Book of Abraham

[William Schryver]

PO:

I believe Joseph Smith when he said:

[Zakuska]

OK. I'll take a speculative stab at it:

1 [ ] One of his admirers handed him the notebook and asked for his autograph.

2 [ ] He thought it was the rent check.

3 [ ] He was practicing in anticipation of being made Secretary of the Treasury one day.

4 [ ] He was giving his official imprimatur to its contents.

And, for the record, I do want to talk about it. And I'd like you to talk about it, too. Tell me why you think he signed the front cover of the notebook. As a non-academician, I would love to know.

I sometimes sign just inside the front cover of my books just in case I loose it then people will know who to give it back to.

Just a thought.

[Kevin Graham]

Provis,

== Why, in the Princess Katumin story, does Phelps manifest an modern understanding of the relationship of x number of Egyptian characters to y number of English words (where x and y are relatively equal numbers), while in the "translation" manuscripts there is this overwhelming disproportion of one Egyptian character to 100+ English words?

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

Frederick G. Williams of the First Presidency of the Church is the person whose name is on the back of this manuscript, yet the handwriting is that of Phelps. It could possibly be the case that Phelps was acting as Williams' scribe. From what I understand - and Paul could maybe verify this - is that there is another EGA manuscript in Cowdery's handwriting, with Smith's signature on the back, that has the same exact commentary about Princess Katumin, minus the the same string of Egyptian characters. It is likely that the EAG manuscripts represent some attempt to learn about or create some type of grammar system, so there is obviously a lot of experimentation going on with little or no consistency. But the BoA manuscripts seem to be something entirely different, showing consistency in signs of transcribing via dictation.

== Dale just asserted that there is evidence that the EAG was completed after the "translation" manuscripts. Is this true.

It could be. I see no compelling reason to understand the EGA and the BoA manuscripts as two sides of the same coin. One could very well have nothing to do with the other.

== And if so, then obviously the EAG had no relationship to the "translation" -- which then suggests a different methodology in use for the production of the Book of Abraham than what I had previously been led to believe by the critics.

Right.

== I, in fact, do NOT deny that the Sensen text was the source for the BoA. I neither feel that it is established beyond all doubt. Frankly, I don't have an answer to this obvious conundrum.

Thanks for admitting this, and clarifying your position for me.

== I have a handful of speculative theories, some of which are posited by others, and some of which are hybrids. Paul obviously believes that there is some (as you termed it) species of supercryptogram at work. At least I think that's what he's suggesting.

Actually Nibley is the one who coined that term, and he suggested its plausibility on more than one occassion.

== It's hard to be certain when attempting to come to grips with his theories on this whole thing. He clearly believes that he has acquired some "special" knowledge when it comes to the EAG, the Facsimiles, and the "translation" process itself. I confess I don't get it at all.

I admire Paul for sticking to his guns, but I don't get everything he says either.

== What I do "get" is this: I have a powerful conviction that the Book of Abraham is revealed scripture; the record of Abraham as recorded at some point in time by the historical patriarch himself. That conviction derives (understandably) first and foremost from a spiritual source, but is also strengthened in no small measure by what I consider to be the powerfully persuasive comparative textual analysis performed by Nibley and others.

Unfortunately, the spiritual testimony doesn't mean much in apologetics. If you start bearing your testimony as some kind of evidence in the middle of a heated debate like this, it will likely push the fence-straddlers over the wrong side. At least, that has been my experience.

== This is, in my estimation, where Nibley excels; where his talents and knowledge are best applied. Abraham in Egypt is primarily an analysis of the textual similarities between the Joseph Smith production and many other ancient documents. As I indicated at the very beginning, I regard this approach as the most logical one when attempting to validate the antiquity of the work.

According to Brent, however, he has uncovered numerous early 19th century sources that talk about Abrahamic traditions similar to Smith's claims. If true, this could prove equally devastating, as it would mean the focus in BoA apologetics has been terribly misplaced, yet again.

== If one purports to have produced a biography of Abraham in 1842, and that biography is subsequently paralleled in several particulars by known ancient documents that came to light many years after the publication of the first work, then I think you have to admit that there is a strong reason to accept that Joseph Smith was truly inspired in his revelations that resulted in the Book of Abraham.

