Posts by Friend

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

waiting

And, yes, if JW's are voting somewhere on national elections - I sure would like to know where. You had told Frenchy to produce some evidence - where's yours.

I said nothing of national elections, though that is now a debatable option. Otherwise, as I said, my evidence is mostly anecdotal.

As for the matter of producing evidence of financial matters, you want Frenchy to produce evidence for your discussion that contributions are down.

I said it is found in letters received. One such letter dated 9/6/91 (after the CDA) states:

"There has been in the United States a significant decline in donations toward the Society’s worldwide work."

Between January of 1990 and January of 1991 it was fairly common for a congregation’s overall donation to the Society for literature and magazines to be down about 35-50%. That is what the Society’s letter was referring to.

You say, and rightly so, that some publishers do not donate at all. That is their right and circumstances, just as the KM article brought out. Are you suggesting that those who do pay are covering the cost for those who don't pay? Well, then the Society should spell it out for us so we can make up our own minds.

Yes, as you say, "that is their right." As far as the Society’s literature goes, the Society afforded that right. As for those that do contribute, yes, the Society has explained on several occasions that the "equalizing" principle is at work in this situation. (See 2 Cor. 8:14; Please note the referencing of that text in the km 10/91 page 7.)

BTW, your educational background and job description was missing from your post. Are you going to share with us so that we can then say, "Ah, he's a lawyer, he knows about this stuff." Or, "Ah, he's a paralegal with many years of experience, he's knows probably more than most lawyers."

Yes, it was missing. I said, "I do not intend upon doing that…" My reasons were given. Just consider me a friend. You can weigh the evidences I produce for whatever they are worth.

Friend

44

"Apostolic succession"?

by Jokemyster in

jw
friends

since the wt organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that passed the torch of gods spirit to c.t.russel when he founded the.

organization?

what denomination or faith?

Friend

SC

You said:

For instance, I have several quotes from the Society that claims that outside Jehovah's organization there is no place else to go for salvation and true joy. If one does not have salvation in Christ, how can they be saved outside of that salvation?
[In-between sniped]
The brochure JWs in the 20th century contradicts what the WT actually teaches.

Actually all that is taught by the Society. Here is the fine line: JWs feel that since they have the true Christian religion that association and abidance of teachings thereof provides a good measure of protection against adverse judgment. That is where all the "everybody outside better watch out!" rhetoric comes from, which is naturally embedded in the notion that JW worship is the right one. On the other hand, they also teach that ultimately God judges through Christ Jesus and they will not presume to say how individuals will be judged.

waiting

Good one!

Friend

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

waiting

Where, exactly, are you that "A lot of JW's are registered voters. Some friends vote." I sure would like to know this to point out to our elders (I've always thought the Democrats were kinda cool the way they fight and stuff.)

My location is immaterial. As for whether any JWs are registered voters, many government jobs require that the person be a registered voter as a condition of employment. For example, in the United States you will find that true for jobs working for the post office (at least it was last I checked a few years back). Brothers holding such jobs are registered voters.

As for actually voting, my only evidence is no more than my own experience. In some lands various friends have voted on issues that are non-political (at least not overtly political). An example has to do with a referendum on whether to tax money to build a new school or renovate an older one or neither. Usually participants must be registered voters in the subject district. Friends have voted in such situation in the past and the Society is unconcerned about it. The most recent Watchtower about voting indicates that voting may perhaps be tolerable under other more political situations.

Where are you getting your figures on the amount of money for literature and for donations? Please share with us? I don't think this is the pertinent argument to this thread, however.

I’m sure that Frenchy can verify that the Society has sent letters to congregation expressing that donations are significantly down since the “complete donation arrangement” went into effect.

Your other points I have already dealt with. The notion of double donations is absurd when you consider that some publishers may not put anything into the coffer until after receiving (or not) donations from the field. Additionally, considering that donations are down and literature publishing is up, it is not hard to realize that double donation is not happening.

Friend

37

What is an Amicus Brief

by 3acrewood in

hi, waiting, and all others concerned about this amicus brief:.

just to set the record straight - i have been a legal secretary for over 20 years, and i assure you there is nothing shady about the society filing an amicus brief in regard to this swaggart thing.

an amicus brief is filed in cases in which the verdict could set a precedent that would or could have an adverse affect on other parties not involved in the suit (i.e., other religious organizations, corporations, etc.).

Friend

waiting

I also looked up the word "denigrate" which you held out that you would do to anyone with immoral views.

