On several occasions, Rev. MacArthur has claimed he visited the crime scene where Martin Luther King Jr. was shot dead on April 4, 1968. This issue has taken on new urgency with the publication of an investigative report in NOQ Reports written by Paige Rogers.
Over several decades, MacArthur has described hearing about the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr while being in Jackson, MS. In essence, he has said he was in the Jackson NAACP office of Charles Evers, brother of civil rights martyr Medgar Evers when a man entered the office and said King had been shot. At that point, several of the men including John Perkins and MacArthur traveled to Memphis to see the crime scene. MacArthur claims the scene wasn’t monitored and the men were able to inspect the King’s blood stains at the Lorraine Motel and examine the bathroom from where James Earl Ray fired the fatal shots.
In Rogers article, Charles Evers is quoted saying he was in his car when he received word of the shooting. In the first edition of a book where he gives an account of the event, he says he heard of the shooting on the radio. In subsequent accounts, he said he got a call on his car phone. In any case, he was not in his office in Jackson.
However, I have found evidence that supports MacArthur’s contention that he was with Perkins. In John Perkins’ 1993 book, Beyond Charity, Perkins wrote the following:
While this passage doesn’t place MacArthur and Perkins in Evers’ office (and a later account from Perkins doesn’t mention Evers), it does place them together. This information was not in Rogers’ article.
A more important issue to me is whether or not Perkins and MacArthur went to Memphis that night (or at any time) and examined the crime scene. MacArthur has repeatedly said he did in the wake of the shooting even saying the security was lax which allowed them to go to the place where King was killed.
This seems unlikely since a curfew had been imposed and reportedly security was tight at the Lorraine Motel according to available police records. The Rogers’ article did an admirable job of bringing this information together.
I have emailed and messaged John Perkins via social media to ask him about his recollections of this night. He has yet to answer. In 2018, he told an interviewer that he was informed via the radio and community members after preaching. There was no mention of MacArthur, Evers or the NAACP office. I have been unable to find any mention in any of his books of a trip to the Lorraine Motel that night.
According to John Perkins, John MacArthur was in MS with him when MLK, Jr. was killed. I also believe that Evers was in his car when he heard about the death of King. I can understand how memory can reconstruct certain elements of an event. However, the trip to Memphis is another matter.
I would really like to hear from John Perkins about what happened after he heard the news. The logistics of that night and distance between Jackson and Memphis make it seem improbable that MacArthur’s detailed accounts are accurate as described. I can’t judge the situation beyond that and am certainly not willing to say anything more with certainty without hearing from Perkins.
(Information above without links is derived from Rogers’ article. Consult that article for more on the police reports surrounding the aftermath of the King shooting.)
LA was the city full of corruption….
LA was the city full of corruption….
LA was the city full of corruption….
An accurate article exposing this Macarthur/ MLK matter was published 10 years ago. The article can be read at the following link. http://thewatchmanwakes.org/john-macarthur-saw-the-blood-of-martin-luther-king/
Too bad that this research has now been coopted.
Evidence is that John Macarthur was at the Lorraine Motel that day with Charles Evers and Perkins. Also, evidence is that Evers was a government spy working for the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission at the time. He was also friends with N Rockefeller and by his own admittance was standing just 5 ft. from Bobby Kennedy when he was killed at the Ambassador Hotel. Shortly thereafter, Evers said that he was invited to the Whitehouse by LBJ. I know that John Macarthur is a liar for sure, but Evers and Perkins are also liars who have a strong interest in keeping this matter quiet. BTW, why was John Macarthur arrested in Mississippi just after the MLK assassination?
“In subsequent accounts, he said he got a call on his car phone.”
In the 60s, car phones (a precursor to more modern cellphones) were enormous, extremely expensive (likely $1,500-2,000 or more a year), and only available in some fairly populated areas. If he had a car phone, that was a hell of an expensive ride.
Mr. MacArthur is acting very much like other men I know who love embellishing stories in order to try to top others or to try to look bigger than they really are. These things are tied up with ego and pride and are counter to discipleship at the most basic level. The word is clear that those who lift themselves up will be forcefully humbled by God. There are multiple red flags around this man for those who care to look for them. The obvious greed and the way that he told the Holy Spirit where He can shove His gifts are bigger red flags. I think this guy and many others like them are just like Marjoe except they never get tired of the act and never come clean. Jesus is the center of our faith, but we have allowed a narcissistic lie to capture our hearts instead. There are no “men of God” who are greater than us, at least not in the way that we tend to think of them. The great ones are not famous. They simply are humble and live a genuine life with no cameras on them. They are not actors pretending to be someone else. We are far too easily impressed by that which is fake down to its inner core.
