Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_Runtu]

I well remember the repeated posts of innuendo suggesting that certain people knew the real reasons Ritner had been "removed" as Gee's advisor. It doesn't really matter what Gee told anyone; it is incredibly unseemly to spread such not-so-subtle innuendo in an attempt to discredit someone, especially since the people spreading the innuendo had no evidence to back up their hints of Ritner's wrongdoing.

[_Trevor]

I well remember the repeated posts of innuendo suggesting that certain people knew the real reasons Ritner had been "removed" as Gee's advisor. It doesn't really matter what Gee told anyone; it is incredibly unseemly to spread such not-so-subtle innuendo in an attempt to discredit someone, especially since the people spreading the innuendo had no evidence to back up their hints of Ritner's wrongdoing.

Yeah, no kidding. And, frankly, I am fed up with this crap. I say put up or shut up. I really don't get what possible significance all of this has to the Book of Abraham debate. Read Gee's stuff. Read Ritner's. Read the work, people. I don't give a flying flip what happened between Ritner and Gee. In the end, the scholarship is where it is at, not these silly tiffs.

[_wenglund]

You know, wade, I am sick of all of this "what if" and beating around the bush. Either tell us something solid, or just shut the hell up. I am sick of Geepologists hinting at things about Ritner's supposed wrongs to Gee. Who the hell cares?

First of all, I wasn't asking "what if". I was logically considering the implications of Kevin's accusations.

Secondly, I am not purporting that Ritner did anything wrong. I am questioning the implications of what Kevin alleges Gee did wrong.

Third, my post wasn't a Gee-apologetics. It was an open-minded consideration of Kevin's anti-Gee campaign.

Fourth, if you weren't so nuanced challenges, you would have grasped some of the solid points in the lead-up to my final question.

Fifth, you are hardly in a position tell me to shut up.

In short. You completely missing the point, and somehow managed to see thing exactly backwards, while not directly engaging anything I said. Nice manuveur.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

I think Wade and quite possibly Trevor as well, are missing the whole point of my email to Ritner. It went as follows:

Professor Ritner,

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your work on the “Book of Abraham.” It has helped me tremendously over the past while, and has been instrumental in reforming my views regarding things LDS. I have been told by Daniel C. Peterson that John Gee has responded to your criticism in some Egyptological venue, but he didn’t say which it was. I have been unable to find any CV for Gee or a list of his publications. Peterson assures the LDS faithful that Gee is “widely respected” in the field and has been published in scholarly venues many times. Ok, so where at? I find hard to believe he is respectable, especially after the numerous errors in the one book he has published. It seems that virtually everything he writes is Mormon/apologetic related.

Incidentally, Dan Peterson likes to bring up some incident you and Gee had at Yale. He seems to think that by telling people Gee had you successfully removed from some advisory board – which he insists is “not common” - that this somehow proves you’re too biased to be taken seriously. As if you have always had an axe to grind with Gee. I have seen Dan mention this on discussion forums on at least three different occasions.

Anyway, I saw that you are contributing to Brent’s upcoming book. I look forward to reading that.

Kevin

I wrote this after getting tired of hearing Dan refer to mystery publications that supposedly refute Ritner directly. A couple of them turned out to be written in French and German, and they didn't want to provide an English version for the apologists or the critics. They just thought they could assert Ritner was refuted by Gee in "scholarly journaals" and we were just supposed to take it for granted. I asked Dan for references and he told me to go do my own homework on the matter. Gee wasn't responding to emails sent by either Chris Smith or myself, so, I went straight to the guy who probably knew. I asked the guy who was being "refuted" in these writings if he knew what Dan was referring to.

I only mentioned Dan's rumor on a hunch that maaybe there was more to teh rumor and just maybe Ritner would be willing to share his side. I had no idea he would respond the way he did. At that point I thought it was only fair to share the information just so people who've been exposed to this rumor for so many years could at least take into account the fact that the person being attacked denies the thing ever took place the way Dan Peterson tells it.