I try to write with care. Please note that I did not say I would denigrate “anyone” (i.e., a person) with immoral views but rather that I would denigrate immoral views. There is a fundamental difference between those two ideas. One expresses that I belittle an individual and the other that I belittle an idea of morality.

I agree with you that we have said nothing on this forum immoral for human dignity. I will also add that I have said nothing on this forum that I have not already expressed to the Society (meaning an endorsed viewpoint).

You asked that I share whatever credentials I might have. I do not intend upon doing that, mostly because claimed credentials are totally worthless, and that is all claims of credentials are on a forum such as this. On the other hand, I am very careful about how closely I identify myself on a public forum like this.

Also, I agree with whatever attorney opined that filing amicus curiae should not be entered into lightly. Really, that advice is well taken for any consideration of court involvement. That especially becomes true when you are not a party to a case in the first place. For reasons I already expressed the Society acted on an issue to perhaps intercede regarding a particular point of law (a single one) being ruled upon differently than it had in the past, making tax-exemption more debatable than it already was. And, that is really the only difference between now and then, how debatable tax-exempt status is for various organizations. If you read the Society’s brief it is speaking only for the Watchtower Society with no hint of overt support for the now defunct Jimmy Swaggart Ministries.

Like some others you are apparently of the notion that just sharing the same courtroom with JSM is somehow ungodly and reprehensible. Consider this scenario:

Your neighbor is an axe murderer (we will call him Garr). You know this because you saw it happen. You have reported it but, other than your testimony, you cannot prove it and neither can law-enforcement. Unrelated to that Garr is later arrested and convicted for tax evasion on 100 various counts according to 10 different statues. One of those statues says, “you must pay tax on livestock.” Garr is held accountable on that one statue because some lower court judge, for the first time, rendered a ruling that pets are livestock as defined by the context of the law. Since Garr owned a few pets they nabbed him for past tax. Such an application has never been attributed to that particular law, therefore among countless other arguments, Garr’s attorneys appeal includes an argument about that issue. (Just for clarification: Garr is also convicted for the 99 other infractions of different tax laws.)

Here is your problem. Your family is one of only 10 in your city that owns pets and you own 5 dogs and 10 cats. Suddenly you realize that you stand to owe several thousand dollars in back taxes for these animals, to say nothing of future taxes. You also realize that if Garr’s appeal is unsuccessful on that one single point of law that it will cost you a minimum of $10,000 to later argue this thing in the courts, and that with no guarantee of success. Your attorney says, “Hey, I can file a simple amicus curiae briefing right now in the case of Garr vs. City and it will only cost you $50. You still have no guarantee, but you should consider it.”

Now your other problem is that you don’t want to share the same planet as Garr, let alone some legal technicality! Your attorney assures you that your amicus curiae filing is not in defense of Garr but rather regarding an application of law to you and your neighbors at large. Also, he or she says, you might argue that there is something unique or different about your pets, making them tax-exempt. Also, he or she tells you that Garr’s case is not dependent upon your success or failure in the amicus curiae filing.

Here is the question: What will you do?

I am not saying that this situation does not deserve due consideration. But I am saying that the choice may be easier to make than you realize.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 5 June 2000 14:16:18

44

"Apostolic succession"?

by Jokemyster in

jw
friends

since the wt organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that passed the torch of gods spirit to c.t.russel when he founded the.

organization?

what denomination or faith?

Friend

SC

So if this is true that there were christians amongst Adventists and Baptists at that time, are you saying that the Society acknowledges that Christians are found also in other religions other than the WTBTS.

What are you asking here?

Statement: There were Christians n Rome

Conclusion: There are Christians in Rome.

Perhaps I misunderstand your question. If I correctly understand it then my illustration should clarify it and my answer is, “No.” The Society does not teach that today Christians can be found in other religions. Instead, as I said earlier, they teach that since 1918/9 Jehovah’s Witnesses (formerly Bible Students) exclusively represent the Christianity found in the Bible. In that case, if someone were Christian then they would choose association with Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is the idea promulgated.

As an aside, though the Society teaches that Jehovah’s Witnesses uniquely teach and practice the Christianity of the Bible, they do not teach that Jehovah will only judge them as acceptable. (See Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Twentieth Century, page 29)

Or is this a bunch of double talk so as not to say what is really meant?

Hopefully I do not engage in double talk.

Friend

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

waiting

Your concerns are valid. And French is also correct in that some overseers (local and traveling) do push the envelope on what is expected regarding contributions.

