Analysis vs appeals to authority

[djconklin]

On a different forum an appeal to authority was made as if that they had the last word on the subject. I prefer to go by cold, hard concrete facts.

So, I thought I'd start a thread in which I'd try to show how one can analyze a complex subject (in this case plagiarism) and find out what the truth is.

There's a powerful analytical tool: compare and contrast.

Go here: http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html (http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html) and look at some of the exhibits -- all I did in most was simply show what Rea and Dr. Veltman said and show it in color. Now think back--did the other web sites that claimed EGW was a plagiarist, or that she even borrowed, show you proof what they said?

[freeindeed2]

On a different forum an appeal to authority was made as if that they had the last word on the subject. I prefer to go by cold, hard concrete facts.
David, you haven't even been able to quote my posts in their context! You have quoted me more like a newspaper reporter would, rather than a researcher. Please!

[djconklin]

Hmm, I wasn't even talking about you. Paranoid? And a liar to boot: "You have quoted me more like a newspaper reporter would, rather than a researcher."

Remember, just because you don't think that they are out to get you doesn't mean that they aren't!

[freeindeed2]

Hmm, I wasn't even talking about you. Paranoid? And a liar to boot: "You have quoted me more like a newspaper reporter would, rather than a researcher."

Remember, just because you don't think that they are out to get you doesn't mean that they aren't!
You misquote others like a reporter would to shape the 'story' to their agenda. Why should anyone trust your research? That was my point. But thanks for the personal insult and accusation. I will not be returning the favor.

[djconklin]

You misquote others like a reporter would to shape the 'story' to their agenda.

With no evidence to support your claim you are writing more like a propagandist.

Why should anyone trust your research?

Since, for the most part I simply re-present what Rea and Dr. Veltman have doen what you are basically asking is why should anyone trust either of them. If you had actually looked at my work you would have known that. But, since it is easier to spin propaganda than to actually do any sort of work ...

But thanks for the personal insult and accusation. I will not be returning the favor.

What goes around comes around. if you want to be treated with respect that stop insulting me. I'm glad you are not returning a second load; you've done enough already.

I will give you credit on two points; unlike another critic:

1) You capitalize the first word of a sentence.
2) Your grammar is a whole lot better.

[Byfaithalone1]

With no evidence to support your claim you are writing more like a propagandist.



Since, for the most part I simply re-present what Rea and Dr. Veltman have doen what you are basically asking is why should anyone trust either of them. If you had actually looked at my work you would have known that. But, since it is easier to spin propaganda than to actually do any sort of work ...



What goes around comes around. if you want to be treated with respect that stop insulting me. I'm glad you are not returning a second load; you've done enough already.

I will give you credit on two points; unlike another critic:

1) You capitalize the first word of a sentence.
2) Your grammar is a whole lot better.

Free,

It doesn't matter what evidence you present. David will tell you that it is faulty evidence. His original post refers to my quotation of the website of the Ellen G. White estate. Apparently even the White estate is not considered an authority by the learned, David Conklin. Perhaps one of these days, David will share with us the reasons why his credentials are superior to other Seventh-day Adventists who have studied this subject and reached different conclusions.

I wonder what positive conclusions could have been realized if David's efforts had been devoted to defending the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than defending the SDA prophet.

God bless,
BFA

[freeindeed2]

Free,

It doesn't matter what evidence you present. David will tell you that it is faulty evidence. His original post refers to my quotation of the website of the Ellen G. White estate. Apparently even the White estate is not considered an authority by the learned, David Conklin. Perhaps one of these days, David will share with us the reasons why his credentials are superior to other Seventh-day Adventists who have studied this subject and reached different conclusions.

I wonder what positive conclusions could have been realized if David's efforts had been devoted to defending the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than defending the SDA prophet.

God bless,
BFA
SDAism typically doesn't defend the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, except where there is overlap to their own. Ultimately they must defend EGW and the Sabbath to maintain an identity among the sea of denominations.

