Three things

[_William Schryver]

... a rapidly-evolving discussion.

Decades and decades is "rapidly evolving"?

Dissonance, your ignorance is showing again. Maybe you should trim that thing up a little so it's not always hanging so far down.

The first formal scholarly study of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers only commenced about four years ago. There are now several people involved in the project.

[_Droopy]

In any event, if my "credibility" is gone, I can at least take comfort in the fact that I took Brent Metcalfe's with me.

I'll laugh at that one too!

Yes, very funny. Metcalf is on a fool's errand attempting to dismiss the Book of Abraham with his endless hair splitting forensic probings, and, ironically, may in the end provide information useful to apologists in supporting plausible arguments for its legitimacy.

Now that would be the very definition or irony, would it not?

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.

[_Droopy]

Specific arguments concerning textual criticism which have been confirmed by professionals in the pertinent fields of study -- textual criticism and forensic document analysis. Arguments which Metcalfe aggressively ridiculed and boldly claimed to be spurious when I first made them, and yet which have since been confirmed by experts whose experience and credentials he is not in a position to dispute, let alone rebut.

And the bad news for Metcalfe, his theories, and his inflated reputation is not yet over. I will elaborate further in coming weeks ...

The light comes on. A thousand tiny scampering feet hasten toward the baseboards before that big can of Gospel RAID homes in on their gyrating chitinous bodies

Scratch, the queen mother of the brood, sits in darkness; a bloated, pulsating egg laying machine (pun intended), squeezing out one wriggling larval mendacity after another while the dutiful workers whisk it off to the moist catacombs prepared for its gestation into a full blown tissue of deception and paranoia.

Meanwhile, a serious mind like Will's works for real understanding of the issues and, as usual, real detailed, intellectually critical work is dismissed by the waving antenna of the drones in the exmo hive, so threatening is it to the petty bigotry, self justificational rage, and grandiose pride that drives angry ex-Mormonism to its various outrages.

[_Dr. Shades]

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.

What does it matter what the text actually says, when we know that Joseph just made it up?

Meanwhile, a serious mind like Will's works for real understanding of the issues and, as usual, real detailed, intellectually critical work is dismissed . . .

You're mistaken. It wasn't dismissed; it's impossible to dismiss something that was never on the table to begin with. Will mentioned findings and input, but he never told us what those actually were.

[_William Schryver]

Shades:

Will mentioned findings and input, but he never told us what those actually were.

Really?

Really?!!

Where have you been, Shades? For almost three years I have been talking about some very specific items, two in particular. These things have very specific relationships to the larger argument concerning the origins of the Book of Abraham. Brent even recognizes that much, hence his initial rush to ridicule my analysis as not worthy of anyone's consideration.

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.

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

You people never cease to amaze ...
.
.
.
.
.===============

[_Dr. Shades]

Where have you been, Shades?

On this board, not MA&D.

For almost three years I have been talking about some very specific items, two in particular.

On this board, or at MA&D?

These things have very specific relationships to the larger argument concerning the origins of the Book of Abraham. Brent even recognizes that much, hence his initial rush to ridicule my analysis as not worthy of anyone's consideration.

Brent said that your input on Book of Abraham studies was "ancillary at best."

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.

Like who?

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

Sorry Willy, but I don't follow MA&D that much.

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?

See: Composition of the Book of Abraham manuscript

[_Droopy]

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

Shades, blissfully ignorant?

Shades?

[_William Schryver]

Shades:

Brent said that your input on Book of Abraham studies was "ancillary at best."

Perhaps you should reconsider your apparent willingness to consider Metcalfe the final word on these kinds of things.

Like who?

Royal Skousen publicly confirmed my analysis of one item. Additional confirmation includes multiple experts in textual criticism and a forensic document laboratory. Their findings will appear in print before another year has passed. If, in the meantime, you’d like to suggest that I’m lying or exaggerating, or whatever … feel free.

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.

Let’s just say that the report of an alleged “demolition” may have been a bit premature. You’d be really surprised what kinds of things can be determined by modern technology. You know, kind of like CSI:The KEP.

But don’t worry about it, moderator deletion by harmony. I have no doubt you can rest assured that there is no need to continue to follow the ongoing conversation. Everything that could be said has been said. Everything that could be found has been found.

Right?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Let’s just say that the report of an alleged “demolition” may have been a bit premature. You’d be really surprised what kinds of things can be determined by modern technology. You know, kind of like CSI:The KEP.

If you're implying that modern technology has vindicated the characters-overrun-the-text argument, all you're going to accomplish is to make me suspicious of your pronouncements on this matter. For an example of a CSI: KEP-type analysis that consists of more than wishful thinking, see here. You'll notice that the linked post is an actual contribution from the laughingstock Brent Metcalfe, who you claim has never made any meaningful contributions on this subject. In a recent hot-air-blowing session of yours on MADB, you engaged in personal smearing of Brent on the basis that he tantalizes us with assertions about the KEP while providing nothing but promises of future publication to back them up. Given how much of the same exercise you've been engaged in in the last few weeks, I'd say you might want to revisit your treatment of Brent lest you find yourself accused of hypocrisy on the day of judgment.

Best,

-Chris

[_William Schryver]

Let’s just say that the report of an alleged “demolition” may have been a bit premature. You’d be really surprised what kinds of things can be determined by modern technology. You know, kind of like CSI:The KEP.

If you're implying that modern technology has vindicated the characters-overrun-the-text argument, all you're going to accomplish is to make me suspicious of your pronouncements on this matter. For an example of a CSI: KEP-type analysis that consists of more than wishful thinking, see here. You'll notice that the linked post is an actual contribution from the laughingstock Brent Metcalfe, who you claim has never made any meaningful contributions on this subject. In a recent hot-air-blowing session of yours on MADB, you engaged in personal smearing of Brent on the basis that he tantalizes us with assertions about the KEP while providing nothing but promises of future publication to back them up. Given how much of the same exercise you've been engaged in in the last few weeks, I'd say you might want to revisit your treatment of Brent lest you find yourself accused of hypocrisy on the day of judgment.

Best,

-Chris

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!