Amen!
This happened 51 years ago. People don’t always remember events perfectly after a while. However, this does seem a little like the Brian Williams virtue signaling talking points that eventually got him in trouble. John MacArthur should probably stop relating this story because it doesn’t seem credible, particularly the standing in MLK’s blood part and the standing on the toilet which is clearly wrong. James Earl Ray stood in the bathtub to shoot Rev. King. You cannot see the hotel from the toilet. I guess everyone is the hero of their own story.
I think your characterization of human memory is wrong. This seems like a case of mis-attribution, a condition of memory we are all subject to and well documented in Eric Schacter’s book “The 7 Sins of Memory.” Humans tend to remember the gist of what happened accurately but the details are pretty much in motion for about 10 years after the incident until they solidify into something that we remember consistently from that point on. During that critical 10 year period our memories can appropriate and integrate other experiences that become part of that memory over time. This is how the brain works, and the research indicates it works the same in everyone.
It seems the gist of MacArthur’s memory of this time is correct. What people want to argue here and discredit him over is the details of what happened. My point is that why you may well remember the details, the details are the things that the brain tinkers with during the initial 10 year period.
Your comments about the toilet vs the bathtub as a sniper’s perch is both unfair and unkind to John MacArthur and proves nothing about his recollection.
The other people involved at that time are now in their 80’s and 90’s and also subject to the same memory issues as MacArthur. What is important about memory, particularly of events that happened over 50 years ago is the gist, not the details.
To paraphrase Jesus in John 8:7 Let he who is without memory sin cast the first stone.
As far as I can tell, there is no independent confirmation that MacArthur was there that night. Evers says he wasn’t and Perkins never wrote about the incident. He has declined to comment or even answer emails and all contacts with his Foundation on the matter. It really is a matter of believing MacArthur or not.
Why would an independent confirmation even be an expectation? They had just lost their leader, their friend, and they were facing an uncertain future. It would seem to me that they were attending mentally to other issues. Why would the presence or absence of an young unknown pastor (JM) even register in their minds at the time? If they didn’t encode the information at the time, it wouldn’t be available to them now. We remember what we deem important. I agree it really is a matter of believing JM or not. However, the presence of myself at a point and time in history would be important enough for me to remember but not necessarily important enough for other to remember.
With regards the toilet and bathtub recollection being unkind–‘The truth is it’s own defense’. Misquoting Scripture isn’t very persuasive.
Thomas, thank you for your responses. I did qualify that quote, didn’t I? So I can’t really be accused of mis-quoting scripture. Had I said, “Jesus said in John 8:7 – blah blah blah…” then you would be correct. As such, you are mistaken and common decency would require that you retract your statement.
With regard to the toilet and bathtub recollections. If I say that 40 years ago while in the Army I took a road trip with my best friend and three others from Ft. Bragg, NC to Panama City, Fl. I can remember clearly that my best friend was there because it was his car and he drove, but for the life of me, I can’t remember the other 3 people in the car, only that they were there, I can’t remember the make or model of the car, or what we had for dinner, does that mean the trip didn’t happen, or that anyone of those three persons weren’t there?
This is my point. Our brains capture the gist of events accurately and the details less accurately. Therefore the details of the bathtub vs the toilet are not relevant to the question of whether of not he was there.
And because you can’t remember it—you probably don’t use it as an example of your street cred. If you are going to add to Scripture (even with a qualifier) then on what authority does it stand ? We shouldn’t use Scripture to say something it doesn’t and then act pseudo offended when we get called on it.
“Adding to scripture” Seriously Thomas? Oh my, what a clown you are.
Are we calling each other names now? Well I don’t really expect an apology because I’m happy when the mask comes off.
To his credit, John MacArthur is not afraid to hold a mirror up to his fellow Christians. It is not unfair or unkind when those same Christians hold that mirror up to him.
To his credit, John MacArthur is not afraid to hold a mirror up to his fellow Christians. It is not unfair or unkind when those same Christians hold that mirror up to him.
The drive from Jackson to Memphis is only 3.5 hours. The idea that people from the NAACP office in Jackson would road trip to Memphis is reasonable.
