The Maddest of MAD

[_Ray A]

Thanks. I guess my problem is that I only have so much time during the day to spread lies and distortions about the true church.

You are getting good at this Runtu.

[_Persephone]

As for the discussion between beastie and Brant Gardner ... wow! I can't believe Gardner kept coming back again and again. The guy must be a masochist.

Oddly, we can agree on that.

Yes, you underscore the undeniable fact that there are at least two ways of looking at everything.

I'm sure the believers at MAD see nothing but Gardner giving the presumptuous upstart beastie a good old-fashioned scholarly thrashing.

On the other side are those who see in Gardner nothing but a good-natured dissembler (possible) or a well-meaning-but-sadly-blinded-by-his-own-faith hobbyist in ancient Mesoamerican studies.(probable).

I would be the last one to attempt to disabuse someone like Brant Gardner of his apparent delusions. After all, regardless of our respective stances on religious questions, we all cling resolutely to some favorite delusion:

Some women, cursed with a peculiar case of selective blindness, spend their lives moving from man to man, firm in the delusion that "some day my prince will come."

Fans of perennially losing sports teams continue inexplicably firm in their allegiances; their hopes springing eternal at the start of each season. Rather than giving in to the stark realities, and transferring their devotion to the Steelers, the Yankees, the Lakers, or the Utes, they continue to root, year after year, for the Saints, the Cubs, the Jazz, and the Cougars. (Thus, my ex.)

And finally, devotees of the Book of Mormon, despite the ever-augmenting evidentiary indications to the contrary, steadfastly "hold to the rod" of their never-yet-gratified hope that some archaeologist will one day turn over a spade-full of dirt, and a shaft of light from the heavens will streak down to illuminate the long-awaited words: Zarahemla - Next Exit.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Calling Brant Gardner a "hobbyist" in Mesoamerican studies might be ill-advised.

Regardless of which one of them is right, it's Brant Gardner who has a graduate degree in the subject, not Beastie.

[_cinepro]

On the other side are those who see in Gardner nothing but a good-natured dissembler (possible) or a well-meaning-but-sadly-blinded-by-his-own-faith hobbyist in ancient Mesoamerican studies.(probable).

Can't speak to whether or not he is "blinded by his own faith", but hobbyist?

[_Runtu]

Can't speak to whether or not he is "blinded by his own faith", but hobbyist?

I was going to say the same thing. Whatever you think about Brant's conclusions, he is no mere hobbyist.

[_Persephone]

Can't speak to whether or not he is "blinded by his own faith", but hobbyist?

I was going to say the same thing. Whatever you think about Brant's conclusions, he is no mere hobbyist.

I strongly disagree.

Absent formal training and/or degrees on any given topic, I'm afraid there is no other descriptor that is more accurate.

Gardner is, if I'm not mistaken, a software peddler. His attainments in the field of ancient Mesoamerican studies, as diligent and long-pursued as his reading may have been, are still the product of a self-directed program, pursued in the time leftover from his regular professional life. That, my friends, is the classic definition of a "hobbyist."

One might argue, from a position of strength, that his "scholarly" conclusions, such as they are, are consistent with his undeniably non-professional status in the field.

[_Runtu]

I strongly disagree.

Absent formal training and/or degrees on any given topic, I'm afraid there is no other descriptor that is more accurate.

Gardner is, if I'm not mistaken, a software peddler. His attainments in the field of ancient Mesoamerican studies, as diligent and long-pursued as his reading may have been, are still the product of a self-directed program, pursued in the time leftover from his regular professional life. That, my friends, is the classic definition of a "hobbyist."

One might argue, from a position of strength, that his "scholarly" conclusions, such as they are, are consistent with his undeniably non-professional status in the field.

So, because he didn't finish his dissertation, none of his coursework counts? Really?

[_Persephone]

I strongly disagree.

Absent formal training and/or degrees on any given topic, I'm afraid there is no other descriptor that is more accurate.

Gardner is, if I'm not mistaken, a software peddler. His attainments in the field of ancient Mesoamerican studies, as diligent and long-pursued as his reading may have been, are still the product of a self-directed program, pursued in the time leftover from his regular professional life. That, my friends, is the classic definition of a "hobbyist."

One might argue, from a position of strength, that his "scholarly" conclusions, such as they are, are consistent with his undeniably non-professional status in the field.

So, because he didn't finish his dissertation, none of his coursework counts? Really?

Quite honestly, I was unaware that he had any university training on these subjects. If I am mistaken, then I whole-heartedly retract my criticism on that count. Especially if his only lack is a failure to finish a dissertation.

Are you sure about this? Is there some online reference, perhaps, to his training in Mesoamerican studies?

[_Runtu]

Quite honestly, I was unaware that he had any university training on these subjects. If I am mistaken, then I whole-heartedly retract my criticism on that count. Especially if his only lack is a failure to finish a dissertation.

Are you sure about this? Is there some online reference, perhaps, to his training in Mesoamerican studies?

See cinepro's link. Brant has an MA in Anthropology and did coursework and fieldwork in a PhD program at SUNY.

[_Ray A]

Are you sure about this? Is there some online reference, perhaps, to his training in Mesoamerican studies?

Cinepro gave it earlier: hobbyist?