Typical behavior here.
Typical in what respect? This appears to be nothing more than a lazy put down. As in: "Gee, I would like to find something wrong with this statement, but all I can say is that, as usual, Kishkumen is being critical of something an apologist did. Typical."
Hauglid was expressing reservations about a single item (the "fifth degree of the second part" line). That thing had nothing to do with Schryver's FAIR presentation. Nothing at all. It was one small observation among many in a post that dealt with the Williams Abraham manuscript.
Hauglid agrees with Schryver's thesis of the EAG dependency question.
Oh, I am confident there was more going on there than that, Nomad. Sure, it took a certain new level of overly enthusiastic Schryverian buffoonery to provoke Dr. Hauglid into correcting him, but, to those who have the foggiest clue how academic conversations go, it is easy to recognize that Dr. Hauglid's caution applies equally well to Schryver's general rhetoric regarding his work.
I also noted that, at the very same time, it was none other than Dr. Hauglid who, in the midst of Will and mak's foaming at the mouth about textual criticism being the trump card in any historical debate involving a text, used a signature that stressed the importance of applying other methods in addition to textual criticism. So, nice try, Nomad, but Dr. Hauglid, although clearly a committed Latter-day saint, is, unlike Will, a trained scholar with some understanding of academic discourse. As such, he would undoubtedly prefer that Will conduct his discussion as an academic, instead of a free-wheeling P.T. Barnum.
Most of all, Nomad, take note of this: I am not suggesting that Dr. Hauglid is on a different side of the Book of Abraham/KEP issue from Will. Both of them clearly hold the book to be sacred scripture. And what's more, I am perfectly fine with that. My interest in this matter has absolutely nothing to do with discrediting the Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
My concern is actually rather like the concern that the people associated with FAIR have about Rodney Meldrum's theory: what is the potential negative impact of a bad apologetic strategy? In Will's case, I am concerned when I see a fairly inconsequential historical hypothesis tarted up as a great defense of Mormonism, and then itself defended as though it were crucial to the faith. Oh, Will et al. pretend that they know that this is really neither here nor there when it comes to LDS faith, in the final analysis, but then they defend their position so strenuously, if vapidly, that one has a difficult time taking their protestations of proper perspective seriously.
Furthermore, the real problem is not so much that Will has this intriguing idea, it is that he compromises his credibility and calls it all into question every time he pens a new poison post in which, adding no substance to the debate, he nevertheless writes voluminously about his great triumphs and the ignorance and stupidity of everyone he defines as an enemy to his cause (which cause, I would say, is completely tangled up in his own ego).
At the very least this looks completely bizarre. He would do much better to follow his friends' advice to let his published work speak for him, instead of poisoning his own well to protect his ego in the short term.
You, sir, are an intentional deceiver of the ignorant masses here in Wonderland.
Please provide some proof. Anything. You can continue to fabricate charges as stupid as the one I am responding to, but they won't stick. I wish Will all the best. At the same time, his work is, at best, a nifty bit of history. One ought not to pretend that this is hugely significant, as though manufacturing great victories were the most important thing. Far more important is how one behaves as a Christian.