Being able to examine the murder scene (scenes actually–both the shooter’s location and King’s) does seem to stretch credulity. Were the police so inept that they didn’t lock down the areas?
Of course, this was the 1960’s. The shooting of a black man (even someone as well known as King) wasn’t taken as seriously as it is today. The police just may not have given a damn if they got things right or not in this case.
The police and the FBI DID lock down the scene. Retired cops who were there have been interviewed and they call MacArthur’s story a ‘tall tale’. I think he should probably stop telling this story.
I was just about eight years old when King was assassinated. Eight years old and I read the afternoon newspaper and watched the NBC News with my dad. King’s assassination damn near tore the country apart. I think far more attention was paid to King’s death, even in far-away California. I do remember RFK’s death very well two months later, for a little kid tuned into the news, it really did seem like the country was falling to pieces, in between the assassinations, the war, and going into 1969 and 1970, the protests.
I was also eight years old, and I remember the news coverage. It was frightening to a child just coming to grips with the concept of assassination. My aunt/godmother and uncle lived in Trenton, and when the news came on and showed buildings burning, I got scared. I did not learn the term “race war” at that point, but I remember asking my father about the violence and who would kill whom, and if Aunt Grace and Uncle John were OK. (They were). I think the FBI wanted to show the entire country that they were taking the crime seriously.
I was also eight years old, and I remember the news coverage. It was frightening to a child just coming to grips with the concept of assassination. My aunt/godmother and uncle lived in Trenton, and when the news came on and showed buildings burning, I got scared. I did not learn the term “race war” at that point, but I remember asking my father about the violence and who would kill whom, and if Aunt Grace and Uncle John were OK. (They were). I think the FBI wanted to show the entire country that they were taking the crime seriously.
I was also eight years old, and I remember the news coverage. It was frightening to a child just coming to grips with the concept of assassination. My aunt/godmother and uncle lived in Trenton, and when the news came on and showed buildings burning, I got scared. I did not learn the term “race war” at that point, but I remember asking my father about the violence and who would kill whom, and if Aunt Grace and Uncle John were OK. (They were). I think the FBI wanted to show the entire country that they were taking the crime seriously.
So Charles Evers, iconic Civil Rights hero, has gone on record in response to John MacArthur: “Tell him to stop telling that lie” (2/4/19 Wartburg Watch).
In addition, I’d like John MacArthur to reveal the number of African American professors at his Master’s University. How about we hear from African American faculty and alumni on how people of color are treated by MacArthur today, right now, as MacArthur’s Master’s University is under investigation and at risk of losing accreditation.
I don’t know what you’re writing about but you do it beautifully — meaning with brevity and precision.
Thank you for the compliment. I make an effort to say as much as possible with a limited word-count.
I wish everybody else on Disqus would do the same! 🙂
I think that it’s certainly possible that they allowed particular people to see the crime scene based on their association with MLK, so simply because the public information doesn’t acknowledge this doesn’t meant it couldn’t have happened and it certainly wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility. In addition, the 2014 video appears to show John Perkins not only acknowledging the story, but also filling in some of the details for JM in a public forum. I can’t imagine why Mr. Perkins would do this if it was a fabrication. The issue of JM’s statement about the toilet is a non-issue and easily explained as being mistaken about a minor detail and in my experience, gives more credence to this story. If he were intentionally fabricating such an event, I would think he would try hard not to make that mistake. An issue for me that I’m surprised you didn’t point out is the nature of the headline, which is certainly designed to inflame passions on both sides of this issue and is more akin to grocery store rags than responsible journalism.
The reporter who wrote the story did interview some retired cops that were there that night. They called the standing in the blood scenario a tall tale. Possible with the same probablility of winning the lottery I suppose, but highly unlikely.
Except that all those claims are more or less corroborated by the testimony of a photographer from Life magazine who was there that night: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086676/Martin-Luther-King-Jr-assassination-Rarely-seen-pictures-captured-night.html
On one hand yes because there are people around. On the other hand, no because there is no sign of Perkins, Evers or MacArthur. The people who are there are those who were with King. On one hand yes because it appears the crime scene at the Lorraine wasn’t completely sealed but on the other hand no because the photographer couldn’t get into the building assumed to be the source of the shooting. If he couldn’t get in, then how did MacArthur and Co? As I noted in the post, Perkins could provide help here by adding his recollection. I hope he replies.
