Three things

[_Droopy]

Some day Scratch, you will eventually be outed, or you will slip up in some way, and your anonymity will be blown.

Then you will have to face your interlocutors out in the open and in the sunlight with those you slander, defame, and impugn.

You, and others like you, will one day be called to account for the intellectual and ethical pus you spew here in pursuit of the self justification you require in your feverish attempt to make wickedness into happiness - an alchemical transformation that you can never achieve.

We've got your number Scratch. Tone or pulse?

[_Kishkumen]

Then you will have to face your interlocutors out in the open and in the sunlight with those you slander, defame, and impugn.

Were I Scratch, and had I slandered, defamed, or impugned anyone, you might have a point.

You, and others like you, will one day be called to account for the intellectual and ethical pus you spew here in pursuit of the self justification you require in your feverish attempt to make wickedness into happiness - an alchemical transformation that you can never achieve.

The ravings of an ignorant buffoon. Go pot some plants, Drip.

[_Dr. Shades]

If you really were "quite aware of what has been said before now," then why on earth did you ask for three examples of it?

Obviously because I knew exactly what to expect!

That makes no sense whatsoever.

If you knew exactly what to expect, you wouldn't've bothered asking.

Just admit it, Will: You thought that Gee's arguments were unassailable, so you felt safe asking for examples of where he's been disproven. You had no idea that he'd been disproven twice over so far.

Second time: What's your opinion of Gee now?

[_Kishkumen]

Just admit it, Will: You thought that Gee's arguments were unassailable, so you felt safe asking for examples of where he's been disproven. You had no idea that he'd been disproven twice over so far.

Second time: What's your opinion of Gee now?

I interpret Will as having picked up on two related strains of Gee's recent strategy. First, declare that only a person with lots of bona fides in particular fields merits respectful interaction on the subject. Then, warn away anyone who does not have a degree in Egyptology, lots of background in Mormon history, and massive amounts of time to kill from ever getting involved.

This ploy works much better for Gee, since he actually has the bona fides. Willy does not, but he likes to talk big. He is an amateur who has jumped into the fray on very narrow issues in which he has supposedly made some contributions. We'll see.

The question was posed as a lame attempt to shut me down. Instead of answering questions, Willy demands that I pass his quiz. In this way he shifts the topic. I chose not to follow him in shifting the topic. You have taken him up on it, but the questions were never posed sincerely, and I doubt you will get serious responses.

[_harmony]

liz:

Who has your analysis been confirmed by, and what credentials do they hold?

The analysis of the dittograph has been publicly confirmed by Royal Skousen, whose credentials in textual criticism are so impeccable that Metcalfe has even praised him. Until Royal confirmed my analysis, that is. Then Brent e-mailed the poor professor for a couple weeks straight trying to find out what drugs he’d been taking; or at least to interrogate him on his obviously incorrect conclusion. And then, to make matters worse, Royal called me one day shortly thereafter and exhausted my phone battery regaling me with exciting stories from the world of textual criticism! (Actually, Royal is very a engaging and funny guy that everyone should get the opportunity to talk with for two hours straight.)

Brent went on to suggest (on this message board, If I recall correctly) that Skousen had (and I paraphrase) sold his soul for an apologetic mess of pottage.

Professor Hauglid also has publicly endorsed that finding.

Since that time, the dittograph question (and many, many, many others) have been considered by multiple experts in textual criticism. To my knowledge, all consider the long repeated paragraph on page #4 of KEPA #2 to be an obvious case of visual dittography, probably arising from a lengthy delay between writing sessions (which is precisely what I first suggested).

Confirmation of my analysis concerning Abr. 1:12 has occurred both by text experts and forensic document analysis.

All of this analysis of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers to which I refer will not appear publicly until it appears in print – almost certainly within the year. The project is well underway. Publication is slated to occur under the FARMS imprimatur and constitute the 4th volume in the Book of Abraham series they have already commenced.

