you can.
. . . . .
Your bullshit about "infralapsarians" and so forth simply shows your need to focus
on the trivial because you have nothing to say about the non-trivial. Your continued
use and misuse of big words, which often are so esoteric that they don't show up in
online dictionaries, along with your major focus on minor mistakes in typing and grammar,
is diagnostic of the "little man" syndrome. You really do need professional help.
For example, you'll read a word like "apophatic" in a theological treatise you barely
comprehend, read its definition and form a half-baked notion of what it means, and then
misuse it in a post. But you can't actually explain to your readers what it means and
use it in non-trivial sentences that convey a clear meaning to them.
Now let's take a look at an example where you show such massive stupidity that you, as
usual, accuse someone else of a mistake while you yourself are simultaneously making the
same or even a worse one.
You said:
::: I find it amazing how someone can type so many words and say nothing. Not one
thing you typed PROVES (apodictically or otherwise) that Brother Russell called himself:
"God's mouthpiece." That was your original contention, AF. Are did you want us to
miss the wood for all the trees you planted in that last submission?
Note the minor typo in bold, "Are did you". Obviously you meant to type, "Did you".
As I said I would do, I did not point out this minor error, but as a trivial dig made a
similar-in-spirit 'mistake' to see if you would catch it while ignoring your own mistake.
Just as I expected, you fell into my little trap: you found my 'mistake' and ignored your
own, proving once again your double standards. You pointed out my 'mistake' by adding
"[sic]" below:
:: No, Dummy, I are [sic] did not want you to miss any wood (please note that the
expression is not about wood, but woods; you do know that there's a difference, I hope).
In fact, I gave complete quotes of the discussion, enough for you not to have made such
a stupid error as you did here [awkward phrasing].
You even have the gall to express an opinion about "awkward phrasing" in a piece meant
to be informal and even, at times, colloquial. This again shows your great need to focus
on form rather than substance -- again diagnostic of the "little man" syndrome.
:: The point I made about Russell claiming to be "God's mouthpiece" was not something you
challenged [Wrong!]. Therefore it needed no justification [Wrong!].
Here you've added "[wrong]" twice, but failed to justify your claims. Let's prove why
you're wrong, by making a challenge that you will fail to deal with logically:
Point out the precise language you used that challenged my claim (now justified) that
Russell claimed to be "God's mouthpiece".
:: Had you challenged that particular claim, I would certainly have provided the
documentation, as I do below. Let me point out just what sentences you have not
understood, by bolding the appropriate ones in the material in my first post in this
thread:
: You evidently do not possess a basic knowledge of English. One can use the term "wood"
in English to describe a forest.
You obviously don't know the difference between modern and obsolete English. Modern
English speakers never use "wood" for "woods". It's as obsolete as using "pottage"
for "stew". You seem to have learned much of your English, not by using it among good
speakers of the modern variety, but by reading old English tomes on philosophy and
religion. Not a good way to learn at all.
: Methinks you need to beg MIT for some of that money you evidently spent on English
and history classes.
Methinks you need to find out what classes someone took before making such
a stupid statement. I took no English or history classes at MIT. I took
engineering, math, physical science, writing, and few other humanities
courses. Before college, I scored a perfect 800 on the Verbal SAT, so by
objective measure my English is generally fairly good.
You, on the other hand, have obviously missed a great deal by getting a Ph.D. by
correspondence school. Perhaps you should bone up by taking "English As A Foreign
Language".
The rest of your post of "Aug 13, 2001 8:35:02 AM" is so disorganized that it's not
possible to comment on it. This disorganization is a good indication of how your mind
is organized.
But enough of your trivia. Let's get to some meat.
. . . . .
You've insinuated that my statement that Russell called himself "God's mouthpiece" is
false:
Not one thing you typed PROVES (apodictically or otherwise) that Brother Russell
called himself: "God's mouthpiece." That was your original contention, AF.
In your post of "Aug 13, 2001 10:40:05 AM" you finally managed to squeak out this
admission: "Yes, Russell did call himself 'God's mouthpiece.' "
Glory be!
Yet you want to minimize what Russell actually meant by saying that. You want to claim
that Russell did nothing more than what he wanted other Christians to do -- to be
mouthpieces for God individually. You actually refer to the website of a Bible Student
to 'prove' your claim, but don't seem to realize that asking a Bible Student whether
Russell claimed to be virtually inspired is akin to asking Richard Nixon whether
politicians lie, because Bible Students on the whole have a worshipful attitude towards
their founder.
