FAIR Journal - Message from Gordy

[_dartagnan]

Kevin obviously doesn't know that one professor does not approve a ph.d. Committees do. Even the institution which gave me a master's degree (and it wasn't nearly as top notch as Yale) really put their graduate students through their paces to get degrees. I am surprised Kevin thinks that one professor can grant a ph.d.

Stop being an idiot and address the point. You came here mouthing off as if you had a clue when the fact is, between the two of us I am the only one who has received the information directly from someone who was actually involved.

YOu may not be aware of a review of Ritner's revised version of a earlier publication of his on the Book of Breathings. (By Larry Morris.) Rittnerfails in scholarship by failing to mention another work on the subject and claiming his was the only one. After protesting against "scurrilous" personal attacks on himself, he then goes on to make such attacks on Joseph Smith.

Gee, and when Nibley completely invents citations from nowhere and then piles up footnotes that don’t even support his case, these are considered the norm for scholars. This is it? This is your evidence Ritner should not carry any weight? Because he made a revision in something he wrote?

You’re an idiot charity. It isn’t an “attack” to put Joseph Smith’s “revelations” in quotation marks. I saw how you idiots got all offended by this, like people are supposed to simply take it for granted that the revelations were valid. Obvious Ritner has analyzed the evidences and came to the most logical conclusion: Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham was a product of fraud. It is perfectly normal for scholars to treat items they feel have proven fraudulent, with strenuous criticism like this. Check out some of the past BAR articles about supposed archeological finds that scholars later find out to be gimmicks/frauds. They let the man behind the scam have it, no matter if he is a scholar or not. Why should Joseph Smith get special treatment? Ritner did nothing out of the ordinary here. Stop pretending to have a grasp on scholarship. All you know is FARMS. That’s it.

Many otherwise excellent scholars have been known to forget their training when they get on some kind of a crusade. It sure sounds to me like this is what has happened to Ritner.

Ritner is on a “crusade”? You’re an idiot. Like he has time for a “crusade” on what one of his former students is babbling about. Take a look at Ritner’s publication record. The man is a publishing maniac. He appears to be the Jacob Neusner of Egyptology. What he has written with regards to his formers student’s sloppy scholarship is not even a drop in the bucket of what he has produced. And what he wrote is perfectly normal in the scholarly arena. He wants to distance himself from Gee’s crappy apologetics, and I don’t blame him.

This is another one of those juvenile little boy behaviors. The subject here is Ritner.

And you know nothing about the man except what you hear from Gee and Peterson, so they are relevant to the discussion.

When you bring in other people to try to insult, you are just making your argument look even weaker.

How is that an insult?

When are you going to tell us Gee’s source? What’s the matter, don’t know?

[_charity]

YOu may not be aware of a review of Ritner's revised version of a earlier publication of his on the Book of Breathings. (By Larry Morris.) Rittnerfails in scholarship by failing to mention another work on the subject and claiming his was the only one. After protesting against "scurrilous" personal attacks on himself, he then goes on to make such attacks on Joseph Smith.

This is it? This is your evidence Ritner should not carry any weight? Because he made a revision in something he wrote?

You should read carefully. Notice in the previous post I said that Ritner made a claim that his was the only book on the subject when there was another critically acclaimed work. Now, either he was sloppy in his scholarship and wasn't aware of it (which is a big goof) or he was too egotistical to admit someone else might have something to say on the subjec.t It wasn't because he revised anything.

You’re an idiot charity. It isn’t an “attack” to put Joseph Smith’s “revelations” in quotation marks. I saw how you idiots got all offended by this, like people are supposed to simply take it for granted that the revelations were valid. Obvious Ritner has analyzed the evidences and came to the most logical conclusion: Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham was a product of fraud. It is perfectly normal for scholars to treat items they feel have proven fraudulent, with strenuous criticism like this. Check out some of the past BAR articles about supposed archeological finds that scholars later find out to be gimmicks/frauds. They let the man behind the scam have it, no matter if he is a scholar or not. Why should Joseph Smith get special treatment? Ritner did nothing out of the ordinary here. Stop pretending to have a grasp on scholarship. All you know is FARMS. That’s it.