I do not plan to submit any formal papers to journals, or to formally publish, online or otherwise, anything relevant to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers until after the book to which I refer above has appeared in print. I am obligated to that course of action. I am only permitted, at present, to discuss these things informally in the fashion I have to date.

Will doesn't seem to understand the problem with his experts.

What is needed is a nonLDS Egyptologist, linguist, expert in ancient languages who supports Book of Abraham apologetics.

Skousen, Hauglid, and Gee are LDS, so sorry... they don't count. They are encumbered by a burden they cannot throw off: bias. Try again, Will. And this time find some experts who aren't so heavily encumbered by testimony.

[_Droopy]

An intellectually unbiased person might also suppose that a Mormon, no matter how qualified, might fall victim to confirmation bias in pursuing a problem that has bearing on his religious belief.

Yes, this may be a factor. It may also be a powerful factor among non-LDS Egyptologists, or apostates and secular atheists like Brent Metcalf who have an ax to grind.

As you haven't shown any evidence of such bias in Gee's work, but quite obviously assume such must be true, you as yet have no argument.

But then, actual argument isn't your forté is it?

[_harmony]

An intellectually unbiased person might also suppose that a Mormon, no matter how qualified, might fall victim to confirmation bias in pursuing a problem that has bearing on his religious belief.

Yes, this may be a factor. It may also be a powerful factor among non-LDS Egyptologists, or apostates and secular atheists like Brent Metcalf who have an ax to grind.

As you haven't shown any evidence of such bias in Gee's work, but quite obviously assume such must be true, you as yet have no argument.

But then, actual argument isn't your forté is it?

Gee's apologetics reeks of bias. He's employed by BYU, for pete's sake! Good grief!



.

[_Droopy]

Will doesn't seem to understand the problem with his experts.

What is needed is a nonLDS Egyptologist, linguist, expert in ancient languages who supports Book of Abraham apologetics.

Skousen, Hauglid, and Gee are LDS, so sorry... they don't count. They are encumbered by a burden they cannot throw off: bias. Try again, Will. And this time find some experts who aren't so heavily encumbered by testimony.

In other words, Skousen, Hauglid, and Gee are inherently dishonest intellectually. Being LDS, despite their training and credentials, they cannot be trusted with the evidence. Non-LDS scholars, on the other hand, who would, almost by definition come to the data with their own bias - that the divine truth claims of the LDS Church are most probably fantasy - are thought to be more trustworthy.

But look at Harmony. Harmony claims to be an active, Temple going Mormon, and yet she is virtually a complete apostate from the Gospel, actually accepting almost nothing of its core principles, concepts, and standards.

Which means that there is nothing preventing an LDS scholar, especially one like Gee who knows very well that supportive evidence regarding the Book of Abraham can never prove the Gospel true, or the Book of Abraham legitimate, but is only interested in showing that there are plausible reasons not to believe the alternate theories (that it is all in Joseph's head), from controlling his bias.

Gee isn't trying to legitimate the Book of Abraham through secular scholarship. That's the kind of mentality one encounters here, not at the Maxwell Institute.

[_Droopy]

Gee's apologetics reeks of bias. He's employed by BYU, for pete's sake! Good grief!

Just further evidence, Harmony, that you would prefer to run from one end of town to the other shrieking "Bias!" rather than rationally engage Gee's arguments.

Like so many others here, you've effectively left the arena of ideas for the concession stand.

[_Runtu]

Like so many others here, you've effectively left the arena of ideas for the concession stand.

Just an aside, but that's the first genuinely clever thing you've said here. heh

I agree that Gee's place of employment doesn't automatically make him "reek" of bias, and it is indeed best to deal with people's arguments. Chris Smith and Brent Metcalf have poked a lot of holes in Gee's theories over the years, and Gee hasn't really responded, other than to demand that they pass his Egyptology quiz, which wasn't helpful at all.