"Poisoning the Well" Don't Drink The Water, "WILL"!

[_Pa Pa]

Since cross posting is encouraged here...I'll ask here as well.

Looked in on a few sites…one is a buzz with the tried and true method of "poisoning the well". The critics cannot wait until Will Schryver has finished his presentation, they must first attack his character and then his findings which they do not have yet.

Of course he who sold his inheritance over a "mess of pottage" (over the Book of Abraham) leads the pack…with the usual suspects in tow.

I have always loved this definition from Wiki…so I will use it again.

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua
The origin of the term lies in the ancient practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army in order to diminish the invading army's strength. In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.
An even simpler example of poisoning the well is by tautology and definition, or circular reasoning. This is similar to equivocation, where the use of words communicate a confusing meaning (often called a subtle lie). For example, if one starts an argument with "Everything I say is correct, no matter what you say", the well is poisoned and nothing a person says (be it true or false) will matter by the initiator's definition.

Can we (and you guys know who you are) at least wait for the fight to begin, before casting the first blows?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.

Hello Mr. Pa Pa,

How many examples do you think you could find of Mr. William "Gookie Cookie" Schryver and his backers "poisoning the well" on the aptly named MAD board?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Edited to add:

Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP are the "translation documents" of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

With the above-noted quote, who do you think "poisoned the well"/struck the first blow, Mr. Pa Pa?

[_Pa Pa]

For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.

Hello Mr. Pa Pa,

How many examples do you think you could find of Mr. William "Gookie Cookie" Schryver and his backers "poisoning the well" on the aptly named MAD board?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Edited to add:

Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP are the "translation documents" of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

With the above-noted quote, who do you think "poisoned the well"/struck the first blow, Mr. Pa Pa?

Maybe a reread of the definition of "poisoning the well" will help. The quote that you listed is called "baiting the fish". "Poisoning the Well" is when someone tries to discredit what the person will say, not bolster him. These are two different terms, and serve two different purposes.

[Guest]

Hell Mr. Pa Pa,

While I have been pleased in many ways by the universally positive response to date, I did not expect it, and I have no illusions that it will continue unabated. Come 2:30pm Friday afternoon, the real fun will begin. (A smile is creeping onto my face just thinking about it.) As soon as the curtain comes down on my presentation, it will come up on what will, I'm quite certain, amount to at least a week or two of almost rabid denunciation from certain quarters.

Oh my. I do believe there's a quote somewhere about a mote and an eye...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Pa Pa,

Taken from your reference:

For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.

Poisoning the well doesn't have to be negative, nor does it has to be positive. You're simply attempting to shape an argument by prempting a response with planted information about the argument.

Regardless, I don't expect you to admit an error. Most Mopologists don't admit to being wrong.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Pa Pa]

Hell Mr. Pa Pa,

While I have been pleased in many ways by the universally positive response to date, I did not expect it, and I have no illusions that it will continue unabated. Come 2:30pm Friday afternoon, the real fun will begin. (A smile is creeping onto my face just thinking about it.) As soon as the curtain comes down on my presentation, it will come up on what will, I'm quite certain, amount to at least a week or two of almost rabid denunciation from certain quarters.

Oh my. I do belive there's a quote somewhere about mote and eye...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

I am guessing that "Baiting the fish" (or Pond) is unfamiliar to you? I take you are not a fisherman? Neither are behaviors to be admired.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Why am I reminded of this saying?

"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time." Richard Nixon

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Trevor]

I for one am bemused by both the orgasm of joy that has erupted over Will's presentation, before it has really been subjected to broad scrutiny, and the rush to proclaim it stillborn. The whole thing is silly, and I can't help but think that the real beneficiaries here are the people at FAIR. I don't blame them for selling the conference by creating this tempest in a teapot, but, at the same, time, in the end I doubt that the whole episode will be of very great consequence, once the dust has settled and cooler heads begin to prevail.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I believe everyone who has weighed in on this topic simply enjoy speculating about things Mormon. When someone comes along and proclaims that x-y-z bit of information will bury an argument underneath a volcano, well... You can't be surprised by the kinds of responses that Mr. Schryver and company have produced.

That said... Here is a list of logical fallacies for Mr. Pa Pa:

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/ar ... _alpha.htm

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Spider-to-the-Fly]

Gentlemen,

Given what has leaked out from Mr. Will Schryver and the previewers in advance of Friday, it appears that all Mr. Schryver is attempting to do is (1) place the KEP 1a and 1b as being copies of the real translation manuscript of Book of Abraham 1-3, which is not available, and (2) disclose his hypothesis on what the KEP "really means". He seems to think it is important to refute that KEP 1a and 1b are duplicate originals of that manuscript, but just copies or some re-dictation product.

I have not prejudged before seeing the presentation whether Mr. Schryver may or may not accomplish establishing that the KEP 1a and 1b are not the original translation manuscripts. I've simply wanted to know, and asked, so what if they are not the original translation manuscripts? How does that dispel any criticisms?

As for Mr. Schryver's knowing what the KEP really "means", well we are apparently going to have to wait until Friday for Mr. Schryver's big hypothesis to be announced as that part has not been hinted at or leaked, except perhaps there was a little hint last fall that it was to be the already hackneyed explanation that the scribes, unbeknownst to JSJr, were trying to reverse engineer their own Egyptian alphabet.

We shall see, we shall see.

Regards,

Spider.