Analysis vs appeals to authority

djconklin · May 3, 2007

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 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 · May 3, 2007

djconklin said:
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 · May 3, 2007

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 · May 3, 2007

djconklin said:
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 · May 3, 2007

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 · May 4, 2007

djconklin said:
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 · May 4, 2007

Byfaithalone1 said:
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 · May 4, 2007

djconklin said:
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 · May 4, 2007

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 · May 4, 2007

Loveaboveall said:
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 · May 5, 2007

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 · May 5, 2007

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 · May 5, 2007

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 · May 5, 2007

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 · May 6, 2007

djconklin said:
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 · May 6, 2007

djconklin said:
"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 · May 6, 2007

djconklin said:
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 · May 24, 2007

Originally Posted by djconklin

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 · May 24, 2007

djconklin said:
I was making a general statement.

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

djconklin · May 24, 2007

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

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

Analysis vs appeals to authority

Moderate SDA

In Christ We Are FREE!

Moderate SDA

In Christ We Are FREE!

Moderate SDA

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

In Christ We Are FREE!

In Christ We Are FREE!

Senior Member

In Christ We Are FREE!

Moderate SDA

Moderate SDA

Moderate SDA

Moderate SDA

In Christ We Are FREE!

In Christ We Are FREE!

In Christ We Are FREE!

Moderate SDA

In Christ We Are FREE!

Moderate SDA

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency