Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, you really are not familiar with the Book of Mormon and its history. All of those that you quote are from the rewritten text. All of them. I hope that you have a life jacket because you really missed the boat on this one.

I never intended to get on your boat. ; ) I prefer jet-ski's anyway. Obviously you have no substantive response. It doesn't matter what part of the book they are from. According to Dan, Joseph Smith is all of them. According to me, it's either Joseph or Oliver or Sidney or Solomon. There is no Mormon. There is no Nephi. No Lehi. No Omni. No plates. Only 19th century fiction writers.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

Roger, you really are not familiar with the Book of Mormon and its history. All of those that you quote are from the rewritten text. All of them. I hope that you have a life jacket because you really missed the boat on this one.

I never intended to get on your boat. ; ) I prefer jet-ski's anyway. Obviously you have no substantive response. It doesn't matter what part of the book they are from. According to Dan, Joseph Smith is all of them. According to me, it's either Joseph or Oliver or Sidney or Solomon. There is no Mormon. There is no Nephi. No Lehi. No Omni. No plates. Only 19th century fiction writers.

It is not my boat. It is the boat of textual criticism and analysis. That has nothing to do with the name of the person. It has to do with the text itself. My response was substantive, but you do not seem to understand it.

You may not realize it, but you seem to be operating using a double standard. For instance, you deny that I can infer with any reasonable probability how the lost pages were written. Yet, you have made much of the supposedly similar phrases and ideas from the extant Spalding manuscript and the Book of Mormon to infer that Solomon used that same phraseology and the same ideas in his mythical rewrite, a manuscript you have never seen.
That idea has no support from the only witness who inferred that there was a second manuscript. As Aaron Wright said in his unsigned letter in Philastus Hurlbut's handwriting, "he informed me he wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America." That statement does not indicate a rewrite at all, but a new and unrelated effort.
My analysis and conclusions about the probability of the original text being in the third person except for direct quotes does have support from the original text itself and the historical record.

You also use a double standard for the witnesses. You accept at face value their statements about the names Lehi, Nephi, etc. appearing just so in the mythical Spalding second manuscript. The witnesses say that they were there and you believe them, because those names are in the Book of Mormon. Yet, when four of those Conneaut witnesses and at least three non Conneaut witnesses say that Solomon's story was about the lost tribes migrating to America and becoming the ancestors of the Book of Mormon, you do not believe them. You do not accept them at face value, because there is no lost tribes story discernible in the Book of Mormon. You have to invent some story that bears no resemblance to the lost tribes and pretend that it suffices.

When a witness states that that "When Spalding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla," one would naturally expect to find Lehi and Nephi landing near the Straits of Darien. But that is not in the text of the Book of Mormon. It cannot even be inferred from the test of the Book of Mormon.

I know, I know, I can only use the statements of the witnesses when they agree with you and I cannot use them when they do not agree with you.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

This game of “KNOWING” something and “knowing” something can be a slippery slope into extreme skepticism, postmodern relativism, and nihilism.

What is this? LDS apologetics?

Ironically, Roger, it is your position that more closely mirrors Mormon apologetics. They play on the inability of critics to prove the Book of Mormon isn’t history and try to shift the burden by proposing plausible arguments to support their assumptions. This is exactly what you are doing with Cunningham’s claim.

I point out that you misused the word "know" and rather than simply acknowledge that you overstepped --which would have been a simple thing to do and we could have moved on--instead, you make an issue out of it by claiming that my pointing it out can somehow lead to nihilism! This is just nonsense. The fact is you used (and continue to use) the word "know" inappropriately and you can't seem to muster the humility to simply admit that and move on. Instead you choose to belabor the point with arguments that end up back at square one, which is, in your own words: "that probabilistic arguments aren’t ironclad."

I didn’t misuse the word “Know” when I said: we know the lost MS was written in third person. We know this. What is in dispute is if this abridgement ever quoted Nephi directly and used the phrase “I, Nephi”—not once or twice, but with “frequent repetition” the same as the replacement text does. This is a speculation on your part, and you hold on to it knowing that it can be neither proved nor disproved with “certainty”. With this stance you have negated everything you have said in this thread. In fact, no one can say they “KNOW” anything about anything and we have wasted our time. The only way out of this extreme skepticism and nihilism is to reject infallibilism and use probabilistic arguments. You probably haven’t heard the term infallibilism, so here is a quick Wiki definition:

Infallibilism is, in epistemology, the position that knowledge is, by definition, a true belief which cannot be rationally doubted. Other beliefs may be rationally justified, but they do not rise to the level of knowledge unless absolutely certain. Infallibilism's opposite, fallibilism, is the position that a justified true belief may be considered knowledge, even if we can rationally doubt it. Falliblism is not to be confused with skepticism, which is the belief that knowledge is unattainable for rational human beings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibilism

There has never been a time in this thread that anyone knew anything with the degree that you are demanding now—and you are only demanding it now because it suits your purpose. You are trying to avoid Glenn’s argument rather than dealing with it. Although a probabilistic argument isn’t ironclad, you still need to admit that it exists and is problematic for Cunningham’s “memory”.

Hence, you can't claim to know something about the Lehi text, rather you can surmise something about what it likely might contain, which is what I have been stating all along. It was your inappropriate use of the word "know" that started this in the first place, and it's important, because, as I stated: "If I ignore the implication you get away with a fallacious assertion" --but not just any fallacious assertion, one that, if allowed, could support your premise. That's why it is important to point out the fallacy.

Roger, it’s not fallacious to assert that Mormon’s abridgement of Lehi’s record would necessarily be written in third person. What’s fallacious is that you counter that argument by restating Cunningham’s claim (which is circular) or inventing an implausible scenario that rescues Cunningham’s blunder.

Here you attempt to muddy the water by asserting that:

“There are different degrees of certainty about knowing something.”

This is a semantic game reminiscent of LDS apologetics. Play with the connotation of "knowledge" all you want. The fact remains that you don't know whether the missing 116 pages contained a repetition of the phrase "I Nephi" or "I Lehi" or some combination thereof. And even if you did, it would not prove Cunningham's statement to be inaccurate. That's the bottom line.

As I have already discussed, it is your position that is closest to Mormon apologetics. My statement is simple logic. If your insistence on certain knowledge be allowed, there is no such thing as historiography. Of course, we don’t know with certainty what the 116 pages contained, but present knowledge supports Glenn and not you. You need to acknowledge that and stop your silly quibbling about the word “know”. You have not answered any of my arguments about Cunningham’s problematic claim about the “frequent repetition of ‘I Nephi’”:

1. Mormon’s abridgement of the Book of Lehi would have been predominately written in third person. This is supported by examining the remainder of Mormon’s abridgement (i.e., Mosiah-4 Nephi), as well as Nephi’s abridgement of Lehi’s record in 1 Nephi 1-8.

2. Mormon’s abridgement of the Book of Lehi might have had the phrase “I, Lehi,” but not “I, Nephi.” This is supported by the fact that Nephi’s records did not exist at the time Lehi wrote. Nephi copied his father’s record into the large plates, and abridge it in the small plates.

3. Mormon’s abridgement included Nephi’s record, but this would have been predominately in third person if we take Mormon’s later abridgement as an example. Even if Mormon quoted Nephi’s record directly and used the phrase “I, Nephi,” would probably not occur with “frequent repetition” as it does in the replacement text.

4. Cunningham’s claim requires that Spalding’s MS was changed from first person (Nephi) to third person (Lehi/Nephi) in the 116 pages, then back to first person (Nephi). This is not only implausible but ad hoc escapism when used as defense against the problems previously discussed. The simpler explanation is that Cunningham’s memory was incorrectly altered by his reading of the Book of Mormon.

Glenn has made a probabilistic argument about the content of the lost MS based on what the Book of Mormon says about it.

I don't accept the premise that the Book of Mormon is reliable in it's claims about itself. You shouldn't either. I don't accept that Mormon was a real person. If Mormon was not a real person, then someone, or even a group of someones would have been writing as though they were "Mormon." These same people could/would also have been writing as though they were both Lehi and Nephi. It does not follow, then, that whoever wrote for Mormon could not also have written content for Lehi or Nephi, etc. Therefore, the only time we are bound to take what the Book of Mormon says about itself at face value is if we are going to believe that these were real people. Supposedly you and I agree that they were not. Therefore, internal claims can, and should, be taken with a grain of salt. While they may give us clues as to who was actually behind all of the alleged authors and abridgers (all of which you attribute to the fertile imagination of Joseph Smith, by the way!) they cannot be used as a strict guideline of who produced what or who would have written "I Nephi" or "I Lehi." Again, this is so basic that it amazes me that I should even have to be pointing it out. But the way you write gives every indication that you believe these were real people. How you reconcile all that with the notion that it all came from the mind of Joseph Smith is beyond me.

