Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

William Schryver

"Sign of the fifth degree of the second part"

Recommended Posts

I have found what appears to be conclusive evidence that the first line of Ab2(Williams) was written after the text that follows. You'll recall that this is the line that reads:

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Will,

I'm uncertain what you see at this locus.

Two methods of ink erasure were prevalent in the early 19thC: scraping and wiping

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Will,

I'm uncertain what you see at this locus.

Two methods of ink erasure were prevalent in the early 19thC: scraping and wiping

Share this post


Link to post

Will, it seems to me that the method of or reason for the erasure of the lower case "t" in the lower line and its being overwritten by the lower loop of the lower case "f" in the upper line are not particularly interesting questions.

What is interesting is the implication: that the "5th degree" material was an afterthought; it evidences that the writer is seeking to impose an artificial order upon an already existing text; it's evidence of an attempt to make cosmos out of chaos.

Share this post


Link to post

Will, it seems to me that the method of or reason for the erasure of the lower case "t" in the lower line and its being overwritten by the lower loop of the lower case "f" in the upper line are not particularly interesting questions.

What is interesting is the implication: that the "5th degree" material was an afterthought; it evidences that the writer is seeking to impose an artificial order upon an already existing text; it's evidence of an attempt to make cosmos out of chaos.

Yes, there are multiple implications of this finding, including the one you have observed.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Will,

On multiple boards you've described your observation as <<conclusive>>. Since you're evidently consulting <<an unimpeachable expert>> just to be sure, I'll take your <<conclusive>> as rhetorical bravado.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

Share this post


Link to post

Hi USU78,

Without decisive evidence of an erasure

Share this post


Link to post
With due respect, I recommend that you examine some early-19thC documents, and then learn the methods employed to examine them to better appreciate my questions posed to Will.

No.

You asked me a question. I answered it. Then I asked you one. You answer mine.

This is how conversations go, sir.

You don't gratuitously throw out insults to someone instead of answering questions.

You see, sir, I had absolutely no duty to answer your question, but I chose to do so since it pleased me to do so. Since you asked it, you invited an actual colloquy. So make with the colloquizing already.

Should you fail to answer, that seems pretty convincing evidence you haven't a clue how to go about answering it . . . that you have no clue how any other reasonable inference can be made from the evidence presented by Will, sir.

So, as Steven reported hearing from G-d's own mouth: "G-d says, 'Don't change the subject, and answer the f******* question!'"

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Will,

Please edit your response so readers can tell who wrote what.

Thanks,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

Share this post


Link to post

Hi USU78,

I wish you the best in your studies. My time is limited; I hope you'll understand.

Cheers,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Will,

Your authoritative source was quite explicit: not a <<decisive>> dittograph.

But, again, I don't want to go off topic from your new-found <<conclusive evidence>>.

And with that, my domestic and professional lives beckon...

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Will,

Your authoritative source was quite explicit: not a <<decisive>> dittograph.

But, again, I don't want to go off topic from your new-found <<conclusive evidence>>.

And with that, my domestic and professional lives beckon...

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

Share this post


Link to post
And, with that, Metcalfe manages to generate 10 posts and yet say absolutely nothing of substance. In other words, business as usual.
It is a tale told by an idiot, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Will,

Well, substance is as substance does... or something.

Hi USU78,

... hmmm... a <<coward>> (Greg: <<Go Aggies!!!!!>>?????) and <<an idiot>> who can't <<answer the f******* question!>>...

At least unlike your semiliterate <<G-d>>, I can count the number of letters in f******.

Ciao,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...