Just seems funny that Ritner doesn't want to play by the rules he sets down for others. Consistency, Kevin.

Many otherwise excellent scholars have been known to forget their training when they get on some kind of a crusade. It sure sounds to me like this is what has happened to Ritner.

Ritner is on a “crusade”? You’re an idiot. Like he has time for a “crusade” on what one of his former students is babbling about. Take a look at Ritner’s publication record. The man is a publishing maniac. He appears to be the Jacob Neusner of Egyptology. What he has written with regards to his formers student’s sloppy scholarship is not even a drop in the bucket of what he has produced. And what he wrote is perfectly normal in the scholarly arena. He wants to distance himself from Gee’s crappy apologetics, and I don’t blame him.

Then it really is too bad that he is selling his talent out for a run at anti-Mormonism.

This is another one of those juvenile little boy behaviors. The subject here is Ritner.

And you know nothing about the man except what you hear from Gee and Peterson, so they are relevant to the discussion.

Wrong again. I am beginning to think you don't get it right very much of the time. You left Laryr Morris off the list.

When you bring in other people to try to insult, you are just making your argument look even weaker.

How is that an insult?

You were denigrating their abilities. That is an insult.

When are you going to tell us Gee’s source? What’s the matter, don’t know?[

Source of what?/quote]

[_LifeOnaPlate]

dartag: I just wanted to throw in a tip: I lost count of how many times you called someone an "idiot," among other such insults. It's cool if you want to disagree, but to add rudeness to your points does little to boost them, in my opinion. Just an observation.

[_dartagnan]

You should read carefully. Notice in the previous post I said that Ritner made a claim that his was the only book on the subject when there was another critically acclaimed work.

You also said Ritner revised it, which implies he accepts it when mistakes are made and corrects them. When the hell has Gee ever done that? He is still coming up with all sorts of ridiculous nonsense to avoid having to admit his pet theory is wrong. You are pointing out Rithner’s comment as a means to cast a shadow on the quality of Ritner’s scholarship. I’m just pointing out that you look like a flaming idiot when you do so because you and your lot have been bending over backwards defending the likes or Gee and Nibley who have a history of committing errors far more egregious . There is nothing in the example you provided that should question the integrity of Ritner’s scholarship. This is standard fare in the field, and so are harsh criticisms against suspected frauds. You guys don’t know scholarship, you only know FARMS.

Now, either he was sloppy in his scholarship and wasn't aware of it (which is a big goof) or he was too egotistical to admit someone else might have something to say on the subjec.t It wasn't because he revised anything.

Just for the sake of clarity, CFR. I know this is such a minor and frivolous issue that could only be discussed in a forum like MAD. It is classic denial fodder, where you get to avoid arguments in favor of focusing on attacking the messenger. You people excel at this.

Just seems funny that Ritner doesn't want to play by the rules he sets down for others. Consistency, Kevin.

What the hell are you blathering about? Ritner never criticized Gee for saying he was the first person to write about something.

You guys look like complete idiots when you do this. Someone at FAIR/FARMS tries to extract any error of whatever insignificance and then they foist it into the spotlight and spin it as some kind of proof that the person is really just an “anti-Mormon”. I pointed out that Ritner could make two hundred such mistakes and he’d still be light years ahead of Nibley and Gee, whose errors frequently border on the line of disingenuousness. There is nothing in Ritner’s “goof” that screams dishonesty. Why the hell would anyone lie about such a minor point? How do you explain Nibley’s invention of citations that don’t exist, and Gee’s deception with the KEP? Wouldn’t you agree that these are examples far more serious than “I thought I was the first to write about that subject”?

Don’t bother answering; I forgot who I’m talking to.

Then it really is too bad that he is selling his talent out for a run at anti-Mormonism.

Even if true, this is better than selling out to LDS apologetics, which is really all Gee is about. Ritner built a respectable career long before he decided to swat at the fly called John Gee. Gee’s entire career is based on apologetics and if he wasn’t LDS I highly doubt he would be teaching at a respectable university.