Roger, this is a red herring. It doesn’t matter if the writers of the Book of Mormon are real characters. What matters is that when the Book of Mormon refers back to the lost 116 pages, you can take that as reliable. Joseph Smith didn’t attempt to reproduce Mormon’s abridgement of Lehi’s record because he feared the possibility of being exposed through comparing the two MSS. This means what whenever he discussed the lost MS, he knew it would stand up to examination. He also feared that Harris and Emma might remember what they had written as well.

I write about the Book of Mormon as if it were real. I don’t believe it’s necessary to constantly qualify my analysis any more than if I were critiquing any work of fiction. I’m entering the fictional world of the Nephites in the same way I enter the fictional world of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn. Only a polemicist worries about constant reminders of which side of the debate each person is on and demands clear identifications.

Your response has been that he can’t prove the lost MS didn’t have frequent repetition of “I, Nephi”—thus, you are not content with Glenn’s discussion of what was in it,

You are correct that I am "not content" with Glenn's logic for the simple reason that he cannot prove his claims. That's a pretty important reason not to be content.

Should Glenn be “content” with your inference that Joseph Smith probably used a Bible?

you want him to prove what wasn’t in it.

Wrong! I want him to prove his claims. And he can't.

He can—just not with the certainty you are demanding. You can’t even do that for your positive assertion that Spalding’s MS or the lost MS contained “frequent repetition of ‘I Nephi’”. This is a problem for Cunningham and you.

The fact of the matter is that not only can he not prove his claims, I have presented a plausible, alternate scenerio that he cannot disprove. Moreover, even if he could prove his claims, it still would not prove Cunningham's statement to be inaccurate.

We have discussed this plausible scenario before. Plausible explanations are easy to invent, but cannot compare with Glenn’s probable reconstruction. Besides, I don’t think your scenario is very plausible, as I have discussed above.

I, Omni....
I, Amaron...
Now I, Chemish....
Behold, I, Abinadom...
Behold, I am Amaleki....

All this from the same book called only Omni! It's as simple as that! But you and Dan think you can impose ridiculous rules on what could and could not have been written on those lost pages! It's absurd!

You are quoting from the small plates, which is not an abridgement but first person narratives. You need to quote from the large plates (Mosiah-4 Nephi). Need we have more evidence that you do not understand the Book of Mormon? If you are this unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, no wonder you aren’t following our discussion about the book of Lehi?

To which you respond:

We absolutely have a fundamental difference of opinion here that keeps resurfacing in various forms time and time again. You repeatedly do this sort of thing to the point where one wonders exactly how much of the Book of Mormon do you think is true?

Dan, point blank question for you: Is the Book of Mormon a fraud or not?

If it's a fraud, Dan, then who's rules do the fraudsters have to follow? Yours? Glenn's?

See my explanation above. For your arguments to make sense, you need to quote from the Book of Mormon properly.

The fact is one person (or a group of persons) could have written both third person and first person narrative in multiple books and the fact is, there never were any plates with ancient writing on them! Or at least that's what you're supposed to believe! And that same person or group of persons also played the role of an abridger. In fact the whole concept of multiple abiridgers fits better within the S/R framework than the S/A framework, because then, at least, we do have multiple authors producing content that is then possible for another content producer to "abridge." Under your framework, Joseph Smith is producing content and then "abridging" it or at least claiming to do so, on the fly! I'd love to hear your explanation of how he pulled that off.

Again, this argument about the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon is irrelevant. It’s a red herring. You can’t quote from a section of the Book of Mormon that isn’t intended as an abridgement to show what an abridgement is like. Why does it take multiple authors to write a fictional abridgement of a fictional source document? It’s as simple as switching from first to third person.

