I have been in the "computer industry" for over 25 years (the majority of which time I have worked as a "lone-wolf" contractor). I know of no precedent in the software development world for a technical writer/editor drawing a salary in six figures. Programmers? Possibly. The good ones, that is. In fact, such a figure (and more) is commonplace among my peers in the field of contract programming, although it would be a very rare exception (if seen at all) among programmers working as an employee for a company--even (or especially) for Microsoft.

Of course, Hauglid, does. If he didn't, his faith would be smashed against the rocks. Hauglid agrees with Will's thesis because Hauglid needs to believe it.

Contrary to Will's ignorance, the average annual salary for a Microsoft employed Technical Editor is $101,710. That's average. And Brent is described as "Senior" Editor online.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Microso ... O10,26.htm

So now we know Will's "25 years experience" in the computer industry cannot count for much.

Hauglid agrees with Schryver's thesis of the EAG dependency question.

It's things like this that should constitute sufficient warning to any Latter-day Saint to remain true to the faith, no matter the cost. Because if you don't, the odds are you'll end up as severely disabled, both in respect to logic and irony, as poor sock puppet demonstrates with this last post of his.

Apparently it counts for considerably more (at least in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service) than a Microsoft "Senior Technical Editor". But I'm depending on my new accountant to find some remedies to that situation ...

The meaning of the KEP is that they are dependent on a previously received Book of Abraham.

Every time you speak you prove your ignorance, and when that happens, you just can't help but throw in something else to brag about. All to divert from the fact that you never knew what the hell you were talking about to begin with. So now you say you make "considerably more" than 100k/year? Why am I not surprised? This was never a competition over salaries, but you just can't help but "one up" Brent on everything, even when we both know you're just making s*** up. I don't believe you work at all. Anyone in the "computer industry" worth his salt wouldn't be free of online credentials or a resume from which he boasts about his expertise to a bunch of worshipping morons.

Remember Will, you're still that idiot who tried tell the forum they could bypass suspension from discussion forums, simply by unplugging their routers for ten seconds. That was when your computer experience was well into its 22nd year! That you've been able to convince people you're a computer expert says more about your fans than anything else.

So you see, my dear erstwhile brother, this gambit has long since lost its propaganda value among those who matter most--although I'm sure it will continue to constitute a staple of anti-Schryver rhetoric on this message board.

What evidence does Will produce for the direction of this dependency?

In his presentation, his significant/unique word study yielded that there are a significant number of pronouns (people, places and things) that are shared between the EA&G and the Book of Abraham. That argues strongly in favor of dependency between the two documents, but does not suggest the direction of the dependency. The debate since the Sensen papyri was gifted to the COJCOLDS and the KEP documents became public has not been whether there is a dependency or not, but the direction: (a) Book of Abraham dependent on a pre-existing EA&G, (b) EA&G dependent on a pre-existing Book of Abraham, or (c) bi-directional between them as the two documents were developed simultaneously.

Will also observed, without much detail, that the "story" of the text of the Book of Abraham is much more developed than it is in the EA&G. From this Will claims that the EA&G must be dependent on and derivative from a pre-existing Book of Abraham. The evidence however cuts against Will's observation/claim. The EA&G does not begin in the left hand column with the English pronouns, as it would if the EA&G would if it had been drawn from the English text of a pre-existing Book of Abraham. Rather, the EA&G begins with the characters in the left hand column. Then assigned to the right of some of those characters, in the next column to the right, are the phonetic sounds of such characters. In the far right column is where English text is assigned as definition to the character.

Just as each successive degree progressively expanded the English definitions for a character as compared to the prior degrees, so too did the finished Book of Abraham demonstrate another expansion as compared to those in the five degrees of the EA&G. That is, the fact that there's less 'story' in the EA&G than the Book of Abraham suggests that the EA&G came first, as work papers for Joseph Smith as he was working towards what eventually was produced as the Book of Abraham.

Will's cipher theory gives a motive why Smith and scribes might have undertaken to develop the EA&G after the Book of Abraham was already finished. His cipher theory is not evidence that the EA&G in fact was drawn from an already completed Book of Abraham.

Rather, the evidence points to either a bi-directional dependence of the EA&G and Book of Abraham on each other as they were simultaneously being created, or that the Book of Abraham was dependent on the previously drawn up EA&G.

FWIW, It was your recent treatment of Liz that did me in. Your, how did you call it once, “artistic“ use of borderline vulgarity, as demonstrated here in regards to KA keeps the total lack of respect alive and well.

My "recent treatment of Liz"? I have no idea what you're talking about, to tell you the truth. In fact, I don't even think I've seen Liz post in months. Is she still around?

I've never said anything to anyone on this message board about which I am ashamed or that wasn't fully deserved by the recipient thereof.

About a month before your presentation, and of course you don't, tempted to look it up, but would be of no use.

and again, of course you have not

The meaning of the KEP is that they are dependent on a previously received Book of Abraham.

Their purpose appears to be an exercise or an experiment in producing some kind of cipher conforming to something they (Smith, Phelps, Cowdery, etc.) believed to be like the "pure language" of the ancients.

