Posts by dunsscot

since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

dunsscot

:As usual, Dummy, your discussion is full of words that merely pretend to be arguments. I could once again dissect them, but you're obviously incapable of rational thought when you think that by beating a minor point to death you can score points. So I won't. Besides, "I'm leavin' on a jet plane" for vacation in a couple of hours and couldn't take the time even if I thought it would do any good.:

You probably need a vacation after the linguistic beating you just took. Rest well, AF. You sure need it! Instead of showing me evidence that the medievals, who devised the formula Q.E.D., ever used this abbreviation to mean "quod erat demonstratum"--you depart with more argumentum ad hominem. Ave atque vale!

:The real focus of this thread is on the fact that C. T. Russell was an arrogant, haughty man. The fact that you reject explicit statements from "the faithful and discreet slave" that immediately succeeded Russell in that position speaks volumes about your devotion to truth.:

The magazines have never claimed to be infallible. As we grow in knowledge, we must be willing to adjust our viewpoints. Have you ever thought about the possibility that the WT discovered it made a mistake in 1916 when it said Russell claimed to be the FDS in private? No, that could not be possible! But in the face of NO evidence, your assertions fall flat on their face for now. Q.E.D.

Duns the Scot

"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."

82

Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

by AlanF in

jw
friends

since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

dunsscot

2 Corinthians 11:5-6 (NASB):

"For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things.

Duns the Scot

"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."

82

Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

by AlanF in

jw
friends

since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

dunsscot

:Duns,
Please quote the Biblical counsel that you use in forming your responses to posters here and for arguing with them about linguistics or any other subject matter?

Which Bible role model are you following? Which first century Christian example do you follow in this regard?:

I do not believe in the distorted version of sola scriptura, Joel. In other words--the Reformation formula "sola scriptura" is not objectionable as long as it is construed in a proper manner. I guess I am saying that the Bible does not explicitly comment on every detail of life. It deals with matters that appertain to our salvation (2 Tim 3:14-17).

Therefore, when I "argue" about linguistics or philosophy, I do not claim there is any explicit biblical warrant for such "arguments." I do not even contend that these activities constitute the focus of my Christian mission. But keep in mind that the linguistic problems we encounter today were basically non-issues in the first century. The "dramatis personae" in Scripture shared a common presupposition pool. They spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and some Latinisms are also found in Scripture. But since modern linguistics had not been formulated or worked out yet, it is not reasonable to think we should expect to find counsel in Scripture concerning arguing about grammar.

However, both Jesus and Paul found it necessary to defend their God-given authority at times. Opponents of modern-day JWs will often try to discredit the language abilities of JWs or denigrate our "facility" with Latin, Greek or Hebrew as well. I think I am more than justified in putting PAID to such fallacious notions.

Duns the Scot

"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."

82

Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

by AlanF in

jw
friends

since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

dunsscot

Salvete omnes,

:This "bellum" over latin is getting carried away. It is obvious that some forum members are proficient in more than one idiom, and others are proficient in other academic areas. However, those claiming to be of the "magister illuminati" should by all means not be ashamed to reveal their honest credentials. I took a giant leap of faith by revealing mine in an earlier post, and thus gained new friends.:

I think we do well to make a distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello here. AF failed to weigh the consequences of initiating force against Duns by typing "Quod erat demonstratum." Little did he know that Duns was more than equipped to do battle (proelium committere) over this significant grammatical issue. Once I started to engage in battle, however, I have tried to wage war justly (jus in bello) in the face of numerous verbal thrusts from the opposition. I have already explained why I do not want to reveal my credentials. Duns will just say that he has read enough Latin to know AF is wrong about Q.E.D. per the context we are discussing it.

:We all seek truth and advancement, therefore there is no shame in sharing any "sapientia" we may possess, but personal attacks and warfare over scholastic achievement is not productive. After all, we have not become "SENATVS ROMANVS" have we?:

I have no problem admitting there are areas that are not my forte. I am not a biologist or a physicist. Therefore, I am not about to enter into a technical discussion of either subject. AF is not modest like me. He thinks he knows about every field, until he stepped into the minefield prepared by DS. I hope he now realizes that those who cannot run with the big dogs need to stay on the porch.