He is a professional educator and he sees his former student spreading a lot of nonsense while using his name in the footnotes. He is pointing out the fact that Gee’s scholarship is little more than bad apologetics. Gee swindled Ritner in a way. Ritner said he hid his apologetics from him at Yale. Then after Gee gets his doctorate, all he seems interested in is proving Joseph Smith was a prophet. It is an insult to intelligentsia.

Gee tries to boost his visibility by showing up at conferences, but his respectability will forever be in the pits. But leave it up to Dan Peterson to try increasing his reputation.

You were denigrating their abilities. That is an insult.

It is not a denigration to say someone won’t measure up to Ritner anymore than I denigrate myself by saying I won’t either. I point out that your statements that judge Ritner is like a retard telling Norm Chomsky he doesn’t have the demeanor of a smart man. You want everyone to believe he isn’t scholarly when speaking on the Joseph Smith papyri. This you do because you cannot deal with the arguments, and neither can Gee. We always get Gee’s resume whenever anyone points out his bad scholarship, but you think it is ok to judge Ritner. Ritner has taught at the best Universities on subject and has gained respectability Gee could never match. Gee will probably be stuck at BYU for the rest of his career, where he was probably given a job simply because he was a willing Mormon apologist. There he will continue to provide hack job apologetics for the Church while idiots like you keep relaying his nonsense uncritically.

I notice you still haven’t provided us with Gee’s source. You rely on Gee’s argument about a formula that proves the Joseph Smith papyri could have been 12 feet long, but the fact is none of you are FAIR have the faintest clue what his source is. You don’t know because you don’t care. Try asking Gee what his source is. We have, and he refuses to answer. He is probably worried we might actually look it up and verify his usage.

I tell you that if I ever pretend to know what I’m talking about on a scholarly issue, I’ll provide my source. You come here ranting about Gee’s formula and as far as you know, it could be something Gee invented himself. After all, as he told CK, “Who would believe it?”

[_Zoidberg]

I think it means there are crackpots and yahoos with old rehashed anti-Mormon arguments, and there are those who are NOT crackpots and yahoos. It seems logical to me that only those who think they are crackpots and yahoos have any call at all to be offeneded. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended.

Says charity who is always complaining about people telling her what she thinks. I very rarely get offended, and when I do, I don't make a big deal about it, unlike you. Some things piss me off, though, one of them being your complete denial of reality. You make a claim that FAIRites don't engage in smug dismissals - I give you a quote that begs to differ. How is giving you that quote equal being offended on my part? Please explain.

You keep asserting my self-identification as a crackpot and yahoo while simultaneously reminding everyone how polite you are, unlike the people here. Of course, saying that someone self-identifies as an idiot or wants to bang multiple people is a totally different thing than calling them an idiot or a sex addict. Heaven and earth.

You can say whatever you want about me, just don't pretend to be this polite and nice Ms. Molly Mormon.

I am really at a loss to understand the criticism here. Do you think there are any crackpot yahoo anti-Mormons out there? Or are all anti-Mormons automatically endowed with all the good qualities of logical thought? So inclusion in the anti-Mormon group blends you all into one pureed mess? All for one, and one for all, and that kind of thing?

Can you admit there are anti-Mormons out there you wouldn't want to invite into your living room? Some real crackpot, yahoos? If not, why not? Every group has crackpots.

I will tell you I think there are crackpot yahoo Mormons. So what? Now if someone starts to say things about these CY Mormons, I don't jump in, get all twisted around, and start whining about being criticized because, since I am not one of them, and the criticism obviously isn't aimed at me.



I don't see why you, and others who took this statement and were offended by it, don't have the same attitude.

I give up. I honestly give up. It's like talking to a brick wall. Interesting experience, though.

[_Blixa]

I give up. I honestly give up. It's like talking to a brick wall. Interesting experience, though.

Heh heh.

Whenever I've run across apologists flogging the Ritner/Gee "dissertation commitee event", I'm more nonplussed than usual. I know its not the case, but it reads like none of them have had any experience with academia whatsoever.

[_Blixa]

gahhh...the touchpad on this laptop is SO sensitive!

MODS! Clean up!