This revelation initially led to numerous attacks against me. Dan Peterson attacked me for trying to destroy his livlihood by getting other people to file lawsuits against him (nonsense- I actually asked Ritner NOT to do that and said I did not believe Dan was lying intentionally). Juliann told everyone at FAIR that I have a habit of sending emails out to people and starting trouble with no context (she was just pissed because I emailed a sociologist she had been misusing, and he turned out to be her professor). Soon the discussion gradually became focused on what the apologists wanted to focus on, which was the anti-Mormon bias of Ritner.

For me, all I really wanted to do here was nip a false rumor in the butt. But the hysterical reactions from the apologists led to numerous tangents focusing on stuff that was really irrelevant to the point that Ritner denies that Dan Peterson is accurately portraying the incident as it happened. So the apologetic attempt to dismiss Ritner as a biased anti-Mormon whose rebuttals to Gee should be also be dismissed, suddenly took a drastic turn for the worst, because Peterson and Gee were quickly put on the spot to either put up or shut up. Ritner offered to put up all the email evidence proving his point if Gee or Peterson wanted to maintain their position. And as a result Gee and Peterson shut their mouths and prayed Ritner wouldn't file a suit.

That in and of itself speaks volumes, to me at least, about who is probably telling the truth. Ritner was prepaared to prove his point with evidence whereas Peterson/Gee were only prepared to flee the scene.

[_wenglund]

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that people are remarking how unseemly it was to allegedly make innuendos against Rinter, and this on a thread devoted to attacking Gee's character?

By the way, Trevor, the point of my previous post was to underscore your sentiment that this little anctient tift really doesn't matter to the larger Book of Abraham issue--though Kevin seems bound and determined to hold on to it for dear life and work it to whatever imagined advantage he has in mind. Oh well.

I am off now to the FAIR Confernce to hear Will's presentation and to hopefully meet the good people participating here and at the other board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that people are remarking how unseemly it was to allegedly make innuendos against Rinter, and this on a thread devoted to attacking Gee's character?

Don't use big words you don't understand Wade. There is nothing ironic here because nobody has used innuendo to attack Gee's character. I've presented hard evidence based on his published arguments, that Gee is a liar. It is a subject for another thread, and I presented a link to that thread. Neither you nor Simon have taken up the challenge to explain how what Gee said regarding the KEP doesn't constitute outright deception. So as far as I'm concerned, no innuendo is needed to establish Gee's character.

Furthermore, that he floated this "Ritner/committee removal" rumor out to Dan Peterson and then condoned its propagation through cyber channels, is also a fact, not innuendo.

Now on the flip side, all you and Simon have been able to throw up against Ritner is innuendo based on the usual, required and convenient apologetic assumption that anyone who dares question any LDS apologetic or doctrine, is hopelessly biased, and can therefore not be taken seriously. I've heard it all. Ritner, it was said on the FAIR e-list, attends an Evangelical church. Therefore, he was hopelessly anti-Mormon and biased against Gee, and should be dismissed without incident. Ritner, it was said on the FAIR e-list, recently came out of the closet as a homosexual, and we wall know that homosexuals have an added disdain towards Mormonism. Therefore, he was hopelessly anti-Mormon and biased against Gee, and should be dismissed without incident.

Anything they could come up with to avoid actually having to address his expertise-backed refutations of his former student's pathetic apologetic mantra.

[_Runtu]

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that people are remarking how unseemly it was to allegedly make innuendos against Rinter, and this on a thread devoted to attacking Gee's character?

Your use of "unseemly" apparently refers to me, so I'll answer your question. It would be ironic had anyone on this thread said that they had some inside scoop on Gee's wrongdoing, which their propriety did not permit them to share. That hasn't happened here, but that's exactly what was said about Ritner multiple times. I saw it, Kevin saw it, and I would imagine you did, too. And incidentally, it wasn't Gee spreading the rumor.

