Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_Simon Belmont]

DCP was spreading rumors through innuendo that Ritner was removed as Gee's advisor for untoward reasons. I've personally seen that. Supposedly Gee was doing the same, though I haven't seen it. Ritner, for his part, denies these rumors and claims that he requested Gee find a different advisor. According to you, it doesn't matter one wit if DCP or Gee was going around rumor-mongering and leading people's imaginations to believe defamatory things about Ritner? That's kosher?

Hi, EAllusion:

Your interpretation of Dr. Peterson's "innuendo" is your own. Both parties are likely to deny any wrongdoing -- that is human nature. It matters not, because Dr. John Gee received his Ph.D. from Yale, and it is not to be taken lightly.

I'm not sure why we should take what you have to say seriously given what you did that one night. I think we both know what you are talking about. I hope one day you have the courage to let the truth come out, but for now, I think it's safe to say we both know that it would be hard for anyone to trust your posts.

Perhaps I am grossly misinformed. What did I do that one night?

[_Trevor]

Well, we know these 2 men had different agendas. Ritner was pursusing truth and Gee was pursuing apologetics. With Gee's next mentor, they both had the same agenda: get Gee out of Yale as quickly as possible.

I know it is fairly easy for us to jump to such a conclusion ex post facto, but I doubt it is that simple. From my experience, I know this:

1. Yes, advisor-student conflicts are messy. The professor has the power, leaving the student at a disadvantage. The professor is more likely to be believed by other professors, may put any reasonable spin on the events, and yet be the one who is actually primarily at fault.

2. On the other hand, the corporate-style careerism that has come to infect academia pushes students to place greater emphasis on getting the degree than on completing a quality dissertation. Quality of scholarship suffers for the demand to produce quickly and worry about the job over the pursuit of academics.

3. BYU has a history of pushing star students to take a job at BYU before finishing their training, at least I know they did in Classics. Most of the faculty that was teaching in Classics when I was a student there started working at BYU before they had completed their degree. This was bad for these young faculty members.

But the bottom line is that we simply do not know exactly what happened. To say that this is all about Gee's deficiencies as an apologist versus Ritner's impeccable reputation as an upright scholar may suit some people's agendas, but I doubt it is as simple as that.

[_Trevor]

Perhaps I am grossly misinformed. What did I do that one night?

I think that was a simple demonstration of the power of innuendo.

[Guest]

Your interpretation of Dr. Peterson's "innuendo" is your own

Only in the trivial sense that all intereptation is one's own. That's the proper reading of what he was doing though. Do you have children? If so, I hope they continually use this line on you when you catch them lying. Your interpretation of my words is your own!

. Both parties are likely to deny any wrongdoing -- that is human nature. It matters not,

DCP was spreading innuendo about Ritner being removed. I think it matters to point out that Ritner explicitly denies it. If Ritner's denial were to prove true, I think it matters insofar as that speaks low of DCP's credibility.

Perhaps I am grossly misinformed. What did I do that one night?

You know. I think it would be wrong of me to dredge up the past this way. I hope you've moved past it, but understand if the others involved have not.

[_Simon Belmont]

I think that was a simple demonstration of the power of innuendo.

Good one, Trevor, [LOL].

[_Kevin Graham]

Your interpretation of Dr. Peterson's "innuendo" is your own.

Oh whatever. You tell me what "point" Peterson was trying to get across if not that Ritner has a bias towards Gee and so therefore his critiques of Gee cannot be trusted, as evidenced by his "removal" from his advisory committee.

Trevor, you seem to be in the know on these situations, so I ask, if Ritner had the power, didn't he also have the power to just go along as his advisor and deny him his doctorate, essentially destroying whatever career he had planned? From what I understand from what you're saying, it seems Ritner was rather gracious by advising Gee to go elsewhere so he wasn't throwing away everything he had accomplished at that point. This would seem to go against the Peterson/Gee innuendo that Ritner had it out for Gee because he was LDS.

