e=mc2 Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 I just read in the email version of the FAIR Journal that unfortunately Brian Hauglid will not be able to attend the FAIR conference this year, but John Gee is taking his place. NOW we can ALL get together and have HIM tell us HIS views, if he is so inclined....... so now, ALL OF YOU CRITICS ought to show up now and lets see the REAL point of views of John Gee, not second or third hand, but from the man himself. Link to comment
Pahoran Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 I just read in the email version of the FAIR Journal that unfortunately Brian Hauglid will not be able to attend the FAIR conference this year, but John Gee is taking his place. NOW we can ALL get together and have HIM tell us HIS views, if he is so inclined....... so now, ALL OF YOU CRITICS ought to show up now and lets see the REAL point of views of John Gee, not second or third hand, but from the man himself.Don't you think the critics would much rather show up and tell him what his views are?Regards,Pahoran Link to comment
e=mc2 Posted June 26, 2007 Author Share Posted June 26, 2007 Agreed my noble friend, but then that's the point, Gee can then tell them that what they tell him he believes would be believable if he really believed it. Of course they won't believe that he doesn't believe what they say he believes, but believe me, it would be a believably deligthful thing to experience! Link to comment
maklelan Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Agreed my noble friend, but then that's the point, Gee can then tell them that what they tell him he believes would be believable if he really believed it. Of course they won't believe that he doesn't believe what they say he believes, but believe me, it would be a believably deligthful thing to experience! I find that a little hard to believe. Link to comment
e=mc2 Posted June 26, 2007 Author Share Posted June 26, 2007 DEVILCULTIC WORSHIPPER!!!!!! SATAN SPAWN SUCKING SPAWN CULTIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE GOING TO HELL FOR CULTICALLY DISBELIEVING AND NOT ACCEPTING MY VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Apologies to the Bill Keller's of the world for blatant, if somewhat over the top (maybe) reactions..... Link to comment
charity Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 I am really looking forward to this, myself. If all you guys will just calm down. After all, he is only a fallible mortal. Or do we believe our scholars are infallible even if the Prophet isn't? I dont know what I am saying. I think I got lost in the CAPITAL LETTERS and the !!!!!!!!! Link to comment
e=mc2 Posted June 26, 2007 Author Share Posted June 26, 2007 Gee? A mere Mortal?! Bite thine tongue thou ......... thou.............. oh I can't even come up with a word for thee good lady for uttering such an outrageous blasphemy. EVERYONE knows these days that it is to the scholars that even the prophets turn to for insight, instruction, and revelation. (Isn't that how I have seen some anti-Mormons arguing, and isn't it also of a truth most glorious that when the anti's speaketh the thinkin is a done already babe! ) Link to comment
Dale Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 John Gee has recieved a beating by certain critics. If he gives a talk I would be interested in seeing him tackle his critics objections to his conclusions. Link to comment
DonBradley Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 The title of Hauglid's paper was so interesting. I couldn't wait to hear what he had to say. Does anyone know what sort of thesis he was going to be arguing?Don Link to comment
e=mc2 Posted June 26, 2007 Author Share Posted June 26, 2007 Don Bradley:Does anyone know what sort of thesis he was going to be arguing?No, but I betchta there are several anti's around here who could speculate about it, and then turn it all into pure, unadulterated FACT. That is, after all, their pure methodology, yes? Link to comment
Dale Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Some of us have been exposed to Brent Metcalfe enough to think he might be right. Brian Hauglid had some unique points and Brent Metcalfe went back and forth on for a bit in the Pundits section. I think they had barely scratched the surface of their differences. With John Gee any current criticisms of his small guide on the papyrus book should be dealt with. Link to comment
cdowis Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Don't you think the critics would much rather show up and tell him what his views are?Regards,PahoranGee can sit in the audience and they can take the speaker's podium to tell him what he thinks, methinks. Link to comment
Tarski Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 John Gee has recieved a beating by certain critics. If he gives a talk I would be interested in seeing him tackle his critics objections to his conclusions.I bet he won't really get directly at the critics objections.I hope someone records it. Link to comment