Only if it can be demonstrated that Smith had no outside knowledge of these things prior to his translation. As I noted elsewhere, many of the sources Nibley uses comes from extant Rabbinic Midrashes that were readily available to Smith. And given Brent's latest claims of having found other sources contemporary to Smith, I am less inclined to see this as a substantial apologetic.

== This is why I continue to recommend Abraham in Egypt to you. You can easily skim over those portions that do not deal with this "comparative textual analysis" angle, and thereby save yourself some time. I'd be more than happy to send you a copy if you are reluctant to finance FARMS by purchasing it yourself. Consider it a peace offering.

I have never been one to turn down a book, but I am in Brazil, and I think sending it here would cost you a pretty penny.

== I also have just purchased the latest installment in the Nibley series, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri and will be commencing it shortly. And contrary to the insinuations of you and Paul, I do NOT regard Nibley as some godlike, infallible fountain of knowledge.

I never rag on any LDS for accepting Nibley as a source, unless they try to shove him down my throat.

== However, the man DID dedicate a considerable portion of his life to investigating these very issues, and I do not think it wise to read everything else on the topic, and simply ignore his contribution because critics say he is untrustworthy, unreliable, and biased at every turn.

Believe it or not, I have read most of what Nibley had to say on the BoA issue. I just didn't like the blase treatment of the KEP and its significance.

== Now, I do want to make an attempt at articulating a more concise version of my current views on what we can understand from the KEP. But I would still like to take a few more days to allow the new information and understanding I have acquired to gel in my mind before I undertake it. I'm like that. My mind works around the clock on these things, and I will often awaken in the middle of the night with an answer to problems that I have been working on. As soon as I am ready to formalize my views, you will be the first person to whom I will send them -- both for your consideration and critique.

I'd be glad to hear whatever you come up with.

[Paul Osborne]

Paul,

You were asking me to make a personal statement of something that I hadn't read in context. Moreover, I must have missed the loop because I still DON'T see the point you are trying to make. Thus to say I am suffering from 'unbelief' boggles me...I have no idea what you think I should belive in!!

The point doesn't matter. You have just declared your belief: You don't believe him. Why you don't believe him is NOT the point. I asked a simple question and would like to get a simple answer without having to go around and around with you.

Context? That's not the point either. Either you believe what the prophet said or you don't.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Again, I ask the question:

[Dexios]

I knew this was a crazy idea to think this discussion could stand on the FAIR forum. Juliann is free to make wild accusations to her hearts content, while I am not even permitted to offer the mildest of corrections, nor am I allowed to take control of MY thread.

Deleting my recent post that had not one single comment deserving of censorship, is not doing FAIR any favors here. Things were going so well...

Kevin,

All offending posts were deleted, including Julianne's. There is no protection of the favored on this board, although we will readily admit not all participants will be treated identically.

If anyone is making offensive posts, you are encouraged to report them so that they can likewise be corrected.

If we wanted to shut down this thread, all we have to do is make one "click" and it is done. Spirited debate is welcome. When it spirals out of control, we step in. I suggest that you consider how your own participation advances or derails the purpose of the thread you started.

Dexios

[Paul Osborne]

I have no reason to doubt that he knew what he was talking about. I just know that I don't know what he was talking about. And I'm not convinced (yet) that you know what you're talking about. You certainly don't see fit to tell us anything more than:

You have no reason to doubt the prophet? That's not the impression you've given me based on your statements. I don't know what I'm talking about?? It's not for one who doesn't know the subject matter to judge those who do.

Well, I admit I don't know what I'm missing. I can only conclude that, if there really is something substantive behind what you're talking about, that you've been sworn to silence on the matter. Either that or it's just too deep for the rest of us to fathom it. Or we're too programmed into the 0/360 mindset to twist ourselves to the degree necessary to comprehend this great thing.

I do enjoy my pearls.

OK. I'll take a speculative stab at it:

1 [ ] One of his admirers handed him the notebook and asked for his autograph.

2 [ ] He thought it was the rent check.

3 [ ] He was practicing in anticipation of being made Secretary of the Treasury one day.

4 [ ] He was giving his official imprimatur to its contents.

