Raf

This outta be good

Hi cman. I think Biblical SIT is fairly clear in its expectation that the sounds that come out will be a foreign language. I see no real proof that modern SIT does this. Allegations are not proof. I see LOTS of allegations, but no proof. I therefore conclude they are not the same thing. There is such a thing as free vocalization that is an innate, human ability. That is an established, proven, incontrovertible fact that is undisputed by anyone approaching this subject with a shred of integrity. When I look at modern SIT and what it produces, and what it fails to produce, and I compare modern SIT to what's described in Acts and Corinthians as well as free vocalization, I find a partial match with Corinthians and a 100 percent match with free vocalization. The parts that match Corinthians are wholly consistent with free vocalization. As for the notion that God won't cooperate with a study: all that does is underscore how easy it is for a sincere believer to fake SIT and not even know it. Which kind of is my bleeping point, isn't it? I see not one shred of documented evidence that modern SIT is Biblical SIT. The closest is insistent "I guess you had to be there” stories. You can accept modern SIT as Biblical SIT all you want. I can't stop you. But don't lie about where the evidence points. In case it's not obvious, cman should not take the WHOLE post as directed at him.

By the way, I have no qualms about burden of proof or any other issue raised here. But it is not whoever made the claim first or loudest. It's the one making the affirmative claim, the more remarkable claim. Chockfull "sincerely" believes I am making the greater, more remarkable claim. I put Sincerely in quotes, the same way the abstract on Samarin put Language in quotes while describing SIT. You have my permission to read into that.

Don't bother, WW. You're wasting your time. An argument that seeks the truth is worth pursuing. An argument that seeks to exasperate the other side until it "wins" by sheer exhaustion is not. You have very clearly stated the burden of proof issue, as have I. But you're talking to a brick wall.

For the record. I have repeatedly stated that modern SIT does not produce human languages. I have not always labeled that my opinion, mostly because I respect your intelligence enough to not think I have to do that every single time I say it. Forgive me if I have overestimated your intelligence, but I dont believe that to be the case. I have never, ever, not a single time, referred to that opinion as a proven fact or an incontrovertible truth or (God forbid) undisputed. There is no other word for the contention that I characterized my opinion as such except for bald-faced lie. I did use those words to describe something else, something whose legitimacy and veracity has now been challenged with such a stunning lack of intellectual honesty that it's impossible to take seriously. Confronted on the LIE, Chockfull established that I have stated modern SIT does not produce language. I have never denied that. He failed to find a single time where I referred to that opinion as a proven, undisputed fact. THAT was the lie. As I've said, I'm done debating with people whose intellectual honesty I do not respect. Sorry if that offends anyone. Actually, I'm not.

Apologies to this thread. A post I intended to write on ANOTHER thread ended up here. Mea culpa.

Waysider, Free vocalization is the rational explanation for the linguistic nonsense produced in modern SIT. Confusing is trying to come up with a coherent response to it. Clarity is gained by denying it exists. Miss anything?

And now, from the people who brought you Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, and the (mighty big) Assumption of Mary, more Tales of the Uncorroborated. Here's your host, Joe Isuzu! I have no basis on which to assume you were trying to be funny rather than really making this mistake. I hope it was a joke.

I put all "it really happened, I swear" anecdotes into the same category as ufo abductions, Mary Mother of God sightings and Jesus on Rye sightings (although that last category at least has the good sense not to hide the toast and just say "trust me").

Chockfull, you have no credibility. I will not answer you anymore. I was enjoying this for a bit, but you b.s. has pushed me too far. Keep posting what you want. I decline to sift through it anymore. I'm a reporter, not a sewer worker.

Re: your rejection of free vocalization. That's very nice. It establishes that we cannot gave an honest conversation because you will hurl evidence out the window if it doesn't suit your need.

Sure. Since LeBaron had the kindness to write it down, he gave Samarin a claim and a language to test it again. Samarin rang the bulls hit alarm. Read the flipping report.

More distortions of what I did say. I don't know how you can look in a mirror. For real. Fortunately, folks can see for themselves how you claim I said something, we ask for proof, and you prove I said half of it over here and a third of it over there and a shred of it over here and presto! Five crucified. In quoting James, you seem to have left out Samarin's conclusion after comparing the alleged xenoglossia to language. Wonder why you would do that.

Hey, I want credit for getting angry. I didn't see anyone responding in kind.

See? Again. No, they were NOT understood in the medium's cases. Crap, you're not even reading this stuff, are you? This is what I'm talking about. You're not reading the studies. You're trolling through them looking for gaps that you can cast doubt on and claim that the truth about SIT would be understood if we only had the information to fill in those gaps. You have every right to do that, but read the bleeping report before you declare a gap where solid ground exists.

