Ink Flow Analysis

[Anijen]

Will,

I don't want to see you leave the boards and you have my support. As a novice in this area I have a few questions;

Why does Metcalfe have high quality copies of KEP in the first place, if he is anti?

Who else does and when is the somebody else going to publish them?

When he does I hope you can prove to us your theory is correct. I would like to see a real expert verify what you have been saying and what looks obvious to me from your example images you have posted. Last it is my opinion that one reason CS hangs on to Metcalfe's pocket is because CS is also anti and two pundits whom agree with each other especially with one who has the good copies and is always teasing but never producing is seemingly a point for their side. If it does get published I see apologist like you ready to pounce on their silly, absurd and confused hypothesis. Which brings me to a thought perhaps Metcalfe also knows how weak it is hence never producing to maintain the status quo.

[William Schryver]

Anijen:

I don't want to see you leave the boards â?¦

Thatâ??s good. Iâ??m not planning to do so at the moment. But you never know, I might find my ambition again and realize this is all a waste of time better spent elsewhere.

â?¦ you have my support.

I appreciate that. Sometimes I feel pretty alone on these threads.

Why does Metcalfe have high quality copies of KEP in the first place, if he is anti?

Because he has a peculiar ability to shamelessly ingratiate himself to people in order to get the things he wants.

Who else does [?]

The Church, obviously, and a about a dozen or so other people, including me. Or at least I have images of the two most significant documents in terms of the debate that has been ongoing. How did I acquire them? Because I have the peculiar ability to shamelessly ingratiate myself to people in order to get the things I want.

â?¦ when is the somebody else going to publish them?

Quite soon.

â?¦ I hope you can prove to us your theory is correct.

It is a complex issue, but I think at least two of my postulates are correct.

I would like to see a real expert verify what you have been saying and what looks obvious to me from your example images you have posted.

There are actually several experts, in several different disciplines, who are examining the KEP. They are a lot more qualified than I am in their fields, and Iâ??m confident they will produce solid findings.

Last it is my opinion that one reason CS hangs on to Metcalfe's pocket is because CS is also anti â?¦

I donâ??t think Chris â??hangs on Metcalfeâ??s pocketâ? so much as he is convinced of the thesis that Joseph Smith was a fraud. I like a lot about Chris, but I certainly donâ??t agree with many of his interpretations of the source material.

â?¦ I see apologist like you ready to pounce on their silly, absurd and confused hypothesis.

I donâ??t think their hypotheses are universally â??silly, absurd and confused.â? I am conscious of and can appreciate the basis for many of their arguments. I simply think that, when one examines the whole textual picture, their theories (to the extent I have been able to deduce them) are not tenable.

[Anijen]

I don’t think their hypotheses are universally “silly, absurd and confused.” I am conscious of and can appreciate the basis for many of their arguments. I simply think that, when one examines the whole textual picture, their theories (to the extent I have been able to deduce them) are not tenable.

I hope you would of caught my rhetoric, the silly was mine, however that is excusable I don't know what the heck I'm talking about when it comes to the KEP.

One man's "coherent" is another man's "confused."

Once again proving that one man's "obvious" is another man's "absurd."

Just for the record I 90% of the time do not think CS is is at the level of anti but 10% of me does because he has at occasion let slip a statement that could be in the gray area of anti and probably at least 2% of that I took to be offensive.

Please don't CFR me cuz I don't want reread all of his posts.

[Anijen]

double post

[Chris Smith]

William,

As aggravated as I am by many of the things that have been said in this thread, whether because I think they are wrong, unjust, or personally offensive, it lifts my spirits to see you say something like the following:

I don’t think Chris “hangs on Metcalfe’s pocket” so much as he is convinced of the thesis that Joseph Smith was a fraud. I like a lot about Chris, but I certainly don’t agree with many of his interpretations of the source material.

I don’t think their hypotheses are universally “silly, absurd and confused.” I am conscious of and can appreciate the basis for many of their arguments. I simply think that, when one examines the whole textual picture, their theories (to the extent I have been able to deduce them) are not tenable.

While I think you have still carried the personal comments too far in this thread, you my thanks for drawing a line here. This gives me hope that meaningful dialogue may yet be possible.

Best,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

Just for the record I 90% of the time do not think CS is is at the level of anti but 10% of me does because he has at occasion let slip a statement that could be in the gray area of anti and probably at least 2% of that I took to be offensive.

Please don't CFR me cuz I don't want reread all of his posts.

While I don't mind personal criticism, because it helps me to be a better person, it doesn't do me a great deal of good when said criticism is presented without specific examples. I like what Confucius' great rival Mo Tzu said: "Criticism without suggestion is like trying to stop flood with flood and put out fire with fire. It will surely be without worth." To simply negatively label me runs the risk of poisoning the well: an easy but fallacious and dishonorable way to undercut an opponent. I would be happy, however, to listen to any pointed suggestions you might have as to how to improve my posting style.

I don't always handle criticism of others correctly myself. But one thing I do try to do is to befriend the person first, discover the things that are good about them, and then deliver my criticism in an inoffensive or humorous way that will hopefully make the person think about their behavior without intending to attack or making them feel attacked. I find that it's really only when I know and deeply appreciate a person's virtues that I find I am able to do this effectively. I have done this even with "antis" whom I respect but whose posting styles I find sometimes overly abrasive, including those whose pockets I have occasionally been accused of hanging onto.

