LoaP Invites Me to Lunch

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan, you made these comments knowing perfectly well that your audience would naturally infer from them that Ritner was reprimanded and removed because Gee complained - if true, it would immediately add credence to the notion that Ritner had an ax to grind.

It was, in fact, my understanding that Ritner was removed because Gee complained. It turns out that Gee complained, and Ritner was removed.

Still, though, no mention of Ritner's "bias toward Gee."

Once you establish this imaginary scenario, struggling Mormons would be glad think anything Ritner subsequently wrote about Mormonism will have been an act of vengence. This is standard apologetic 101. Discredit your opponent implicitly, if you can't do so explicitly.

I simply told the truth, as I understood it.

Your speculations about how struggling Mormons react to truth are interesting, but require data. (And, incidentally, as the saying goes, data is not the plural form of anecdote.) Your speculations about an intent to discredit an opponent are without basis in reality. I wrote to defend John Gee, a friend, colleague, and former student, against false claims.

You make it seem like the issues between Ritner and Gee were already laid out on the table, when in fact, they only became a public curiosity because of your repeated comments on the forums.

That's flatly false.

You said so yourself that you wished the details would come out.

I wish they would. False allegations have been circulating for years against Dr. Gee. The truth, at least as I understand it, would correct those allegations big time.

You won't tell us what those details are, because it is easier to play with Mormon minds and give them a reason to think Ritner is a bad guy and the Mormon the victim.

I won't tell you what those details are because I don't believe that it's my place to do so. (I know lots of things that I don't tell, as many people -- some of them even on this very board -- could easily confirm.)

But I wouldn't be at all unhappy if those details were to come out.

Your nonsense about my supposed desire "to play with Mormon minds," etc., is without truth or merit. But it represents one of the manifold reasons why I no longer choose to interact with you. I make a temporary exception for this matter, but don't intend to carry on with it for long.

And yes you are right that you never explicitly said much at all, and I suppose this was by design all along, knowing perfectly well that Ritner would have just cause for a lawsuit.

He wouldn't have just cause to sue me, but, it's true, I don't like being sued. Been there, done that.

When one party to a conversation, or one person even peripherally involved in a discussion, threatens a lawsuit, it does tend to dampen things a bit.

But don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending you were not trying to plant a seed in the minds of everyone who was reading Ritner's arguments.

I'm sorry that you regard the truth as an insult to your intelligence.

Why else would you bring this up everytime Ritner was mentioned?

I don't bring it up at every mention of Ritner. But I do bring it up when Ritner's harsh (and, in my opinion, somewhat unprofessional) attacks on Gee are mentioned. And I'm especially concerned to do so when (as they seem to me) false stories about the relationship between Ritner and Gee at Yale are told, and swallowed.

[_moksha]

I don't bring it up at every mention of Ritner. But I do bring it up when Ritner's harsh (and, in my opinion, somewhat unprofessional) attacks on Gee are mentioned. And I'm especially concerned to do so when (as they seem to me) false stories about the relationship between Ritner and Gee at Yale are told, and swallowed.

Does any of this bickering hurt either Ritner or Gee in their relationship with their archeological colleagues or profession?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Does any of this bickering hurt either Ritner or Gee in their relationship with their archeological colleagues or profession?

John Gee's Egyptological career seems to be flourishing.

He's very active, and extremely productive.

[_dartagnan]

It was, in fact, my understanding that Ritner was removed because Gee complained. It turns out that Gee complained, and Ritner was removed.

Your understanding is based on what Gee was crying about to you. Isn't it also true that Gee was already expecting a position teaching at BYU before he even got his Phd? Ritner wasn't going to rush him through the process on lackluster scholarship, but that doesn't mean others were not willing to pass people on lower standard's than Ritner's.

I simply told the truth, as I understood it.

Oh, I never doubted this. I don't think you're an intentional liar.

Your speculations about how struggling Mormons react to truth are interesting, but require data. (And, incidentally, as the saying goes, data is not the plural form of anecdote.) Your speculations about an intent to discredit an opponent are without basis in reality.

Then you are deluded by your own method. You're the same guy who edits the FROB while simultaneously insisting it doesn't attack the authors of the books being reviewed.

