Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_Kevin Graham]

oh brother...These inuendo smear campaigns are really pathetic. I don't care if Peterson said some things he shouldn't have years ago regarding the incident or not. That has nothing to do with the smear campaigns you all wage on LDS folks. This is childish stuff.

Do you really think you have any credibility as an observer who is merely interpreting the information objectively when you make silly comments like this? You accuse us of "smear" campaigns but ignore the evidence to the contrary because for you, there is no "interest" in anything Dan Peterson does wrong.

Well geez, if you're so easy to dismiss anything Mormons wrong because you're conveniently "not interested" then at least stop pretending to be in a position to speak on the matter, judging whether or not they've been "smeared." You know, there is such a thing as people having to sleep in their own bed. Of people having to suffer the consequences for their own actions. The problem with people like you is that you want to give all LDS folks a pass and accuse the whistle blowers of engaging in smears. Good God, could the hypocrisy be any worse?

If a critic or anti-Mormon author gets something wrong, no matter how trivial or insignificant, the entire apologetic community is sure to pounce on it for days, weeks, months and even years. It will forever be used as ammunition in the apologetic arsenal, proving the critics are integrity-free deceivers, gossipers, who have little regard for the truth, etc etc etc. But by your standard. FARMS was just a "smear" organization. All it did was try to give reasons why LDS folks shouldn't buy books or listen to arguments made by critics. So next time an apologist points out something a critic does wrong, I'll remember your rule and just say "not interested" in that evidence, and then accuse them of engaging in smear campaigns!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Stem,

I think you've allowed your rage and anger to get the better of you. By now, you have painted yourself into a corner where you are forced either to accept Ritner's account--along with the accompanying reflection on Gee that this entails--or to straight-up label Ritner a liar. But I think that, at heart, you know that Ritner isn't lying. On the other hand, you very passionately *need* for Gee, DCP, and the rest of the Mopologists to come out of this unscathed.

You see, stem--you actually have come to represent a very important subset of lower-tier Mopologists. Whereas we have the FARMS-types at the top of the hierarchy, with well-trained followers in their wake (e.g., Bokovoy and McClellan), and less-educated but thirsty-for-knowledge seekers below them (e.g., LifeOnaPlate), at the bottom we have folks like you and Simon Belmont, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Joseph Antley. (Antley, at least, seems to have read a few books.) For some strange reason, Mopologetics has actually resulted in a subset of bottom-feeder apologists who defend the apologists merely because they (the bottom feeders) cannot defend the Church on their own.

You need for Gee to be vindicated in this because you need Gee and his ilk to continue waging war on the critics. You yourself won't wage that war because, on the one hand, you lack the chops--the education, the rhetorical skill, the insight, and so on--and, on the other hand, because you actually feel on some level that what the apologists are doing is wrong. I think that you know, deep down, that Gee screwed up royally here, and you're probably aware (thanks to Kevin and others) that Gee has been hostile (cf. his attacks on Mike Reed) and dishonest (cf. the "two inks" debacle). Even someone with a partially stillborn sense of right and wrong can see the problems here.

So you're really in between a rock and a hard place. You'll be in a kind of spiritual freefall--a crisis of faith--if the Mopologists fail--because, hey: if the upper tier Mopologists can't emerge victorious, then what chance does a poor sap like you stand against the critics? And yet, in spite of this, you know that they are a bunch of dissemblers and smear-meisters.

I can't tell you the path out of this, because I don't think there is one, though Bokovoy, the narrator, and some of the others appear to be paving new roads. Still, they are doing this by way of their scholarship and studies, and folks like you and Simon don't seem to have much interest in that. If Bokovoy, the narrator, and others have no interest in carrying on the old Mopologetic war, you, Simon, and the others like you will be left choking on the Mopologists' dust.

[_moksha]

You, with your contrived twisty version that makes Ritner into a Gee hater.

There is nothing in Ritner's testimony that would support that conclusion, but it seems clear you're trying to find a way to see that as the case, which is precisely what Dan Peterson wants people to think.

Kevin, things were going just fine with this apologetic defense till you decided to go ask the horse's mouth to describe what really happened. I don't have the rule book in front of me, so I am asking for a sideline call as to whether this represents cheating while engaged in a shadowy cat and mouse game.

Judges?

[_Joseph Antley]

You see, stem--you actually have come to represent a very important subset of lower-tier Mopologists. Whereas we have the FARMS-types at the top of the hierarchy, with well-trained followers in their wake (e.g., Bokovoy and McClellan), and less-educated but thirsty-for-knowledge seekers below them (e.g., LifeOnaPlate), at the bottom we have folks like you and Simon Belmont, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Joseph Antley. (Antley, at least, seems to have read a few books.) For some strange reason, Mopologetics has actually resulted in a subset of bottom-feeder apologists who defend the apologists merely because they (the bottom feeders) cannot defend the Church on their own.

I'm at the bottom? :(

[_Chap]

I'm at the bottom? :(

Well, only 'to a somewhat lesser extent'. But anyway, welcome to the primeval ooze ... enjoy ...

[_Kishkumen]

I'm at the bottom? :(

Yer not showin' off yer learnin' enuff.

