A large part of the KJVO argument seems to center around vilifying the doctrinal beliefs and motivations of Westcott and Hort. There are two main ways in which this is done: 1. Make unsupported claims or quotes about their beliefs and practices. 2. Give sourced quotes which seem to indicate their heretical beliefs. Since I haven't read Westcott and Hort extensively, I won't bother to deal with the first way in which W and H are represented. I will merely point out that unsourced claims are effectively worthless in debate or argument and should be treated as such if the proponent is unwilling or unable to source their claim. I will also note that citing a secondary source which does not itself source its claims is just as worthless as citing nothing at all. Claims should be able to taken back to some primary source so that the evidence can be properly weighed. Otherwise, you are just as likely to be dealing with, at best, mistaken claims, or, at worst, made up claims as dealing with accurate information. So, in short, the first type can safely be ignored. It is the second category which interests me. There is a substantial number of sourced quotes floating around which, if they accurately represent W and H's beliefs, would add some weight to concerns over translations which are based on their work. So, the question is: "Do these quotes accurately represent W and H's beliefs?" Fortunately I ran across electronic copies of the sources for these quotes and was able to look at them in context. The quotes I have examined so far have uniformly been blatant misrepresentations of what W and H were actually saying. I try to examine as many W and H quotes that I can find in this format: 1. give the supposed quote which implies heretical belief on their part 2. give the quote directly from its source with surrounding context 3. compare and contrast the two to see if the purported quote really represents what W and H writes. I will not seek to defend the beliefs of W and H beyond what I actually quote from them - as I said, I am not really familiar with their writings. Nor do I wish to get into the wider debate of KJVO or not. My sole purpose is to examine the purported quotes and see if there any substance to them. Feel free to disagree with my analysis, but please don't take things personally or resort to fallacies. The former I will ignore while the latter I will call you on. I hope to stick with the facts as much as possible but I am certain there will be some room for reasonable disagreement. And if you have a quote you would like me to deal with, please feel free to post it.