The same person or group of persons could have written as though he/they were Omni and as though he/they were Mormon, or Moroni or whoever! Given that, you can't claim that they are bound to follow anything! They can produce whatever they want to! Whatever serves their purpose.

This argument makes no sense, Roger. You quoted from the book of Omni, which is supposed to be an original record written by several authors in succession. This is Joseph Smith covering a lot of chronology quickly. The so-called “small” plates are running out of space. This tells us nothing about what the author believes an abridgement is like. For that, you need to focus on Mosiah-4 Nephi, or Nephi’s abridgement of his father’s record.

This is so patently obvious that one legitimately wonders what kind of skeptic you are. You accept the incredible Book of Mormon witness testimony at face value while rejecting the credible Spalding witness testimony with no warrant.

I’m a skeptic too, but I believe in not wasting peoples’ time with bad arguments. I have demonstrated clearly that I have not accepted Mormon testimony at face value, but have shown that the witnesses have given reliable and independent testimony. On the other hand, you have demonstrated your uncritical acceptance of Spalding witnesses and refused to acknowledge possible bias and memory confabulation, lack of independence, and problematic aspects.

And now you argue as though Mormon and Nephi were real writers writing on real plates. I don't know how to deal with that other than to think of you as an LDS apologist.

This is how I want you to deal with it: just because you reject the Book of Mormon as an ancient text doesn’t mean your explanation is the right one. In fact, of the choices available to those holding naturalistic explanations, the Spalding theory is the one with least probability. As far as me being a Mormon apologist, that utter nonsense—which you would rather believe (along with all the other nonsense you believe) instead of questioning your own position. I think that’s rather revealing, don’t you?

[_MCB]

I long ago ago bowed out of this perpetual debate. Other than the obvious use of the Bible (including the Catholic Deuterocanon), I believe that the oldest sources date from 1000 AD.

If we can agree that it is essentially very European in its character, and the text itself is a modern production, what is the point of further argument?

Perhaps, Dan, if you also bowed out of the perpetual debate, Roger would, too. ;) Worth a try, anyway.

Roger, if you would quit dwelling on the Book of Mormon issue, and instead focus on the issue which impacts you professionally, you might be a bit less contentious.

Maybe doing a bit for U-tube on the frustrations of relatives who are not allowed to be at the weddings of those they love would be more effective.

[_marg]

MCB, your antagonistic condescending remarks are uncalled for in the Celestial level.

[_Roger]

MCB:

I long ago ago bowed out of this perpetual debate. Other than the obvious use of the Bible (including the Catholic Deuterocanon), I believe that the oldest sources date from 1000 AD.

If we can agree that it is essentially very European in its character, and the text itself is a modern production, what is the point of further argument?

I have actually learned quite a bit about Dan's point of view through this debate that I did not know going into it. Glenn's line of thinking is fairly predictable, but I've still gleaned some things there too. I find the discussion interesting, whether we agree or not, although I realize not many other posters seem to be terribly interested in the discussion on this thread, which is fine. They don't have to post here. We are only tying up one thread, so if you want to bow out, feel free.

Perhaps, Dan, if you also bowed out of the perpetual debate, Roger would, too. ;) Worth a try, anyway.

Why? I don't understand why you want to stop it? It's no secret that I passionately disagree with Dan, but I'm not asking him to leave.

Roger, if you would quit dwelling on the Book of Mormon issue, and instead focus on the issue which impacts you professionally, you might be a bit less contentious.

Wow.

In the first place, I'm not convinced I'm contentious enough. ; ) In the second place, I post on this site precisely because I am interested in how the Book of Mormon came to be... not because of my other business which is not really related to Mormonism.

Maybe doing a bit for U-tube on the frustrations of relatives who are not allowed to be at the weddings of those they love would be more effective.

It's odd that you would put it this way. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, as I know you, like me, think Spalding's manuscript was used in Book of Mormon production. Are you saying Dan and Glenn's minds are closed so nothing will "be effective" or something else? I'm really not getting your point other than you seem to be tired of the back and forth between Dan, Glenn and I.

If argumentation in and of itself is what is bothering you, I don't know what to tell you. This is a discussion forum so debate is what happens here.

[_MCB]

Are you saying Dan and Glenn's minds are closed so nothing will "be effective" or something else? I'm really not getting your point other than you seem to be tired of the back and forth between Dan, Glenn and I.

