Maya Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 Maya and MFBuk,CeeBoo is neither Mormon nor Utahn- and is simply yanking the troll's chain.Contrary to his unspoken assertion, DanGB's disaffection has nothing to do with his geographic location.Apostacy and a deep-seated lust for the approval of Babylon can be found most anywhere- and living "outside Utah" is not a cause of DanGB's nascent aposta cy, but simply a rationalization and self-justification for it.CeeBoo's post was wholly tongue-in-cheek, though it did expose a certain vacu ous narcissism on DGB's part.Selek I know who he is.. what he is... what I dont knwo why he is what he is ... bit I suppose he is what he is because he is the sum of his life.I am sorry but the temptation arose over my ability to controll it, even ig I bate my fingers .... must be the Mercur on my star map....
Scott Lloyd Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 I do not understand what the issue is. The point of the Watson letter was not that a particular person communicated in a particular way on a particular date, but rather the content.The content has been confirmed and not only confirmed, but done so for the appropriate time period. Even if it isn't the identical letter, why does that matter? In fact, this appears to be an additional confirmation, a plus. It seems to demonstrate that this was a standard reply which means it wasn't a off the top of a head remark, but likely one researched out and prepared, so it's somewhat semi-official if so.Those same thoughts occurred to me, calmoriah. The glee and euphoria on the other board is altogether misplaced -- and the inmates there don't seem to realize it. Enigmatic indeed.
Daniel Peterson Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 Whatever their reasoning is -- and I confess that it eludes me -- they believe that this stunning new development (as they see it) has proven me to be a liar, and FARMS to be a bunch of liars, and so on and so forth.But it was already a devoutly-held and often-chanted article of their faith that I'm a liar, and that most if not all of those associated with FARMS are liars, and etc. So the new euphoria seems a bit . . . well, odd.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 Whatever their reasoning is -- and I confess that it eludes me -- they believe that this stunning new development (as they see it) has proven me to be a liar, and FARMS to be a bunch of liars, and so on and so forth.But it was already a devoutly-held and often-chanted article of their faith that I'm a liar, and that most if not all of those associated with FARMS are liars, and etc. So the new euphoria seems a bit . . . well, odd.For some reason, the Sanskrit saying comes to mind: "He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Avoid him."
Daniel Peterson Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 For some reason, the Sanskrit saying comes to mind: "He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Avoid him."Wise counsel. By paying attention to them at all, I validate them. I shouldn't do that. I know. It's probably not even healthy for them.But . . . they're so fascinating.They've invented a wildly elaborate, almost epic, tale of deceit on my part and on the part of others involved with FARMS that has scarcely even the most tenuous connection with reality, basing malignant speculation upon baseless assumption and then erecting on top of it an ever-ramifying superstructure of sheer hostile fantasy. It's a wonder to behold.
cksalmon Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 I do not understand what the issue is. (1) The point of the Watson letter was not that a particular person communicated in a particular way on a particular date, but rather the content.(2) The content has been confirmed and not only confirmed, but done so for the appropriate time period. (3) Even if it isn't the identical letter, why does that matter?(1) Actually, calmoriah, it is precisely the the point "that a particular person [Watson] communicated in a particular way on a particular date...." (And the content is important, too.)(2) It's not merely "for an appropriate time period"; it is the very same date. (3) But, the point is precisely that it is not the "identical letter." It can't be, per DCP. (And, not both are "letters," BTW.) Yes, the date and quoted content are exactly the same, but it is being maintained that the Carla Ogden fax to Brent Hall (not from Watson to Hamblin) dated April 23, 1993 is a completely separate document from the letter Hamblin received from Watson which was also dated April 23, 1993. They may share the precisely the same date and the precisely the same content, but one was a fax from Ogden to Hall and the other was a letter from Watson to Hamblin; we must be very careful not to confuse the two.cks
Brent Metcalfe Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Hi Dan,Yup. This doesn't appear to be the document that I saw. Unless I'm seriously, seriously misremembering -- and it's been more than fifteen years, I think -- what I saw was a letter, on letterhead, from Michael Watson, not a fax. But so what?And the text is the same. That's a mystery, I suppose. But not a very interesting one. And probably a pretty easy one to figure out, if one were so disposed. (I'm not. It doesn't matter to me.) ... *snip!*I wouldn't think otherwise.I'm FAIRly familiar with this fax
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 (1) Actually, calmoriah, it is precisely the the point "that a particular person [Watson] communicated in a particular way on a particular date...." (And the content is important, too.)(2) It's not merely "for an appropriate time period"; it is the very same date. (3) But, the point is precisely that it is not the "identical letter." It can't be, per DCP. (And, not both are "letters," BTW.) Yes, the date and quoted content are exactly the same, but it is being maintained that the Carla Ogden fax to Brent Hall (not from Watson to Hamblin) dated April 23, 1993 is a completely separate document from the letter Hamblin received from Watson which was also dated April 23, 1993. They may share the precisely the same date and the precisely the same content, but one was a fax from Ogden to Hall and the other was a letter from Watson to Hamblin; we must be very careful not to confuse the two.cksWhy is it that when I read these words I hear them in the voice of Inspector Clouseau?
