KEP

[RockSlider]

In summary, are the Kirtland Egyptian papers simply an embarrassment to the church? Are there any apologetics which use them to support the party line?

[Yoda]

This is an interesting quote from Wikipedia concerning the KEP:

To support their religious view of the Book of Abraham as a translation of an ancient work, Apologetic Mormon scholars have speculated that many of the papers might have been produced by Joseph Smith's scribes without Smith's involvement, or that the ostensible Egyptian language-related materials might not be related to Smith's ostensible translation of the Book of Abraham.

So, the apologetic claim is that the KEP might have been produced strictly by the scribes, without Joseph Smith's involvement. But how can this theory hold any weight at all when two of the manuscripts are in Joseph Smith's handwriting?

I have never really studied the KEP, so I am basically going at this blind. This is probably a very basic question, so anyone with answers is welcome to reply....Paul and Will...care to comment? Also, if DCP cares to break his code of silence over here..his comments are welcome. :)

[RockSlider]

The FAIR Wiki's defense seems very weak … in fact it seems non-existent

http://en.fairmormon.org/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers

Paul, is your work offline now?

[dblagent007]

In summary, are the Kirtland Egyptian papers simply an embarrassment to the church? Are there any apologetics which use them to support the party line?

I think apologists wish the KEP didn't exist. Their lives would be much, much easier. I have never seen the KEP used to support the Church's claims.

The issues surrounding the papyri (Book of Abraham, Book of Joseph) are really devastating to the Church's claims. However, the artificial complexity draped over the entire controversy by apologists makes most give up any hope of understanding it. That's good for the Church. Once you have a good grasp of the issues, it is hard to maintain belief (ask Ed Ashment, Kevin Graham, etc.).

By the way, you can tell whether something is extremely embarrassing to the Church by whether the Church allows access to it. The Church has never released the KEP just like it hasn't released William Clayton's Nauvoo journal (the one that describes Joseph Smith's marriages and what not). They are both very embarrassing. However, I am hoping the KEP will be released as part of the Joseph Smith Papers project. Brent Metcalfe and a few others have photos of the whole thing so they could always publish what they have.

[thews]

This is an interesting quote from Wikipedia concerning the KEP:

To support their religious view of the Book of Abraham as a translation of an ancient work, Apologetic Mormon scholars have speculated that many of the papers might have been produced by Joseph Smith's scribes without Smith's involvement, or that the ostensible Egyptian language-related materials might not be related to Smith's ostensible translation of the Book of Abraham.

So, the apologetic claim is that the KEP might have been produced strictly by the scribes, without Joseph Smith's involvement. But how can this theory hold any weight at all when two of the manuscripts are in Joseph Smith's handwriting?

I have never really studied the KEP, so I am basically going at this blind. This is probably a very basic question, so anyone with answers is welcome to reply....Paul and Will...care to comment? Also, if DCP cares to break his code of silence over here..his comments are welcome. :)

Wow... how far do they have to go in twisting history to absolve Joseph Smith of being a fraud? The sad thing is that people will accept this lame argument from silence as not just a plausible theory, but as a fact, when it's nothing more than manufactured conjecture intended to keep the LDS masses dumbed down.

[RockSlider]

dblagent007,

I think you are right about the non-availability ..

It was not until the last few days of reading that I saw that it was the Tanners who first published all/part of the KEP. I suppose this is the foundation of the Brent/Spy stories?

I first saw the "Egyptian and Grammar" published in a book by Joe Sampson (Written by the finger of God). At the time, I figured the Church must have supplied the information, I now assume his source was the Tanners. Joe Sampson ended up in controversy and disfellowshiped and/or excommunication as well.

Question about Robert Ritner:
A recently linked thread on the ZLMB on the topic of Book of Abraham linked this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE

He might appear sooner, but I noted him at 35:00 minutes into the documentary.

Is this the same man that was Gee's advisor on his doctorate, who Kevin Graham had email correspondence with that was booted/quit from the role?

Also in that documentary, the Chruch declined comment other than to refer to Gee's book.

[RockSlider]

Another question:

Would it be an accurate summary of Gee's defense that the Book of Abraham is missing from the existing fragments? Is this where all of the discussion about scroll paper measurements come into play?

