Dear John Gee

[_John Larsen]

Two words: peer review.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=25134

[_Mike Reed]

Two words: peer review.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=25134

Ha! He posts the test, withdraws it and starts whining after getting results he doesn't like, and then asks the mods to close the thread.

Classic.

Thanks for posting this John.

[_Daniel Peterson]

One word: Huh?

Professor Gee's record of scholarly publications in non-Mormon Egyptological venues is not merely good. It's exceptionally good.

Here's another word: Reading.

You don't seem to be keeping up with such publications as P.M. Michèle Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl, eds., The World of the Aramaeans (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press); Friedrich Hoffmann and Günther Vittmann, eds., Res severa verum gaudium (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters Publishers); Hedvig Györy, ed., Aegyptus et Pannonia; the Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts; the Göttinger Miszellen; the Review of Biblical Literature; the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities; etc.

[_Doctor Scratch]

One word: Huh?

It's simple: top Mopologists like you and Gee go completely ballistic when anybody dares criticize your apologetics. I mean, can you imagine Gee threatening to sue his non-Mormon Egytopological colleagues? I don't think so.

I've made a similar point about the peer review process for the FARMS Review: i.e., it does not receive a normal "peer review." Instead, the articles therein get a rubber-stamp "Seal of Approval," thus ensuring that orthodoxy is upheld.

[_karl61]

Why does he ask people to translate it. Why doesn't he allow each person he challenges to view the papyrus and see where it takes their mind - to a Book of Abraham type vision. As to his thoughts about people not preparing or going to school there are those who did and did translate the material. Do I need to learn french to read a novel written in french or can I read an English translation of the original.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's simple: top Mopologists like you and Gee go completely ballistic when anybody dares criticize your apologetics.

LOL. Three years into your bizarre, malignant crusade -- and counting -- and I still haven't gone "ballistic." I just think you're nuts.

II've made a similar point about the peer review process for the FARMS Review: i.e., it does not receive a normal "peer review." Instead, the articles therein get a rubber-stamp "Seal of Approval," thus ensuring that orthodoxy is upheld.

Sane people here realize that, since the FARMS Review has a confidential peer review process that involves only me, my associate editors, and the people we ask to perform peer review, and since you're pretty obviously not me, one of my associate editors, or one of the people we've asked to do peer review, you can't and don't really have any idea what you're blathering about.

There's nothing I can do, alas, to help the crazy people here.

[_Mike Reed]

One word: Huh?

Professor Gee's record of scholarly publications in non-Mormon Egyptological venues is not merely good. It's exceptionally good.

That may be. I was hoping, however, that such brilliance would have shown through in the thread.

Here's another word: Reading.

I freely admit that this topic of discussion isn't my forté. For this reason, I was hoping that Gee's thread would have been engaging enough to teach me a few things.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It's simple: top Mopologists like you and Gee go completely ballistic when anybody dares criticize your apologetics.

LOL. Three years into your bizarre, malignant crusade -- and counting -- and I still haven't gone "ballistic." I just think you're nuts.

Well, you haven't publicly devolved into making the sort of ridiculous and over-the-top (and grimly humorless) denunciations that you issued to Rollo Tomasi in the wake of "Quinngate," but I think it's plenty clear that you've come unhinged on more than one occasion.

II've made a similar point about the peer review process for the FARMS Review: i.e., it does not receive a normal "peer review." Instead, the articles therein get a rubber-stamp "Seal of Approval," thus ensuring that orthodoxy is upheld.

Sane people here realize that, since the FARMS Review has a confidential peer review process that involves only me, my associate editors, and the people we ask to perform peer review, and since you're pretty obviously not me, one of my associate editors, or one of the people we've asked to do peer review, you can't and don't really have any idea what you're blathering about.

There's nothing I can do, alas, to help the crazy people here.

Actually, I've written a couple of rather lengthy and substantive posts on this matter. Perhaps I'll look for the links a bit later. In the meantime, I'll just point out that you're in no position to comment on this at all until you've read my posts. You need to have the full context in order to be able to remark on this issue intelligently.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Actually, I've written a couple of rather lengthy and substantive posts on this matter.

So what?

They're based on your hostile musings about a closed process to which you have no access.

What possible value could they have for me?

Perhaps I'll look for the links a bit later. In the meantime, I'll just point out that you're in no position to comment on this at all until you've read my posts. You need to have the full context in order to be able to remark on this issue intelligently.

ROTFL.

Right. I need to study your musings in order to understand a process that I lead and to which you have no access.

As I say, I believe you're nuts. (And I'm not the only one here who does.) If your persona here isn't simply a stupid on-going joke, you need help.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Actually, I've written a couple of rather lengthy and substantive posts on this matter.

So what?

They're based on your hostile musings about a closed process to which you have no access.

What possible value could they have for me?

I'm just saying that you cannot expect to comment intelligently on this issue until you've read. This is a very simple thing to understand. I'm pretty sure that you, of all people, understand the importance of reading before casting judgment.

Perhaps I'll look for the links a bit later. In the meantime, I'll just point out that you're in no position to comment on this at all until you've read my posts. You need to have the full context in order to be able to remark on this issue intelligently.

ROTFL.

Right. I need to study your musings in order to understand a process that I lead and to which you have no access.

You need to read in order to understand how and why I arrived at my conclusion.

As I say, I believe you're nuts. (And I'm not the only one here who does.)

Right. All of those "creepy informants" feeding you juicy gossip. When will your multi-decade crusade to attack critics come to an end, Professor P.?

If your persona here isn't simply a stupid on-going joke, you need help.

If it's a "joke," where's your sense of humor? What's the matter, Dan? Unable to laugh at your precious Mopologetics?