cksalmon Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 In short: yes, there is sound evidence that Bill quoted the fax in his JBMS article and not some now lost missive...That certainly appears to be the case. And, yet, DCP has averred that such a conclusion would be false and would necessarily indicate duplicity on his part. That latter is a red herring, of course. But, I am familiar enough at least with DCP's online persona to know that any ol' dirt pile on which he has uttered even the faintest peep is, for him, a hill worth dying on. cks
Brent Metcalfe Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Hmmm...Why is it that when I read these words I hear them in the voice of Inspector Clouseau?... Because you're Inspector Clouseau?*sigh!*(If folks could maintain a modicum of substance in this thread, that would be much appreciated.)Cheers,</brent>http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
cksalmon Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Why is it that when I read these words I hear them in the voice of Inspector Clouseau?Not sure. A thought, however: you may have difficulty distinguishing fiction from reality? ;-)
Greg Smith Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Hi Greg,For someone who prides himself in schooling others in the "facts" of history (G* D* Smith comes to mind), Ah, if only GD Smith had treated the documents in the atrocious Nauvoo Polygamy he cited with half the respect I did the fax. If you'd like, I could elaborate.Its nice to know the resentment in some quarters lives on. I'd particularly like to hear how George D. was right to make Brigham Young into a young earth creationist. That took creativity. Or chutzpah. (I'd also like to know how much ghost writing went into the book, because it sure seemed discordant like there were multiple people writing text--not univocal at all. And, it seemed to that not everyone was reading what everyone else was writing. That's a subjective reaction, but I'm curious.) You've made a spectacle of this FAIRly recent glimpse of the past.FAIR had nothing to do with this, save as a place to post the fax. Someone from FARMS asked if I'd like to post the fax. I said yes. It is posted.Let's see:1) I posted the entire scans (less the phone numbers)2) I posted a transcript of said scanI have not yet, however, transmogrified the letter from the First Presidency's office into a mash note to F. Michael Watson's plural wife. That would, I suspect, require my own publishing house.Greg
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 (If folks could maintain a modicum of substance in this thread, that would be much appreciated.)It never had any to lose. Care to add some?
cksalmon Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 FAIR had nothing to do with this, save as a place to post the fax. Someone from FARMS asked if I'd like to post the fax. I said yes. It is posted.Let's see:1) I posted the entire scans (less the phone numbers)2) I posted a transcript of said scanGreg:Do you have the ability, then, to correct the FAIRMormon page that quite clearly, it seems, equates the April 23, 1993 fax from Carla Ogden to Hall and the Second Watson Letter? DCP has already informed us that the fax now reproduced on FAIRMormon is actually not the Second Watson Letter, at all. The way the article currently reads, FAIRMormon appears to be perpetuating a falsehood.http://en.fairmormon...esidency_LetterUnless the scanned image directly right of the relevant text is merely illustrative in nature, and is not meant actually to represent visually the text of the SWL (since it is an image of the Ogden-Hall fax, and not the Watson-Hamblin letter)? If that's the case, why not say so?Also, can you change the caption's incorrect dating?cks
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Not sure. A thought, however: you may have difficulty distinguishing fiction from reality? ;-)Not often, but I know a good comedy when I see one.
