Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_dartagnan]

Most of you who have kept up with the Book of Abraham debate over the past few years know how Robert Ritner has criticized his former student, John Gee. The only real response by the likes of Dan Peterson is to tell the story about how Ritner was thrown off Gee’s dissertation committee after Gee made some kind of complaint about him. Here are just a few examples from DCP on the MAD board (There are others on the ZLMB board, but I didn’t want to go looking for them).

The fact is that Professor Gee went on to earn a doctorate from Yale in Egyptology after successfully petitioning for the removal of Professor Ritner, his appointed advisor, from his doctoral committee. (Aug 2 2006, 10:45 AM)- http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=16868

Perhaps you're unaware that Professor Gee (successfully) petitioned his department at Yale to have Professor Ritner replaced as chairman of his doctoral committee. Such requests are not commonly made. And they are not commonly granted. Do you think they're best buddies? (Jun 10 2006, 04:56 PM)
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... tner&st=20

Professor Ritner was once Professor Gee's dissertation chairman at Yale University, until he was removed from that position and replaced by another professor. There is a personal history here (of which I was aware as it played out, since Professor Gee had been a student of mine before he went off to graduate school at Berkeley and then Yale. (Mar 22 2006, 08:43 PM) - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=14257

As I've said, various substantive responses are in the works. Whether the personal side of this will ever come out is unknown to me. I wish it would, but I don't think that's my decision to make. (Sep 29 2004, 01:26 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... topic=5150

Peterson provided an email from John Gee which included the following:

“I also will not comment on his removal from my dissertation committee other than to note that it was the department's decision to do so. There is much more to the story than what Professor Ritner has chosen to tell.” (Mar 23 2006, 07:47 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... ner&st=100

So Dan has been propagating this notion for YEARS. He said he wishes the details would be brought out in the open. His wish just might come true, but it is doubtful it will be a good thing for LDS apologetics. If what Gee and Peterson have been saying for years is in fact false, then just think of the credibility blow this would be.

I recently emailed Robert Ritner about this subject. To my astonishment, he seemed oblivious that these kinds of comments had been floating around in Mormon apologetics. I would have thought that someone would have emailed him about this over the years. His response to me is as follows.

Dear Mr. Graham,

Thank you for the kind and informative note. My response to Gee's relevant academic output will be contained in the book edited by Brent. Gee has been increasingly visible, but not increasingly respected, at meetings. I do not know Mr. Peterson, nor how he would have any knowledge of my involvement with Gee's dissertation (except through misrepresentations by Gee himself), but I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee's work, and I signaled many errors in his work as a reason. If Mr. Peterson continues to make false allegations, I may have to consider a slander or libel lawsuit. In any case, whoever he is, he is neither competent nor legally authorized to discuss the private matter. I have retained my dated correspondence and may put it on-line if such misrepresentations continue.

Sincerely,
Robert Ritner

Wow. So Ritner says he has proof that what Dan and Gee are saying is false? Gee maintains that he was the reason Ritner left and Ritner says this is not true. Just think if Ritner decides to present his proof!

[_CaliforniaKid]

Maybe it'd be good to forward Ritner's response to Dan so he can avoid making similar comments in the future.

[_dartagnan]

I doubt Dan would care (he's out of town now anyway). He has been consistently making these comments for about five years I think. He claims to have the inside scoop because he is buddies with Gee. It really boils down to whose word you're going to take. Dan isnt about to imply Gee was lying. For DCP to back away from his history of making these statements, would really rob the apologists of the only effective response they've managed to concoct against Ritner. To so this also concedes the point that John Gee's professor refused to be a part of his dissertation committee because he didn't think his scholarship was good enough (Gee, Dan, how "common" is that?). I doubt Dan would risk inheriting all these ramifications.

Besides, Gee is a faithful member and Ritner is a hellbound anti-Mormon. Do you really think Dan has any inclination to give Ritner the benefit of the doubt?

In any event, the damage has clearly been done already to Ritner, and I advised him to present the evidence he needs to vindicate himself of these accusations. I'm waiting for his next email.

[_Analytics]

Wow Kevin; how interesting! Thanks for following-up on this!

[_CaliforniaKid]

I suspect that if Dan read Ritner's email, he would at least refrain from commenting on this anymore even if he didn't actually retract his statements.

[_dartagnan]

Incidentally, I contacted Brent and he said he is waiting for several contributors to finish their articles for his upcoming book. Who are those contributors? Among them are Ed Ashment, Robert Ritner and David Wright!

This is going to be a power book.

Unfortunately, it will probably be next year before it is published.

[_moksha]

I read Makelen's post of the letter to Mr. Graham at MAD, so I thought I would check it out over here. Could anyone furnish an in the nutshell version of what they think transpired between Dr. Gee and Dr. Ritner?

