The Hill Cumorah

[Bob Crockett]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are aware now.  You might need to edit this part to reflect that.

 

That is not remotely evidence and shouldn't be cited as such in a paper.  I am not going to edit that "part to reflect that."  Send me a statement from Brent Hall and likely I would.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Scott, I have an honest question, Im not tryin to be a smartbutt or any thing like that. Just trying to figure out the whole correcting people's grammar thing and why people do it. First off, when someone like me, a roofer with a G.E.D., no college what so ever, hasnt opened a grammar textbook since I was expelled from high school, comes onto a forum such as this one I realize I'm stepping out of my world and into yours. You have mastered the English language sir, and I applaud you for that. It has probably helped you put food on your families table and made you successful. I guess what's so confusing to me, since you've obviously mastered the English language, why correct someone who hasn't? In our daily lives we dont go around correcting people on their other shortcomings. For example,  since I work construction and work out, I burn a ton of calories, so I'm very fit. I surf, so i like to stay skinny, that way, I look good in a wet suit, nothing's more appetizing to a shark than a pudgy man in a wetsuit🤣🤣. So some people  would say I've "mastered the art" of staying fit because I understand my metabolism,  I know what I can and cant eat. And to me, food is really really simple. But, just because it's simple to me, doesn't mean it's simple for everyone else. In all actuality, food intake in america is extremely tough to figure out. So that's why I dont go around and tell overweight people how to eat. If I did, I wouldn't have any friends, plus it would make me seem like a jerk. 

   So, I love constructive criticism, if that's why your correcting people, then that's understandable for the most part.  But I hope you realize grammar, punctuation, contractions and all the other mistakes I make, that's just me, I'm not changing it for you or anyone else. But I do hope we can talk in the future, I think I can learn alot about the church from you.

      

You write exactly like Bill Reel.  Also have the same hot buttons. Go get em. 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

That is not remotely evidence and shouldn't be cited as such in a paper.  I am not going to edit that "part to reflect that."  Send me a statement from Brent Hall and likely I would.

This just doesn't sound very forthright anymore:

Quote

Even though Brent Hall is a FARMS contributor, [7] I am completely unaware of any statement he has ever made authenticating the Ogden document. 

It might be more forthright and in the spirit of honest disclosure to say, "I do have a statement from a trustworthy source that Brent has authenticated the document, but I have not been able to verify it personally."  

To not edit this comment seems disingenuous.

If @smac97 still has the email, maybe he could forward it to you with Brent's permission.  But then again, you are the one doing the investigative writing and the burden is truly yours.  To not investigate a source yourself seems sloppy, and to further conceal a trustworthy source which gives credibility to Brent and the document is...something.

I somehow get the impression that you are not interested in doing a thorough investigation of the truth however, you seem to be more interested in spinning your angle without implementing simple and fundamental investigative procedures. 

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

So this is what I say in my paper about the two letters:

In recent years, proponents and opponents of a Mesoamerican theory of the Book of Mormon have focused upon two enigmatic letters which purport to have come from the office of the First Presidency.  

If both letters are "enigmatic," then how much probative weight should they carry?

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Unfortunately, they don’t really answer questions and fuel the fire for continued debate over the issue of official Church criticism of a limited geographic theory that might call for two Cumorahs. 

Well, I agree with that.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The letter first is dated October 16, 1990, signed by F. Michael Watson and addressed to a bishop in Oklahoma.   Elder Watson was called to be the Secretary to the First Presidency in April 1986, and in 2008 called to the First Quorum of Seventy.[1]  Elder Watson’s letter states that the Hill Cumorah known to the Nephites is located in New York.[2]

The second letter from the First Presidency’s office is more in the nature of a comment upon a cover sheet which typically transmits facsimile letters.[3]   On April 23, 1993, Carla Ogden sent the form to Brent Hall of FARMS.   FAIR’s website reports without reference that she was the Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency as of 2009.[4] 

Sounds good so far.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

In his 1993 article defending the Sorenson model, Hamblin incorrectly cites the letter as “Correspondence from Michael Watson” when Watson’s name is nowhere mentioned in the document.[5]  Roper makes the same citation error in his rather significant FARMS 2004 apologetic defense (actually, a critique of early sources suggesting a hemispheric model) of the Mesoamerican theory.[6]  

A good catch.  

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

There is no doubt that Ogden was working in Watson’s office at the time,

If that is the case, then FAIR citing her position "without reference" doesn't really seem to be a problem.  The point is not in dispute.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

as Watson was working in the office of the First Presidency, but it is misleading to cite the letter as Watson’s work or to imply that it had the endorsement of Ezra Taft Benson. 