In reality the real life situation varies from congregation to congregation. How should the Society manage that? Typically a large organization does this by means of direct correspondence to its members—in this case the Society to congregation publishers via letters read to them and posted. The most an organization can do is try to educate its members on what is expected and needed. In this case, as has been pointed out, money is needed to continue. Telling members otherwise would be dishonest. As for insisting that publishers contribute for literature, the Society has told publishers to do this according to how they are prospering. What’s wrong with that?

When we run into that overseer that wants to push some other ideas upon us then, in this case, all we need do is remind them of what the Society has told us in writing. Ask them, Has the Society changed its policy? Let them speak for themselves. As for the Society receiving double, the numbers do not indicate that. In most congregations overall donations to the Society have dwindled since the “complete donation arrangement” went into effect.

Frenchy

Yes, I read your comments on that other thread. Hopefully you will accept what I said in reply. Following is a link to that thread.

[url]www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=267&site=3[/url]

Friend

37

What is an Amicus Brief

by 3acrewood in

hi, waiting, and all others concerned about this amicus brief:.

just to set the record straight - i have been a legal secretary for over 20 years, and i assure you there is nothing shady about the society filing an amicus brief in regard to this swaggart thing.

an amicus brief is filed in cases in which the verdict could set a precedent that would or could have an adverse affect on other parties not involved in the suit (i.e., other religious organizations, corporations, etc.).

Friend

SC

I was wondering, with the Societies 70 or so paid attorneys on staff, why did they not file a separate Brief? Why did they choose to file a brief with Jimmy Swaggart ministries and take the chance of being associated with Christendom?

First of all, your comment ignores that fact that filing amicus curiae does not associate a person with anythign but their own argument (i.e. opinion, point of view). That is all it does.

Why didn’t the Society seek such a ruling away from the JSM case? That is the BEST question that has so far been asked on this thread. The reason is simple. Past court decisions favored our distribution efforts as they existed back then. In the JSM case a lower court had made certain rulings that, if left to stand, had the potential to threaten the tax-exempt status of our literature distribution efforts. Until that lower court ruling there was nothing to file for or against because everything was fine as it existed prior to it.

The reason for filing amicus curiae on the case involving JSM was because it is easier to argue for overturning a lower court ruling than it is to argue overturning a Supreme Court ruling. If the Society had waited it would have taken too much time to get a ruling, which would have started in a lower court. The lower court would have been obligated to lean in favor of a higher court ruling. Again, the best way to deal with things of this nature is by filing at the point of impact. Just for such occasions that law allows the filing of amicus curiae.

Do you better understand now?

Frenchy

I apologize if you feel I am shoving anything down your throat. That is not my intention and, like you, I do not appreciate it myself (not that you have done it). My use of terms like ignorant and stupid is purely from a scientific perspective. When I say, “ignorant” I mean “doesn’t know better about this subject.” When I say, “stupid” I mean “could have known better about this subject.” That is all that I mean with those expressions, and even it is said out of my frustration. In no way are those terms meant to be taken personally as if those to whom they might apply are less than I am, because they certainly are not.

As for the possibility that I am wrong, yes, that is a possibility and will always be one. My frustration is that various persons—you for instance—keep saying that but you offer nothing but conjecture and opinion as evidence, which is no evidence whatsoever. Even anecdotal evidence would be better than that, which is hardly evidence. The difference between my possibly being wrong and the rebuttals so far is that my offering of conclusions can be substantiated by reviewing letters and past news items, and consulting some legal research material. In the case that I am wrong—which is a possibility—then show me where I am wrong, don’t just say, “Friend, you are wrong.”

You said:

Your statement betrays your purpose. Your assumed position is that you are right and anyone and everyone that can't see that is wrong. Your mind is closed and you are here for the sole purpose of imposing that view on someone else. I am here to share my opinions with others and to consider their views on matters.
I find that type of attitude very offensive. From this point on I will not be replying to any of your posts. I've had well over thirty years of having things shoved down my throat and being told to shut up until I understand. I won't take anymore.

My purpose on this thread: To deal with facts. It is just that simple.

My assumed position (regarding the subject matter): To represent facts and dispute conjecture.

My assumed position (between us): Less than you. I love all my neighbors and want to help them as much as possible—they are all greater than I am. My fondest wish is that I speak those words in complete honesty to myself.