IF, by "over 100 times," you mean "not a single time. That's a lie." Then yes, yes, that's exactly what I did.

Well, you could dispute my premise, ww. If Biblical SIT is not what I think it is, every conclusion I draw can be questioned. Ok, I'll stop messing with you guys. I am Word Wolf. Just kidding.

Stop using quotes to paraphrase what I said. In the space of a few short posts, you have turned what I DID say into something I did not, and you have applied it to a subject about which I was not speaking. So you are either being dishonest about what I said or incompetent about reading and applying it. I have found this to be consistent with your approach to just about every article, study and to a lesser extent, every post we have shared. It is impossible and unproductive for me to have to constantly correct your failure to comprehend what's written by LAYPEOPLE, to say nothing of experts in linguistics. I've tried to patiently steer you right, but my patience is exhausted. For the record, what I said was you have now reached the point of denying what is factually true and undisputed. Clearly, I am referring to something you did today. To apply this statement, which somehow became, in quotes no less, "proven and incontrovertible fact," to my assertion that modern SIT does not produce human language, is either dishonest or incompetent. Either way, I'm tired of dealing with it. The line refers to the patently and self-evidently ridiculous assertion that free vocalization is not an innate human ability that anyone, Christian or not, can do. You might as well deny the sky is blue. You're not arguing to get to the truth. You're not even arguing to win. You're arguing to outlast me. Well, congratulations. You have.

Chockfull, you're a liar. Not once have I written that... You know what, it's not worth it. Stop lying about what I said.

Must have escaped your reasoning, but I don't care what you do or how you take it. Your dishonesty and silliness has led me to stop taking your posts seriously. They are not serious and neither are you about this subject. You want to think you're approaching it seriously, but you're not. Your latest posts prove it. At this point, it should shock no one to hear that this is a dishonest distortion of what I actually said, a misrepresentation of my position. Again. And I'm done refuting your distortions.

I shall be perfectly happy to continue the conversation with anyone else who agrees to handle the questions and answers honestly, including any remaining question posted by Chockfull that was not answered afterward (most of it has already been answered, but damn, 60 pages...). But I am not willing to further engage anyone who distorts the information (documented repeatedly; not my opinion) and treats answered questions as if they've been left hanging.

Your goal has not been to investigate SIT, Chockfull. Your goal has been to defend it at any cost, to the point that you are now denying what is factually true and undisputed. It's dishonest and unworthy of my time.

Chockfull, it is impossible to have an honest argument with someone who argues dishonestly. You have access to the same information I do. The answers to your questions and challenges are all there. Your methods of debate are dishonest. You have distorted every study and paper we've reviewed. I have documented this repeatedly. You've distorted what I've said. You continue to do so. You resurrect discredited arguments as if they have not been discredited. You are not honestly approaching this discussion and I no longer respect you as a debate opponent worth engaging. You've chosen to be ignorant. I shall allow you to remain so. Good day.

I'm gonna cut my side of the conversation off here. I've made my point and answered every one of your silly accusations, no matter how ridiculous they have gotten. I've put up with distortion after distortion, lie after lie, misrepresentation after misrepresentation, absurd interpretation after absurd interpretation. Congratulations. You've outlasted me. Not with the facts. Not with the truth. But with raw determination. I'm done.

Accusing me of stating my opinions as facts does not make your accusation true. I think I've been so clear about what my opinion is that it insults our readers' intelligence for me to have to constantly label it my opinion. Modern SIT does not produce human languages. Find a fact that refutes my opinion or shut up. And I said a fact. Not a distorted reading of studies that conclude the exact opposite of what you claim. A fact. Not a 40-year-old secondhand anecdote offered by someone who admits in that very offering that it doesn't prove what he wishes it did. A fact. You have none. All the testable facts refute you. If two people claim to be doing different things and produce the same result, it is quite rational to suggest, in the absence of any other evidence, that they are doing the same thing. Group A. Psychics who claim xenoglossia claim that they produce foreign languages without learning them in the traditional ways. Beyond that, they actually claim to have a working knowledge of the language in question. The only proof we have of their claims is what they say and what they write. Group B. Christians who claim glossolalia claim that they produce foreign languages without learning them in the traditional ways. They do not claim any knowledge of the language in question. The only proof we have of their claims is what they say. An analysis of what is produced by Group A and Group B, when such comparisons can be made, reveal that they produce the same damn thing. Conclusions: neither is driven by spirit. Both are doing the same thing, which anyone can do without claiming to be spirit-driven. Or: The linguists are stupid and have no idea what they're talking about. I choose the first conclusion.