Raf

Socks, in the dozens of pages that have transpired since you last posted on this thread, you may have missed the part where I apologized to you for being placed in a position where I felt I had to pass judgment on the account you gave. I never intended to do that, you never asked me to accept the account, and I would rather have just let my last word to you be my last word on the subject at all. I found it distasteful to talk skeptically about the story "behind your back." I know my opinion about the story can't surprise you in the least. Nonetheless, I feel an apology is in order, and I offer it.

Sheesh, where to begin? First, casual reading: it appears you would rather believe that we faked faking it than that we actually faked it. That's... I don't even know what to call that. So let me be clear: I do not doubt that I spoke in tongues. I know I did not. I know I faked it and I know how. True, it wasn't until going through the process of dialogue on this thread that I realized that there were fancy words for what I did, but I was rather obviously defining the process of free vocalization before I ever heard the term and saw its application to the subject we are considering. Much of what Pete says is simply impossible to argue because he has, in effect, made everything about SIT, including confessed fakery, untestable. I honestly don't know if I should, or even CAN, answer him point for point. But no, I do not apologize for calling Socks' and Tom's accounts anecdotal evidence insufficient as objective proof of anything. They did not present it as such. They did not ask me to take it as such. And with good reason. That they believe these accounts is a testament to their sincerity. It is no guarantee of the veracity of the stories they tell. I feel for you if that offends you. But you are asking too much of me at this point to rephrase or withdraw it. If you would like to come up with an alternative wording that you think might be acceptable to both of us, I will gladly consider it. Let me add that I have kind of already refined the way I refer to my side of things. In the post right above yours, I wrote: I think that's as humble a way to put it as I can come up with.

I have 25 posts per page, so it's only 48 pages for me.

Yeah, still gotta cheat...

Ok, but you realize we MUST cheat to get this.

So do I. But I don't think that's even in dispute. What's in dispute is whether free vocalization accounts for ALL modern SIT. The testable evidence that we have reviewed certainly appears to validate such a proposition, but it suffers the insurmountable problem of inadequate sample size, not to mention the untestable evidence and the untestable proposition that the God who energizes SIT may not wish to cooperate with a dispassionate validation process. The non-cooperation of God raises the difficult matter of exposing the fact that a sincere Christian can SIT and fake it and not know it, eliminating the sincerity of the speaker as any proof that his claim is ever true. But that doesn't seem to be bothering anyone.

Hard to Kill Kelly Le Brock The Woman in Red

No. Sorry. I thought those were easy lines. This may not be the exact quote, but it's the right sentiment: Get your hands off her, you bitch!

Sorry. Totally forgot about this one. How about this: "Seventeen days? Hey man, I don't wanna rain on your parade, but we're not gonna last seventeen hours! Those things are gonna come in here just like they did before. And they're gonna come in here..." "Hudson!" "...and they're gonna come in here AND THEY'RE GONNA GET US!" "Hudson! This little girl survived longer than that with no weapons and no training. Right?" "Why don't you put her in charge?"

The cases you refer to were alleged, not confirmed. Nice try, though. And while I have no doubt everyone in the room WOULD confirm it if given the opportunity, we have no idea whether they have actually done so. Did you talk to everyone who was in the room with Socks or Tom? Neither did I. So "confirmed by everyone in the room" is, at best, second hand. *** I'll edit this post instead of writing a new one. Chockfull has repeatedly been using the word "xenoglossolalia" and defining it as interchangeable with "xenoglossia." That is a mistake, as I'm sure he'll realize. Xenoglossia, as he understands it (and I don't think he's wrong) technically refers to a claim of actual knowledge of a foreign language. The use of the "lalia" suffix would undercut that definition, so it is surely not what Chockfull means to be saying. In fact, I would propose that xenoglossolalia and glossolalia are interchangeable terms. I still think speaking a foreign language while SITting, in practical terms, would initially be treated the same as a case of xenoglossia. But considering that this is all hypothetical and neither has actually happened (modern setting) , it's kind of moot.