[_jon]

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

I don't know what you're getting at. I did not say I don't believe what he's saying--assuming, as you say, these are Ritner's words. I do disbelieve the contrived twisty version that Scratch is putting out though.

Stem, this may help explain something of the issue that Ritner had with Gee:

"With regard to the articles by my former student John Gee, I am constrained to note that unlike the interaction between Baer and Nibley, and the practice of all my other Egyptology students, Gee never chose to share drafts of his publications with me to elicit scholarly criticism, so that I have encountered these only recently. It must be understood that in these apologetic writings, Gee’s opinions do not necessarily reflect my own, nor the standards of Egyptological proof that I required at Yale or Chicago."The source for Dr. Ritner's quote: The "Breathing Permit of Hor" Thirty-four Years Later by Robert K. Ritner.

[_stemelbow]

Do you really think you have any credibility as an observer who is merely interpreting the information objectively when you make silly comments like this? You accuse us of "smear" campaigns but ignore the evidence to the contrary because for you, there is no "interest" in anything Dan Peterson does wrong.

Well geez, if you're so easy to dismiss anything Mormons wrong because you're conveniently "not interested" then at least stop pretending to be in a position to speak on the matter, judging whether or not they've been "smeared."

That's simply a lie, Kevin. If you're going to lie about my position, then be my guest. I'll simply let you know and move on.

[_stemelbow]

You see, stem--you actually have come to represent a very important subset of lower-tier Mopologists. Whereas we have the FARMS-types at the top of the hierarchy, with well-trained followers in their wake (e.g., Bokovoy and McClellan), and less-educated but thirsty-for-knowledge seekers below them (e.g., LifeOnaPlate), at the bottom we have folks like you and Simon Belmont, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Joseph Antley. (Antley, at least, seems to have read a few books.) For some strange reason, Mopologetics has actually resulted in a subset of bottom-feeder apologists who defend the apologists merely because they (the bottom feeders) cannot defend the Church on their own.

Well no kidding I'm at the bottom. Sadly for you chumps, all you get is us bottom feeders for now. The upper echelon aren't about to lower themselves to your levels like I do.

You need for Gee to be vindicated in this because you need Gee and his ilk to continue waging war on the critics.

Stop with the fantastic lying, Scratch. I don't need anything of the sort. If Gee came off as the biggest baffoon, the most incredible liar, and the least qualified Ph.D holder in the world it would be no skin of my nose. It simply doesn't matter to me. That I offered questions and concerns on this topic hardly means all my eggs are in this basket at all. I read the accounts and had questions. the questions remain unanswered by anyone involved. It makes it seem the spin you put to it appear nothing more than disengenuous and deceptive. So I called you on it.

You yourself won't wage that war because, on the one hand, you lack the chops--the education, the rhetorical skill, the insight, and so on--and, on the other hand, because you actually feel on some level that what the apologists are doing is wrong. I think that you know, deep down, that Gee screwed up royally here, and you're probably aware (thanks to Kevin and others) that Gee has been hostile (cf. his attacks on Mike Reed) and dishonest (cf. the "two inks" debacle). Even someone with a partially stillborn sense of right and wrong can see the problems here.

There is no indication from anyone involved, Ritner included, that Gee screwed up royally, that's your deceptive spin, Scratch, much like your "spectacular" errors claim. No one here will call you on it, for some reason. We all know why...it ain't worth mentioning.

So you're really in between a rock and a hard place. You'll be in a kind of spiritual freefall--a crisis of faith--if the Mopologists fail--because, hey: if the upper tier Mopologists can't emerge victorious, then what chance does a poor sap like you stand against the critics? And yet, in spite of this, you know that they are a bunch of dissemblers and smear-meisters.

You really misundestand me if you think my faith resides in apologetic arguments.

I can't tell you the path out of this, because I don't think there is one, though Bokovoy, the narrator, and some of the others appear to be paving new roads. Still, they are doing this by way of their scholarship and studies, and folks like you and Simon don't seem to have much interest in that. If Bokovoy, the narrator, and others have no interest in carrying on the old Mopologetic war, you, Simon, and the others like you will be left choking on the Mopologists' dust.

Well too bad for us. My goodness you know how to make things appear much different than they are. I don't know what you think you see, but it doesn't really matter. All that needs to be done, on your end is a solid effort to belittle and demean the LDS posters, it seems. Have fun playing your hate-filled games, Scratch.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, this may help explain something of the issue that Ritner had with Gee:

"With regard to the articles by my former student John Gee, I am constrained to note that unlike the interaction between Baer and Nibley, and the practice of all my other Egyptology students, Gee never chose to share drafts of his publications with me to elicit scholarly criticism, so that I have encountered these only recently. It must be understood that in these apologetic writings, Gee’s opinions do not necessarily reflect my own, nor the standards of Egyptological proof that I required at Yale or Chicago."The source for Dr. Ritner's quote: The "Breathing Permit of Hor" Thirty-four Years Later by Robert K. Ritner.

This seems to be talking about an article not related to this matter at all. I'm not sure it helps too much. It is curious. It seems Ritner, as describing this, takes issue with Gee not sharing drafts with him. It makes me wonder if Gee had an issue with Ritner, at least.