Welcome question for Mr. Peterson: Where is the stone box?

[_Mister Scratch]

My point, of course, is that they have no more reason to trust the Tanners' representation of the first Watson letter than they have to trust the quotation of the second Watson letter as it appeared in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. The former would have been very nearly as easy to fake as the latter.

I see the two very differently. If someone quotes the 1st Watson letter, we can actually see and read the letter. We can't do that with the missing 2nd Watson letter. Do you know of anyone who has even claimed that the 1st Watson letter on the Tanners' website is a forgery? I don't.

I don't know of anyone who has asserted that the 2nd Letter is a forgery, either. We have Prof. P. claiming that that's what some of us have said, but I think this is just him being overly defensive.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If someone quotes the 1st Watson letter, we can actually see and read the letter.

Have you actually seen it? Where? Were you allowed to touch it, or merely to see it from some distance? Did you do pollen tests and font analysis on it?

You've seen a purported image of it. Not much harder to fake than a simple quotation.

Do you know of anyone who has even claimed that the 1st Watson letter on the Tanners' website is a forgery? I don't.

No, I don't. As I said, that's because it suits the critics' agenda to believe it authentic and because the rest of us are deficient in the paranoid suspicion department.

You don't typically see primary texts from which quotations are made in books of history or academic articles. If David McCullough quotes a letter from the Truman archives in Independence, Missouri, you don't refuse to accept his quotation of it until you see a purported image of the letter. If Gerrit Bos cites a Maimonides manuscript in the Escorial, you don't withhold acceptance of his citation unless he provides you with an alleged copy of the manuscript.

This issue wouldn't have arisen at all if Scratch and Scratch were not pushing the claim that I and my associates are "mean-spirited liars." Nobody assumes that McCullough is a liar unless he proves otherwise, or that Bos is a fraud unless he can demonstrate that he's not. Their readers simply assume that, if they've quoted a document, the document actually exists.

[_Mercury]

If someone quotes the 1st Watson letter, we can actually see and read the letter.

Have you actually seen it? Where? Were you allowed to touch it, or merely to see it from some distance? Did you do pollen tests and font analysis on it?

You've seen a purported image of it. Not much harder to fake than a simple quotation.

Do you know of anyone who has even claimed that the 1st Watson letter on the Tanners' website is a forgery? I don't.

No, I don't. As I said, that's because it suits the critics' agenda to believe it authentic and because the rest of us are deficient in the paranoid suspicion department.

You don't typically see primary texts from which quotations are made in books of history or academic articles. If David McCullough quotes a letter from the Truman archives in Independence, Missouri, you don't refuse to accept his quotation of it until you see a purported image of the letter. If Gerrit Bos cites a Maimonides manuscript in the Escorial, you don't withhold acceptance of his citation unless he provides you with an alleged copy of the manuscript.

This issue wouldn't have arisen at all if Scratch and Scratch were not pushing the claim that I and my associates are "mean-spirited liars." Nobody assumes that McCullough is a liar unless he proves otherwise, or that Bos is a fraud unless he can demonstrate that he's not. Their readers simply assume that, if they've quoted a document, the document actually exists.

This post smacks of an individual more interested in shoring up an agenda of a conman.

Why don't you actually respond to the questions?

Will you ever look critically at the assumptions or will you just provide more flip-flopping around?

[_Some Schmo]

Nobody assumes that McCullough is a liar unless he proves otherwise, or that Bos is a fraud unless he can demonstrate that he's not. Their readers simply assume that, if they've quoted a document, the document actually exists.

That's mostly because McCullough hasn't demonstrated that he's a dishonest fool over and over again on the message boards like you have.

[_William Schryver]

If someone quotes the 1st Watson letter, we can actually see and read the letter.

Have you actually seen it? Where? Were you allowed to touch it, or merely to see it from some distance? Did you do pollen tests and font analysis on it?

