Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_stemelbow]

No. I'm saying that appears to be the case in *this particular instance.*

What? So in other words, you don’t really know what occurred but your blabbering what you consider a possibility as fact because your posture is to be against LDS folks, or at least a few LDS folks because of their posture? Scratch, if his scholarship was spectacularly wrong as you maintain then there is no way the committee was going to give him a PhD. If he fixed the wrongness of it through Ritner’s suggestion, then Ritner had no reason to take himself off the dissertation committee. All you’re showing is how unreasonable you can be in your efforts to castigate, embarrass, belittle, smear etc.

No. As I noted, it's possible that Gee altered his work before it was read by the new committee member(s).

If he altered his work as per Ritner then there would be no reason for Ritner to take himself off the committee. You’re being unreasonable, or obtuse to put it more precisely.

Well, then, I guess you're calling Dr. Ritner a liar. You're so consumed with hatred that you're attempting to smear this well-established scholar.

Well then, you take a far more likely scenario, as I hinted at as a possibility, to conclude I’m calling Ritner a liar. That’s silly, Scratch. I don’t think Ritner is a liar, even if he lied in this particular case. On top of that, I have no reason to conclude he lied here. I’m just offering a far more likely scenario than what you offered.

No, not necessarily. It really depends on the nature of the "errors."

You don’t even know that there were errors at all. You have Ritner’s opinion that there were. Then you speculate, “well, the errors that Ritner saw as so horrible were erased from Gee’s work so his scholarship went from spectacularly wrong to excellent enough to get him a PhD”. I see you get awfully ridiculous around here all the time, so I’m not surprised, but this is just adorable.

[_Chap]

... Scratch, if his scholarship was spectacularly wrong as you maintain then there is no way the committee was going to give him a PhD. If he fixed the wrongness of it through Ritner’s suggestion, then Ritner had no reason to take himself off the dissertation committee. ....

I am afraid that you really are thinking in terms that are much too crude to represent the way this kind of thing works. A PhD thesis is not something that is simply right or wrong in a black and white way. Unlike, say, a problem in arithmetic, it is a subject for expert judgement that cannot be reduced to simple rules. There are theses that might be passed by some committees, but not by others. The membership of a committee can be crucial, which is why quite a lot of backroom politics can go into deciding who is on such a committee.

A person certainly can remove himself from a PhD committee because he knows that if he was on it he would feel obliged to make his colleagues' lives difficult by arguing for the thesis to be sent back to be rewritten, or passed only subject to major emendations. He might be reluctant to do this if he knows that the bad relations between him and the student have become notorious, and if he therefore fears that his criticisms of the quality of the thesis may seem to his colleagues to be based on animosity, especially if they are less expert in the field than he is himself and may not see the full force of his objections. If he stays on the committee, he has to fight. If he leaves it, the responsibility rests on others. It is quite consistent with the facts, and with Ritner's public statements, that something like that happened, though we have no way of knowing for sure.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No. I'm saying that appears to be the case in *this particular instance.*

What? So in other words, you don’t really know what occurred but your blabbering what you consider a possibility as fact because your posture is to be against LDS folks, or at least a few LDS folks because of their posture?

No... I'm basing my remarks on what Ritner himself apparently said, and on the way that DCP et al. have reacted in response.

Scratch, if his scholarship was spectacularly wrong as you maintain then there is no way the committee was going to give him a PhD.

That's not necessarily true. It could be that the new committee members overlooked or missed the errors. It could be that they had different standards compared to Ritner. It could be that the 'errors' were related to apologetics in some way that Ritner found them distasteful, but the other readers did not, etc. You're trying to shape the issue into a false dichotomy.

If he fixed the wrongness of it through Ritner’s suggestion, then Ritner had no reason to take himself off the dissertation committee.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe Ritner realized that Gee was heading into apologetics and he wanted out.

No. As I noted, it's possible that Gee altered his work before it was read by the new committee member(s).

If he altered his work as per Ritner then there would be no reason for Ritner to take himself off the committee.

Not necessarily. It could be that he only altered the work after Ritner resigned.

Well, then, I guess you're calling Dr. Ritner a liar. You're so consumed with hatred that you're attempting to smear this well-established scholar.

Well then, you take a far more likely scenario, as I hinted at as a possibility,

A "possibility" is not a "far more likely scenario."

On top of that, I have no reason to conclude he lied here. I’m just offering a far more likely scenario than what you offered.

