Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 17:45:15 GMT -5
I've read Animal Farm. Check. 1984 too. Check. You need to stand back to get a sense of the partiality of the IP. Compare it with a modern article which always shows balance, both good and bad. The IP rarely displays the balance, it is all bad.....or it damns with faint praise, such as today's anti-2x2's who praise the F&Ws for convention stew. Same thing. I haven't read the IP for awhile either, but I flipped to the first article that came up on my screen and the very first line I read was this: "The Tramps are without doubt the greatest Pharisees ever heard locally." That was the first sentence I read. Impartial? Hardly, it's called hyperbole. "These people believe, like all religious fanatics, that God has called them specially to preach." Impartial? Sheesh, I thought all preachers were called to preach, so are all preachers fanatics? And it goes on and on. There is not only no balance, but the language is strident and hyperbolic. That doesn't mean there is no truth in it, or that I can't see things that are right about it, I am just saying that the IP is far from Impartial.....it became clearly prejudiced against the Tramps very early on and stayed that way. The Tramps could do nothing right in the IP eyes. They couldn't even get Mr. "Irwin's" name right. It is "damn the Tramps" all the way. Maybe you and I have a different way of measuring impartiality. I have to admit that when I read the Impartial Reporter articles I wasn't thinking about bias, balance, impartiality, hyperbole or anything like that. I was only thinking about "truth." No one will take away from me the truth of the matter. Irrespective of how one looks at the quality or standard of reporting, I can say with an honest heart that from my own personal experience and from what I had heard and learned from a previous generation (late 20's) that the great majority of the reporting was in fact "truthful," AND furthermore, those things which I could not relate to were very consistent in character to other things which I could relate to, from which the reasonable inference could be drawn as to their authenticity. I will not go as far as say the articles are 100% accurate, but I would like you to give me some challenges from the articles which might show that there was some degree of "untruth" in them. If not getting Irvine's name right is an example of damning the Tramps, then I guess I am seriously needing to reassess my view not only of the IR, but of everything that I know and learned from the past. The name spelling was just one minor indicator of sloppiness of reporting. Personally, I would have difficulty in taking an article on Prime Minster David Cammerone very seriously. I will try once again on the partiality issue because it is not about telling specific and particular untruths as you seem to think. Partiality is to present only select information because of bias or prejudice. So the report can be all true but it may not be the whole truth. The IP basically reports "all bad". Now if "all bad" matches up with your experience, then I can understand how you can't see partiality in the articles. I don't see "all bad" with the F&W church, in fact I see some good there, so I know that "all bad" reporting is partial and cannot be relied upon.....even without telling lies. The lies come in not what is said, but in the omissions. I am not about to deconstruct the IP articles for partiality as I don't see the value in it for the amount of time it would take. You see it as the whole, accurate truth and you seem to have your mind made up. We will just have to disagree on this one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 18:17:46 GMT -5
I have to admit that when I read the Impartial Reporter articles I wasn't thinking about bias, balance, impartiality, hyperbole or anything like that. I was only thinking about "truth." No one will take away from me the truth of the matter. Irrespective of how one looks at the quality or standard of reporting, I can say with an honest heart that from my own personal experience and from what I had heard and learned from a previous generation (late 20's) that the great majority of the reporting was in fact "truthful," AND furthermore, those things which I could not relate to were very consistent in character to other things which I could relate to, from which the reasonable inference could be drawn as to their authenticity. I will not go as far as say the articles are 100% accurate, but I would like you to give me some challenges from the articles which might show that there was some degree of "untruth" in them. If not getting Irvine's name right is an example of damning the Tramps, then I guess I am seriously needing to reassess my view not only of the IR, but of everything that I know and learned from the past. The name spelling was just one minor indicator of sloppiness of reporting. Personally, I would have difficulty in taking an article on Prime Minster David Cammerone very seriously. I will try once again on the partiality issue because it is not about telling specific and particular untruths as you seem to think. Partiality is to present only select information because of bias or prejudice. So the report can be all true but it may not be the whole truth. The IP basically reports "all bad". Now if "all bad" matches up with your experience, then I can understand how you can't see partiality in the articles. I don't see "all bad" with the F&W church, in fact I see some good there, so I know that "all bad" reporting is partial and cannot be relied upon.....even without telling lies. The lies come in not what is said, but in the omissions. I am not about to deconstruct the IP articles for partiality as I don't see the value in it for the amount of time it would take. You see it as the whole, accurate truth and you seem to have your mind made up. We will just have to disagree on this one. Gotcha! So the bad parts that were reported upon were all true! There was no untruth in them. They were all accurate in details. A bit like a newspaper reporting on a CSA case involving a worker. Reporting on the details of the incident only? This is biased and prejudicial because they do not cover the good side of the sect. Therefore their reporting is unreliable despite the fact it may all be true. Yep, that's partiality alright. Omitting the good stuff certainly throws out the factual details of the CSA case. Can't be relied upon. Makes a lot of sense! As for my own personal experiences I have regularly on this board upheld the good things that I've experienced in the sect and furthermore, rather than blame individuals, I consider everyone in the sect to be a victim of the system or culture in one way or another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 19:20:31 GMT -5
