Hail Phineas

You stated that "Magistra Barton reported the events as they were told to her years later". If that is the case then the veracity of the other claims should also be called into question, and thus the whole premise of this thread is false or at best unsubstantiated.

Juvenal's often misrepresented quote could be applied here in relation to the truth and/or the facts of what happened.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who guards the guardians?

Infernal regards

Sanguinary

"If that is the case then the veracity of the other claims should also be called into question.."

While they may be called into question, as anything can, that does not automatically disprove them.

On page 195 Magistra Barton writes "Below is a sampling of "coincidences" gleaned in conversation with LaVey - the few incidents he is willing to talk about."

Regarding the events in question, notice exact dates are not provided, only a year of reference. If that year was recalled inaccurately many years later that does not necessarily invalidate the rest of what is said.

People sometimes cannot recall the exact time when something happened a few days ago; how much more so when years have passed.

People can recall a face and words spoken, but may not remember the name of the person that spoke them many years later. This does not invalidate what is recalled.

Hail Phineas

You started off by saying "While they may be called into question, as anything can,". Not anything can be called into question or everything for that matter. I'm just referreing to the statements that you've quoted from the book that are at odds with historical facts.

You then stated "that does not automatically disprove them" I never stated that they were disproved I stated it could be seen as false or at best unsubtantiated. By 'unsubstantiated' I do not mean that the curses weren't vented or that greater magic wasn't unleashed, my contention is with the timing and the way it's been expressed - rather poorly.

Your other comment "Regarding the events in question, notice exact dates are not provided, only a year of reference. If that year was recalled inaccurately many years later that does not necessarily invalidate the rest of what is said."

Actually it does, when it's expressed like it was, in the quote you referenced:

"1969: LaVey agreed to appear on Lou Gordon's hot seat ... Gordon dies within the year.

1970: LaVey consents to appear on reactionary Joe Pyne's hot-seat radio show ... Pyne dies within a few months of having LaVey on his show."

This goes way beyond the vagueness of memory argument that you're using of "that year was recalled inaccurately many years later".

I suppose fact checking is out the question or perhaps proof-reading?

In less than five minutes of internet research I had disproved your claim that Lou Gordon had done a radio show in 1970. "The one you have not heard is the one relevant to the comments in The Secret Life of a Satanist. The video does not reflect the events that transpired on the radio show."

Obviously you haven't either because it doesn't exist. How did I work that out?

People who are dying of cancer rarely work a hectic lifestyle [like radio/television presentations] right up to their deaths. From personal experience, my mum died that way, with the cancer so debilitating the she couldn't work much less enjoy the remaining few months. On that basis I started looking up a few things.

And then you end on the argument "People sometimes cannot recall the exact time when something happened a few days ago; how much more so when years have passed. People can recall a face and words spoken, but may not remember the name of the person that spoke them many years later. This does not invalidate what is recalled."

Again: fact checking, proof-reading.

It may not invalidate it, but it does call it into question. Not like "anything can" but like some things can when they're not fact checked or proof read.

This is how politicians like - flip-flopper - Romney, 'not-sure-if-that's-my penis' - Weiner, - 'I was there when the Berlin Wall came down' - Sarkozy and our own 'I stand by this e-mail' - Malcolm Turnbull - get caught out.

My job involves a lot of research and I have journalism training. I work with lawyers and for lawyers (my direct boss being one of them). If I don't fact check and proof read, I get my arse kicked. If I continued to fail in this regard I'd be out of a job. Sometimes we may feel we have a good case - a really worthy case - but when we weigh up the facts they're just not there.

Don't defend the indefensible - because there's nothing to defend.

Infernal regards

Sanguinary

You seem to forget when the book was written, and that the internet was in its infancy when it happened.

In less than five minutes of internet research I had disproved your claim that Lou Gordon had done a radio show in 1970. "The one you have not heard is the one relevant to the comments in The Secret Life of a Satanist. The video does not reflect the events that transpired on the radio show."


Again, read what I said about recalling dates.

I stand by my statements, which go directly to your statement: my contention is with the timing and the way it's been expressed - rather poorly.

Don't defend the indefensible...

It is not for you to tell me what I need to do or not to do.

If you want to argue over dates then that is your preogative. I found the value in that book more important than arguing over such trivial things.

You sir are missing out on something great!

Okay, look at it anyway you want it matters not to me.

I´m sorry to break in to your topic Unknown cause I don´t have much to say about the issue here except that I respect Magus LaVey very very much and enjoy all his performances when able to see something I haven´t seen yet.

I just wanted to say to Sanguinary that I am sorry sir, but I honestly don´t get what are you trying to proof here, and to whom?

I mean, the value of the book is great and debating about something like dates is like Unknown already said, way to miss what it´s real value is!