I missed this earlier. It deserves a response. A person reciting the Gettysburg Address in English, with no other knowledge of English, would attract some attention. Someone would be demanding to know how they learned the Gettysburg Address in perfect English. And the investigation into how this person was able to demonstrate knowledge of the Gettysburg Address (by speaking it) would be compelled to explain how it happened. And presumably, for your hypothesis, that person would be able to explain, in his own language, how he came to learn the Gettysburg Address in a language he did not speak. No one in his right mind would conclude, on the basis of the speaker's lack of understanding of what he had spoken, he therefore did not recite the Gettysburg Address, nor that he had done so in English. But the actual speaking of the Gettysburg Address is a demonstration of the knowledge of English. It turns out that the knowledge itself is quite superficial, being merely phonetic rather than truly comprehensive. But impressive nonetheless. Nothing supernatural about it, right? This is exactly the point I'm making. If someone spoke in a foreign language before a linguist looking for foreign linguistic content in a sample of SIT, and the linguist actually detected a foreign language, he would want to know how the person acquired such knowledge. He may later determine that person's knowledge to be completely superficial in the linguistic sense, but he would not deny that it's a language. A person who speaks in tongues and produces a foreign language has demonstrated knowledge of that language. A linguist could determine only the depth of that knowledge and quickly ascertain that the person's knowledge of that language was indeed quite shallow, consisting purely of the sounds emitted and conveying none of the understanding. This would be remarkable, but what happens next is outside the scope of the linguist's expertise. Ask the linguist what just happened, and he'll say "That person just spoke in a foreign language he has never learned. Remarkable." How? Linguist, as a linguist, doesn't care. Refers the case to some other expert: a psychologist who can dig deeper to discover if the person had some exposure to the language he can't remember. A Biblical researcher to determine whether the content of the message lines up with the Bible to determine if this was really energized by God. Shirley MacLaine to determine if he was her king and she his queen in a past life. SOMEthing happened. What was it? And what has happened in every case of confirmed production of SIT in a genuine foreign language? Trick question. There are no such cases. Well, except in Amazing Anecdotes issue 432, right next to the Sasquatch sighting and The Autobiography of Whitley Streiber. I have already answered every single point you made in your last post and will not bore our readers by repeating myself, Chockfull. Your appeal to the ineptitude of the linguists who have taken the time to study this phenomenon is duly noted. But this one... Is "superficial, surface-only" on the list? If I were genuinely speaking in tongues, that is surely what it would be. Maybe not even that much. At least your Gettysburg Address guy knew the phonetics and could repeat it on demand. A SITter wouldn't even be able to do that. So I suppose the ACTFL scale would be worthless to this endeavor. Which is why I'm not clicking on it.

I've actually been offended by none of it. But it seemed to bother other people. Best thing I did yesterday was to just back off and not immediately respond to that last post. Gave me a chance to regain my composure and gather my thoughts. And as you can see, I felt little need to go through most of it. If there's something I haven't addressed that you want me to, feel free to bring it up again.

Sigh. No, Samarin does not call it "knowledge of a language." He calls it "demonstrating knowledge of a language," and speaking a language demonstrates knowledge of it. Seriously, man. The practical difference by adding that one word is huge. Ignoring it or glossing over it changes everything we're discussing. The terms xenoglossia and glossolalia are modern terms used to describe supernatural things. No, the Bible does not come as close to using the word xenoglossia as it comes to using the word glossolalia. But the vocabulary is a shorthand for what we are really discussing, and picking apart the vocabulary is not as useful as studying the actual claims made in both Biblical times and now. Without resorting to modern terminology: The Bible describes people speaking in languages they did not know. Modern SIT does not produce this. The attempts to read into the Bible a sort of secret-code language to assert that they never really claimed to be speaking human languages is undercut by the fact that glossa (the spoken form) in the Bible has the very simple meaning of language. Efforts to redefine it are retroactive attempts to force the Bible to fit a faked practice. Let the Bible speak for itself. If what you're doing doesn't produce what the Bible plainly says it will produce, then scrap your practice and keep your Bible. P.S. I'm not clicking on that link. I've chased enough of your red herrings when dealing with Hockett's list.

All credit for the improved tone of the conversation goes to Chockfull, not to me. As far as I was concerned, I gave what I got and I never apologized for it. When Chockfull turned down the volume, I turned down the volume. He gets all the credit. That said, my rejoinder to the "can we get more petty" post might be considered a cheap shot. I do apologize for it.

By the way, as someone who is not a linguist, I am apt to get my terminology wrong from time to time. I know what I mean, but a real linguist might correct me in my use of certain terms. I'm seeing where my references to "phonetic structure," for example, might have been better stated "phonemic strata." They mean the same thing in my head, but an expert might draw distinctions where I draw none. Just saying.