I'm perfectly well aware of what Russell wrote in the quotes on the Bible Student website.
That material changes nothing about what I said. The fact is that Russell, like the head
pig in George Orwell's Animal Farm, set himself up as being "more equal" than the
other 'animals'. In other words, while claiming that other Christians could be
"God's mouthpieces", the way he treated people who disagreed with his religious doctrines
proved that his tolerant-sounding words were merely for show. The fact that Russell
taught that only by examining the Bible via his "Scripture Studies" could a person
really understand the Bible proves that in practice he had inserted himself between a
person and the Bible. That is haughty and arrogant in the extreme. The fact that Russell
thought of himself as "the faithful and wise servant", and that the Watch Tower Society
itself taught that doctrine, further proves it.
In fact, Russell and his followers taught that he was God's greatest mouthpiece of all
time, after Jesus Christ himself. This is shown by the Society's doctrine that Russell
was "the Laodicean Messenger", which is a topic for another post. Russell clearly
taught that he was virtually inspired because his writings virtually perfectly mirrored
the Bible. I will now prove this, using some quotes that the Bible Student website
naturally failed to present.
Further along in the Watch Tower article where Russell claimed that one who quit
reading his "Scripture Studies" would go off into darkness after stopping, and
after suggesting that people should check Studies in the Scriptures against the
Bible, Russell said, using the "royal we":
We would conclude, practically, that we could not understand anything about the
Bible except as it was revealed. We would, therefore, not waste a great deal of time doing
what we know some people do, reading chapter after chapter, to no profit. We would not
think of doing it. We would not think we were studying the Scriptures at all. We would
think we were following the course that had been anything but profitable to ourselves and
many others in the past - merely reading over the Scriptures. We would say that the same
Heavenly Father who had guided us to this truth, to this understanding of the Scriptures
as his children, if he had some further information for us he would bring it to our
attention in some manner; and therefore we would not see the necessity of reading the new
Testament every day or every year; we would not consider that necessary. We would consider
that the Scripture which says, "They shall be all taught of God," would imply that in his
own appointed way God would bring to our attention whatever feature of divine truth would
be "meat in due season for the household of faith."
In other words, God had already revealed to Russell everything he needed to know up to
that point, and when God wanted him to know anything else, he would bring it to Russell's
attention. In the meantime there was no need for Russell to read the Bible, since he
already had everything he needed from it. Was he not God's specially appointed messenger,
God's mouthpiece? Of course, this applied also to the Bible Students generally. Apparently
Russell never read Joshua 1:8:
This book of the law should not depart from your mouth, and you must in an
undertone read in it day and night, in order that you may take care to do according
to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way successful and then
you will act wisely.
After some discussion about preaching only what one understands, Russell continued:
After God favors us in this time with an understanding of Present Truth, he has
given us a knowledge of more truth than we could have gained in a thousand years if we had
read and studied unaided; and now we can attempt to present it to others. Why has he given
us a knowledge of this Truth? He wishes us to be "thoroughly furnished unto every good
word and work."
It must be asked, Who aided Russell to gain his "understanding of Present Truth?" It
certainly was not the Second Adventists, as regards much of the doctrine he taught in
1910. What he implied was that God - somehow - mysteriously revealed truth to him. Russell
was as incapable of seeing the possibility that he could be wrong 'right now' as any of
Jehovah's Witnesses are today. He clearly came to think his own writings were
indistinguishable from the Bible itself. This is obvious in his next statement, which is
a left-handed way of implying that his volumes could not possibly contain error:
This is not, therefore, putting the SCRIPTURE STUDIES as a substitute for the
Bible, because so far as substituting for the Bible, the STUDIES, on the contrary,
continually refer to the Bible; and if one has any doubt as to a reference or if one's
recollection should lapse in any degree, one should refresh his memory, and, in fact,
should see that his every thought is in harmony with the Bible - not merely in accord
with the SCRIPTURE STUDIES, but in accord with the Bible.
