Nevo wrote:Brad Hudson wrote:Do you really think so? The timelines look so tight to me that I really can't draw that conclusion. Am I missing something in the timelines I sketched out? Is it really that unlikely that Steve's SO and you found the same key fact by looking at the crew manifests or whatever?
You wrote in your timeline for 10/5/11:
5:22 AM Steve Benson "teases" research results at RfM, crediting the legwork to his significant other
1:31 PM Nevo posts at Mormon Discussions that Patton was recorded as missing due to his own misconduct in the ship's records.
8:32 PM Steve Benson posts at Mormon Discussions on the Patton issue, confirming that Patton was recorded as missing due to his own misconduct.
Steve didn't report any "research results" until several hours after I provided the links to Patton's ship records.
As late as 3:03 PM (or 3:18 PM, take your pick) he posted on RFM: "In the meantime, my significant other is painstakingly forging ahead, making interesting discoveries while urging caution as to proper interpretation and context."
Apparently he hadn't checked in on the Mormon Discussions thread yet.
By 8:30 PM, yes, he was "confirming" my research, as you put it. Later that evening, he posted RFM that "some very peculiar facts are coming to the surface which appear to run strikingly counter to basic claims made by Monson." Contrast that breathless notice with the earlier one.
Pardon my skepticism, but I do think it is unlikely that Steve's SO happened to independently uncover the same information hours after I did.
Does Steve even claim this, by the way? Since it is obvious he places a premium on honesty and integrity, I'd like to hear his account of how he came across this information.
I think that's a fair question. Steve posted early in the morning of the fifth that his SO was researching Patton. Here's what he said:
Special thanks in this research effort must deservedly go to my significant other who comes from a military family; who is an amazing genealogist; who is a keen-eyed, insatiable and responsible researcher; who spent time growing up as a child in Ogden, Utah, where she loved the aroma coming from the local KFC (and who smells a rat on this meandering Monson storytelling binge); who is a straight-talking never-Mo directly related to Hosea Stout (Joseph Smith's Nauvoo chief of police and devoted dastardly Danite); and who has a damn lot of patience combined with tenacity.
Steve first got interested in the subject two days before. I see no reason to believe he's lying in that entry about his SO. So, I think it's reasonable to conclude that she'd been doing research the day before (or else she got up really, really early....) Steve's post that followed yours was his first in the thread, so I see no reason to conclude that his SO discovered the information hours after you did. She could have discovered it at any time after she started researching. And if she comes from a military family, that may very well have given her a leg up on knowing the kinds of records to look for.
Steve's first post at MD can easily be understood as independent confirmation of what you posted. Still, if he first learned about the new information about Patton being listed as missing from reading your post, he should credit you even if he or his SO looked it up to confirm your information.