LoaP Invites Me to Lunch

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is a simple question for DCP which, I believe, will help clear the air concerning "Ritnergate":

---Why did Dr. Gee initiate a formal complaint against Dr. Ritner? I.e., why did Gee seek to have Ritner removed from the committee?

[_dartagnan]

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

Then how did Ritner know of his aspirations if they were just his hopes? What is the time gap between Gee's dissertation at Yale and his subsequent employment at BYU? Ritner gave me the impression that he was being pushed to sign off on mediocre work because Gee had a job awaiting him.

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?

I didn't say he was substandard student. Ritner already said Gee made good grades. But when crunch time came, he wasn't going to be pushed to sign off on his doctorate when he did not fulfill the work to his standards. Every professor has his own standards.

I take it that you were there?

No, but then, I'm not the one going all over the internet telling the public audience about this.

ROTFL. If Gee publishes with FARMS, it's just a Mopologetic publication and doesn't count.

When did I say that? I'd love to see Gee's response, instead of just hearing about how it "exists," therefore it must count as a refutation. I don't care where it is published, but it seems that if Gee were interested in the appropriate audience, he would have published it where he publishes most of his anti-anti-Mormon material.

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.

Wait, aren't you going to tell us the publication of Gee's refutation? You brought it up years ago and you and Gee both refuse to provide the reference? Do you really think it is enough to just say a response exists?

Also, you completely forfeited your golden opportunity to explain to us you precise reason for bringing up the Ritner-Gee fiasco at Yale. You admit it is in response to Ritner's arguments, but you haven't explained why you feel this private incident should matter to anyone else since they aren't in any way related to the arguments. Of course, we all know your reason. It is precisely the reason I stated above. Can you give us another alternative?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Here is a simple question for DCP which, I believe, will help clear the air concerning "Ritnergate":

Ritnergate.

Not very original, but nicely inflated.

Why did Dr. Gee initiate a formal complaint against Dr. Ritner?

I'm not sure it was a "formal complaint." I suppose that would depend upon how you define it.

Anyway, I'll let Professor Gee go public with that, if and when he ever chooses to do so. (I have no expectation that he will.)

I.e., why did Gee seek to have Ritner removed from the committee?

As I now understand the situation, Professor Gee didn't seek to have Professor Ritner removed. That occurred at the initative of the department itself, immediately following Professor Gee's complaint.

[_dartagnan]

I'm not sure it was a "formal complaint." I suppose that would depend upon how you define it.

And this, coming from someone who claims to be in the know?

Anyway, I'll let Professor Gee go public with that, if and when he ever chooses to do so. (I have no expectation that he will.)

Of course he won't, and you know he won't. Ritner has already made it perfectly clear to the two of you that if you mention it again he will produce the emails between himself and the rest of the department, that will make the two of you look like idiots for every mentioning it.

As I now understand the situation, Professor Gee didn't seek to have Professor Ritner removed.

After all these years you're still learning different twists to the plot. Again, this coming from someone who knew what he was talking about from the start?

That occurred at the initative of the department itself, immediately following Professor Gee's complaint.

And what exactly did Gee complain about?

Here is where you go silent and leave it all to the imagination of the persecution prone minds of other LDS. Of course they're going to think Ritner was being a nasty anti-Mormon or something to that effect. You set it up for them to believe this, and you give just enough information from one aspect of the situation, while leaving out just enough information from another, to steer them to that conclusion.

But according to Ritner - and he said he can prove this - he removed himself from the problem. The department did not remove Ritner. This is where you are telling falsehoods. He essentially said, if you want to sign off on his doctorate, leave me out of it. Gee was always getting the grades, but it became clear his passion was hokey Mormon apologetics.

[_collegeterrace]

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.

Huh, that's great.
Hey, just curious, does he bear his testimony of the Book of Abraham at these meetings? That really adds to his credibility ya know :)

(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.)

Oh that sounds fantastic.
Has he presented anything on the Book of Abraham to the JSSEA or the Coptic studies group at the UofU?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Have a great evening, Kevin.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Huh, that's great.

Hey, just curious, does he bear his testimony of the Book of Abraham at these meetings? That really adds to his credibility ya know :)

Has he presented anything on the Book of Abraham to the JSSEA or the Coptic studies group at the UofU?

Here's a paper that he delivered at the fifty-eighth annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, in Toledo, Ohio, on 20 April 2006, slightly modified for a general, non-Egyptologist audience:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=670

Perhaps you were absent from that meeting.

[_dartagnan]

As you already know, of course, he's the editor of the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.

Please tell me this isn't the official website for Gee's scholarly journal.

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/1456/

It hasn't been updated in two years and it looks like some 14 year old made it with coffeecup software.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Have a great evening, Kevin.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

As you already know, of course, he's the editor of the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.

Please tell me this isn't the official website for Gee's scholarly journal.

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/1456/

It hasn't been updated in two years and it looks like some 14 year old made it with coffeecup software.

Nice reading comprehension. ;)

The site has a link to the real updated website.

"The Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities has a new website: thessea.org. Please bookmark your browsers. "

It's under that animated gif that draws attention.