Fair enough.  The letter on its face says it is from Carla Ogden.  I suspect Hamblin erred (as did others who followed him, such as Roper) in referencing Watson when it should have been Ogden.

Mistakes happen.  This seems pretty far afield from evidence of "fraud."

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Mesoamericanists favor the Ogden letter simply because it says the Church takes no position, a rather weak foundation for the cottage industry of limited geography. 

I very much doubt that.  I think folks who point to the 1993 letter only do so as part of a larger response to arguments based on the 1990 letter.

Again, "the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas" (emphasis added).  It is misleading to assert that the Church's position is that the Hill Cumorah referenced in the Book of Mormon is in New York.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Ogden’s transmittal says, in part:  “The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography.  While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.”

Both letters are of dubious provenance.  

Not really.  I think the provenance we have is sufficient, particularly given Brent Hall's authentication of the 1993 letter.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Even though Brent Hall is a FARMS contributor, [7] I am completely unaware of any statement he has ever made authenticating the Ogden document. 

Well, now you are.  More to the point, you could simply email him and ask him to authenticate "the Ogden document."  I did that this morning.  Took me five minutes.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I am also not aware of any statement from the Oklahoma bishop authenticating the Watson letter.

So neither has much in the way of probative value?  I think we can agree on this.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Ogden facsimile’s provenance is particularly precarious as almost all facsimile transmissions bear a ribbon of information either at the top or bottom, which the facsimile machine time-stamps.  This one lacks it. 

I've seen plenty of faxes without the header you describe.

I also asked Brent Hall about this (as I anticipated that would be a point you would raise).  Specifically, I asked:

Quote

FAIR has published a scan of the fax here.  The scanned letter lacks a header (the fax number it came from, the number of pages, etc.).  Was this digitally removed from the scanned image, or was it never there?

Brent responded:

Quote

I remember the fax, but I don't remember the numbers ever being there or being removed if they were ever there. I would be interesting if you could find "Carla" and see if this was a form they used and put in telephone numbers as appropriate. Another person who may remember is Dan Peterson. His "rememberer" is without equal.

"Mountains" and "molehills" come to mind.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

As well, there seem to be information missing in some of the fields of the facsimile form.  The possibilities for the absence of the fax strip are: (1) the Office of the First Presidency intentionally programmed the fax machine to omit the information ribbon, as these machines produce them automatically unless programmed otherwise; under this scenario, Ms. Ogden would have also have omitted information called for in the form; (2) when the Ogden facsimile was copied for Internet distribution, the ribbon of information and other pieces of information about the sender’s identity were redacted; (3) the Ogden facsimile may have been created from memory, after the fact, by somebody who didn’t think to add the ribbon of information and other private data.  All of these are reasonable explanations for the missing data, and sufficient to cause one to want more provenance.  Of course, the provenance issue can practically vanish with a statement from Brent Hall authenticating the document as a true copy and not one reconstructed from memory.

I'm satisfied that Brent has done this.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

But, the Ogden facsimile merely quotes from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, so it is not controversial as to its content.[8]  Despite being privately published, the Encyclopedia was extensively vetted by Church authorities for doctrinal consistency.   Yet another hint that perhaps Church authorities might not see the Hill Cumorah as a pin in a known map.

The Church has done more than just "hint."  The Church's published-to-the-world position is available here (emphases added) :

Quote

Book of Mormon Geography

...

Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon—with the exception of the events in the Near East—occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[Bob Crockett]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

This just doesn't sound very forthright anymore:

It might be more forthright and in the spirit of honest disclosure to say, "I do have a statement from a trustworthy source that Brent has authenticated the document, but I have not been able to verify it personally."  

To not edit this comment seems disingenuous.

If @smac97 still has the email, maybe he could forward it to you with Brent's permission.  But then again, you are the one doing the investigative writing and the burden is truly yours.  To not investigate a source yourself seems sloppy, and to further conceal a trustworthy source which gives credibility to Brent and the document is...something.

 

Don't call me disingenuous or dishonest.  I don't have to rely on statements on internet boards from people who post anonymously to overcome my academic conclusions.  Nor do I have to draft my statements to be politically correct when I am dealing with anonymous persons.  Simply -- if I have a statement from Brad Hall published in a reliable place (like, on FAIR's website), I'll edit my piece.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

This just doesn't sound very forthright anymore:

It might be more forthright and in the spirit of honest disclosure to say, "I do have a statement from a trustworthy source that Brent has authenticated the document, but I have not been able to verify it personally."  

