Had you read Gee’s other works on the matter (e.g., A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, etc.) then you’d realize that Gee does, in fact, understand the various arguments presented by different critics.
I have read them, and I am actually quite aware that Gee understands the basic outlines of the critics' position. I was using irony to turn his own accusation against him, and my statement was not meant to be taken literally.
Actually, I think that if Gee understands our position and chooses to misrepresent it then that's actually more problematic than if he simply misunderstood it, don't you?
But hey, you "just can’t keep [yourself] from feeling scandalized" every time that Gee points that the majority of critics (or any?) who publish works on the matter are not diplomates in Egyptology or otherwise qualified authorities in the field, and so it’s no surprise that you resort to the 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' line of argumentation and attempt to make Gee look uninformed. But your argument lacks substance and cogency; downright impotent.
What he said, at least according to LOAP's notes, was that they are uneducated and not relatively bright. That's quite different from saying that they aren't trained in Egyptology.
Not that Egyptology makes much difference anyway when one is evaluating the eyewitness evidence about how much papyrus Joseph Smith originally had in his possession. I am a trained historian, which surely helps at least as much if not more in evaluating such questions.