UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[OilCityCajun]

Originally Posted by jfrog

...Apparently is not a good word to denote speculation. It is a word that is often associated with things which are readily seen, visible, easily understood, plain, clear, obvious. In fact, it was along these very lines that I understood your use of the word: "apparently (according to the facts we know, she was clearly, plainly and obviously there) with neither spouse nor any third party present."

"often assosciated with..." does not define a word. Your understanding - or misunderstanding - of a word does not determine whether or not my usage of said word is acceptable and proper. Merriam-Webster.com defines Apparently, thusly:

Originally Posted by mwo

Main Entry: ap·par·ent·ly
Pronunciation: \-lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 1566
: it seems apparent <the window had apparently been forced open> <apparently, we're supposed to wait here>

and further defines "apparent" as:

Originally Posted by mwo

Main Entry: ap·par·ent
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈper-ənt, -ˈpa-rənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French apparant, from Latin apparent-, apparens, present participle of apparēre to appear
Date: 14th century
1 : open to view : visible
2 : clear or manifest to the understanding <reasons that are readily apparent>
3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind
4 : having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate
5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid <the air of spontaneity is perhaps more apparent than real — J. R. Sutherland>
— ap·par·ent·ness \-nəs\ noun
synonyms apparent, illusory, seeming, ostensible mean not actually being what appearance indicates.

The article does give us enough evidence to make it seem to be 3 : appearing as actual to the ...mind, or seem to 5 : manifest to the...mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid that she was alone with the man.

Originally Posted by jfrog

... So...it was just speculation

I have already agreed with that point.

Originally Posted by jfrog

...and since your speculated scenario had no basis for being any more probable than any other scenario then it was apparently wild speculation.

Oh but it does have a basis for being more probable. If other people where present before the husband "caught" her there, then there would be no opportunity for any improper activity. The fact that the husband and pastor are all in a tiff about "what could have been" makes it SEEM (can you say apparent?) that there was no one else there to prevent what could have been. So my speculation isnt really all that wild, after all.

Originally Posted by jfrog

...So yes, I have included you in that "some" that are trying to turn this back onto the woman with wild speculation.

Now that is wild speculation, seeing how I have adamantly stated the pastor was wrong and should have all his positions, including that of pastor, revoked. You assume a motive and assign it to me, without any word or action on my part which leads one to the reasonable conclusion that I have any such motive.

Originally Posted by jfrog

...some have tried to defend him by wildly speculating that the woman involved in this case must somehow be partly to blame. By making her appear bad then anything that he did wrong doesn't seem quite as bad... some have tried to defend him by wildly speculating that the woman involved in this case must somehow be partly to blame. By making her appear bad then anything that he did wrong doesn't seem quite as bad...

More wild speculation on your part. You assume I am trying to defend him when quite the opposite is true. There is no defense for what he did. Have you ever heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" ? My only purpose for mentioning her actions is to prevent anyone from reasonably assuming I am condoning any woman being immodestly dressed in the presence of any male other than her husband.

Originally Posted by jfrog

As for your main point I disagree. The unanamious agreement that a leader did wrong who is far away and distant and most of us have never met only shows that we lack any personal connections to that leader...So, I'm not sure this case is such a good one to use as proof positive that the UPCI is not "cultish". (DISCLAIMER: I DID NOT SAY I BELIEVE THE UPCI IS CULTISH. THOUGH THERE ARE SOME CHURCHES IN IT THAT I'M SURE ARE).

You do have a valid point there. It is weak evidence, but not totally invalid.