And, for the record, I do want to talk about it. And I'd like you to talk about it, too. Tell me why you think he signed the front cover of the notebook. As a non-academician, I would love to know.

The prophet signs his name to something he endorses. I guess you didn't bother with the clip in the link I provided: Signed, Joseph Smith Jr. It was Joseph Smith's personal policy to bear personal responsibility for something he signed. He made that clear when he took over the Times & Seasons as chief editor.

I don't know. Can you tell me?

No, I'm not going to tell you. You haven't even made an effort. Did you check the definition of unfold in the D&C? Try connecting the dots for yourself.

I don't know. Can you tell me?

I've already provided the links in an earlier post. You haven't taken the time to study these things. You need to get an education - but I can't hold your hand while doing it. Open the links and read. There you will find the system of astronomy. Open your eyes!

Did it come from the Prophet? How do we know? What significance does it have, assuming that it did come from Joseph Smith?

So, you don't know. Therefore you don't believe the message came from the prophet Joseph Smith. That is what I wanted to know. You answered my question. It's up to you to figure out whether it came from the prophet or not. Yes, I can sit here and formulate all kinds of evidence to show that it was indeed his work - but I fear it will only serve to waste my time.

Who says they don't? I, for one, want to accept and understand everything that is true. Do you understand what it means? Can you help me to understand as well?

Read the links I provided in an earlier thread. You claim to have read my website but I fear you have not.

If it's true, and if it has significance for me, I want to face it, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes me. I'm certain my belief structure can withstand the upheaval it could potentially cause. What does it mean to face it? Why would it challenge my belief structure of how Mormonism was built?

I think you have already expressed a problem in accepting that Joseph Smith could receive paragraphs of information simply be looking at a few characters. That is how he faced things. Can you face it too? The evidence we have in the KEP challenges the current poplular ideas offered by LDS apologists. It seems most LDS apologists expect something quite different.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean by "unnatural". Do you simply mean "supernatural"? If you mean via the use of sacred seeric devices, I believe it. If you mean by having the Holy Ghost come upon him and open his mind to the things of God, I believe you. If you mean by means of dreams, or visions -- again, I agree with you. Is there something more "unnatural" than these things that we should be apprised of?

Supernatural is a good definition of how the prophet worked within the spiritual bounds of revelation. The natural man doesn't understand the deep things of God and all of us are natural to some extent. We are earth bound, mortal, and have forgotten our preexistence. When Joseph Smith received revelation he transcended the natural man in ways we don't understand.

I have no reason to doubt your sincerity in this matter. I have no reason, yet, to doubt that you know what you're talking about. But, given the manifest uncertainty as to what you are talking about, I have no way of judging the matter. Into what does this "seed" grow? What fruit can I anticipate?

Apply the teachings of the Book of Mormon regarding seed, water, and faith. If the seed grows and taste good then you know that good fruit will be the result. You have to find this for yourself. Otherwise, you will continue with what you have and the KEP will have little or no meaning in your life.

And again, I implore you, can you explain to us what these things mean?

I've said a lot in my website. There is more there that expresses the positive nature of the KEP than any other place in the whole world. I've taken the time to organize those teachings and present them in an easy-to-read format.

Paul O

[Jungle]

Don't you guys take weekends?!?

Earlier (too far back to find quotes) the argument was made that the KEP must have been written from diction because two scribes, writing the same things, made the same mistakes and corrections which wouldn't happen if they were two transcriptions.

The counter-argument was that it was possible that the corrections were made later which would still allow for the possibility that these were copies.

I wanted to know, if they were transcriptions of an earlier document, why make additional copies of the original translation, does Joseph Smith's journal accounts refer to the scribes 'making copies' activities, why would these copies include the Egyptian symbols in the left-hand column, and why did they correct both copies? If they were just the scribe's attempts at deciphering Egyptian, why were corrections made and why were they the same corrections? What are the other possibilities for the purpose of these documents other than the translation of what they all believed was the record of Abraham?

PacMan

2) What supports this further, is in the document that Brent was nice enough to show us, the 'whereunto' was on two lines--with the first word of the second line being "unto." If the transcription was in process, why would the scribe(s) go cross out "where" on the first line and then "unto" on the second, when "unto" was the very next word anyway?!

