The Cultural History Of The Gold Plates (Bushman/Givens Seminar)

[Hyrum Page]

Dependence on Hofmann forgeries has tainted more than a few studies on Mormon and American-historical topics, written by more established scholars than Mike Reed.

Well, I am eager to hear more of what happened. Everything I have gathered from what Vogel and Reed have said leads me to think that we probably need not worry that Hofmann forgeries have much of anything to do with Mike's paper, other than to provide one audience member material for a, er, poorly conceived question.

He may well have found the evidence he claimed to find. Whether that adds up to an excellent and praiseworthy paper, though, is something that I, at least, am in no real position to judge. I've had more than a few student papers (in my senior seminar class) that have also found the evidence that they claimed to find. But they were not excellent papers, because they had misframed the issues and/or contributed nothing really new, etc. I cannot pronounce a paper excellent without reading it. That's a personal quirk of mine.

We obviously have our respective reasons for writing what we have written. I was motivated by friendship and trust. You were motivated by caution.

There was no need to be adversarial with regard to spinach consumption in early modern Iraq, either. But these things happen. And their happening doesn't demonstrate conspiracy, malicious intent to harm, design and plotting, instigation of unrest, or any other such operatic nonsense.

Well, all I can say is that adversarial questioning about something I have repeatedly read, since the paper was first mentioned online,wasn't particularly groundbreaking or even interesting, at least according to apologists who did not see it (for some reason, Richard Bushman deemed it a worthwhile project, but who is he, eh?), is definitely unusual. I guess Matt Roper and John Gee found more cause for concern than those who didn't see it. I look forward to hearing from them about their concerns.

Most of what I've heard here has been about the perennially evil John Gee.

I'm sorry you feel that way about him. I just see a few of his apologetic approaches as misleading, and probably deliberately so. I have heard the same from several LDS scholars (none of whom was Don Bradley, btw).

I have a fairly difficult time imagining the affable and mild-mannered Matt Roper being as aggressive as the non-eyewitness Xander assures us he was (along with the dark and sinister "Mitchell," of course).

The extreme provocation of a non-believer claiming that apologists have been wrong about something at some point in time is just too much for some people, I guess.

But I'm not aggressively hostile toward them generally, either.

Wonderful! I am glad we could end on such a positive note. I just knew our relationship was on an upward trajectory.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Hyrum Page

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, I am eager to hear more of what happened. Everything I have gathered from what Vogel and Reed have said leads me to think that we probably need not worry that Hofmann forgeries have much of anything to do with Mike's paper, other than to provide one audience member material for a, er, poorly conceived question.

That may well be true. I don't know.

We obviously have our respective reasons for writing what we have written. I was motivated by friendship and trust. You were motivated by caution.

And by friendship and trust.

I've known John Gee and Matt Roper and Louis Midgley and the person who is the likely inspiration for "Mitchell" for many years. I like and respect them. I also know their different personalities. John Gee and Matt Roper are not clones of each other. Lou Midgley is not evil. And the notion that the gentle person I know could really be the malevolent, loud, and scheming Dr. Moriar . . . excuse me, "Mitchell" is simply ludicrous.

Well, all I can say is that adversarial questioning about something I have repeatedly read, since the paper was first mentioned online,wasn't particularly groundbreaking or even interesting, at least according to apologists who did not see it (for some reason, Richard Bushman deemed it a worthwhile project, but who is he, eh?), is definitely unusual.

Although I spoke to the Bushman/Givens seminar at one early point, I wasn't actually there at the symposium, so you'll know far better than I: Were any of the participants in the Bushman/Givens seminar barred from presenting at the symposium? Were any of the paper proposals rejected?

I guess Matt Roper and John Gee found more cause for concern than those who didn't see it.

Maybe. And particularly so if you buy into some of the high-operatic descriptions of their questions given in this thread.

I just see a few of his apologetic approaches as misleading, and probably deliberately so.

I doubt that John Gee called Mike Reed a liar, so you've just casually leveled a far worse accusation against him than anything he's even been accused of saying to or about Mike Reed at yesterday's episode of High Noon.

I can certainly understand your indignation against Dr. Gee now.

I have heard the same from several LDS scholars (none of whom was Don Bradley, btw).

If I were interested, I could probably drum up some anonymous negative comments about you, too, and then passingly allude to them on a public message board. I won't do it, though.