This last quote was put on the Bible Student website, but without the context of Russell's
previous statements about his not needing to read the Bible at all until God somehow gave
him new knowledge, it can be made to say exactly the opposite of what it does. In context,
the above quotes prove that Russell at a minimum equated his own writing with the Bible,
and in practice elevated it above the Bible because he claimed that anyone who thought to
understand the Bible without his help was in 'darkness'. In other words, Russell was the
supreme arbiter of what the Bible actually said.
Now let's summarize what Russell and the Watchtower Society wrote about Russell's
position as "that servant", as "the faithful and wise servant". This is merely extracted
from the full quotes I presented earlier in this thread.
"... our Lord ... will make choice of one channel for dispensing the meat in due
season, though other channels or 'fellow servants' will be used in bringing the food to
the 'household.' "
"Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office
of 'that faithful and wise servant,' and that his great work was giving to the household
of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly
claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation."
"Pastor Russell being the messenger to the Laodicean Church, and occupying the position
of the Lord's special servant to give the Household of Faith meat in due season..."
"It will be disputed by some even who have come to a knowledge of present truth, that
Brother Russell occupied any more peculiar relationship to the Lord than any other servant
or follower of Jesus... fulfilled prophecy, or physical facts, and the circumstantial
evidence are conclusive proofs that Brother Russell filled the office of that faithful
and wise servant."
"As he goes on in this way, he becomes convinced in his own mind that the Lord made
a mistake in selecting Brother Russell as that servant; and this doubt leads to the
conclusion later on that Brother Russell was not "that servant" at all...
To abandon or repudiate the Lord's chosen instrument means to abandon or repudiate
the Lord himself, upon the principle that he who rejects the servant sent by the
Master thereby rejects the Master...
Through his prophet Ezekiel Jehovah forshadowed the office of a servant ...
in keeping with the Lord's arrangement he used a man. The man who filled that office,
by the Lord's grace, was Brother Russell...
the office of "that servant" has been filled by Brother Russell...
to repudiate him and his works is equivalent to a repudiation of the Lord.
We believe that all who are now rejoicing in present truth will concede that Brother
Russell faithfully filled the office of special servant of the Lord; and that he was
made ruler over all the Lord's goods."
In view of the above absolutely definite statements, the claim made in the 1927 Watch
Tower, that Russell never claimed to be "the faithful and wise servant" himself, is
shown to be a gross lie. According to the quoted 1916 Watch Tower, Russell said as
much in private, and according to the later quotes in Watchtower literature, that
private admission became official Watchtower teaching until 1927. Rutherford's lie was
pure historical revisionism told in order to consolidate his power as head of a new, but
supposedly collective, "slave".
It is a measure of your overriding dishonesty, Dummy, that you failed even to acknowledge
the statements that the Society itself made proving that Russell and his followers taught
that he was "the faithful and wise servant". This teaching was fuzzy light from 1884
through 1916. In 1916 it became official "new light". In 1927 it became "old light".
In view of Russell's admission and Watchtower teaching that Russell filled the office
of "the faithful and wise servant", the real meaning of his statement that he was
"God's mouthpiece" is extremely clear: Russell taught that he was God's exclusive
spokesman on earth, and no one had any cause to dispute his teachings. For obvious
reasons he could not claim outright to be inspired, but he did everything else but make
such a direct claim. He did this especially by claiming that anyone who did not follow
his teachings would quickly go into "darkness".
In view of all the above, and the other material I've posted, it is fair to state that
Charles Taze Russell was a haughty, arrogant man. Quod Erat Demonstratum.
AlanF
AF:
:Wow, Dummy, you sure know how to lie and distort in arguments. In that, you're one of the best examples of [unnecessary multiplication of prepositions!] a JW I've ever seen! You also demonstrate once again how trivial your mental prowess is. Take this trivial matter of what "QED" means. In an earlier thread, Maximus expressed his opinion that the full expression should be "Quod Erat Demonstratum". You expressed yours that it should be "Quod Erat Demonstrandum". Not knowing Latin, I expressed no opinion. Knowing Maximus' facility with both English and Latin, and your abysmal ignorance of even proper ["Standard" is better] English, I concluded that I would go by his opinion.:
That was your first mistake.
