Bagley Slanders B. Young = Lots of Attention / Bagley's Slander Proven Bogus and Dishonest = No Attention

[LifeOnaPlate]

Only if you think it out of bounds for someone to read your response as a "dig" of an anticipation of the kind of argument someone defending Bagley as a scholar might make.

Actually it's a defense Bagley himself has made repeatedly on a public email list to which I subscribe.

[Hyrum Page]

Can you come up with anything the book by Turley, Walker and Leonard that compares with falsifying a word in a quoted historical source so as to prop up a weak argument?

First of all, I agree with mysteryman that the argument does not hinge on his misreading. I have not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this misreading was intentional and thus dishonest. I rather doubt that you can produce such evidence. So, we can quibble about the argument itself, but I am not convinced that he falsified this word. And, as for the bias in this argument, I think the MMM's authors are as biased in their own way, yes. Their choice of edits on the quotations is a good example, and, as I have said already, I will be happy to demonstrate the issue when I have the book to hand. It is, as I said, 200 miles away from me right now.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Post #55. I think he was referring to beastie's thread over on Mormon Discussions.

Oh, the comment he edited? Geez, no wonder I missed it. I tend not to re-read each post in the entire discussion every time I add a comment just in case someone edited something.

[Hyrum Page]

Actually it's a defense Bagley himself has made repeatedly on a public email list to which I subscribe.

Obviously I would not know that, since I am not on that list.

[Analytics]

I again challenge you and anyone else to demonstrate from the text how Bagley's argument in any way hangs on that word. I have provided the text above and await with baited breath for someone to fall on their face trying to do so. I have PROVEN my case, not one person has taken up my challenge!

I completely agree that whether Smac's accusations in the OP are sound depends on demonstrating that Bagley's argument does in fact hang on that word.

If nobody can even attempt to demonstrate from the text how Bagley's argument in any way hangs on that word, that puts an ironic spin on the title of this thread. The way Bagley has been slandered regarding the "alies issue" has in fact been proven bogus and dishonest.

[Hyrum Page]

Oh, the comment he edited? Geez, no wonder I missed it. I tend not to re-read each post in the entire discussion every time I add a comment just in case someone edited something.

You missed it because I edited it?

[Hyrum Page]

When I asked for examples he decided to castigate instead of explain.

LOL. Oh brother.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this misreading was intentional and thus dishonest.

Other people have left other options open to explain the mistake (me, namely). Should I get bent out of shape and demand you read all my posts and so forth before making a statement that fails to consider my previous comments? (See my post #41 where I allowed for it being deliberate or otherwise).

I think the MMM's authors are as biased in their own way, yes.

Who has disputed that? I haven't seen anyone dispute that claim in this discussion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You missed it because I edited it?

Yes. You edited the comment after I'd read it but expected me to know that you already said you were looking for examples. Try to keep up

(See how I ended that statement with a little gratuitous slam in your direction? It is in the tune of your "oh brother" comments. Can we knock of that melodrama now?)

[Hyrum Page]

Other people have left other options open to explain the mistake (me, namely). Should I get bent out of shape and demand you read all my posts and so forth before making a statement that fails to consider my previous comments?

I'm sorry. Is your name Scott Lloyd?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Obviously I would not know that, since I am not on that list.

Right, but you elected to believe I was referring to you.

[Hyrum Page]

Yes. You edited the comment after I'd read it but expected me to know that you already said you were looking for examples. Try to keep up

(See how I ended that statement with a little gratuitous slam in your direction? It is in the tune of your "oh brother" comments. Can we knock of that melodrama now?)

I did not edit it so thoroughly that it changed the entire statement, as far as I remember.

LOaP, you can add any gratuitous slam you like. It makes no difference to me.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm sorry. Is your name Scott Lloyd?

That's my whole point. Remember the little kerfluffle over my comment about Bagley's awards, etc.?

[Zakuska]

Hyrum Page and Life on a Plate... Boys! Don't make me come up there. You two settle down and I don't mean maybe!

[Hyrum Page]

Right, but you elected to believe I was referring to you.

Because I am in this ongoing discussion, your "list" was not. Who was Will responding to, your list?

[Scott Lloyd]

First of all, I agree with mysteryman that the argument does not hinge on his misreading. I have not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this misreading was intentional and thus dishonest. I rather doubt that you can produce such evidence. So, we can quibble about the argument itself, but I am not convinced that he falsified this word.

The most charitable yet reasonable construction of the facts at hand is that Bagley encountered the word "grain" in the manuscript and couldn't make it out. So he came up with and inserted in brackets a word of his own that, in fact, bears no resemblance to "grain" but does fit his pre-conceived notion. From where I sit, that looks like falsifying, which, according to one dictionary defintion, means "to give an untrue or misleading account of; misrepresent." How could he know with any reasonable certainty the word he couldn't read meant something similar to "allies"? If he didn't, why include the quote at all?

I have not argued, nor do I now, that Bagley intended to deceive in this instance. But at the least, it demonstrates how his prejudices made him prone to carelessness and incompetence.

And, as for the bias in this argument, I think the MMM's authors are as biased in their own way, yes. Their choice of edits on the quotations is a good example, and, as I have said already, I will be happy to demonstrate the issue when I have the book to hand. It is, as I said, 200 miles away from me right now.

If you're relying on beastie's past work to make your argument for you, I should think one or two mouse clicks would do the job.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I did not edit it so thoroughly that it changed the entire statement, as far as I remember.

LOaP, you can add any gratuitous slam you like. It makes no difference to me.

