Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_stemelbow]

Well, stemelbow may be angry inside, but it is a pretty soft-scoop kind of anger so far as I can say.

I think the problem is more that he is a genial kind of guy who is not used to the kind of company where people come back with "But what do you mean, precisely?" in response to his well-meaning and often pretty unstructured burbling. He finds any direct and telling criticism wrong and hurtful, and feels that the person making it must be the one at fault, because he is saying bad stuff about others, and that can't be right.

And he is not a very perceptive reader of other people's writing, so his response to anyone answering him back is usually just another round of slightly hurt and puzzled burbling, which leads to people getting angry with him, and so on ...

But I think he is basically a nice guy, despite the fact that his 'the CoJCoLDS suits me, whatever its faults' attitude leads him into some rather strange company.

Interesting take on stem. He's nice, but pretty stupid, and he seems to take issue when posters here attack other people or posters, which is his problem. And he must keep some strange company.

eh....kinda.

[_Chap]

Well, stemelbow may be angry inside, but it is a pretty soft-scoop kind of anger so far as I can say.

I think the problem is more that he is a genial kind of guy who is not used to the kind of company where people come back with "But what do you mean, precisely?" in response to his well-meaning and often pretty unstructured burbling. He finds any direct and telling criticism wrong and hurtful, and feels that the person making it must be the one at fault, because he is saying bad stuff about others, and that can't be right.

And he is not a very perceptive reader of other people's writing, so his response to anyone answering him back is usually just another round of slightly hurt and puzzled burbling, which leads to people getting angry with him, and so on ...

But I think he is basically a nice guy, despite the fact that his 'the CoJCoLDS suits me, whatever its faults' attitude leads him into some rather strange company.

Interesting take on stem. He's nice, but pretty stupid, and he seems to take issue when posters here attack other people or posters, which is his problem. And he must keep some strange company.

eh....kinda.

I take back the bit about you not being a very perceptive reader of other people's writing. I did not say "stupid" though.

[_Themis]

Well, stemelbow may be angry inside, but it is a pretty soft-scoop kind of anger so far as I can say.

I think the problem is more that he is a genial kind of guy who is not used to the kind of company where people come back with "But what do you mean, precisely?" in response to his well-meaning and often pretty unstructured burbling. He finds any direct and telling criticism wrong and hurtful, and feels that the person making it must be the one at fault, because he is saying bad stuff about others, and that can't be right.

And he is not a very perceptive reader of other people's writing, so his response to anyone answering him back is usually just another round of slightly hurt and puzzled burbling, which leads to people getting angry with him, and so on ...

But I think he is basically a nice guy, despite the fact that his 'the CoJCoLDS suits me, whatever its faults' attitude leads him into some rather strange company.

Interesting take on stem. He's nice, but pretty stupid, and he seems to take issue when posters here attack other people or posters, which is his problem. And he must keep some strange company.

eh....kinda.

I guess I am not the only one who sees this. :)

I would not say stupid though, and your perception of most criticisms as attacks is also wrong. I only think something is an attack if it is incorrect or done with malice.

[_Chap]

I only think something is an attack if it is incorrect or done with malice.

You know, if someone launches an attack on me for malicious reasons, I'd much prefer their attack to be incorrect too.

[_Doctor Scratch]

??? Dr. Peterson--the "Kingpin" of Mopologetics--has been obsessively following me and responding to me for half a decade.

“obsessively following”? Oh brother, Scratch, your knack at spin and deception is pretty sad. With that said, I did say “now” for a reason—Peterson has apparently left the building for the time being.

His recent post on MDD was in part an excuse to engage in yet more obsession with me. Or can you explain what *I* have to do with his Chapel Mormon-y "Mormon Times" article?

Oh, yes you do. Hence your bizarre and groundless defense of him on this thread. You are practically foaming at the mouth due to being so angry.

Defending him against your unnecessary spin, designed to attack and defame?

You're not successfully "defending" anyone or anything, stemelbow. You lack the chops: the insight, the reading comprehension, the life experience, etc.

Its ridiculous that you define what is necessary for me, particularly when I have squarely refuted your claim.

You probably can't even summarize my "claims." My "claims" are simply that I agree with Ritner's account.

It does. Otherwise you wouldn't be maniacally pounding out frustration-soaked replies.

Uh…what are you talking about? I haven’t pounded out anything. And my frustration is only due to how unbelievably far you’ll go to attack people you don’t like.

Siding with Prof. Ritner is not an "attack." That you think it is is merely indicative of how warped your perspective has become.