By the way, Trevor, the point of my previous post was to underscore your sentiment that this little anctient tift really doesn't matter to the larger Book of Abraham issue--though Kevin seems bound and determined to hold on to it for dear life and work it to whatever imagined advantage he has in mind. Oh well.

This I agree with (well, not the part attacking Kevin), but what I'm seeing you do is denying the innuendo and/or minimizing it. It was rather poor form of people to make such hints about Ritner's character; that's all I have said, and I stand by it. I wouldn't do something like that, ever.

I am off now to the FAIR Confernce to hear Will's presentation and to hopefully meet the good people participating here and at the other board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was going to come this afternoon, after all, but I am home taking care of a quite ill child. Have fun, and give William my regards.

[_Trevor]

First of all, I wasn't asking "what if". I was logically considering the implications of Kevin's accusations.

Until you provide some direct evidence of what you are claiming happened between Gee and Peterson, I call it a "what if." Why can't you guys simply be straightforward about this? Try this:

"Hey, Kevin, if what you are saying is true, then how is it that Peterson and Gee claim that they communicated about the growing rift between Ritner and Gee on the topic of religion long before Ritner dropped him as a student or later published this Dialogue article? So, you see, Ritner's problems with Gee really were based on religious prejudice and that should color our judgment of Ritner's claims about the rift."

In short, I am getting really bored with all of this. Let's just keep it simple and straight. If you prefer to keep it in the subjunctive to cover your collective rear ends in this conversation, fine, but please try to maintain greater clarity for those of us who have more important things to do than decipher the twists and reversals of your obfuscatory rhetoric.

The simple point of Kevin's anti-Gee campaign, from my reading of it, is this: if you use your scholarly credentials to bolster the credibility of your work, don't be surprised if someone calls your bluff and actually assesses your scholarly credibility. You may not find it polite, but tough cookies. If the best you can do is accuse the guy of being gay, anti-Mormon, or some such nonsense, don't blame us if that looks totally lame. Such is life.

Fourth, if you weren't so nuanced challenges, you would have grasped some of the solid points in the lead-up to my final question.

Fifth, you are hardly in a position tell me to shut up.

Sorry to hurt your tender feelings wade, but:

1) You are boring the living crap out of me.

2) I really don't care whether you judge me "nuances [sic] challenged" for being bored with your crap.

3) Don't think I don't understand the value of indirection and obfuscation in apologetics.

4) If I want to tell you to shut up, I will. But no one is forcing you to take that seriously (nor did I really think you would heed my sage advice).

[_Trevor]

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that people are remarking how unseemly it was to allegedly make innuendos against Rinter, and this on a thread devoted to attacking Gee's character?

By the way, Trevor, the point of my previous post was to underscore your sentiment that this little anctient tift really doesn't matter to the larger Book of Abraham issue--though Kevin seems bound and determined to hold on to it for dear life and work it to whatever imagined advantage he has in mind. Oh well.

The difference, as I see it, is that suggestions have been made about Dr. Ritner's character that have not been substantiated in any way, whereas Kevin's remarks about Dr. Gee's academic integrity in handling his Book of Abraham apologetic can be openly scrutinized by anyone who cares to review his findings. Now, if it is true that his findings are wildly inaccurate and not likely to be the result of honest mistakes, then it behooves Dr. Gee to defend himself. I would personally not think it advisable to call John a liar, but I would also not stoop to equating unsubstantiated innuendo with substantive challenges to someone's method and representation of facts.

[_Trevor]

Your use of "unseemly" apparently refers to me, so I'll answer your question. It would be ironic had anyone on this thread said that they had some inside scoop on Gee's wrongdoing, which their propriety did not permit them to share. That hasn't happened here, but that's exactly what was said about Ritner multiple times. I saw it, Kevin saw it, and I would imagine you did, too. And incidentally, it wasn't Gee spreading the rumor.

I recall it quite well. And, while I don't think it impossible that there is something behind the rumor, I think it best to stick to what was published instead of relying on that.