[dblagent007]

Question about Robert Ritner:
A recently linked thread on the ZLMB on the topic of Book of Abraham linked this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE

He might appear sooner, but I noted him at 35:00 minutes into the documentary.

Is this the same man that was Gee's advisor on his doctorate, who Kevin Graham had email correspondence with that was booted/quit from the role?

Also in that documentary, the Chruch declined comment other than to refer to Gee's book.

That is the Robert Ritner that Kevin that was on Gee's doctoral committee, the same one Kevin Graham corresponded with about DCP's allegations.

Ed Ashment is in that video too and I think he felt like he was mislead about its intention. He thought the video was going to be a conventional documentary about the Book of Abraham, not an evangelical hit piece. He has said that he wouldn't have agreed to be in it if he knew the real intentions of those making it.

[dblagent007]

Another question:

Would it be an accurate summary of Gee's defense that the Book of Abraham is missing from the existing fragments? Is this where all of the discussion about scroll paper measurements come into play?

There are really two leading apologetic theories: (1) the missing papyrus theory and (2) the catalyst theory. The first has been propounded by Gee for quite a while and it posits that we do not have the papyrus that contained the Book of Abraham. This missing papyrus was originally attached to the end of one of the scrolls that we have now, but it was lost sometime between the 1840s and now.

The second theory is that we have the papyrus that was used by Joseph Smith. However, the Book of Abraham isn't really a literal translation of the papyri. The papyri were used as a catalyst for Joseph Smith to receive the text of the Book of Abraham by revelation. Most adherents to this theory believe that the Book of Abraham was an actual historic text. This argument shares some parallels to the Book of Mormon translation. The papyri functioned as the catalyst to receive the text of an actual book of Abraham just like the seer stone functioned as a catalyst to receive the actual text of the Book of Abraham.

[RockSlider]

Put me on Williams pre-order list ... can not wait to see the ground breaking evidence that will put all of this to rest.

[dblagent007]

Put me on Williams pre-order list ... can not wait to see the ground breaking evidence that will put all of this to rest.

Yeah, we all can't wait to see his ground breaking evidence. I'll be shocked if he publishes anything much less something that puts the controversy to rest.

I noticed that he recently admitted on MAD that he won't be able to publish his paper until 2011 at the earliest. You are seeing it begin with a little timeline slip. Pretty soon he won't be publishing anything at all.

[Yoda]

I think that Will Schryver's theory is along the lines of parts of the papyri missing.

[Nimrod]

Another question:

Would it be an accurate summary of Gee's defense that the Book of Abraham is missing from the existing fragments? Is this where all of the discussion about scroll paper measurements come into play?

There are really two leading apologetic theories: (1) the missing papyrus theory and (2) the catalyst theory. The first has been propounded by Gee for quite a while and it posits that we do not have the papyrus that contained the Book of Abraham. This missing papyrus was originally attached to the end of one of the scrolls that we have now, but it was lost sometime between the 1840s and now.

And the KEP is troubling to this, the missing papyrus theory because the characters on the papyrus that LDS Inc has are copied in the left hand margins of the KEP which are the English manuscripts of the Book of Abraham in the handwriting of Joseph Smith and his scribes. The problems that the KEP pose are that the Egyptian characters, now translatable due to the Rosetta Stone, do not translate to anything near what the corresponding handwritten English text (i.e., the Book of Abraham) purports. So, for this reason, Gee has attacked the KEP, at least claiming that the Egyptian characters were added to the left-hand margin after the fact, not as part of the scribing process. To advance this, Gee has claimed that those characters are in a different, darker ink than the English text just to the right of it. However, there were some rather misleading photos used for that purpose--intentionally or not by Gee, the photos are misleading and on a closer inspection, it appears one and the same ink was used to write the English text and the Egyptian characters copied into the margins.

The KEP is damning evidence to Joseph Smith's claims re the BoAbr--except to the eye of one who already is a believer and is so steeped in that believe, could not be convinced of anything else. For them, the KEP is not a problem.