:P.S. Before someone corrects the use of the "V" in place of the letter "U", please locate a reference first.:

Your usage is in accord with the Latin inscriptions I have read. Ergo, I have no problem with using "V" in place of "U."

Ave atque vale,
Dan

Duns the Scot

"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."

82

Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

by AlanF in

jw
friends

since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

dunsscot

:Zev, why do you ask "who gives a rat's a**" when even a four-year-old could see that it is of interest to AF, Duns, myself and others? You can't be that stupid? And if you don't care then why stick your dirty little nose in the matter? If you don't care then shut your fly trap. For you to claim that someone like Russell was "mad" when you have not read his writings in toto is like you writing a bio on someone you barely knew. The only things you know about Russell are the filtered garbage that you get from people like AF and other fruits.:

Greetings Mishnah!

The best that AF could do was show passages where others SAID that Brother Russell called himself the FDS. He did quote Brother Russell calling himself, "God's mouthpiece," but I just love how this statement is never quoted in context. I look forward to Stafford's discussion of this matter in his new book on Jehovah's Witnesses. It is coming out in October. I have heard his monograph will contain some interesting information. See elihubooks.com

Take care!
Dan

Duns the Scot

"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."

82

Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

by AlanF in

jw
friends

since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

dunsscot

As soon as AF admits he is wrong about this whole Q.E.D. issue, we can move on to other matters. But I am not about to let him get away with calling my Latin skills into question!

:Every time you post, Dummy, you get yourself in deeper.:: ... Take this trivial matter of what "QED" means.:

Trivial is a relative term. I personally think that this issue is quite significant. Your responses to my comments tells me a lot about you as a rational agent qua rational agent.

:::In an earlier thread, Maximus expressed his opinion that the full expression should be "Quod Erat Demonstratum". [sic] You expressed yours that it should be "Quod Erat Demonstrandum". [sic] 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.::

You have made other mistakes in this thread as well. However, we will focus on this one error for now. Your comments above show how much you really know about me. I did not try to "refute" Maximus' references because he said that he wanted to drop the discussion. Nevertheless, I have already shown that Maximus' reference is inadequate because it is a Classical Latin resource. The subject of this discussion, however, is a medieval formula. See the difference? Lastly, I would like to put this whole conversation in perspective. We are talking about what the abbreviation Q.E.D. refers to when it is appended to "mathematical or logical proofs to indicate successful conclusion of the proof of the initial hypothesis." We are not discussing what Q.E.D. may mean in other contexts. Please stay on task!

: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". [sic]:

I know what "that" refers to. In Standard English, however, it is more fitting to use an accompanying noun when employing a deictic morpheme. Just using the demonstrative pronoun, "that," can lead to unnecessary ambiguity. People sometimes utter clauses like the following: "I am not going to the dance with that!" But one disambiguates the sentence by making the referent of the deictic term explicit. Thus, we might reword the sentence this way: "I am not going to the dance with that girl/boy!" Sometimes (as you point out), we can get away with the former usage because of a certain cotext. Nevertheless, appending a nominal signifier to a deictic term is preferable when one is trying to write as clearly as possible.

:::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.:

You are again missing the point, AF. The problem is not whether I understood what "that" referred to, for I did grasp the way you were utilizing this particular pronominal signifier above. My comments were merely designed to teach you the art of literary disambiguation.

::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.:

By challenging my use of quod erat demonstrandum, you were calling my "facility" with Latin into question. Q.E.D. is very basic Latin. If I do not know what I am talking about when it comes to such a basic matter, one might conclude that I am somewhat clueless when it comes to more advanced Latin. Furthermore, you explicitly said that Maximus had corrected me, but I was too dense to comprehend his refutation of my observations on Q.E.D. Now you want to back off and lay the blame on Maximus. With friends like you . . .

::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!:

You mean you will admit that there are some things you do not know? Wow! Miracles never cease. I still think you are too proud to admit you should have stayed on the porch instead of trying to run with the big dogs this time.

:Pedant point: You can't say, "I know more about Latin that you will ever know.":

I just did. :-)

:You must say, "I know more about Latin than you will ever know.":

"Must" is a little strong, don't you think? I get your point though. THAT was a typo!