I don’t care what people want to believe. I do care when they start sharing conjecture as if it is conclusive. Doing that hurts those that don’t know better. In that case I try to help, though I get frustrated along the way (as do we all).

As a pendant point, I have not told you to shut up until you understand. I said, “Go learn about it. Then WE can DISCUSS it again one day, but not before.” I am certainly not bold enough to tell anyone to shut up. I regret that you are left with such an impression. If I were not so thick-skinned from the same sort of nonsense you have been exposed to for the last 30 years I would take umbrage that you had contorted my words. I give you the benefit of a doubt though. Most likely my overall approach led you to the conclusion that you made.

Since my attitude has apparently come across differently than desired then I offer this open and personal apology to you and others who may feel the same way but didn’t say it. I love you all. Again, I apologize.

Hopefully the two of us can agree to disagree on some issues and still interchange. Whether we again converse is, of course, up to each of us. I cannot help but present myself in a straightforward and direct way. If something about that is disturbing then I ask that you inform me just as you so kindly did in this instance. That gives me the opportunity to alleviate what may be just misunderstanding. It is not my intention to denigrate anyone or their views (with the exception of immoral views that is).

Your
Friend

44

"Apostolic succession"?

by Jokemyster in

jw
friends

since the wt organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that passed the torch of gods spirit to c.t.russel when he founded the.

organization?

what denomination or faith?

Friend

waiting

You said:

Really, the two are "suggesting" a similar thing….

Well, no, the two approaches are actually very different. For instance, John the Baptist was like Noah not because of any sort of lineage but because of his disposition toward the Only True God.

SC

You said:

If Jehovah's Witnesses history goes back to the time of Abel, then where did the 7th day Adventist history start as well as the Baptist?… Are you saying that the Baptists were actually Jehovah's Witnesses as well as the Adventist?

Go back and read what I said about witnesses being disbursed in the ranks of Christendom. If you think that over it should answer your questions. The Society teaches that "witnesses" (as in Heb. 12:1 witnesses) were dispersed amidst various Christian religions between the first century and our modern era. So, for instance, that did not make Baptists or Adventists Christians but it does mean that there were Christians amidst Baptists and Adventists.

Please keep in mind here that I am only putting forth what the Society teaches versus what was first represented on this thread. Whether I agree with every iota of it is another thing entirely.

Friend

37

What is an Amicus Brief

by 3acrewood in

hi, waiting, and all others concerned about this amicus brief:.

just to set the record straight - i have been a legal secretary for over 20 years, and i assure you there is nothing shady about the society filing an amicus brief in regard to this swaggart thing.

an amicus brief is filed in cases in which the verdict could set a precedent that would or could have an adverse affect on other parties not involved in the suit (i.e., other religious organizations, corporations, etc.).

Friend

waiting

You said:

Well, Friend, the letter from the Society to the elders said "they could speak about it if they wished."

Actually the letter in question stated, "The elders and ministerial servants should meet as soon as possible and review this letter and the letter to all congregations… This matter must be kept in strict confidence until the enclosed letter is considered with the congregation." [Bolded emphasis added]

So, like I said, the Society gave permission that elders and ministerial servants could speak of the contents of that letter, including the parts about the recent (at the time) court rulings that could categorize our literature distribution as a commercial activity.

That elders and/or pioneers in your congregation do not remember the letter in question or details of the letter in question is irrelevant. Most elders do not remember tomorrow what they read today. The fact is that the Society did inform congregations that recent court rulings had the potential of classifying our distributions as commercial activity. At the time the stuff about Jimmy Swaggart Ministries’ legal entanglements was national news in the USA. Commentator after commentator discussed implications of that case as it might apply to various religious activities. When the Society sent those initial letters out it was not big secret about why. We all could see why on the nightly news. All the friends were already talking about it.

I still fail to see what you find unethical about the Society’s actions in this case. What you don’t seem to understand is that who the defendant was did not matter one iota for the Society’s filing of amicus curiae. The defendant could have been your grandmother and it wouldn’t have mattered. The Society’s action was purely between the Society and the court.

Frenchy

You said:

As an elder I read that letter sent to us about the 'new donation arrangement' that was being instituted. As a matter of fact, just a couple of weeks later we got yet another letter with a few more clarifications. It gave the appearance of some sort of panic move. Just my impression. There was nothing at all in the letters about the brief filed. There was no mention of Jimmy Swaggart in any way. The information that was to be given out to the publishers was what would be coming out shortly in the publications.

