Tobin wrote: Yes, I know. That really wasn't the point I was making. I think it would be better to fairly and accurately make your arguments and demonstrate how and why they are mistaken and leave it at that.
Perhaps you can point out how Ritner was inaccurate or unfair in his remarks to back up what you are saying.
And by your reasoning then show us where Gee, Rhodes and or Muhlstein have sued Ritner for defamation, because lacking any such suit (again using your reasoning) obviously they agree with Ritner. Certainly they are not refraining out of kindness to Ritner.
I fail to see the mention of plagiarism or a copying charge in the citations. That was Kevin's assessment of it. Perhaps he is aware of something Ritner has since charged that isn't quoted below. I was simply responding to that assessment.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
You are clueless dude. The quote was published in Barlow's book by Oxford and cited by an evangelical journal.
Barlow, as in the Mormon, Phillip Barlow? How is this still not hearsay? Just because someone else takes for granted someone else's hearsay account, doesn't make it definitive.
Even Brent Metcalfe has noted Hugh Nibley is well-venerated outside LDS circles.
Tobin wrote: I fail to see the mention of plagiarism or a copying charge in the citations. That was Kevin's assessment of it. Perhaps he is aware of something Ritner has since charged that isn't quoted below. I was simply responding to that assessment.
You are correct, you failed to to see the mention of plagiarism.
And I fail to see how your failure to read has anything to do with your original response, but moving the target is normal for you.
So how about making your argument and demonstrating where Ritner was unfair or inaccurate?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Tobin wrote: I fail to see the mention of plagiarism or a copying charge in the citations. That was Kevin's assessment of it. Perhaps he is aware of something Ritner has since charged that isn't quoted below. I was simply responding to that assessment.
You are correct, you failed to to see the mention of plagiarism.
And I fail to see how your failure to read has anything to do with your original response, but moving the target is normal for you.
So how about making your argument and demonstrating where Ritner was unfair or inaccurate?
Actually, you are mistaken as usual. My original post was a response to Kevin's assessment and I quoted him (which I've done so again). I think the only failure to grasp what is being said is purely your fault. Kevin is the one that mentioned plagiarism as one of the charges Ritner has made in the OP as well.
Kevin Graham wrote:Here are a couple of pages from Ritner's book. It seems Ritner views Mormon Egyptologists as a bunch of clowns who have to plagiarize the work of experts like him in order to produce examples of real scholarship, and the rest of their apologetic output is just a tragedy of errors where they end up copying each other's goofs! WOW. (emphasis mine) ----- >
At this point, I'm going to ignore you again unless you have something intelligent to add. You are becoming tedious and uninteresting like you always do.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Engaging Smith in his home turf is fun. He is accustomed to posting anything and having the sheeple lap it up without any fact checking. He once claimed over at mad that 1 in 5 people in the capital of Mongolia are now members, when the correct answer is 1 in 255. This is what happens in an echo chamber such as the dialogue board. Crap is allowed to stand and perpetuate to the point where it is later referenced as fact.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
Forgive me, I shouldn’t have assumed you had read the entire OP when I asked you about Ritner’s use of the term plagiarism. Here is a Ritner quote from the OP.
“As my earlier Dialogue edition was widely distributed and advance copies were sent to FARMS by the editors of Dialogue in March 2002, 16 one can legitimately raise the question of plagiarism”
Note at the end of the quote the word plagiarism. It is a good indication Ritner is actually using the word plagiarism.
I hope that clears up your confusion.
Now do you have any facts to support your assertion the Ritner wasn’t being fair and accurate in his arguments?
I can also help you find where you said that if you are still having problems getting past the first paragraph of a post.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Robert Ritner is one of the finest Egyptologists in the U.S. His work is highly respected. His LDS detractors, on the other hand, have resorted to false accusations to tarnish his reputation among Mormons. That being the case, I have little doubt about who is dealing honestly and who isn't. Gee has been known to play fast and loose with scholarship on Mormon topics in order to protect testimonies in a paternalistic fashion. I give his Mormon apologetics and scholarship very low marks. He has distorted the truth in a misguided quest to protect the faith of others.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:Robert Ritner is one of the finest Egyptologists in the U.S. His work is highly respected. His LDS detractors, on the other hand, have resorted to false accusations to tarnish his reputation among Mormons. That being the case, I have little doubt about who is dealing honestly and who isn't. Gee has been known to play fast and loose with scholarship on Mormon topics in order to protect testimonies in a paternalistic fashion. I give his Mormon apologetics and scholarship very low marks. He has distorted the truth in a misguided quest to protect the faith of others.
I wonder why it's OK for mopologists to falsely say that Ritner was kicked off of Gee's dissertation committee or to make disparaging and bigoted comments about his sexual orientation, but it's unconscionable for Ritner to mention (with evidence) apparent plagiarism on the part of another Egyptologist. What kind of skewed ethics is fine with this?
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Bob Loblaw wrote:I wonder why it's OK for mopologists to falsely say that Ritner was kicked off of Gee's dissertation committee or to make disparaging and bigoted comments about his sexual orientation, but it's unconscionable for Ritner to mention (with evidence) apparent plagiarism on the part of another Egyptologist. What kind of skewed ethics is fine with this?
So a bit of tit-for-tat is the proper way to respond to perceived slights?
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Bob Loblaw wrote:I wonder why it's OK for mopologists to falsely say that Ritner was kicked off of Gee's dissertation committee or to make disparaging and bigoted comments about his sexual orientation, but it's unconscionable for Ritner to mention (with evidence) apparent plagiarism on the part of another Egyptologist. What kind of skewed ethics is fine with this?
Ritner is doing what scholars do. If someone makes a poor case, it is within bounds to correct bad work. I would say, however, that it is better to be as neutral in tone as possible when doing so. I think he risks getting personal in these criticisms.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist