Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_Mortal Man]

bump

Interesting thread Kevin. Now I better understand the hypersensitivity on MADB whenever anyone mentions Prof. Gee.

by the way, does anyone know the current status of Stephen Thompson? Will said he'd left the church.

[_RockSlider]

interesting read ... thanks for bumping this Kevin

[_Kevin Graham]

bump

[_cafe crema]

So what was the book people mentioned in this thread?

[_The Mighty Builder]

Does anyone else see the Irony of this information. Lets say Ritner is Professor Charles Anton and Gee is Martin Harris and of course Peterson will play the part of Joe Smith, Jr.

Professor Anton - No, I never made any such statement that the writings presented to me by Mr. Harris were Egyptian

Harris - Professor Anton stated that the writings were some form of Egyptian and that the interpretation was correct.

Joe Smith - See now that Professor Anton knows that I a modern day prophet did the translation he is denying that he ever made such a pronouncement.

Why is it the the Mormon characters never have documentation but the "learned" do?

[_Molok]

Very interesting read, but I think the drama with Jersey Girl/Scratch was more entertaining than the actual subject matter. Scratch can be a real bastard, huh?

[_wenglund]

I have read bits and pieces of this thread, and since it seem of considerable importance to Kevin (particularly in light of Gee's and Will's pending presentations), I thought it would prove useful to boil this tempest-in-a-teapot down to its essential parts, and this in hopes of coming to mutual understanding.

Correct me if I am wrong, Kevin, but it appears that no one is disputing that Ritner was removed from Gee's doctoral dissertation committee, nor that his removal was the department's decision. Right?

What appears to be in dispute is who requested the removal, the reason(s) behind and for the removal, and the relevance or meaningfulness of the disputes to the Book of Abraham debate. Right?

(Simple yes/no answers, directly relevant to the questions being asked, will suffice)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

Wade, I bumped this because Stak and I were talking about it in chat last night. I was surprised how many people were unaware of it, as it cuts straight to the heart of Gee's credibility as a scholar.

Correct me if I am wrong, Kevin, but it appears that no one is disputing that Ritner was removed from Gee's doctoral dissertation committee, nor that his removal was the department's decision. Right?

Wrong.

What appears to be in dispute is who requested the removal, the reason(s) behind and for the removal, and the relevance or meaningfulness of the disputes to the Book of Abraham debate. Right?

Ritner said, "I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee's work." He said that he "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."

This is polar opposite to the story Peterson and Gee have been pimping online for years. According to Peterson, Ritner was "removed" from the committee by outside forces. He didn;t go into the details, but the way he presents this strongly suggests Ritner had an anti-Mormon bias that resulted in his "removal." Ritner said he had saved all his email correspondence that would prove qquite definitively that it was he who urged Gee to find another advisor, simply because he could not sign his name of lackluster scholarship.

[_wenglund]

Wade, I bumped this because Stak and I were talking about it in chat last night. I was surprised how many people were unaware of it, as it cuts straight to the heart of Gee's credibility as a scholar.

Correct me if I am wrong, Kevin, but it appears that no one is disputing that Ritner was removed from Gee's doctoral dissertation committee, nor that his removal was the department's decision. Right?

Wrong.

Which part, if not all, of that statement is wrong?

What appears to be in dispute is who requested the removal, the reason(s) behind and for the removal, and the relevance or meaningfulness of the disputes to the Book of Abraham debate. Right?

Ritner said, "I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee's work." He said that he "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."

This is polar opposite to the story Peterson and Gee have been pimping online for years. According to Peterson, Ritner was "removed" from the committee by outside forces. He didn;t go into the details, but the way he presents this strongly suggests Ritner had an anti-Mormon bias that resulted in his "removal." Ritner said he had saved all his email correspondence that would prove qquite definitively that it was he who urged Gee to find another advisor, simply because he could not sign his name of lackluster scholarship.

Is this a yes or a no to my simple yes/no question? (Please stay focused, Kevin. The discussion will be more effective that way.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

Which part, if not all, of that statement is wrong?

Uh, this part: "...no one is disputing that Ritner was removed from Gee's doctoral dissertation committee, nor that his removal was the department's decision. Right?"

Ritner was not removed by anyone but himself, if we can even call it a "removal" at all. He urged Gee to find another advisor and he did. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Is this a yes or a no to my simple yes/no question? (Please stay focused, Kevin. The discussion will be more effective that way.)

Sorry wade, but you don't get to demand simplicity just because it is easier for you to do whatever it is you have up your sleeve. Not when these answers require more clarification and explication than a simple "yes/no". Everyone else here understand my answers perfectly well, so if you can't, then maybe you should just stop asking.

The "dispute" doesn't seem to be a dispute at all, since Ritner has effectly shut up both Peterson and Gee, who have elected to drop the matter because they know Ritner has threatened to present evidence that will vindicate him and make both of them look like slandering idiots. So if anyone is disputing that Ritner's version is true, then who is doing the "ddisputing"?