I'm afraid not, stem.

No, not necessarily. It really depends on the nature of the "errors."

You don’t even know that there were errors at all.

Neither do you.

You have Ritner’s opinion that there were. Then you speculate, “well, the errors that Ritner saw as so horrible were erased from Gee’s work so his scholarship went from spectacularly wrong to excellent enough to get him a PhD”.

Could be. We don't know either way.

I see you get awfully ridiculous around here all the time, so I’m not surprised, but this is just adorable.

Yes, and I've seen you label yourself "worthless." Am I supposed to read something into that?

[_stemelbow]

I am afraid that you really are thinking in terms that are much too crude to represent the way this kind of thing works. A PhD thesis is not something that is simply right or wrong in a black and white way.

That's essentially my point. But according to Scratch that its not just that it was wrong, but that it was spectacularly wrong. I"m not the one who is thinking in terms that are much too crude to represent the way this kind of thing works. You should have said that to Scratch.

Unlike, say, a problem in arithmetic, it is a subject for expert judgement that cannot be reduced to simple rules. There are theses that might be passed by some committees, but not by others. The membership of a committee can be crucial, which is why quite a lot of backroom politics can go into deciding who is on such a committee.

I get that. But if Ritner pointed out stuff that was spectacularly wrong, as Scratch has argued as Ritner presenting it, then you are missing the boat.

A person certainly can remove himself from a PhD committee because he knows that if he was on it he would feel obliged to make his colleagues' lives difficult by arguing for the thesis to be sent back to be rewritten, or passed only subject to major emendations. He might be reluctant to do this if he knows that the bad relations between him and the student have become notorious, and if he therefore fears that his criticisms of the quality of the thesis may seem to his colleagues to be based on animosity, especially if they are less expert in the field than he is himself and may not see the full force of his objections. If he stays on the committee, he has to fight. If he leaves it, the responsibility rests on others. It is quite consistent with the facts, and with Ritner's public statements, that something like that happened, though we have no way of knowing for sure.

That doesn't quite square, though, with Ritner's claim that it didn't have anything to do with the personal stuff. Now you are saying its possible that it was. Be careful, Scratch will start saying you're calling Ritner a liar on such grounds.

[_stemelbow]

No... I'm basing my remarks on what Ritner himself apparently said, and on the way that DCP et al. have reacted in response.

I wonder if you truly believe this. Ah well..

That's not necessarily true. It could be that the new committee members overlooked or missed the errors.

No. Ritner said he reported these “errors” as you call them as the reason for his stepping down. That’s not a possibility on those grounds.

It could be that they had different standards compared to Ritner.

That’s not a possibility either. You claimed the errors were spectacular. To go that route, you’d have to suggest they were complete dolts in order to see spectacular errors as merely different standards.

It could be that the 'errors' were related to apologetics in some way that Ritner found them distasteful, but the other readers did not, etc. You're trying to shape the issue into a false dichotomy.

So now you’re saying the Ritner didn’t like Gee’s dissertation because it contained elements of apologetics? Can you support that notion? And if you can, why would it matter if it had apologetics involved if the scholarship was sound? Oh yeah, it wasn’t hat that was the problem according to you, it was that Gee was spectacularly wrong.

All of your possibilities decribed here do not fit what either Ritner said, nor what you have argued. Time to revisit your attempted smear campaign board, Scratch.

[_Chap]

I am afraid that you really are thinking in terms that are much too crude to represent the way this kind of thing works. A PhD thesis is not something that is simply right or wrong in a black and white way.

That's essentially my point. But according to Scratch that its not just that it was wrong, but that it was spectacularly wrong. I"m not the one who is thinking in terms that are much too crude to represent the way this kind of thing works. You should have said that to Scratch.

Unlike, say, a problem in arithmetic, it is a subject for expert judgement that cannot be reduced to simple rules. There are theses that might be passed by some committees, but not by others. The membership of a committee can be crucial, which is why quite a lot of backroom politics can go into deciding who is on such a committee.

I get that. But if Ritner pointed out stuff that was spectacularly wrong, as Scratch has argued as Ritner presenting it, then you are missing the boat.

