LoaP Invites Me to Lunch

[_LifeOnaPlate]

If you are curious, why not simply ask?

Ask what?

Which, of course, is precisely my point. You aren't actually interested in learning anything, and, in fact, you seem to have already made up your mind as to my mental status, among other things.

If you can wrap your head around it, meeting you for lunch would help clarify who you really are. I find it odd that you are so afraid to reveal your own identity online, for example. But meeting for lunch would be an interesting way to get to know you and see if your online persona matches the man.

[_dartagnan]

Hello there, Kevin. I don't know if you noticed it, but on the "Collateral Damage" thread, DCP denied that he was engaged in a six-year-long whisper campaign against Robert Ritner. I'm sure you have an insightful opinion on this issue.

I documented his numerous comments about it before in another thread. Here they are again. Not sure this constitutes a whisper campaign. But Dan was adamant about telling anyone who ever brought up Ritner's arguments, that he was in some way reprimanded because of his bias towards Gee. Hence, if Yale saw the bias, then so should we.

"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)

"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)

"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)

"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)

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)

This is the kind of stuff mud slinging you'd expect from Tradd Button. As an apologist I took all this for granted until one day I wondered what the real scoop was. So I emailed Ritner about this and asked him if it was true. He essentially said Dan's and Gee's version of the ordeal is false and that they are guilty of libel.

[_Yong Xi]

My guess is Scratch and LOAP will end up at Hot Dog on a Stick.

Wouldn't that be stunning.

[_collegeterrace]

I'd first want to have full disclosure on the mental state of LoaP.

If on meds, which ones, for what condition, and how long.

Make sure it is out in the open, well with the view of the public.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm confident you won't take LoaP up on his offer, since that would expose your true identity and you would lose your job. You know, the one where you are supposedly an independent and yet objective voice about Mormonism?

Then again, PS, maybe now is as good a time as any to come out of the closet. You think?

Witness:

If you are alluding to what I think you are alluding to, I don't appreciate it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you are alluding to what I think you are alluding to, I don't appreciate it.

Oh my.

Hello there, Kevin. I don't know if you noticed it, but on the "Collateral Damage" thread, DCP denied that he was engaged in a six-year-long whisper campaign against Robert Ritner. I'm sure you have an insightful opinion on this issue.

I documented his numerous comments about it before in another thread. Here they are again. Not sure this constitutes a whisper campaign.

It doesn't. There wasn't.

But Dan was adamant about telling anyone who ever brought up Ritner's arguments, that he was in some way reprimanded because of his bias towards Gee.

Oddly, in the quotations dartagnan supplies below, there's no mention by me of Ritner's "bias towards Gee."

Hence, if Yale saw the bias, then so should we.

If p then q.
Not p.
q?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Logic 101.

"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)

Pretty malicious.

But no mention of Ritner's "bias towards Gee."

"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)

All true, so far as I'm aware.

But no mention of Ritner's "bias towards Gee."

"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)

Since then, I've been corrected on this point. I'm told that, while John Gee did indeed approach his department at Yale about problems with his dissertation advisor, the idea of removing Professor Ritner as Professor Gee's dissertation advisor was the department's, not Professor Gee's.

Still, though, no mention of Ritner's "bias towards Gee."

"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)

True, with the correction noted above.

And no mention of Ritner's "bias towards Gee."

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)

Entirely true, so far as I know.

This is the kind of stuff mud slinging you'd expect from Tradd Button.

"Mud slinging"? I've seen claims, here and elsewhere, that Professor Ritner resigned as John Gee's dissertation advisor because of Gee's alleged incompetence (which, it seems, Yale's Egyptology program was otherwise able to overlook, since Professor Gee did in fact receive a doctorate in Egyptology from Yale), as well as that Professor Ritner simply refused to sign off on a dissertation supposedly larded with Mormon pseudoscholarship and deception (which apparently didn't bother anybody else at Yale) and that Professor Ritner's rather, um, sharp criticisms of Professor Gee now are purely objective and that they have no personal history behind them and nothing to do with the fact that they were commissioned and funded by Gospel Truths Ministries, of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Is it "mud slinging" to suggest that the entire story may not be known?

I emailed Ritner about this and asked him if it was true. He essentially said Dan's and Gee's version of the ordeal is false and that they are guilty of libel.

All I can say is what I heard from and about my former graduate student when he was at Yale -- he called me several times to ask for advice in coping with certain challenges he was encountering there -- and what I've heard during the time since.

I've made no accusations. I've simply suggested that people who don't know much ought perhaps to refrain, modestly, from acting as if they do. There appear to be two sides to the story. (What a surprise!)

[_moksha]

So, I appeal to the other folks on the board: How should I respond to such a gesture?

"...But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism..."

It is best not to overthink any of this. The gesture is nice and a meeting of the minds can be as well. I would give LOaP the benefit of the doubt that his intentions and motives are honorable.

[_moksha]

I'm confident you won't take LoaP up on his offer, since that would expose your true identity and you would lose your job. You know, the one where you are supposedly an independent and yet objective voice about Mormonism?

Then again, PS, maybe now is as good a time as any to come out of the closet. You think?

This makes the Church seem like an entity hell bent upon squashing any opposition, which I think is unfair.

[_dartagnan]

Dan, you made these comments knowing perfectly well that your audience would naturally infer from them that Ritner was reprimanded and removed because Gee complained - if true, it would immediately add credence to the notion that Ritner had an ax to grind. Once you establish this imaginary scenario, struggling Mormons would be glad think anything Ritner subsequently wrote about Mormonism will have been an act of vengence. This is standard apologetic 101. Discredit your opponent implicitly, if you can't do so explicitly.

I've made no accusations. I've simply suggested that people who don't know much ought perhaps to refrain, modestly, from acting as if they do. There appear to be two sides to the story. (What a surprise!)

You make it seem like the issues between Ritner and Gee were already laid out on the table, when in fact, they only became a public curiosity because of your repeated comments on the forums. You said so yourself that you wished the details would come out. You won't tell us what those details are, because it is easier to play with Mormon minds and give them a reason to think Ritner is a bad guy and the Mormon the victim. And yes you are right that you never explicitly said much at all, and I suppose this was by design all along, knowing perfectly well that Ritner would have just cause for a lawsuit. But don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending you were not trying to plant a seed in the minds of everyone who was reading Ritner's arguments. Why else would you bring this up everytime Ritner was mentioned?

[_collegeterrace]

I'm confident you won't take LoaP up on his offer, since that would expose your true identity and you would lose your job. You know, the one where you are supposedly an independent and yet objective voice about Mormonism?

Then again, PS, maybe now is as good a time as any to come out of the closet. You think?

This makes the Church seem like an entity hell bent upon squashing any opposition, which I think is unfair.

True.

Would not be the first time nor the last.

Newell? Quinn? Palmer? Southernton? The BYU proffessor who wrote the SL Trib letter, the man pushed out of the LDS symphony, the choir director, the calendar guy...

If they cannot refute, they attack the reputation.

Then again, LDS Inc is a scared cat that has been backed into a corner. What else do they have left but to lash out in desperation?