Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Chris Smith

A Challenge From John Gee

Recommended Posts

Did you really sign up just to parrot what other "critics" have already posted? Seems quite a waste of time to me.

Actually your post with its huge quote was the waste.

Answer my question above please.

I repeat:

Let us just stipulate or conceed that no one here can translate Egyptian to Dr. Gee's satisfaction.

The next question is; why does this consession take him off the hook from answering the original quite reasonable sounding criticisms which were asked first and which are not directly related to translation as such?

Share this post


Link to post

It seems some want to argue on the necessity of things, while others want to argue the nature of things, and thus no dialogue will ultimately benefit all, imo.

Share this post


Link to post

If you honestly attempted a conversation

I am more than willing to honestly attempt a conversation. But not about Egyptian philology. I don't know anything about Egyptian philology, and I have never claimed to know anything about Egyptian philology. I just want to talk about some fairly simple historical issues.

While it is "altogether [your] right as a free-thinking being" to suspect someone of duplicity, the minute you have expressed that thought to others you are engaging in something altogether different.

Maybe so. All I have tried to do on this and the other forum is 1) explain why I suspect what I do, and 2) apologize for bringing it up. Apparently those two aims are incompatible in the eyes of many here. So I will drop the first and continue the second. I am sorry for ever making this be about John Gee's personal integrity.

Now, let's talk about the missing roll theory.

Share this post


Link to post

Lets turn the tables with a hypothetical and see what you think.

Suppose that I am an academic that is also a faculty at Maharishi University. Suppose that I have some physical arguments to show that the mystical field theory promoted by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi might have something to it and so maybe his disciples really can levitate etc.

I write a book about it but I don't make most of my claims too controversial but some parts are very controversial.

Now suppose you read my book and find that is seems that my theories rely on some ideas about the nature of gravity that have been claimed debunked by Steven Hawking and other but I don't mention this. You also notice that some of my sources don't seem to say what I claim.

Not suppose that you ask me about in some forum and to your surprise my reaction is to ask what your credentials are and then throw out the equations below and demand that you interpret their significance and translate them into classical tensor notation.

Am I being a bully?

Maybe I actually was remiss in not mentioning that my theory goes against standards physics. Maybe my bad references really were suspicious. In any case, should I not just respond to the questions in a way suitable to my audience?

equations.gif

Ah! But your hypothetical isn't really complete now is it? What the bolded part should say is:

"Now suppose that you start calling me "an incompetent boob, a liar lacking of integrity and an ignoramous too stupid to know that you don't know what you're talking about" in some forum and to your surprise my reaction is to ask what your credentials are and then throw out the equations below and demand that you interpret their significance and translate them into classical tensor notation."

Now, what if you did answer each of their questions, and clarified questions or corrected mistakes and still the person went around message boards calling your, "an incompetent boob, a liar lacking of integrity and an ignoramous too stupid to know that you don't know what you're talking about". Wouldn't you be justified in asking what their qualifications are to keep asserting this?

Share this post


Link to post

I am more than willing to honestly attempt a conversation. But not about Egyptian philology. I don't know anything about Egyptian philology, and I have never claimed to know anything about Egyptian philology. I just want to talk about some fairly simple historical issues.

Good. Answer the questions you can, from Gee, explain you can't answer the others, and let us see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry but I know bullying and obfuscation when I see it.

At last we agree upon something-- and I concede that you are far superior in the art of bullying than Gee.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

"an incompetent boob, a liar lacking of integrity and an ignoramous too stupid to know that you don't know what you're talking about"

Was that a quotation from this board? I missed it. That certainly is a heavy dose of ugly insult.

Now, what if [Gee] did answer each of their questions, and clarified questions or corrected mistakes
[i assume that Gee is the referent in your analogy--CKS]

I think that would be great, and, I'm sure, enlightening.

Best.

CKS

Share this post


Link to post

Ah! But your hypothetical isn't really complete now is it? What the bolded part should say is:

"Now suppose that you start calling me "an incompetent boob, a liar lacking of integrity and an ignoramous too stupid to know that you don't know what you're talking about" in some forum and to your surprise my reaction is to ask what your credentials are and then throw out the equations below and demand that you interpret their significance and translate them into classical tensor notation."

Well, you are exaggerating what really happened now aren't you. Yes you are.

In either case, my throwing out the equations would just be an act of bullying unless the those equations were themselves directly relevant to the discussion--even then I would no proceed in that way.

Besides, it is not clear that my hypothesized Maharishi University faculty member wasn't behave a bit like a quack now is it. Maybe he needed a rebuff, even if I was from a member or fomer lay member of the Maharishi's TM religion.

CKid's questions and criticisms seem to make sense and don't seem to require knowledge of Egyptian to answer--or if they do, someone should explain why in a direct way.

Like I said, I know bullying when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post

The next question is; why does this consession take him off the hook from answering the original quite reasonable sounding criticisms which were asked first and which are not directly related to translation as such?