The name spelling was just one minor indicator of sloppiness of reporting. Personally, I would have difficulty in taking an article on Prime Minster David Cammerone very seriously. I will try once again on the partiality issue because it is not about telling specific and particular untruths as you seem to think. Partiality is to present only select information because of bias or prejudice. So the report can be all true but it may not be the whole truth. The IP basically reports "all bad". Now if "all bad" matches up with your experience, then I can understand how you can't see partiality in the articles. I don't see "all bad" with the F&W church, in fact I see some good there, so I know that "all bad" reporting is partial and cannot be relied upon.....even without telling lies. The lies come in not what is said, but in the omissions. I am not about to deconstruct the IP articles for partiality as I don't see the value in it for the amount of time it would take. You see it as the whole, accurate truth and you seem to have your mind made up. We will just have to disagree on this one. Gotcha! So the bad parts that were reported upon were all true! There was no untruth in them. They were all accurate in details. A bit like a newspaper reporting on a CSA case involving a worker. Reporting on the details of the incident only? This is biased and prejudicial because they do not cover the good side of the sect. Therefore their reporting is unreliable despite the fact it may all be true. Yep, that's partiality alright. Omitting the good stuff certainly throws out the factual details of the CSA case. Can't be relied upon. Makes a lot of sense! As for my own personal experiences I have regularly on this board upheld the good things that I've experienced in the sect and furthermore, rather than blame individuals, I consider everyone in the sect to be a victim of the system or culture in one way or another. No that is still not the point. The point is that it is written as all bad. That is what makes it impartial. It is biased/prejudiced to the bad. Simple as that. As far as what is written as bad stuff, a lot of it cannot be ascertained as being true or not. We already know that they may have gotten the 1300 pounds wrong....they may have even made up the story to make them look bad....we don't know that. I saw one statement where they reported that the subject matter was hell only and that every second sentence had the word hell in it. I doubt that is true but if it is, it doesn't match the preaching today as you claim it does. The word hell is practically never heard and has only been the topic about once that I recall in the last 25 years.....and even then it was a fairly academic sort of sermon, not the scary type of sermon. Sure, we got the hell scared out of us in the '60's occasionally, but not very often. Regardless, some of the reporting matches my observations of the last half century, but some of it does not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 19:52:50 GMT -5
Gotcha! So the bad parts that were reported upon were all true! There was no untruth in them. They were all accurate in details. A bit like a newspaper reporting on a CSA case involving a worker. Reporting on the details of the incident only? This is biased and prejudicial because they do not cover the good side of the sect. Therefore their reporting is unreliable despite the fact it may all be true. Yep, that's partiality alright. Omitting the good stuff certainly throws out the factual details of the CSA case. Can't be relied upon. Makes a lot of sense! As for my own personal experiences I have regularly on this board upheld the good things that I've experienced in the sect and furthermore, rather than blame individuals, I consider everyone in the sect to be a victim of the system or culture in one way or another. No that is still not the point. The point is that it is written as all bad. That is what makes it impartial. It is biased/prejudiced to the bad. Simple as that. As far as what is written as bad stuff, a lot of it cannot be ascertained as being true or not. We already know that they may have gotten the 1300 pounds wrong....they may have even made up the story to make them look bad....we don't know that. I saw one statement where they reported that the subject matter was hell only and that every second sentence had the word hell in it. I doubt that is true but if it is, it doesn't match the preaching today as you claim it does. The word hell is practically never heard and has only been the topic about once that I recall in the last 25 years.....and even then it was a fairly academic sort of sermon, not the scary type of sermon. Sure, we got the hell scared out of us in the '60's occasionally, but not very often. Regardless, some of the reporting matches my observations of the last half century, but some of it does not. I would say the preaching now is all allegory and analogy, and they've stopped preaching hell and just preach about all the reasons why you might not go to heaven. Still playing in the key of fear, but more subtly.
