Daniel Peterson wrote:If Bill Hamblin wrote that letter, I'm Barack Obama . . . who is posting here as "Scratch."
It's really funny to see certain folks who pride themselves on their having risen above the gullible herd swallowing "Arnold Friend's" parody as if it were authentic.
Since you are unwilling to tell us what Hamblin's letter said, I don't see any reason why we should doubt the text that Arnold has given us. Obviously, your reticence means you are hiding something, and, well, now that I have seen this letter, I think I know why.
Propositionalized:
(1) DCP will not (or, is not able) to disclose the text of Hamblin's letter.
Therefore,
(2) The alleged text of Hamblin's letter supplied by Arnold Friend should be considered true.
This is the logical fallacy of negative proof.
It's an inherently fallacious argument and is certainly not compelling.
Hey, fair enough. I'll go ahead and maintain a bit of skepticism and wait to see if Mr. Friend produces a scan. On the other hand, what might Hamblin's letter have said? What would he have said in order to get Michael Watson, the First Presidency Secretary no less, to renege on a three-year old letter? While I can see your point in terms of the "pleading" in the letter, and the purported use of the word "hastily," I still sort of think that the letter does indeed seem like something Hamblin would have written. He is aggressive in terms of defending the Church and going after "anti-Mormons": I mean, just witness his outrageous rant on RfM some time ago!
So, I will withhold judgment for the time being, though I do think that Arnold's letter has the basic ring of truth to it. He says he actually saw the letter with his own eyes, after all.
Daniel Peterson wrote:If Bill Hamblin wrote that letter, I'm Barack Obama . . . who is posting here as "Scratch."
It's really funny to see certain folks who pride themselves on their having risen above the gullible herd swallowing "Arnold Friend's" parody as if it were authentic.
Since you are unwilling to tell us what Hamblin's letter said, I don't see any reason why we should doubt the text that Arnold has given us. Obviously, your reticence means you are hiding something, and, well, now that I have seen this letter, I think I know why.
Propositionalized:
(1) DCP will not (or, is not able) to disclose the text of Hamblin's letter.
Therefore,
(2) The alleged text of Hamblin's letter supplied by Arnold Friend should be considered true.
This is the logical fallacy of negative proof.
It's an inherently fallacious argument and is certainly not compelling.
Hey, fair enough. I'll go ahead and maintain a bit of skepticism and wait to see if Mr. Friend produces a scan. On the other hand, what might Hamblin's letter have said? What would he have said in order to get Michael Watson, the First Presidency Secretary no less, to renege on a three-year old letter? While I can see your point in terms of the "pleading" in the letter, and the purported use of the word "hastily," I still sort of think that the letter does indeed seem like something Hamblin would have written. He is aggressive in terms of defending the Church and going after "anti-Mormons": I mean, just witness his outrageous rant on RfM some time ago!
So, I will withhold judgment for the time being, though I do think that Arnold's letter has the basic ring of truth to it. He says he actually saw the letter with his own eyes, after all.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Whew! CKS just dodged a bullet.
There was a fifty/fifty chance, it seemed to me, that Scratch was going to announce the beginnings of a "dossier" on him.
One of the most damning hypothetical bits might have been "Paid $578 (all told) to the vet when his cat somehow had four (of five) of his left metatarsal bones broken clean through, and he doesn't believe animals have souls."
Yeah, in retrospect, it was a pretty silly thing to swallow. But no sillier than disappearing gold plates with reformed egyptian on them, and actually, considerably less silly. So I say that I'm making progress reducing my gullibility.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:Yeah, in retrospect, it was a pretty silly thing to swallow. But no sillier than disappearing gold plates with reformed egyptian on them, and actually, considerably less silly. So I say that I'm making progress reducing my gullibility.
You're sounding just a bit embarrassed, maybe even a tiny tad desperate, and you're straining.
Best just to let it go, I think.
Nobody's going to remember it in even a couple of days.
Daniel Peterson wrote:If Bill Hamblin wrote that letter, I'm Barack Obama . . . who is posting here as "Scratch."
It's really funny to see certain folks who pride themselves on their having risen above the gullible herd swallowing "Arnold Friend's" parody as if it were authentic.
Since you are unwilling to tell us what Hamblin's letter said, I don't see any reason why we should doubt the text that Arnold has given us. Obviously, your reticence means you are hiding something, and, well, now that I have seen this letter, I think I know why.
Propositionalized:
(1) DCP will not (or, is not able) to disclose the text of Hamblin's letter.
Therefore,
(2) The alleged text of Hamblin's letter supplied by Arnold Friend should be considered true.
This is the logical fallacy of negative proof.
It's an inherently fallacious argument and is certainly not compelling.
Hey, fair enough. I'll go ahead and maintain a bit of skepticism and wait to see if Mr. Friend produces a scan. On the other hand, what might Hamblin's letter have said? What would he have said in order to get Michael Watson, the First Presidency Secretary no less, to renege on a three-year old letter? While I can see your point in terms of the "pleading" in the letter, and the purported use of the word "hastily," I still sort of think that the letter does indeed seem like something Hamblin would have written. He is aggressive in terms of defending the Church and going after "anti-Mormons": I mean, just witness his outrageous rant on RfM some time ago!
So, I will withhold judgment for the time being, though I do think that Arnold's letter has the basic ring of truth to it. He says he actually saw the letter with his own eyes, after all.
Just sayin'. I'd like to see the scan, too. But, I'm at least an amateur whiz at Photoshop. I reproduced the original Watson letter, virtually from the ground up (changing nothing of any significance whatsoever--only pixel formations), so that it would be legible at the 300 DPI required for print publication (back when I edited the Evangel). So, assuming Friend produces a scan (he won't), I'll be on the lookout for tell-tale signs of original manufacture.
EDIT: And the caption did indeed state clearly that it was a "reproduction," although I think it was pretty seamless.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Arnold Friend wrote:I swear on my life that the letter is legitamite. I saw it with my own eyes. i guess it could be that someone else wrote the letter and put hamblins name on it. But I swear that I saw that letter and that text arrive at Church headquarters.
Sorry. You're going to be held to the same standard as anyone else. You are making a claim. You have to back it up. Unless you do that then you're a liar, too. There is NO way I would trust an Internet "swear-to-god" from you. You may be a good person; you may not be a good person. It doesn't matter. You have to provide PROOF of a claim. Until otherwise it's taken with the most monumental grains of salt. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
You're sounding just a bit embarrassed, maybe even a tiny tad desperate, and you're straining.
Best just to let it go, I think.
Nobody's going to remember it in even a couple of days.
Straining? Not at all. If you really do not think that believing in disappearing gold plates with reformed egyptian written on them is geometrically more gullible than the Hamblin letter being genuine, you've been doing Mormon apologetics waaaaay too long. It's affected your brain.
How about believing that angels don't have sandy hair, and you can tell a fake angel by offering to shake its hand? Where does that rate on the gullible scale?
That's an idea, let's make a scale. I'll work on it and come back later with a fun and easy to use gullible scale.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.