Exactly. Continue on, if you wish, but it will get you nowhere.

I am reading Christopher Tolkien's books on how his father developed an alternate reality. Fascinating stuff. We have Manuscript Story, we have the Book of Mormon. We have parallels in other literature, so what were the precursors? Not half as good as Tolkien, but an excellent example of the genre of fantasy lit, no matter whose mind developed it.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

It is not my boat. It is the boat of textual criticism and analysis. That has nothing to do with the name of the person. It has to do with the text itself. My response was substantive, but you do not seem to understand it.

All right, I'll play your game, what did I not understand?

You may not realize it, but you seem to be operating using a double standard. For instance, you deny that I can infer with any reasonable probability how the lost pages were written.

Uhm... no I didn't. In the first place, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "how the lost pages were written." We've pretty much been discussing what was or was not written on them rather than how they were written.

What I did say is that your argument is from inference only. It has no testimonial support. I said your argument could be wrong. I also presented an alternate scenario that you could not disprove, and you still can't.

Yet, you have made much of the supposedly similar phrases and ideas from the extant Spalding manuscript and the Book of Mormon to infer that Solomon used that same phraseology and the same ideas in his mythical rewrite, a manuscript you have never seen.

I have indeed made much of them because of their striking similarities. But here's the key difference, Glenn. I have testimonial support in addition to the textual evidence (parallels). You don't. What you say next is simply not correct:

That idea has no support from the only witness who inferred that there was a second manuscript. As Aaron Wright said in his unsigned letter in Philastus Hurlbut's handwriting, "he informed me he wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America." That statement does not indicate a rewrite at all, but a new and unrelated effort.

Either I am not following you or you are really mixing things up! To illustrate, I'm going to have to break this down....

That idea has no support from the only witness who inferred that there was a second manuscript.

This is confusing, but taking my cue from your next sentence, I assume you are referring to Aron Wright... ? If so, you are quite wrong. Aron Wright was an eyewitness. He knew Solomon Spalding and was exposed to his manuscripts. Aron is one of the witnesses who tells us that Spalding had many manuscripts. And he tells us that important detail before Hurlbut pulled MSCC out of the trunk. That is very important, Glenn.

As Aaron Wright said in his unsigned letter in Philastus Hurlbut's handwriting, "he informed me he wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America." That statement does not indicate a rewrite at all, but a new and unrelated effort.

??!! The rewrite we've been discussing is Joseph Smith's forced rewrite of the Book of Lehi, not Solomon Spalding's second (or third? or fourth?) attempt at writing a novel. These are two completely different rewrites.

It's interesting, though, that your observation supports S/R claims, unintentionally, though it may be. You are correct, that the statement indicates "a new and unrelated effort" although there is some speculation that one may have been conceived to be a sequel to the other. You may need to temper your remarks a bit when you consider that such a "new and unrelated effort" necessarily implies that MSCC can't be the only one. Of course you will argue that you don't accept Wright's assertion, but then, if not, how do you propose to use it for what you want to use it for?

My analysis and conclusions about the probability of the original text being in the third person except for direct quotes does have support from the original text itself and the historical record.

Perhaps, if one were to accept the claims of the text itself. I don't. I think Joseph Smith and & Co. were writing as though they were ancient prophets which means they are not bound to follow your guidelines and it also means there never were any plates of Nephi or Lehi in the first place. It means when we read "I Nephi" that Nephi wasn't writing it. So no one is writing in the first person, Glenn. Whoever is writing is writing as though he were Nephi, or Mormon, abridging Nephi. Why is that so difficult to understand? Sure, if Nephi was a real dude and Mormon was a real dude and Mormon is editing Nephi, then unless Mormon quotes Nephi, he can't accurately write "I Nephi." I get your point. But surely you must understand that your point is only valid if these guys were real people?! I don't believe they were... and supposedly, neither does Dan.

