Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Polygamy Porter wrote:This quote from Ritner concerning Danny is a classic!:
In any case, whoever he is,


Poor Danny, no one knows or even cares who you are.

Wasting his life, lyin' for the lord... tsk tsk

Yoh PP. I suspect that at least as many people konw and care about Dr. Peterson as know and care about you or me. In fact, I suspect that number is rather greater than the two of us combined.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Polygamy Porter wrote:Pass the mega-pep-o-mint breath mints east. Soon Vicki will be apologizing to Kev, like she did to Kerry (I wear my garments under my) Shirts...


Boy, you have no idea, Polyg. Jersey Girl, a.k.a. "Vicki,", a.k.a. "Lady Sundancer", claims to be some kind of freewheeling, easy-go-lucky type of fun chick, but the fact of the matter is that she likes to lecture people and tell them how to behave. Behold this PM she sent to me:

Jersey Girl wrote:1. You are under the mistaken impression that I'm on a "side". I am my own side.

2. Itchy was a direct reaction to your blog. So be it.

3. Where the hell were you when the Z trolls were badgering harmony and Shades? Were you sitting on your ass watching Shades and I confront them? Please don't feign that you give a s*** about either Shades or harmony or the information that was being posted about them.

4. I have no problem whatsoever dealing with Pahoran. I've gone nose to nose with him more than once, had no trouble holding my own with him. He infact left Z after a series of exchanges with me. He's a non-issue to me.

5. What you're doing with Coggins is uncategorically wrong. You and others (coffee, Mercury) taunt the living f*** out of him on a regular basis. When he responds in kind you (the collective you) mock his religion. When he chooses to disengage, you (the collective you) make him out to be a coward. When he chooses to use humor as a form of response, you (the collective you) accuse him of not being well educated or highlighting his alcoholism. What's next? You gonna cut on him for taking care of his ill wife?

6. Coggins admitted publicly that he's an alcoholic and you (the collective you) persist in making bitchy little remarks about it as a form of response. coffee, on the otherhand is applauded for his deficiencies because they are combat related. Give me a f****** break!

7. You recently made a remark about Coggins' age as it relates to his ability to learn. Who in the holy living hell do you think you are, Scratch? If you're so well educated then grind him down with topical points.

8. I have little if any respect for one who refuses to divulge information publicly while at the same time using the disclosures of others to disparage them.

9. Do not make remarks to me about immoral people. In my mind, using someones disease, disability or condition as a form of ad hominem is likewise immoral.

10. I will defend whatever and whomever I please. I'm not in your "club" or on your "side". I am an independent here and I'll criticize whatever I oppose.

Anything else?


Yup. She shore is on her own side!
_Polygamy Porter
_Emeritus
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:04 am

Post by _Polygamy Porter »

asbestosman wrote:
Polygamy Porter wrote:This quote from Ritner concerning Danny is a classic!:
In any case, whoever he is,


Poor Danny, no one knows or even cares who you are.

Wasting his life, lyin' for the lord... tsk tsk

Yoh PP. I suspect that at least as many people konw and care about Dr. Peterson as know and care about you or me. In fact, I suspect that number is rather greater than the two of us combined.
Defending the deceivers or the deceived?

Several years ago over at the litter box formerly known as the Fboards, Danny admitted that Mormon related archaeological research was largely ignored by the non Mormon scientific communities.

A poster on ZLMB, added that to his sig line and to my delight, it enraged Danny to no end. ahh good times to reflect on...

Which are you then? Deceived or one of the deceivers?
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

dartagnan wrote:She had a hissy fit because I said I had a correspondence with Mauss. She then appealed to the mods, who then demanded that I present my private email to them, or else be banned!


I remember that incident well. Talk about overstepping moderatorial bounds. . . demanding to see personal, private correspondences or else be banned? What's next? Demanding to see tax returns?

Either way, I thought it was great fun when you refused to cave in to them. Good job!

So when Gee contemplates a possible lawsuit against his critics who think him an idiot, well, that’s all fine and dandy right?


Good observation.

