The Egyptian Test

[_Alter Idem]

I guess I'll add my two cents. I think Dr. Gee should not have put together that little quiz. It got my hackles up and I'm one of those who believes the Book of Abraham is all it claims to be...but I don't like condescension. I think it makes smart people look small when they lord their intellect and education over others.

I don't know if CaliforniaKid's arguments are valid or not (haven't followed them lately) but if they weren't--if Celestial Kingdom really doesn't have the expertise to challenge Gee's findings, then he should have just ignored the criticism. If Celestial Kingdom's arguments were substantive, then it doesn't matter whether or not he has the background to question, Dr. Gee should just deal with the arguments and not call into question credentials to ask questions.

That thread was very uncomfortable. I did not like seeing the moderators participating in the thread in such a cavalier way. Yea, I know they are not neutral, but at least in the past, we had at least a semblance that they were neutral. I think if they wished to participate, they should have done so by using their normal psedonyms and not their moderator personas.

At one point, one of them said "this is Dr. Gee's thread" which was confusing, as Celestial Kingdom started the thread and I don't believe Dr. Gee posts at MADB, but who would dare question their assertions, unless they don't care about risking a suspension.

[_The Dude]

Hi A.I.,

At one point, one of them said "this is Dr. Gee's thread" which was confusing, as Celestial Kingdom started the thread and I don't believe Dr. Gee posts at MADB, but who would dare question their assertions, unless they don't care about risking a suspension.

So you read the one that was subtitled "Peanut Gallery." Well, until this afternoon that was all attached to the pinned thread that was started by Chaos, but then the mods got uncomfortable with the way it was going and separated into a new thread that looks like it was started by Celestial Kingdom. It would have been nice if the mods had included a link between the two so people just coming in can figure out what's going on. But if you look at it from their point of view, the more confusing it is, the easier it will be to forget. ;)

That thread was very uncomfortable. I did not like seeing the moderators participating in the thread in such a cavalier way. Yea, I know they are not neutral, but at least in the past, we had at least a semblance that they were neutral. I think if they wished to participate, they should have done so by using their normal psedonyms and not their moderator personas.

emphasis added

...or sometimes both personas in the same thread! Oops!

Anyway, I agree with everything you said, pretty much.

[_DonBradley]

That thread was very uncomfortable. I did not like seeing the moderators participating in the thread in such a cavalier way. Yea, I know they are not neutral, but at least in the past, we had at least a semblance that they were neutral. I think if they wished to participate, they should have done so by using their normal psedonyms and not their moderator personas.

AMEN! The befittingly named "Chaos" is posting in as partisan a manner as can be imagined. There is nothing moderate or moderatorial about it. He or she should post personal, partisan arguments and slurs under an ordinary username, not with the authority of a moderator. If anything demonstrates how slanted the playing field is at MAD, it's this thread. The referrees are in the ring kidney-punching the non-LDS contender.

At one point, one of them said "this is Dr. Gee's thread" which was confusing, as Celestial Kingdom started the thread and I don't believe Dr. Gee posts at MADB, but who would dare question their assertions, unless they don't care about risking a suspension.

Gee has explicitly stated that he does not want to post on MAD and that he wants replies to his test sent by e-mail. How can he have a "thread" on the board at all? The "moderator" is so partisan he or she can't even see straight.

Don

[_The Dude]

The "moderator" is so partisan he or she can't even see straight.

Small-minded partisan, I like to say.

[_CaliforniaKid]

The referrees are in the ring kidney-punching the non-LDS contender.

That's certainly how it felt, though I guess I opened myself to it by using the word "lie". Then again, that certainly ratcheted up the publicity that my argument received, so maybe some good will come of it.

-CK

[_asbestosman]

That's certainly how it felt, though I guess I opened myself to it by using the word "lie". Then again, that certainly ratcheted up the publicity that my argument received, so maybe some good will come of it.

Perhaps, but probably not as good as it may have been had you not made the serious error in the first place for which you have fortunately appologized.

I truly wish I knew what the moderators are thinking and what Dr. Gee is thinking. I think I can follow the critic side. I can also understand that being called a liar could be upsetting, even after an apology. So while I suppose I could understand anger and perhaps some hateful words, I think in the end it will all be fruitless. I hope that in a while this will all blow off. Until then I think it's fruitless to keep bringing up your original critique even with the edit and apology. I think it just makes him more upset which further makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

As for other thoughts, I think diplomatic skills are required when is tying to tell another person they may have made a mistake. People have a hard time accepting it, especially when it's close to something they hold dear such as family, religion, or even money.

I also think it unlikely (though possible) that Dr. could have made a mistake such as you say. I mean why would the one side of the scroll be glued to other paper if it had writing on it? That doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps the problem doesn't lie in your question so much as your question misinterpreted his initial meaning. But don't ask me what it was. I can hardly read history in English let alone anything in Egyptian.

Finally, I'm one not to expect much of a response from anyone, especially a scholar, unless it's apparent that having them reply to me directly benefits them. Perhaps Dr. Gee was unclear but sees no benefit in clarifying. Indeed, perhaps there is no benefit in clarifying as his audience may be faithful members instead of critics for whom greater clarity could be a distraction from some other point (in the way that teachers often lie about there not being any square roots for negative numbers).

[_asbestosman]

Perhaps Dr. Gee was unclear but sees no benefit in clarifying. Indeed, perhaps there is no benefit in clarifying as his audience may be faithful members instead of critics for whom greater clarity could be a distraction from some other point (in the way that teachers often lie about there not being any square roots for negative numbers).

Well, I hope the bolded part doesn't count as rumor-mongering and bring some kind of libel suit.

Oh, and for the record, I don't mean "lie" in any malicious way. I mean that teachers merely withhold a full explanation as it would be overly-complicated and detract from their main point about teaching square roots.

[_christopher]

Are you going to take the test? Inquiring minds want to know.

I went through Gee's little test and the first letters of the answers spelled out the acrostic "CaliforniaKid IS BUTTHEAD". Does anyone know if this is just coincidence? Certainly, a BYU professor wouldn't do something like that on purpose?


Chris <><

[_Runtu]

Are you going to take the test? Inquiring minds want to know.

I went through Gee's little test and the first letters of the answers spelled out the acrostic "CaliforniaKid IS BUTTHEAD". Does anyone know if this is just coincidence? Certainly, a BYU professor wouldn't do something like that on purpose?


Chris <><

Now that was funny! I thought your post over there was just right. I'm still wondering what the purpose of that whole Gee thing was.

[_beastie]

Yes, the extreme partisanship of the moderators, who don't seem to make the slightest attempt to use the authority of the moderating screen name ONLY when moderating, and to NOT participate in dialog as the moderators, is instructive. (isn't that some basic Moderating 101 of the internet??)

Hmmm. It's almost like the entire moderating philosophy is patterned after Juliann's personal behavior. Juliann couldn't tolerate the moderating over on ZLMB because she viewed its attempt to be absolutely nonpartisan (in its past glory days) as an anti-LDS bias. So she has managed to create a moderating team in her own image!!!

Which is, of course, the reason I refuse to participate over there. Yes, decent, interesting conversations can still occur now and then, which is why I visit and look for such threads. (and who can resist the current GEE debacle?) But, in general, the climate of the board has been poisoned against exLDS critics even before they open their mouths due to the "spirit" of the moderating team, and the board has enough moderator groupies to infect the whole place.

I applaud the LDS believers who will stand up to such nonsense, but, as I have often mentioned in the past, find it instructive that so many LDS posters are quite comfortable with such nonsense, and, in fact, fled ZLMB for such nonsense.