Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_Nomad]

I don't recall Will ever saying anything about Skousen except that he has looked at Schryver's KEP research and thought it made a good case for his arguments. Maybe there's something I've missed?

Gee, so you are now disputing that you wrote the following words, which sock puppet kindly linked for us:

I’ve exchanged e-mails with William in the past hour. He had just returned from having lunch with Royal Skousen (Skousen and his wife have been visiting the Schryvers the past couple days.)

Skousen spent a few days carefully examining Schryver’s detailed findings and believes the dependency question entirely unassailable on purely text-critical grounds, much as Daniel McClellin is beginning to observe, as seen by his posts here. He (Skousen) believes William should consider submitting his eventual book to Oxford or Yale for publication, rather than to BYU, since his findings are not polemical or apologetic at all, and he (Skousen) seems to believe that either place would give them serious consideration.

Gee, I wonder why we are confused about the precise nature of what happened, when you guys change the story each time you tell it, all the while claiming that we are the ones who are confused. If you guys told were clear and truthful the first time, then maybe there wouldn't be a problem.

As I said, I really don't care to untangle all of the lies to find the truth in this mess. It really isn't worth it. But it is obvious that the story continues to change, and it is so absurd that the only thing worth noting is that we are dealing with people who are full of s***.

Where's the problem? Will spent a Monday night and Tuesday lunch with Skousen -- a "couple" days.

Will told me, and has stated publicly, that Skousen had previously spent a few days examining his research.

Exactly what is it you have a problem with here? Where are the contradictions between what I have said and what Will has said?

[_Nomad]

duplicate

[_Will Schryver]

Where's the problem? Will spent a Monday night and Tuesday lunch with Skousen -- a "couple" days.

Will told me, and has stated publicly, that Skousen had previously spent a few days examining his research.

Exactly what is it you have a problem with here? Where are the contradictions between what I have said and what Will has said?

Strange, isn't it?

But they've always been like this.

[_sock puppet]

So, as it happens, Royal Skousen spent four days with you, wherein, among other things, you attended a play and ate lunch together.

?

Will said Skousen came Monday afternoon 8/9 and left on Tuesday afternoon 8/10. Not sure what time zone you're in, but that adds up to 24 hours where I live.

Your description of the weekend does indeed contradict Nomad's version of the events, so questions remain as to the accuracy of both your report and his.

What are you talking about?

I don't really care to work out the reasons for the disparity.

Good idea, since there isn't any that I can see.

Since I don't see much reason to trust either one of you, I'll just file it under "reasons not to trust Schryver and friends."

Whatever.

In total, then, we can say that Skousen spent a long weekend at chez Schryver ...

Monday afternoon to Tuesday afternoon = "a long weekend" in your world? OK.

... wherein he dispensed advice about academia to you (as you claim), then later you had a very long phone conversation with him about the KEP, and then, as you later claim, exchanged some emails on the topic. Most recently you attempted to reduce all of your interaction with him to these emails, but it is fairly clear that the relationship is far more involved than that ...

In your alternate universe, anything is possible.

Since you continue to represent all of these things in different ways on different occasions, and on each occasion modify the impression you attempt to make on others regarding the significance of Skousen to your work, it seems to me that you are left with a real credibility problem.

I don't recall Will ever saying anything about Skousen except that he has looked at Schryver's KEP research and thought it made a good case for his arguments. Maybe there's something I've missed?

Nomad, your wrote

I’ve exchanged e-mails with William in the past hour. He had just returned from having lunch with Royal Skousen (Skousen and his wife have been visiting the Schryvers the past couple days.)

Skousen spent a few days carefully examining Schryver’s detailed findings and believes the dependency question entirely unassailable on purely text-critical grounds, much as Daniel McClellin is beginning to observe, as seen by his posts here. He (Skousen) believes William should consider submitting his eventual book to Oxford or Yale for publication, rather than to BYU, since his findings are not polemical or apologetic at all, and he (Skousen) seems to believe that either place would give them serious consideration.

Professor Skousen reviewed my FAIR presentation before the fact. He was persuaded by the arguments I made for the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. I did not otherwise consult with him beyond a few e-mails here and there—none since the 2010 FAIR Conference.