Juliann wrote:It is so ironic that the antis who are so concerned about "truth" are so eager to shut down free speech through the courts.


Shut down free speech? What the hell is she talking about? She (Dunamis) is responsible for shutting down more speeches than the Gestapo.


Oh man, LOL!!

Jersey Girl wrote:4. See these bolded parts?

I suspect . . . possibly because . . . maybe realized . . . was probably . . . Gee probably . . . was probably . . . But maybe . . . was probably . . . Maybe . . .


That, buddy, is innuendo and speculation on your part about allegedly confidential matters between professionals for which you have no blessed business posting on this board. It's the kind of stuff that rumors are made of, the kind of stuff that is intended to publicly defame people...

you know....the same thing you accuse Gee and DCP of doing?


I don't see how what Kevin posted was a problem, since he clearly labeled his ideas as speculation. Speculation is an allowable (and normal) part of any exchange of ideas and/or opinions.

5. Now why don't you post this on your own board?


[SPEAKING AS A MODERATOR NOW: I'm striving to avoid any and all forms of board-jealousy. I believe Kevin's (and everyone else's) ideas should be expressed here without any of us worrying about whether or not it's posted elsewhere. Let's allow his ideas to stand or fall on their own merits.]

Spin your web someplace else.


[I respectfully request that participants not "de-invite" anyone or imply that their viewpoints, whatever they are, aren't welcome here. If someone's ideas are faulty, I strongly believe that the way to deal with them is to refute them head-on, not make the person posting them go away like the MA&D moderators do.

Please understand that I mean nothing personal at all by this. Please take these comments in the spirit in which they are presented.]
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

I don't see how what Kevin posted was a problem, since he clearly labeled his ideas as speculation. Speculation is an allowable (and normal) part of any exchange of ideas and/or opinions.


Uh yea, especially when they are requested. Apparently Jerseygirl didn’t seem to catch the fact that my suspicions and hypothetical scenarios were outlined because I was responding to Moksha who politely asked, “Could anyone furnish an in the nutshell version of what they think transpired between Dr. Gee and Dr. Ritner?”

To be honest I had no idea Ritner would even respond to me. I had always assumed that what Peterson and Gee asserted was based in fact. When Ritner indicated that it was slander or libel, I was blown away.

FTR, I locked my board a while back. I am in the process of converting it to a one-dimensional forum designed to deal with Book of Abraham topics. If Jerseygirl's resentment of my presence is shared by others here I'd be happy to vacate the premises for good.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

I just posted the followng at MAD as my last post. Exactly 2 seconds after posting Juliann blocked my proxy IP. Too funny. And she insists she is open to free speech and that I am somehow afraid to deal with her. Who is scared of whom?

Here is what I posted:


Jan, you’re still focusing on the privacy of it all which wasn’t the point really. The main point was that a reputable professor from the University of Chicago claims our precious Daniel Peterson has been spreading lies. If this is true then he has been doing it regularly since 2002. Yes, he is undoubtedly the poster named “Logic Chopper.” And I suspect he initially said this using a pseudonym to avoid any immediate repercussions that might have developed. I always took Ritner’s silence as evidence that this rumor was true. I had no idea Ritner was unaware of what had been said.

The only creepy thing is Kevin and his gotcha email campaigns. Two scholars disagree about what happened on a dissertation committee years ago. Big whoop.


Big Whoop huh? Typical apologetic downplaying. So what if Joseph Smith couldn’t translate Egyptian? Big deal. So what if Gee was wrong in just about every apologetic argument he has forwarded. Big deal. The Church is still true and you’re still going to hell you rabid, venomous, vapid and vituperative anti!

The pathetic thing is that Kevin uses these people by trying to get them upset and doesn't care how foolish he is makes Ritner or his other stealth email victims look when he drags them into his sick games.