It was, however, surely an outrage for Dr. Gee to have asked a somewhat adversarial question following a perhaps rather controversial presentation at a symposium. Unconscionable! Unheard of! Without any precedent! Surely meriting public suggestions that he's deceptive, and justifying Xander's claims of a cowardly conspiracy designed to damage Mike Reed and create contention.

The extreme provocation of a non-believer claiming that apologists have been wrong about something at some point in time is just too much for some people, I guess.

Has anybody privately and anonymously informed you that Matt Roper . . . oh, I dunno . . . mistreats kittens? Or fails to floss both morning and evening? Now would be the time, perhaps, to reveal that -- in connection with your righteous condemnation of him based on sketchy and from my point of view highly implausible second- and third-hand accounts.

Wonderful! I am glad we could end on such a positive note. I just knew our relationship was on an upward trajectory.

Every time I've thought it was, I've eventually learned otherwise.

[why me]

He may well have.

Of course, Vogel and Metcalfe and others have already long since shown that various published materials mentioned writing on metal plates, which is hardly surprising since it's also mentioned in Josephus and certain classical sources.

How widely was it known among the masses? I don't know. Was the concept of a "Gold Bible" ridiculed in early nineteenth-century America? Absolutely. On precisely what grounds? I don't know. Given my own personal limitations, I would have to look at the sources before I opined. Has Mike Reed dealt with that aspect of the matter? I have no idea. I didn't attend his presentation, and I haven't read his paper.

Okay, I knew that I was on to something on the other board when I claimed that I knew that knowledge of metal plates was around during JS's time and this knowledge has been used by the critics for their own justifications. Unfortunately, a couple of people on the other board thought that I was out to lunch. And I made a similiar claim on that board about just how wide the knowledge went in Palmyra which I figured to be not very far.

[why me]

It was, however, surely an outrage for Dr. Gee to have asked a somewhat adversarial question following a perhaps rather controversial presentation at a symposium. Unconscionable! Unheard of! Without any precedent! Surely meriting public suggestions that he's deceptive, and justifying Xander's claims of a cowardly conspiracy designed to damage Mike Reed and create contention.

It is amazing just how foolish some critics are in bringing this up for discussion. Academic presentations are meant to be challenged or agreed with. When it is time for questions, all academic presenters need to be ready for a challenge. This is all part of the game. And certainly academics are free to disagree and challenge one another without a problem.

And this is also apart of the doctoral process when established experts or an expert in the field spend at least 3 hours challenging the dissertation of the writer and the doctoral candidate must defend his dissertation to the best of their ability.

Edited August 20, 2011 by why me

[Hyrum Page]

Okay, I knew that I was on to something on the other board when I claimed that I knew that knowledge of metal plates was around during JS's time and this knowledge has been used by the critics for their own justifications. Unfortunately, a couple of people on the other board thought that I was out to lunch. And I made a similiar claim on that board about just how wide the knowledge went in Palmyra which I figured to be not very far.

You should share your genius and enlightenment with Mike Ash, who apparently was not aware of this.

[Hyrum Page]

It is amazing just how foolish some critics are in bringing this up for discussion. Academic presentations are meant to be challenged or agreed with. When it is time for questions, all academic presenters need to be ready for a challenge. This is all part of the game. And certainly academics are free to disagree and challenge one another without a problem.

And this is also apart of the doctoral process when established experts or an expert in the field spend at least 3 hours challenging the dissertation of the writer and the doctoral candidate must defend his dissertation to the best of their ability.

Yeah, hostile and impertinent questions are what academia is all about, and you would know, right, why me?

[Hyrum Page]

John Gee and Matt Roper are not clones of each other.

Did anyone suggest that they were "clones of each other"?

Lou Midgley is not evil. And the notion that the gentle person I know could really be the malevolent, loud, and scheming Dr. Moriar . . . excuse me, "Mitchell" is simply ludicrous.

Well, we seem to be reading different posts. Your description is so much more colorful than my impressions. I'll give you one thing: it makes for exciting reading!

Were any of the participants in the Bushman/Givens seminar barred from presenting at the symposium? Were any of the paper proposals rejected?

Um, I don't know exactly why you are asking, but Mike told us that Bushman encouraged him personally to pursue this line of research. It seems to me that Bushman was not likely ignorant of the topic at the outset.

And particularly so if you buy into some of the high-operatic descriptions of their questions given in this thread.