Just enough to add the statement that you were looking for examples. Since that statement wasn't there before I asked for examples. Then you made some statement about me not reading your posts. The posts that you edited after I read them.

[Hyrum Page]

That's my whole point. Remember the little kerfluffle over my comment about Bagley's awards, etc.?

Will made the comment in response to me, LOaP. The fact that you go "non sequitur" is hardly my doing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Because I am in this ongoing discussion, your "list" was not. Who was Will responding to, your list?

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Will. Remember your previous post about you only talking to Scott Lloyd? Check it again.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Will made the comment in response to me, LOaP. The fact that you go "non sequitur" is hardly my doing.

Exactly, and I made my comment in response to Will. capisce? Now can we get back to Bagley?

[mysteryman]

This is really a mess. (Perhaps it's due to your obvious passion for the subject.) I'm supposed to quote a passage but then I'm not supposed to because you already have, but then at the end I'm supposed to quote it again and apparently you're holding your breath while you wait. My opinion doesn't matter because only Bagley's opinion counts but then I am supposed to give my opinion (on how the words makes a difference). Etc.

Has more to do with your reading comprehension skills.

It's not that hard. I basically made two assertions:

1. Bagley himself highlights the new passage as crucial to connecting BY to the Fancher party attack via the Sep 1 meeting.

You are right, it isn't that hard. Yes he uses the passage to connect Young to the Fancher attack. Now, using the text of the book I provided above, does the word "allies" have any bearing on how Bagley uses that document to connect BY to the Fancher attack? In reading Bagley's interpretation of the passage, what difference does that word make to how Bagley uses the document to make his case? I have asked people repeatedly to do this. Go to the text of the book. Everyone so far has failed.

2. The altered reading (allies vice grains) clearly gives a different meaning to the passage.

What meaning does Bagley place on the passage and how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument? I have asked people repeatedly to do this. Go to the text of the book. Everyone so far has failed.

Ergo (1 + 2 = 3), the bracketed word is crucial to Bagley's argument.

Demonstrate this using the text. I have provided it above. What meaning does Bagley place on the passage and how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument? I have asked people repeatedly to do this. Go to the text of the book. Everyone so far has failed.

You yourself have admitted to 1 yet persist in arguing contra 2, using uppercase and other amusing devices to petualantly insist that you have carried the day and that nobody has impeached your position. But it's simply not true. You haven't even laid out a valid position other than the rather anemic "Bagley doesn't comment on the the word 'allies' therefore it isn't part of his argument." Hogwash. Bagley clearly insists that the passage is new and critical, and the meaning of the passage is clearly altered by the insertion. 1 + 2 = 3. And if you really can't see the difference the change in wording makes to the passage, this conversation isn't really going anywhere. Even in lowercase.

Demonstrate this using the text. I have provided it above. What meaning does Bagley place on the passage and how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument? I have asked people repeatedly to do this. Go to the text of the book. Everyone so far has failed.

Please someone answer my questions. I have carried the day. Not one person has been able to challenge me using the text of the book. I will ask yet again, pleas answer the questions. What meaning does Bagley place on the passage an how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument?

[Hyrum Page]

The most charitable yet reasonable construction of the facts at hand is that Bagley encountered the word "grain" in the manuscript and couldn't make it out. So he came up with and inserted in brackets a word of his own that, in fact, bears no resemblance to "grain" but does fit his pre-conceived notion. From where I sit, that looks like falsifying, which, according to one dictionary defintion, means "to give an untrue or misleading account of; misrepresent." How could he know with any reasonable certainty the word he couldn't read meant something similar to "allies"? If he didn't, why include the quote at all?

No, that really isn't the only charitable yet reasonable construction of the facts. The simple fact is that you do not know what kind of copy he consulted and under what conditions. Now, given unfavorable conditions, he may have been inclined to see a reconstruction that fit his view, but this is something that epigraphists do all the time when they are restoring inscriptions. And guess what, very few people jump all over them as though they are devils or hacks for having done so. Generally, a measured scholarly response suffices.

If you're relying on beastie's past work to make your argument for you, I should think one or two mouse clicks would do the job.

I would like to do so, yes, but for some reason I am not able to coax it out right now. We have been experiencing difficulties with the search function over there. That said, I would prefer to have my books at hand to show you. I simply do not.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Everyone so far has failed.

Please someone answer my questions. I have carried the day. Not one person has been able to challenge me using the text of the book. I will ask yet again, pleas answer the questions. What meaning does Bagley place on the passage an how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument?

It would require getting the book in my hands again. Like I noted before, I don't have it with me at the moment, I tend not to carry around Bagley's book all the time. Maybe some patience before declaring victory would be warranted? Or are we being timed?

[Hyrum Page]

Exactly, and I made my comment in response to Will. capisce? Now can we get back to Bagley?

LOL. OK, LOaP. I hope you are satisfied with having administered your important "lesson" of the day.

[mysteryman]

I completely agree that whether Smac's accusations in the OP are sound depends on demonstrating that Bagley's argument does in fact hang on that word.

If nobody can even attempt to demonstrate from the text how Bagley's argument in any way hangs on that word, that puts an ironic spin on the title of this thread. The way Bagley has been slandered regarding the "alies issue" has in fact been proven bogus and dishonest.

I agree he deserves some criticism for getting the word wrong. But people have made a mountain out of a mole hill!!! The word does not have any bearing on his argument whatsoever and not one person has been able to demonstrate from the text that it does. So my contention is if it has no bearing on the argument anyway, then why in the world would he deliberately change the word knowing he would be caught? It makes no sense.