Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_Themis]

It seems to me that that if the quotations from Ritner are accurate, and if Ritner is not lying (I doubt that he would dare to do so since there Yale colleagues who would be in a position to point that out), then Ritner's account is so clear and explicit that there is no need for any of us to try to construct alternative accounts. I am betting that this is the way it was.

If you prefer not to believe he is telling the truth, be my guest, though your basis for disbelief remains obscure to me.

It even misses the real issue which is poisoning the well by attacking the messenger so that others will ignore the message. I think Dan has been shown to be guilty of this, as some are by attacking Gee.

[_stemelbow]

If you prefer not to believe he is telling the truth, be my guest, though your basis for disbelief remains obscure to me.

I don't know what you're getting at. I did not say I don't believe what he's saying--assuming, as you say, these are Ritner's words. I do disbelieve the contrived twisty version that Scratch is putting out though.

[_Kevin Graham]

If you prefer not to believe he is telling the truth, be my guest, though your basis for disbelief remains obscure to me.

I don't know what you're getting at. I did not say I don't believe what he's saying--assuming, as you say, these are Ritner's words. I do disbelieve the contrived twisty version that Scratch is putting out though.

Look who's talking!

You, with your contrived twisty version that makes Ritner into a Gee hater.

There is nothing in Ritner's testimony that would support that conclusion, but it seems clear you're trying to find a way to see that as the case, which is precisely what Dan Peterson wants people to think. That is why he lied about this for so many years. He didn't think anyone would bother to get the facts straight from the source.

This is understandable, given his commitment to FARMS for so long. FARMS thrives with an audience that has been conditioned to take whatever they say for granted. No one really tries to verify the thousands of footnotes, except the critics. And when we point out sloppiness in their "scholarship" Dan goes quiet as usual. This was just another example of that sloppiness. Dan thought he could get away with this nonsense forever. I proved him wrong, and he is pissed about it.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Stem:

I find Ritner's account of what happened persuasive. If you want to call that a "twisty version," that's your choice, but the bottom line is that, barring any further clarification from Gee, Peterson, et al., Ritner's clarification is the only one we've got.

[_stemelbow]

Look who's talking!

You, with your contrived twisty version that makes Ritner into a Gee hater.

I didn't say Ritner is a Gee hater.

There is nothing in Ritner's testimony that would support that conclusion, but it seems clear you're trying to find a way to see that as the case, which is precisely what Dan Peterson wants people to think. That is why he lied about this for so many years. He didn't think anyone would bother to get the facts straight from the source.

What's funny is that this is even an issue at all. here people are trying to discredit Gee for some odd reason, or at least smear him, based on this non-issue. I chime in to say as much, and suddenly you guys all think I've tried to paint it other than how it was reported. I asked questions. I maintain it doesn't quite add up. Oh well.

This is understandable, given his commitment to FARMS for so long. FARMS thrives with an audience that has been conditioned to take whatever they say for granted. No one really tries to verify the thousands of footnotes, except the critics. And when we point out sloppiness in their "scholarship" Dan goes quiet as usual. This was just another example of that sloppiness. Dan thought he could get away with this nonsense forever. I proved him wrong, and he is pissed about it.

Oh I'm sure he's pissed and fuming.

[_stemelbow]

Stem:

I find Ritner's account of what happened persuasive. If you want to call that a "twisty version," that's your choice, but the bottom line is that, barring any further clarification from Gee, Peterson, et al., Ritner's clarification is the only one we've got.

Oh whatever. You wanted to paint it as some fact that Gee made spectacular errors based on Ritner's apparent dislike for Gee's style or whatever. Spectacular errors aren't just brushed aside by those handing out Ph.D's at Yale. Your spin was ridiculous. Now that you wish you didn't say it, you'll most likely pretend you never did and your buddies won't call you on it. Some time down the road you'll start floating it out there again and others will pick up on it. You're tactics are becoming more and more transparent.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Stem:

I find Ritner's account of what happened persuasive. If you want to call that a "twisty version," that's your choice, but the bottom line is that, barring any further clarification from Gee, Peterson, et al., Ritner's clarification is the only one we've got.

Oh whatever. You wanted to paint it as some fact that Gee made spectacular errors based on Ritner's apparent dislike for Gee's style or whatever. Spectacular errors aren't just brushed aside by those handing out Ph.D's at Yale. Your spin was ridiculous. Now that you wish you didn't say it, you'll most likely pretend you never did and your buddies won't call you on it. Some time down the road you'll start floating it out there again and others will pick up on it. You're tactics are becoming more and more transparent.

