I think that this is one of your better posts, teejay. However, as with most of them you don't go into the nitty gritty details of your topic, but dance around them with nearly meaningless generalities. The generalities are simply your own opinion and interpretation of the events you merely allude to. So for anyone to agree with the main points of your post, they would have to agree with your opinions which lead to the generalities. For example, you claim that much of what Emyrose said in one post was "unadulterated truth", but this is merely your own opinion, which you implicitly present as established fact. Since I don't agree with your assessments of the three threads you mentioned, I can't agree with some of your opinions in your first post here.
As for people posting views and having them listened to, anyone is free to post what they please, within rather wide limits. Similarly, others are free to accept or reject these views and to post their own. In the view of the community of posters, some gradually come to have respect and others don't. This is because each reader evaluates posts on an individual basis, and each one comes to a conclusion based on experience with other posters. Thus we find that Maximus has become well respected, and You Know is seen as a clown. In other words, on a mostly faceless discussion board, your reputation is based almost exclusively on your words. Put out a lot of meaningless banter and you'll be seen as someone who might be entertaining but can usually be ignored. Put out a lot of nonsense and you'll get the reputation of Fredhall. Put out solid posts that show that a lot of research, thought and good experience is behind them, and you'll get the reputation of Maximus, hawkaw or other solid posters. Respect is earned or lost on your own words; it is not a right that comes merely because you exist.
You're quite right that some sources that are generally poor can sometimes issue gems of truth. It's equally true that some sources that are generally reliable can sometimes issue garbage. One must also keep in mind, when evaluating the overall reliability of a source, what the circumstances of the presentation of information are. Does the information appear in an informal email that is hurriedly put out? Or does it appear on a scholarly email discussion list? Does it appear on an informal discussion board like this one, or does it appear in literature that the publishers claim is backed by God?
After some source of information has established a reputation, it is perfectly normal for people to tend to accept or reject new information based on an already-established reputation. Even though a discredited source might often speak good things, why waste time listening to it unless you have a good reason to? You already know that you'll have to do your own research in order to have a good chance that the information is reliable. Similarly, why would you doubt information from a source you had already established as reliable, unless a bit of new information just didn't sit right, or another reliable source gave you reason to investigate? Of course, an intelligent reader will always try to evaluate the reliability of all information that comes his or her way, no matter who says it.
In terms of posters you mentioned, I long ago established that Farkel was generally reliable. Not perfect, not by a long shot, but good enough that my first reaction is that he's probably got something good to say and so I'll read his posts. Similarly I long ago established that Shelby is unreliable and so I rarely read anything she posts. Emyrose came along a few months ago and I gradually concluded that she is emotionally infantile -- not based on knowing her as a person, but based exclusively on her writings on this board.
So when Emyrose and Shelby had a discussion, people didn't just out-of-the-blue decide what reputation each had, and then base their acceptance exclusively on that, but had decided whether each was reliable based on many previous posts and then used that determination along with the latest words to decide which one they would go along with. As usual, teejay, you've inverted cause and effect.
You seem to labor under the mistaken idea that all ideas are equal merely because someone decides to espouse them. Well they are not. Young-earth creationism is a ridiculous idea no matter who espouses it. So is Flat-earthism. So is the idea that Jehovah's Witness leaders speak for God. So is the idea that Shelby speaks for God. I need not elaborate on the evidence for my statements here.
Now, if you want to start a good, solid discussion on race relations in America, go right ahead. Take the lead in showing just how such a discussion should go. If you think Emyrose had good things to say but that these were rejected because of her infantile presentation, you have a fine opportunity to set matters straight. You could point out what you think were the good points in her discussion, and remove all stain of having them rejected merely because of who was presenting them. Are you up to the challenge of getting specific? Or will you remain in the sea of meaningless generalities?
As for Farkel's focus on The Watchtower, what do you think this discussion board is all about? Race relations in America? Or Jehovah's Witnesses? This is a real problem for you teejay -- understanding what focus is all about. That's why your posts are generally fuzzy and unfocused, and don't usually say anything. At least in this one you manage a few specifics, as shown in your summary:
: My point is: Should the opinions and expressed thoughts of those deemed at the upper end of any collection of people (whether at JW.com, the WTS, the Republican Party, et al.) be given more weight than the opinions and viewpoints coming from those considered at the other end of the scale?
Generally, yes, for the reasons I've explained above: People establish their reputations, not out of the blue, but by what they do and say. People with good or bad reputations usually deserve them. This does not imply that the opinions of anyone should be viewed as absolute truth or should not be questioned.
: Isn't there a third, and preferred alternative for genuine truth seekers? Shouldn't each comment, viewpoint, and opinion be made to stand on it's own merits, regardless of its source?
Of course they should stand on their own merits. But would you listen to the content of a speech given by a street bum standing on a street-corner soapbox? Probably not. You have your own filters for who you listen to, and I'm fairly sure that you filter out street bums. It's the same anywhere else. You're creating a false dilemma here, teejay.
: I'm fairly certain that I know how loyal JWs would answer if you posed the question to them relative to the Governing Body's public views as published in the Watchtower. I wonder if YOU would answer the same relative to your own station in life. Do YOU question everything you read, or do you accept some things if it comes from the 'right' source?
Again you're creating a false dilemma. Of course I question everything I read, and of course I accept some things that come from the 'right' source. So do most readers of this board. In practice, I can't go back to basics and research every little thing that anyone says. There isn't time in a day. Further, there isn't any point, except in a small number of things that I deem important enough to spend my time at. Do you question everything that comes your way? Of course not. Do you question if men landed on the moon in 1969? I hope not! But why do you accept that? Were you there? Couldn't it be that the U.S. government has conspired with Hollywood to produce films 'proving' this false claim? No? Why not? Why do you just blindly go along with what these demonstrably lying officials and producers tell you?
The fact is that in real life, we accept huge amounts of information based on faith in our life's experiences, which include our opinion about the reliability of what others tell us. When we buy fruit at the grocery store, we accept the implicit guarantee that no one has injected the fruit with cyanide. Why do we accept such things? Because to do otherwise would be to make life impossible to live.
So it is with 'life' on a discussion board. We determine who we feel is reliable and who isn't. We do it by reading their words and thinking about them. Eventually we form mental filters that let in or filter out posters we know. That's just the way human beings work.
AlanF
