So Joseph, now that I've decided to "abandon the thread" that's precisely when you decide to start pretending to deal with the issues. You are so predictably childish. Is that why it has taken you so long to attain the lofty level of Assistant Professor? And is there no bottom to your dishonesty? Apparently not. Against my better judgement I'll respond this last time:
Note what Alward did:
He quoted what I stated, and which is true, namely;
The Head Librarian and also the letter higher up in this thread have confirmed that it was not necessary to be an NGO to get a library card
Recall that the Librarian stated;
Although the Dag Hammarskjöld Library and the NGO Section are both
within DPI, admission to the Library is not related to NGO status except in
the positive sense: anyone with a pass permitting entrance to the United
Nations premises (including accredited NGO representatives as well as
accredited members of the press) can enter and use the Library facilities.
Otherwise, a library pass is required. Passes are granted to serious
researchers upon presentation of a letter with the raised seal of your
institution and subject to clearance by both the Library and UN Security.
and then Alward said:
Hartley evidently wants trusting forum members to believe that the Watchtower claimed that it was necessary to be an (affiliated) NGO to get a library card. This is not true.
and yet it is true - look what the WTS actually said;
Our purpose in registering with the Department of
Public Information as a nongovernmental organization (NGO) in 1991 was to have access to research material avaiable on health, ecological and social problems at the United Nations library facilities. We had been using the library for many years prior to 1991, but in that year it became necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access.
You cannot get much clearer than that. Even Alward said that it could mean two things - so how is he sure it is not true? Why is he misrepresenting the fact that, according to what he said earlier, there is no way to know which of the two meanings is correct? Recall that Joe's argument is that when the WTS says it was necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access they didn't actually mean that it was necessary to register, but it was necessary that they have continued access and so they chose to register. So at worst, his beloved WTS is guilty of unclear wording he says - or something like all of that - it's all back up the thread!
Note how he says "trusting forum members" to add credence to his fallacious argument. He also implies that the forum members are so stupid that they would be misled without Mighty Joe Alward coming to protect them.
Then Alward states:
I bring this up to show forum members what happens when someone loses their balance in an argument. Hartley was caught in a deliberate misrepresentation made for the purpose of strengthening his argument, and he lashes out with feigned laughter at my innocent mistake and apology, then he runs away.
I made I believe 5 concrete points in my last thread alone - none of which Alward bothered to deal with except to jump on a mistatement I had made. I had meant to say something like "The Head librarian was confident that ...." which I believe her words indicate - or she would not have said them. But Alward, while yet again ignoring everything I said, jumped on a single mistatement and focussed exclusively on that - ignoring all else. That is, again, a juvenile debating technique - poisoning the well. Why not deal with my points one at a time and then raise that objection as appropriate. Then I would have accepted his point. This is typical of Joe - look back over this thread and see how he has misrepresented what I said, for example, spending an entire post explaining how and why I'd misunderstood Gillies letter when in fact Alward was misrepresenting what I said - and possibly deliberately ignored the Nov 1 WT leter that hawk reproduced at the beginning of the thread.
Alward is an arrogant intellect who, possibly, has come to this forum thinking that he could snow us - probably to reassure himself of his great intellectual prowess. Well, he cannot. Although I admit that his thread on how to spell "anointed" was a real eye opener.
This thread proves that;
(i) Alward will defend the WTS at all costs even if it means redefining words so that "it was necessary" means - "it was not necessary" - typical cultist behavior.
(ii) Alward is intellectually dishonest because he will only start to deal with issues when he thinks that the person he is debating with has left the debate.
(iii) Alward can only deal with a single issue at a time and cannot see the broader picture. For example, he asked for proof that the WTS had other reasons for affiliating than the library card and I supplied it - the Portuguese branch's statement. I have lost track of how many times I've asked him to comment on this. But he will not do so. Why? Well, he says he will when the time comes. So why did he ask for examples in the first place? Likemany JWs he shifts the terms of the debate as he loses point after point.
Now I'm gone from this thread Joe, so you can indulge your habit of intellectual masturbation in the purest sense of the word - on your own. And if it turns you on, Joe, you can even keep track of how many people are watching you do it to yourself.
Hugs,
Lionel