I'd also be interested in your explanation of why "unto" was crossed out, it being the very next word anyway (I submit it was redundancy editing for reasons I have already posted).

1) It has not been considered that the cross out was due to redundancy editing, not 'in-process' correction. In other words, the second 'unto' was not added after the 'whereunto' was crossed-out, but the cross-out came during editing. Why should it be considered? Because, most anyone that has had even a brush with translation has probably noted such redundancies common in most every language. An easy example in Spanish: Yo me lo llevo, para mi. It is very easy to see the two parts: "Yo me lo llevo," and then "para mi" because they are the parts of grammar that go together. Read like this, "I --to me-- take it for myself." And if you want other examples from non-Latin languages, I'll be happy to do so.

It appears from ms. 1b that the unto part of the where-unto crossed out is not on the same horizontal alignment as the rest of the sentence beginning with the second 'unto' indicating an interruption in the scribe's fluid writing. It could have been that Joseph, while dictating this sentence, said, "I sought for the appointment whereunto...stop, correct that to 'I sought for mine appointment and scratch whereunto'...<waits for the scribes to make the corrections and continues> "I sought for mine appointment unto the priesthood..."

Edit to correct spelling errors...doh!

[William Schryver]

Paul "I am the great and powerful Wizard of ..." Osborne:

I'm happy for you and your "pearls".

I'll guess the rest of us will just have to carry on without them -- at least for the time being. Until we can get that "special" revelation for ourselves.

[Kevin Graham]

== If anyone is making offensive posts, you are encouraged to report them so that they can likewise be corrected.

Well, that is just the thing. Nobody was complaining about anything Brent or Provis said. Paul made some remark, just kinda warning Provis that he had already broken the rules and to be careful. The discussion had already progressed beyond this, and all was forgotten it seemed. Then along comes Juliann out of the blue, clearly with no intention to add any substance to the discussion, and drags us back to focus on Brent's comment from two days earlier.

It just seems that whenever she jumps in with these short obnoxious posts, along comes the moderator claiming people are "offended" and posts start getting chopped up with red text and some start disappearing. One of mine was deleted entirely, seconds after I posted, when it was only a mild corrective to Juliann's silly accusations that were allowed to remain.

"Offensive" posts are such a subjective claim as to be meaningless, and it always comes across as a lame excuse to start getting rid of critical commentary that the forum would rather not advertise. This is why I got frustrated the minute Juliann popped in and started egging Brent on and bringing up ancient history, trying to get me to say the "M" word in defense of her silly accusations - because if I did it would automatically result in a closed thread! For someone who claims to hate it when I talk about the "M" topic, she sure does bring it up a lot.

[PacMan]

Jungle,

I miss what you'd call a spelling error-everything was spelled correctly. The only reason for editing that particular text was redundancy editing (whereunto gives the same meaning as unto)...and why was there a slight curve to the word? Well, if you're really stretching for something:

1- Go write on a piece of paper and see what your hand does when you get to the end of the line. Most people will write a word or so on the new line, and then readjust it.

2- He sneezed, coughed, yawned

3- He was re-dipping his pen

4- Someone walked into the room

The fact is that there would have been a myriad of interruptions, and to single out one differentiation as obvious evidence that it was due to 'in process' correction is simply ridiculous. The fact that the colons (and semi-colons) indicate a listing, and 'unto' was the very next word after the 'unto' that was struck out are significant claims against in-process correction. Whether you accept it or not is yours to choice.

Paul,

Your ONLY rebuttal is that Joseph Smith and his educated scribes didn't know what an alphabet was?! That was probably the weakest most miserable rebuttal I have ever heard!! So much for your objectivity!

IT IS UNDISPUTABLE THAT THE CHARACTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MANUSCRIPT ARE NOT FROM WHICH THE SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS WERE TRANSLATED. THIS IS BECAUSE JOSEPH SMITH AND HIS SCRIBES ASSUMED EGYPTIAN HAD A PHONETIC SCRIPT--EVIDENT IN THE FACT THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE EGYPTIAN ALPHATBET!! IF SOMEONE THINKS I'M WRONG, GIVE ME

ONE EXAMPLE OF A NARRATIVE TRANSLATION COMING FROM A SINGLE CHARCTER!