Here’s the rub though Warren. This NOQ report is being held as a definitive word on this story when clearly it is not. Look, I’m not even a big MacArthur fan but he’s being maligned in this. My Bible reading yesterday was timely and I think it should be a warning and taken to heart by those invested in this:
Exodus 23:1-2 “You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice.
Will – My position is that I don’t care what the truth is. This is now for me one of those issues like did Bonhoeffer say his famous quote “not to speak is to speak, etc.” These are historical claims which are nuanced and require objectivity to sort out. At first glance, it appears to me to be far fetched that MacArthur could be correct but there are conflicting threads of evidence so I would like to find out how to reconcile them. Many preachers have been caught up in exaggerations — David Barton claimed to play NCAA basketball and be a Russian translator and have an earned PhD. All claims were false. Why are MacArthur’s supporters coming out so angrily and defensively? This is usually a sign of something to hide. If MacArthur was truly a winsome transparent guy on this, he would address the claims and would have given comment to the reporter. She asked reasonable questions. Furthermore, since MacArthur and Perkins are or have been friends, he could ask Perkins to issue a statement. So far, there is nothing from Perkins. It also is interesting to me that Perkins has never written about something so profound as a visit to MLK’s crime scene (unless he did in his memoir – which I will find out soon). This seems like an incredible omission. So as one who has explored many similar historical claims, I find this one fascinating. I am happy to follow the information wherever it leads.
Thanks Warren. I find this case interesting and again I’m not a ‘MacArthur defender’ so much as I see this being told from different perspectives. I have no reason to doubt that he was there. He’s obviously told of this account for many years. Mr. Evers has given at least four different accounts of his recollection of this event, that he wouldn’t remember MacArthur isn’t a surprise. That one would think MacArthur should have been photographed at the scene is a bit of stretch for me. Why would he be? As he has said he was an unknown at that time and it appears from the Life photographer that there many people in the fore and background of those photos. As far as him standing on the toilet I think it’s plausible that he could have got there and was told that’s where the shooter shot from. Clearly, that part of his account is in doubt, but certainly explainable. From the Life photos it wouldn’t be a leap to believe many people either walked through the blood spots or stood on them. Regardless, it doesn’t appear to me that MacArthur is taking some sort of glory to being there, he just was. Again, I see this in the way the Gospels are written. There are many complimentary accounts of that night that were written or remembered. An accusation has been made with this that seems tremendously unjust to me. It seems fairly common in our political discourse these days that we have those that make accusations and then it’s up to the accused to prove them wrong re:Kavanaugh. In my opinion, at least, this issue has been far overblown.
Right, MacArthur needs to speak up, address the questions, clarify the account, etc. He should not be remaining silent while he allows Phil Johnson to offer various explanations for what happened. This is American Corporation culture at its worst, highly evident in the Church. Get rid of it. Be quiet, Phil, and do your best to direct MacArthur to address the issue. Try it the Scriptural way, and the issue will be more easily resolved.
Is MacArthur in any of those photos? That would put this all to rest. I didn’t see him but I could have missed something.
He is not in any of the photos. And for the life of me, why would anybody stand in any person’s blood?
The link seemed to verify a part of MacArthur’s story and disprove the most important part–that he was actually there. My gut tells me that there are a lot of confused memories after 51 years. He should probably just stop telling the story because it appears to be an attempt to gain street cred even if that is not his intention.
My gut tells me that John Mac is embellishing to make himself more important than he actually was. My gut tells me this because of my experience having dealt with MacArthur associates–they have been, in my personal experience, a warped part of a vicious, disingenuous system–as exemplified by people like Phil Johnson.
That’s actually untrue, Phil. The photographer was at a nearby hotel photographing the spot–not the hotel from whence Ray shot MLK. That’s an irrefutable fact. You really need to look at the facts before you say something easily refuted.
What say you to the link that Phil Johnson has posted?
Seems odd that the police and FBI would claim to have locked down the crime scene, including in all their official reports and then let people not directly involved in the crime, including Life photographers, walk in the blood of MLK. Excuse me: “Stand in the blood of MLK. But again, this happened 51 years ago and I think people should stop trying to appropriate street cred from it. The images show people at the hotel, but I don’t see John MacArthur in any of them. Am I missing something? It is super strange that the photographer also said he stood on top of the toilet. That clearly can’t be right because we know Ray shot from the bathtub. Ballistics science was pretty good even back then and you couldn’t see the hotel balcony from the commode. Given MacArthur’s history I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he is not remembering it all clearly.
