"Sign of the fifth degree of the second part"

[William Schryver]

I have found what appears to be conclusive evidence that the first line of Ab2(Williams) was written after the text that follows. You'll recall that this is the line that reads:

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I'm uncertain what you see at this locus.

Two methods of ink erasure were prevalent in the early 19thC: scraping and wiping

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

I'm uncertain what you see at this locus.

Two methods of ink erasure were prevalent in the early 19thC: scraping and wiping

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

If this is an <<inadvertent... erasure>>, then where do you perceive the smearing or blotting of the ink in your photo? (Even <<inadvertent... erasure>> leave residual marks on paper.)

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[USU78]

Will, it seems to me that the method of or reason for the erasure of the lower case "t" in the lower line and its being overwritten by the lower loop of the lower case "f" in the upper line are not particularly interesting questions.

What is interesting is the implication: that the "5th degree" material was an afterthought; it evidences that the writer is seeking to impose an artificial order upon an already existing text; it's evidence of an attempt to make cosmos out of chaos.

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

If this is an <<inadvertent... erasure>>, then where do you perceive the smearing or blotting of the ink in your photo? (Even <<inadvertent... erasure>> leave residual marks on paper.)

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[William Schryver]

Will, it seems to me that the method of or reason for the erasure of the lower case "t" in the lower line and its being overwritten by the lower loop of the lower case "f" in the upper line are not particularly interesting questions.

What is interesting is the implication: that the "5th degree" material was an afterthought; it evidences that the writer is seeking to impose an artificial order upon an already existing text; it's evidence of an attempt to make cosmos out of chaos.

Yes, there are multiple implications of this finding, including the one you have observed.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

On multiple boards you've described your observation as <<conclusive>>. Since you're evidently consulting <<an unimpeachable expert>> just to be sure, I'll take your <<conclusive>> as rhetorical bravado.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi USU78,

Without decisive evidence of an erasure

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

On multiple boards you've described your observation as <<conclusive>>. Since you're evidently consulting <<an unimpeachable expert>> just to be sure, I'll take your <<conclusive>> as rhetorical bravado.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[USU78]

Hi USU78,

Without decisive evidence of an erasure

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi USU78,

Please edit your post so our readers can understand who wrote what.

Cheers,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

So much for <<conclusive>>, eh?

I've already weighed in on your <<dittograph>>

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi USU78,

With due respect, I recommend that you examine some early-19thC documents, and then learn the methods employed to examine them to better appreciate my questions posed to Will.

Cheers,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

So much for <<conclusive>>, eh?

I've already weighed in on your <<dittograph>>

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Please edit your response so readers can tell who wrote what.

Thanks,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[USU78]

With due respect, I recommend that you examine some early-19thC documents, and then learn the methods employed to examine them to better appreciate my questions posed to Will.

No.

You asked me a question. I answered it. Then I asked you one. You answer mine.

This is how conversations go, sir.

You don't gratuitously throw out insults to someone instead of answering questions.

You see, sir, I had absolutely no duty to answer your question, but I chose to do so since it pleased me to do so. Since you asked it, you invited an actual colloquy. So make with the colloquizing already.

Should you fail to answer, that seems pretty convincing evidence you haven't a clue how to go about answering it . . . that you have no clue how any other reasonable inference can be made from the evidence presented by Will, sir.

So, as Steven reported hearing from G-d's own mouth: "G-d says, 'Don't change the subject, and answer the f******* question!'"

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi USU78,

I wish you the best in your studies. My time is limited; I hope you'll understand.

Cheers,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[USU78]

Hi Will,

Please edit your response so readers can tell who wrote what.

Thanks,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[USU78]

Hi USU78,

I wish you the best in your studies. My time is limited; I hope you'll understand.

Cheers,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Your authoritative source was quite explicit: not a <<decisive>> dittograph.

But, again, I don't want to go off topic from your new-found <<conclusive evidence>>.

And with that, my domestic and professional lives beckon...

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

Your authoritative source was quite explicit: not a <<decisive>> dittograph.

But, again, I don't want to go off topic from your new-found <<conclusive evidence>>.

And with that, my domestic and professional lives beckon...

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[USU78]

And, with that, Metcalfe manages to generate 10 posts and yet say absolutely nothing of substance. In other words, business as usual.

It is a tale told by an idiot, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[gtaggart]

Coward

Go Aggies!!!!!

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Well, substance is as substance does... or something.

Hi USU78,

... hmmm... a <<coward>> (Greg: <<Go Aggies!!!!!>>?????) and <<an idiot>> who can't <<answer the f******* question!>>...

At least unlike your semiliterate <<G-d>>, I can count the number of letters in f******.

Ciao,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(