beastie wrote:So are we to conclude that you, Daniel, actually think Gee's argument here is a good one? Care to defend it?
No interest.
I'm just reacting to the sweeping judgments about John Gee that I routinely see here and in like-minded circles. BYU, Berkeley, and Yale, to say nothing of various Egyptological journals and congresses and scholars, plainly haven't seemed and don't seem to share the opinion of the experts here. So much the worse for them, I suppose. What do they know?
You assume too much when, as you have for several years, you presume that message boards are the focus of my intellectual life -- and particularly so when you imagine that this one is, or ever could be.
I'm also leaving the country for a month on Wednesday night. I have priorities, and discussing John Gee on this message board, with the people on this message board, will never be among them.
Still, I did want to register my amused reaction to the notion that the jaundiced commentators here have been able to sniff out John Gee's utter and complete professional incompetence when his teachers at BYU, Berkeley, and Yale, and his Egyptological colleagues, have failed to notice it. That's risible on the face of it, and for good reason.
Of course I'm talking about internet boards like this one, Z, and FAIR. It's the only venue I 'know' you in. On these type of boards, you are rarely interested in the meat of topics, and participate only to offer some one-liner you imagine is witty. (sometimes they are, sometimes not) And, of course, to harvest quotes you think demonstrates the malicious stupidity of exmormons.
That's why I've never understood why people - including exmormons - act like you're THE apologist to tackle. I so rarely see you deal with the actual topic that it's been impossible for me to draw a like conclusion. I think you prefer venues in which your assertions are not challenged.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I have met John Gee, and I know a little bit about him. He is a nice fellow, and brilliant. I have no doubt of the keenness of his intelligence, or of his qualifications as a scholar. However, just because he has credible expertise in Egyptology does not mean that his arguments about things Mormon are good. It also does not mean that they are not. Whether Larson's book is worthwhile or not, Gee's rebuttal makes some simple mistakes that I am frankly surprised at. I guess this is why it is important to judge arguments on their own merits and not by the degrees or personalities of the people who offer them.
Yes, that's it. I'm scared of controversy and contradiction. LOL.
I have no idea if you're scared of controversy and contradiction, but you certainly seem to prefer to deal seriously with apologia in venues in which you are not being actively challenged.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.