I think you need to get straight who was allowed within the perimeter of the crime scene and who was not, and when they were allowed in. According to the police/FBI, the public was kept out. How they evaluated crime reporters/photographers and when they let press in (or some members of the press) is the question. But they didn’t let in just anybody, at least they say they did not.
Also, once again, what was the big deal of standing in the poor man’s spilled blood? Is it some type of badge of honor for all you Republicans? It would certainly be more respectful to NOT stand in a dead man’s blood, especially given that he was a martyr to what he believed.
Why are you repeating all the things I already said? When did I claim to be a Republican? Not sure that I am the person this was intended for.
Perfectly irrelevant to the central issue. The photographer did not take his pictures from the place where Ray shot MLK–it was from another hotel. What say you to that fact?
Perfectly irrelevant to the central issue. The photographer did not take his pictures from the place where Ray shot MLK–it was from another hotel. What say you to that fact?
It makes me wonder why Phil is running interference for his boss, and why MacArthur is not obeying the Bible in directly answering these questions about his integrity.
I know this is tangential to the subject of the post, but “inflicted” on him? Wow, that’s a pretty offensive way to put being indoctrinated in racist ideology, given the circumstances of the time. MacArthur didn’t suffer at all while around him black people were dying in their struggle against racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any indication that MacArthur publicly repudiated BJU or lifted a finger to fight their overtly racist policies that lasted until the turn of the century, even when he was personally attacked by Bob Jones Jr. over his theology.
I guess his understanding was pretty selective.
I know this is tangential to the subject of the post, but “inflicted” on him? Wow, that’s a pretty offensive way to put being indoctrinated in racist ideology, given the circumstances of the time. MacArthur didn’t suffer at all while around him black people were dying in their struggle against racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any indication that MacArthur publicly repudiated BJU or lifted a finger to fight their overtly racist policies that lasted until the turn of the century, even when he was personally attacked by Bob Jones Jr. over his theology.
I guess his understanding was pretty selective.
I am not exactly John MacArthur’s greatest fan, but I don’t think it’s fair to purport to know anything about him based on the simple fact that he neglected to do something you think he should have done.
Well, his public record of silence on BJU’s racist policies, especially as a prominent alum of the university, certainly appears to belie the claim in the quote that he’d be “inflicted” by the racist policies of BJU, or maybe he just didn’t consider that particular type of racism important enough to speak out on.
MacArthur is not an alum of BJU.
That’s a technicality. He went to BJU. That’s a fact. Whether he’s technically an “alum” is irrelevant. Of course, you know that. So why this game?
It’s not a technicality. It was a factually incorrect statement. It may have been an innocent mistake, but it was incorrect. It is, as you say, irrelevant. It had no bearing whatsoever in the comment. It contributed nothing at all. So why make it? What benefit is there in making the false claim that MacArthur is an alum of BJU? It sounds like an embellishment of the sort that MacArthur is being accused of. Is that okay with you?
Much of Warren’s writing is based on these kinds of false claims. It’s no game to tell the truth. Why would you not care about the truth? Why play these games? The comments/questions about MacArthur here are not affected at all by whether or not he was an alumni of BJU. It is, again as you say, irrelevant.
Here’s a thought: How would we know if someone was standing up against something 40 or 50 years ago? Most pastors had no public platform. There was no social media (where most stands are disseminated today). Were it not for this blog, how would you know that Warren is against all these things? Should we assume that Warren was supporting sex abuse in 1980 because we have no writings from him at that time condemning it? Of course not. That would be silly, stupid, and unfair to Warren. (Just as it would be to you to make some sort of claim about you based on your silence.)
So how did you know Pastor X from 1975 didn’t take a stand against Issue Y? You probably wouldn’t.
If someone were to say to me, “LT, you obviously didn’t care about racism twenty years because we don’t see any place you said anything.” That would be false. There is no evidence of it because I wasn’t public (and still am not). But twenty years ago, I was devoting my life to living as a minority in my community and speaking against racism from my pulpit. It’s not public because my ministry wasn’t public. It also would have made no sense to judge me for the lack of a specific condemnation of BJU because the people I was talking to didn’t even know who/what BJU was. It would have made no sense to them.
So we should be careful not to confuse the lack of evidence with the lack of a stand against something.