[Paul Osborne]

Paul,

  Your ONLY rebuttal is that Joseph Smith and his educated scribes didn't know what an alphabet was?!  That was probably the weakest most miserable rebuttal I have ever heard!!  So much for your objectivity!

Listen, I hesitate to say this - But grow up, man. I'm not going to continue having a conversation with someone who simply taunts me.

You can disagree with my apologetics until the cows jump over the moon for all I care. If it makes you feel good, warm, and joyful inside - have at it, but don't expect me to provide fodder for you little fire. I don't have to put up with this.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Paul "I am the great and powerful Wizard of ..." Osborne:

I'm happy for you and your "pearls".

I'll guess the rest of us will just have to carry on without them -- at least for the time being. Until we can get that "special" revelation for ourselves.

I don't have to put up with these insults any longer. Like I said to Pac, grow up and start acting like a Christian.

Goodbye.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Kevin,

Thanks for a good thread - I appreciate many of the points you made.

It appears that some posters, however, are simply foaming at the mouth and are hurling insult after insult at me. So, I'm leaving. I don't like the spirit that has taken over this thread. There are plenty of other things I can do with my time.

Paul O

[Scott Gordon]

Come on guys--cut the insults, forget how "FAIR" the moderators have been, lick your wounds and discuss the KEP.

Please discuss the issues not the quality of your discussion partners or their mental capacity or the quality of the moderators.

Remember, being a moderator is an unpaid job.

Scott

[PacMan]

Paul,

I never called you names. I said your rebuttle was poor--because it was! And may I remind you that you calling me a coward was the only instance of insult in our conversations. Moreover, your attitude was demeaning and the epitome of "Holier than Thou," pretending that somehow your great revelation of knowledge was not fit for disposal to the masses; i.e.

You will not receive the benefits of the EAG because of your unbelief. But if you have faith like a mustard seed and let it grow in you therein you can water it and watch it grow!

And I quote YOU:

"Your arguments are getting weaker. Your presentation is lame, to say the least!" http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id99.htm

I will not mock a man for holding to what he believes is true, but only if he is at least man enought admit that, "well, I don't know" when the case arises.

Therefore, I think that you leaving is more likely because you simply can't answer my question and have (in the words of Sir Robin's Minstrel), "Bravely ran away."

Until next time,

PacMan

P.S. KG...you seem more reasonable. Will you give an opinion of the 'alphabet hypothesis' as I have explained it? If you don't know...that's ok too.

[Dale]

The divisive issue of the EAG is a serious reason why FAIR could serve us better by having two papers intellectually discussing the two different views on the KEP. I would be interested in seeing a good defense of the catalyst & missing papyrus ideas available for reading. Examine some of this divisive issues on this thread.

I would see it as a good idea to invite paul, Brent & maybe John Gee look over each paper before they go up.

[Daniel Peterson]

Again, a cursory examination of this discussion will show that Brent was the recipient of attacks from the very beginning, long before he ever responded with the "jackass" comment (which seems to be an acceptable response when it comes from the lips of Dan Peterson).

You still haven't explained why "jackass" is such a bad thing when Brent says it, but OK when Dan Peterson does. I don't recall you or the moderators having a hissy when that happened.

Dear Mr. Graham:

This is, obviously, a quite peripheral issue, but could you please be specific about my alleged use of the term jackass? I've just performed a comprehensive search for posts from me here at FAIR that include that word. There are three. One involves a joke about Reagan and Gorbachev. Another refers to a four-legged animal.

This, the third of the three, appears to be the most relevant post:

Oh, like the evidence that Dan Peterson publicly called me a "jackass"?

When did I "publicly call you a 'jackass,'" Mr. Graham? I'm curious. I can't absolutely rule it out, but I don't recall it. And public name calling isn't my style. Can you supply a reference? Is it in a FAIR symposium transcript, or perhaps on the FARMS website? Thanks.

I doubt that I called you a "jackass" in one of those places, either.

If you're unable to locate such a passage, perhaps you should stop making the accusation.

[William Schryver]

Dan,

Welcome to the thread.