[William Schryver]

And the KEP is troubling to this, the missing papyrus theory because the characters on the papyrus that LDS Inc has are copied in the left hand margins of the KEP which are the English manuscripts of the Book of Abraham in the handwriting of Joseph Smith and his scribes. The problems that the KEP pose are that the Egyptian characters, now translatable due to the Rosetta Stone, do not translate to anything near what the corresponding handwritten English text (i.e., the Book of Abraham) purports. So, for this reason, Gee has attacked the KEP, at least claiming that the Egyptian characters were added to the left-hand margin after the fact, not as part of the scribing process. To advance this, Gee has claimed that those characters are in a different, darker ink than the English text just to the right of it. However, there were some rather misleading photos used for that purpose--intentionally or not by Gee, the photos are misleading and on a closer inspection, it appears one and the same ink was used to write the English text and the Egyptian characters copied into the margins.

The KEP is damning evidence to Joseph Smith's claims re the BoAbr--except to the eye of one who already is a believer and is so steeped in that believe, could not be convinced of anything else. For them, the KEP is not a problem.

Your "mix and match" assemblage of Book of Abraham talking points is noted. Unfortunately, it is clear that you have no freaking clue what you are talking about. You are merely parroting things you have heard, but you don't really understand what any of it means. I have found this is quite typical of critics who discuss the Book of Abraham controversy. Very, very few have actually taken the time and invested the effort to understand the issues.

<sigh>

[William Schryver]

Rockslider:

… the ground breaking evidence that will put all of this to rest.

I assume this statement was made in relation to something I have said in the past. What precisely did you have in mind? When have I ever made reference to “groundbreaking evidence”? Granted, I may very well believe that there is persuasive evidence that will serve to explain the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, but I’ve been extremely judicious in my public discussion of these things. So, again, I ask you: upon what basis do you make reference to my having claimed possession of “groundbreaking evidence that will put all of this to rest”?
.
.
.
dlbagent007:

Yeah, we all can't wait to see his ground breaking evidence.

Same question as above for you.

I'll be shocked if he publishes anything much less something that puts the controversy to rest.

I’ve just been pretending—for almost four years now—to be involved in some kind of study of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, right? How can you possibly believe such a thing? What, in your judgment, would be the point of such a blatant deception?

In any event, when have I ever claimed to be able to “put the controversy to rest”? I assure you I have no such illusions. Quite to the contrary, while I believe what I have to say—assuming I can support my claims—will represent a watershed moment in Book of Abraham studies, I am certain that it will not change the minds of people like you.

Even so, I have frequently heard it claimed by you and others, that I have yet to produce anything in the way of specific findings, supported by evidence. That is so demonstrably untrue that I am left to marvel at how the notion continues to be believed by so many.

I have been very specific and have supported with extensive evidence every argument I have made to date. The Pundit’s Forum at the MADB contains the discussions of at least five very specific findings I have made concerning the “Abraham” manuscripts of the KEP. While those findings represent only a mere fraction of the larger body of findings that have been made, by both me and Brian Hauglid, they are very significant in their import.

In addition, I have recently made the claim, quite specific in its nature, that I believe I can demonstrate that at least the first three chapters of the published Book of Abraham were received/revealed/recorded in the first two weeks of July 1835—prior to the production of any of the documents now known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I will also demonstrate that the entire published portion of the Book of Abraham, as well as parts never published, were received/revealed/recorded prior to the end of 1836. The evidence to support that claim will not be presented via online forums, but will be published as a volume in the Maxwell Institute’s Studies in the Book of Abraham series.

I noticed that he recently admitted on MAD that he won't be able to publish his paper until 2011 at the earliest.

I conjectured, with good reason (since I have become familiar with how slowly the wheels of the publishing process grind), that my book concerning the KEP would probably not appear in print this year, but more likely in early 2011. I said nothing about a “paper” unless it was in reference to a summary paper that will most certainly appear during this calendar year. Indeed, I currently have three papers in process, on three separate and distinct aspects of the production of the Book of Abraham.

You are seeing it begin with a little timeline slip. Pretty soon he won't be publishing anything at all.

Right. Again the notion (also expressed by Dr. Shades) that I’m just pretending. Shades even goes so far as to suggest that no one among the apologists is actually doing anything vis-à-vis the Book of Abraham or the KEP. It’s all a smokescreen of some sort—but to what end?

