John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_Mister Scratch]

I've not sought to turn the Ritner/Gee tiff into anything in order to support any Mormon position.

Well, *somebody* has. Somebody on the Mopologetic side of things has sought to use it as a means to smear Ritner.

But I have sought to blunt the effectiveness of this weapon in the hands of malicious gossips who desperately want to use it to malign Professor Gee, and I've warned some critics -- that's all I felt I could really do -- that there is a personal history that goes back to long before the JNES article. I've cautioned critics not to make more of Ritner's history with John Gee at Yale than they should. There are and have been issues here that would change views, if they were known, or would, at a very minimum, supply very instructive context.

Oh, really? What were they? This sounds like yet another instance where you claim to have some mysterious bit of information that will clarify everything, and yet you refuse to cough up an answer.

I was aware of this case as it transpired. I have never said all that I know -- this will drive poor Beastie mad, but there you have it -- and I don't know everything. But I know enough to understand that Dr. Ritner's departure from Dr. Gee's committee cannot -- should not, anyway -- simplistically be used to condemn Dr. Gee.

It is not be "simplistically" used to condemn Gee. Rather, it is yet another bit of evidence that Gee's work---in particular his apologetic word---should be viewed with a very, very critical eye. When one looks at the larger picture, and sees the vitriol and silliness in Gee's articles, coupled with this action of Ritner's, one begins to see just what Gee is all about. And let's keep in mind that Ritner was, if I'm not mistaken, the chair of the doctoral committee. This was a huge deal. No amount of gloss will make it go away.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ritner was, if I'm not mistaken, the chair of the doctoral committee. This was a huge deal. No amount of gloss will make it go away.

Quite so!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I quoted his exact words.

Just as I quoted you:

I was, of course, referring to your alleged summations.

Can't you even get that right?

What a great place this is for substantive conversation!

A. You said X.

B. No I didn't.

A. Yes you did.

B. No I didn't.

A. But I quoted you.

B. That's not what I'm talking about.

C. You're nasty and dishonest.

B. No I'm not.

C. Yes you are.

B. No I'm not.

C. Yes you are.

B. No I'm not.

A. You said X.

B. No I didn't.

C. You're nasty and dishonest.

B. No I'm not.

A. You said X.

B. No I didn't.

C. You're nasty and dishonest.

B. No I'm not.

D. You're a whiner.

A. You said X.

C. You're nasty and dishonest.

D. You're a whiner.

B. Zzzzzzzzz.

[_Trevor]

First, I wish that I had as many articles in peer-reviewed journals as guy sajer has under his belt. These are the basic currency of modern university tenure and rank. If they were merely 'trumped up magazine articles' I might have half a dozen already. Magazine articles don't require such meticulous research and argumentation. They aren't sent off to several readers, some of whom may have a competitive reason to block it.

Second, scholarship may just not be the be all and end all of everything, but we hope the process brings fruitful discoveries, whether they be in political economy or Medieval Arabic. I think this pissing contest is getting truly silly. To say that another scholar is not such hot stuff because he or she has not rewritten Newton's work is absurd. A good scholar is not necessarily a genius of rare historical magnitude. At the same time, scholarship of all kinds may be a real service to the human community, and ought to be respected as such.

As someone who is reentering the fray after a few months vacation, I hope this thread is not representative of what happens these days when a few scholars get together to talk, argue, or debate Mormonism. I have seem very little discussion of Mormonism, and a lot of posturing and piss-taking. Of everything I have read here, Enuma Elish's comments were the best read. I wish him luck as he pursues his work. I may be a secular humanist, but I will not reject his work simply because his Mormonism informed his scholarly interests.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I've not sought to turn the Ritner/Gee tiff into anything in order to support any Mormon position. But I have sought to blunt the effectiveness of this weapon in the hands of malicious gossips who desperately want to use it to malign Professor Gee, and I've warned some critics -- that's all I felt I could really do -- that there is a personal history that goes back to long before the JNES article.

