DCP: Kevin Graham, Ritner, and the Rest Are Liars

[_dblagent007]

Here is DCP's latest comment:

I’ll have to look at the thread in order to judge whether there are problems or not. I know for a fact that there are fundamental problems in the things that have been alleged against ME with regard to Professor Gee and his tenure at Yale. I don’t know whether those things appear in your thread.

Just like Gee, DCP refuses to identify the fundamental problems of which he speaks.

[_Joe Geisner]

I decided to go through Dr. Ritner's article The Breathing Permit of Hor Among the Joseph Smith Papyri in the JNES 62 no. 3 (2003) just to see if there is any evidence of Ritner making public anything to do with Gee being awarded a PhD. or anything to do with Mr. Peterson's allegations.

I could find nothing. The only comment that Gee was even his student is found in this paragraph, and Ritner is clear this has to do with Gee's apologetics:

"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."

In every single footnote that Ritner discusses Gee's work, he provides a source and complete explanation. Something that Gee seems to be incapable of providing the reader in his attack (which, upon further reflection smells like it is very personal) upon Cook and Smith.

[_Droopy]

Prof. P. has weighed in in a definitive way:

A blog post from my friend and colleague William Hamblin has just appeared, responding to a certain strain of criticism directed against our friend and colleague John Gee.

I might add here that, just as this strain of criticism against Dr. Gee is false, several criticisms leveled at my defense of Dr. Gee’s graduate work at Yale, though they appear to have taken on a life of their own in certain quarters, are substantially incorrect. My statements defending my former student and current colleague against unjust and factually untrue claims about his experience in graduate school have been irresponsibly ripped from their original context in order, through distortion, to blacken my character. Just for the record.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/

What's the problem? Anyone who's followed Kevin Graham's posting history over the last few years knows that he lies like a trooper, through his teeth and with both feet firmly planted in the mud he rolls in on a continual basis.

Anyone who's followed another poster called "Doctor Scratch" knows that this anonymous little creep also lies with impunity about the character, history, statements made by anyone who comes within striking distance.

Indeed, intellectual dishonesty and guile seems to permeate the exmo Internet and literary world to a substantially disproportionate degree and in a way that implies a certain, shall we say, desperation, in their desire to make their case.

[_Droopy]

Full context is available for the first three examples where he did this, and it doesn't exonerate him. The only reason context isn't available for the last three examples is because the MADB/MDDB mods deleted the threads.

Or, in other words, you have no personal knowledge of this situation at all, and are guessing, conjecturing, and imposing your own bias upon the fragmentary snippets that have been made public by those who were actually personally involved.

I see.

[_Darth J]

Droopy, you do not have an advanced degree in any relevant field. You therefore are not competent to speak regarding the merits of John Gee's apologetics.

[_Molok]

What's the problem? Anyone who's followed Kevin Graham's posting history over the last few years knows that he lies like a trooper, through his teeth and with both feet firmly planted in the mud he rolls in on a continual basis.

Wat?

[_Darth J]

What's the problem? Anyone who's followed Kevin Graham's posting history over the last few years knows that he lies like a trooper, through his teeth and with both feet firmly planted in the mud he rolls in on a continual basis.

Wat?

I imagine it would be very hard on your ankles to roll around in the mud in which your feet were firmly planted.

[_Cicero]

I imagine it would be very hard on your ankles to roll around in the mud in which your feet were firmly planted.

Not for a REAL martial arts expert.

[_Droopy]

Droopy, you do not have an advanced degree in any relevant field. You therefore are not competent to speak regarding the merits of John Gee's apologetics.

It does not logically follow that because one does not have a formal degree in any relevant field of study, one is therefore not knowledgeable in that field and competent to comment upon it.

Secondly, I do not claim to have any substantial knowledge of Egyptology. I do have the ability to critique and analyses the arguments of others, however, and asses their evidential consistency. The problem between Gee and Ritner was clearly one of personal animus, not scholarly competence, so my knowledge of Egyptology would hardly enter the picture at all.

But so what? Kevin Graham has no degree in anything relevant at all, including Egyptology, biblical studies, textual criticism, or anything else of the kind, and yet, because he is on the right side of all arguments, from the apostate, ex-Mormon turn-and-rend school of anti-Mormonism, he's the darling of the Mormocks from sea to shining sea.

With apostates critics, its always been much more about who you are, than what you know.

[_MsJack]

Or, in other words, you have no personal knowledge of this situation at all, and are guessing, conjecturing, and imposing your own bias upon the fragmentary snippets that have been made public by those who were actually personally involved.

I've said nothing about the situation that can't be gleaned from reading what's been made public. If you disagree, then prove me wrong by quoting the parts where I've guessed or conjectured. If you can't do that, then sit back down and let the grown-ups talk.