Runtu wrote:I think the distinction was that he had evidence that Gee was wrong. That led him to believe he was either duplicitous or incompetent. As they say, it goes to motive, and I'm not sure any of us has any solid evidence that Gee was intentionally dishonest.
I wonder how often the mopologists are as charitable to the critics as they demand that the critics be to Gee?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Runtu wrote:I think the distinction was that he had evidence that Gee was wrong. That led him to believe he was either duplicitous or incompetent. As they say, it goes to motive, and I'm not sure any of us has any solid evidence that Gee was intentionally dishonest.
I wonder how often the mopologists are as charitable to the critics as they demand that the critics be to Gee?
All I know is what I would do. I agree with Celestial Kingdom that calling Gee a liar went too far. As I said, some apologists have no problem calling people liars, but I can't help that.
Runtu wrote:All I know is what I would do. I agree with Celestial Kingdom that calling Gee a liar went too far.
You are to be commended for your ethics.
As I said, some apologists have no problem calling people liars, but I can't help that.
Sauce/goose, sauce/gander.
We've seen how both Ragnarok and Armageddon are simultaneously unleashed whenever anyone gets a whiff that--*gasp*--somebody implies that Gee might have been slightly less than honest about something, but repeatedly and obsessively calling Kevin Graham a liar is not only perfectly okay, but standard operating procedure.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
== Is there any reason that Gee needs to be treated with kid gloves? It's like everyone wants to pussyfoot around, acting like Gee is made of glass or something.
I’m beginning to think both are made of glass. At least that is how everyone treats them. Like I said before, they do not want to be held accountable for their errors, and this goes for DCP, Gee, Hauglid, and Hamblin. Trying to hold them accountable means you’re involved in a “campaign” to “traduce” them. A bunch of cry babies if there ever was such a thing. They think they are on par with the rest of the scholarly world just because they attend academic conferences and occasionally illicit compliments about each other from friends in the field, but their work and attitude is completely unfamiliar to any standard of scholarship I have ever seen; except for the case of Middle-East Studies, of which DCP is a product.
== I wonder how often the mopologists are as charitable to the critics as they demand that the critics be to Gee?
No flippin kidding man!! Take for instance the ruckus going on over there now where I am being declared the anti-Christ. I go over there occasionally just to find out what other “lies” I have been “proved” of committing. So I said Gee’s email referred to a lawsuit instead of the comments provided in the same email by Chaos. A distinction without only a slight difference since my point still stands. Is this an innocent mistake on my part? No, judge the Madsters! I must be lying!!! And then Juliann runs with it and tells the inquirers that since I have been proved a liar, they don’t need to address anything I say. It is the same apologetic game I had become tired of over the years. They do the same with anyone critical of their positions. First and foremost is the duty to make sure nobody accesses the critic’s actual arguments.
So I am “lying” when it is perfectly clear, based on the evidence documented here, that I genuinely believed Gee said this in the email. Yet, when Gee’s refuted claims leave little room for any conclusion other than intended deception or scholarly sloppiness, the apologists will settle for nothing less than an innocent “mistake” that is to be blamed on other factors, like his so-called lack of access to the KEP (even though they had been bragging for years about how Gee did have access to the KEP). It is a never ending game with them. Eventually they will get tired of conjuring up bad defenses for their precious scholars and realize they are apologists first and foremost. That is their passion. Their profession is something entirely different. Gee’s passion is to prove the Church true, while Egyptology is just something he does for a living. Same goes with Peterson. If he spent half as much time writing about Islam as he did defending the Church on message forums, he would be the most published Islamic scholar on the planet.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
CaliforniaKid wrote:Just to clarify, the "lonely" bit was tongue-in-cheek. :-P
I think you mean obscure life. There are other ways of saying the same thing that are less controversial and won't detract from more important matters. Apologists will seize on the ad hominem and return the ad hominem to avoid dealing with the real issue. Note that Gee's response--his Egyptian test--was essentially an ad hominal attack on his critics and their lack of expertise in Egyptian. He never addressed the issues you raised.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
dartagnan wrote:So I am “lying” when it is perfectly clear, based on the evidence documented here, that I genuinely believed Gee said this in the email. Yet, when Gee’s refuted claims leave little room for any conclusion other than intended deception or scholarly sloppiness, the apologists will settle for nothing less than an innocent “mistake” that is to be blamed on other factors[.]
Okay, let me see if I have this straight:
John Gee telling a lie = a mistake.
Kevin Graham making a mistake = a lie.
Is that about right?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
dartagnan wrote:So I am “lying” when it is perfectly clear, based on the evidence documented here, that I genuinely believed Gee said this in the email. Yet, when Gee’s refuted claims leave little room for any conclusion other than intended deception or scholarly sloppiness, the apologists will settle for nothing less than an innocent “mistake” that is to be blamed on other factors[.]
Okay, let me see if I have this straight:
John Gee telling a lie = a mistake. Kevin Graham making a mistake = a lie.
Is that about right?
Now, you've got it, Shades!
Oh, and, for the record, the formula can be applied more broadly:
Anyone MAD Moderators like telling a lie = a mistake.
Anyone MAD Moderators don't like making a mistake = a lie.