Juliann is still upset that I didn’t sit back and take her word when she said she had properly represented specific sociologists. For those who recall, I emailed Bromley and he was disgusted with her method. She then went ballistic and has been grinding her axe ever since. Her own professor had less than flattering things to say about the “FAIR crowd,” but out of respect to him I decided not to continue with the exchange (that, and the fact that I was banned and the topic died). Her only appeal was in claiming I had posted their emails without permission. When I presented the permission, and proved she was an idiot who knew nothing of which she spoke, she had to figure another way to discredit me - that “campaign” ended up being based solely on her bald assertions that I was fudging emails. Since she was yapping in an echo-chamber without any gumption to face me head-on, she was able to convince herself and others that what she was blathering was actually rooted in reality.

Her recent rant has just lit a fuse in me again, so I will present the several exchanges on a website in the near future, just to have a reference point for her future lies about it. Unfortunately that means Mauss will be dragged back into her mud. Pity. He is the nicest guy I have ever met, and his attitude was the reason why I decided not to post the exchanges. That, and the fact that Juliann made sure I was unable to post by having me banned, and by the time all the scholars sent their last responses, the topic had died out on the other forum. I had no idea would later interpret all this as proof that I had been lying about the exchanges. What an idiotic leap that was, and I shall prove it soon enough.

Sorry Juliann, but you just keep asking for it.

That is why he will not show his own emails or complete exchanges. It is all about Kevin and always has been and the collatoral damage is irrelevant.


Juliann doesn’t have anything to back this up except her own say-so. What am I supposed to do, let her send in the STMC to confiscate my hard drive and analyze all my emails before she believes me? Somehow I doubt that would matter. She needs to believe this nonsense the same way Mormons generally need to believe these rumors that cast doubt and suspicion on critics. They can’t live without it.

"[My] dismissal of Graham" is actually a questioning. Was that the entire email?


Yes. Contrary to Juliann’s lies, I did not edit the email. She has never demonstrated that I have. I do what most people refuse to do. While they are sitting on their butts drinking the latest juice from the FAIR/FARMS rumor-mill, I am going to the horse’s mouth to separate truth from myth. Obviously we can see why apologists feel uncomfortable with that method. It is scholarly and not faith promoting to find out what a source allegedly has said and done. Mormons live off the rumor mill. They love it. They need it. They’ll fight to keep it. That is all Juliann is doing at this point. She is making the subject me by recreating history and trying to cast doubt on me without the slightest hint of evidence.

why won't you post the entire email, Kevin? What are you hiding this time?


Juliann is fantasizing, knowing perfectly well that’s he has never demonstrated me “hiding” anything. This is nothing more than another false rumor fabricated to throw doubt on someone she wishes would just shut up. But hey, Juliann says she is all for free speech, so that must be true. I mean it wasn’t as if I spent 20 minutes last night trying to reconfigure my system because Juliann had gone into mod mode and blocked my IP address. She was the only one present who could have done that. She always does this. She is scared to death of me, which is why she immediately throws her weight around to make sure I cannot post here. Of course the MAD mods aren’t very good at blocking posters from posting. The only reason I posted here yesterday because I was surprised that someone had dragged this topic from Shades’ forum. Has this now become the MD obsession forum?

Why won't you post all of the email? Why not be open and honest and tell the whole story? Why do you hide things? What are you afraid of?


I posted the email in its entirety. For you to sit there and insist otherwise is just another Juliann rant based in ignorance/wishful thinking.

Let's start a poll! Who will Kevin email next when he loses the intellectual battle?


I lost an intellectual battle with whom? That’s news to me and probably everyone else. Juliann is going into her usual hysteria again. But of course, we know this is all geared to take focus off of Dan Peterson’s rumor-mongering. I don’t think even Juliann is dumb enough to believe half of what she is spouting at this point. The whole point here is diversion. FAIR apologists have mastered this technique out of necessity.

Here is the firs email I sent to Ritner:


Professor Ritner,

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your work on the “Book of Abraham.” It has helped me tremendously over the past while, and has been instrumental in reforming my views regarding things LDS. I have been told by Daniel C. Peterson that John Gee has responded to your criticism in some Egyptological venue, but he didn’t say which it was. I have been unable to find any CV for Gee or a list of his publications. Peterson assures the LDS faithful that Gee is “widely respected” in the field and has been published in scholarly venues many times. Ok, so where at? I find hard to believe he is respectable, especially after the numerous errors in the one book he has published. It seems that virtually everything he writes is Mormon/apologetic related.