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Jul 8, 2013 22:32:01 GMT -5
From courier-mail 1936
"They go out two by two to preach, leaving home and relatives, and giving all their property to needy preachers and the poor."
Rochedale.pdf (990.81 KB)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 2:57:41 GMT -5
Gotcha! So the bad parts that were reported upon were all true! There was no untruth in them. They were all accurate in details. A bit like a newspaper reporting on a CSA case involving a worker. Reporting on the details of the incident only? This is biased and prejudicial because they do not cover the good side of the sect. Therefore their reporting is unreliable despite the fact it may all be true. Yep, that's partiality alright. Omitting the good stuff certainly throws out the factual details of the CSA case. Can't be relied upon. Makes a lot of sense! As for my own personal experiences I have regularly on this board upheld the good things that I've experienced in the sect and furthermore, rather than blame individuals, I consider everyone in the sect to be a victim of the system or culture in one way or another. No that is still not the point. The point is that it is written as all bad. That is what makes it impartial. It is biased/prejudiced to the bad. Simple as that. As far as what is written as bad stuff, a lot of it cannot be ascertained as being true or not. We already know that they may have gotten the 1300 pounds wrong....they may have even made up the story to make them look bad....we don't know that. I saw one statement where they reported that the subject matter was hell only and that every second sentence had the word hell in it. I doubt that is true but if it is, it doesn't match the preaching today as you claim it does. The word hell is practically never heard and has only been the topic about once that I recall in the last 25 years.....and even then it was a fairly academic sort of sermon, not the scary type of sermon. Sure, we got the hell scared out of us in the '60's occasionally, but not very often. Regardless, some of the reporting matches my observations of the last half century, but some of it does not. For reasons already stated I need no persuasion that most of the reporting by the Impartial Reporter is/was in fact true. They "may" have gotten the £1300 wrong? They may also have got it right, eh? I have not stated the preaching of yesteryear is the same as today. Yes it has been toned down and some lessons have been learned, but the essence of the message is still there in more subtle forms. In fact it is far more easier to deny nowadays, which may make it more dangerous! As I have said, I am willing to be shown specific examples of where the reporting was untruthful or wrong. I know that for the most part it was very accurate. In fact, some of the articles if I recall correctly, were compiled in fairly kindly way, not aggressive at all. Straight, factual reporting of controversial subjects.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 9, 2013 5:27:54 GMT -5
When I went into the work, after settling my accounts, I was instructed by the workers to give any remaining assets to the workers. Being a 19-year old college student, there wasn't a whole lot to give! Nevertheless, as a result of that action I was able to claim that I had 'left all...' There was no discussion about giving it to the poor. I believed that if I gave it to the workers, they would use it toward God's work. Or some really cool Allen Edmond sharkskin wing-tip shoes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 8:48:13 GMT -5
When I went into the work, after settling my accounts, I was instructed by the workers to give any remaining assets to the workers. Being a 19-year old college student, there wasn't a whole lot to give! Nevertheless, as a result of that action I was able to claim that I had 'left all...' There was no discussion about giving it to the poor. I believed that if I gave it to the workers, they would use it toward God's work. Or some really cool Allen Edmond sharkskin wing-tip shoes. A pair of which, if I remember correctly, you may now have in your possession?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Jul 9, 2013 11:50:27 GMT -5
The name spelling was just one minor indicator of sloppiness of reporting. Personally, I would have difficulty in taking an article on Prime Minster David Cammerone very seriously. I will try once again on the partiality issue because it is not about telling specific and particular untruths as you seem to think. Partiality is to present only select information because of bias or prejudice. So the report can be all true but it may not be the whole truth. The IP basically reports "all bad". Now if "all bad" matches up with your experience, then I can understand how you can't see partiality in the articles. I don't see "all bad" with the F&W church, in fact I see some good there, so I know that "all bad" reporting is partial and cannot be relied upon.....even without telling lies. The lies come in not what is said, but in the omissions. I am not about to deconstruct the IP articles for partiality as I don't see the value in it for the amount of time it would take. You see it as the whole, accurate truth and you seem to have your mind made up. We will just have to disagree on this one. Gotcha! So the bad parts that were reported upon were all true! There was no untruth in them. They were all accurate in details. A bit like a newspaper reporting on a CSA case involving a worker. Reporting on the details of the