I find it humorous that I pointed out with David's own words where he misquoted me, and yet he's still arguing his point and trying to turn it around, when it was his own mistake in the first place. Is that typically the response you should get when you literally show them what they did?

[freeindeed2]

With no evidence to support your claim you are writing more like a propagandist.
It was your misquote and I called you on it and posted the evidence right from my original quote. If you don't want to admit it, don't, but the evidence was presented.

[Loveaboveall]

This is utterly ridiculous, We have a SDA who is defending his faith in what he has determined is a prophet of God, and we have ex-SDA who seem to have an axe to grind because someone is defending what they determined is a false prophet.

Does it do any good to throw out personal insults. Why don't each of you look at the facts of what the other has posted and make GOOD points for or against what the other has to say. As far as I can tell Freeindeed you have not read what DJ has compiled, and DJ, I understand your frustration with accusations that you feel are not substantiated but resorting to calling a person a liar would not be in harmony with the character of God.

So, can we please not make this personal.

[freeindeed2]

This is utterly ridiculous, We have a SDA who is defending his faith in what he has determined is a prophet of God, and we have ex-SDA who seem to have an axe to grind because someone is defending what they determined is a false prophet.

Does it do any good to throw out personal insults. Why don't each of you look at the facts of what the other has posted and make GOOD points for or against what the other has to say. As far as I can tell Freeindeed you have not read what DJ has compiled, and DJ, I understand your frustration with accusations that you feel are not substantiated but resorting to calling a person a liar would not be in harmony with the character of God.

So, can we please not make this personal.
First of all, DConklin and his claims to be a researcher go back a lot further than these past few posts. He's been confronted on his research countless times in other places, which is why he won't go back and hangs out here in the relative safety of CF where anyone who questions is run off.

Secondly, it's not personal. How could it be? I don't personally know David Conklin and he doesn't know me personally. Why would anyone take anything people who don't even know them say personally?

Thirdly, David has been notorious for misquoting what I say or pulling parts of it out of context. I confronted him on it and posted exactly what he had done and asked him to correct it. He responded with insults. That doesn't reflect well on someone who claims to be a researcher, challenging even the official SDA research conclusions on the writings of EGW. He should at least be able to put a quote in context without misquoting it.

[djconklin]

Apparently even the White estate is not considered an authority by the learned, David Conklin.

What I noted was that it was merely an appeal to authoirty--and you are still doing it. You did not look at the facts, you did not present any evidence. You cannot afford to have anyone look at the evidence--because it does not say what you say it says.

[djconklin]

He's been confronted on his research countless times in other places

"confronted" with personal attacks and labels is not dealing with the evidence--note that here we are 2 days into the thread and neither one of you has actually presented any evidence to support anything you say.

[djconklin]

That doesn't reflect well on someone who claims to be a researcher, challenging even the official SDA research conclusions on the writings of EGW. He should at least be able to put a quote in context without misquoting it.

1) It is a lie to say that I challenged "official SDA research conclusions." I merely noted that that was all the further you went and that it was merely an appeal to authority vs. an appeal to the facts at hand.

2) As I noted on the other thread (after you basically "ate" what you had previously said) I can only quote what you actually say, not what you are thinking later.

[djconklin]

This is utterly ridiculous, We have a SDA who is defending his faith in what he has determined is a prophet of God, and we have ex-SDA who seem to have an axe to grind because someone is defending what they determined is a false prophet.

Does it do any good to throw out personal insults. Why don't each of you look at the facts of what the other has posted and make GOOD points for or against what the other has to say. As far as I can tell Freeindeed you have not read what DJ has compiled, and DJ, I understand your frustration with accusations that you feel are not substantiated but resorting to calling a person a liar would not be in harmony with the character of God.

So, can we please not make this personal.

But, they have to make it personal and engage in personal attacks--those are the only weapons they have.

