Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_Kishkumen]

Listen, in my field people go out of their way to cite and thank others who have contributed in the smallest way. In these particular circumstances, however, I am not surprised that no credit was given. It would have been amazing if it had been.

[_Nomad]

Listen, in my field people go out of their way to cite and thank others who have contributed in the smallest way. In these particular circumstances, however, I am not surprised that no credit was given. It would have been amazing if it had been.

Credit for what?

[_Kishkumen]

Listen, in my field people go out of their way to cite and thank others who have contributed in the smallest way. In these particular circumstances, however, I am not surprised that no credit was given. It would have been amazing if it had been.

Credit for what?

See, you really don't have the first clue what you are talking about. If you understood anything about academics, you would get it right away. Since you do not, you don't. I don't fault you for this, but it is true. It is called mutual, collegial affirmation. For good reasons, I would not have expected Will to extend them, and this is not intended as a slam against him.

[_CaliforniaKid]

why was this thread bumped up after 2 months of dormancy?

I spoke with Kevin about this briefly a few days ago, and went searching in the archives to see if I could find the thread he was talking about. I guess it's probably on MDD, but this one was related enough for me to speak my piece.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Listen, in my field people go out of their way to cite and thank others who have contributed in the smallest way. In these particular circumstances, however, I am not surprised that no credit was given. It would have been amazing if it had been.

I admit that I was a little surprised when Will began his paper by basically denying that my paper existed:

"Though Hugh Nibley and others vigorously objected to Howard’s argument, I am aware
of no one having attempted to rigorously assess its viability. Nor am I aware of anyone
ever having published a defense of it. It simply assumed the status of 'conventional
wisdom' by unremitting repetition."

But I just lol'd and went on with my life. Really, at the end of the day, who cares?

[_Runtu]

But I just lol'd and went on with my life. Really, at the end of the day, who cares?

+10

[_Nomad]

See, you really don't have the first clue what you are talking about. If you understood anything about academics, you would get it right away. Since you do not, you don't. I don't fault you for this, but it is true. It is called mutual, collegial affirmation. For good reasons, I would not have expected Will to extend them, and this is not intended as a slam against him.

But you haven't answered my question. What was Schryver supposed to give credit to Smith, Brown, or anyone else for? That's all I'm asking. People have been acting as though there is something Will wrote in his paper that was actually the work of Smith or Brown or someone else. Maybe they're right. That's why I'm asking. I do know this: in an early draft of the Schryver presentation that he sent to me, there was a slide that reference Samuel Brown's "pure language" paper given at (If I recall correctly) the Mormon History association. It was a full citation of the paper. I don't recall that it was a credit. Seems like it was just a "for further reading" kind of thing. I'm not sure why that didn't make it into the final version that Will delivered at FAIR. Maybe it was just a time issue? I don't know.

I do remember (haven't searched for the link, but I'm sure it's on this board) that Kevin Graham accused Schryver of plagiarizing Smith and Brown. that's a pretty severe allegation, if you ask me. So I wonder what he and others are talking about? What should Will have given credit for?

[_Nomad]

Listen, in my field people go out of their way to cite and thank others who have contributed in the smallest way. In these particular circumstances, however, I am not surprised that no credit was given. It would have been amazing if it had been.

I admit that I was a little surprised when Will began his paper by basically denying that my paper existed:

"Though Hugh Nibley and others vigorously objected to Howard’s argument, I am aware
of no one having attempted to rigorously assess its viability. Nor am I aware of anyone
ever having published a defense of it. It simply assumed the status of 'conventional
wisdom' by unremitting repetition."

But I just lol'd and went on with my life. Really, at the end of the day, who cares?

Did you publish a defense of Richard Howard's argument that the KEP were the modus operandi for translating the papyri?

Where? When?

I read your Whitmer Assoc. paper. It looked to me to be more of a denial of Howard's argument than a defense. That's how I saw it. In fact, If I recall correctly, you pretty much shot down most of his argument and were just looking at Abr 1:1-3. Do you believe the KEP was what Joseph Smith used to translated the papyri?

[_Nomad]

But I just lol'd and went on with my life. Really, at the end of the day, who cares?

+10

Like you go on with your life?

lol!

You're still here all the time. At least you are every time I check this place out. Maybe posting here is how you go on with your life. That's cool, I guess.

[_Runtu]

Like you go on with your life?

lol!

You're still here all the time. At least you are every time I check this place out. Maybe posting here is how you go on with your life. That's cool, I guess.

Hanging out here with friends has nothing to do with getting on with my life. Once again, you seem to be under the impression that I have some nefarious agenda for being here. I like the folks here, and often the conversation is interesting. I don't need your approval to spend time with people I like.