You have to remember that I have only possessed the full collection of high-resolution images of the papyri and KEP for less than two months! (My previous findings were based on either the Marquardt transcriptions of the KEP or my possession of only two of the many documents that comprise the KEP (Ab2 [KEPA-2] and Ab3 [KEPA-3]).

Hauglid and Gee have had them for about five years. Metcalfe has had his photographs for 25 years! Neither Gee, Hauglid, nor Metcalfe have published any studies, as of yet, concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Metcalfe has mentioned a “forthcoming” publication of his findings for many, many years.

Consistent with the logic of your argument, do you also conclude that Metcalfe will never publish anything at all?
.
.
.
liz:

I think that Will Schryver's theory is along the lines of parts of the papyri missing.

I am entirely confident that no one has any idea at all concerning my theory of the production of the Book of Abraham.

It is true that only 10% – 20% of the original quantity of papyrus has survived to the present day. Cook’s and Smith’s confidence to the contrary notwithstanding, I am persuaded that my upcoming scroll-length study will put their’s “down for the count.” (I do think it’s fascinating that, completely independent of one another, Andrew and I formulated an almost identical plan to analyze the lacunae! [As indicated by Chris’s recent description of the methodology they employed.] However, after much thought and consultation with many very smart professors, we concluded that the methodology was hopelessly incapable of producing sufficiently accurate results.)

At any rate, even if the original scroll was 100 feet long, that does not necessarily mean that there was an Abraham text on the lost portion, nor that the papyri themselves could not have served as a catalyst for the receipt, via revelation, of the text of the Book of Abraham.

That said, contrary to my original expectations, I have now developed what amounts to a “unified theory” that explains the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. The meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is a complex and multi-faceted question that necessarily requires a complex and multi-faceted answer.

OK, that is all I have to say at present on the topic. It would be in vain for anyone to expect me to engage in a protracted discussion of these things in this venue. It will not happen. If Rockslider desires to discuss the question at MADB, that is up to him.

[CaliforniaKid]

However, after much thought and consultation with many very smart professors, we concluded that the methodology was hopelessly incapable of producing sufficiently accurate results.

Will: We've run this analysis ten times, John, and no matter how we tweak the numbers, there never seems to be very much papyrus missing!
John: You're right, Will. Clearly this methodology is hopelessly incapable of producing sufficiently accurate results.
Will: But why, John? There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the methodology, so far as I can see.
John: Well, I don't know, Will. But no matter. All we need to do is canvass the campus and collect affidavits from many very smart professors certifying that the method doesn't work...

[ttribe]

Will: We've run this analysis ten times, John, and no matter how we tweak the numbers, there never seems to be very much papyrus missing!
John: You're right, Will. Clearly this methodology is hopelessly incapable of producing sufficiently accurate results.
Will: But why, John? There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the methodology, so far as I can see.
John: Well, I don't know, Will. But no matter. All we need to do is canvass the campus and collect affidavits from many very smart professors certifying that the method doesn't work...

I suggest that, in the world of academic publishing, this post could be construed very negatively (whether you end up being right about it or not). Just fair warning - there are such things as unwritten rules. Publicly maligning an author of an opposing viewpoint like this is generally bad form.

[CaliforniaKid]

I suggest that, in the world of academic publishing, this post could be construed very negatively (whether you end up being right about it or not). Just fair warning - there are such things as unwritten rules. Publicly maligning an author of an opposing viewpoint like this is generally bad form.

This was parody, not serious speculation about a real conversation that might have occurred. And it was meant to be humorous, not "maligning". Lighten up.

[dblagent007]

Will, I am still waiting patiently for you to back up your claim that Pokatator's list of your own greatest hits contains some complete fabrications. I really don't expect you to respond because I know you were only saying that to save face with your better-mannered friends on MAD.

I assume this statement was made in relation to something I have said in the past. What precisely did you have in mind? When have I ever made reference to “groundbreaking evidence”? Granted, I may very well believe that there is persuasive evidence that will serve to explain the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, but I’ve been extremely judicious in my public discussion of these things. So, again, I ask you: upon what basis do you make reference to my having claimed possession of “groundbreaking evidence that will put all of this to rest”?
.
.
.
dlbagent007:
Same question as above for you.

Okay, here are some examples of your extreme judiciousness on display.

