rcrocket wrote:How did I manipulate a quote from the MMM article?
It's pretty obvious. You replaced certain words with ellipses to argue that no one (including Bagley) can rely on John D. Lee's Mormonism Unveiled because (thanks to your butchering) Bishop's letter to Lee seems to be say he will add facts relating to anything to spice up the story, including the MMM, when in fact Bishop limited his statement to facts "connected with the trial and the history of this case," i.e., the legal proceedings for which Bishop had personal knowledge. You clever slight-of-hand totally changed Bishop's meaning, and you know it.
You and your alter ego Scratch ...
Jumping on the DCP-bandwagon, I see.
After all, the article was a review of Bagley's book, and HE doesn't make this charge, and HE has admitted to me that perhaps it would have been wise to refer to the cited Bishop letter in his book. So HE doesn't see it the way you do. HE is the expert. Please cite my any expert source, Bagley included, which agrees with your reading of my article.
You don't have to be an "expert" to read plain English. Your cute little 'edit' utterly changed what Bishop was saying, and whether Bagley or someone else (like MS or me) point it out to you is immaterial -- you damn well knew what you were doing when you cut those few words in order to discredit the entirety of Lee's Mormonism Unveiled.
How can one accept the charges and claims of an anonymous poster? Show some courage and name yourself as you slander others.
Here comes Bob's constant refrain. Have you ever posted anything without including the same whine about anonymous posting?