:Therefore, in my first post on this thread, I used Maximus' version to write:"Conclusion: Russell was an arrogant pseudo-servant of YHWH. Quod erat demonstratum."You challenged the correctness of that [use of deictic term with no referent!] :"I think that should be 'Quod erat demonstrandum.' "In other words, I did not challenge the correctness of your use of Latin -- you challenged mine.:
You are a liar. In your reply to my comments, you did in fact challenge my proficiency in Latin. But you were mistaken as usual. I know more about Latin that you will ever know, and it KILLS you inside! You think you know it all. As the old country song says, however, "WRONG!"
:And of course, I accepted the opinion of one more learned than I,
Maximus. Having accepted it (properly, it turns out), I replied:"Wrong. You were already corrected on this by Maximus. It appears that you suffer from
a severe learning disability."I was wrong in saying "Wrong", because both expressions are correct.:
Both expressions are not correct.
:But you claimed that the expression I used was wrong:"If you cannot get a simple medieval Latin expression right, how can I trust you in other matters?" After that, you cited references showing that your usage was corrrect [sic]. I've verified your references and done independent checking on my own that [sic] your usage was indeed
correct. However, just as Maximus was incorrect in saying that "... demonstrandum" is wrong, you are incorrect in saying that "... demonstratum" is wrong.:
No, I am not.
"Q.E.D.: That which was to be demonstrated (proven)-Latin abbreviation of quod erat DEMONSTRANDUM, usually appended to mathematical or logical proofs to indicate successful conclusion of the proof of the initial hypothesis. Used to indicate the logical 'proof' of any argument or hypothesis" (Consecrated Phrases: A Latin Theological Dictionary, page 99).
:Since you claim to know Latin, and you went to the trouble to look up a bunch of material on the Net, and you failed to verify that the latter is correct, that says a great deal either about your poor research ability, or your honesty.:
I do not CLAIM to know anything. I know it, buddy. This philosopher has paid his dues in that regard. I will now show you that my research was neither "poor" nor dishonest.
:If you couldn't find the material at all, it proves you're a lousy researcher, because all one has to do to find reams of examples of either usage is to type the expression at a Net search engine. I found many dozens of hits on both expressions.:
I did find the material on the net. But I also know that you cannot believe everything you read on the net. This fact is something you conveniently overlooked. QED is the abbreviation of the Latin expression "quod erat demonstrandum" (with the gerundive). Your comments show that you know next to nothing about language and the changes that it naturally undergoes over time. Quod erat demonstrandum is a medieval construction; quod erat demonstratum is not. Now do you see the point? One construction is also a gerundive (demonstrandum) and the other is not. The gerundive in this case fittingly indicates necessity or obligation. QED.
:And of course, if you found the material but failed to present it, then you're just plain dishonest.:
I did not post it because it was not germane to the issue or just plain wrong.
:In either case, you failed to show what you claimed: that "... demonstratum" is
incorrect usage.:
In this case, it is. Try saying quod erat demonstrandum to a medieval and see what he would think. The medievals thought that quod erat demonstrandum was more fitting.
:Here are some websites that prove that this is correct usage, i.e., that QED is properly expanded as "Quod Erat Demonstratum":"The Great Three-Letter Abbreviation Hunt": http://www.atomiser.demon.co.uk/abbrev/q.html
http://www.sff.net/people/wmccarth/apdxb.htm
http://www.geocities.com/mtcicero.geo/speech.htm
http://www.west-point.org/family/bicent/academics.html:
Did you even read these websites? Not all of them support your point. Maybe none do. Additionally, the American Heritage Dictionary says:
QED
ABBREVIATION: Latin quod erat demonstrandum (which was to be demonstrated)
This quote is from the online fourth edition.
From http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/quod+erat+demonstrandum/6/* http://www.lineone.net/dictionaryof/difficultwords/d0010815.html, we read:
quod erat demonstrandum
'which was to be demonstrated' (abbr. Q.E.D.). quod erat faciendum, 'which was to be done' (abbr. Q.E.F.).
QED,
Dan
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
AlanF:
"Today, hardly anyone making statements such as "I am God's mouthpiece" would be taken seriously."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is my principal concern about the articulate capitalizer, AGuest, AKA Shelby. Yeshua messages us through her.
Back on topic: It seems that C.T. Russell wanted the brethren to call him "the faithful and wise servant", rather than have to declare that "truth" himself.
TMS
Duncecap we would all be interested in seeing you reply to the relevant points AF made..
Every time you post, Dummy, you get yourself in deeper.
