Robert Ritner's Decimation of Mormon Egyptology

[_Bob Loblaw]

No they are not. Your examples don't even pass the laugh test. It is Ritner's opinion that Rhodes does not know Demotic because of errors he makes. Then based on nothing more than his word, he then leaps to the magical conclusion that when Rhodes gets something right - ah well, he was copying me (I mean "borrowing because he's so sleazy he can't even bring himself to clearly and definitively make the charge of copying or plagiarism). Now, if this kind of tit-for-tat is your idea of how someone should do scholarly work (or retaliate against people), then you are right - I am very glad I don't work in your field or in any field associated with people like you.

Here's a thought. Why don't you summarize what you think Ritner's argument is and what the evidence is for it? It would help me if I thought you grasped what was being discussed.

[_Fence Sitter]

[ I am very glad I don't work in your field or in any field associated with people like you.

And now come the ad hominen attacks.

What in the world does working in the same field have to do with this discussion? It just gets more bizarre.

[_Chap]

Tobin's dialectical style is so weird that one only assume that he is mildly nuts.

Either that or he is a consummate troll-meister. But I can't believe anyone could summon up such energy and persistence if they didn't really believe that what they were posting made sense. And if he does, he is definitely not a mentally normal guy.

[_Tobin]

Here's a thought. Why don't you summarize what you think Ritner's argument is and what the evidence is for it? It would help me if I thought you grasped what was being discussed.

He isn't making an argument. I believe he's using his citations (which I think is completely inappropriate) to retaliate against Rhodes and Muhlestein for a perceived (or real) slight of where Muhlestein seemed to accuse Ritner of plagiarism. I strongly disagree with how everyone here is behaving and feel nobody looks good as a result (even if one-side or the other is right).

[_Bob Loblaw]

No they are not. Your examples don't even pass the laugh test. It is Ritner's opinion that Rhodes does not know Demotic because of errors he makes. Then based on nothing more than his word, he then leaps to the magical conclusion that when Rhodes gets something right - ah well, he was copying me (I mean "borrowing" because he's so sleazy he can't even bring himself to clearly and definitively make the charge of copying or plagiarism). Now, if this kind of tit-for-tat is your idea of how someone should do scholarly work (or retaliate against people), then you are right - I am very glad I don't work in your field or in any field associated with people like you.

Wow, this is just so strange. How are you getting that from Ritner's book?

Let's summarize, shall we?

1. Hugh Nibley made a gibberish transliteration/translation of the papyri in 1975. (And no, this isn't an insult, because Nibley was trying to show it was gibberish.)
2. Ritner made a transliteration/translation of the papyri, which was published in 2002 in Dialogue.
3. Later in 2002 Michael Rhodes republished Nibley's work, only the transliteration/translation had been reworked by Rhodes to make it not appear to be gibberish.
4. Rhodes makes critical errors in translating simple hieroglyphics, showing his lack of expertise.
5. Despite his limited grasp of hieroglyphics, Rhodes awkwardly inserts transliterations identical to Ritner's work (in the same places) into Nibley's prior work. These insertions incompletely rehabilitate the text, showing again that Rhodes does not have expertise in Demotic, either.
6. Ritner calls these insertions plagiarism and borrowing.

At this point, I don't expect you to understand or care about the evidence, but other people might be reading and want to understand.

[_Bob Loblaw]

He isn't making an argument. I believe he's using his citations (which I think is completely inappropriate) to retaliate against Rhodes and Muhlestein for a perceived (or real) slight of where Muhlestein seemed to accuse Ritner of plagiarism. I strongly disagree with how everyone here is behaving and feel nobody looks good as a result (even if one-side or the other is right).

Ah, so the real issue is this: you really don't care what the evidence is. You just think Ritner is motivated by a need for revenge.

That makes sense. I'm not in the business of reading people's minds, so I'll stick to the evidence, which is pretty clear.

[_Fence Sitter]

Tobin's dialectical style is so weird that one only assume that he is mildly nuts.

Either that or he is a consummate troll-meister. But I can't believe anyone could summon up such energy and persistence if they didn't really believe that what they were posting made sense. And if he does, he is definitely not a mentally normal guy.

The only upside to his post that I see is that, in some cases, those dealing with him are forced to break things down to a very basic level. For example the summary that Bob gives above of Rhodes plagiarism clearly illustrates to everyone, not named Tobin, why Ritner makes that charge, so while Tobin may remain unconvinced (or more likely just seeking more ways to troll) others can see the issue without reading Ritner's book.

One of the side affects of people like Tobin, is that they force others familiar with the discussions to repeat clearly the evidence. For the lurkers it is very helpful.

[_Arrakis]

The only upside to his post that I see is that, in some cases, those dealing with him are forced to break things down to a very basic level. For example the summary that Bob gives above of Rhodes plagiarism clearly illustrates to everyone, not named Tobin, why Ritner makes that charge, so while Tobin may remain unconvinced (or more likely just seeking more ways to troll) others can see the issue without reading Ritner's book.

One of the side affects of people like Tobin, is that they force others familiar with the discussions to repeat clearly the evidence. For the lurkers it is very helpful.

...very true. It helps folks like me understand posts that contain complicated information.

[_Themis]

Weird, it would be like continuing to assert thickness is relevant to the scroll length determined by the Hoffmann formula after being shown it is not.

Horse to water, I suppose ...

You're right. This is his MO. Once you understand the Hoffman formula, it's really not that difficult. I guess some people just really want to not understand it.

This has been my impression of Tobin as well. He does not understand the issues very well, and while he seems intelligent enough to, he seems to lack interest in doing so.

[_Tobin]

Wow, this is just so strange. How are you getting that from Ritner's book?

Let's summarize, shall we?

1. Hugh Nibley made a gibberish transliteration/translation of the papyri in 1975. (And no, this isn't an insult, because Nibley was trying to show it was gibberish.)
2. Ritner made a transliteration/translation of the papyri, which was published in 2002 in Dialogue.
3. Later in 2002 Michael Rhodes republished Nibley's work, only the transliteration/translation had been reworked by Rhodes to make it not appear to be gibberish.
4. Rhodes makes critical errors in translating simple hieroglyphics, showing his lack of expertise.
5. Despite his limited grasp of hieroglyphics, Rhodes awkwardly inserts transliterations identical to Ritner's work (in the same places) into Nibley's prior work. These insertions incompletely rehabilitate the text, showing again that Rhodes does not have expertise in Demotic, either.
6. Ritner calls these insertions plagiarism and borrowing.

At this point, I don't expect you to understand or care about the evidence, but other people might be reading and want to understand.

Thank you for that and Ritner might be right. I'd quibble with your point 6 in that Ritner does not come out and clearly make the charge it was plagiarism. I view that as an important distinction and the use of the word borrowing seems like he really doesn't think much of his case here. Borrowing makes is sound like Rhodes behavior was almost acceptable or condoned by Ritner (as if Rhodes were borrowing a cup of sugar from Ritner).