The Missing Papyrus Equation

[_Brackite]

Proof that John Gee cannot be Trusted

Proof that William Schryver cannot be Trusted

Proof that William Schryver is Intellectually Dishonest

Great Hyper-Links, Kevin!

[_solomarineris]

I agree entirely that, if Gee is as wrong as you appear to make him on this particular question, it will constitute a serious blow to his reputation. I know I will be disappointed in him as a friend as much as I will be in relation to his professional stature.

Why as a friend? His accuracy on certain scholarly issues reflects on his character somehow?

I knew, you wouldn't understand.
It's a long story.
Sigh.

[_Kevin Graham]

I agree entirely that, if Gee is as wrong as you appear to make him on this particular question, it will constitute a serious blow to his reputation.

What friggin "reputation"? The entire Egyptological staffs at Brown and the University of Chicago think he is an absolute moron when it comes to talking about the Joseph Smith papyri.

His failure to accept the consensus on the length of the scroll is a reflection of his own desperation and insistence of putting apologetic expediency before reason and scholarship. He made a stupid theory about it's length and now he wants to defend it till death, despite the fact that Klaus Baer, Robert Ritner, Lanny Bell, and virtually every other expert who has familiarized themselves with the papyri, have said to the contrary.

But leave it to Will to create more problems for the apologetic community. Once this junk is published in a refutable format, and Gee is proved yet again to be incompetent, he will be able to thank Will for making these statements above that pretty much justify any critical thinker for dismissing Gee, forever.

[_William Schryver]

I agree entirely that, if Gee is as wrong as you appear to make him on this particular question, it will constitute a serious blow to his reputation.

What friggin "reputation"? The entire Egyptological staffs at Brown and the University of Chicago think he is an absolute moron when it comes to talking about the Joseph Smith papyri.

His failure to accept the consensus on the length of the scroll is a reflection of his own desperation and insistence of putting apologetic expediency before reason and scholarship. He made a stupid theory about it's length and now he wants to defend it till death, despite the fact that Klaus Baer, Robert Ritner, Lanny Bell, and virtually every other expert who has familiarized themselves with the papyri, have said to the contrary.

But leave it to Will to create more problems for the apologetic community. Once this junk is published in a refutable format, and Gee is proved yet again to be incompetent, he will be able to thank Will for making these statements above that pretty much justify any critical thinker for dismissing Gee, forever.

Yep.

Pretty much the same "no-longer-informed" rantings I've heard for almost two years now.

If you could only know how ridiculously wrong you've become ...

[_Kevin Graham]

The difference between us Will, is that I can and have shown where you are wrong, on more than a dozen occasions.

All you can do in return is claim I am wrong. You never demonstrate because you can't.

[_William Schryver]

The difference between us Will, is that I can and have shown where you are wrong, on more than a dozen occasions.

All you can do in return is claim I am wrong. You never demonstrate because you can't.

In the immortal words of Sidney J. Mussburger: "Sure, sure."

Of course, you'll be at liberty to respond in whatever venue will have you when I post the simplified summary that I'm preparing for the benefit of Dr. Scrotch.

Feel free to chime in on the scroll length essay I write, too. I'll anxiously await your comments.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Of course, you'll be at liberty to respond in whatever venue will have you when I post the simplified summary that I'm preparing for the benefit of Dr. Scrotch.

That's very kind of you, Will. In particular, I'm interested in learning about this:

[quote"Will Schryver"]I have identified several pieces of historical evidence that suggest that at least all of the third chapter was produced in Kirtland, almost certainly with Warren Parrish as scribe.[/quote]

I can't wait to hear what these "several pieces of historical evidence" are.

[_Kevin Graham]

Will you and I have crossed swords on this matter on numerous occasions over the past few years. I challenge you to produce one example where you demonstrated me to be wrong on any given point.

I can produce several examples where I proved you wrong. Examples which to this day, have yet to be defended by you. But you have the audacity to challenge Brent to "rebut" something Skousen allegedly said in some unpublished format? You don't even have the balls to defend your own arguments.

All you ever do is fall back on rhetoric.