When it comes to formal Book of Abraham-related academic publications, Metcalfe and I are undeniably equals. Nothing on this thread has served to dispute that fact.
But you are clearly inferior to Brent in every sense that matters, especially with respect to an understanding of the KEP. Aside from the fact that you're a glory-seeking idiot who is just trying to ride on the coat-tails of Hauglid and any other BYU professor who shares in your "testimony" of the Church, the fact is Brent has made both Gee and Hauglid look absolutely foolish. Now we learn his scholarship has in the past caused your new favorite "expert" to change his mind as well. Can you make such a boast?
How many times have they been corrected by Brent? Numerous times. And yet how many times have they corrected Brent? Zilch. I'm not even sure they have claimed to disprove anything he has argued. You're the only one dumb enough to do that.
For the record, I did not finish my undergraduate work at the University of Utah, majoring in Middle East Studies with a Hebrew emphasis. My accomplishments were limited to an award as “Middle East Studies Student of the Year” and a scholarship for a semester at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
I quit early to pursue a lucrative career in software development, in which occupation I remain to this day. (Yes, I admit it: I gave up a possibly respectable career in academia in favor of filthy mammon.)
Uh huh. We know you know nothing of Hebrew, and you probably never attended any college. Brent has been hired by Microsoft and has listed numerous projects that he has been involved with. To achieve what he has without benefit of a degree is far more impressive than doing it with one. You on the other hand, have a penchant for exaggeration and lies. It seems like just yesterday you were an independent filmmaker. Now you claim to be a software developer. But you demonstrate incompetence in the field of computer science. From your pathetic website you tried to start for your "independent film making" business (one which looked like something my five year old threw together with poorly written HTML), to your idiotic comment regarding banned posters being able to circumvent administrator restrictions by unplugging one's router (a post you removed in embarrassment after Liz and I pointed out how idiotic it was), to your ridiculous attempt at video editing for the FAIR conference. At best, you probably got an IT position using the Church employment service, which allows a strong testimony to compensate for mediocre credentials.
I am the only amateur in the world, at present, who possesses high-resolution digital scans of the relevant documents, which I have now had in my possession for almost three years, and to which I have dedicated a concerted amount of study, while in continuous consultation with the team of qualified scholars who have been studying the Kirtland Egyptian Papers for the past four years. Funny how that quite relevant point is always conveniently ignored. Why is that, do you suppose?
First of all, we all know that the only reason you have these photos is because of your overwhelming testimony that nothing could ever convince you Joseph Smith was a fraud. And this is why Hauglid and Gee have them, too. It has nothing to do with a proven ability to interpret them properly or do proper ink analysis or whatever. They can see because they are not a threat. None of these guys are 19th century forensic document experts. And your photos... you rely on scraps from whatever Hauglid sends you. But as a map of the universe in the hands of Forrest Gump is rather meaningless, so are any KEP photos in your possession. You've contributed absolutely NOTHING. I repeat, NOTHING, except more entertainment for critics. The only reason Hauglid is trying to salvage your ridiculous dittograph argument is because that is how badly Book of Abraham apologetics has it right now. They gotta have something to be working on in order to argue their presupposition that these cannot be dictation manuscripts. Gee and Hauglid simply aren't creative enough.
Both of us are in the same category of “amateur” when compared to the bona fide Book of Abraham scholars.
Wrong again. Hands down, Brent is the world's authority at this point. How could he not be? Despite popular myth started by you and your ilk, Brent has consulted with forensic document experts over the years and has not relied strictly an his own understanding. His understanding currently is unsurpassed and nothing your credentialed apologists have done has even compared to Brent's contributions. And stop pretending to have the only "Book of Abraham scholars." What you have are a few scholars in semi-related fields, acting as apologists on a subject they've only recently become familiar with. A subject Brent has known like the back of his hand for decades.
Why do you think he managed to obtain prestigious employment with Microsoft without a degree? Because what really matters is hands on experience. He can get the job done; better than others who have degrees.
Brent has studied these documents for decades and has kept most of his impressive research low-key. By contrast, you've only recently been given under-the-table photos and you're constantly trying to convey to the world your exaggerated sense of self importance. Hauglid even admitted he was very "green" and somewhat out of Brent's league on this subject, and as we all saw on the MAD board, it showed. Hauglid only recently managed to study them and he does so as a side hobby for apologetic purposes.
But hey, Will Schryver says he is "equal" with Brent because neither of them have published on the subject within the academy (As if Gee or Skousen could ever publish their Book of Abraham apologetic anywhere outside Provo). This is like saying you and Stephen Hawking are equals because neither of you have seen a black hole.
To say you are equal with Brent is an insult to Brent and shouldn't be allowed to stand.
Will is letting the past 3 years of protected status in "Pundits" get to his head. That little echo chamber has created a delusion; that he really matters in some way, because very few are able or even interested in refuting him there. He thinks that he is in some kind of scholarly inner loop because he managed to convince some BYU professors that his testimony can withstand the brunt force of reason. I get the sense that it is Will who is constantly nagging at these guys, begging to be included in some way. Every once in a while they toss him a bone and then he runs over to the forums and starts bragging about how important he is. Rather sad for a grown man to act this way.