Three things

[_Runtu]

I've done nothing but suggest that the alleged "demolition" of Gee's arguments concerning multiple inks/multiple writing sessions is a premature description of things as they really are.

As for the thread you reference, I make no comment concerning the specific locus upon which Brent was focused at the time. That locus is one of a great many, and not one where the question of multiple inks/sessions is really in question.

That said, Brent is notorious for his ability to focus on a single point of minutia at the expense of not really seeing the big picture. That, I am convinced, will ultimately be viewed as his "Achilles Heel" when it comes to his flawed analysis of the KEP.

And if you honestly consider the post you linked to constitute a substantial contribution to the discussion, then my prediction is well on its way to coming true: too much association with exmormons is going to inevitably turn you into a propagandist who once aspired to be a scholar.

As for being convicted of hypocrisy on the day of judgment, you may very well be correct. But it won't have anything to do with my interactions on message boards, let alone my recent comments concerning Metcalfe's pretensions to authority.

Hey, Chris: have a nice day!

Wow, you showed 'em, Will. Six paragraphs, and nary a substantive response among them. Just hand-waving dismissals peppered with a few insults.

Bravo, Will! :)

[_Some Schmo]

...to focus on a single point of minutia at the expense of... seeing the big picture.

I don't think I've ever seen a more apt description of mopologetics than this one.

[_Yoda]

The problem is (for Brent, at least) that my analysis has now been confirmed by others who really do have the credentials to speak to the issues.

For those of us who can't follow MAD without tunneling in, but who are nonetheless interested in the subject....a few questions:

1. Who has your analysis been confirmed by, and what credentials do they hold?

2. Do you have a website, or do you have a reference to some published print materials of your research that we could look at? A link would be great.

3. You mentioned that you were in the process of posting a synopsis of the following findings:

I have, however, promised the following, and I will deliver it shortly:

Quote:
… I will shortly provide a synopsis of my findings versus your presumed opinions of the same questions.

Of course, you know exactly what “findings” I’m talking about: the later, interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12 in KEPA #2, and the dittograph on page 4 of the same document.

You have yet to offer any coherent response to these findings, despite my having articulated and continued to expand upon them on numerous occasions.

Why is that?

Would you mind posting this synopsis here, in the Celestial Forum?

[_Doctor Scratch]

But apparently you've been blissfully ignorant of the fact that a debate has even been going on! How typical.

Shades, blissfully ignorant?

Shades?

Shades? No. You, on the other hand.... I seem to recall a little incident in which you were very badly embarrassed by Kevin Graham. Ah, yes---it's all coming back to me now. You claimed that all the Book of Abraham issues had "been responded to," and when you were challenged on this, you had to retreat to MAD in order to beg for scholarly help, and then you were denied! Oh, what a double-blow to your pride! If only your trusty thesaurus contained answers to the mysteries of the Book of Abraham....

[_William Schryver]

I've done nothing but suggest that the alleged "demolition" of Gee's arguments concerning multiple inks/multiple writing sessions is a premature description of things as they really are.

As for the thread you reference, I make no comment concerning the specific locus upon which Brent was focused at the time. That locus is one of a great many, and not one where the question of multiple inks/sessions is really in question.

That said, Brent is notorious for his ability to focus on a single point of minutia at the expense of not really seeing the big picture. That, I am convinced, will ultimately be viewed as his "Achilles Heel" when it comes to his flawed analysis of the KEP.

And if you honestly consider the post you linked to constitute a substantial contribution to the discussion, then my prediction is well on its way to coming true: too much association with exmormons is going to inevitably turn you into a propagandist who once aspired to be a scholar.

As for being convicted of hypocrisy on the day of judgment, you may very well be correct. But it won't have anything to do with my interactions on message boards, let alone my recent comments concerning Metcalfe's pretensions to authority.

Hey, Chris: have a nice day!

Wow, you showed 'em, Will. Six paragraphs, and nary a substantive response among them. Just hand-waving dismissals peppered with a few insults.

Bravo, Will! :)

What would an evil-apostate know about substance?

And besides, I did respond quite precisely to Chris and Shades insinuation that Brent had "demolished" Gee's arguments concerning multiple inks/multiple writing sessions. I've made it clear that the victory dance was premature. What does that mean? Well, obviously it must suggest that I have good reason to believe that Gee's arguments, in one fashion or another, have been vindicated by additional analysis.

That sounds pretty substantive to me.

