What a reasonable post! Perhaps brains haven't entirely migrated from this place. DogGone, you have now - IMO, you hadn't before - cogently and coherently stated your case. So I will address it.
Your second point is that with "reductio ad absurdum" you can arrive at another "proof". I criticized this and you pointed out that there are different proofs. It would be unfair for me to demand "proof" to the standards of mathematics. I agree. However, your so called "proof", in this instance, would not stand up, not even in a civil trial. The problem with your "reductio ad absurdum" is that you didn't bring the "absurdum".
Let me now clearly state, in my own words and going a litte further than you did, what I'm sure is your POV:
The Eagle could have made a cold-blooded calculation and put in a false, semi-false or misleading statement, weighing the likelihood of being sued, of such action being successful and the likely quantity of damages and costs if successfully sued, against the increase in circulation (and perhaps indirect advertising revenue, based perhaps on circulation) achieved by sensational coverage.
Believe it or not, I'd considered exactly that when making my second point. Note that if I state everything I consider and think about, my long articles would be twice as long as they already are. Roofers and carwash-boys can't deal with long arguments, and we write here for the enormous "Lurker" Class - not the forum regulars.
Now to the "ad absurdum", bearing in mind your point (which I have re-made for you, above).
Let me re-state what I state (and still state) to be the concluding absurdity (and in doing so, re-phrase and perhaps re-emphasize, as in alter the emphasis within it).
By the time of the Ross trial:
(a) The Eagle had for years been exposing Russell. I'd say, since (and including) 1910.
(b) The Eagle had been sued by Russell, and in the course of the trial each side had gone hammer and tongs at the other. Russell had lost - twice, and humuliatingly too given the length of time the jury was "out".
(c) The Eagle had since further stepped up its campaign against Russell.
(d) It is evident from such evidence as has come up (again, which I will later bring up in this thread, given time) that Russell was, in the last several years of his life, a very, very rich man. Income streams from the Watchtower and capital appreciation of shrewdly-chosen real estate and much more besides. He was almost certainly a multi-millionaire in terms of the $ of a century ago - so, while not quite a billionaire in today's money, he was phenomenally wealthy. As this was well hidden within complex trust structures, no one but Russell and Van Amburgh (if indeed he knew all of it) really knew how much.
(e) Russell was thus a very dangerous enemy.
(f) It had become personal. During the Miracle Wheat cartoon libel trial (I mean, who sues over a cartoon - but that is the sort of malevolent bully Russell was), Russell's lawyer had tried to make out the malicious nature of the Eagle's editorial team. Clearly, the jury was unpersuaded.
(g) There was a certainty that Russell would sue if he was given even a tiny chink of opportunity.
(h) This coverage was itself of another libel trial! Russell's prodigious litigiousness is not in doubt, lol. Using courts to silence opponents was his forte. He tried it with the Washington Post and others, the best he ever got was one dollar damages (i.e. derisory and token) but no costs (so, a huge loss for him)
(i) In all my skimmings of thousands of copies of the Eagle (over many months of my time), I have yet to see a single apology of theirs for libelling someone. Or anything vaguely like that. And they certainly did expose politicians of all hues, so there was plenty of chance to go wrong. I conclude they did not, or it was so rare I missed it. No account of other libel trials too - while the present one was covered throughout (they were certain they would win, as they did). It follows that the Eagle was NOT part of the gutter press.
(j) Using the Old Goat (TM) fallacious logic, most papers in those days engaged in so-called yellow journalism, therefore the Brooklyn Daily Eagle did so too. No proof offered, of course. Or evidence. Boing!! Wrong, bottom of the class. Having read so much of the Eagle, it strikes me as a paper extremely proud of its reputation for honesty and accuracy.
(k) They would not wish to tarnish this hard-earned reputation for accuracy and fairness** (more on this below)
(l) Were Maria Russell really not there, it would be easy to prove even without her help (e.g., neighbours). And travelling wasn't quite as mundane as it is now.
(m) Russell would certainly sue, and win if what was reported was not true.
(n) And it was personal on both sides - being humiliated by Russell would have been utterly intolerable for the Eagle, which had been maintaining the moral high ground throughout.