To not edit this comment seems disingenuous.

If @smac97 still has the email, maybe he could forward it to you with Brent's permission.  But then again, you are the one doing the investigative writing and the burden is truly yours.  To not investigate a source yourself seems sloppy, and to further conceal a trustworthy source which gives credibility to Brent and the document is...something.

Yes, I still have the email exchange (it happened just a few hours ago).  I'd probably want to redact my email address and Brent's.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Don't call me disingenuous or dishonest. 

I would ask that you not publicly accuse Brent Hall of fraud, particularly when you have done so based on almost nothing but pure speculation, and when you have failed to do something as simple as send him an email and ask him. 

Quote

I don't have to rely on statements on internet boards from people who post anonymously to overcome my academic conclusions. 

I don't post anonymously.  And nobody is asking you to "rely on statements on internet boards."  You could contact Brent Hall and ask him.

Quote

Nor do I have to draft my statements to be politically correct when I am dealing with anonymous persons.  Simply -- if I have a statement from Brad Hall published in a reliable place (like, on FAIR's website), I'll edit my piece.

I'll check with him and see if FAIR is interested.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 13, 2021 by smac97

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Don't call me disingenuous or dishonest.  I don't have to rely on statements on internet boards from people who post anonymously to overcome my academic conclusions.  Nor do I have to draft my statements to be politically correct when I am dealing with anonymous persons.  Simply -- if I have a statement from Brad Hall published in a reliable place (like, on FAIR's website), I'll edit my piece.

I am telling you how it comes off, I have never accused you of anything.

Academic conclusions?  Are you truly interested in investigating this, or are you more interested in spinning your angle and ignore reliable sources?  Spencer MacDonald is not "anonymous".  You refuse to investigate a HUGE lead just handed to you... That tells me all I need to know about your paper.

Edited January 13, 2021 by pogi

[Bob Crockett]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am telling you how it comes off, I have never accused you of anything.

Academic conclusions?  Are you truly interested in investigating this, or are you more interested in spinning your angle and ignore reliable sources?  Spencer MacDonald is not "anonymous".  You refuse to investigate a HUGE lead just handed to you... That tells me all I need to know about your paper.

Academic papers don't typically "create" reliable evidence.  I suppose it is possible, but I don't.  I rely on primary or secondary sources.  I don't create them.  It is a rare thing when an academician uses as source material an interview he's personally done.  I suppose I could do it, but then it would call into question why I didn't interview other people for other propositions.  If the statement is posted in a reliable place, that peers can check and support or challenge, then I can rely upon it.  But I cannot rely on anonymous sources.  I just cannot.  Spencer does not post in his own name, nor do you.  Further, I don't like relying upon ephermal sources such as message boards.  I have pointed out that one of my important references in a thread here has been deleted.  I suspect that an Ensign editor didn't like his conclusions discussed and the thread was dropped.  I have seen that happen first-hand with a conversation I had with a client that was reported on this board (somebody overheard it), and the thread was heavily edited to take the material out when the client complained.

Juanita Brooks, whom I say was never trained adequately as researcher, would interview people and then file her interviews in the Huntington Library for other researchers to review.  So, that is the way an academic can create evidence, but I lack the time or resources for that.

And there's little freaking probability that I will continue to have dialogue with a person who calls me dishonest, disingenuous or demands that I characterize my queries in politically correct ways.  My conclusions are rather neutral.  I don't really take a strong position against a Mesoamerican theory as my paper demonstrates.  I point out weaknesses in the analysis.  I admit the possibilty that the Church, sub rosa, supports the theory.  I imply that it may be the most viable theory of all.  I am, however, critical of John Sorenson's methodology.  Had he not combined in his books his interpretation of spiritual matters with his claim of scientific rigor, or if his books had been peer reviewed, or if he had used then-current cartographic analyses, I might have a different opinion.

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It is a rare thing when an academician uses as source material an interview he's personally done.

No, it's not. Merely assembling and quoting published material is what undergraduates do. My PhD certainly required original research! And now people quote me ...

Edited January 14, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bob Crockett]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, it's not. Merely assembling and quoting published material is what undergraduates do. My PhD certainly required original research! And now people quote me ...