And I guess I'm just so jaded and inured to pangs of conscience that I don't even recognize an insult any more. Where did I insult Chris? By suggesting that, if he doesn't watch out, he'll end up as a propagandist rather than a scholar? That must be it.

Ooooohh, that was pretty awful!

Oh, I'm getting overcome with grief ... where did I put that sackcloth and ashes?

[_Runtu]

What would an evil-apostate know about substance?

And besides, I did respond quite precisely to Chris and Shades insinuation that Brent had "demolished" Gee's arguments concerning multiple inks/multiple writing sessions. I've made it clear that the victory dance was premature. What does that mean? Well, obviously it must suggest that I have good reason to believe that Gee's arguments, in one fashion or another, have been vindicated by additional analysis.

That sounds pretty substantive to me.

And I guess I'm just so jaded and inured to pangs of conscience that I don't even recognize an insult any more. Where did I insult Chris? By suggesting that, if he doesn't watch out, he'll end up as a propagandist rather than a scholar? That must be it.

Ooooohh, that was pretty awful!

Oh, I'm getting overcome with grief ... where did I put that sackcloth and ashes?

Hmmm. If I thought you were capable of repenting, I might be impressed. ;)

[_William Schryver]

liz:

Who has your analysis been confirmed by, and what credentials do they hold?

The analysis of the dittograph has been publicly confirmed by Royal Skousen, whose credentials in textual criticism are so impeccable that Metcalfe has even praised him. Until Royal confirmed my analysis, that is. Then Brent e-mailed the poor professor for a couple weeks straight trying to find out what drugs he’d been taking; or at least to interrogate him on his obviously incorrect conclusion. And then, to make matters worse, Royal called me one day shortly thereafter and exhausted my phone battery regaling me with exciting stories from the world of textual criticism! (Actually, Royal is very a engaging and funny guy that everyone should get the opportunity to talk with for two hours straight.)

Brent went on to suggest (on this message board, If I recall correctly) that Skousen had (and I paraphrase) sold his soul for an apologetic mess of pottage.

Professor Hauglid also has publicly endorsed that finding.

Since that time, the dittograph question (and many, many, many others) have been considered by multiple experts in textual criticism. To my knowledge, all consider the long repeated paragraph on page #4 of KEPA #2 to be an obvious case of visual dittography, probably arising from a lengthy delay between writing sessions (which is precisely what I first suggested).

Confirmation of my analysis concerning Abr. 1:12 has occurred both by text experts and forensic document analysis.

All of this analysis of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers to which I refer will not appear publicly until it appears in print – almost certainly within the year. The project is well underway. Publication is slated to occur under the FARMS imprimatur and constitute the 4th volume in the Book of Abraham series they have already commenced.

I do not plan to submit any formal papers to journals, or to formally publish, online or otherwise, anything relevant to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers until after the book to which I refer above has appeared in print. I am obligated to that course of action. I am only permitted, at present, to discuss these things informally in the fashion I have to date.

Would you mind posting this synopsis here, in the Celestial Forum?

I’ll do that. Just for you, lizzie. Cuz I like you. You don’t mind so much when and if I employ double entendres or make oblique mention of breasts.

[Oh! That wicked hypocritical Mormon misogynist! He talked about ……………… BREASTS!] How outrageous!

Yes, I am a BAD man.

[_Dr. Shades]

Incidentally, Brent helpfully supplied the link wherein Gee's "the Egyptian overruns the English" argument was demolished. You were under the impression that Gee was never refuted on anything; what's your assessment of him now?

I’m quite aware of what has been said before now.

If you really were "quite aware of what has been said before now," then why on earth did you ask for three examples of it?

[_Brackite]

William wrote:

So, let me get this straight, Brackite, you know that KEPA #2 and #3 are simultaneously-created transcriptions of Joseph Smith’s original oral dictation of the first 1½ chapters of the Book of Abraham because of the analysis of an anonymous message board poster going by the moniker "Who Knows"?

That is Not Exactly what the Answer I Provided States. Please Go Back and Re-Read it.



Droopy wrote:

But then, Metcalf, like so many other critics, is not concerned with what the text actually says, and there's a very good reason for this.

That's not a particularly useful area of inquiry for a critic to pursue.

The Text of the Book of Abraham has already been analyzed.
Please Check Out and See:

Chapter 8 - The Text of the Book of Abraham:
http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_8.html

[_William Schryver]

Shades:

If you really were "quite aware of what has been said before now," then why on earth did you ask for three examples of it?

Obviously because I knew exactly what to expect!


Bye now ...