incident only? This is biased and prejudicial because they do not cover the good side of the sect. Therefore their reporting is unreliable despite the fact it may all be true. Yep, that's partiality alright. Omitting the good stuff certainly throws out the factual details of the CSA case. Can't be relied upon. Makes a lot of sense! As for my own personal experiences I have regularly on this board upheld the good things that I've experienced in the sect and furthermore, rather than blame individuals, I consider everyone in the sect to be a victim of the system or culture in one way or another. I'm confused about you Ram. I can't see how Blatant partiality and bias is truth. It's "unreliable"... "Propaganda". The IP is useful, I think, if kept in context. But, is it honest which to me means truth? No! It's propaganda. Elements of fact, elements of opinion. It is useful maybe like we read an editorial or watch an advertisement. Presentation of a fact is not necessarily presentation of truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 12:04:35 GMT -5
Gotcha! So the bad parts that were reported upon were all true! There was no untruth in them. They were all accurate in details. A bit like a newspaper reporting on a CSA case involving a worker. Reporting on the details of the incident only? This is biased and prejudicial because they do not cover the good side of the sect. Therefore their reporting is unreliable despite the fact it may all be true. Yep, that's partiality alright. Omitting the good stuff certainly throws out the factual details of the CSA case. Can't be relied upon. Makes a lot of sense! As for my own personal experiences I have regularly on this board upheld the good things that I've experienced in the sect and furthermore, rather than blame individuals, I consider everyone in the sect to be a victim of the system or culture in one way or another. I'm confused about you Ram. I can't see how Blatant partiality and bias is truth. It's "unreliable"... "Propaganda". The IP is useful, I think, if kept in context. But, is it honest which to me means truth? No! It's propaganda. Elements of fact, elements of opinion. It is useful maybe like we read an editorial or watch an advertisement. Presentation of a fact is not necessarily presentation of truth. It is simply this, the Impartial Reporter were reporting the controversial public facts about the F&W's movement. My argument has little room for hyperbole, bias, or twisting the truth. They reported the facts as they saw and heard it. They reported true facts about the movement. It was not propaganda. They gave honest accounts of what they heard and saw. People connected with the movement at the time have left supporting "blatant partiality" and "bias" on record, such as Alfred McGowan's testimony. These early workers (according to McGowan and others, not the Impartial Reporter), were unrestrained in their zeal, they wanted to change the world, they were self-righteous, they vehemently condemned every other church. I'm afraid, straight reporting from those times comes across as propaganda nowadays because we only understand the lame and tame more modern activities of the workers, but that is an erroneous vision. Are you suggesting that the reporting of the Impartial Reporter is blatant propaganda or bias? Give me an example. Let's have a look at it.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jul 9, 2013 13:52:32 GMT -5
They reported the facts as they saw and heard it. They reported true facts about the movement. It was not propaganda. They also operated under some of the strictest libel laws on earth at that time and that it seems that the workers were very willing to bring several lawsuits in those days. I seem to recall that the papers often printed letters to the editor from F&Ws when they disagreed with something printed about the fellowship and so if there was something seriously out of whack in a story you also got the other side.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 9, 2013 16:56:47 GMT -5
They reported the facts as they saw and heard it. They reported true facts about the movement. It was not propaganda. They also operated under some of the strictest libel laws on earth at that time and that it seems that the workers were very willing to bring several lawsuits in those days. I seem to recall that the papers often printed letters to the editor from F&Ws when they disagreed with something printed about the fellowship and so if there was something seriously out of whack in a story you also got the other side. The workers brought lawsuits against others, at one time? When? Who? Where?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 9, 2013 17:42:12 GMT -5
When I went into the work, after settling my accounts, I was instructed by the workers to give any remaining assets to the workers. Being a 19-year old college student, there wasn't a whole lot to give! Nevertheless, as a result of that action I was able to claim that I had 'left all...' There was no discussion about giving it to the poor. I believed that if I gave it to the workers, they would use it toward God's work. Or some really cool Allen Edmond sharkskin wing-tip shoes. A pair of which, if I remember correctly, you may now have in your possession? I do, indeed, and wear them proudly in the office!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 17:52:22 GMT -5
A pair of which, if I remember correctly, you may now have in your possession? I do, indeed, and wear them proudly in the office! Every woman's crazy for a sharp dressed man!
