Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined


Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,131 profile views

ttribe's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges



  1. Your readings on these two items are incorrect. As to the first, the CAB report was prepared by the CAB summarizing the results of an FAA investigation, not self-reporting by SkyWest. As to the second, there is a distinction in the reporting of aviation incidents between the aircraft proper and the engines. A damaged engine, by itself, would not be considered damage to the aircraft. The CAB report makes clear that all damage in these incidents was confined to the engine.
  2. FYI - No longer employed at the Alaska Attorney General's Office
  3. Perhaps that is why I directed you to the location of the actual research and discussion on this issues which took place away from this board? I happened to have followed it in real time as it was being assembled.
  4. So your comment wasn't an endorsement of Smac's post? That's interesting.
  5. Instead of doing a victory lap and relying on Smac to make you feel better about this, have you actually read the 85 page thread on the board we aren't allowed to link? That is where all of this research both happened in real time and was documented. Also, have you watched the 'Mormonism Live' episode from last week where this entire thing was summarized and discussed? The embellishments are not minor.
  6. I don't disagree with your general sentiment and I should state for the record that I don't necessarily agree with Warlock's post either. The specific route the discussion has gone has left me uncomfortable...not that my comfort really matters...just expressing what I see.
  7. I've listened to Ritner discuss this subject near the end of his life. The man was already a tenured full professor at Chicago and had also been at that level at Yale. I heard nothing that indicated to me Dr. Ritner was worried in the least that his responses to the Book of Abraham controversy would have any bearing, whatsoever, on his distinguished career and reputation. He only got into the discussion because his name and research were being used improperly, in his opinion, by Gee. It appears to me that Gee and Muhlstein are so far out on the fringes of their discipline that they are left grasping for straws of the merest possibility when Ritner's conclusions are not only far more plausible, but also well within the mainstream understanding of the Egyptology community. Dr. Ritner was quite plain in his statements that he has no problem with members of the church believing in the divinity of the words that are published as the Book of Abraham. However, to the extent the church (and Gee and Muhlstein) attempts to bolster that belief using the scrolls purchased by Joseph Smith as evidence of that divinity, he was quite straightforward in statements that the scrolls do not, in fact, provide support for such a claim. In my opinion, continuing to try to defend the facsimiles as support for the Book of Abraham narrative simply no longer works. Nibley's own work on this in 1967 laid the foundation for the church's opportunity to treat the Book of Abraham the same way they have the Book of Mormon; namely, as straight revelation. Given what we know about Joseph Smith's non-use of the plates to generate the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham could simply have been transitioned into a similar enough narrative to avoid this ongoing debate 40 years later. I, for one, am very uncomfortable with the notion that Dr. Ritner '[had] other things to protect" when his own statements on this subject showed no evidence of such concerns. Moreover, the fact that this is being said in a thread about his recent passing makes me even more uncomfortable that apologists may be using his death to get the last word, so to speak. I do hope I am wrong about your intent in saying those things.
  8. This was leaked yesterday; purports to be an email sent to the Alaska AG's office personnel.
  9. Deleted my original response to remove the word altogether.
  10. I thought it would be relatively plain that since I'm talking about issues I've seen through litigation that the information was also widely known (usually the case by the time something hits litigation). I'll just bow out though. My recent participation has reminded me that there really is no middle ground; no meeting of the minds.
  • Create New...