Maybe she thinks she has, or that since she is so obviously right that she doesn't need to?
She hasn’t, because I have asked her for examples for a long time now and she never produces. What makes her “obviously” right if she cannot produce a single example? What if I said she was a liar and a lesbian. I don’t need to produce any examples or evidence to back it up? You’re only encouraging her to continue with these types of attacks.
It is easier to make general accusations of “misrepresentation” and using your own indignation as evidence, but that in itself is not evidence that a misrepresentation has occurred. One cannot be misrepresenting someone if they never tried to represent them in the first place. When I emailed those sociologists I never mentioned her name. I never even referred to any specific argument she made. She explicitly accuses me of emailing false information to various scholars. Yet, if this is true, then she should have no problems producing a single example. For her to keep dodging this obligation is not only cowardly, but dishonest as well.
And as far as her theory that both could be right, the problem with this is that Ritner considered it slander. Ritner was intimately involved in this situation and he doesn’t believe he and Peterson can both be right, so Juliann’s hypothetical is undermined on that point.