Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_William Schryver]

What a surprise! Little Brent is going to take his ball and go home again.

You just don't get it, do you?

The question, Brent, is not whether you are "worthy," but rather whether you have done anything that could be judged at all.

You presume to initiate a conversation with the principals at FAIR in order to seat a panel where you, solely by virtue of what you believe to be your credentials, place yourself with a group of scholars with extensive vitae in the relevant subject areas.

Sensible, experienced people see you do things like that and they just shake their heads in utter disbelief!

The more appropriate thing for you to do would be to actually go out and publish a few papers, present in a few places on the topic -- kind of like Chris Smith has begun doing -- and begin to establish a bona fide (rather than an asserted) reputation for knowledge of the subject matter. In so doing, you would -- in course of time -- make it clear that you are someone who could logically and appropriately be seated in such a panel, or be asked to speak somewhere (besides the Exmo Conference, of course.) You see, thinking people just aren't inclined to give much credence to the notion that possession of photos of the KEP and JSP for twenty-five years automatically qualifies you as an authority on anything! They have nothing to go on. You have no record to examine, no specific arguments to consider, nothing that anyone can even touch, let alone attempt to confirm or rebut -- unless you somehow are operating under the delusion that, in the internet generation, scattered posts on message boards over the years can now be considered the equivalent of a curriculum vitae.

Your hubris in these matters has caused you to turn things completely upside down.

Why won't Royal Skousen return your e-mails? Because the posture you assume when you author such e-mails to him is of someone demanding an explanation from a peer! And the implication inherent in that demand is that you are convinced Skousen is some kind of bumbler who didn't take everything into consideration, and that his analysis is clearly wrong. And, by damn, he will explain to you how he could dare contradict what you know to be the correct interpretation of the locus.

When I talked to Royal the day you sent him the second e-mail, he was simply stunned at how you can be so self-unaware.

The hard cold facts are that, whether you like it or not, and despite the fact that my experience with the documents is substantially less than yours, I am still the closest to a peer in these matters that you can find on the planet at this particular moment in time. If you refuse to discuss these things with me, then you are left with only two options:

1-Actually follow through on your years-old promises, shed your paralyzing risk-aversion, and actually publish on the topic.

-or-

2-Maintain the status quo, and continue to do nothing at all.

You might be surprised to learn that the guys in Provo don't share your judgment of me. I know, it's hard to imagine. But perhaps it would be worth your while to stop and consider why they would possibly be inclined to be so receptive to my participation, and -- on occasion -- to specific findings or observations I have made. Do you think they're just being nice fellow "brethren" and gently patronizing the bumpkin from Cedar City who (if the denizens of this board are to believed) is bringing the derision of the world down upon LDS apologetics?

Of course, you are free to conclude whatever you'd like. And you're free to disappear once again into your little cave with your precious photos. But before long, those photos aren't going to be nearly as "precious" as they have been up until now. Before long, your near monopoly will have permanently come to an end.

Maybe you should have sold high instead of waiting for the market to crash around you.

At any rate, neither Hauglid nor Gee nor Skousen nor anyone else who has academic credentials has anything whatsoever to gain from conversing with you about these matters, whether on a message board or on some "panel" that you propose. They continue to do what normal scholars do: they research, write, and publish.

The only way to critique their arguments in a meaningful way is for you to do the same. Short of that, you can whine all day long about being disrespected. And I'm sure you can always find a receptive audience that will empathize with you on that point, and then appropriately reassure you that you are still the "King of the Hill" when it comes to Book of Abraham studies.

Meanwhile, the times, they are a changin'. People a lot smarter and dedicated than I am will come along, study the images of the KEP, and see things that have eluded everyone up until now. And before you know it, you'll have become completely irrelevant.

Except, of course, in places like this. I'm sure you can always count on finding a soft shoulder and an understanding friend here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™.

Look, here comes your old buddy Kevin Graham right now ...

[_Danna]

rant rant rant

Crickey-bloody-dick!

You are [edited]. You would have rejected Einstein's 1905 paper - he was just a patent office clerk after all.

edit: arrgh.

[_Danna]

rant rant rant

I am aware that I am but the spittle of a cockroach, discarded on a soggy fag butt in the gutter. But, if you could spare an idle second or two, would you consider my query concerning the issue of the Chaldeans.

[_CaliforniaKid]

rant rant rant

I am aware that I am but the spittle of a cockroach, discarded on a soggy fag butt in the gutter. But, if you could spare an idle second or two, would you consider my query concerning the issue of the Chaldeans.

Oh God, Danna, you're cracking me up!

[_beastie]

I am aware that I am but the spittle of a cockroach, discarded on a soggy fag butt in the gutter. But, if you could spare an idle second or two, would you consider my query concerning the issue of the Chaldeans.

You forgot the most important part:

I am aware that I am but the spittle of a cockroach, discarded on a soggy fag butt in the gutter of a disreputable trailer park. But, if you could spare an idle second or two, would you consider my query concerning the issue of the Chaldeans.

[_Kevin Graham]

The question, Brent, is not whether you are "worthy," but rather whether you have done anything that could be judged at all.

You presume to initiate a conversation with the principals at FAIR in order to seat a panel where you, solely by virtue of what you believe to be your credentials, place yourself with a group of scholars with extensive vitae in the relevant subject areas.

Let's talk about credentials you little ass-wipe. You've never been to college, you rely on your wife to support you, you lied to Dan Vogel while pretending to be a fence-straddler truth seeker ("Provis" was your name until I outed you to him). Then you said you were an independent film maker to try covering up the lies in your email to him, and yet you have no films under your belt except a poorly edited FAIR conference. Now you claim to be a professional software writer, when just last year you revealed your ignorance in computer science when you told the forum that anyone can break into a discussion forum by simply unplugging the router for ten seconds. Now you think you are something of an expert on an issue you admittedly knew nothing about just three years ago when I informed you.

You're an absolute know-nothing and an embarrassment who is trying to make up for his life's failures by mocking critics. But you have contributed nothing. You're so pathetic that even I have contributed far more as an apologist than you probably ever will. How many of your apologetic articles have been published at FAIR? All you do is show up every once in a while in the pundits arena fishing for applause from those pretending to know something about the subject.

You don't have the balls to defend any of your positions on this forum and you spread the usual rumors about Brent regarding things that took place 30 years ago, just to score cheap points.

You're a know-nothing asshole who is trying to justify his existence by always pointing out the fact that Hauglid is still trying to use one of your little pet theories.

[_Kevin Graham]

Look, here comes your old buddy Kevin Graham right now ...

Will is just upset because nobody ever defends his sorry ass because it isn't worth defending. Hauglid isn't interested in marrying himself to Schryver either, and is far more interested in discussing the details of the KEP with Brent than he is with a know-nothing like Will. The record shows that Brent has corrected numerous errors from both Schryver and Hauglid. This is a documented fact. But will thinks credentials can compensate for being wrong all the damn time.

[_Kevin Graham]

You've helped me reconsider.

Don't let this insignificant piss-ant win Brent.

Post your stuff, please. I beg you. Don't let this idiot ruin it for all of us.

[_harmony]

Is anyone ever going to answer Danna's question about the Chaldeans?



X marks the spot

[_Pokatator]

I must conclude the poor Willy is not a member of the L-Skinny or the great second anointed L-Skinny team of Dr. Dan, Lawyer Bob or Mr. Plate would come riding over the horizon to protect and rescue poor Willy.

Where's your defenders from Provo poor Willy?