cksalmon Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Not often, but I know a good comedy when I see one.Indeed. One might call this a comedy of errors. cks
Daniel Peterson Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 In short: yes, there is sound evidence that Bill quoted the fax in his JBMS article and not some now lost missive; and, yes, the language of the fax is somewhat formulaic (or at least derivative).However, as I recall it, that is simply not the case. Bill cited a note from Michael Watson. I saw it.If you'd like, I could elaborate. . . . If you'd like, I could elaborate.You can elaborate all you like. (And, very likely, you will.)I'm not exactly on pins and needles wondering whether I'm lying or not, or wondering whether Professor Hamblin is lying or not. Nor, for that matter, are my lunatic critics. They've "known" that I'm a liar, and etc., for years.That certainly appears to be the case.But it's not.I'm disappointed, by the way, to see how easily you accuse others of lying and deceit. That may be significant.That latter is a red herring, of course.Nope. It's not.But, I am familiar enough at least with DCP's online persona to know that any ol' dirt pile on which he has uttered even the faintest peep is, for him, a hill worth dying on. Behold the incredible shrinking Salmon.You aren't content to level a serious and quite false accusation of dishonesty and malfeasance, but choose to accompany it with an insult, as well.(
Brent Metcalfe Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Hi Greg,You're a brave fellow.I couldn't care less what any other author has written. What I find astonishingly inept are the several rudimentary errors on the FAIR wiki here, here, and here as of PST 11:30 p.m. 18 December 2009 (all of which I've saved)
Wiki Wonka Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Greg:Do you have the ability, then, to correct the FAIRMormon page that quite clearly, it seems, equates the April 23, 1993 fax from Carla Ogden to Hall and the Second Watson Letter? DCP has already informed us that the fax now reproduced on FAIRMormon is actually not the Second Watson Letter, at all. The way the article currently reads, FAIRMormon appears to be perpetuating a falsehood.http://en.fairmormon...esidency_LetterUnless the scanned image directly right of the relevant text is merely illustrative in nature, and is not meant actually to represent visually the text of the SWL (since it is an image of the Ogden-Hall fax, and not the Watson-Hamblin letter)? If that's the case, why not say so?Also, can you change the caption's incorrect dating?cksThank you. These items have been modified.WW
Brent Metcalfe Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Hi Dan,However, as I recall it, that is simply not the case. Bill cited a note from Michael Watson. I saw it....You can elaborate all you like. (And, very likely, you will.)I'm not exactly on pins and needles wondering whether I'm lying or not, or wondering whether Professor Hamblin is lying or not. Nor, for that matter, are my lunatic critics. They've "known" that I'm a liar, and etc., for years.Contrary to what others may think, I'm not of the opinion that you or Bill have brazenly "lied," but you are most certainly mistaken on Bill's source. (Honestly, Dan, I've tried to give you an out on this.)My best,</brent>http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
Daniel Peterson Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Contrary to what others may think, I'm not of the opinion that you or Bill have brazenly "lied," but you are most certainly mistaken on Bill's source. (Honestly, Dan, I've tried to give you an out on this.)Very noble of you, I'm sure.But I saw the document, as did others, and, contrary to the loons at the Compound, we didn't make up the fact that it came from Michael Watson.(
Brent Metcalfe Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Hi Dan,Very noble of you, I'm sure.But I saw the document, as did others, and, contrary to the loons at the Compound, we didn't make up the fact that it came from Michael Watson.Perhaps your witnesses can add their affirmations to mormonscholarstestify.org.I look forward to someday handling this Watson letter that many have seen but no one has. Sounds like a case for Holmes.Past my bedtime, if not yours...Regards,</brent>http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
Wiki Wonka Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Hi Greg,What I find astonishingly inept are the several rudimentary errors on the FAIR wiki here, here, and here as of PST 11:30 p.m. 18 December 2009 (all of which I've saved)
Brent Metcalfe Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Hi Wiki Wonka,If you'd like a substantive response, please PM your real-world identity. I try to avoid protracted exchanges with folks I don't know.But don't expect a response toni... er,... this morning. Bedtime.Cheers,</brent>http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.