Since we're cross posting, I'll double-post this.
@frawley"How in the heck did you get a transcript of a conversation that Ivan had with his prefect at Visoko?"Easy.
I found it on the site I linked in the big blue
"funny example". You probably mean is how did
the site get a transcript?
;-)They helpfully provided that explanation at the start of the article -with a link to the original.
---
The Spiritual Vocations of the "Seers of Medjugorje"
Diocese of Mostar-Duvno
Chancery Office
March 5, 2010
(The present article was published in the official Bulletin of the Dioceses of Mostar-Duvno and Trebinje-Mrkan, 1/2010, pp. 114-122, March 5, 2010. This English translation was prepared on the basis of the original text in Croatian and the Italian edition published on the diocesan website.)
---
"In your detective work did you consider motive?"Sarcasm noted, particularly in light of my taking your original request for information as an honest one. But it
wasn't, was it?
;-)Philosopher wasn't supposed to deliver the goods and you'd be able to feel better because of that. Then,
lucky you, I took an interest and delivered. Now you fall back on another info request and I'm happy to say
that's been delivered as well.
Ironically, Philosopher tried the same tactic when we were discussing Christopher Columbus. We were down to arguing verbs in the original primary source documents (the ones I wasn't supposed to be able to find, either).
To answer your question, it's not my job to show motive and I'm only too well aware of the perils of trying to do so.
In law, all that is required is to show that someone either did or did not do something. I can show, via the site, at least one "visionary" tried a religiously-themed version of "the dog ate my homework." He was fobbing off his poor grades on his supposed chats with the Blessed Mother, ones that didn't happen yet.
In an example like that, the motive is fairly obvious.
I can show, via those same transcripts, a "visionary" contradicting themself on their ability to converse almost
daily with "Gospa" yet being
unable to double-check what was orginally said -with- "Gospa". There's a contradiction right there. A "visionary" talks with "Gospa" everyday yet they can't ask their source for clarification? Sure.
I don't need to show a motive -why- that is the case, all I need show IS.
This is how liers get caught, regardless of their motive. C'mon, you were if I recall correctly, in law-enforcement. You've probably heard the term "running down an alibi".
The more a suspect tries to invent an alibi, the more opportunities they give investigators to fact-check. ...and these suspects have been going non-stop for decades with reams of theologically spurious claims.
Motive is a notoriously difficult thing to prove. I'm forced to routinely point this out to people on GTV when replying to nonsense such as... "You
think that..." or "Benedict XVI
thought he could..." etc. Unless someone is quoting me where I'm conveying my thoughts on a subject or Benedict XVI where he's explaining his, nobody knows -for certain- what people -think- and, by extension, why they do what they do. Assumptions can be made, even likely ones, but not always proven.
"Can you give me a plausible motive for the children to invent the story of a visit by Our Lady and then stick with it knowing full well the wrath of the communist government..."Perfect example of my last point. You don't
know what the children knew or didn't know
"full well". Children are, by virtue of their immaturity, not prone to taking into account the wider political context of their actions.
Children respond to attention and they've been getting saturated with that ever since. There's a historical parallel in the Salem witch trials. The only thing that finally put an end to that farce was the little "visionaries" finally started accusing people who had the political agency to say, "Enough is enough. This ends now." If I recall correctly, the last straw was an accusation of witchcraft made against the governor's wife.
Even negative attention holds this attraction for children. The proverbial "class clown" gets punished, punished again, but punishment
itself is still attention.
So there. Even though I'm not
required to provide a motive, you have one that's universally recognized in psychology and one with historical support involving another group of child-visionaries.
More importantly, "plausible: as determined by
whom? Someone who is clearly biased in favor of these "visionaries"? Defense counsel doesn't get to put on the black robes of a judge as well and decide what is or isn't "plausible".
"that would and in fact did descend upon them and their families?"Seems they're all alive, well, no firing squads, no gulags, doing handsomely from their seer racket. Yeah, no.