Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Res Ipsa]

He desecrated and appropriated the papyri.

And he manhandled the mummies and the very bones in which were attached to their bodies in a most disrespectful manner while making money showing them off.

The whole thing is disgusting and disgraceful.

Sure. That has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "repurpose."

[Shulem]

Read the thread more carefully! And you're a lawyer?

My God.

So, ridicule is what you've got.

Proving Joseph Smith was a liar, fraud, and con artist is what I got. And I've done all that quite well, thank you.

[Res Ipsa]

Wow, yourself. Yes, you've told us over and over what you want repurpose to mean. What you haven't shown is a single definition or example from another source that supports your proposed narrowing of the term's meaning.

I'm sticking to the data and story at hand which apparently you can't handle. I zero in like a laser on the very point and the only thing that matters: We are talking about Joseph Smith's intentions and purpose in translating the papyri -- from Egyptian to English.

You are talking about Smith's intentions. The definition of "repurpose" doesn't care about those intentions. He gave the contents of the scrolls a purpose that was different from the purpose the original author gave them. That's literally what the definition of "repurpose" says. Your feelings about Smith have nothing to do with the meaning of the word "repurpose" or whether it applies to what Smith did with the text and images.

[Res Ipsa]

So, ridicule is what you've got.

Proving Joseph Smith was a liar, fraud, and con artist is what I got. And I've done all that quite well, thank you.

None of which has anything to do with the definition of "repurpose."

[Shulem]

The definition of "repurpose" doesn't care about those intentions.

Open the dictionary and read. And I've already cited enough but if you can't grasp it then you're hopeless in my book.

Sorry.

[Shulem]

Proving Joseph Smith was a liar, fraud, and con artist is what I got. And I've done all that quite well, thank you.

None of which has anything to do with the definition of "repurpose."

Ramble on, RES. You just don't get it.

[Res Ipsa]

None of which has anything to do with the definition of "repurpose."

Ramble on, RES. You just don't get it.

There's nothing to get, Shulem. You're playing Humpty Dumpty -- changing the definition of a perfectly good word because you don't like the fact that it applies to what Smith did.

[Shulem]

Ramble on, RES. You just don't get it.

There's nothing to get, Shulem. You're playing Humpty Dumpty -- changing the definition of a perfectly good word because you don't like the fact that it applies to what Smith did.

Then we will just have to agree to disagree. Right?

Have a nice day.

[Res Ipsa]

The definition of "repurpose" doesn't care about those intentions.

Open the dictionary and read. And I've already cited enough but if you can't grasp it then you're hopeless in my book.

Sorry.

I have. I quoted from it.

[Res Ipsa]

There's nothing to get, Shulem. You're playing Humpty Dumpty -- changing the definition of a perfectly good word because you don't like the fact that it applies to what Smith did.

Then we will just have to agree to disagree. Right?

Have a nice day.

That's fine. But please don't accuse me of running away from a discussion simply because I have real life things to do.