In the years I have been dealing with these critics not once have they ever produced a single example on this subject that they found by their own research. Critics have claimed my work was "sloppy" without ever producing even a single example to support the claim. They have claimed that I ignored synonyms when I fact I did pay attention to it. They have claimed that Dr. Veltman was a "second-rate scholar" (again, with no proof that this was so.). They have recently claimed that I'm "second-rate"--again, of course, with no facts to support it. And, if I'm second-rate and have done more work on it that any single person on the planet, who's on first?

When someone says that so-and-so said "A" when in fact they did not, then that person IS a liar--in this case they knew that they had lied about me--they were just hoping no one would catch it. I will call a spade a spade. There are some people who have claimed to be Christians and will only do work for other Christians because that way they can cut corners and cheat, lie and steal from them full expecting that the real Christians won't take them to court.

[freeindeed2]

But, they have to make it personal and engage in personal attacks--those are the only weapons they have.
Please quote my personal attack.

In the years I have been dealing with these critics not once have they ever produced a single example on this subject that they found by their own research. Critics have claimed my work was "sloppy" without ever producing even a single example to support the claim. They have claimed that I ignored synonyms when I fact I did pay attention to it. They have claimed that Dr. Veltman was a "second-rate scholar" (again, with no proof that this was so.). They have recently claimed that I'm "second-rate"--again, of course, with no facts to support it. And, if I'm second-rate and have done more work on it that any single person on the planet, who's on first?
I hear the humbleness of your post. You couldn't answer the many questions about your research methods and your results on CARM, and I was not the one questioning you. But I followed the conversations and you failed to answer. And, conveniently, you won't go back.

When someone says that so-and-so said "A" when in fact they did not, then that person IS a liar
So you admit it? You misquoted me?

--in this case they knew that they had lied about me--
Who lied about you, David? Please show this.

they were just hoping no one would catch it. I will call a spade a spade. There are some people who have claimed to be Christians and will only do work for other Christians because that way they can cut corners and cheat, lie and steal from them full expecting that the real Christians won't take them to court.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.

[freeindeed2]

"confronted" with personal attacks and labels is not dealing with the evidence--note that here we are 2 days into the thread and neither one of you has actually presented any evidence to support anything you say.
Disagreeing with you is not a 'personal attack'. Go back to CARM and face up to the questions others had about your methods and research.

[freeindeed2]

1) It is a lie to say that I challenged "official SDA research conclusions." I merely noted that that was all the further you went and that it was merely an appeal to authority vs. an appeal to the facts at hand.
But you have tried to establish yourself as a higher authority that we should be appealing to. You believe your conclusions are the 'facts at hand' rather than the conclusions that have already been drawn by the church you're trying to defend.

2) As I noted on the other thread (after you basically "ate" what you had previously said) I can only quote what you actually say, not what you are thinking later.
The problem was, you didn't quote what I had said, which was why I had a problem with your post in the first place. Your quote was not accurate and did not reflect what I had actually said, rather it reflected what you wanted it to say (agenda) or thought it said (comprehension). The least you could do is quote another post correctly, especially if the original is in the very thread your posting in!

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=34519030#post34519030)
But, they have to make it personal and engage in personal attacks--those are the only weapons they have.

Please quote my personal attack.

I was making a general statement.

[freeindeed2]

I was making a general statement.
Then what, specifically, are you referring to with your 'general statement' of people (etherial?) making personal attacks?

[djconklin]

Okay, I'll spell it out more carefully for you:

"In general, the critics I have met have to resort to making personal attacks."

[djconklin]

Quote:
In the years I have been dealing with these critics not once have they ever produced a single example on this subject that they found by their own research. Critics have claimed my work was "sloppy" without ever producing even a single example to support the claim. They have claimed that I ignored synonyms when I fact I did pay attention to it. They have claimed that Dr. Veltman was a "second-rate scholar" (again, with no proof that this was so.). They have recently claimed that I'm "second-rate"--again, of course, with no facts to support it. And, if I'm second-rate and have done more work on it that any single person on the planet, who's on first?
I hear the humbleness of your post.

"humbleness" isn't the question. The point is who has done the work and who hasn't.