[_dartagnan]

I suspect that Ritner had legitimate gripes with the way Gee was using his Egyptology; possibly because was forwarding apologetic arguments for Mormonism. Gee, maybe realized Ritner wasn't comfortable with his "research" and that he was probably not going to sign off on his Ph.D. So he tried to act preemptively by complaining to the school. Kinda like how a job applicant runs to corporate and claims to have been denied because of race or sexual orientation. Gee probably threw in the "religious bigotry" card (you know, I am a religious minority and he hates Mormons!) which always stigamtizes Universities. Ritner was probably approached about this but eventually decided to leave on his own and Gee interpreted this the wrong way; meaning he believed his absence meant he was removed. But maybe Ritner just couldn't stand the sight of what was going to take place; an unworthy candidate being granted a doctorate because of discrimination charges. We all know discriminaion charges are powerful whether they are true or not. How Ritner responded to Gee as a prospect scholar was probably like how some assistant football coaches reject certain scrubs as prospective start players. Maybe he threw his hands up with a "If you want him you can have him" attitude. If Gee is ever proven to be a truly bad scholar, at least Ritner can say he wasn't involved in knighting him into academia's elite circles as a Ph.D.

In any event, Gee and Dan have made it perfectly clear that Ritner was "removed" by the school, and they have further implied that this is supposed to speak volumes about Ritner's "axe to grind" against Gee. It is their rehearsed argument for years now.

Contra Gee and Peterson, Ritner claims that he was the one who bowed out. He wasn't forced out by the school and he claims to have evidence to that effect.

Given Gee's history of misleading and twisting facts, I'm inclined to believe Ritner's side.

[_dartagnan]

Jules decided to post on this by attacking me. Gee, big surprise there. Derailing are we? All I did was receive an email.

Graham edits emails.

Yes, on occasion. It isn’t usually practical to post entire emails, especially long ones. But I do not do so to hide information. Juliann knows she is just taking advantage of the fact that I am not permitted to speak over there and put her back in her place.

When he did this to me he sent false information to a couple of scholars and that doesn't make them too happy to get caught up in the middle of his games.

What in the hell is she talking about? She had a hissy fit because I said I had a correspondence with Mauss. She then appealed to the mods, who then demanded that I present my private email to them, or else be banned! Mauss turned out to be an extremely nice guy who wasn’t happy being dragged in Juliann’s apologetic agenda. He made that perfectly clear to me that he did not like the way the FAIR types act. I was banned from the forum and the topic died out so I decided not to post all the emails they sent me. Though I did send them to Beastie and I think two or three others who expressed an interest.

Juliann cannot present one single example where I “sent false information” about her, and she knows this. She only gets brave when her opponents aren’t able to put her in her place; no you won’t see here come over here either.

I'm not sure what he gets out of this but it is rather pathetic and it is going to blow up in his face eventually.

I have been doing this kind of primary research – emailing specific scholars and eliciting their opinions first hand - for years. Juliann gets upset with it because it occasionally ends up proving how scholars she uses do not agree with the method and agenda of LDS apologists, including her.

Dissertation committees aren't private, there are no gag orders, no one has been defamed and there are certainly no damages. It costs about $60,000 to get a case through trial and lawyers don't generally take squabbles on contingency. Then Ritner faces the problem that he can't sue the mailman for delivering a letter. The mailman isn't responsible for the contents. Most of all...how would he ever prove his version?

So when Gee contemplates a possible lawsuit against his critics who think him an idiot, well, that’s all fine and dandy right?

It is so ironic that the antis who are so concerned about "truth" are so eager to shut down free speech through the courts.

Shut down free speech? What the hell is she talking about? She (Dunamis) is responsible for shutting down more speeches than the Gestapo.

But what is truly delightful is that Dr. Gee has so upset the countermos by having the audacity to ask for their qualifications that they are resorting to this. Wow...talk about hitting a nerve.

Typical spin by Juliann. She will try to make even the bleakest of situations look like some cause for celebration among apologists.

This is Kevin's game. He did the email ruse on me when the topic got too hot and he needed a way to shut it down.

Astonishing that this is what she has deluded herself into thinking after all these months. The topic died because I was banned before I could post the emails. Hello??

The ONLY reason I decided not to post them later was because I was waiting for more responses, and after a couple weeks when I finally got them, the topic died out and her professor was perhaps the nicest person i have ever met online in my life, and I felt bad dragging him into this, even though it would make Juliann look like more of an idiot! I didn't want to create any awkwardness between the two of them. And this is what I get for having mercy on her, more fabrication and slander.

I think we all know Juliann doesn't have the intellectual capacity to create an environment warm enough to run off a penguin.

[_beastie]

Just read the thread Makelan started on the "other board" (what, are names of rival boards not allowed?), and someone needs to let Jerubaal know that "Logic Chopper" was one of DCP's alter egos on ZLMB.

Found an old thread on ZLMB about it, for those interested (and it does not seem to be DCP making the allegations here):

http://p079.ezboard.com/Stephen-Thompso ... =249.topic

It's like LDS apologetics EXTREME version! Usually it's a small circle quoting each other, but on the EXTREME version it's the same apologists being quoted!

I'm fairly certain the old ZLMBies on that thread are aware that Logic Chopper = DCP. Wonder who will break the news to Jerubaal, who seems to think he/she has found supporting evidence of DCP's claims.