My papers do not create original material.  A doctoral dissertation, once filed, becomes original source material.   Read the articles in Judaica or similar articles.  They rely on original source material that peers can check.  In any event, I am not going to cite to an ephemeral message board (although, ironically, the paper I've cited herein does just that).  I'm not going to interview a witness and then be accused of misquoting the witness or influencing his statements.  But, again, its a question of time and resources and an unwillingness to draw attention to once piece of the paper and not another.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Spencer does not post in his own name ...

See highlighted text below:

 

[Bob Crockett]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

See highlighted text below:

 

I'm surprised you would insist I cite this board.  I refuse. I don't know Brad Hall.  It could be somebody posing as Brad Hall. But once his statement is published by FAIR at least I have been provided the imprimatur of reliability. By FAIR.  

Nobody cites to message boards unless the boards are dedicated to academics.  This one has a lot of anoymous clowns spouting off. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm surprised you would insist I cite this board.

I have at no point done so. Please don't put false words in my mouth.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Academic papers don't typically "create" reliable evidence.  I suppose it is possible, but I don't.  I rely on primary or secondary sources.  I don't create them.  It is a rare thing when an academician uses as source material an interview he's personally done.  I suppose I could do it, but then it would call into question why I didn't interview other people for other propositions.  If the statement is posted in a reliable place, that peers can check and support or challenge, then I can rely upon it.  But I cannot rely on anonymous sources.  I just cannot. 

I am not an anonymous source.

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Spencer does not post in his own name, nor do you. 

My full name is in literally every single post on this board.  Take a look:

Quote

smac97

Creates Man & Woman

 

Contributor

 18,597

11,860 posts

Gender:Male

Interests:My name is Spencer Macdonald

Moreover, I've been on this board since 2004, and have racked up 11,800+ posts.  I am not really an unknown quantity on this board.

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Further, I don't like relying upon ephermal sources such as message boards. 

Then email Brent Hall and ask him yourself.

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And there's little freaking probability that I will continue to have dialogue with a person who calls me dishonest, disingenuous or demands that I characterize my queries in politically correct ways. 

Refraining from baselessly accusing another person of fraud in public is not a matter of political correctness.  It's a matter of basic decorum and civility.  You want it for yourself, and that's fine.  I'm just asking that you do the same in your characterization of others. 

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

My conclusions are rather neutral. 

Publicly accusing Brent Hall of fraud, and continuing to do so after I have told you he authenticated the fax, is not "neutral."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not an anonymous source.

My full name is in literally every single post on this board.  Take a look:

Moreover, I've been on this board since 2004, and have racked up 11,800+ posts.  I am not really an unknown quantity on this board.

Then email Brent Hall and ask him yourself.

Refraining from baselessly accusing another person of fraud in public is not a matter of political correctness.  It's a matter of basic decorum and civility.  You want it for yourself, and that's fine.  I'm just asking that you do the same in your characterization of others. 

Publicly accusing Brent Hall of fraud, and continuing to do so after I have told you he authenticated the fax, is not "neutral."

 

Sorry.  I am not going to do as you ask.  I think your claims are somewhere between unsupported or unreliable or not adequately verifiable to outright spurious.

I'm sure you are a wonderful guy but I'm not going to bullied. 

Edited January 14, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm surprised you would insist I cite this board.  I refuse.

Nobody is "insisting" any such thing.  This is just a message board.

Also, it's Brent Hall.   

Quote

I don't know Brad Hall.  It could be somebody posing as Brad Hall.

I have dozens of emails sent to and from Brent Hall at the email address I used.  And the emails each have a little jpg of Brent's face next to his email address.

Why would I lie about this stuff, Bob?  Why would I join in a conspiracy about such a trivial matter?

Quote

But once his statement is published by FAIR at least I have been provided the imprimatur of reliability. By FAIR.  

Are you sure?  What if FAIR is in on the scam too? 

Quote

Nobody cites to message boards unless the boards are dedicated to academics.  This one has a lot of anoymous clowns spouting off. 

I'm not anonymous.  And I've been hear since 2004, and I've racked up 11,800+ posts.  I'm not an unknown quantity.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 14, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Sorry.  I am not going to do as you ask. 

All I've asked is that you not baselessly accuse Brent Hall of fraud.  In public.  But whatever.

Quote

I think your claims are somewhere between unsupported or unreliable or not adequately verifiable to outright spurious.

Right.  I'm a purveyor of falsehoods.  Ironic coming from someone who just protested having integrity questioned.

Quote

I'm sure you are a wonderful guy but I'm not going to bullied. 

Asking you to not publicly accuse another member of the Church of fraud is bullying?

-Smac

Edited January 14, 2021 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Right.  I'm a purveyor of falsehoods.  