Yes, you do seem to read them very colorfully. I don't know that it makes all of them implausible or even unlikely.

I doubt that John Gee called Mike Reed a liar, so you've just casually leveled a far worse accusation against him than anything he's even been accused of saying to or about Mike Reed at yesterday's episode of High Noon.

Well, you are not exactly an authority on what Gee said, as you have happily told us several times now.

I can certainly understand your indignation against Dr. Gee now.

No, you can't, and you don't. Liar is your word.

If I were interested, I could probably drum up some anonymous negative comments about you, too, and then passingly allude to them on a public message board. I won't do it, though.

Gee, I am glad you aren't threatening me. Nor would I accuse you of such, since we are on such good terms.

It was, however, surely an outrage for Dr. Gee to have asked a somewhat adversarial question following a perhaps rather controversial presentation at a symposium. Unconscionable! Unheard of! Without any precedent! Surely meriting public suggestions that he's deceptive, and justifying Xander's claims of a cowardly conspiracy designed to damage Mike Reed and create contention.

Well, as you have told us before, you weren't there, so you have no idea how adversarial it was. I don't know why you are suddenly writing as though you do know.

Has anybody privately and anonymously informed you that Matt Roper . . . oh, I dunno . . . mistreats kittens? Or fails to floss both morning and evening? Now would be the time, perhaps, to reveal that -- in connection with your righteous condemnation of him based on sketchy and from my point of view highly implausible second- and third-hand accounts.

Well, hey, if I relied on my own judgment, which is that he has pulled a sleight of hand with the evidence more than once, I doubt many people would find it credible. Those who know what I am talking about, and they are around to oversee these proceedings, know what I am talking about, and know *I* am not lying.

Every time I've thought it was, I've eventually learned otherwise.

And, of course, every time you were just an innocent bystander. LOL.

[why me]

Yeah, hostile and impertinent questions are what academia is all about, and you would know, right, why me?

Actually I would. I have attended many academic conferences and seminars. I am also very ideologically driven in my ideas. And since most academics are not of my theoretical persuasion, I do ask challenging questions that can come across as hostile. And I also can make a statement before the question.

[Hyrum Page]

Actually I would. I have attended many academic conferences and seminars. I am also very ideologically driven in my ideas. And since most academics are not of my theoretical persuasion, I do ask challenging questions that can come across as hostile. And I also can make a statement before the question.

Well, I wouldn't have guessed from your response. I rarely see hostile and impertinent questions, and I am a professor.

[why me]

Well, you are not exactly an authority on what Gee said, as you have happily told us several times now.

Well, hey, if I relied on my own judgment, which is that he has pulled a sleight of hand with the evidence more than once, I doubt many people would find it credible. Those who know what I am talking about, and they are around to oversee these proceedings, know what I am talking about, and know *I* am not lying.

And, of course, every time you were just an innocent bystander. LOL.

My gosh you do sound hostile in your posts. But so does kevin. But here is the difference. In an academic presentation with audience questions, there is nothing wrong with asking a hostile question. However, the tone is important. Now in your above post, the tone is definitely hostile and bitter. This is a no-no is academia. However, a good critical engaging hostile statement and question with the correct tone is okay in academia.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yeah, hostile and impertinent questions are what academia is all about, and you would know, right, why me?

Of course such questions are not "what academia is all about."

But they happen. And they don't demonstrate conspiracy, "design," intent to "damage," plots to "create contention," sponsorship by the questioner's employer, or any of the other extreme and hostile speculations that Xander has been trying to peddle here as fact.

Did anyone suggest that they were "clones of each other"?

Not in so many words. But I see condemnations of "Gee and Roper" (and Midgley and "Mitchell" and even the Maxwell Institute) as if they were.

I understand that John Gee had the temerity to ask a challenging and perhaps adversarial question. What, exactly, was the outrage committed by Matt Roper?

Well, we seem to be reading different posts. Your description is so much more colorful than my impressions. I'll give you one thing: it makes for exciting reading!

Do Xander's depictions of the loudly whispering FARMS cabal of Gee and Roper and Midgley and "Mitchell" intending, by "design," to "ambush" and "damage" Mike Reed and, thus, to "create contention," not appear on your computer screen?

This is very odd. But perhaps it explains why, while I object to his sensationalizing of the situation as a means of demonizing Gee (and Roper and Midgley and "Mitchell" and the Maxwell Institute), you seem only to object to my doing so.