:: ... Take this trivial matter of what "QED" means. In an earlier thread, Maximus expressed his opinion that the full expression should be "Quod Erat Demonstratum". You expressed yours that it should be "Quod Erat Demonstrandum". Not knowing Latin, I expressed no opinion. Knowing Maximus' facility with both English and Latin, and your abysmal ignorance of even proper ["Standard" is better] English, I concluded that I would go by his opinion.:
: That was your first mistake.
That was my only mistake. And of course, Maximus has already posted some material from a major Latin reference that refutes your claim about his usage, here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9942&site=3
Naturally you haven't tried to refute the given reference, because you can't read it, it being in Latin and all.
:: Therefore, in my first post on this thread, I used Maximus' version to write:"Conclusion: Russell was an arrogant pseudo-servant of YHWH. Quod erat demonstratum." You challenged the correctness of that [use of deictic term with no referent!] :
You're quite the fool, aren't you. In the above sentence, "that" obviously refers back to the phrase "I used Maximus' version to write ... Quod erat demonstratum". It's obvious that you don't understand plain English.
We again note that you're focusing on trivial grammatical matters.
:: "I think that should be 'Quod erat demonstrandum.' "In other words, I did not challenge the correctness of your use of Latin -- you challenged mine.:
: You are a liar.
No, you're just plain stupid. I provided the sequential text that proves what I stated. The fact that you're quite unable to follow simple time sequences of English statements is painfully evident.
Note the sequence very simply, once again:
(1) AlanF: "Conclusion: ... Quod erat demonstratum."
(2) Dummy: "I think that should be 'Quod erat demonstrandum.' "
(3) AlanF: "Wrong. You were already corrected on this by Maximus."
Thus, you challenged my usage, because your statement (2) occurred after my statement (1) and in response to mine. Obviously you don't understand what "cause and effect" means.
: In your reply to my comments, you did in fact challenge my proficiency in Latin.
That's incorrect -- I challenged your use of Latin in this one instance, not your proficiency in Latin, and I challenged it only after you challenged my usage. Do look again at the above sequence of sentences, Dummy. Count them in order: one, two, three. Convince yourself which sentence corresponds to "one", which corresponds to "two" and which corresponds to "three". Then explain to our readers why your lack of comprehension of the sequence, "one, two, three" proves that you're chronologically dyslexic.
: But you were mistaken as usual.
Maximus has provided a reference in the above-referenced thread that proves you're wrong. Argue with him.
: I know more about Latin that you will ever know, and it KILLS you inside!
Frankly, I don't give two shits about your knowledge of Latin. I don't even give one shit. I'd like to know it, of course, but then, I'd also like to know Spanish, French, Greek, Hebrew, etc etc etc. Ah, to be young again!
Pedant point: You can't say, "I know more about Latin that you will ever know." You must say, "I know more about Latin than you will ever know."
: You think you know it all. As the old country song says, however, "WRONG!"
Ah, Dummy, your "angry little man" syndrome is making your face redder.
:: And of course, I accepted the opinion of one more learned than I, Maximus. Having accepted it (properly, it turns out), I replied:"Wrong. You were already corrected on this by Maximus. It appears that you suffer from a severe learning disability."I was wrong in saying "Wrong", because both expressions are correct.:
: Both expressions are not correct.
Indeed they are. Maximus proved it with a Latin reference. I proved it with references to Net resources -- which you obviously didn't read. See below for proof.
:: ... However, just as Maximus was incorrect in saying that "... demonstrandum" is wrong, you are incorrect in saying that "... demonstratum" is wrong.:
: No, I am not.
Are too are too are too!!!! Nyaah nyaah nyaah.
Dumbly repeating "I am not" is just, well, dumb, Dummy.
: "Q.E.D.: That which was to be demonstrated (proven)-Latin abbreviation of quod erat DEMONSTRANDUM, usually appended to mathematical or logical proofs to indicate successful conclusion of the proof of the initial hypothesis. Used to indicate the logical 'proof' of any argument or hypothesis" (Consecrated Phrases: A Latin Theological Dictionary, page 99).
Very good, Dummy! That proves that your expansion of "QED" is fine. It does not prove that the one Maximus gave is wrong. This is elementary logic, Dummy.