You've seen a purported image of it. Not much harder to fake than a simple quotation.

Do you know of anyone who has even claimed that the 1st Watson letter on the Tanners' website is a forgery? I don't.

No, I don't. As I said, that's because it suits the critics' agenda to believe it authentic and because the rest of us are deficient in the paranoid suspicion department.

You don't typically see primary texts from which quotations are made in books of history or academic articles. If David McCullough quotes a letter from the Truman archives in Independence, Missouri, you don't refuse to accept his quotation of it until you see a purported image of the letter. If Gerrit Bos cites a Maimonides manuscript in the Escorial, you don't withhold acceptance of his citation unless he provides you with an alleged copy of the manuscript.

This issue wouldn't have arisen at all if Scratch and Scratch were not pushing the claim that I and my associates are "mean-spirited liars." Nobody assumes that McCullough is a liar unless he proves otherwise, or that Bos is a fraud unless he can demonstrate that he's not. Their readers simply assume that, if they've quoted a document, the document actually exists.

Dan,

If you insist on coming over here to Shadyburg, and in the process increase their traffic several fold, the least you could do is permit me to begin charging (per head) for the privilege and honor of scrapping with you.

You know, we could sneak down tonight and turn the sprinklers on the field at Lavell Edwards Stadium, make a nice mudhole at midfield, and I could charge ten bucks a pop to have you and Scratch and Scratch wrestle. I’d split the proceeds with you 60/40.

In fact, now that I think about it, I’ll bet people would pay even more to watch Julie Reynolds and beastie go after it!

Mmmmmmmmmmm … let me see … $15 bucks for admission, $3 hotdogs, $6 spiked Sprite … we could have a bona fide riot on our hands in no time at all.

Give it some thought …

[_Mister Scratch]

If someone quotes the 1st Watson letter, we can actually see and read the letter.

Have you actually seen it? Where? Were you allowed to touch it, or merely to see it from some distance? Did you do pollen tests and font analysis on it?

You've seen a purported image of it. Not much harder to fake than a simple quotation.

Dan---what are you doing here? You are flailing about. Your first tactic was to try and pooh-pooh away our questions by trying to defame us, and accuse us of calling you a liar. Now you are trying to cast doubt on the scan of the 1st Letter, which, to this day, all of us can view over at the Tanner's website? This is a very, very simply a matter of the double-standard you are adhering to.

Do you know of anyone who has even claimed that the 1st Watson letter on the Tanners' website is a forgery? I don't.

No, I don't. As I said, that's because it suits the critics' agenda to believe it authentic and because the rest of us are deficient in the paranoid suspicion department.

This is a load of crap. I assume that, since you are editor of FARMS Review, and that, as such, you are aware of the various articles published in that journal, which go nitpicking through the footnotes of, say, The Mormon Hierarchy books? Why, I'm curious to know, does that somehow not constitute "paranoia" on your part? More of the double-standard, it would seem.

You don't typically see primary texts from which quotations are made in books of history or academic articles. If David McCullough quotes a letter from the Truman archives in Independence, Missouri, you don't refuse to accept his quotation of it until you see a purported image of the letter. If Gerrit Bos cites a Maimonides manuscript in the Escorial, you don't withhold acceptance of his citation unless he provides you with an alleged copy of the manuscript.

But, apparently, you do "withhold acceptance" of the citation if you are an LDS apologist and the historian's last name is Quinn.

This issue wouldn't have arisen at all if Scratch and Scratch were not pushing the claim that I and my associates are "mean-spirited liars." Nobody assumes that McCullough is a liar unless he proves otherwise, or that Bos is a fraud unless he can demonstrate that he's not. Their readers simply assume that, if they've quoted a document, the document actually exists.

So far as I am aware, McCullough and Bos did not post on the ZLMB messageboard using the bogus moniker "FreeThinker," thus manipulating and toying with people for....well, how long was it, Prof. P.? Your "FreeThinker" fun & games *was* a lie, was it not? Perhaps we can argue about whether or not it was genuinely "mean-spirited," but there is no question that you lied and deceived.