I wrote to defend John Gee, a friend, colleague, and former student, against false claims

Not according to the context of these remarks. Again, the only thing under attack were Gee's arguments. Ritner refuted him and you pull this crap out of left field to throw everyone off. No longer are we dealing with Ritner's arguments because you just gave everyone a convenient reason to think he is just an anti-Mormon with an ax to grind. Standard fare in LDS apologetics. Concentrate on whatever you can about the critic. Find out if he goes to an Evangelical Church, and research to see if that church ever had a sermon on Mormonism. Then you can claim the guy is anti-Mormon.

That's flatly false.

Oh really? Then please, do tell, where has this issue arisen elsewhere? You are the person who made it public knowledge that there was some kind of academic friction between these two. And while you were not there, you take Gee's claims and construct a convenient story line, using bits of technically correct data, to paint an entirely misleading conclusion. Again, standard fare in LDS apologetics.

I wish they would. False allegations have been circulating for years against Dr. Gee. The truth, at least as I understand it, would correct those allegations big time.

Again, you seem to be missing the point that you are the one who raised this issue. It wasn't as if someone came into the forum and said Ritner refused to teach Gee because he was stupid. In most cases, all one needed to do is link an article Ritner had written, and there you were with the same second-hand information, casting doubt on Ritner's objectivity and integrity.

I don't bring it up at every mention of Ritner. But I do bring it up when Ritner's harsh (and, in my opinion, somewhat unprofessional) attacks on Gee are mentioned.

Well if you can finally admit this, then explain your reasons for doing it. When Ritner criticizes Gee for lackluster scholarship - something hardly uncommon in academic journals -why do you feel it is necessary to tell everyone that Ritner was reprimanded at the behest of Gee?

What purpose does it serve if not the one I mentioned above?

And I'm especially concerned to do so when (as they seem to me) false stories about the relationship between Ritner and Gee at Yale are told, and swallowed.

You weren't even there for Pete's sake. You were in Utah reading Gee's complaints via email or hearing them over the phone. Ritner was in direct correspondence with those involved, and he said he would release the damning email evidence if you or Gee denied it. And if folks at Yale are saying things about Gee, well at least they were there when Gee "earned" his doctorate. They are in a better position to know the truth than we are, including yourself.

[_dartagnan]

John Gee's Egyptological career seems to be flourishing.

He's very active, and extremely productive.

According to Ritner, who is one of the foremost authorities in the field, Gee is making notable efforts to increase his visibility, but said it has done little to increase his respectability.

Whether this is true, I don't know. I do know that when asked, Gee ignores requests for references to his so-called "published" responses to Ritner. Dan keeps telling us they exist, but nobody wants to tell us where. Wasn't one of them in a German or French journal? Why the hell would he do that when he frequently writes for the proper venue, FARMS?

[_Mister Scratch]

DCP's treatment, which was elsewhere characterized as a "six-year-long whisper campaign," is pretty much par for the course. This technique of eye-brow-wagging insinuation is exactly what he has been doing to Mike Quinn over the course of several years. Whenever the question of Quinn's scholarship came up, DCP would swoop in to remind everyone that Quinn's "homosexuality was known to his Stake President." Of course, this has zero to do with Quinn's scholarship, but it is important to cement into the minds of TBMs that Quinn was punished by the Church for "sexual sins" rather than scholarship.

And then, when challenged on all of this, DCP went on to state that Quinn had been guilty of a "sad incident" with a member of his ward! Gee, what are we supposed to make of that?!? When I asked him to elaborate on the "sad incident" he demurred, of course. Just like he is now doing with "Ritnergate." The reason he won't spill the beans on Ritner is because it would result in a staggering blow---perhaps even a coup de grace---against Book of Abraham apologetics.

[_collegeterrace]

Does any of this bickering hurt either Ritner or Gee in their relationship with their archeological colleagues or profession?

John Gee's Egyptological career seems to be flourishing.

He's very active, and extremely productive.

Reaaahhhiillly? Where? Outside of BYU in the real world?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

DCP's treatment, which was elsewhere characterized as a "six-year-long whisper campaign," is pretty much par for the course. This technique of eye-brow-wagging insinuation is exactly what he has been doing to Mike Quinn over the course of several years. Whenever the question of Quinn's scholarship came up, DCP would swoop in to remind everyone that Quinn's "homosexuality was known to his Stake President." Of course, this has zero to do with Quinn's scholarship, but it is important to cement into the minds of TBMs that Quinn was punished by the Church for "sexual sins" rather than scholarship.