Really? That's not how I remember that whole affair going down. I seem to recall a certain individual on the Mormon side using it to discredit Dr. Ritner (and thereby support the Mormon position), to which Kevin Graham responded in order to set the matter straight.

Then again, I'm an embarrassment to the anti-Mormon community (and a pre-pubescent hack who uses a monkey for an avatar, to boot), so what do I know?

[Guest]

Souped up magazine aticles. . . hmmm. Are you referring to my publication in American Political Science Review, or perhaps Public Administration Review, or perhaps Journal of Development Studies, or perhaps International Review of Economics and Finance, or perhaps Administration & Society, or perhaps Contemporary Economic Policy, or perhaps American Review of Public Administration, or perhaps American Behavioral Scientist, or perhaps . . . which one precisely?

Any and all of them. ("Harumph!" responds the illustrious Guy Sajer, mightily offended at an unprecedented act of lèse majesté from one of the peasantry.) You've trumpeted them as if they ranked right up there with Newton's Principia or Darwin's Origin of Species -- or, at least, with Thorstein Veblen or Peter Drucker -- but you're really just talking about some pieces in periodicals that relatively few people read back when they were published and that even fewer people know or remember now. Pebbles tossed into a big pond. The ripples stopped a long time ago.

Big deal. No genuflection required.

I just thought you might want to keep your titanic achievements in a bit of perspective next time you're hurling lightning bolts from Olympus.

They might have been fine, and they were evidently enough to get you tenure, but . . . umm, well, we're hardly talking about epochal publications.

I find it interesting that someone criticizes someone else for doing what he has never done in his entire life. You're like the perpetual minor leaguer who justifies himself by criticizing those who actually make it to the bigs.

Illustrious Guy Sajer? Meet Babe Ruth. Kneel, Babe! This is the illustrious Guy Sajer!

Actually, you started this stupid little affair with your ignorant comments about a field of which you know nothing. You can't even read al-nusuus al-asliyya, a laysa ka-dhaalika? I've never actually said anything about your stellar academic career, because I don't know enough about you or about your field to be able to judge it with any degree of significance. And, believe me, mawadi‘ mithla al-falsafa al-islamiyya min al-madhab al-aflatuuni al-jadiid are more technical and inaccessible to the uninitiated than anything that's ever likely to appear in Administration & Society, or even in The American Pigeon Breeder.

Hey Dan, I'm still waiting to see your list of peer-reviewed pubs. What of it?

Do you mean to say -- what a hilarious scream you are, O illustrious one! -- that you've already delivered your Olympian judgment upon my career without even having a list of my peer-reviewed publications? Now, really, Guy Smiley, what does that reveal about your intellectual seriousness?

And Beastie wonders why I don't think this place is a place for serious discussion . . .

Dan, I deleted what I originally wrote here. Like Trevor, I am getting tired of this pissing contest. I'm willing to call a truce, and we both can assume our superiority if we so deisre. I will endeavor to limit my criticism of you in this regard and try to move on.

Let me say again, Dan, that in truth, I do respect your intellect and your writing ability. I truly believe that you could publish if you wanted to. It is a mystery to me why you have not, but as I've said, I understand that your generation of faculty were hired under a different set of circumstances.

I think that were we to meet in person, we'd get along famously. I here your a swell guy in person, and I'm certainly less of an arrogant jerk in person than in cyber space.

Let me leave it at that, and we can look forward to much jousting ahead in a reasonably civil manner. We will probably never agree on much, but that's what makes this fun.

[_Daniel Peterson]

First, I wish that I had as many articles in peer-reviewed journals as guy sajer has under his belt. These are the basic currency of modern university tenure and rank.

Do you share the illustrious Guy Sajer's opinion that articles count more than books?

If they were merely 'trumped up magazine articles' I might have half a dozen already. Magazine articles don't require such meticulous research and argumentation. They aren't sent off to several readers, some of whom may have a competitive reason to block it.