[_harmony]

Neither of us, I suspect, have the necessary inside knowledge about the dynamics of the Gee/Ritner relationship to definitively determine if either one was pursuing "truth" or "apologetics." My assertion is simple: Dr. Gee, in the end received his Ph.D. from Yale University -- a private, Ivy League university. If, in fact, Yale wanted to "get Gee out as quickly as possible," I suspect that it would have only been a matter of suspending or expelling him for academic dishonesty (if such dishonesty actually took place). Yet, in the end, Dr. Gee was granted his doctorate, with all of the privileges and rights thereto.

You really think the Yale faculty wanted to keep Gee around any longer than they absolutely had to? You think they disagreed with Ritner? I have some oceanfront property in AZ, if you do.

Ever been to grad school, Simon? If the student fails, more than likely the blame is laid on the institution, since the assumption is that the institution had the power to stop a poor student from entering in the first place. It's not like undegrad, where just about anyone breathing can get in. At least, that's what my grad school told us, when we were informed that a B in grad school showed that the institution had failed.

[_Simon Belmont]

Only in the trivial sense that all intereptation is one's own. That's the proper reading of what he was doing though. Do you have children? If so, I hope they continually use this line on you when you catch them lying. Your interpretation of my words is your own!

My words and my innuendo are, in fact, two very different things. For this reason, I try not to use innuendo with my children, choosing to be very literal with my words.

DCP was spreading innuendo about Ritner being removed. I think it matters to point out that Ritner explicitly denies it.

Yes, and rightly so. Any university professor would deny such an allegation, as would any student.

If Ritner's denial were to prove true, I think it matters insofar as that speaks low of DCP's credibility.

Indeed. However, can this be proven?

You know. I think it would be wrong of me to dredge up the past this way. I hope you've moved past it, but understand if the others involved have not.

Perhaps you'd like to send me a private message detailing what you imagine I did that one night. For the past week, I have been involved in heavy reading, critiquing, and writing which has unfortunately exhausted much of my free time. Of course, if you suspect something more sinister, let's have it.

[_Simon Belmont]

Oh whatever. You tell me what "point" Peterson was trying to get across if not that Ritner has a bias towards Gee and so therefore his critiques of Gee cannot be trusted, as evidenced by his "removal" from his advisory committee.

Trevor, you seem to be in the know on these situations, so I ask, if Ritner had the power, didn't he also have the power to just go along as his advisor and deny him his doctorate, essentially destroying whatever career he had planned? From what I understand from what you're saying, it seems Ritner was rather gracious by advising Gee to go elsewhere so he wasn't throwing away everything he had accomplished at that point. This would seem to go against the Peterson/Gee innuendo that Ritner had it out for Gee because he was LDS.

Good morning, Kevin Graham,

It is plainly obvious, I am sure you would agree, that Ritner was biased towards Gee, and that Gee was biased toward Ritner. It was simply a relationship that proved unproductive, in my opinion.

You seem a bit vindictive towards Dr. Gee, implying that you wish Ritner had "essentially destroy[ed] whatever career [Gee] had planned," if this is the case, and you are biased toward Gee, are you not just as guilty as Dr. Peterson?

[_Simon Belmont]

You really think the Yale faculty wanted to keep Gee around any longer than they absolutely had to? You think they disagreed with Ritner? I have some oceanfront property in AZ, if you do.

I do not know, since I have not met any of the faculty who worked with Gee at Yale. I do know that it is not common practice at universities to "get rid of" students by granting them doctorates.

Ever been to grad school, Simon?

Yes, twice.

If the student fails, more than likely the blame is laid on the institution, since the assumption is that the institution had the power to stop a poor student from entering in the first place. It's not like undegrad, where just about anyone breathing can get in. At least, that's what my grad school told us, when we were informed that a B in grad school showed that the institution had failed.

If Dr. Gee had the potential to reduce Yale's credibility, as you imply, I highly doubt he would have been awarded a doctorate at Yale.