Dale Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 What's the point of an apologetics lecture that's not in tune with the critic's current objections to your work? If he merely repeats stuff the critics have answered his talk will be of no value to me. Nothing that FAIR has published to date on the papyrus issue hasn't had critics snipe at it. Some of us have run into this stuff via message boards and websites. Link to comment
Olavarria Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 I hope Gee's presentation gets online. It would be interesting to see what a Yale educated egyptologist would say on these subjets Link to comment
Chris Smith Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Some of us have been exposed to Brent Metcalfe enough to think he might be right. Brian Hauglid had some unique points and Brent Metcalfe went back and forth on for a bit in the Pundits section. I think they had barely scratched the surface of their differences. My understanding is they continued their correspondence privately and are now much closer together in their views than they were at the time. They've talked about publishing their correspondence. Dunno if it will happen, but I'd buy it if they did! Link to comment
juliann Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 My understanding is they continued their correspondence privately and are now much closer together in their views than they were at the time. They've talked about publishing their correspondence. Dunno if it will happen, but I'd buy it if they did!Did Hauglid tell you that? Call for references. Link to comment
e=mc2 Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 California Kid:My understanding is they continued their correspondence privately and are now much closer together in their views than they were at the time. They've talked about publishing their correspondence. Dunno if it will happen, but I'd buy it if they did!I'm with Juliann here. I certainly was not aware of this at all, and have some doubts. Sorry to be so skeptical. Link to comment
Chris Smith Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 No, I don't know Hauglid. I heard this from Brent. I don't know why this should be surprising. They both seem like fairly affable individuals with a good eye for evidence. Those are qualities that generally lend themselves to arrival at consensus. If they can find areas of agreement despite sharp initial differences, I think that speaks highly of both of them. In any case, I'm sure that if anybody thinks I'm misguided someone here can get in touch with Brian. Link to comment
juliann Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 In any case, I'm sure that if anybody thinks I'm misguided someone here can get in touch with Brian.I think you are on the wrong board for tattlemails. You are responsible for validating your own tales. I can say with 99.9% certainty that you are spreading false information. Link to comment
cksalmon Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I think you are on the wrong board for tattlemails. You are responsible for validating your own tales. I can say with 99.9% certainty that you are spreading false information.Hi J--What is a "tattlemail?" Can't we just wait and see if he is correct? If one can say with certainty that CK's suggestion is only 0.1% possibly true, then I can only imagine that it would be easy to refute it. I have no dog in this fight, frankly. I just wonder how you can state with certainty that CK is wrong. Time will tell, I guess. He's been wrong before. (I.e., whenever he has disagreed with me.)Best.CKS Link to comment
Chris Smith Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I have no dog in this fight, frankly.The determination of certain people to turn every tread into a "fight" is one of the reasons you don't see much of me around here anymore. Fighting is a royal waste of time.Time will tell, I guess. He's been wrong before. (I.e., whenever he has disagreed with me.) -CK Link to comment
Hawkmoon Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Hi J--What is a "tattlemail?" Can't we just wait and see if he is correct? If one can say with certainty that CK's suggestion is only 0.1% possibly true, then I can only imagine that it would be easy to refute it. I have no dog in this fight, frankly. I just wonder how you can state with certainty that CK is wrong. Time will tell, I guess. He's been wrong before. (I.e., whenever he has disagreed with me.)Best.CKSCan I just say that when you refer to CaliforniaKid as CK on first brush it seems you are referring to yourself in the third person... very disconcerting to say the least. Carry on. Link to comment
juliann Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 The determination of certain people to turn every tread into a "fight" is one of the reasons you don't see much of me around here anymore. Fighting is a royal waste of time. -CKAsking you to document a very unlikely story is a "fight". Ookkaaayyyy.....just hold to the same definition when the shoe is on the other foot. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.