A person certainly can remove himself from a PhD committee because he knows that if he was on it he would feel obliged to make his colleagues' lives difficult by arguing for the thesis to be sent back to be rewritten, or passed only subject to major emendations. He might be reluctant to do this if he knows that the bad relations between him and the student have become notorious, and if he therefore fears that his criticisms of the quality of the thesis may seem to his colleagues to be based on animosity, especially if they are less expert in the field than he is himself and may not see the full force of his objections. If he stays on the committee, he has to fight. If he leaves it, the responsibility rests on others. It is quite consistent with the facts, and with Ritner's public statements, that something like that happened, though we have no way of knowing for sure.

That doesn't quite square, though, with Ritner's claim that it didn't have anything to do with the personal stuff. Now you are saying its possible that it was. Be careful, Scratch will start saying you're calling Ritner a liar on such grounds.

I prefer to leave Scratch out of this. I am addressing what you are saying.

Please can you show me where Ritner said 'it didn't have anything to do with the personal stuff'? Please quote his actual words.

[_stemelbow]

I prefer to leave Scratch out of this. I am addressing what you are saying.

Please can you show me where Ritner said 'it didn't have anything to do with the personal stuff'? Please quote his actual words.

Here's what Kevin quoted him as saying, "There is no negative, personal 'history' between us, as his class grades would reveal." Somehow it was implied this was in response to the allegation that it was all personal between Gee and Ritner.

[_Chap]

I prefer to leave Scratch out of this. I am addressing what you are saying.

Please can you show me where Ritner said 'it didn't have anything to do with the personal stuff'? Please quote his actual words.

Here's what Kevin quoted him as saying, "There is no negative, personal 'history' between us, as his class grades would reveal." Somehow it was implied this was in response to the allegation that it was all personal between Gee and Ritner.

Please link to the post in question. I just want to see it for myself. I do not disbelieve you.

[_stemelbow]

Please link to the post in question. I just want to see it for myself. I do not disbelieve you.

here ya go: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2109&p=497017&hilit=There+is+no+negative%2C+personal+%27history%27+between+us%2C+as+his+class+grades+would+reveal.+#p497017

[_Chap]

Please link to the post in question. I just want to see it for myself. I do not disbelieve you.

here ya go: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2109&p=497017&hilit=There+is+no+negative%2C+personal+%27history%27+between+us%2C+as+his+class+grades+would+reveal.+#p497017

Thanks a lot - I confess that I did not see this post amidst the other 13 pages!

I think it is significant enough to repeat here:

1 - Ritner "explicitly disowned" Gee because of his apologetics and pretended that "these non-Egyptological writings had the stamp of scholarly accuracy and my own personal approval as his teacher."

2- "There is no negative, personal 'history' between us, as his class grades would reveal."

3- "I probably shall post on-line mycorrespondence with him (which is my unrestricted intellectual
property) urging him to find a new advisor at Yale." [emphasis mine: If true, then this is huge, as it would prove that Ritner was the one who suggested Gee find another advisor!]

4- "Despite Mr. Peterson's remarks, such changes are not at all unusual or problematic, particularly as I initiated the suggestion and detailed many changes regarding the accuracy of his work that would be needed for him to continue writing under my direction."

5- "It is my understanding that the offer of a job at BYU spurred the need for a fast conclusion to the dissertation, which required an advisor more willing to accept what I noted as severely problematic." [Wow. This makes sense, because Gee did get a job at BYU almost instantly]

6- "Under the circumstances, it is not extraordinary that Gee followed my suggestion." [contra Peterson]

7- "I was not in any way faulted or reprimanded" ["removed" according to Peterson]

8- "I was fully in agreement with the change that I had urged." [It was Gee's idea, not Ritner's, according to Peterson]

9- "To be blunt, any insinuation that there was a forced removal because the Department accused me of improprieties is false, and the spread of such a lie is being done only to discredit my reputation, as you note."

10- "I am shocked that Peterson, as a professor, would improperly hint at supposed details of confidential reviews (which cannot be seen nor analyzed by non-committee members). This is disgraceful."

11- "It is my wish to let the matter rest after the publication of Brent's volume."

_________________
"I am shocked that [Daniel] Peterson, as a professor, would improperly hint at supposed details of confidential reviews (which cannot be seen nor analyzed by non-committee members). This is disgraceful."- Robert Ritner

It seems to me that that if the quotations from Ritner are accurate, and if Ritner is not lying (I doubt that he would dare to do so since there Yale colleagues who would be in a position to point that out), then Ritner's account is so clear and explicit that there is no need for any of us to try to construct alternative accounts. I am betting that this is the way it was.

If you prefer not to believe he is telling the truth, be my guest, though your basis for disbelief remains obscure to me.