Um, I don't know exactly why you are asking, but Mike told us that Bushman encouraged him personally to pursue this line of research. It seems to me that Bushman was not likely ignorant of the topic at the outset.

I'm asking because you seem to think that Richard has approved the final version of Mike Reed's paper, sharing your conviction that it's excellent, and so forth.

I always approve of the topics in my senior seminar for Middle East Studies majors. Always. They can't write on a topic that I haven't approved. But that doesn't mean that I'll be satisfied with the final product.

Be clear on this: I haven't condemned Mike Reed's paper. How could I possibly do so? I haven't read it, and I haven't heard the presentation that was based on it.

I can't really see what you're objecting to in what I've said on this thread: I came in to interfere with Xander's construction of yet another chapter in his demonology of John Gee and the Maxwell Institute, an effort that he has manifestly based on second-hand hearsay and paraphrases. That's all.

Liar is your word.

It seems a pretty good equivalent of your explicit charge that John Gee has been "misleading, and probably deliberately so."

I've not heard anybody, not even Xander, claim that he made such an accusation against Mike Reed yesterday.

Well, as you have told us before, you weren't there, so you have no idea how adversarial it was. I don't know why you are suddenly writing as though you do know.

Where have I done that?

And, of course, every time you were just an innocent bystander. LOL.

Pretty much.

I certainly have been here. I've done nothing more aggressive than to contest Xander's overwrought description of a perhaps awkward exchange in a seminar Q&A and to attempt to interfere with Xander's efforts to demonize John Gee (and Matthew Roper and Louis Midgley and the mysterious "Mitchell" and the Maxwell Institute as a whole) on the basis of that exaggerated description.

I haven't criticized Mike Reid's paper, nor attacked him personally, nor generalized about "critics," nor anything else of that sort. Yet, as you so often do, you arrive to criticize me. It's so depressingly reminiscent of your general (though admittedly not quite uniform) silence while my Malevolent Stalker and his ilk have pounded away at me on your home board for the past five years with their slanders and distortions, which you've interrupted from time to time with attacks on . . . me and my attempts to defend myself.

My gosh you do sound hostile in your posts. But so does kevin.

Alas, that's true.

I've never seen Kevin ("Xander")in any other mode. Not that I can recall, anyway. It's his on-line personality. (I hope he's not like this in real life.) It's why I won't deal with him, most of the time. Those with whom he spars are, inevitably (in my observation), "liars," "cowards," "idiots," etc. It gets really wearisome really fast.

"Hyrum Page," on the other hand, can do better than that, and often has. I'm disappointed to see this aspect of his persona resurface.

[Hyrum Page]

My gosh you do sound hostile in your posts. But so does kevin.

Yes, each side comes off as hostile to the other, right?

But here is the difference. In an academic presentation with audience questions, there is nothing wrong with asking a hostile question. However, the tone is important. Now in your above post, the tone is definitely hostile and bitter. This is a no-no is academia. However, a good critical engaging hostile statement and question with the correct tone is okay in academia.

why me, are you suffering from a reading problem? Which part of "I am a professor" did not get through to you?

Now, let me ask you another question: are you so much better acquainted with academia than Joseph Antley and Blair Hodges that you would say that their discomfort with the questions means nothing to you, although you were not there?

Finally, I said "hostile *and* impertinent," which is different from challenging.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yes, each side comes off as hostile to the other, right?

Except that it's not symmetrical.

John Gee and Matt Roper (and Lou Midgley and "Mitchell" and the Maxwell Institute) have been under attack on this thread. As, now, am I.

Yet I'm not sure that anybody on this thread has been attacking Mike Reed. Certainly it hasn't been a dominant theme here, and I haven't been doing so.

[why me]

why me, are you suffering from a reading problem? Which part of "I am a professor" did not get through to you?

Now, let me ask you another question: are you so much better acquainted with academia than Joseph Antley and Blair Hodges that you would say that their discomfort with the questions means nothing to you, although you were not there?

Finally, I said "hostile *and* impertinent," which is different from challenging.

It means nothing to me. Just as people's discomfort about my statements and questions in conferences means nothing to me. If I disagree with someone's viewpoint, I will raise my hand, make a statement and ask a well thought out challenging question when the time is right. Some people may squirm and others may shake my hand. Such is academia.

