Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_jon]

Stem, this may help explain something of the issue that Ritner had with Gee:

"With regard to the articles by my former student John Gee, I am constrained to note that unlike the interaction between Baer and Nibley, and the practice of all my other Egyptology students, Gee never chose to share drafts of his publications with me to elicit scholarly criticism, so that I have encountered these only recently. It must be understood that in these apologetic writings, Gee’s opinions do not necessarily reflect my own, nor the standards of Egyptological proof that I required at Yale or Chicago."The source for Dr. Ritner's quote: The "Breathing Permit of Hor" Thirty-four Years Later by Robert K. Ritner.

This seems to be talking about an article not related to this matter at all. I'm not sure it helps too much. It is curious. It seems Ritner, as describing this, takes issue with Gee not sharing drafts with him. It makes me wonder if Gee had an issue with Ritner, at least.

Stem, one can speculate about Gee's problem with Ritner.
However, Ritner makes it clear what his issues are with Gee's work.

[_Buffalo]

Well no kidding I'm at the bottom. Sadly for you chumps, all you get is us bottom feeders for now. The upper echelon aren't about to lower themselves to your levels like I do.

[_stemelbow]

Well no kidding I'm at the bottom. Sadly for you chumps, all you get is us bottom feeders for now. The upper echelon aren't about to lower themselves to your levels like I do.

Dang, I couldn't get that down my throat. I tried, believe me, I tried.

[_Kishkumen]

Upper echelon? LOL.

[_Buffalo]

Dang, I couldn't get that down my throat. I tried, believe me, I tried.

*Enlarged to show texture

[_stemelbow]

Upper echelon? LOL.

Oh come on Trevor the Kishkumen, even you can accept the notion that Bokovoy, for instance, ranks higher than myself. Perhaps you laugh at the upper echelon?

[_Doctor Scratch]

You see, stem--you actually have come to represent a very important subset of lower-tier Mopologists. Whereas we have the FARMS-types at the top of the hierarchy, with well-trained followers in their wake (e.g., Bokovoy and McClellan), and less-educated but thirsty-for-knowledge seekers below them (e.g., LifeOnaPlate), at the bottom we have folks like you and Simon Belmont, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Joseph Antley. (Antley, at least, seems to have read a few books.) For some strange reason, Mopologetics has actually resulted in a subset of bottom-feeder apologists who defend the apologists merely because they (the bottom feeders) cannot defend the Church on their own.

I'm at the bottom? :(

Not quite, Young Antley. I attribute your earlier volcanic anger and foolishness to the capriciousness of youth. Already you are showing signs of following a path similar to David Bokovoy, the narrator, and others who have opted for scholarship over polemics. So, I cheerfully predict that your ascent up the apologetic ladder will be most swift indeed.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You see, stem--you actually have come to represent a very important subset of lower-tier Mopologists. Whereas we have the FARMS-types at the top of the hierarchy, with well-trained followers in their wake (e.g., Bokovoy and McClellan), and less-educated but thirsty-for-knowledge seekers below them (e.g., LifeOnaPlate), at the bottom we have folks like you and Simon Belmont, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Joseph Antley. (Antley, at least, seems to have read a few books.) For some strange reason, Mopologetics has actually resulted in a subset of bottom-feeder apologists who defend the apologists merely because they (the bottom feeders) cannot defend the Church on their own.

Well no kidding I'm at the bottom. Sadly for you chumps, all you get is us bottom feeders for now. The upper echelon aren't about to lower themselves to your levels like I do.

??? Dr. Peterson--the "Kingpin" of Mopologetics--has been obsessively following me and responding to me for half a decade.

You need for Gee to be vindicated in this because you need Gee and his ilk to continue waging war on the critics.

Stop with the fantastic lying, Scratch. I don't need anything of the sort.

Oh, yes you do. Hence your bizarre and groundless defense of him on this thread. You are practically foaming at the mouth due to being so angry.

If Gee came off as the biggest baffoon, the most incredible liar, and the least qualified Ph.D holder in the world it would be no skin of my nose. It simply doesn't matter to me.

It does. Otherwise you wouldn't be maniacally pounding out frustration-soaked replies.