What are you talking about? If I recall correctly, I said that the "errors" were "spectacular" enough that they caused Ritner to resign. There is nothing--so far as I can tell--that is "twisty" about that. In response to this, you've tried to play a kind of mind-reading game with Gee's dissertation committee, despite the process being clarified for you--repeatedly--by several people.

Yesterday Blixa made some trenchant comments about problems you might have with reading comprehension. I'm beginning to think that she was probably right.

[_stemelbow]

What are you talking about? If I recall correctly, I said that the "errors" were "spectacular" enough that they caused Ritner to resign. There is nothing--so far as I can tell--that is "twisty" about that. In response to this, you've tried to play a kind of mind-reading game with Gee's dissertation committee, despite the process being clarified for you--repeatedly--by several people.

Yesterday Blixa made some trenchant comments about problems you might have with reading comprehension. I'm beginning to think that she was probably right.

Ritner said nothing of spectacular errors, but that was your spin.

As it is, the question is still out there, if Ritner demonstrated that Gee had problems in his work, then why did the committee go ahead and award the Ph.D anyway? I know you think your spin of, 'well Gee must have erased the errors' is the explanation, but that is just spin. Perhaps there were no errors, and any "problems" Ritner actually had had nothing to do with errors, but more to do with something else that never should or would disqualify one from a Ph.D? The whole story doesn't quite add up. I'm sure the truth is somewhere between Ritner's take and Gee's take, and that neither are necessarily lying. They just have their own perceptions of how it all went down and in some details each are a little wrong. I guess i'll just go with that assumption. In the end, I think complaining about this is just silly--trying to paint Gee as a non-scholar because of this is shallow. But whatever. Play your games. Throw in your crazy words and phrases like "spectacular" to make it sound like Gee is no good. Plenty buy into it. I just won't.

[_Kevin Graham]

I didn't say Ritner is a Gee hater.

But you said he didn't like Gee, which is precisely why Dan Peterson brought this "incident" into the apologetic area. He is hoping everyone will think this, and of course, in doing so, dismiss anything Ritner has to say as biased.

What's funny is that this is even an issue at all. here people are trying to discredit Gee for some odd reason, or at least smear him, based on this non-issue.

You don't even understand why we're talking about it. It has nothing to do with dsicrediting Gee and everything to do with discrediting their story. John Gee discredits himself without any need of help. The point is, Dan Peterson is the one who, for four years, brought this to everyone's attention whenever he saw anyone post Ritner's response to Gee's apologetics. Sure, some critic would probably point out that Ritner was Gee's professor, but then Dan was always right there with the usual claim that Ritner's bias against Gee was so bad that his own university had to throw him off his dissertation committee. Dan Peterson's insistence on spreading this libel is the only reason we're talking about it. It is the only reason I emailed Ritner and it is the only reason Ritner was ever aware that anyone actually believed he was forced to resign from the committee.

I chime in to say as much, and suddenly you guys all think I've tried to paint it other than how it was reported. I asked questions. I maintain it doesn't quite add up. Oh well.

You already said Ritner didn't like Gee, which isn't something ascertained by the information we have. It is something Dan strongly insinuated, and you just go along with it.

Oh I'm sure he's pissed and fuming.

Oh you should have heard him whine about it when it first happened. He went on a sad rant over at MAD about how his livlihood has been threatened, how he doesn't make much money, but all the money he saved up for his children's inheritance could now be in jeopardy because of me. As if it is my fault he decided to engage in libel against a scholar who is far out of his league; someone who has to remind him what being a real scholar is all about.

[_stemelbow]

But you said he didn't like Gee...

...You already said Ritner didn't like Gee,

I don't know Ritner at all. I didn't say he didn't like Gee. In the wake of Scratch's silly effort to malign Gee, I did say its more likely that Ritner doens't like Gee than the scenario he put forward. That certainly doesn't mean I think Ritner doesn't like Gee or that I think anything near that.

...scholar who is far out of his league; someone who has to remind him what being a real scholar is all about.

oh brother...These inuendo smear campaigns are really pathetic. I don't care if Peterson said some things he shouldn't have years ago regarding the incident or not. That has nothing to do with the smear campaigns you all wage on LDS folks. This is childish stuff.