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Jul 9, 2013 19:48:24 GMT -5
I'm confused about you Ram. I can't see how Blatant partiality and bias is truth. It's "unreliable"... "Propaganda". The IP is useful, I think, if kept in context. But, is it honest which to me means truth? No! It's propaganda. Elements of fact, elements of opinion. It is useful maybe like we read an editorial or watch an advertisement. Presentation of a fact is not necessarily presentation of truth. It is simply this, the Impartial Reporter were reporting the controversial public facts about the F&W's movement. My argument has little room for hyperbole, bias, or twisting the truth. They reported the facts as they saw and heard it. They reported true facts about the movement. It was not propaganda. They gave honest accounts of what they heard and saw. People connected with the movement at the time have left supporting "blatant partiality" and "bias" on record, such as Alfred McGowan's testimony. These early workers (according to McGowan and others, not the Impartial Reporter), were unrestrained in their zeal, they wanted to change the world, they were self-righteous, they vehemently condemned every other church. I'm afraid, straight reporting from those times comes across as propaganda nowadays because we only understand the lame and tame more modern activities of the workers, but that is an erroneous vision. Are you suggesting that the reporting of the Impartial Reporter is blatant propaganda or bias? Give me an example. Let's have a look at it. workersect.org/earlydaysarticles01.pdfPage 5 "...his mind has become so depraved since his religious mind became unhinged.." I will give you the paper was probably responding in kind, however, in my mind that is not fair, impartial reporting. This is editorializing.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jul 9, 2013 20:58:49 GMT -5
The workers brought lawsuits against others, at one time? When? Who? Where? IIRC there was a major suit won against a newspaper in England by Cooney and another won against a farmer who published pamphlets accusing the workers of kidnapping and another against someone who smashed a window in one of the non-building buildings and maybe others that I can't remember. I think Cooney's legal-eagle brother in Enniskillen was employed by the workers in some of the lawsuits and so would be reading anything the Impartial Reporter printed. There are several articles about them and their legal adventures - them suing others and not workers being sued. "...his mind has become so depraved since his religious mind became unhinged.." I will give you the paper was probably responding in kind, however, in my mind that is not fair, impartial reporting. This is editorializing. That was interesting but I personally don't think they were necessarily wrong. They were defending devout people who were being smeared as "going to hell" by someone not any more qualified to do so than you or I and that kind of public personal attack - not just a criticism but a serious unfounded assault on someones character and reputation - would have been a serious and "unhinged" type thing to do back then - and it might get you dragged into court or maybe an assylum today. It wasn't the newspaper who was doing the attacking any more than if it was describing behavior involving a formerly upstanding person going around making physical attacks on individuals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 8:06:28 GMT -5
It is simply this, the Impartial Reporter were reporting the controversial public facts about the F&W's movement. My argument has little room for hyperbole, bias, or twisting the truth. They reported the facts as they saw and heard it. They reported true facts about the movement. It was not propaganda. They gave honest accounts of what they heard and saw. People connected with the movement at the time have left supporting "blatant partiality" and "bias" on record, such as Alfred McGowan's testimony. These early workers (according to McGowan and others, not the Impartial Reporter), were unrestrained in their zeal, they wanted to change the world, they were self-righteous, they vehemently condemned every other church. I'm afraid, straight reporting from those times comes across as propaganda nowadays because we only understand the lame and tame more modern activities of the workers, but that is an erroneous vision. Are you suggesting that the reporting of the Impartial Reporter is blatant propaganda or bias? Give me an example. Let's have a look at it. workersect.org/earlydaysarticles01.pdfPage 5 "...his mind has become so depraved since his religious mind became unhinged.." I will give you the paper was probably responding in kind, however, in my mind that is not fair, impartial reporting. This is editorializing. I will repeat Stargazer, that I am making judgments from what I experienced and was told from previous generations in Scotland, NOT just Ireland. Yes the paper was responding in kind. The early workers, not just Irvine created all the controversy. The Impartial Reporter by and large reported the "facts" of the controversial incidents and matters. They reported the truth about the public face of the ministry. You can't get much fairer than reporting the truth of actual events. I wish newspapers nowadays exercised similar standards. Here is one local example which happened before my time, but I heard about it being referred to several times from different sources, including a worker. Two workers arrive in the area and ask a local minister if they could use his church hall for their mission. The minister thought they were bona fide preachers and allowed them to use the hall free of charge, considering the work they were doing. After several evenings the mission was put to a stop because the workers were preaching harshly against the minister and the church, stirring up a lot of discontent and controversy. The workers later claimed the mission was put a stop to because they were being persecuted for the Lord's sake; Satan was behind it etc. That was their perception or "delusion," but it was not the truth. The truth was they, like Alfred McGowan clearly testified to, was that they were filled with their own self-righteous, unfettered zeal, out to change the world and prepared to listen to no one but themselves. They created a lot of disharmony through their "we alone are right" attitude. Straight reporting at the time would fairly and justly portray them in poor light. Of course nowadays, when things are much tamer and inconspicuous, these reports viewed by those who don't know otherwise, see persecution, bias, partiality, propaganda, etc. The real propaganda belongs to those who are acquainted with the practices of former times. Mark my words, before long, some will try to allege that Irvine and Cooney, et al, did not start this way at the turn of the 20th century and instead claim it goes all the way back to the Shores of Galilee 2000 years ago. The Impartial Reporter plays a vital role in the history of the sect by the accuracy of its reporting of many of the beliefs, attitudes and practices of the sect, back in those days. Without this record spanning over quite a few years, many would be alleging many past beliefs and practices never occurred, and challenging vociferously those who claimed that they did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 8:35:53 GMT -5
They reported the facts as they saw and heard it. They reported true facts about the movement. It was not propaganda. They also operated under some of the strictest libel laws on earth at that time and that it seems that the workers were very willing to bring several lawsuits in those days. I seem to recall that the papers often printed letters to the editor from F&Ws when they disagreed with something printed about the fellowship and so if there was something seriously out of whack in a story you also got the other side. I do not think any attempt was ever made to try and sue The Impartial Reporter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 8:48:05 GMT -5
If it were true that Irvine was rampaging and
"...his mind has become so depraved since his religious mind became unhinged.."