:: Since you claim to know Latin, and you went to the trouble to look up a bunch of material on the Net, and you failed to verify that the latter is correct, that says a great deal either about your poor research ability, or your honesty.:
: I do not CLAIM to know anything.
I think you're being a bit harsh on yourself. I, however, claim to know a few things.
But I digress. I know what you meant. Pedant point: To "claim" is to "assert, usually but not always with the possibility of contradiction". Thus I might claim that the sky is blue, and my assertion would be right. Since there is certainly the possibility of contradicting your assertion that you know Latin (which will remain until I see evidence of a college transcript or actual competence in the language), my usage of "claim" is precisely correct.
What you should have written here is this: "I do not merely claim to know anything about Latin." Using "merely" and putting it in italics emphasizes the "possibility of contradiction" aspect of "claim". It would have precluded the possibility of my poking fun at you like this.
I suggest that in the future, Dummy, if you want to criticize my grammar or spelling, you make damned sure that your post is perfect.
: I know it, buddy. This philosopher has paid his dues in that regard.
Prove it. Tell us, please, where you were trained in Latin.
: I will now show you that my research was neither "poor" nor dishonest.
LOL! You either didn't read the websites I posted the URL's for at all, or you're so poor at reading that you missed the pertinent contents. You also admit below that you deliberately failed to present evidence from the websites where you found that "Quod Erat Demonstratum" is often used -- which is flat-out dishonest.
:: If you couldn't find the material at all, it proves you're a lousy researcher, because all one has to do to find reams of examples of either usage is to type the expression at a Net search engine. I found many dozens of hits on both expressions.:
: I did find the material on the net. But I also know that you cannot believe everything you read on the net. This fact is something you conveniently overlooked.
I certainly didn't overlook that point. The URL's I provided are perfectly fine, and in accord with a great deal of other information. I merely selected four out of dozens that did the job.
: QED is the abbreviation of the Latin expression "quod erat demonstrandum" (with the gerundive). Your comments show that you know next to nothing about language
Correction: I know next to nothing about the Latin language. But that's just repeating what I've already told you. On the other hand, your posts show that your command of standard English is something like that of a non-native speaker who learned it in his teens.
: and the changes that it naturally undergoes over time. Quod erat demonstrandum is a medieval construction; quod erat demonstratum is not. Now do you see the point? One construction is also a gerundive (demonstrandum) and the other is not. The gerundive in this case fittingly indicates necessity or obligation. QED.
Whatever. Since I don't know Latin, I can't personally evaluate the correctness of your claims. I'll let Maximus do it.
:: And of course, if you found the material but failed to present it, then you're just plain dishonest.:
: I did not post it because it was not germane to the issue or just plain wrong.
So you did find it, and failed to present it. You're dishonest, then. You can't even claim that what you found was wrong, since you're obviously too biased to present an objective opinion. I mean, you couldn't even manage to look at a mere four websites that I suggested. You merely blew them off without thought.
:: In either case, you failed to show what you claimed: that "... demonstratum" is incorrect usage.:
: In this case, it is.
You have yet to demonstrate it.
: Try saying quod erat demonstrandum to a medieval and see what he would think.
Find me one and I'll give it a shot.
: The medievals thought that quod erat demonstrandum was more fitting.
Are you actually admitting that ancient Latin speakers that you're aware of used "Demonstratum"? Are you hiding information again, Dummy? Information that you felt "was not germane to the issue or just plain wrong"? Isn't that "cooking the data", Dummy?
:: Here are some websites that prove that this is correct usage, i.e., that QED is properly expanded as "Quod Erat Demonstratum"
:: "The Great Three-Letter Abbreviation Hunt": http://www.atomiser.demon.co.uk/abbrev/q.html
:: http://www.sff.net/people/wmccarth/apdxb.htm
:: http://www.geocities.com/mtcicero.geo/speech.htm
:: http://www.west-point.org/family/bicent/academics.html
: Did you even read these websites?
Of course, Dummy! But you didn't. Or you can't read, which is evidently not true.
: Not all of them support your point. Maybe none do.
Which ones don't support my point? What do you mean, "maybe none do"? This proves that you didn't even read the websites, since you can't make up your mind about how many do or don't.