Challenging can equate with hostility for some people. Like I said, it is all in the tone.

So you are a professor? Then you should know the score. Academics can not be cream puffs.

Edited August 20, 2011 by why me

[why me]

Of course such questions are not "what academia is all about."

But they happen. And they don't demonstrate conspiracy, "design," intent to "damage," plots to "create contention," sponsorship by the questioner's employer, or any of the other extreme and hostile speculations that Xander has been trying to peddle here as fact.

But you must admit that the question and answer part of the presentation can be very interesting, especially if there are challenging questions and statements. And they can be the most rewarding part of the conference. Note that I said can be.

[Daniel Peterson]

But you must admit that the question and answer part of the presentation can be very interesting, especially if there are challenging questions and statements. And they can be the most rewarding part of the conference. Note that I said can be.

Absolutely. I've seen absolutely fierce Q&A sessions -- the joint sessions with Bernard Lewis and the late Edward Said at the Middle East Studies Association annual meetings were, including the follow-up Q&A, legendary, and standing room only -- and they are often downright fascinating.

[Hyrum Page]

So you are a professor? Then you should know the score. Academics can not be cream puffs.

Academics are generally not cream puffs, but, as I said, there is a difference between challenging questions and hostile and impertinent questions. The difference is not in the tone but in the substance and purpose of the questions. Yes, bad behavior does occur, but it is noted for being bad behavior, or "poor form." I have seen such behavior myself, and it is quite different from the productive yet challenging question. Nothing I have heard about Gee's question led me to believe it was productive. I did get the sense that it was designed specifically to cast unwarranted doubt on the substance of the paper through entering a red herring distraction into the mix.

[Jeff K.]

Absolutely. I've seen absolutely fierce Q&A sessions -- the joint sessions with Bernard Lewis and the late Edward Said at the Middle East Studies Association annual meetings were, including the follow-up Q&A, legendary, and standing room only -- and they are often downright fascinating.

I have read some of Lewis's stuff. Pretty cool that you were on stage with him. I hope to see an article from you on Foriegn Affairs too.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Daniel Peterson]

I have read some of Lewis's stuff. Pretty cool that you were on stage with him.

I've met him, but I've never been on stage with him.

I have, however, been on stage with Tariq Ramadan and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, controversial figures both.

[why me]

Nothing I have heard about Gee's question led me to believe it was productive. I did get the sense that it was designed specifically to cast unwarranted doubt on the substance of the paper through entering a red herring distraction into the mix.

Maybe so. But so what? In the scheme of things what does it matter? If Gee lost it a little..so what? It happens. Like I said on the other board, usually it is good to write down aspects of the statement and the question before one stands to give both. And if one doesn't, it can be a problem. But we are only human. And we have good days and bad days. And if I understood daniel, he had to leave early to go to a dinner party with his wife. Who knows what was going on behind the scenes. But here is the thing: we have no idea what occured because we were not there. And that was daniel's point with kevin as kevin attempted to score a touchdown at the expense of Gee.

[Hyrum Page]

Not in so many words. But I see condemnations of "Gee and Roper" (and Midgley and "Mitchell" and even the Maxwell Institute) as if they were.

Any acts of eisigesis you engage in are not my problem to deal with.

I understand that John Gee had the temerity to ask a challenging and perhaps adversarial question.

Nothing I have heard about the question suggests it was challenging so much as daft or misleading.

Do Xander's depictions of the loudly whispering FARMS cabal of Gee and Roper and Midgley and "Mitchell" intending, by "design," to "ambush" and "damage" Mike Reed and, thus, to "create contention," not appear on your computer screen?

I have Xander goggles that force me to interpret him down a few notches.

This is very odd. But perhaps it explains why, while I object to his sensationalizing of the situation as a means of demonizing Gee (and Roper and Midgley and "Mitchell" and the Maxwell Institute), you seem only to object to my doing so.

I can only address your engagement with me. I don't have the energy to keep up with the epic conflict between you and Xander, which promises to go longer than the fabled Trojan War.

I'm asking because you seem to think that Richard has approved the final version of Mike Reed's paper, sharing your conviction that it's excellent, and so forth.

I always approve of the topics in my senior seminar for Middle East Studies majors. Always. They can't write on a topic that I haven't approved. But that doesn't mean that I'll be satisfied with the final product.

