You have the burden of proof backwards. You have asserted facts and do not have a factual basis. You have the obligation to persuade, not me.
@Glen Cook, I have asserted facts that have been researched and tested. You sir, have provided contentions in the form of speculations that have no base. Your citation of Alfred Lodge in NO WAY supports your speculation that John Batt was deputized to make Masons. In fact, my research has ruled that out. Just because YOU think otherwise is of no consequence to the fact that to make it a possibility, you have to at least make ONE connection between John Batt and some "authority" who deputized him...YOU SIR, have to prove that. I have the emails of four Grand Lodges stating that they have no record of any authority given to John Batt. SO, you may want to slight the GLs and their records, but you have failed to even give the name of a Lodge that would possibly give him the deputization...Was it Irish Military Lodge? Can you show documentation that they ever gave deputization to members to make Masons without the aid of the Lodge? Can you provide documentation that Batt was even active in Irish Military Lodge after 1777?
Sir, with all due respect, you LACK OF DOCUMENTATION, and inability to support your SPECULATION with one shred of evidence beside Alfred Lodge did it, is enough for me to know that my position is firm, in addition to the answers provided to me from the possible Grand Lodges and the Lodge that could have given that authority...
I have done enough research in circles to know that the REVIEWER has the SAME RESPONSIBILITY as the author. If you want to question or refute my position, PRESENT YOUR FACTS. What you presented and ONLY presented was the instance in which Alfred Lodge gave deputization...But you FAILED to provide documentation that John Batt received it...You have some work to do Glen.
As best can be determined, you did not check with the Lodge to determine if there had been a deputation. Grand Lodges weren't the only ones who provided authorizations, and an example has been provided to you.
No, as best as can be determined, is that you are in this deliberate state of denial, believing that it is making your point. I have already stated there is NO RECORDS with Irish Military Lodge has ANY DEPUTATION given to ANY OF ITS MEMBERS to make Masons without aid of the Lodge. This was checked by the Grand Archivist of Ireland. In addition to finding NO SUCH AUTHORITY given to John Batt, I asked if it was common practice under the Grand Lodge of Ireland to do so, in which answer returned was NO. Any such initiation by John Batt was ILLEGAL. Now, if you disagree, then PROVE that Irish Military Lodge gave the deputization, I have already looked. Prove that Ireland gave that type of authority. Prove that some Lodge gave him authority.
You offer merely instances of ANOTHER LODGE UNCONNECTED TO THE TOPIC DID SO, and raising it as a "valid opposition" to the fact that John Batt had no authority...In debate YOU MUST PROVE YOUR POINT OR SUPPORT YOUR SPECULATIONS. I have went to the SOURCES and researched, you have merely an instance of a Lodge that deputized its members to make members of its Lodge, but haven't YET provided one shred of evidence that this was the case with John Batt. And the most intriguing part is that you continue to accuse me of not doing the research, but it would seem that you want to throw up baseless speculation and make me do the work to disprove them...That doesn't fly in real research circles sir. YOU MUST PROVE YOUR POINTS OF OPPOSITION. I have the word and records of the Grand Lodges and the Lodge that have NO RECORD of ANY DEPUTIZATION of John Batt. Either provide support in John Batt's instance, or I will relegate your speculation as a opinion and unsupported opposition.
You have not provided information as to the concept of being healed under England in the 18th C. You admit that the warrant itself had no such language.
I believe that I have the history and the warrant, and the fact that PHA descended from African Lodge and is accepted as a REGULAR BODY. If I was trying to say that England was aware of their prior condition of African Lodge and moved to remedy the circumstances, then I would have to "jump through the hoop" you hold up as a standard then. The concept existed and I gave TWO instances. Accept them or not, you cannot say I didn't provide them, you can only say YOU DON'T ACCEPT THEM.
My job isn't to prove anything, but to point out you have drawn unsupported conclusions. I have done so, and may well do so in other fora.
On the contrary my dear Brother, you have the job of proving your opposition. You cannot attempt to discredit my work and research with mere speculations and baseless instances that have NO CONNECTION to the topic at hand. You have the responsibility of providing meaningful and significant sources that will prove what you are proposing an an alternative narrative...You have yet to do that...I am waiting...