Yes, I agree, the Society’s action was a knee jerking panic move. I’m sure you recall that over a period of about 6 months the Society revamped congregation record keeping also about 6 times. It was a mess!

As for the letter, it was clear that our reaction resulted from recent supreme court rulings regarding the distribution of religious literature. We had already been watching this develop because it was national news at the time. Frequently various friends commented about how we might be affected with our literature distribution. The whole thing was common knowledge.

As for the Society spelling out the specifics of them filing as a friend of the court, why should they have done so? Do you really think it is necessary that such innocuous actions like that need addressing in print? What for? The only ones offended by the Society’s amicus curiae filing are those ignorant of the process. Do you know how much ignorance there is out there about practically every field there is? Frankly, in my opinion, more confusion would have been caused had the Society offered information that specific. I mean, look how stupid (not meant as derogatory) some of the replies are to those who have offered the bald truth about how innocuous such a filing really is. I say stupid because the information was presented simply enough to understand. The only thing left is to spell it out with a crayon.

Regardless of how you analyze it, the Society did indeed associate itself with the Jimmy Swaggart ministries when it filed that brief.

Frenchy, what can I say? That statement of yours is just plain wrong. Go learn about it. Then we can discuss it again one day, but not before.

Friend

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

Frenchy

You said:

Do you really believe that shady dealings do not occur before public judiciaries? There is no place shadier.

My meaning is that for the Society to go on public record is not evidence of shenaniganry. If someone want to make that claim then they must evidence it. So far on one has done that regarding the issue in question.

You said:

On the matter of the illustration I believe that you are losing the point in the details. The point is not whether I would do the work without the 'gift'. The point is what do I call the 'gift'? Is it truly a gift or is it really payment for services received.

Whether you will do the work without receiving the gift is exactly one of the fire tests the tax man will apply. It is this simple, if you only receive the gift by completing the paint job then you can call that trade whatever you want and the tax man will still call it commerce.

You said:

Now let's look at our illustration again. Do you go out and ask people for donations unless they 'accpet' literature? . No, you don't. So what happens is that you place literature in their hands and then you tell the m you would like a donation. You ask for a donation only when literature is 'placed' with the householder just like the painter will ask for his 'gift' only if he paints the house.

Your reasoning here is nothing but subterfuge. The real test is the same as I illustrated with the painter. If we only leave the literature for money then it might be construed as commerce. (I say might because several issues come to bear on that point that have not been addressed for our organization.) If we are willing to leave literature without charging for it then it is not commerce. It is just that simple. Here is the litmus test:

Do we require receipt of money (or trade of any valuable) to leave literature with people? Yes / No

If the answer is no then it is not commerce[/I]. If the answer is yes then it might[/I] be construed as commerce depending upon other circumstances.

You said:

How long do you think this distribution of literature would continue if no moneys were collected? Honestly, now. So, in effect, the collection of money is, indeed, 'part and parcel' of the literature distribution work.

For the same amount of time as it would for any other tax exempt organization, not long.

How long do you think the United Way could provide what it does without the collection of money? Does that make the United Way a commercial enterprise? How about the Red Cross? How about the Salvation Army? Should all those organizations be reclassified as commercial because their distribution efforts would be stymied "without the collection of money"?

Regarding the question of pressure, have you ever solicited for United Way contributions? What do you call it when the put that brochure in your line of site—you know, the one with the crippled sad faced child on the front cover—and ask, "Can you share a few dollars a month? A few pennies per day? Can you?" Should the fact of informing persons about their donation efforts compromise their tax exempt status? Should it?

You said:

You keep quoting publications from the Society. Surely you're not taking the stuff that we print out for the public to read at face value, are you? Certainly you know the difference between what is said and what in reality is really meant, do you not? Don't tell me that you actually believe, for instance, that JW's vote?

At least I have provided some measure of evidence for my claims on this and other threads, which is better than spouting sheer opinion. If you are implying in this instance that the Society has represented some dishonesty then I say, show your evidence! Otherwise your "Certainly you know the difference…" comment is no less than theatrical—it is an argument to the crowd.

As for voting, a lot of JWs are registered voters. Some of them vote. Are you just going by what happens in your locale? What do you know of various voting issues in lands around the world? Who says that some of those public votes are not completely within Christian ideals? Just what do you know of these things?

You said:

Have you read this very carefully? Please note, first of all, what it does not say: It does not say:
[Similar nonsense sniped]

One phrase answers all that type reasoning, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Anything else?

Friend