That I offered questions and concerns on this topic hardly means all my eggs are in this basket at all. I read the accounts and had questions. the questions remain unanswered by anyone involved.

Not true. Ritner himself supplied a series of answers, and your response was to effectively call him a liar.

It makes it seem the spin you put to it appear nothing more than disengenuous and deceptive. So I called you on it.

I merely agreed with Ritner's account. So I guess this means you think Ritner is "disengenuous [sic] and deceptive"?

You yourself won't wage that war because, on the one hand, you lack the chops--the education, the rhetorical skill, the insight, and so on--and, on the other hand, because you actually feel on some level that what the apologists are doing is wrong. I think that you know, deep down, that Gee screwed up royally here, and you're probably aware (thanks to Kevin and others) that Gee has been hostile (cf. his attacks on Mike Reed) and dishonest (cf. the "two inks" debacle). Even someone with a partially stillborn sense of right and wrong can see the problems here.

There is no indication from anyone involved, Ritner included, that Gee screwed up royally,

"No indication from anyone involved"? How stupid are you, stemelbow? |Ritner himself was involved. And Ritner resigned from Gee's committee! Dr. Peterson himself indicated how unusual and shocking this sort of this is. What, do you think that Gee simply forgot to paginate and collate his dissertation, and that this threw Ritner into a depressive tailspin?

The truth, stemelbow, is that you are so crippled with bitter rage that you can't even see straight. You are a ball of self-doubt and self-loathing coupled with an addict's craving for faith and Mopologetics, and since part of your faith is buttressed by these apologists, you're having a Stage-5 meltdown on this thread.

that's your deceptive spin, Scratch, much like your "spectacular" errors claim. No one here will call you on it, for some reason.

Yeah, because I'm right. The errors clearly were "spectacular" enough to merit Ritner's resignation.

But feel free to comfort yourself with the notion that I'm peddling "spin." After all, you know, it's not like I'm claiming that I saw an angel who told me to go and get some Gold Plates. It's not like I'm trying to persuade you that my brand of belief is the "only true" kind on Earth--and that God the Father told me this to boot.

So you're really in between a rock and a hard place. You'll be in a kind of spiritual freefall--a crisis of faith--if the Mopologists fail--because, hey: if the upper tier Mopologists can't emerge victorious, then what chance does a poor sap like you stand against the critics? And yet, in spite of this, you know that they are a bunch of dissemblers and smear-meisters.

You really misundestand me if you think my faith resides in apologetic arguments.

I don't think I "misundestand" you at all.

Well too bad for us.

Yeah, it is too bad. It's also in defiance of the teachings of the Church. You opt for stupidity and naïvété over education.

My goodness you know how to make things appear much different than they are. I don't know what you think you see, but it doesn't really matter. All that needs to be done, on your end is a solid effort to belittle and demean the LDS posters, it seems.

Oh, do you feel "demeaned," now? If I may be so bold: you might not be smarting if you'd dropped your hyper-obsessive reliance on the apologists and stepped back to evaluate the situation with some measure of objectivity. "Duh! Uh-duh! I don't get it!" was your mantra on this thread, despite the fact that some three or four people explained it to you in depth. "Dur-de-duh," you said in response. "Me not understand!" No kidding. Either you are just flat-out stupid, or you are so tendentious and wrapped up in a perverted reliance on the apologists that you can't see things for what they are.

So have fun wallowing in yet another bout of self-pity. Next time I hope that you opt for truth rather than stubborn insistence on the "truthiness" of the apologists.

[_stemelbow]

??? Dr. Peterson--the "Kingpin" of Mopologetics--has been obsessively following me and responding to me for half a decade.

“obsessively following”? Oh brother, Scratch, your knack at spin and deception is pretty sad. With that said, I did say “now” for a reason—Peterson has apparently left the building for the time being.

Oh, yes you do. Hence your bizarre and groundless defense of him on this thread. You are practically foaming at the mouth due to being so angry.

Defending him against your unnecessary spin, designed to attack and defame? Its ridiculous that you define what is necessary for me, particularly when I have squarely refuted your claim. You have some folks clapping and slapping ya on the back, I’m sure, though.

It does. Otherwise you wouldn't be maniacally pounding out frustration-soaked replies.