However, the fact is that each website demonstrates my point. In the same order as the above URL's are listed, below are listed the specific statements from the websites that prove my point:
"QED - Quod Erat Demonstratum / Quite Easily Done / Quantum ElectroDynamics"
"QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRATUM - Latin: 'which was to be proved.' "
"The Narration typically concludes with the statement of the proposition (the "thesis statement" or what some speakers call the "QED," short for the Latin tag quod erat demonstratum - the claim that the speaker’s argument has been proven)." (From Mike Adkins; Adjunct Professor, DeVry Institute Phoenix and Art Institute of Phoenix; Rhetoric, History & Philosophy)
"If a proof of a theorem was required, the double underline was required but the letters QED (Quod Erat Demonstratum) were printed beside it to indicate what was asked has been proved." (U.S. Military Academy at West Point)
Note that the last two URL's are from apparently reputable sources: a professor at an accredited institution of learning, and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. I think that the opinions of such people are as good or better than those of someone who learned Latin through a correspondence course, don't you?
So, Dummy, how will you deal with the fact that you've been caught in a really stupid mistake? Have you been hitting the bourbon again? I know that it's quite pleasant to start drinking in the middle of the afternoon, but it does cramp one's posting style.
: Additionally, the American Heritage Dictionary says:
: QED
: ABBREVIATION: Latin quod erat demonstrandum (which was to be demonstrated)
: This quote is from the online fourth edition.
: From http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/quod+erat+demonstrandum/6/
: http://www.lineone.net/dictionaryof/difficultwords/d0010815.html, we read:
: quod erat demonstrandum
: 'which was to be demonstrated' (abbr. Q.E.D.). quod erat faciendum, 'which was to be done' (abbr. Q.E.F.).
Very good, Dummy. All you've proved is what I've stated several times already: your expansion of QED appears to be correct.
What your illogical little brain is having great difficulty absorbing is that showing that one expansion is correct does not automatically show that another, slightly different expansion, is incorrect. You have completely failed even to argue, much less prove, that the expansion that Maximus gave is wrong. To do that, you'll have to read the Latin reference he posted on that other thread.
What you're doing, Dummy, is akin to this: Suppose someone claims that "QED" means "Quantum ElectroDynamics". You claim that it doesn't. The person cites a reference, as in my 1st URL a little ways above, that proves it. You cite one of your favorite references that shows that "QED" means "Quod Erat Demonstrandum". Have you proved the other guy's reference wrong? Of course not, because two different phrases can be condensed into identical acronyms.
: QED,
On the contrary: Scotch verdict.
AlanF
Duns, you have once again proven that you are credible and that AF is a liar and a simpleton. He asked for it and you gave it to him and then some! Well done again! It's great to see AF get whipped up and down this board and watch his stooges, have never offer anything, shuffle in great discomfort. AF you are a complete idiot. Duns thanks for exposing AF's libel against Russell and idiocy when it comes to Latin grammar. It's funny because many here think that Duns is trying to puff himself up and make himself out to be what he is not but it is AF who is doing that very thing while Duns shows he's the real thing! Keep up the good work and don't let him get away from what he keeps running from: RUSSELL NEVER CLAIMED WHAT AF CLAIMS HE CLAIMED, PERIOD. Are you too dishonest or too stupid to admit that AF? Why do you keep running to what the Watchtower published AFTER Russell died?
RUSSELL NEVER CLAIMED WHAT AF CLAIMS HE CLAIMED, PERIOD
Who gives a rats ass. The guy was mad. Russell was out of his tree. Don't believe me?...Go read the 'List' dopey. Your calling someone else an idiot and you appear to believe all the crap the WT peddles. Now that is one big joke. What would Dunscot have us believe about Russell, who was he then?...a humble genius of somekind?, you have to be kidding. The guy was fruity as they come, deny that! Go read his rantings and come back and deny he was tropo!
Seriously Dunscot, your either a troll of somekind, in which case your totally MAD because i cant imagine a troll being as prolific as you. Or you seriously believe all the BS you publish, and all that WT crap too, in which case your MAD again. I think your a combination of both personally. But really, for someone who has read, it appears, a lot of philosophy...you still believe all that 1914/607 bullshit, am i right here?. Somehow i just can't imagine that someone who appears to be so well read in philosophy would still buy into such dumbass rubbish like 1914 and the 7 times etc. Are you really that much of an idiot...Your are off reading Kierkregaard (however you spell it) and you still believe in 1914?
