Kevin Graham wrote:It should be perfectly clear that his passion lies in defending the Church. Egyptology just seems to be a convenient means to serve that end.
Well, I hope last year's FAIR talk is indicative of some change in the wind for John, because from all accounts I have heard his apologetic career has been of dubious value, while he may just prove to be a decent Egyptologist.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Just for kix, I picked out an article Robert Ritner recently wrote in a book co-authored by Stephen Thomson, the Mormon Egyptologist who poked fun of Nibley. Google pulls it up 26 times and it appears to be cited in three pieces of scholarship. Just published in 2008 and scholars are already referencing it. This is what I was talking about, and in my former sojourn into biblical scholarship, this was the impression I got. The most respectable scholars in the field found their works being cited the most by other scholars. I'm just wondering, if Gee is so respectable, then who is it? ANd I don't want names of BYU professors or close friends of people who have met him and think he is a swell guy. I'm talking about Egyptologists who read his work and think WOW, this guy produces some truly respectable scholarship.
You're telling me that this project is funded by the LDS Church?
Oh, sorry I thought you were referring to the DSS project. But the project you just metioned can't be that prestigious if google pulls it up only three times, and all three are Mormon links bragging about Gee's affiliation as the "only Egyptologist from North America!"
Kevin Graham wrote:I'm talking about Egyptologists who read his work and think WOW, this guy produces some truly respectable scholarship.
Kevin, you picked an article co-written by one of the top guys in his field. Why should I be surprised that it got all of these hits on Google? I know that Ritner is well known, whereas John Gee is not. What does this prove? It is like asking whether Fergus Millar or Walter Scheidel gets more hits than Trevor does. No contest. I doubt there ever will be. Doesn't mean that I won't ever make a useful contribution to my field, or that this was all a waste of everyone's time. I simply do not get why you are being so hard on John. If you don't envy Gee, maybe you should just be glad you aren't walking in his shoes.
Personally I wouldn't want to be him, not that I don't respect his intelligence and think he is a nice guy.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
EAllusion wrote:Apparently when DCP writes what amounts to blatant innuendo to damage Ritner's credibility in his audience's mind, it's impossible to figure out what he was saying or why he was saying it, because, after all, we can't read minds. One wonders how communication at all is possible with such barriers in place. Yet when it comes to virtually everything else, all of a sudden being able to figure out what people are saying and why they are saying it isn't destroyed by this mind-reading problem. Why, you even know that Ritner harbors religious bias towards Gee. Maybe you could use that mind-reading device that you had for him and apply it to other causes.
Intriguing position. Innuendo, by its very nature, is an indirect implication. It is left largely up to interpretation. The intentions, thoughts, and opinions of the author of the innuendo are therefore not obvious. That, of course, does not mean that one cannot formulate an opinion on said innuendo; indeed one is welcome to do so with the understanding that it could be very incorrect.
I formulated an opinion based on what I have read in this thread, and other research on Doctors Ritner and Gee. The imagined double standard here simply does not exist.
Kevin Graham wrote:My German isn't what it used to be. Do you know what this project is about?
It is a project dedicated to the Book of the Dead.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Simon Belmont wrote:I formulated an opinion based on what I have read in this thread, and other research on Doctors Ritner and Gee. The imagined double standard here simply does not exist.
When you are prepared to share your research notes, let us know.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Kevin Graham wrote:I'm responding to Paul Simon's attempt to equate Ritner and Gee.
I do not equate their work. Dr. Ritner clearly has had a much longer career in Egyptology than Dr. Gee. It would therefore be unfair to compare CVs. I simply wish that the realization that Dr. Gee has accomplished, and continues to accomplish a lot in his field, and in LDS studies.
EAllusion wrote:Apparently when DCP writes what amounts to blatant innuendo to damage Ritner's credibility in his audience's mind, it's impossible to figure out what he was saying or why he was saying it, because, after all, we can't read minds. One wonders how communication at all is possible with such barriers in place. Yet when it comes to virtually everything else, all of a sudden being able to figure out what people are saying and why they are saying it isn't destroyed by this mind-reading problem. Why, you even know that Ritner harbors religious bias towards Gee. Maybe you could use that mind-reading device that you had for him and apply it to other causes.
Intriguing position. Innuendo, by its very nature, is an indirect implication. It is left largely up to interpretation. The intentions, thoughts, and opinions of the author of the innuendo are therefore not obvious. That, of course, does not mean that one cannot formulate an opinion on said innuendo; indeed one is welcome to do so with the understanding that it could be very incorrect.
I formulated an opinion based on what I have read in this thread, and other research on Doctors Ritner and Gee. The imagined double standard here simply does not exist.
So does this mean you have evidence that Ritner had a bias towards Gee? I've asked for it and so has Trev.
Simon Belmont wrote:I simply wish that the realization that Dr. Gee has accomplished, and continues to accomplish a lot in his field, and in LDS studies.
I give him full marks for what he has accomplished in his field, higher than I would otherwise because of the albatross he bears around his neck in his LDS work.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”