[_Chap]

I give up. I honestly give up. It's like talking to a brick wall. Interesting experience, though.

Heh heh.

Whenever I've run across apologists flogging the Ritner/Gee "dissertation commitee event", I'm more nonplussed than usual. I know its not the case, but it reads like none of them have had any experience with academia whatsoever.

I agree. Ritner's story is entirely plausible. It is how one deals with cranky PhD candidates when one has no wish to enter into a degrading squabble which may finish with a disgruntled student suing the university. One has more important things to do with one's time.

Incidentally, the dreadful secret I think I share with Blixa is that A PHD IS REALLY NO BIG DEAL. Really. You just have to have the basic intellectual equipment (no genius is required), the money to pay the fees (some of which you may have to earn), a bit of persistence, plus the ability to work out the kind of stuff that is expected of you by the faculty who wil be on your committee. And I don't know if Blixa will agree with me on this, but I know of a good few instances where the PhD was awarded simply because it was easier to do that than to face the problems that result from failing someone.

All the people I work with have PhDs, some from very high-grade universities, and I do not have the sense of moving in a universe coruscating with brilliance and insight. So perhaps we could drop the hushed reverence about 'Yale PhDs?, and so on? It's just basically a licence to practice as a college professor. Frankly, I suspect dentists have to work harder to get their licence than I did.

[_harmony]

Incidentally, the dreadful secret I think I share with Blixa is that A PHD IS REALLY NO BIG DEAL. Really. You just have to have the basic intellectual equipment (no genius is required), the money to pay the fees (some of which you may have to earn), a bit of persistence, plus the ability to work out the kind of stuff that is expected of you by the faculty who wil be on your committee. And I don't know if Blixa will agree with me on this, but I know of a good few instances where the PhD was awarded simply because it was easier to do that than to face the problems that result from failing someone.

All the people I work with have PhDs, some from very high-grade universities, and I do not have the sense of moving in a universe coruscating with brilliance and insight. So perhaps we could drop the hushed reverence about 'Yale PhDs?, and so on? It's just basically a licence to practice as a college professor. Frankly, I suspect dentists have to work harder to get their licence than I did.

Frankly, if I could be recruited and begged to be in a doctorate program, I figure just about anyone can. I just ran out of money and time.

[_Blixa]

I give up. I honestly give up. It's like talking to a brick wall. Interesting experience, though.

Heh heh.

Whenever I've run across apologists flogging the Ritner/Gee "dissertation commitee event", I'm more nonplussed than usual. I know its not the case, but it reads like none of them have had any experience with academia whatsoever.

I agree. Ritner's story is entirely plausible. It is how one deals with cranky PhD candidates when one has no wish to enter into a degrading squabble which may finish with a disgruntled student suing the university. One has more important things to do with one's time.

Incidentally, the dreadful secret I think I share with Blixa is that A PHD IS REALLY NO BIG DEAL. Really. You just have to have the basic intellectual equipment (no genius is required), the money to pay the fees (some of which you may have to earn), a bit of persistence, plus the ability to work out the kind of stuff that is expected of you by the faculty who wil be on your committee. And I don't know if Blixa will agree with me on this, but I know of a good few instances where the PhD was awarded simply because it was easier to do that than to face the problems that result from failing someone.

All the people I work with have PhDs, some from very high-grade universities, and I do not have the sense of moving in a universe coruscating with brilliance and insight. So perhaps we could drop the hushed reverence about 'Yale PhDs?, and so on? It's just basically a licence to practice as a college professor. Frankly, I suspect dentists have to work harder to get their licence than I did.

I could not agree with you more, Chap. A+ I've been in academia for over 20 years now, have tenure and have worked on hiring commitees, thesis and dissertation committees, etc. Talk about demystification!

That said, the idea of the university is worthwhile and worth struggling for in the face of the current onslaught of defunding and american anti-intellectualism. I know my worth as a teacher and I value myself quite highly in that regard. I also know the ways the institution could be rearranged for the greater good of all. The true tragedy is that the institution you work in makes it near impossible to do the very job you were hired for. But what is life but the working through of historical contradictions?