Then you obviously have misread me. I said that Dr. Bushman assigned the topic to Mike. I now add that he did so based on preliminary work that Bushman thought had merit and promise. And I should think that would count at least for a little given the fact that Bushman is widely recognized as Mormonism's top historian.

I can't really see what you're objecting to in what I've said on this thread: I came in to interfere with Xander's construction of yet another chapter in his demonology of John Gee and the Maxwell Institute, an effort that he has manifestly based on second-hand hearsay and paraphrases. That's all.

Wonderful.

It seems a pretty good equivalent of your explicit charge that John Gee has been "misleading, and probably deliberately so."

Hmmm... I thought I had said perhaps, but you are right that I said probably. I retract probably. It is a little strong. I have to give more weight to the prospect that he is so biased that he is somehow blind to what he is doing. But, I think he is doing it, and from what I can tell, people have been aware of this since at least the mid 90s, when I was still at BYU.

I'll finish later.

[Hestia]

Some posters cannot refrain from making assumptions about someone's motivation or actions. Stop the personal insults and stick to the facts of the presentation, not trying to guess what some people were doing while whispering or accusing someone of lying when you disagree with their ideas.

[Hyrum Page]

On second thought, I won't waste my time continuing, now that moderator intervention is engaged. I will happily discuss this with anyone elsewhere.

I will add one final thought: if why me can allow for Gee to question as he likes, then any criticism of the question should be equally allowable.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Hyrum Page

[Daniel Peterson]

Any acts of eisigesis you engage in are not my problem to deal with.

If I commit any acts of eisegesis, I'll deal with them.

Nothing I have heard about the question suggests it was challenging so much as daft or misleading.

Even if, for purposes of the argument, I grant that it was daft and/or misleading, that doesn't implicate the Maxwell Institute, doesn't make Roper or Midgley or "Mitchell" culpable, and doesn't demonstrate a "design" to "create contention" or "damage" Mike Reed.

These are all allegations leveled by Xander on this thread, and they are without supporting evidence.

I've been pointing this out. Yet you criticize me, not Xander. Why?

I have Xander goggles that force me to interpret him down a few notches.

And they apparently cause you to interpret me up a few notches. ("Collateral damage"?) You've come on as if I've been attacking Mike Reed, yet I haven't.

I can't really see what your grievance against me is.

I can only address your engagement with me.

Then please explain precisely what it is that you disagree with in what I've said.

Do you object to my failure to publicly condemn my friend John Gee (and my friends Matt Roper and Lou Midgley, as well as the mysterious and sinister "Mitchell" and, for that matter, the Maxwell Institute) on the basis of second-hand accounts of what John Gee and Matt Roper might have asked during a Q&A session yesterday at a conference that neither you nor I attended? Are you disappointed that I haven't praised the "excellent" presentation that Mike Reed gave at that conference yesterday that you and I missed, based on a paper that I, at least, haven't read?

What is it, exactly, that I've done wrong on this thread, such that you've felt obliged to swoop in and attack me here? Your appearances on this board are, I think, relatively rare. Some terrible thing here on this thread -- and you seem to be saying that it's something that I've done -- has aroused your scorn. What is it?

I don't have the energy to keep up with the epic conflict between you and Xander, which promises to go longer than the fabled Trojan War.

Not likely. I really don't want to interact with Xander. I've said what I wanted to say about his claims here. I think I've made my point.

Then you obviously have misread me. I said that Dr. Bushman assigned the topic to Mike. I now add that he did so based on preliminary work that Bushman thought had merit and promise. And I should think that would count at least for a little given the fact that Bushman is widely recognized as Mormonism's top historian.

None of that goes very far toward demonstrating that the final paper is "excellent" or deserves anybody's praise, sight unseen. My wildly objectionable notion, perhaps unique to me, is that, before a paper is publicly pronounced "excellent," the pronouncer ought to have read it -- or, at a very basic minimum, to have encountered a summary of it. I've done neither. Call that "caution," if you will. It seems to me utterly minimal common sense. It also seems to me that there is no reasonable objection to it.

[why me]

I will add one final thought: if why me can allow for Gee to question as he likes, then any criticism of the question should be equally allowable.

A question is just a question. Nothing more. I would give the guy a break if he asked a question that was hostile and bitter. It is meaningless to pounce on someone for asking a question regardless how that question was asked. It is a nonevent for me.