But MacArthur was public, and there is an archive of his sermons. So your comparison falls apart.
My comparison was not to defend MacArthur per se. It is to make a broader point, that an awful lot of condemnations are based in ignorance–people simply don’t know.
But there is not, to my knowledge, a record of everything MacArthur ever said. Which again, is not to defend him. I have no need or desire to defend MacArthur. I simply don’t know. My main point in commenting at all was simply to correct the comment that was made which is something I actually do know.
My second post was simply pointing out a broader reality of how social media and modern communication has changed things.
Your yourself, Jeri, have said a number of things that have been misleading and some that have been incorrect. (I know because I have read you for a long time and know many of the people and issues that you have written about.) But those misleading things or incorrect things are not reasons to question or to deny the incredible work you have done in exposing the evil of many people particularly in sex abuse claims. There is a great debt of gratitude due to you for your work.
I would say the same of many others. To point out the great good is not to assert perfection on every issue. In the same way, to point out wrongdoing should not lead to a complete discounting of one’s ministry or influence.
MacArthur has talked about his time at BJU and his involvement in the civil right movement in the same interview, but never made the same link that Perkins did in that quote, so maybe Perkins is just wrong, and BJU was not the motivating factor for MacArthur. That would go some way to explain the apparent lack of concern about BLU’s continued vile policies.
Looking around the web, his lack of public statements on BJU’s racism hasn’t gone unnoticed, and by people much better positioned to explore the available material than I.
It’s all solved when MacArthur steps up and addresses the accusation from Evers, which is what the Bible requires him to do. Address the grievance transparently.
Thanks, Jeri.
When you say the Bible requires this addressing, to what are you referring? It may, but nothing is coming to mind. It does require us to address some things, but Jeri, you have never felt compelled to address every accusation against you, have you? I don’t recall you doing that. And I don’t think you have to, so I am not holding that against you. Paul didn’t seem to do that in the NT, though he did at times, particularly (perhaps only) when his ministry among a particular people was jeopardized. In this day and age, if someone with the prominence of MacArthur responded to every accusation, he would never do anything else. You could say, as I suspect you would, that this is a bigger issue than many complaints, and to some degree it is.
And I wonder if it would matter anyway. What if MacArthur affirms his story and suggests that others are misremembering? Will that satisfy anyone? What if he just says he was wrong on a detail or two? Won’t they just accuse him of lying anyway? In other words, if MacArthur’s clarification is anything short of complete repudiation of his previous comments, will that satisfy anyone? I doubt it. My guess is that people’s problem with MacArthur has nothing to do with this particular story and more to do with his theology.
But I am curious: Evers has given conflicting stories about how he heard. Why is he presumed to be correct? Warren, in this article, mentions the two conflicting stories and concludes that Evers was not in his office. Why? Is it possible that Evers is misremembering something?
I don’t know the answer, nor do I understand why this is a huge deal 50+ years later, other than the need to “get MacArthur.” But it is interesting to me that people are going after MacArthur for his inconsistencies but not going after Perkins or Evers. Might it be that there is race in play? Or politics? Or theology? If MacArthur agreed with the modern “social justice position,” would this ever have been raised at all? What do you think?
Actually according to scripture we need two or more witnesses before accusing a brother/sister! Where are the two accusers?
MacArthur preached the gospel and when you do that you condemn sin, is he to point out one specific sin when preaching the gospel and hammer that into our heads or is he to preach against ALL sin?
Nope, it is factually correct. All but one of the dictionaries I’ve checked defines alumus as a former student or graduate.
And I object to the accusation I deliberately made a false claim. It was nothing of the sort.
>>>And I object to the accusation I deliberately made a false claim. It was nothing of the sort.<<< Then object to the person who made that accusation. It wasn't me. I said, (and I quote myself), "It may have been an innocent mistake, but it was incorrect." I think it was innocent and leaning on an obscure and rarely used definition of the term doesn't really help, but whatever. I think the most common connotation of alum is a graduate of a school, which is what I responded to. But I hope you will correct the accusation that I made a false accusation. I said nothing about being being deliberate. I was clear about that. Have a great evening.
I thought someone might object to the term, so I did actually check the definition before I used it. Merriam Webster’s definition of alumnus:
1 : a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university
I thought someone might object to the term, so I did actually check the definition before I used it. Merriam Webster’s definition of alumnus:
1 : a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university
that line jumped out at me as well