I was having a bit of fun with His Olympian Majesty.

I think it's nice that he published a bit.

Second, scholarship may just not be the be all and end all of everything, but we hope the process brings fruitful discoveries, whether they be in political economy or Medieval Arabic. I think this pissing contest is getting truly silly.

The illustrious Guy Sajer launched it, and has persisted in it. I have never really said anything whatever about his illustrious academic career, both because I don't know (or care) much about his publication record and because I don't know much about his field. He, however, has repeatedly dismissed me as an academic failure despite the fact that he knows little about my publication record and nothing about my field. As I've pointed out, he wouldn't know a fundamental and lasting contribution to the study of Islamic philosophy, for example, if it bit him.

To say that another scholar is not such hot stuff because he or she has not rewritten Newton's work is absurd. A good scholar is not necessarily a genius of rare historical magnitude. At the same time, scholarship of all kinds may be a real service to the human community, and ought to be respected as such.

I actually respect the illustrious Guy Sajer's publications. I decided to be irreverent toward them only after many weeks of his continual sniping at my professional performance, which is, of course, absolutely none of his Illustriousness's business and upon which His Olympian Highness is in no position to pronounce judgment.

As someone who is reentering the fray after a few months vacation, I hope this thread is not representative of what happens these days when a few scholars get together to talk, argue, or debate Mormonism. I have seem very little discussion of Mormonism, and a lot of posturing and piss-taking.

That's because, notwithstanding poor Beastie's high valuation of this place, this board is not a forum, on the whole, for serious and substantive discussion.

Of everything I have read here, Enuma Elish's comments were the best read. I wish him luck as he pursues his work. I may be a secular humanist, but I will not reject his work simply because his Mormonism informed his scholarly interests.

You are much more mature and reasonable than most of the others here. I say that quite sincerely.

If you want substantial discussions of Mormonism, though, you might want to look elsewhere. You're not likely to get them here.

[_rcrocket]

Got that, s***h***?

I am so sorry. I wish you only the best. Did you find a job yet?

rcrocket

[_cksalmon]

Gee . . . is a truly nasty piece of work, full of hatred and bent on smearing

A message board post can't possibly get any richer than the one above.

the fact that Ritner walked off Gee's doctoral committee.

Is that a fact.

I think everyone has to read for themselves but he doesn't appear too kind in his review; the review gives Mister Scratch's thoughts some support.

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=296
I also just read another review where someone wrote in very simple plain language the issues he had with a book written by Hugh Nibley. I hope Mister Scratch can provide those links to show how it is possible to disagree, explain your disagreements, but be respectful.

Interestingly, in the article you've linked to, Gee makes it clear that one's professional status should have little bearing on weighing the merits of arguments.

Ferguson unquestioningly accepted the opinion of the experts. Anti-Mormons, almost all of whom have absolutely no competence in the relevant areas, usually follow the same method. Since I have a Ph.D. in Egyptology, I am an expert. All anti-Mormons should therefore unquestioningly accept my opinion. Because they regularly employ a double standard, however, I actually do not anticipate any of them unquestioningly accepting my opinion. But should they unquestioningly accept other experts' opinions? This is usually known as "the fallacy of argument ad verecundiam," which is

an appeal to authority. . . . This form of error is an egregious but effective rhetorical technique which puts an opponent in the awkward position of appearing to commit the sin of pride if he persists in his opposition.

The most crude and ugly form of an argument ad verecundiam in historical writing is an appeal to professional status.63

Ferguson was gullible. He put his trust in an opinion based on someone's professional status.

When Larson does engage in argument, he often reaches, as Ferguson did, for some professional opinion rather than for evidence and analysis and, even then, the professional opinion is sometimes not reliably presented.

I quite agree with Gee's underlying point.

Best.

CKS

[_beastie]

I was, of course, referring to your alleged summations.

Can't you even get that right?

Well, then, by all means, tell me the "correct" summations of the quoted statements.