There, that wasn't that hard.

Now, I firmly believe the evidence is compelling that the effective function of these documents is as some kind of enciphering tool. That said, it was ill-conceived and incoherently executed. In other words, it was not a “functioning cipher” by any means. It merely manifests the effective functions of a cipher, albeit one that was abandoned almost as soon as it was begun. Thus it is incomplete and essentially useless.

Most importantly, the “cipher key thesis” is a secondary finding. It most certainly needs further investigation, and there are many people already looking into that angle of my presentation. I look forward to future elaboration/expansion of the thesis on the part of others.

The primary finding concerns the manifest dependency of the Alphabet & Grammar materials on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

One could completely throw out the cipher thesis, and the dependency thesis would still stand. They are not interdependent whatsoever. And, the important fact to remember is that it is the dependency thesis that effectively renders moot all of the critical arguments from the past forty years concerning “translation manuscripts” and the notion that the Alphabet & Grammar were used as a tool to decipher, or “translate” the Egyptian papyri.

It is the text-critical evidence for dependency that is overwhelming within the Alphabet & Grammar documents.

Those whose exposure to this controversy has been minimal are enchanted by the cipher key thesis. That’s fine with me, and I suppose it’s understandable.

But those who are most knowledgeable about the Book of Abraham/Kirtland Egyptian Papers controversy of the past forty years understand perfectly that it is the question of dependency that represents the finding of paramount importance.

This is what the scholars are most focused on at this point in time. And, to date, among those who understand the precepts of textual criticism, there is no one that has examined the evidence who is not convinced that the Alphabet & Grammar is manifestly dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

Bear in mind that, in order to disprove the old critical theories about the KEP, all I need to do is demonstrate that Abr. 1:1 - 2:6 precedes the A&G! Since the so-called “translation manuscripts” go no further than Abr. 2:6, and because Warren Parrish didn’t start writing for Joseph Smith until mid-November 1835, then the “translation manuscript” theory cannot be true if the Alphabet & Grammar is dependent on a pre-existing text of that portion of the Book of Abraham—since we know that the bulk of the A&G was completed before the Parrish document (Ab3 [BA1b]) could have been written.

It matters not one whit if the cipher thesis is correct and stands the test of time. The only thing that matters is whether or not the question of dependency can be established. I am convinced that it has been and will continue to be demonstrated, using nothing but standard text-critical methodologies. Already people like Dan McClellan are applying such methodologies. I look forward to McClellan’s findings as they come forth. I am confident he will confirm everything I have argued to date concerning this issue of dependency.

In the meantime feel free to smack the straw man of whether or not the A&G and Counting documents constitute a functional cipher. I have already made it perfectly clear that it was not and never could have been. Rather, it was an endeavor marked by complex and sometimes conflicting motivations: the desire to encrypt and the desire to produce something that was typical of their eccentric notions of “pure language.”

Serve it up, Mr. Bold Talker! If it's shame-worthy, I'll be more than willing to issue the requisite apology.

You see, this is what the "investigators" I talked about discovered to be the modus operandi here: one long litany of allegations, but not a single bit of actual, bona fide evidence that I have ever done anything to justify the reputation attributed to me by the congenital liars that predominant here.

If I am the picture of despicable vulgarity and crudeness that you suggest I am, then it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it by linking to posts I have made where this dark side of my character is manifest for all to see. And please don't bother linking to posts of other people claiming I said this, that, or the other. I've seen before how that clever little game works. Link to my own posts, so that we can see everything in its context and judge my nefarious deeds on their merits.

Settle down, beastsheba. I assure you I have no desire whatsoever to watch you bathe.

In the immortal words of Dodge Connelly:
Quote:
”You’re only as young as the women you feel.”


And I have no desire to feel sixty-five.

As they say, "de gustibus non est disputandum."

I've had occasion to see Schryver perform on three separate occasions, in front of a crowd of several hundred people at an annual conference he and I attend (which is where we first met, as a matter of fact).

Not only is he, in my opinion, a very good singer, but also an excellent musician who plays multiple instruments quite well. He was very well received by those who were there when I saw him. He also "sat in" with some other performers and, without any prior rehearsing, played right along with them as thought he'd been playing with them for years, also doing great harmony vocals. I understand he's working on a new album of original songs, of which I've heard a couple samples. Even better stuff than his older efforts that are at the link you provided above.

Serve it up, Mr. Bold Talker! If it's shame-worthy, I'll be more than willing to issue the requisite apology.

The psychotic Cracker Graham calling me a liar ... yet again!

Whatever. I suppose I could post an image of a 1099, but what's the point, really?

Nope. You're absolutely correct Graham. I'm an unemployed bum who hasn't made $100K in ten years, let alone one. Now, if I could just get clients to stop sending those bogus 1099s to the IRS, I'd really be in business!

What clients? Word of mouth, "give the faithful brother a job" type networking? Why is it that the internet knows nothing of you as a computer wiz and the only evidence that you're a programmer comes from someone using a pseudonym?