Best,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

William,

As aggravated as I am by many of the things that have been said in this thread, whether because I think they are wrong, unjust, or personally offensive, it lifts my spirits to see you say something like the following:

...

Honestly you can be a bit of a jerk sometimes, but you have my thanks for knowing where to draw the line.

Best,

-Chris

Altrettanto.

[gtaggart]

Will,

In spite of my signature, I'm going to conjecture as to why Brent has not published his much trumpeted critical text of the KEP. I'm guessing that he's been bluffing for some time now, that via his occasional posts on this and other messages boards, he has been attempting to smoke out those who also have access to the actual KEP or quality photos of them, hoping to force their hand. Once they've published their findings--you know, like real scholars do--he'll begin cherry picking from the safety of the sidelines.

He knows that there are people much more qualified than he is to do an analysis of the KEP (he once rushed breathlessly onto ZLMB to give kudos to Royal Skousen upon the publication of his critical text of the Book of Mormon, so he knows quality scholarship when he sees it). Why put himself and his vaunted 25 years of experience with quality photos of the KEP at risk, when he can simply act as judge, jury, and executioner after someone else actually does the hard work of publishing a critical text? That will be much more satisfying to him and his acolytes and much less risky.

Anyone who has ever ruined someone else's expensive vacation knows the routine: "You mean you spent 10 days in New York City and didn't try the hoisin meatball sandwich at Num Pamg!!??!" And the fawning crowd will post its approval on the large and spacious message board.

At least that's what I conjecture--sorry Ms. Eliot.

By the way, the metaphors in this post are shaken, not mixed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Interesting observation, gtag. Easier to play the armchair critic than actually do the work where the rubber meets the road.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran claims...

... Will chimes in...

Really?

"[P]robably never even met Joseph"?

Then I recommend that the two of you vicariously duke it out with the imbecilic author of this editorial:

Best wishes,

</brent>

Well thank you, Brent. Your sneer aside, the Internet is a very fine thing. Having all this information at our fingertips is a real advantage. You are right, and I was wrong. (It doesn't happen very often, so it's worth acknowledging it when it does.)

The contemporary evidence shows that Caswall did indeed meet with Joseph. But wait; doesn't that make the dishonesty of his free fabrications just that much more brazen?

Incidentally, isn't it usual to have your signature line set up in your profile so that it doesn't get copied with your text?

Regards,

Pahoran

[William Schryver]

Those interested in the topic of this thread should refer to my most recent post on the original Abr. 1:12 thread in the Pundit's forum.

[Anijen]

Those interested in the topic of this thread should refer to my most recent post on the original Abr. 1:12 thread in the Pundit's forum.

Thanks Will for your indomitable spirit on this topic, I hope you keep on persevering. Good work. For those who argued against Will's views it would be nice to see an apology cough Metcalfe cough.

[William Schryver]

Thanks Will for your indomitable spirit on this topic, I hope you keep on persevering. Good work. For those who argued against Will's views it would be nice to see an apology cough Metcalfe cough.

I appreciate your expressions of support, but I will say -- in all honesty -- I don't feel like Metcalfe owes me an apology at all. He doesn't have to apologize for disagreeing with me, or even for not considering me worthy of engaging on these questions.

Now ... if he would like to counter my arguments with actual arguments of his own ... well, I would welcome that. But I won't hold my breath.

Look, I make no pretense to having been correct in all of my initial arguments. I acknowledge having learned much over the course of the various debates that have occurred in the past three years, as well as from my continued examination of these documents.

But I will say this: I have been willing to put my analysis out there; to "go out on a limb" on occasion; to actually articulate a specific theory, and then to subject those arguments to examination, critique, and even frequent ridicule.

And in the case of this locus at Abr. 1:12, a significant part of my analysis has been confirmed by multiple people utilizing multiple techniques. As for the meaning of this latest finding, I say let the debate proceed.

[William Schryver]

Bumped.

Just in case anyone missed this:

Those interested in the topic of this thread should refer to my most recent post on the original Abr. 1:12 thread in the Pundit's forum.

It's a brief report on the expert analysis conducted on this locus in just the past few days.

[Mortal Man]

I would like to report, without elaboration, that the finding described above in my previous post has now been confirmed via expert forensic document analysis. And without specifying a timetable over which I have no control, I would estimate that the formal report of this finding (and other analyses that have been performed) will appear within a time frame expressed in months.

Given that the "(" has been confirmed to have overwritten the "h" in the line below (in conjunction with the other evidences adduced previously in this thread), it follows that the larger thesis concerning this locus is accurate: the highlighted portion (as seen below) is a later, interlinear insertion to the document in question.

Of course, this finding permanently alters the nature of the debate over whether or not the Book of Abraham (at 1:12) contains an internal reference tying it to the Sensen text on the papyrus.

Who are the experts?

What exactly is their analysis?

This reminds me of when you go to buy a car and the salesman keeps going off to a hidden room to talk to his ethereal and hermetic manager.