(o) So the only way they would deceive here on such an objective matter is if they, a corporation themselves, would intentionally self-harm and face the fury of their shareholders too.
(p) I believe I have now established the absurdity upon which the contradiction was predicated.
Quoting you:
The whole point of this logical tool is to prove a point by showing that the opposite is completely absurd, illogical, and incredible. Therefore, with "reductio ad absurdum" you have to, out of logical necessity, accept the opposite is true or accept a truly absurd possibility.
And this is what I did.
So, I was right. It follows that you were not right, or less right.
I suggest the article is absolutely valid. It is clear, further, given the massive weight of other evidence of Russell's character, anyone who gave the benefit of any small doubt that there is to Russell is either mad or bad or both.
Now, i turn to:
hard-earned reputation for accuracy and fairness
I have a hard-earned reputation for accuracy and fairness in anti-cult matters going back two decades and involving more fights than you can probably imagine.
Now, I've been away from here for 11 years, fighting for other worthy causes.
The WTS is only one of enemies. I've dropped clues before. They might even be valid. The nymserver at M.I.T., the Church of Scientology anti-privacy war, clambake, "our" setting up of a bullet-proof way of whistleblowing, etc.
Only a handful of those who knew me then are still posting here, and of these only three are posting regularly and while the other two are excellent, the third is, well, a nincompoop.
Most will not look at the j-w.n archives - not that they will see much there, as many of the best threads have been "disappeared" after my fight with the Nazi-apologists (and worse).
All my work I gave freely, permitting its free usage for non-commercial purposes (and, in some cases, even commercial ones).
But, in a few days of my return here, I was:
* directly accused of plagiarising a lampoonery article I had authored myself. When presented with proof (yes, proof, of the highest standard that will be achievable in such cases) the filthy accuser, instead of apologizing, accused me of self-plagiarism.
* accused by another of plagiarising a group of articles which are, if anything, themselves adapted plagiarised versions of anti-WTS material I had written; the same person also suggested I was various other people I don't know, that my original research wasn't that original etc. At least he has attempted some mealy-mouthed (though inadequate) apology - I give credit where it is due.
* accused by yet another of ignorance, while almost every "fact" this aged creature produced was either prima-facie erroneous or based on some incorrect reasoning by him - and none of mine were; moroever, while accusing me of speculation he would make throw-away claims of breathtaking stupidity (associating the Brooklyn Daily Eagle with the yellow press).
* accused by YET another of some form of intellectual dishonesty for some grounds he kept changing as he was systematically refuted by me. The work was my flow-chart, created and implemented solely by me, to "prove" that no god possessing certain attributes could exist. His first objection was that it was I put "(c) Focus" on it, which I have every right to do, especially given that it seems acceptable for me to be accused of plagiarising that which I wrote in the first place. Being uninterested in copyright, I added that it could be freely distributed without any condition other than the copyright ownership note should remain part of what was distributed. He then said it wasn't about copyright at all (lol) but I was accused of dishonestly not acknowledging that most of the idea was originally that of Epicurus from more than two millennia ago. Well, it probably isn't - Epicurus was quite probably a _theist_; there is no historical clarity about who did what, as any amateur philosopher, theologian or historian would now Two other known people may have been responsible for the idea (ideas can't be copyrighted, anyway). Further, I substantially added to the original ideas, targeting it at an alleged monotheistic, vaguely Abrahamic god. And happily acknowledged that even the idea of "god" was not my creation. But he still continues his abusive trolling.
There is no suggestion or belief that the above four fools are connected, lol.
So, view my responses in the light of the above, DogGone, and you will see I am being proportionate.
I can quite understand why the Leading Lights of the past refuse to post here - the count of abusive and ignorant fools and trolls is too high.
Focus, however, is rhinoceros-hided, and perfectly willing, capable and eager to move disputes into RL, as one of the transgressors will shortly be discovering. For I have another
hard-earned reputation
to maintain.
DogGone, I have responded to you with dignity, courtesy and respect, and while I believe I have shown you are wrong, I have not insulted you. Further, I concede your point has some validity.
As you have treated me well, so you are treated well. A distant uvariant of the Golden Rule, not (c) Focus, lol.
I'll leave turning the other cheek to those who enjoy being slapped.
__
Focus
("Repercussions" Class)