So, one of three possibilities exist about the Skousen involvement with Will's BoAbr theory presentation after the fact (i.e. after it's 8/6/2010 presentation):

1-After the 8/6/2010 presentation, Skousen did as you wrote in exquisite detail spend a couple of days carefully reviewing Will's detailed findings, Will told you about it in an email exchange on 8/10/2010 and Will is now lying about it (which begs the question why would Will do so now)?

2-Since the 8/6/2010 presentation, Skousen has not been in contact with Will about Will's BoAbr thesis, but Will lied to you on 8/10/2010 in an email to you about Skousen supposedly having done so and Will lied again on 8/25/2010 when he posted that he had just had that previous weekend a lengthy telephone call with Skousen (Will's motives for so lying per this #2 scenario are pretty obvious)?

3-Since the 8/6/2010 presentation, Will has not told you that Skousen has been in contact with Will about Will's BoAbr thesis, but on 8/10/2010 you lied in posting that Will had so reported to you Skousen doing so and Will lied also on 8/25/2010 when he posted that he had just had that previous weekend a lengthy telephone call with Skousen (your motives to bolster Will with the Skousen corroboration being pretty obvious, just as Will's motives for so lying per this #2 scenario are pretty obvious)?

As you can see, the possibilities extend no further than these:

1-Will is a liar,
2-You are a liar,
3-You are both liars.

Which is it?

[_Kishkumen]

As you can see, the possibilities extend no further than these:

1-Will is a liar,
2-You are a liar,
3-You are both liars.

Which is it?

I will present another obvious possibility, which is somewhat exculpatory of Laurel & Hardy:

We are conflating the overnighter with the several days that Skousen spent examining Will's findings. The two are, as I am supposing, not really substantively related. The emails happened separately from each of these events. So, there really is an explanation that makes some sense in all of this mess, but I am past the point of really caring all that much about this silliness.

[_Will Schryver]

1-Will is a liar,
2-You are a liar,
3-You are both liars.

Which is it?

No one is a liar. But you are right that my underlined statement about not talking with Royal after the FAIR conference is not correct. I did talk with him for quite a long time on Saturday August 22nd, as I reported. I have not spoken with him since then.

[_sock puppet]

1-Will is a liar,
2-You are a liar,
3-You are both liars.

Which is it?

No one is a liar. But you are right that my underlined statement about not talking with Royal after the FAIR conference is not correct. I did talk with him for quite a long time on Saturday August 22nd, as I reported. I have not spoken with him since then.

So why in the last few days have you tried to downplay Skousen to the point of having no post-presentation involvement?

[_Will Schryver]

We are conflating the overnighter with the several days that Skousen spent examining Will's findings. The two are, as I am supposing, not really substantively related. The emails happened separately from each of these events.

Correct.

So, there really is an explanation that makes some sense in all of this mess, but I am past the point of really caring all that much about this silliness.

I don't understand what the big deal was in the first place. I met Royal through my friendship with Dallin D. Oaks, whose offices are very close to one another. Both Dallin and Royal like Shakespeare. I live where there is a Tony-award winning Shakespeare theater. My family has a guest house in town. I invite people to come down here frequently. I asked Royal to review my findings. Now that his long-awaited Book of Mormon book is done, he had the time to do so, so he did. I bought him and his wife and son tickets to Macbeth in exchange for his trouble.

There really wasn't anything conspiratorial about any of it.

[_sock puppet]

1-Will is a liar,
2-You are a liar,
3-You are both liars.

Which is it?

No one is a liar. But you are right that my underlined statement about not talking with Royal after the FAIR conference is not correct. I did talk with him for quite a long time on Saturday August 22nd, as I reported. I have not spoken with him since then.

That only addresses the lengthy phone call issue of August 21 or 22. What about the couple of days of analysis by Skousen of your findings that Nomad claimed on August 10 you told him took place on August 9 and 10? Is Nomad lying about that? Or did you lie to Nomad telling him about that? Or are you lying in the last few days by claiming Skousen didn't do so if he in fact did?

[_Kishkumen]

So why in the last few days have you tried to downplay Skousen to the point of having no post-presentation involvement?

Why reward him with any attention? I think the best solution is just to reach a state of apathy regarding Schryver's apologetic activities. I say this not to attack him or anyone else. But really, what does it matter? It is a bunch of noise about nothing of importance.