then you could be sure this story would have been picked up by legitimate news organizations and there would be plenty of stories on Irvine and co. Instead, almost nothing about these alleged raving lunatics.
Instead of trying to prove that Irvine was a raving lunatic and the IP was impartial and factual, it might be more credible to classify them both as lunatics......or both as normal for the times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 8:55:18 GMT -5
If it were true that Irvine was rampaging and "...his mind has become so depraved since his religious mind became unhinged.." then you could be sure this story would have been picked up by legitimate news organizations and there would be plenty of stories on Irvine and co. Instead, almost nothing about these alleged raving lunatics. Instead of trying to prove that Irvine was a raving lunatic and the IP was impartial and factual, it might be more credible to classify them both as lunatics......or both as normal for the times. Yet you acknowledge the IP reported the truth (but only in relation to the bad, controversial stuff). Didn't Irvine regard himself as a prophet? Didn't he see himself as being one of the two witnesses at the end times in Revelations? These are just two of the obvious examples. Depraved? Unhinged? Probably most legitimate news organisations ignored him. Perhaps the Impartial Reporter should have done likewise. We are grateful they didn't in view of the invaluable record they have left us with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:08:40 GMT -5
If it were true that Irvine was rampaging and "...his mind has become so depraved since his religious mind became unhinged.." then you could be sure this story would have been picked up by legitimate news organizations and there would be plenty of stories on Irvine and co. Instead, almost nothing about these alleged raving lunatics. Instead of trying to prove that Irvine was a raving lunatic and the IP was impartial and factual, it might be more credible to classify them both as lunatics......or both as normal for the times. Yet you acknowledge the IP reported the truth (but only in relation to the bad, controversial stuff). Didn't Irvine regard himself as a prophet? Didn't he see himself as being one of the two witnesses at the end times in Revelations? These are just two of the obvious examples. Depraved? Unhinged? Probably most legitimate news organisations ignored him. Perhaps the Impartial Reporter should have done likewise. We are grateful they didn't in view of the invaluable record they have left us with. Of course it isn't the truth that his mind was unhinged. He had a different point of view than the IP so they called him unhinged. The fact that a decade later he had prophecies is no proof of being unhinged, this is still a common activity and it was certainly very common around WWI as it was apocalypse time for thousands of prophets back then. He was far from being unhinged. His letters sound like a sane man, and the article written by his Jerusalem friend upon his death presents a man far from unhinged during his quarter century in Israel. Like I say, call them both unhinged or both sane....but not one or the other. I see little difference between the ragings of the IP and the ragings of Irvine......peas in a pod! It is tempting to mistaken passion with insanity but both Irvine and the IP had plenty of it. In fact, Irvine would have made a great reporter for the IP!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:16:26 GMT -5
Yet you acknowledge the IP reported the truth (but only in relation to the bad, controversial stuff). Didn't Irvine regard himself as a prophet? Didn't he see himself as being one of the two witnesses at the end times in Revelations? These are just two of the obvious examples. Depraved? Unhinged? Probably most legitimate news organisations ignored him. Perhaps the Impartial Reporter should have done likewise. We are grateful they didn't in view of the invaluable record they have left us with. Of course it isn't the truth that his mind was unhinged. He had a different point of view than the IP so they called him unhinged. The fact that a decade later he had prophecies is no proof of being unhinged, this is still a common activity and it was certainly very common around WWI as it was apocalypse time for thousands of prophets back then. He was far from being unhinged. His letters sound like a sane man, and the article written by his Jerusalem friend upon his death presents a man far from unhinged. Like I say, call them both unhinged or both sane....but not one or the other. I see little difference between the ragings of the IP and the ragings of Irvine......peas in a pod! It is tempting to mistaken passion with insanity but both Irvine and the IP had plenty of it. In fact, Irvine would have made a great reporter for the IP! Okay CD, let's cut to the chase. How about providing one article, just one example, which will show us why you feel the way you do about the reporting by the Impartial Reporter. I may not agree with what you provide, but perhaps I will get an understanding. So far all this falls very much into the alarmist, imaginary world of where some wanted Irvine Grey's book to be heading. You have conceded the IP reported the truth about bad or controversial aspects of the faith. You do not seem to be saying that anything they reported was actually untrue. Yet you describe their reportings as "ragings?" Again, how about one simple example that will show us this. I am intrigued about the concept of a "true rage" and why if such a thing exists that it is classed as bias, unfair, hyperbole, propaganda. I'm assuming that Josef Goebbels did not serve as Editor of the IP at any time before joining the German National Socialist Party? Again I have to say how grateful we should be to the IP for preserving on record, such things as they were, because the way things are reflected upon now is anything but the truth!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:29:36 GMT -5