Not true. Ritner himself supplied a series of answers, and your response was to effectively call him a liar.

Not so. I called you on the spin you put to it. You know as well as any that Ritner never characterized anything by Gee as “spectacular” errors.

So what? The "errors" were clearly bad enough to merit Ritner's resignation. But hey: if I'm wrong, then perhaps you can explain why he would resign if the errors were merely "minor." You're objecting on the grounds that I didn't reiterate his statements verbatim, which is a pretty lame objection. You're playing the "Offender for a Word" game. You're like the non-LDS Christian critics who argue that it's "spin" for Mormons to claim that they're "Christian."

Did he lie? No> I’ve said that many times already.

You said that it "didn't make sense." And implication is that Ritner was wrong/misguided/lying, etc. What you conveniently overlook is that the apologists steadfastly refuse to pony up any evidence in reply. Instead, they hide. DCP claims to be afraid of getting sued, though this is selective fear on his part. Obviously, getting hauled into court over the FARMS article on Kurt Van Gorden didn't have much of an impact on him. And when he was threatened with legal action by Signature Books, he spat in their faces, bombastically asserting his belief in "free speech." So he responds when it suits him. I think that you can guarantee that, if there were real information that would vindicate Gee, we would have seen it by now.

I merely agreed with Ritner's account. So I guess this means you think Ritner is "disengenuous [sic] and deceptive"?

Funny thing is, I think you actually believe that.

It's either that or you're too dense to understand the implications of your own assertions.

I repeat there is nothing from Ritner to indicate anything resembling Gee screwed up royally.

Yes, there is: Ritner resigned, and Ritner stated that there were errors in his work.

But in your mind that wonderful spin is exactly what Ritner said. You’ll seem to twist anything to attack an LDS person. I don’t know why.

The truth is exactly the opposite: *you* will spin anything in order to try and rescue a Mopologist who has behaved badly.

Yeah, because I'm right. The errors clearly were "spectacular" enough to merit Ritner's resignation.

Ritner didn’t even characterize it as errors, you did.

LOL! Yes, he did! Go back and read the correspondence that Kevin posted. My God, stem. Wipe away those tears of anger, my friend, so that you can read properly.

I think you’ve clearly just exposed your reason for your embellished and deceptive comments on all of this.

I haven't "embellished" anything. There's nothing "deceptive" about agreeing with Prof. Ritner. There's nothing wrong in pointing out how flawed your assumptions are.

[_Blixa]

You see, stem--you actually have come to represent a very important subset of lower-tier Mopologists. Whereas we have the FARMS-types at the top of the hierarchy, with well-trained followers in their wake (e.g., Bokovoy and McClellan), and less-educated but thirsty-for-knowledge seekers below them (e.g., LifeOnaPlate), at the bottom we have folks like you and Simon Belmont, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Joseph Antley. (Antley, at least, seems to have read a few books.) For some strange reason, Mopologetics has actually resulted in a subset of bottom-feeder apologists who defend the apologists merely because they (the bottom feeders) cannot defend the Church on their own.

I'm at the bottom? :(

While I do agree with Scratch that you can conceptualize various Apologist/Mopologist work along a hierarchical continuum, I would not place you anywhere so low, Antley. You can read and write and I've never seen you make egregiously boneheaded arguments (like, for example, complaining about "made up words"). I can't judge much beyond interaction on this board and a few peeks at your blog, but you strike me as appreciative of intellectual endeavor and well capable of it. I think I've seen you blow up a few times, but never anything that would register on a Simonometer or pass the skains test. For the most part you're pretty genial these days.

At the very least you deserve better fish food : )

[_stemelbow]

I only think something is an attack if it is incorrect or done with malice.

You know, if someone launches an attack on me for malicious reasons, I'd much prefer their attack to be incorrect too.

So are you guys saying, to be clear, that Scratch's characterization of this whole affair, that Ritner is saying Gee's dissertation was wrought with spectacular errors, and that Ritner has characterized Gee's dissertation work as screwing up royally?

I'm just wondering how far you guys will take this idea that you are somehow in agreement with attacks on LDS. Clearly Scratch is being deceptive in his attacks on Gee, and clearly he is being untruthful in his revised versions of this whole affair.

Come on fellas, show some integrity here.