That's what troubles me greatly. 

Regarding Brad Hall, I'm not accusing him of anything.  Much less fraud.  Yes I say the document may be a fraud, but Brad Hall may be a victim along with the rest of us.   I think you are not a reliable source.   Hearsay and unnecessarily combative.  Hopefully FAIR can help clear this up. 

Don't take offense if I can't trust your say so.  This is not the right medium and your posts are not suitable for peer review. 

Edited January 14, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

Brent Hall.  At least respect the guy enough to reread your posts and get his name right. (I am assuming it is your autocorrect making the error)

Edited January 14, 2021 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Brent Hall.  At least respect the guy enough to reread your posts and get his name right. (I am assuming it is your autocorrect making the error)

You see, the poster known as Smac is inherently unreliable.  I don't know if he is who he says he is.  I don't know if he really spoke with a Brad or Brant Hall and what he says about Hall is hearsay.  Academics can't trust such a source for peer review. 

That can be overcome but not on this board.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Watson letter was drafted on October 16, 1990, in proportionate font typically not found on typewriters.  Proportionate fonts in typical offices in 1990 would have been a rarity, as they required I.B.M 386 processors, usually.[9]  The author was a young lawyer in an international law firm in 1990.  Proportional fonts were available only from specialists working on mainframe computers, highly specialized and networked Wang processors, or professional document companies. It was very rare to see office workers with I.B.M. personal computers in 1990.

I can confirm from personal observation that Wang word processors were in use at Church headquarters about that time. 
 

I know this, because I began (though never completed) a process of applying for employment on the staff of the Ensign magazine. I clearly recall that in the course of my initial interview, the editor with whom I was interviewing informed me that staff members composed the magazine’s content on Wang computers. 
 

I don’t know that the same or similar technology was in use in the Office of the First Presidency at the time, but I think it not unreasonable to suppose that it was. 

[Bob Crockett]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can confirm from personal observation that Wang word processors were in use at Church headquarters about that time. 
 

I know this, because I began (though never completed) a process of applying for employment on the staff of the Ensign magazine. I clearly recall that in the course of my initial interview, the editor with whom I was interviewing informed me that staff members composed the magazine’s content on Wang computers. 
 

I don’t know that the same or similar technology was in use in the Office of the First Presidency at the time, but I think it not unreasonable to suppose that it was. 

Thanks.  That helps. I suspected such.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

You are aware now.  You might need to edit this part to reflect that.

 

I want to know if Bob Crockett really believes that Brent Hall would allow to stand a claim that he wrote a cover letter when he hadn't?  He wouldn’t have to come out in public even, but he could let it be known privately to his grinds or acquaintances at first FARMs and now FairMormon that the cover letter with his name attached is a fraud or that the alleged fax connected with it is not the one he saw  and then it could have been removed with or without comment and eventually fade away.  Instead he allows a fraud to be perpetuated by doing nothing?

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_the_First_Presidency_identify_the_New_York_"Hill_Cumorah"_as_the_site_of_the_Nephite_final_battles%3F

“Matt Roper of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship located a faxed copy of the same statement sent from the Office of the First Presidency, along with its cover page, and sent FAIR a copy with permission to post it. The 1993 fax was sent by Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency, Carla Ogden, to Brent Hall of FARMS. (Sister Ogden continues to serve in this position as of 2009). The text of the fax matches exactly the text reported to have been in the response by Watson as described in the FARMS Review. The cover letter reads as follows:

I thought you would be interested in this FAX from Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency. We have been receiving a number of questions from the Oklahoma, Texas area where anti-Mormons are using a letter from Brother Watson to a Bishop where Brother Watson said that the Church supports only one location for Cumorah, and that is the New York location. I talked with him on the phone the other day and told him of the questions that were coming to us. He responded that the First Presidency would like to clear up that Issue and he would FAX me with that clarification. 

Thanks 

[signed] Brent [Hall]”

Quote

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

... And there's little freaking probability that I will continue to have dialogue with a person who calls me dishonest, disingenuous or demands that I characterize my queries in politically correct ways.

Hmm.  Yet you don't seem to have any problem imputing dishonesty or disingenuousness to Brent Hall.  Why is that?  Pot, meet kettle?  Can dish it out, but can't take it?

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

... My conclusions are rather neutral.  ...

They are?  I wouldn't call your treatment of Brent Hall exactly "neutral."  We must employ vastly different definitions of that word.  Ah, well.  Vive le difference, I suppose.  Carry on.