Three things

[_Kishkumen]

Incidentally, lest any sentient readers believe your spurious claim above has any validity at all, I can assure them it does not. But keep churning it out, Scrotch. As always, you've got a very receptive audience on hand.

I am sure that sentient readers will realize that your assurances mean nothing next to the demand for actual evidence to back up your claims.

[_William Schryver]

Kissassman:

Whatever his credentials and accomplishments in Egyptology, he has not made a convincing case for the antiquity of Smith's narrative in the Book of Abraham.

How would you know?

You're the one living off bluster, Kissassman. You know next to nothing about the issues, nor are you even remotely aware of what Gee is doing, why he is doing it, and how and where it has been done. You're just one in a large group of uninformed exmormon ignoramuses who believe Edward Ashment wrote the obituary to the Book of Abraham years ago, and that nothing has changed since then. And I'm not about to assist you in extracting yourself from those two august categories: ignorance and exmormonism. I'm quite content to see you go to hell utterly benighted as to the origins of the Book of Abraham. Doesn't bother me in the least. In fact, I'm of the opinion that there are few people more deserving than you and your bum buddy Scrotch.

[_William Schryver]

Incidentally, lest any sentient readers believe your spurious claim above has any validity at all, I can assure them it does not. But keep churning it out, Scrotch. As always, you've got a very receptive audience on hand.

I am sure that sentient readers will realize that your assurances mean nothing next to the demand for actual evidence to back up your claims.

Which claims, Kissassman?

Do you mean the ones I've made concerning KEPA Ms. #2? The ones Metcalfe insisted were laughably incorrect, but which have since been confirmed by multiple experts in relevant fields?

Because if that's what you're talking about, it only proves once again that the real problem is that you just aren't paying any attention to what's going on; that the full extent of your scholarly pursuits, autodidactic or otherwise, consists in parroting the errors of others.
.
.
.
.
===============

[_Dwight Frye]

Most helpfully, Mister Scratch, who wasn't involved in the original thread, gave an excellent summary and outlined many of the highlights in a thread titled The Origin of FAIR/MAD.

WARNING: The original thread was SO EPIC that Mister Scratch's summary was, itself, epic. It's not a short read, so set aside some time, pop yourself some popcorn, and kick back for an evening of reading pleasure.

Once you're done with it, if you dare tackle the original thread in all its 28 pages of glory, here it is: More on Disingenuous Murphy

Thanks, Shades, for pulling this up, and thank you, Doctor Scratch, for the brilliant summary (which I am still working my way through). Gentlemen and scholars, the both of yous.

[_Kishkumen]

Which claims, Kissassman?

I'll let you reread this thread and see if you can come to that simple piece of information yourself without frothing forth with more sputum about your other "achievements."

Kishkumen: "Please bring forward some evidence to refute Scratch's last claim."

Schryver: "You have no idea what you are talking about, you idiot piece of trailer trash. Don't you know that I was the person who trounced Brent Metcalfe in an argument about yaddy yaddy yaw yaw...."

Again, Will. Stick to the subject, dude. It really isn't that difficult. I assure you.

[_William Schryver]

Never one to get the point, Schryver continues to insist that Gee's publications on other Egyptology subjects lend real weight to his arguments about the Book of Abraham. In fact, Gee's accomplishments in his field may say very little or nothing about the veracity of his Book of Abraham arguments. I know it is a fact you would prefer to ignore, but unfortunately for you it is a fact.

Most of us are very comfortable with the preponderance of evidence that shows the Book of Abraham is a 19th century composition. We don't need the many blind alleys of minutiae that Gee strings together to try to save the fantasy that it is an actual ancient text. Any ancient text in this fiasco is the papyri fragments, which do not translate into the Book of Abraham. Gee's dream of a lost text has not borne scrutiny. Does this make him an idiot or a bad Egyptologist? No. His bona fides also do not save his Book of Abraham arguments.

Please, go ahead and believe the Book of Abraham is ancient. Knock yourself out. But do realize that your childish behavior only further convinces all onlookers that you are very insecure in your belief. Have the self respect to drop the bogus class-based insults about the Trailer Park, as though MAD were some kind of seminar room in the halls of Ivy academe. A good deal of what goes on there is little more than boosterism for the home team. The questions that are posed here are no less valid for not being expressed in Aramaic.

OK, Kissassman, put your money where your mouth is. Demonstrate your knowledge of the issues by describing a few arguments Professor Gee has made, vis-a-vis the Book of Abraham, that you believe have "not borne scrutiny."

Three should suffice.

Prove John to be the bumbling fool you believe he is (in terms of his Book of Abraham apologetics) by presenting a list of three items where John has shown himself to be inept in these matters.

I'll be away from my desk for a couple hours, but when I return I will look forward to your post, which will certainly strike fear into my heart, and leave me defenseless in behalf of my friend, the poor Sisyphus.

[_Kishkumen]

OK, Kissassman, put your money where your mouth is. Demonstrate your knowledge of the issues by describing a few arguments Professor Gee has made, vis-a-vis the Book of Abraham, that you believe have "not borne scrutiny."

Three should suffice.

OMG. Shryver, you are such a tool. Why should I replicate what Kevin Graham, CaliforniaKid and others have already done well enough? I don't have to summarize the history of the argument to assess its current status. Geez. You guys are like a broken record.

[_William Schryver]

Which claims, Kissassman?

I'll let you reread this thread and see if you can come to that simple piece of information yourself without frothing forth with more sputum about your other "achievements."

Kishkumen: "Please bring forward some evidence to refute Scratch's last claim."

Schryver: "You have no idea what you are talking about, you idiot piece of trailer trash. Don't you know that I was the person who trounced Brent Metcalfe in an argument about yaddy yaddy yaw yaw...."

Again, Will. Stick to the subject, dude. It really isn't that difficult. I assure you.

As I suspected, you don't even have any idea what Metcalfe and I have been arguing about for the past two years, do you? You haven't the slightest idea of the significance of the arguments in terms of the larger question of the origins of the Book of Abraham.

"Yaddy yaddy yaw yaw" indeed!

I look forward to your list when I return.

[Guest]

As I suspected, you don't even have any idea what Metcalfe and I have been arguing about for the past two years, do you? You haven't the slightest idea of the significance of the arguments in terms of the larger question of the origins of the Book of Abraham.

"Yaddy yaddy yaw yaw" indeed!

I look forward to your list when I return.

Why should I waste my time recapping everything that has been going on over at Pundits on MAD? I know you guys are all about wasting our time, but I feel no need to oblige you. Really.

[_harmony]

If someone could point out where a respected Egyptologist wrote something that shows approval of Dr Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics, I'd appreciate it.

I have no doubt Dr Gee is respected by his peers for his knowledge of Egyptology. I'd like to see something from his Egyptologist peers that shows they respect his Book of Abraham apologetics.

Thanks in advance.