Of course it isn't the truth that his mind was unhinged. He had a different point of view than the IP so they called him unhinged. The fact that a decade later he had prophecies is no proof of being unhinged, this is still a common activity and it was certainly very common around WWI as it was apocalypse time for thousands of prophets back then. He was far from being unhinged. His letters sound like a sane man, and the article written by his Jerusalem friend upon his death presents a man far from unhinged. Like I say, call them both unhinged or both sane....but not one or the other. I see little difference between the ragings of the IP and the ragings of Irvine......peas in a pod! It is tempting to mistaken passion with insanity but both Irvine and the IP had plenty of it. In fact, Irvine would have made a great reporter for the IP! Okay CD, let's cut to the chase. How about providing one article, just one example, which will show us why you feel the way you do about the reporting by the Impartial Reporter. I may not agree with what you provide, but perhaps I will get an understanding. So far all this falls very much into the alarmist, imaginary world of where some wanted Irvine Grey's book to be heading. You have conceded the IP reported the truth about bad or controversial aspects of the faith. You do not seem to be saying that anything they reported was actually untrue. Yet you describe their reportings as "ragings?" Again, how about one simple example that will show us this. I am intrigued about the concept of a "true rage" and why if such a thing exists that it is classed as bias, unfair, hyperbole, propaganda. I'm assuming that Josef Goebbels did not serve as Editor of the IP at any time before joining the German National Socialist Party? Again I have to say how grateful we should be to the IP for preserving on record, such things as they were, because the way things are reflected upon now is anything but the truth! Actually, I am surprised that you are defending the impartiality of the IP, you must be one of the first! I have already done some quotes, so has stargazer. How many quotes of hyperbole and partiality do you require before you will agree that the IP is no different from Irvine? 10? 20? 30? ? ? ? Just give me a number to work toward. I don't want to do a bunch of work and then have you tell me it's not enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:38:10 GMT -5
Okay CD, let's cut to the chase. How about providing one article, just one example, which will show us why you feel the way you do about the reporting by the Impartial Reporter. I may not agree with what you provide, but perhaps I will get an understanding. So far all this falls very much into the alarmist, imaginary world of where some wanted Irvine Grey's book to be heading. You have conceded the IP reported the truth about bad or controversial aspects of the faith. You do not seem to be saying that anything they reported was actually untrue. Yet you describe their reportings as "ragings?" Again, how about one simple example that will show us this. I am intrigued about the concept of a "true rage" and why if such a thing exists that it is classed as bias, unfair, hyperbole, propaganda. I'm assuming that Josef Goebbels did not serve as Editor of the IP at any time before joining the German National Socialist Party? Again I have to say how grateful we should be to the IP for preserving on record, such things as they were, because the way things are reflected upon now is anything but the truth! Actually, I am surprised that you are defending the impartiality of the IP, you must be one of the first! I have already done some quotes, so has stargazer. How many quotes of hyperbole and partiality do you require before you will agree that the IP is no different from Irvine? 10? 20? 30? ? ? ? Just give me a number to work toward. I don't want to do a bunch of work and then have you tell me it's not enough. I want one complete article that I can see where you are coming from AND to see if I can relate to it from my own experience and what I was told by previous generations. Keep in mind, the Impartial Reporter was reporting on events relating to the sect in Ireland, whilst my experience was Scotland. My recollections are, though somewhat distant, were that I found nothing untoward in the reporting,that I could identify with most of it, AND that the things that I could not identify with specifically, I found a consistency with other matters that I could relate to. I have a hard copy of the compilation of the articles somewhere, which I haven't looked at for a few years now. I still maintain though that it is an accurate record of many of the controversial aspects of the sect at that time and contains records of beliefs, attitudes and practices which might seem alien today, even unbelievable perhaps, to those who do not know about these things, hence it IS an invaluable historical record, especially nowadays when there exists a groundswell of opinion against these things ever having occurred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:46:52 GMT -5