So what does that mean? It means what I have been stating all along. There is nothing about this argument that calls into question Cunningham's assertion that Spalding's manuscript repeatedly stated: "I Nephi." None of the points you are attempting to make here accomplish that goal. Why not? Well, I've stated it about four times now, but here we go again:

1. Spalding can write "I Nephi" and either Rigdon or Smith or Cowdery are free to change it to third person and back again if it serves their purpose, OR

2. The Book of Lehi could have contained the story of Nephi either by constantly quoting Nephi or the author could have had Nephi himself picking up his pen (or engraving instrument) and writing in first person just like we see in Omni. Dan's argument that I can't use the pattern laid down in Omni because it's part of the rewrite is simply not valid! Of course I can because the same author(s)/redactors produced both. They weren't produced by ancient prophets, they were produced by 19th century fiction writers. There were no plates to abridge. There may have been a manuscript to abridge, however! There is no valid reason why either of these two alternatives, or point 1, can't be valid.

You also use a double standard for the witnesses. You accept at face value their statements about the names Lehi, Nephi, etc. appearing just so in the mythical Spalding second manuscript.

The way I see it, I have two options.

1. I can believe what they say is fairly accurate (until I see good evidence that it is not, which I haven't seen) OR
2. I can conclude that they were lying.

I simply can't go with something the middle. As you point out, (when you write: "That statement does not indicate a rewrite at all, but a new and unrelated effort") their statements aren't really conducive to the notion that they thought they were telling the truth but they were really mistaken. That is Brodie's logic and Dan seems to have followed it was well, but I don't see that as a valid interpretation.

I don't simply accept their statements at face value, Glenn. There's much more to it than that, as you well know, since we've discussed a number of the reasons I think S/R is valid.

The witnesses say that they were there and you believe them, because those names are in the Book of Mormon.

Not really. I realize they could have gotten the names from the Book of Mormon. But the key point is that they COULD NOT have gotten them from MSCC. So again, they are either lying, or there really was another manuscript that not only had those names, but also had a lot of "and it came to pass" 'es as well.

Yet, when four of those Conneaut witnesses and at least three non Conneaut witnesses say that Solomon's story was about the lost tribes migrating to America and becoming the ancestors of the Book of Mormon, you do not believe them.

How do you figure that?

You do not accept them at face value, because there is no lost tribes story discernible in the Book of Mormon.

Actually no, that's you who does that. My point on that was that you make too big of a deal about the lost tribes and that your interpretation of what they would have meant is too narrow. And not only that, but again, Smith, & Co. had ample opportunity to change Spalding's story if it served their purposes.

You have to invent some story that bears no resemblance to the lost tribes and pretend that it suffices.

Huh? The simple fact is that the Book of Mormon presents a nation, or actually two nations developing from one family. If that family member was originally an escapee from Isreal at the time of the dispersal it could have been thought of as a lost tribes account. And again, the original Spalding manuscript could have been more of a lost tribes account, featuring Lehi and Nephi as heroes. But then Rigdon or Smith/Cowdery changed it. I know S/R critics don't like that, but the fact is, that is certainly well within the realm of possibility. The other possibility is that the S/R witnesses were lying. But why would they lie? And why would so many of them lie? And how did they all come to agree on their lies?

When a witness states that that "When Spalding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla," one would naturally expect to find Lehi and Nephi landing near the Straits of Darien. But that is not in the text of the Book of Mormon. It cannot even be inferred from the test of the Book of Mormon.

Which means you can't claim these witnesses were simply using the Book of Mormon to get their information!

And of course, the Book of Lehi was rewritten, wasn't it! And I think it was you who said: "It had to be so different that the adversaries could not challenge them." ; )

I know, I know, I can only use the statements of the witnesses when they agree with you and I cannot use them when they do not agree with you.

Well then, I see we are making progress!

See MCB?! There's still hope for Glenn. : )

[_Roger]

MCB:

Exactly. Continue on, if you wish, but it will get you nowhere.

Didn't you read my post? It already has gotten me somewhere. I now have a much clearer understanding of Dan's (and Glenn's) reasoning. And it is becoming clearer all the time. That is worth it to me.

I think you might be operating under the wrong assumption. I'm not attempting to convince Glenn or Dan that I am right. If that happens I won't complain, but that's not why I engage in discussion with them.

All the best.

[_MCB]

If you think so-- I am coming to realize that we can't convert them all. Might as well retreat to my litle hidey-hole-- it will take generations. My project was unrealistically aimed at overnight miracles.