Update from Ritner

[_rcrocket]

Being knowledgeable in James Jesse Strang a.k.a. Jesse James Strang, you have the initials wrong. Or is that your real name.


Trivia question. I'll bet nobody can answer. What is the connection between Strang and the MMM? I mean a real connection, not just societal or religious.

rcrocket

[_dartagnan]

OK, I'll bite.

Hit me crockett. Wow us.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Yes, it is libel to pass on the comments of another.

Basically, what the anonymite Kevin Graham is trying to do is to destroy Dr. Peterson's reputation with an assault based upon things other than the merits or demerits of Dr. Peterson's work. I am frankly astounded that Ritner is letting himself get into the mud willingly on this.

There is no doubt, Graham's posts are of the very worst sort that you can see in human communication: anonymous attacks calculated to hurt the professional reputation of another.

rcrocket

Couple of points for the Martha-wannabee,

1. How can you call KEVIN GRAHAM an anonymite? In case you have not noticed, everyone here knows who dartagnan is. K? With that, are you using your real name miss r-crock-of-crap-et?

2. Dan has already destroyed his reputation. Wait that would mean he had a reputation to start with. Nevermind. Yeah so what if he is a niche lecturer on Arabic blah blah. His mo'pologist reputation only existed with the wannabees from FARM and FAIR.
They still think his crap doesn't stink. HOWEVER, the rest of the scientific world has viewed him as nothing more than a crackpop trying to prove the impossible and defend the indefensible. So please take your fawning Danny pity to the cat box over on yonder board. [MODERATOR NOTE: Once more, please don't "de-invite" anyone. Rcrocket's posts are perfectly welcome here.] I hate to bust your garment bubble, but Danny has done zippo for the majority of Mormons. 99% of em have never heard of him or his mo'posse.
Take a look at William Schryver's sig:

"That was THE MOST uninformed, distasteful, misguided bunch of JUNK I ever saw[PBS Special "The Mormons"]. What on earth was a professor of Islam doing talking about us?"
A Deseret Morning News reader, 05/03/07

I for one am glad to see Danny getting the same s*** he has shoveled out for years on the Fboard and ZLMB. He set himself up.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Kevin has said that Kevin Graham isn't his real name.

(I believe he has also said where he works and what his subject are is, so I'm surprised juliann hasn't figured him out yet. :-P)

[_rcrocket]

My point really is not to defend Dr. Peterson. I would just urge an anonymite to practice moderation when attacking one's character and professional abilities. Just a thought.

rcrocket

[_dartagnan]

Here is what Dr. Ritner kindly sent me the other day:

Dear Mr. Graham,

Thank you for your further notes and for the apology. I fully understand that matters of religious belief can provoke unfortunate results, but it was at no time my desire to launch a personal attack on Mr. Gee or on the Mormon faith in general. My concern, as an Egyptological scholar, was specifically --and uniquely-- directed toward the accurate portrayal of ancient Egyptian materials.

Regarding Mr. Gee, in the JNES article I explicitly disowned his "apologetic" writings, since he was insinuating by footnotes and his academic training that these non-Egyptological writings had the stamp of scholarly accuracy and my own personal approval as his teacher. There is no negative, personal "history" between us, as his class grades would reveal. I probably shall post on-line my correspondence with him (which is my unrestricted intellectual property) urging him to find a new advisor at Yale. Despite Mr. Peterson's remarks, such changes are not at all unusual or problematic, particularly as I initiated the suggestion and detailed many changes regarding the accuracy of his work that would be needed for him to continue writing under my direction. It is my understanding that the offer of a job at BYU spurred the need for a fast conclusion to the dissertation, which required an advisor more willing to accept what I noted as severely problematic. Under the circumstances, it is not extraordinary that Gee followed my suggestion. I was not in any way faulted or reprimanded, and I was fully in agreement with the change that I had urged.

In fact, I remained as the head of another Yale dissertation, which was successfully completed after the sort of on-going, rigorous examination of chapters that I require, but which necessarily prevents swift completion.

To be blunt, any insinuation that there was a forced removal because the Department accused me of improprieties is false, and the spread of such a lie is being done only to discredit my reputation, as you note.

In my opinion, Gee now presents a mixed picture, appearing as an Egyptologist at conferences, yet as an Egyptological opponent in his BYU writings. While I once supported Gee as a student, he has subsequently chosen to mix his scholarly and religious training so that his FARMS publications distort the former in favor of the latter. All of these apologetic writings were kept hidden from me while I was his teacher and undoubtedly also from any Egyptologist reviewer for his position at BYU. I am hardly surprised that such an uninformed reviewer would support him, but I am shocked that Peterson, as a professor, would improperly hint at supposed details of confidential reviews (which cannot be seen nor analyzed by non-committee members). This is disgraceful.

It is my wish to let the matter rest after the publication of Brent's volume. I shall have said all that I can on the Egyptological side. How it will be received is out of my hands, but if my writings have been of assistance to you or others in seeing the reasonable problems with the Abraham text and the actual content of the papyri, then any personal attacks are a minor issue, easily forgotten and forgiven.

Sincerely,
Robert Ritner

[_harmony]

1. Daniel's stock in trade is hints. Without hints, Daniel is not Daniel, which is why Daniel hints at things all the time.

2. Daniel is a Dr. Calling him Mr. is accurate yes, but a slight slight nonetheless.

3. Gee's position is clear, if damning. There is no way other way to interpret Ritner removing himself from the committee except to cast Gee in an unfavorable light, which he brought on himself. Much of the dissertation would have had to be changed, were Ritner to continued as the chair. Gee could not bear to do that.

4. Ritner comes off as a class act. Gee comes off as someone who would fudge the truth. Daniel comes off as a dupe. Kevin comes off as the messenger with no dog in the fight at all.

[_Runtu]

This illustrates the danger of saying "if you only knew the whole story" without actually knowing the whole story themselves.

[_Dan Vogel]

Yes, it is libel to pass on the comments of another.

Basically, what the anonymite Kevin Graham is trying to do is to destroy Dr. Peterson's reputation with an assault based upon things other than the merits or demerits of Dr. Peterson's work. I am frankly astounded that Ritner is letting himself get into the mud willingly on this.

There is no doubt, Graham's posts are of the very worst sort that you can see in human communication: anonymous attacks calculated to hurt the professional reputation of another.

rcrocket

Only if there is a reasonable expectation for confidentiality.

[_Dan Vogel]

Yes, it is libel to pass on the comments of another.

Basically, what the anonymite Kevin Graham is trying to do is to destroy Dr. Peterson's reputation with an assault based upon things other than the merits or demerits of Dr. Peterson's work. I am frankly astounded that Ritner is letting himself get into the mud willingly on this.

There is no doubt, Graham's posts are of the very worst sort that you can see in human communication: anonymous attacks calculated to hurt the professional reputation of another.

rcrocket

I wish the discussion would stay on the issues and not get personal. But for many years FARMS has thrived on ad hominem attacks, polemical tricks, and political maneuverings. I remember when they had an all out campaign to ruin Tom Murphy's career. There are many other like stories. While I don't approve of fighting dirty, FARMS and FARMS supporters can hardly take the moral high ground here. And when they do, like you just did, it's obscene.