DCP: Kevin Graham, Ritner, and the Rest Are Liars

[_Darth J]

Droopy, you do not have an advanced degree in any relevant field. You therefore are not competent to speak regarding the merits of John Gee's apologetics.

It does not logically follow that because one does not have a formal degree in any relevant field of study, one is therefore not knowledgeable in that field and competent to comment upon it.

Secondly, I do not claim to have any substantial knowledge of Egyptology. I do have the ability to critique and analyses the arguments of others, however, and asses their evidential consistency.

So what you're saying is that Bill Hamblin is wrong.

(This accusations, by the way, come from people with no advanced degrees in any relevant field, no academic positions, and no peer-reviewed publications of their own. These are mere hacks and cranks who spend their days ranting against Mormonism on internet bulletin boards.) http://mormonscriptureexplorations.word ... ptologist/

This is quite a conundrum, Droopy. If your point is correct, then Hamblin is wrong. But if Hamblin is correct, then you are not competent to comment on the merits of John Gee's (or anyone else's) apologetics.

[_Droopy]

Or, in other words, you have no personal knowledge of this situation at all, and are guessing, conjecturing, and imposing your own bias upon the fragmentary snippets that have been made public by those who were actually personally involved.

I've said nothing about the situation that can't be gleaned from reading what's been made public. If you disagree, then prove me wrong by quoting the parts where I've guessed or conjectured. If you can't do that, then sit back down and let the grown-ups talk.

I'm only pointing out, my pontificating left-wing highness, that your statements are wholesale conjecture gleaned from fragmentary pubic statements. Daniel Peterson has already made quite clear that the full story is not publicly known, and in that case, there are probably going to be different sides to the story, depending upon who one asks.

So, in other words...

Sit down and shut up.

[_Darth J]

Daniel Peterson has already made quite clear that the full story is not publicly known

Daniel Peterson has no personal knowledge whether the full story is publicly known.

But in any case, you are not qualified to comment on any of it sans a PhD in Egyptology.

[_Droopy]

This is quite a conundrum, Droopy. If your point is correct, then Hamblin is wrong. But if Hamblin is correct, then you are not competent to comment on the merits of John Gee's (or anyone else's) apologetics.

Have you ever considered taking up urban cliff diving?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Sit down and shut up.

Good Droops, remind that woman her role when Priesthoods are talking.

[_Darth J]

This is quite a conundrum, Droopy. If your point is correct, then Hamblin is wrong. But if Hamblin is correct, then you are not competent to comment on the merits of John Gee's (or anyone else's) apologetics.

Have you ever considered taking up urban cliff diving?

So which of you is wrong, Droopy? You, or Bill Hamblin?

[_Droopy]

Daniel Peterson has no personal knowledge whether the full story is publicly known.

And you know this how?

But in any case, you are not qualified to comment on any of it sans a PhD in Egyptology.

Nor do you have such a PhD, which makes your entire point here moot.

The logical aspect of your case here is frail, both because not having a formal degree implies nothing regarding actual knowledge, and because, lacking such a degree yourself, you yourself are in no position to determine what what the requirements are to understand apologetic arguments containing Egyptology elements.

The bare fact that Gee has written a great deal for a mass audience who do not have degrees in Egyptology regarding apologetic subjects related to Egyptology (through FARMS and NMI) levels your entire facile appeal to credentialism (a version of the appeal to snobbery fallacy, I'd say) to the ground.

[_Droopy]

Sit down and shut up.

Good Droops, remind that woman her role when Priesthoods are talking.

That goes for you too, Skippy.

[_MsJack]

I'm only pointing out, my pontificating left-wing highness, that your statements are wholesale conjecture gleaned from fragmentary pubic statements.

Once again, CFR for the "conjecture" in my posts. That means cite the portion of my posts that contain conjecture and highlight it. Bold it, italicize it, whatever. If you can't do that, then you need to stop acting like Dan Rather and making stuff up. (How's that for a political reference for you?)

And quit calling me "left-wing." I'm a pro-life Republican evangelical Christian with a Mitt Romney bumper sticker on my car and a fondness for the military, martial arts, and guns. Just because you can't win an argument with me doesn't make me "left-wing."

[_MrStakhanovite]

And quit calling me "left-wing." I'm a pro-life Republican evangelical Christian with a Mitt Romney bumper sticker on my car and a fondness for the military, martial arts, and guns. Just because you can't win an argument with me doesn't make me "left-wing."

BOOM! Roasted.

Let us not forget that you are more active in the LDS Church than Droops is!