Dear John Gee

[_Dr. Shades]

Now, having traveled from Utah to Pennsylvania to Maryland; thence to Nevada and California in the past ten days, I am going to take a shower and settle blissfully into my own bed for the first time in what seems like eons.

I strongly, strongly recommend that you take a shower a little more often than just once in "what seems like eons."

[_William Schryver]

Scrotch:

What are you, then? A hate-filled enemy who wants to see me suffer?

Oh, the irony!

Hath not a believer eyes? Hath not a believer hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a critic is?

If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a believer wrong a critic, what is his humility?

Revenge.

If a critic wrong a believer, what should his sufferance be by the critic’s example?

Why, revenge.

The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Scrotch:

What are you, then? A hate-filled enemy who wants to see me suffer?

Oh, the irony!

I know. Wasn't that exquisite?

Do you think he intended it to be deliciously ironic? Or is he simply so implacably malevolent that he's completely clueless?

[_William Schryver]

Now, having traveled from Utah to Pennsylvania to Maryland; thence to Nevada and California in the past ten days, I am going to take a shower and settle blissfully into my own bed for the first time in what seems like eons.

I strongly, strongly recommend that you take a shower a little more often than just once in "what seems like eons."

I just finished a book about the experiences of a couple members of the 101st Airborne Division in WWII. At one point, over the course of the battles in Holland and Belgium in late 1944 and early 1945, they went over two months without a shower or change of clothes. I have vowed to do the same. I figure it's the least I can do to honor their noble sacrifice.
.
.
.
.
.
===================>

[_harmony]

That said, I am aware of many of the things Professor Gee has published in various Egyptological journals.

That he's published in various Egyptological journals isn't in question. The question is: are his Book of Abraham apologetics published in those journals? Please answer the question as asked, not as you wish it was asked.

I have readily perceived the relationship of many of those things to the Book of Abraham.

I hate to be the one to break this news to you, Will, but this isn't about you and your perceptions. This is about Dr Gee's professional peers and their perceptions.

So far, you haven't added anything to the discussion.

I have also readily perceived that John is taking a long view of these things, and is methodically building a body of work towards a definite end.

In other words, you have nothing to add at this time, except your repeated mantra. Okay. So noted.

[_William Schryver]

Do you think he intended it to be deliciously ironic? Or is he simply so implacably malevolent that he's completely clueless?

As I have repeatedly observed, the first thing to go when the disbeliever exits the chapel doors is the irony chip. Fused. Fried. Permanently disabled. I am convinced that scientists could identify the precise area of the brain that perceives and processes irony if only they could have access to "before and after" scans of the brains of Mormon apostates.

[_William Schryver]

That he's published in various Egyptological journals isn't in question. The question is: are his Book of Abraham apologetics published in those journals?

dissonance, my dear, your intrepid ignorance of these things barely merits a reply, but I will condescend sufficiently to say simply this: Professor Gee has published several very interesting and well-received (by his peers) papers in mainstream Egyptological journals. He does not (nor would an intelligent person expect him to so do) explain to his peers, in the context of these papers, the various reasons why his paper might have a relationship to the Book of Abraham. Nevertheless, many of those papers (when read by someone with an understanding of the issues) do indeed bear upon various questions concerning the Book of Abraham, its origins, its antiquity, and its authenticity.

So far, you haven't added anything to the discussion.

As if you could tell either way.

Have I mentioned lately that you are one of the ugliest people I have ever encountered in cyberspace? And, as difficult as it is to believe, you're getting worse with each passing month. Your poor mother must look down on what you've become with an all-consuming shame.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The question is: are his Book of Abraham apologetics published in those journals? Please answer the question as asked, not as you wish it was asked.

I hate to be the one to break this news to you, Will, but this isn't about you and your perceptions. This is about Dr Gee's professional peers and their perceptions.

Logically, harmony, it's about neither. It's about the contents of the papers.

Which, in a normal place, would be a question settled by reading them.

[_William Schryver]

The question is: are his Book of Abraham apologetics published in those journals? Please answer the question as asked, not as you wish it was asked.

I hate to be the one to break this news to you, Will, but this isn't about you and your perceptions. This is about Dr Gee's professional peers and their perceptions.

Logically, harmony, it's about neither. It's about the contents of the papers.

Which, in a normal place, would be a question settled by reading them.

But it's so much easier to dismiss the content of the papers sight unseen.

After all, everyone here knows that John Gee is the laughing stock of modern Egyptology. Right? He gets invited to present at all those conferences simply to provide comic relief for the truly serious stuff produced by his "peers" in the field. After all, even Egyptologists need a good laugh now and then.

[_silentkid]

After all, everyone here knows that John Gee is the laughing stock of modern Egyptology. Right? He gets invited to present at all those conferences simply to provide comic relief for the truly serious stuff produced by his "peers" in the field. After all, even Egyptologists need a good laugh now and then.

Why do you think Dr. Gee is inept? I think he's an incredibly smart man and his publications in his field support my view. He's a pre-eminent Egyptologist. He's no laughing stock, but you sure are.