Where have you been whilst I have been holding down the fort against the onslaught of the barbarian hordes?

Feel free to contribute to your heart's delight.

Just watch your language!

[William Schryver]

PacMan,

The Ballad of Brave Sir Robin

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.

He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin!

He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,

Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,

Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;

To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;

And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out

And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged

And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off ...

Brave Sir Robin ran away.

Bravely ran away, away!

When danger reared its ugly head,

He bravely turned his tail and fled.

Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about

And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet

He beat a very brave retreat,

Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

... Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...

That's just TOO funny.

Did you also know that, since they haven't found any horse fossils in the lands of the Huns that historians have now concluded that they actually conquered with two halves of a coconut in their hands?

Brave Sir Robin

[William Schryver]

Now, for the "back on topic" post of the day:

First of all, as regards Paul Osborne's various theories. I don't dispute that he is very sincere in what he says. And, for all I know, he could very well have received some special personal revelation on this subject. I want to make it clear that I would never deny the possibility of such a thing as personal revelation. I have experienced it myself in many instances, and I believe it to be a "reality", even though it is (or so it seems to me) virtually impossible to "prove" it to someone else, and often impossible to even explain it, and even in the cases when it could be explained, the recipient usually holds it too sacred to publicize outside certain very private circles. Therefore, despite my pithy suggestion that Paul is simply blowing smoke and pulling levers, I will consent that he may be on to something. However, I can't make heads or tails of it. I have read (I believe) every page on his website, and I'm still not enlightened as to why he believes the KEP, and specifically the GAEL, are such momentous documents. In my opinion they are fragmentary, abstruse, and largely impenetrable. So, I guess we'll just leave it at that.

Paul, I apologize if you felt offended. Please come back -- after you've had a good, hot bath, of course!

I am also about 1/3 finished with John Tvedtnes' treatise on the Book of Breathings Made by Isis as a Mnemonic Device. Or whatever he's entitled it. It is quite fascincating, but I'm starting to reach for Ockham's razor already ...

Still, I intend to give it due consideration -- along with everything else new I have read and looked upon in the past several days. I do intend to commit a thesis to paper and maybe even permit you big, bad meanies to critique it. After I don full body armor, of course!

[Dale]

With the Meory aid device of John Tvedtnes I understand he backed away from it because it did not have enough support. Him & Richley Crapo presented some interesting ways such a system might have worked, but they could not prove it.

My deep concern has been FAIR & FARMs allows such stuff to circulate without updates. The stuff vulnerable to critics attacks as I recall Jerald and Sandra Tanner going after it in Mormonism Shadow or Reality? Yet a copy of it is online at Kerry Shirts Mormonism Researched website without taking into account the critics criticisms that is out there. Some of FAIR's current stuff suffers from the same flaw.

I don't complain to complain, but simply to see some better apologetic generated that gives the critics some headaches in answering it. Right now I feel dumb in using Hugh Nibley & John Gee on them.

With the KEP I agree with Paul as speculative as it looks to me if Joseph Smith had a key role in it then it's inspired as the Book of Abraham is, or the Book of Abraham is not inspired. I havn't really seen it satisfactarily proved that the work came into being after the Book of Abraham was already translated. It could be, but I do not know that.

During Joseph Smith's lifetime it was never presented as scripture, but more as Apocrypha. The KEP was never presented as scripture either. It was only after his death that the LDS canonized it. The RLDS never did see it as scripture because some doctrinal complaints & doubt Joseph had produced a valid translation of the papyrus.

[Jon Haugo]

Provis,

I hope you are not eqauting the "Brave Sir Robin" poem with Paul O. If he chose not to respond, it is not because he cannot answer a question but the attitude in which this thread evovled.

Jon

[Dale]

I see lots of room for varying views on the subject from believers and unbelievers perspectives. The name calling should be left out of it. I also believe questioning others integrity should also be left out of it.

[Dexios]

From this point forward, any and all discussion on this thread resorting to name calling OR the questioning of anyone's integrity on the basis of anything other than self evident facts will be deleted. If anyone persists, they will be banned and the thread closed. As I have said several times, spirited debate is welcome. Poor behavior will not be tolerated.

Dexios