Why do you hypothesize everything about what Samarin would have done EXCEPT what Samarin tells you he would have done? It wasn't a trap to bait you. It was an effort to clarify your definition of xenoglossia in the context of this discussion. A person speaking in tongues and producing a foreign language would be exhibiting xenoglossia. You don't agree with that. I find your disagreement to be... let me find a word that you used; hang on a minute; ah, here it is... petty. And yes, Samarin might think you're a psychic. Or an alien. Or reincarnated. Or God-energized. He might think any of those things. Not as a linguist. Just as a person. He's completely open to all of it as far as being a scientist is concerned. But we'll never know, because none of the samples he reviewed before this paper or since turned up xenoglossia.

Yes. You are asking me to believe that Samarin would consider the speaking of a known language that the speaker did not otherwise understand to not be a sample of xenoglossia. I think that's absurd. Not to question your grasp of the facts any more than necessary, but 1968 was 44 years ago. I suppose I could sink to your level. Only that you're claiming things about the Bible that aren't true to the Bible, and if you're going to expect me to accept what you present as the Biblical truth to this, you need to get your facts straight. I never said your explanation was plausible. I never judged your explanation at all. And I still don't.

Ok, but postulate is the term YOU used. Just saying. I was using the term because you did. Stop using the word if you don't want me to repeat it. That's neither a postulate nor a hypothesis. It's conjecture. And you accuse me of not being faithful to the scientific method. Then stop doing it.

BUT WE DO HAVE A WAY TO TELL HOW HE WOULD REACT TO THIS! He tells us exactly what he would do! THE LOGIC THAT GOT ME THERE WAS YOURS! I agree that "glossa" is in the Bible. I agree that "laleo" is in the Bible. "Glossolalia" is not. That's not my opinion. The verse you cite does not contradict what I am saying. Glossolalia as a word was coined by those studying it. And you can emphasize the laleo part all you want, but you can't escape the glossa part. It means languages. Look, you're swinging wildly here and looking a little ridiculous. Take a breath. Do what I did yesterday. Walk away for a while, and come back when you've had time to think about it.

The notion of Samarin distinguishing examples of gibberish inserted into the samples he studied is a false re-reporting of SHERRILL's findings. They are not Samarin's. Samarin rejected gibberish because he considered them poor samples of glossolalia. It was presented to him AS glossolalia, and the speaker no doubt considered them glossolalia. But the obvious "gibberish" nature of it caused him to reject them. (I believe this is a reasonable interpretation of the account he gives on page 51). It was Sherrill who claimed to insert gibberish samples among the glossolalia samples and claimed the linguists easily spotted the difference. But as I've noted earlier, we do not know enough about Sherrill's approach to take it seriously at this time. That could change with more information. Did you order his book yet?

So if I spoke in Swahili but didn't understand it, it's not a language according to Samarin. You cannot escape my conclusion based on the premise you present, and the conclusion is ridiculous. "Glossolalia" does not appear in the Bible. It is a modern term coined to encapsulate the Biblical phrase that IS used. Because the postulate he proposes is perfectly reasonable, as has been demonstrated. It is absolutely consistent with free vocalization. I WANT to produce a foreign language. Therefore, I inject foreign sounds into my glossa. They had those things because the glossalist WANTED them to have those things, not because of anything supernatural and not because it was a real language. Sentences, phrasing, word breakdowns, longer pauses for periods, shorter pauses for commas: all of those are encapsulated in phonological structure, which you said last night proves nothing.

I wonder why people who claim to SIT don't just go into James Randi's office, SIT, and collect their $1 Million. We can only go off the studies that have been done. I find your dismissal of linguists' ability to detect and identify language to be without basis. They have a way to do that. Phonetic structure. And the results keep coming back to the language of the speaker. That's as close to an objective standard for proof as you're going to get.

Oh, the word "glossolalia" appears in the Bible now? Do tell, where? Seriously, if you think there is no difference between your first definition of xenoglossia and your second, then you are forced, forced to conclude that I could speak Swahili in front of Samarin but because I do not otherwise "demonstrate a knowledge" of Swahili, even though it really was Swahili, he would dismiss it as meaningless glossalalia. That's not deceptive. That's just dumb. (Not you. You're smart. Your analysis, not so much).

As I said, if we disagree on that, the rest of the conversation is moot. Say hi to everyone for me.

By the way, I'm ignoring Waysider's contribution on the importance of syntax because my review of the material has not taken me there. My instinct tells me that it may be an unfair criterion to impose on a real, human language whose structure we do not know, but my instinct could very well be wrong. Waysider may have enough of an argument to state his case and cause me to change my ignorant mind. But I'm not inclined to dive into it on my own, respectfully.