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's mostly because McCullough hasn't demonstrated that he's a dishonest fool over and over again on the message boards like you have.

I've got my MoLo workin', and it sure do work on Schmo!

[_Rollo Tomasi]

If someone quotes the 1st Watson letter, we can actually see and read the letter.

Have you actually seen it? Where? Were you allowed to touch it, or merely to see it from some distance? Did you do pollen tests and font analysis on it?

You've seen a purported image of it. Not much harder to fake than a simple quotation.

Do you know of anyone who has even claimed that the 1st Watson letter on the Tanners' website is a forgery? I don't.

No, I don't. As I said, that's because it suits the critics' agenda to believe it authentic and because the rest of us are deficient in the paranoid suspicion department.

You don't typically see primary texts from which quotations are made in books of history or academic articles. If David McCullough quotes a letter from the Truman archives in Independence, Missouri, you don't refuse to accept his quotation of it until you see a purported image of the letter. If Gerrit Bos cites a Maimonides manuscript in the Escorial, you don't withhold acceptance of his citation unless he provides you with an alleged copy of the manuscript.

This issue wouldn't have arisen at all if Scratch and Scratch were not pushing the claim that I and my associates are "mean-spirited liars." Nobody assumes that McCullough is a liar unless he proves otherwise, or that Bos is a fraud unless he can demonstrate that he's not. Their readers simply assume that, if they've quoted a document, the document actually exists.

Rather than hide behind the red herring of a rather silly conspiracy theory, wouldn't it just be easier to get Hamblin to clean up his office and find the letter?

[_Some Schmo]

That's mostly because McCullough hasn't demonstrated that he's a dishonest fool over and over again on the message boards like you have.

I've got my MoLo workin', and it sure do work on Schmo!

Not like it works on you.

You should fix that, and maybe see if you can get it to quit making you lie to everyone. Might help you get to heaven.

[Guest]

Your first tactic was to try and pooh-pooh away our questions by trying to defame us, and accuse us of calling you a liar.

From your thread on the origin of FAIR/MA&D:

DCP/FreeThinker is a glib and mean-spirited deceiver

Perhaps I forged that, too?

Now you are trying to cast doubt on the scan of the 1st Letter, which, to this day, all of us can view over at the Tanner's website?

I've never thought of you as stupid, so I don't believe that you're really missing the point so obviously as you pretend to be.

This is a load of crap.

True. Why you keep shoveling it is beyond me.

I assume that, since you are editor of FARMS Review, and that, as such, you are aware of the various articles published in that journal, which go nitpicking through the footnotes of, say, The Mormon Hierarchy books? Why, I'm curious to know, does that somehow not constitute "paranoia" on your part?

Has any writer for the FARMS Review ever accused Mike Quinn of forging a document? Has anybody at the FARMS Review ever accused Quinn of deliberately inventing a text out of thin air?

But, apparently, you do "withhold acceptance" of the citation if you are an LDS apologist and the historian's last name is Quinn.

Disputing interpretations is the stuff of scholarship. Suggesting that another scholar has fraudulently created a document in order to support his agenda is the stuff of libel suits. We do the first. We don't do the second.

So far as I am aware, McCullough and Bos did not post on the ZLMB messageboard using the bogus moniker "FreeThinker," thus manipulating and toying with people for....well, how long was it, Prof. P.?

I don't know. I asked you that question a couple of days ago. You're the man with dossiers on people.

Your "FreeThinker" fun & games *was* a lie, was it not? Perhaps we can argue about whether or not it was genuinely "mean-spirited," but there is no question that you lied and deceived.

Golly gee. It sure is unfair of me to claim that you call me a liar!

I used a pseudonym. Are you opposed to the use of pseudonyms on message boards, Scratch?