You couldn't answer the many questions about your research methods and your results on CARM,

Claiming, without offering any proof, that my work was "sloppy" isn't asking a question ab't anything. Claiming that my work is "F" in quality isn't asking any question either. Note the other unfounded remarks made ab't my study in the above quote.

and I was not the one questioning you.

I didn't claim that you did.

But I followed the conversations and you failed to answer. And, conveniently, you won't go back.

As noted above there was no question ab't my research methods, etc..

I couldn't go back because I was banned for asking a question. And since I get no support there there's really no reason to go back.

Anyone who has actually read Rea's book and my work would instantly recognize the double-columns. Anyone who has read Dr. Veltman's study and has seen mine would instantly recognize that I colorized the text where Dr. Veltman's used under-lining. Of course, in order to recognize the similarites one have to have had actually looked at all three studies. To date, none of the critics show any awareness of anything other than Rea's--and even there I can tell that they didn't look too closely at it otherwise they would have found how the evidence was manipulated and distorted just as I have.

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=34518802#post34518802)
1) It is a lie to say that I challenged "official SDA research conclusions." I merely noted that that was all the further you went and that it was merely an appeal to authority vs. an appeal to the facts at hand.

But you have tried to establish yourself as a higher authority that we should be appealing to. You believe your conclusions are the 'facts at hand' rather than the conclusions that have already been drawn by the church you're trying to defend.

1) I have never ever set myself up as an authority. I always point towards my work which shows the evidence at hand.
2) If you had actually read my work and compared with what "the church" says you would have found out by now that I disagree with "the church"!
3) I have never, ever started any study with the idea of what conclusion I was going to come up with--quite frankly, in this case I couldn't give a rat's tail what the answer was. I seek for the truth of the matter no matter what it is. I don't care what the truth is, I just have to know what it is--that is my temperment. Secondly, you can't, and will not, prove that your claim was true to begin with!

[freeindeed2]

1) I have never ever set myself up as an authority. I always point towards my work which shows the evidence at hand.
And thus establish yourself as an authority.

2) If you had actually read my work and compared with what "the church" says you would have found out by now that I disagree with "the church"!
I am aware that you disagree on some points with the years of reseach done officially by the SDA church. Again, you've established your works as an authority over their works.

My statement about defending the SDA church was intended to be broader than on just the writings of EGW.

3) I have never, ever started any study with the idea of what conclusion I was going to come up with--quite frankly, in this case I couldn't give a rat's tail what the answer was. I seek for the truth of the matter no matter what it is. I don't care what the truth is, I just have to know what it is--that is my temperment. Secondly, you can't, and will not, prove that your claim was true to begin with!
Bacchiochi says the same thing, yet after reading several of his works I beg to differ (one kudo I'll give him is that he's realized that the dates EGW/SDAism use for the IJ doctrine aren't correct). If this were true (that you seek the truth no matter what it is) you would have to acknowledge the problems that exist with your prophet, her visions, and her writings. But I don't pick that up in your defense of her.

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=35078992#post35078992)
1) I have never ever set myself up as an authority. I always point towards my work which shows the evidence at hand.

And thus establish yourself as an authority.


So, if use a calculator and show that 2+2=4 I make myself into a math expert? Go by the evidence; ignore the personalities.

[djconklin]

2) If you had actually read my work and compared with what "the church" says you would have found out by now that I disagree with "the church"!
I am aware that you disagree on some points with the years of reseach done officially by the SDA church. Again, you've established your works as an authority over their works.

ARGH! I have never claimed to be an authority. My work basically just shows what others (like Rea and Dr. Veltman) have already done. What I note about the EGW Estates claims is that they cannot prove and have not been proven what they say--and we don't see the evidence--I show it--that's why you are afraid of it and never look at it.

[djconklin]

(one kudo I'll give him is that he's realized that the dates EGW/SDAism use for the IJ doctrine aren't correct).

Another claim made with no proof to support it--do you see a pattern here?