Uh…what are you talking about? I haven’t pounded out anything. And my frustration is only due to how unbelievably far you’ll go to attack people you don’t like.

Not true. Ritner himself supplied a series of answers, and your response was to effectively call him a liar.

Not so. I called you on the spin you put to it. You know as well as any that Ritner never characterized anything by Gee as “spectacular” errors. But that’s how you’ve put it as if that’s how its come from Ritner. On the other hand, I maintain there are plenty of questions regarding the incident and Ritner’s take doesn’t come off all that reasonable to me. Did he lie? No> I’ve said that many times already.

I merely agreed with Ritner's account. So I guess this means you think Ritner is "disengenuous [sic] and deceptive"?

Funny thing is, I think you actually believe that.

"No indication from anyone involved"? How stupid are you, stemelbow? |Ritner himself was involved. And Ritner resigned from Gee's committee! Dr. Peterson himself indicated how unusual and shocking this sort of this is. What, do you think that Gee simply forgot to paginate and collate his dissertation, and that this threw Ritner into a depressive tailspin?

So now Ritner was thrown into a “depressive tailspin”? I repeat there is nothing from Ritner to indicate anything resembling Gee screwed up royally. But in your mind that wonderful spin is exactly what Ritner said. You’ll seem to twist anything to attack an LDS person. I don’t know why.

The truth, stemelbow, is that you are so crippled with bitter rage that you can't even see straight. You are a ball of self-doubt and self-loathing coupled with an addict's craving for faith and Mopologetics, and since part of your faith is buttressed by these apologists, you're having a Stage-5 meltdown on this thread.

I fear you reside in fantasy land. That concern of mine is for you.

Yeah, because I'm right. The errors clearly were "spectacular" enough to merit Ritner's resignation.

Ritner didn’t even characterize it as errors, you did. You twisted Ritner’s comments regarding perceived “problems” with errors and not only that but spectacular errors.

But feel free to comfort yourself with the notion that I'm peddling "spin." After all, you know, it's not like I'm claiming that I saw an angel who told me to go and get some Gold Plates. It's not like I'm trying to persuade you that my brand of belief is the "only true" kind on Earth--and that God the Father told me this to boot.

Oh, do you feel "demeaned," now? If I may be so bold: you might not be smarting if you'd dropped your hyper-obsessive reliance on the apologists and stepped back to evaluate the situation with some measure of objectivity. "Duh! Uh-duh! I don't get it!" was your mantra on this thread, despite the fact that some three or four people explained it to you in depth. "Dur-de-duh," you said in response. "Me not understand!" No kidding. Either you are just flat-out stupid, or you are so tendentious and wrapped up in a perverted reliance on the apologists that you can't see things for what they are.

So have fun wallowing in yet another bout of self-pity. Next time I hope that you opt for truth rather than stubborn insistence on the "truthiness" of the apologists.

I think you’ve clearly just exposed your reason for your embellished and deceptive comments on all of this. You don’t like certain people, you can get away with it here, so you do it as a form of release. In the end I don’t think it’ll be any benefit for you to go about this way. It seems to only make you more angry, hostile, and unhappy. Just change.

[_Chap]

The truth, stemelbow, is that you are so crippled with bitter rage that you can't even see straight. You are a ball of self-doubt and self-loathing coupled with an addict's craving for faith and Mopologetics, and since part of your faith is buttressed by these apologists, you're having a Stage-5 meltdown on this thread.

Well, stemelbow may be angry inside, but it is a pretty soft-scoop kind of anger so far as I can say.

I think the problem is more that he is a genial kind of guy who is not used to the kind of company where people come back with "But what do you mean, precisely?" in response to his well-meaning and often pretty unstructured burbling. He finds any direct and telling criticism wrong and hurtful, and feels that the person making it must be the one at fault, because he is saying bad stuff about others, and that can't be right.

And he is not a very perceptive reader of other people's writing, so his response to anyone answering him back is usually just another round of slightly hurt and puzzled burbling, which leads to people getting angry with him, and so on ...

But I think he is basically a nice guy, despite the fact that his 'the CoJCoLDS suits me, whatever its faults' attitude leads him into some rather strange company.