“They said that they had no other materials.” (in context, no they didn’t)
The context was not supplied by CK, so that was easy to read in, but it is easy to figure out the context of CK ‘s side of contact with CRI – something to the tune of “Do you have anything on Cooneyites?” But CK could still post the actual question that CRI replied to if CK thinks that both sides of a conversation are important for others to see in order to read in context.
So, if my speculation regarding the question asked of CRI is correct or even close, CRI replied “All that CRI has on the Cooneyites is the article online. And that would pertain to what CRI has already assessed and provides in reply to such requests, not what is in their library yet to assess – CRI does not send out its research library for someone else to do their own assessment and present that as CRI’s work. If you ask for CRI’s fact sheet on Roman Catholicism you will be at least pointed to where you can read that fact sheet as already prepared to give you all that CRI publishes about Roman Catholicism, not to tell you ow much research material on Roman Catholicism is in their research library.
But certainly, if you think CRI threw out its research library in 1978, that is your choice to think it. And what you think they have or have tossed out has no effect on whether they ever throw out anything from their research library, even after they scan and convert to digital all the material in that library. It is quite obvious that you think CRI is an organization similar to TTT, which threw out four file cabinets of 2x2 documents at that ----
And the entirety of you posts rests upon that very first sentence – just a strawman built upon lack of the question that CK asked and faulty (desired) concept of CRI ‘s ‘small’ regularly tossed out’ research library…… Good try though, but perhaps CK will now post the question that CRI answered.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index