Actually, I am surprised that you are defending the impartiality of the IP, you must be one of the first! I have already done some quotes, so has stargazer. How many quotes of hyperbole and partiality do you require before you will agree that the IP is no different from Irvine? 10? 20? 30? ? ? ? Just give me a number to work toward. I don't want to do a bunch of work and then have you tell me it's not enough. I want one complete article that I can see where you are coming from AND to see if I can relate to it from my own experience and what I was told by previous generations. Keep in mind, the Impartial Reporter was reporting on events relating to the sect in Ireland, whilst my experience was Scotland. My recollections are, though somewhat distant, were that I found nothing untoward in the reporting,that I could identify with most of it, AND that the things that I could not identify with specifically, I found a consistency with other matters that I could relate to. I have a hard copy of the compilation of the articles somewhere, which I haven't looked at for a few years now. I still maintain though that it is an accurate record of many of the controversial aspects of the sect at that time and contains records of beliefs, attitudes and practices which might seem alien today, even unbelievable perhaps, to those who do not know about these things, hence it IS an invaluable historical record, especially nowadays when there exists a groundswell of opinion against these things ever having occurred. I'm not quite sure of the rules here. You don't want numerous examples of partiality and hyperbole from many articles, you want me to analyze one article and point out the partiality in it? Where can text copies of all the articles be found?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 10, 2013 9:58:37 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 10:03:31 GMT -5
Thanks. I was there a couple of days ago and clicked on the link near the top which took me to images of the articles on RIS. I didn't realize you had them in regular text form further down the page.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jul 10, 2013 11:02:13 GMT -5
I want one complete article that I can see where you are coming from AND to see if I can relate to it from my own experience and what I was told by previous generations. Keep in mind, the Impartial Reporter was reporting on events relating to the sect in Ireland, whilst my experience was Scotland. My recollections are, though somewhat distant, were that I found nothing untoward in the reporting,that I could identify with most of it, AND that the things that I could not identify with specifically, I found a consistency with other matters that I could relate to. I have a hard copy of the compilation of the articles somewhere, which I haven't looked at for a few years now. I still maintain though that it is an accurate record of many of the controversial aspects of the sect at that time and contains records of beliefs, attitudes and practices which might seem alien today, even unbelievable perhaps, to those who do not know about these things, hence it IS an invaluable historical record, especially nowadays when there exists a groundswell of opinion against these things ever having occurred. I'm not quite sure of the rules here. You don't want numerous examples of partiality and hyperbole from many articles, you want me to analyze one article and point out the partiality in it? Where can text copies of all the articles be found? My two cents. The newspaper was biased against the fellowship. They posted stories so that people would run from the fellowship as fast as they could. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Is what the Impartial Reporter wrote, true? I think so. But they slanted the news to make the workers look crazy. Probably not unlike a Boston Globe article against the Catholic Church. Or a St. Petersburg Times article against Scientology. Are the articles true? Yep. Are they slanted? Yep. Is that fair and impartial reporting? It depends on point of view. I think that FoxNews is fair and impartial. Liberals tend to disagree vehemently. Fox isn't making up news- but they are probably choosing to focus on items that there core audience likes to see them focus on- runaway Government spending, government corruption, etc.- and not focus as much on the issues with big business. If you are a preacher that the workers are calling a hireling and a thief, then the Impartial Reporters slant/tone would seem fair. If you are a worker that would rather that bit of detail remain hidden, then I doubt it will be considered fair. I think that issue of bias isn't the real issue. The issue is, did the Impartial Reporter libel the fellowship? The evidence appears to be that they did not.
|
|