Because this thread is about the credentials/knowledge of those people who slander and question him as a professional NOT about defending his thesis or engaging in a formal debate. Furthermore, Gee is under no obligation to troll around message boards in order ensure that he answers "reasonable sounding criticisms."

Share this post


Link to post

Well, you are exaggerating what really happened now aren't you. Yes you are.

In either case, my throwing out the equations would just be an act of bullying unless the those equations were themselves directly relevant to the discussion--even then I would no proceed in that way.

Besides, it is not clear that my hypothesized Maharishi University faculty member wasn't behave a bit like a quack now is it. Maybe he needed a rebuff, even if I was from a member or fomer lay member of the Maharishi's TM religion.

CKid's questions and criticisms seem to make sense and don't seem to require knowledge of Egyptian to answer--or if they do, someone should explain why in a direct way.

Like I said, I know bullying when I see it.

Why is it that you can't seem to get it... this is not a thread about his work but about those who question his competence. Which may be why it isn't in the Pundits Folder... furthermore, it is not a thread about CK (though he is obviously one) but about all those who have engaged in this tactic-- and no I am not "exaggerating" he indicated other boards as well as this one.

Share this post


Link to post

Because this thread is about the credentials/knowledge of those people who slander and question him as a professional NOT about defending his thesis or engaging in a formal debate. Furthermore, Gee is under no obligation to troll around message boards in order ensure that he answers "reasonable sounding criticisms."

Unfortunately, the credentials demanded are not those needed for the kind of criticisms offered.

What matters is whether or not the criticisms made sense or not and whether they might in fact be true despite DR. Gee's UNDISPUTED credentials. Gee's credentials do not amount to proof that the mistakes he is accused of were not in fact actually mistakes and/or misrepresentations. That is strangely, after all this, still a possibility isn't it now.

Share this post


Link to post

Why is it that you can't seem to get it... this is not a thread about his work but about those who question his competence. Which may be why it isn't in the Pundits Folder... furthermore, it is not a thread about CK (though he is obviously one) but about all those who have engaged in this tactic-- and no I am not "exaggerating" he indicated other boards as well as this one.

You don't get it. It could be a 5th grader or murderer or a snowshoe salesman that made the criticisms.

If the criticisms made sense, then anyone can put them forth and they must be dealt with. CKid has every right to make them and if he makes a good point even without special training then it is only our duty to be amazed by that and wait for an answer or offer one ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, the credentials demanded are not those needed for the kind of criticisms offered.

What matters is whether or not the criticisms made sense or not and whether they might in fact be true despite DR. Gee's UNDISPUTED credentials. Gee's credentials do not amount to proof that the mistakes he is accused of were not in fact actually mistakes and/or misrepresentations. That is strangely, after all this, still a possibility isn't it now.

And none of this post has anything to do with anything! Let's understand something... I am certainly not defending his position since I do find some of the "criticism" warranted; however, when arguments are asserted that question his knowledge, skill and abilities in regards to his scholarship-- I think it only to reasonable to question the critics KSA's as well. Finally, this "test" doesn't mean that the arguments against his work are null and void nor will it disprove them; but rather, it may disabuse those who prefer to question his integrity, intelligence and abilities, from doing so. It is really simple-- if you are one that believes that he is indisputably qualified and competent then you have ZERO reason for complaint in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

You don't get it. It could be a 5th grader or murderer or a snowshoe salesman that made the criticisms.

If the criticisms made sense, then anyone can put them forth and they must be dealt with. CKid has every right to make them and if he makes a good point even without special training then it is only our duty to be amazed by that and wait for an answer or offer one ourselves.

*sigh*

What does that have to do with... well, anything? I have already stated that the layperson has every right to do so, and in fact may actually be correct in their conclusions! SHEESH! This is NOT about whether they have the right to comment, criticize or debate an issue. It is NOT about whether Gee's conclusions are correct because he is an expert, are we clear now? However, when one does question the professional aptitude of a scholar then it only seems right to know whether or not the person criticizing actually has the requisite aptitude to make such an assertion or whether they are just being insulting.

Share this post


Link to post

And none of this post has anything to do with anything! Let's understand something... I am certainly not defending his position since I do find some of the "criticism" warranted; however, when arguments are asserted that question his knowledge, skill and abilities in regards to his scholarship-- I think it only to reasonable to question the critics KSA's as well. Finally, this "test" doesn't mean that the arguments against his work are null and void nor will it disprove them; but rather, it may disabuse those who prefer to question his integrity, intelligence and abilities, from doing so. It is really simple-- if you are one that believes that he indisputably qualified and competent then you have ZERO reason for complaint in this thread.

I guess you best demonstrate that his knowledge, skill and abilities in his specific field were ever systematically challenged. The way I undertand it, his credentials were never challenged and neither was his knowledge of Egyptian. He was accused of being less than fully honest but that was retracted. Of course, the most competent person in the world could in fact be duplcituous on occasion, so, for that little bit, competance and credentials are utterly irrelevant anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

*sigh*

*double sigh*

His credentials in his specific field of training weren't challenged. His ability to translate Egyptian wasn't challenged.