From http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... ing-to-me/

And don't believe anyone who tells you that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers demonstrate that the Book of Abraham was believed (by Joseph Smith and his associates) to derive from the extant fragments of papyri. Forthcoming scholarship will persuasively demonstrate that the text of the Book of Abraham was received before the production of the KEP, and that neither Joseph Smith nor his associates knew what Egyptian text corresponded to the revealed text the Prophet had received before they commenced an effort to decipher the contents of the scrolls in their possession.

My advice to you is to withhold all judgment on these questions for at least two more years. If, after that period has transpired, you still believe there is not a formidable set of apologetic arguments to address every aspect of the critics' arguments, you may then feel free to abandon your faith in the restored gospel, should you be so inclined.

I’ve just been pretending—for almost four years now—to be involved in some kind of study of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, right? How can you possibly believe such a thing? What, in your judgment, would be the point of such a blatant deception?

How can you believe I believe such a thing when I never said such a thing. I know you have been involved in the "some kind of study." I think you will realize your arguments stink and will drop the idea of publishing them.

Even so, I have frequently heard it claimed by you and others, that I have yet to produce anything in the way of specific findings, supported by evidence. That is so demonstrably untrue that I am left to marvel at how the notion continues to be believed by so many.

You have made some "findings" and I believe I have acknowledged them before. However, they aren't very significant when it comes to the evidence you have to refute.

In addition, I have recently made the claim, quite specific in its nature, that I believe I can demonstrate that at least the first three chapters of the published Book of Abraham were received/revealed/recorded in the first two weeks of July 1835—prior to the production of any of the documents now known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I will also demonstrate that the entire published portion of the Book of Abraham, as well as parts never published, were received/revealed/recorded prior to the end of 1836. The evidence to support that claim will not be presented via online forums, but will be published as a volume in the Maxwell Institute’s Studies in the Book of Abraham series.

Yes, your ratio of unsupported conclusions (such as this one) to actual "findings" is impressively high. I don't give any credence to your promises of future "findings."

I conjectured, with good reason (since I have become familiar with how slowly the wheels of the publishing process grind), that my book concerning the KEP would probably not appear in print this year, but more likely in early 2011. I said nothing about a “paper” unless it was in reference to a summary paper that will most certainly appear during this calendar year. Indeed, I currently have three papers in process, on three separate and distinct aspects of the production of the Book of Abraham.

Whatever. Books, papers, it doesn't matter. I'll believe you produced them when I actually see them in print. You've been telling us about imminent papers for so long, it's getting hard to take you seriously.

Right. Again the notion (also expressed by Dr. Shades) that I’m just pretending. Shades even goes so far as to suggest that no one among the apologists is actually doing anything vis-à-vis the Book of Abraham or the KEP. It’s all a smokescreen of some sort—but to what end?

If it wasn't a smokescreen to help doubters hold on a little longer, then why don't you actually put your devastating arguments/findings out on the forums for people like Brent and Chris to evaluate? Instead, you promise great things, but actually deliver very little.

You have to remember that I have only possessed the full collection of high-resolution images of the papyri and KEP for less than two months! (My previous findings were based on either the Marquardt transcriptions of the KEP or my possession of only two of the many documents that comprise the KEP (Ab2 [KEPA-2] and Ab3 [KEPA-3]).

Well, I'm glad to see that not having a full collection of images didn't stop you from confidently predicting the demise of the critics' arguments.

Hauglid and Gee have had them for about five years. Metcalfe has had his photographs for 25 years! Neither Gee, Hauglid, nor Metcalfe have published any studies, as of yet, concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Metcalfe has mentioned a “forthcoming” publication of his findings for many, many years.

I don't know why Metcalfe has taken so long. As for Hauglid and Gee, I think we all know why they haven't (because they don't have very good arguments).

Consistent with the logic of your argument, do you also conclude that Metcalfe will never publish anything at all?

Honestly, I don't know if Metcalfe ever will.

I am entirely confident that no one has any idea at all concerning my theory of the production of the Book of Abraham.

Truer words have never been spoken - since you won't tell anyone what it is. After enough butt kickings, even someone like you learns not to repeat the behavior, hence we have no idea what your theory is (although you said last fall that you thought Jay Todd and Nibley's theories were largely correct).