::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.::

How would you know? You are not qualified to make significant judgments of this kind.

:::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.::

Let me try explaining this matter one more time. The reference that Maximus employed is a Classic Latin resource. Q.E.D. is a medieval innovation. Now do you understand, Einstein? A Classical Latin reference work does not (cannot) deal with medieval usage. Q.E.D.

:::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.:

I purposely kept my remarks brief at this stage of the conversation so that I could reveal and expose your error later.

::"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.::

Let us again put this whole matter in perspective. We are specifically talking about occasions when Q.E.D. is appended to a logical or philosophical document. On such occasions, the abbreviations clearly refer to the medieval Latin expression, quod erat demonstrandum. Why are you having such a problem understanding this basic concept?

:::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 meant what I said and said what I meant," he wrote chiastically.

: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 will try and do THAT, sir.

::I know it, buddy. This philosopher has paid his dues in that regard.::

:Prove it. Tell us, please, where you were trained in Latin.:

You know that I cannot reveal my educational background here. The proof, however, is in the pudding.

::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.::

It was not dishonest. The websites that you posted were either wrong or did not pertain to this present debate. But you are too dense and proud to recognize THIS fact.

::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.::

Let us take one little example, AF. One of the sites you posted said that Q.E.D. means "quite easily done." Maybe in certain contexts, this statement is true. However, when Q.E.D. is appended to a philosophical or mathematical document, it does not mean "quite easily done." Are you beginning to understand the problem now, hUIE?

::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.:

Let me repeat. You know next to nothing about language simpliciter. Your comments reflect your complete and utter lack of expertise when it comes to such rudimentary linguistic matters as diachronicity and synchronicity. If you grasped these two basic linguistic principles, you would not be arguing with me right now about the subject of Q.E.D. and its referential significance.

::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.::

If you are not able to adequately mediate or adjudicate "the correctness of my claims," then why did you jump into this debate by typing: Quod erat demonstratum? Didn't you know that I was going to call you on this usage?

:: 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.:

I did look at the website you provided, AF. Some of them are either wrong or correct in other contexts. Please focus on the theme of this discussion, namely, what Q.E.D. means in a particular context.

::Try saying quod erat demonstrandum to a medieval and see what he would think.::

:Find me one and I'll give it a shot.:

I figured you would say THAT! 8-)

::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?:

Alas! Some kids are just too dense for their own good. Let us put things in perspective again, shall we? I never ever said that "demonstratum" was/is wrong per se. My contention all along has been that Q.E.D. is not the abbreviation for "quod erat demonstratum" in the context we are presently exploring this issue. But I never denied that ancient writers used "demonstratum." We are talking about a formula, AF; we are not debating the use of a single sound-form. Ancient writers did not employ the "formula," quod erat demonstrandum. Now do you understand, hUIE?

::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.:

I read the websites, AF.

::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.:

I have already explained myself regarding this matter in my earlier comments. These sites really do not help you when it comes to a specific use of the formula, Q.E.D. As for my wording above, let us just say that I was being litotic and charitable with my literary expressions.

: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 /:

Q.E.D. is not the abbreviation for "Quod Erat Demonstratum" in the specific context hitherto employed on this forum.

: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)"

Professor Adkins is wrong. I will concede his point if he can produce a medieval use of quod erat demonstratum. Until that time, I shall continue believing what this inet source says:

"Q. E. D. Euclid (about 300 B. C.) concluded his proofs with hoper edei deiksai, which Medieval geometers translated as quod erat demonstrandum ("that which was to be proven"). In 1665 Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) wrote a treatise on ethics, Ethica More Geometrico Demonstrata, in which he proved various moral propositions in a geometric manner. He wrote the abbreviation Q. E. D., as a seal upon his proof of each ethical proposition. The Q. E. D. abbreviation was also used by Isaac Newton in the Principia, by Galileo in a Latin text, and by Isaac Barrow, who additionally used quod erat faciendum (Q. E. F.), quod fieri nequit (Q. F. N.), and quod est absurdum (Q. E. A.).

http://members.aol.com/jeff570/q.html:

: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.:

Let me remind you that you are not in the position to adjudicate grammatical concerns that pertain to Classical or medieval Latin. I will thus tell you what I have stated from the beginning of this debate. You do not know what you are talking about, AF. Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary does not contain the gerundive "demonstrandum" and one of the earliest occurrences of the form that I could find is in Boethius' Consolatio Philosophiae (dated 6th century C.E.). But Boethius is a medieval writer. The men you quoted are evidently relying on a knowledge of Classical Latin. Any good Catholic, however, can tell you what Q.E.D. means in the context we're discussing.