And then, when challenged on all of this, DCP went on to state that Quinn had been guilty of a "sad incident" with a member of his ward! Gee, what are we supposed to make of that?!? When I asked him to elaborate on the "sad incident" he demurred, of course. Just like he is now doing with "Ritnergate." The reason he won't spill the beans on Ritner is because it would result in a staggering blow---perhaps even a coup de grace---against Book of Abraham apologetics.

So, when will we be having lunch?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your understanding is based on what Gee was crying about to you.

"Crying about"?

No, my understanding is based upon what my former student told me, and what others told me, while he was at Yale, and what I've been told by sources I trust since then.

Isn't it also true that Gee was already expecting a position teaching at BYU before he even got his Phd?

I think he hoped for one. But there was certainly no guarantee, and the prospects weren't especially good.

Ritner wasn't going to rush him through the process on lackluster scholarship, but that doesn't mean others were not willing to pass people on lower standard's than Ritner's.

So you're choosing to go with the notion that Yale University granted a doctorate to a substandard student over the heroic and ultimately futile protests of Professor Ritner?

That's your prerogative, of course.

Then you are deluded by your own method.

Nobody can see the truth accurately, about himself or anything else. Unless he agrees with you.

Standard fare in LDS apologetics. Concentrate on whatever you can about the critic. Find out if he goes to an Evangelical Church, and research to see if that church ever had a sermon on Mormonism. Then you can claim the guy is anti-Mormon.

LOL. Unlike you, we deal in straw men and caricatures.

And while you were not there, you take Gee's claims and construct a convenient story line, using bits of technically correct data, to paint an entirely misleading conclusion. . . . You weren't even there for Pete's sake.

I take it that you were there?

In the same department, or in another?

Again, standard fare in LDS apologetics.

Fortunately, unlike all of us, you don't deal in generalizations.

at least they were there when Gee "earned" his doctorate.

I love the touch of putting earned within quotation marks.

Gee received a doctorate in Egyptology from Yale University. Putting earned within quotation marks isn't going to be quite enough to completely devalue that accomplishment.

Wasn't one of them in a German or French journal? Why the hell would he do that when he frequently writes for the proper venue, FARMS?

ROTFL. If Gee publishes with FARMS, it's just a Mopologetic publication and doesn't count. If he publishes in a European Egyptological journal, it doesn't count because he should have published with FARMS.

I've simply called attention to the fact that there are two sides to this story. It's too bad that that makes you apoplectic.

We're done. Goodbye.

DCP's treatment, which was elsewhere characterized as a "six-year-long whisper campaign," is pretty much par for the course. This technique of eye-brow-wagging insinuation is exactly what he has been doing to Mike Quinn over the course of several years.

Quite true.

My campaign against Quinn has been essentially identical to my campaign against Ritner, as well as to my campaigns against Brad Pitt, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Al Gore, Sarah Palin, Steve Martin, Michael Phelps, and Wall-E. I use pretty much the same template for all of my smear campaigns.

The reason he won't spill the beans on Ritner is because it would result in a staggering blow---perhaps even a coup de grace---against Book of Abraham apologetics.

Does that even make sense?

John Gee's Egyptological career seems to be flourishing.

He's very active, and extremely productive.

Reaaahhhiillly? Where? Outside of BYU in the real world?

Yup. Just leaf through the programs of some of the international Egyptological meetings that you've been attending recently, or browse in some of the Egyptological journals to which you subscribe. You'll find his name turning up. (As you already know, of course, he's the editor of the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities. I'm not sure whether you're aware that he's on the board of directors for the Aziz S. Atiya Fund for Coptic Studies.)

[_Mister Scratch]

DCP's treatment, which was elsewhere characterized as a "six-year-long whisper campaign," is pretty much par for the course. This technique of eye-brow-wagging insinuation is exactly what he has been doing to Mike Quinn over the course of several years. Whenever the question of Quinn's scholarship came up, DCP would swoop in to remind everyone that Quinn's "homosexuality was known to his Stake President." Of course, this has zero to do with Quinn's scholarship, but it is important to cement into the minds of TBMs that Quinn was punished by the Church for "sexual sins" rather than scholarship.

And then, when challenged on all of this, DCP went on to state that Quinn had been guilty of a "sad incident" with a member of his ward! Gee, what are we supposed to make of that?!? When I asked him to elaborate on the "sad incident" he demurred, of course. Just like he is now doing with "Ritnergate." The reason he won't spill the beans on Ritner is because it would result in a staggering blow---perhaps even a coup de grace---against Book of Abraham apologetics.

So, when will we be having lunch?

Not any time soon, LoaP.