These are the only two things that his test could bear on.

One does not need, morally require, or otherwise depend on the skills of the test to cogently make the kind of criticisms that CKid made. Thus, the test is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
the Book of Abraham is one of a kind
While its identical text is seen only in itself, there are other texts that are similar in purpose and others in information.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm quite certain that that wouldn't further the discussion of Seyffarth's statement at all.

-CK

You can't answer even a smigen of these questions but you are quite certain that it won't matter. That is supposed to inspire confidence in you? How would you know what would matter if you don't even know enough to answer basic questions about Syfarth? Enquiring minds want to know why anyone should accept you're rules of what is important and what isn't when you obviously don't know the basics and won't even answer question 20. Did I get it right that you can't answer even one question about Seyfarth but you know Dr. Gee isn't competent to talk about Seyfarth? Where did that knowledge about Dr. Gee come from?

11. How would Gustavus Seyffarth have transliterated and translated

question 1?

12. How would Seyffarth have transliterated and translated question 2?

13. How would Seyffarth have transliterated and translated question 3?

14. How would Seyffarth have transliterated and translated question 4?

15. How would Seyffarth have translated the Joseph Smith Papyri?

16. Are Seyffarth's and Champollion's translation methods compatible?

17. What were some of Seyffarth's criticisms of Champollion?

18. What were the Champollionist criticisms of Seyffarth's work?

19. Where are Seyffarth's papers located?

20. How much of Seyffarth's work have you personally actually read?

21. Compare and contrast the quality of Seyffarth's copies to his

translation work.

Share this post


Link to post

Thus, the test is irrelevant.

Not to us! If you guys want to sit around and talk about what boobs everybody else is instead of get down to business you have your other places to do it. Stop wasting our time with copouts.

Share this post


Link to post

Not to us! If you guys want to sit around and talk about what boobs everybody else is instead of get down to business you have your other places to do it. Stop wasting our time with copouts.

Yeah,... but well, the comments aren't cop outs. In fact, the test is a diversion. The fact that no one here can translate Egyptian has already been stipulated and so who do you expect to attempt the test and for what reason? The same questions remain and they still don't have anything to do with the test.

Share this post


Link to post

How would you know what would matter if you don't even know enough to answer basic questions about Syfarth?

Interesting... when was the "Seyffarth addendum" added, and why are you throwing it in my face as if it's been part of the OP all along? May we take this "addendum" as a concession from Gee that his initial test was irrelevant?

I may prepare answers to questions 11-21 at a later time, but I haven't decided yet if I want to play Gee's game. Why I should have to waste hours of my life demonstrating my "competence" just to earn the right to have my say is frankly beyond me. I certainly don't have time right now. We'll see.

-CK

Share this post


Link to post

Did I get it right that you can't answer even one question about Seyfarth but you know Dr. Gee isn't competent to talk about Seyfarth? Where did that knowledge about Dr. Gee come from?

Hi Orpheus--

No, you didn't get it right. I have seen no comment from CK to the effect that "Dr. Gee isn't competent to talk about Seyffarth."

Best.

CKS

Share this post


Link to post

... I have a question for the guys who don't think they should have to answer questions they just get to ask them....

Hmmm. I have repeatedly seen CaliforniaKid responding reasonably and at length to all kinds of questions put to him which bore a legitimate relation to positions he has put forward. (Though as he has admitted it was VERY silly of him to call John Gee a liar on a discussion board, whatever may be his private views. Still, he is only a young chimp ...)

So far, on the other hand, I don't think I have ever seen John Gee answer to a single question from anybody in relation to the objections which have been raised previously, in detail and at length, on this board about his writings on the 'missing scroll' explanation of the lack of relation between Joseph Smith's 'Book of Abraham' and the extant papyri. (Please give a reference if I am wrong). He has on the other hand asked rather a lot of questions, has he not?

But Orpheus's questions would not of course be directed to him..

Share this post


Link to post

Dr. Gee has added the following:

I have two other addenda to add to the test based on various posts:

Late Magical Text Addendum (6/7/2007):

22. What is meant by the designation "late" in Egyptian chronology?

23. What is the Egyptologist's functional definition of "magical" as

applied to texts?

24. What types of texts are included by Egyptologists under the heading

"magical texts"?

25. What is the chronological distance between the Joseph Smith Papyri

(whichever Egyptologist you chose to follow on that issue) and the

so-called "magical" papyri on the one hand and the New Kingdom tombs on

the other?

26. Where in Egypt are the magical papyri from?

27. What other Theban texts fall in the chronological distance between

the Joseph Smith Papyri and the magical papyri?

Unique Text Addendum (6/7/2007):

28. What percentage of Middle Kingdom literature is found in only one

manuscript?

29. What percentage of Demotic literature is found in only one manuscript?

30. What percentage of Letters of Fellowship Made by Isis have other

texts appended to them?

----------------

Posts that have no other purpose than to evade the questions are about to be deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...