::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.:

I have already told you that Maximus does not want to argue this point. That is fine. But do not interpret my failure to reply to Max as some kind of concession that he is right. His source does not even touch the issue we are currently discussing. Q.E.D. is the abbreviation for quod erat demonstrandum when appended to philosophical or theological documents, etc. I hope I have made this point clear for you, hUIE. One last quote should suffice for now:

:Q.E.D.- "quod erat demonstrandum" (Latin) This stems from medieval translators' habitual tendency of translating the Greek for "this was to be demonstrated" to the Latin phrase above. This appeared originally at the end of many of Euclid's propositions, signifying that he had proved what he set out to prove.

http://library.thinkquest.org/2647/geometry/glossary.htm:

Q.E.D.,
Dan

Duns the Scot

"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."

31

Infinitism

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

skeptics of the world, unite!.

as i slowly and deliberately nursed a nonalcoholic cup of coca-cola tonight, something motivated me to pull out my notes on infinitism and share them with you good folks here.

infinitism is a philosophical school of thought that advocates the epistemological "suspension of judgment.

dunsscot

:I'm not "hounding" you, Duns, I'm simply providing the forum your ego was obviously desiring when you first tantalised us with that tidbit. I know how I would answer the question, but I was asking you how YOU, with your WBTS training would answer it. Maybe you're afraid of an argument. Surely not you!! Pr. 27:17:

Greek grammar is Greek grammar. I would probably answer the question in the same way that you would, if you are up to snuff on your Greek prepositions and how they function with specific cases. Believe me, I am not afraid to argue with filth and scum any day of the week. I just hate to waste my time on little "nippers" like you.

:BTW, Duns, I cleaned up a hastily written post - hastily written to try and attract the attention of a lying weasel - one who said he'd no longer grace us with his presence.:

I was not lying, scum. I explained why I prolonged my stay.

:It really is an intellectual lowlife who stoops to petty grammar and spelling correction instead of engaging in true argument.:

Grammar and spelling correction are not "petty" issues. One is not truly qualified to discourse with Doctor Scot if he or she makes elementary Latin grammar mistakes like my friend AF did. Errors in English are even more abominable.

:I'd like to see how far you got if you tried doing that at the end of your elders' talks from the platform. Some people just don't have the time to waste straining out the gnats that your peurile [sic] brand of Phariseeism [sic] sees as such an obstacle to communication. I thought YOU knew Greek, and YOU were here to teach us. Now do so - what IS your little insight into pros and the accusative in John 1:1?:

I cannot teach anyone, lowlife. There is one thing that I know. That is it!

Duns the Scot

"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."

31

Infinitism

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

skeptics of the world, unite!.

as i slowly and deliberately nursed a nonalcoholic cup of coca-cola tonight, something motivated me to pull out my notes on infinitism and share them with you good folks here.

infinitism is a philosophical school of thought that advocates the epistemological "suspension of judgment.

dunsscot

:Infinitism sounds good. Mature and creative minds are comfortable with ambiguity. Too many sell out cheap just to be able to close the books on a subject. I prefer to tie knots in the end of some subjects until I can give it some serious consideration.:

Believe it or not, I agree with you here, Proplog. I think infinitism reminds us of the need to recognize the provisionality of our knowledge at any point in time. I even try to practice a modified form of infinitism as a JW. Duns thinks that JWs possess the truth and he may even judge THAT the JW organization is God's Organization. But a part of me also knows that there could be some major holes in a number of JW beliefs. Ergo, I think that we all should humbly and tentatively formulate ideas and systems.

Sincerely,
Dan

Duns the Scot

"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."

82

Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

by AlanF in

jw
friends

since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

dunsscot

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."