It is true that only 10% – 20% of the original quantity of papyrus has survived to the present day. Cook’s and Smith’s confidence to the contrary notwithstanding, I am persuaded that my upcoming scroll-length study will put their’s “down for the count.” (I do think it’s fascinating that, completely independent of one another, Andrew and I formulated an almost identical plan to analyze the lacunae! [As indicated by Chris’s recent description of the methodology they employed.] However, after much thought and consultation with many very smart professors, we concluded that the methodology was hopelessly incapable of producing sufficiently accurate results.)

Well, you will get the chance to back up this assertion since their paper will be published.

At any rate, even if the original scroll was 100 feet long, that does not necessarily mean that there was an Abraham text on the lost portion, nor that the papyri themselves could not have served as a catalyst for the receipt, via revelation, of the text of the Book of Abraham.

It's nice to see you coming around. This is really the only unfalsifiable theory you've got.

That said, contrary to my original expectations, I have now developed what amounts to a “unified theory” that explains the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. The meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is a complex and multi-faceted question that necessarily requires a complex and multi-faceted answer.

Complex and multi-faceted. I think that is the rallying cry for Book of Abraham apologetics. It's strange how the critics' arguments are so simple.

OK, that is all I have to say at present on the topic. It would be in vain for anyone to expect me to engage in a protracted discussion of these things in this venue. It will not happen. If Rockslider desires to discuss the question at MADB, that is up to him.

No doubt. You have already been taken to the woodshed too many times over the Book of Abraham.

[Yoda]

I will also demonstrate that the entire published portion of the Book of Abraham, as well as parts never published, were received/revealed/recorded prior to the end of 1836.

Hey, Will, you may have covered more about this on the Pundit forum, so if I am asking a question you have already covered, I apologize. I don't have consistent access to MAD. My work computer's IP address is still blocked from when I was originally banned, so the only time I can view MAD at all is from home.

My question is...you mentioned that there are portions of the Book of Abraham that have not been published. How did you obtain access to this unpublished work? What is the nature of the material? Is it a continuation of Abraham's story, or does it cover some other type of doctrinal information? I have never heard of missing chunks of the Book of Abraham. Everyone, of course, has heard of the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, but this is honestly the first I have heard of this.

Any information you care to discuss would be great. If you want to PM me, that is also fine. I am honestly very interested.

Thanks! :)

[RockSlider]

William,

In the past, I have not taken much interest in the Book of Abraham controversy. It's only been a few bumped (old) threads of Kevin Graham that caught my eye of how few people have really been willing to tackle this issue, and of the almost tragic circumstances that seem to have afflicted those who have (Pharaohs curse it seems).

So you are right, my statement was based mostly on the sense/posting of the critics who have taunted you over the issue. However it does seem I saw you talk it up a bit on MADB recently with statements similar to that which you have also just used here:

"… while I believe what I have to say—assuming I can support my claims—will represent a watershed moment in Book of Abraham studies, …"

With the KEP being available since 1969 or so, it is interesting how little has been published by the Church on the topic. It seems pretty clear the non-LDS Egyptologist (like say Robert Ritner) are not going to devote any more time to it. It sounds like your studies are also going to be along the lines of distancing the KEP from the Book of Abraham. Robert Ritner and others (in the previously linked documentary) also noted how out of place the Book of Abraham story would be to anything relating to the Egyptian mummy practices.

At this time, to an admitted amateur, it seems that the "catalyst theory" would be the most plausible. I assume that along with your pre-KEP translation work, the missing portions are still key. It's easy to see that some new material will be welcome on all fronts.

OK, that is all I have to say at present on the topic. It would be in vain for anyone to expect me to engage in a protracted discussion of these things in this venue. It will not happen. If Rockslider desires to discuss the question at MADB, that is up to him.

The last time I was involved in a thread with you on MADB I was suspended for three days, for no apparent reason, other than taking issue with you. With issues like Kevin being banned there (along with most any other critic with interest in the topic), and simpletons like myself being suspended for simply taking issue with the party line … why bother on such an issue as this?

MADB really is a useless forum for having a balanced discussion on any controversial topic. It's too bad that you are frowned upon, by your peers, for posting here.