Thank you for the kind and informative note. My response to Gee's relevant academic output will be contained in the book edited by Brent. Gee has been increasingly visible, but not increasingly respected, at meetings. I do not know Mr. Peterson, nor how he would have any knowledge of my involvement with Gee's dissertation (except through misrepresentations by Gee himself), but I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee's work, and I signaled many errors in his work as a reason. If Mr. Peterson continues to make false allegations, I may have to consider a slander or libel lawsuit. In any case, whoever he is, he is neither competent nor legally authorized to discuss the private matter. I have retained my dated correspondence and may put it on-line if such misrepresentations continue.
Sincerely, Robert Ritner"
Does anyone doubt the part in bold. I can see that Gee's apologetic works are rife with errors so why wouldn't his Egyptological work be the same?
I think the most likely explanation is that Gee told Peterson an incorrect account of what happened with regard to Gee's dissertation committee. Peterson believed it, like a good loyal friend would, and then began repeating it on the Internet. The truth came out and Peterson and Gee looked like fools.
dblagent007 wrote:Does anyone doubt the part in bold. I can see that Gee's apologetic works are rife with errors so why wouldn't his Egyptological work be the same?
I think the most likely explanation is that Gee told Peterson an incorrect account of what happened with regard to Gee's dissertation committee. Peterson believed it, like a good loyal friend would, and then began repeating it on the Internet. The truth came out and Peterson and Gee looked like fools.
You know, I think it is probably wisest to withhold judgment about anything touching on the relationship between Ritner and Gee at Yale. We weren't there. We don't know about it. And I, for one, am not about to take sides in an academic spat between teacher and student. These situations can get complicated and ugly. As much as I respect the scholarship of Dr. Ritner, I am not going to opine on a matter I have no firsthand knowledge of.
My preference would be that Gee's career at Yale had never been brought into play in connection with his apologetics. Gee's apologetics should be judged on their own merits, not on his past history with one professor, however eminent and respected that professor is.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:Ritner is not only a big name in Egyptology, but he is also a respected name in my field. I cite him in one of my articles, and undoubtedly will do so again in my second book (which I have already commenced work on). Indeed, he makes fairly regular appearances at our conferences.
Ugh. They do BYU a disservice in a serious way. Why in the hell would you alienate someone like that over something that petty and help brand your institution in a most unfavorable light?
This is a clear case of the Mopologetical attitude screwing over Mormons in general, because a couple of pallid egos got bruised, the BYU name as a whole has to suffer.
Kishkumen wrote:You know, I think it is probably wisest to withhold judgment about anything touching on the relationship between Ritner and Gee at Yale. We weren't there. We don't know about it. And I, for one, am not about to take sides in an academic spat between teacher and student. These situations can get complicated and ugly. As much as I respect the scholarship of Dr. Ritner, I am not going to opine on a matter I have no firsthand knowledge of.
My preference would be that Gee's career at Yale had never been brought into play in connection with his apologetics. Gee's apologetics should be judged on their own merits, not on his past history with one professor, however eminent and respected that professor is.
Kish,
I agree with you for the most part on with holding judgement, but as far as I know, it was not Ritner who discussed this in public, nor in private until Kevin brought this to the attention of Dr. Ritner. Am I correct on this issue?
For Mr. Gee to share this kind of information with Mr. Peterson, well, he might as well taken out an advertisement in the DN. So for me, the bad form lies squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Gee.
dblagent007 wrote:Does anyone doubt the part in bold. I can see that Gee's apologetic works are rife with errors so why wouldn't his Egyptological work be the same?
I think the most likely explanation is that Gee told Peterson an incorrect account of what happened with regard to Gee's dissertation committee. Peterson believed it, like a good loyal friend would, and then began repeating it on the Internet. The truth came out and Peterson and Gee looked like fools.
You know, I think it is probably wisest to withhold judgment about anything touching on the relationship between Ritner and Gee at Yale. We weren't there. We don't know about it. And I, for one, am not about to take sides in an academic spat between teacher and student. These situations can get complicated and ugly. As much as I respect the scholarship of Dr. Ritner, I am not going to opine on a matter I have no firsthand knowledge of.
My preference would be that Gee's career at Yale had never been brought into play in connection with his apologetics. Gee's apologetics should be judged on their own merits, not on his past history with one professor, however eminent and respected that professor is.
Wouldn't that have been nice? Unfortunately, the online behavior of John Gee's supporters, almost certainly with his approval, made that very unlikely indeed.
We weren't there. We don't know about it.
Are we on the right board here?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
The way I hear it, since neither Bill Hamblin nor Daniel Peterson have an advanced degree in Egyptology, neither of them is competent to comment on John Gee's qualifications as an Egyptologist.
MsJack wrote:I can't speak for others, but I've never insinuated that Gee isn't a legitimate Egyptologist or that he lacks credibility in the field.
I have pointed out that Dan repeatedly attempted to smear Robert Ritner by alleging that Ritner had done something terrible to Gee whilst the latter was studying under the former, which (according to Peterson and Gee) led to Ritner having been forcibly removed from Gee's dissertation committee. And that's pretty easy to document:
[...]
i love the part where DCP says, "I really don't want to get into this."
I noticed that, in the Comments, Mortal Man asked DCP why he didn't bother to provide a link to the material he was referencing. Prof. P. apparently thinks that his remarks won't stand up to scrutiny, hence his refusal to provide context. I guess that's at least one key difference between him and Schryver: Will is bombastically urging people to read MsJack's thread; Dan, on the other hand, just makes vague references to the actual discussions. I take this as an admission of defeat/weakness on his part.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14