[_MsJack]

While I do agree with Scratch that you can conceptualize various Apologist/Mopologist work along a hierarchical continuum, I would not place you anywhere so low, Antley. You can read and write and I've never seen you make egregiously boneheaded arguments (like, for example, complaining about "made up words"). I can't judge much beyond interaction on this board and a few peeks at your blog, but you strike me as appreciative of intellectual endeavor and well capable of it. I think I've seen you blow up a few times, but never anything that would register on a Simonometer or pass the skains test. For the most part you're pretty genial these days.

^

[_Blixa]

So are you guys saying, to be clear, that Scratch's characterization of this whole affair, that Ritner is saying Gee's dissertation was wrought with spectacular errors, and that Ritner has characterized Gee's dissertation work as screwing up royally?

I'm just wondering how far you guys will take this idea that you are somehow in agreement with attacks on LDS. Clearly Scratch is being deceptive in his attacks on Gee, and clearly he is being untruthful in his revised versions of this whole affair.

Come on fellas, show some integrity here.

For me this has nothing to do with "attacks on LDS." Judged on what I know and have experienced in academia, and the responses of Gee, DCP and Ritner, the short answer is yes.

The longer answer might help you to understand not only why I agree (though not with the inappropriate terms you have cast it in, like "screwing up royally"), but also why you don't understand what the argument is about nor what the stakes involved are. However, you've previously indicated that anything beyond a sound byte is "long winded."

It's not the contrempts over Gee's dissertation that is shocking. It is the way it has been characterized by Gee and DCP and the places in which they've been spreading their story. That is entirely unprofessional on a scale I have very rarely witnessed.

[_stemelbow]

His recent post on MDD was in part an excuse to engage in yet more obsession with me. Or can you explain what *I* have to do with his Chapel Mormon-y "Mormon Times" article?

I didn’t see his comments about you, but I doubt “obsession” is a good characterization at all. I suppose if you wish to play some sort of victim here, then that just describes your problem more than anything.

You're not successfully "defending" anyone or anything, stemelbow. You lack the chops: the insight, the reading comprehension, the life experience, etc.

Against your unsupported complaints? I don’t need much of anything to successfully defend against those. What is success in all of this anyway? I’m sure many of your buddies here will run with your deception. You might find that successful I suppose. Ah well.

You probably can't even summarize my "claims." My "claims" are simply that I agree with Ritner's account.

Well obviously you got lost. I was speaking of your claims regarding me, in this instance. At well. But speaking of, you clearly weren’t successful when you attempted to summarize my position on the whole Ritner-Gee fiasco, so your comments are nothing more than hypocrisy anywho.

So what? The "errors" were clearly bad enough to merit Ritner's resignation. But hey: if I'm wrong, then perhaps you can explain why he would resign if the errors were merely "minor." You're objecting on the grounds that I didn't reiterate his statements verbatim, which is a pretty lame objection. You're playing the "Offender for a Word" game. You're like the non-LDS Christian critics who argue that it's "spin" for Mormons to claim that they're "Christian."

My goodness, Scratch, if you are unable to see how taking Ritner’s perception of “problems”, which apparently no one else felt was substantive, and changing it to spectacular errors is painfully deceptive, I don’t know what else to do for you. It appears you are happy to deceive yourself.

You said that it "didn't make sense." And implication is that Ritner was wrong/misguided/lying, etc. What you conveniently overlook is that the apologists steadfastly refuse to pony up any evidence in reply. Instead, they hide. DCP claims to be afraid of getting sued, though this is selective fear on his part. Obviously, getting hauled into court over the FARMS article on Kurt Van Gorden didn't have much of an impact on him. And when he was threatened with legal action by Signature Books, he spat in their faces, bombastically asserting his belief in "free speech." So he responds when it suits him. I think that you can guarantee that, if there were real information that would vindicate Gee, we would have seen it by now.

Saying it didn’t make sense, does not amount to saying he lied. Of course he could very well be wrong. That’s not lying, Scratch. Yet another deceptive ploy by you. Your use of innuendo is nothing short of typical tabloid material. You run with things, while twisting statements, as if you have uncovered something fantastically terrible about LDS.

It's either that or you're too dense to understand the implications of your own assertions.

Do you know what projecting is? You’re doing it here.

Yes, there is: Ritner resigned, and Ritner stated that there were errors in his work.

No he said he had problems with it. He didn’t say there were errors.

The truth is exactly the opposite: *you* will spin anything in order to try and rescue a Mopologist who has behaved badly.

That’s a lie.

I haven't "embellished" anything. There's nothing "deceptive" about agreeing with Prof. Ritner. There's nothing wrong in pointing out how flawed your assumptions are.

I do admit, though your tactics are despicable, there is something adorable about how you maintain your deceptions.