If you had half a brain, you would recognize that what I object to is your mischaracterizing my claims out of dishonesty or ineptness. I think I was being rather charitable in assuming you are simply stupid, not fundamentally dishonest. I'll try to take it easy on you in the future since it is increasingly clear that you are lacking requisite skills. I would hate to think that you are simply a slimy character, in which case I will respond with the appropriate vitriol.
He's probably dishonest, combined with a bit of stupidity. For verification of that, see scratch's revelations concerning bob's willful manipulation of a source:
(this can be found on scratch's blog here
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/weblog.php?w=3 )
rcrocket:
I know a few things about intellectual honesty. Will Bagley relied heavily upon John D. Lee's journal, as did Juanita Brooks. Both Bagley and Brooks relied upon a Massacre repository at the Huntington. Brooks was even a fellow there for a while.
There is a letter in the massacre files from Lee's attorney to Lee, while Lee is in prison awaiting execution. Lee's confession is attorney Bishop's means of obtaining a fee for Lee's defense. Bishop urges Lee in this letter to implicate Brigham Young in the confessions, and the Bishop says that Bishop is going to add things to Lee's confession to spice things up.
bob also included the same accusation in his FARMs review:
As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "adding such facts . . . as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."
After repeated badgering by scratch, bob did provide the full text of the letter he was quoting, which reads:
Feb, 23m 1877 to John D. Lee
Dear Sir:
Your kindly worded and lengthy letter of the 15th inst. Recd. I thank you for the same, before I know I have done all I knew how to do for your benefit. I am conscious of tfact that men of greater ability could have been secured to defend you, but I will insist that no man could have been found to would have been more truly devoted to your interests then I have been. I still claim that the law is on our side, that laying aside outside pressure and prejudice I would have been successful - but we may as well look at facts as they are. We have the prejudice of civilization to contend with - the united press of the nation opposed us, and no one was found who would speak a word of kindness in your behalf. Added to this we found the so-called Head of the Church furnishing evidence against you and the members all arrayed as willing tools under the leadership of Genl. Wells. Treachery was added to hatred and the whole people it appeared demanded a victim. Under such circumstances we could only fail in the Territorial courts - I am sorry that you were unable to raise the money to carry the case up to the Supreme Court of the United States before I do think we could have reversed the case in the accord - But it is useless to speak of what might have been - it is existing facts that now demand attention - I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and the history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public. I wish you to forward to me your Journals such as you have I will use them & return of them to your family when I am done with them. I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began - giving a full statement of all the fax and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it that he is if you have held anything back. In Justice to your self & to me - as well as your family “tell it all”. I am Sir, Respectfully Yours, Walmart. W. Bishop
It was dishonest to pretend that Bishop said he would "add things to spice up" the confession, when what Bishop actually said was that he was going to add "SUCH FACTS connected with the trial and the history of the case" that would make it interesting.
OTOH, it is possible for someone to be too stupid to realize that "adding facts connected to the trial" is not the same as "adding things to spice it up".
It was stupid to manipulate a source and think he could get away with it. OTOH, other FARMS scholars have gotten away with manipulating sources for DECADES without being caught (see John Sorenson), so maybe he's not really stupid after all. Although his stupidity has been thoroughly revealed in regards to claiming that the Maya did not have a written language.
As far as members harassing critics on the net, I think that the following constitutes harassment:
1 - letting a critic know that their identity is known by the believer
2 - telling that critic that the believer intends to send their posts to the critic's still believing family
3 - and, in one instance, actually doing so (although making an erroneous attribution in the process)
Crocket did 1 and 2 to GoodK. DCP did number 3 to GoodK.
Will Schryver also went on at length about his desire to find real identities of critics on the net in order to send that information to church leaders.
Critics post anonymously for good reason.