Incidentally, Dan Peterson likes to bring up some incident you and Gee had at Yale. He seems to think that by telling people Gee had you successfully removed from some advisory board – which he insists is “not common” - that this somehow proves you’re too biased to be taken seriously. As if you have always had an axe to grind with Gee. I have seen Dan mention this on discussion forums on at least three different occasions.

Anyway, I saw that you are contributing to Brent’s upcoming book. I look forward to reading that.

Kevin


Ritner’s first email I already provided, in ful.

The exchange is still ongoing.

So what are you going to do now Juliann? You’ve been gloating and laughing all night about how I refuse to provide. I never refused to provide. Nobody ever asked me. In fact, no one still has asked me. I just presented it to prove again how much of an idiot you really are.

And no, doing the IP hussle really isn’t worth getting in a word here temporarily. You can have the last word here as I’m sure you will be provided anyway. If you have the gumption to deal with me head-on, you know where I am at. I recommend you stay well hidden and protected here behind your entourage of moderators, because we all know you have never been one to hold your own.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Dang, the fireworks always start as soon as I leave.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Critics are criticized for not having adequate background knowledge on subjects to be able to critique meaningfully, yet when they seek that background information, they are scolded for "pretending to be experts". Critics are criticized for relying on what "anti-mormons" say without verifying these things, and yet when they make the effort to actually CONTACT either experts or the individuals involved, they are still criticized.

Until Juliann offers some proof that Kevin "edited" emails, she is simply engaging in the same gossip mongering that DCP is known for. I read the emails between Kevin, Mauss, and Bromley, and saw no evidence of "editing". I think it was clear to anyone who had actually read the Bromley text that Juliann was ignoring crucial points in the theory in her attempt to force it to fit RFM and internet critics. If she had simply been upfront about what she was doing, which was to alter or ignore crucial points to create her own (new) theory, then it wouldn't be a problem, but the problem was that she consistently maintained this wasn't "JULIANN'S" theory but rather the theory of the EXPERTS, like Bromley and Mauss. No, it wasn't, due to the tinkering.

If a believer made the effort to actually email the cited authorities or involved individuals, or to actually go to the primary source (as I did with Sorenson's citations) and found evidence that the "countermo's" had been as disingenuous as Juliann herself had been with the Bromley theory*, the believer would have been lauded and praised as exemplary. But when a critic does the same thing and uncovers information that reveals the FARMish crowd has, indeed, been as disingenuous as Juliann herself has been, they are accused of "editing" emails and other generic bad behavior (I was accused of making a ridiculously big deal of Sorenson's botched references, and was accused of demonstrating "bad behavior" with John Clark after directly contacting each of them) - without one shred of evidence, and the groupies are quite content to NOT demand a shred of evidence, either, but are content to begin parroting the accusation as if it were already proven.

And this is what is wrong with what DCP does. Under numerous screen names (some open about his identity, some not), he repeats his accusations without offering one shred of evidence, other than his own authority (the hint that he has been directly involved with the situation somehow, as he did with the Grant Palmer innuendos, and with the link Jerubaal helpfully offered. - and I have criticized him for this to his face on ZLMB in the past, so I'm not talking behind his back) His groupies then do not demand any evidence of his assertions, but begin parroting them as if they had already been proven. The same phenomenon is occurring on the MAD thread - Juliann, without one shred of evidence, asserts that Kevin edits emails without one shred of evidence (note, edit in a manner that changes the meaning, not edit for brevity), and others begin parroting it as if it were proven.

Of course, I don't mean to cast aspersion on the entire FARMish crowd. Brant, for example, when confronted with the evidence that Sorenson had misused sources, simply admitted the error and said it was a lesson on the importance of primary sources. I'm just casting aspersion on the Juliannish crowd, who seem incapable of simply admitting error or bad behavior in their own group and who seem to dominate MAD now-a-days.


*briefly, Juliann's primary disingenuous act with the Bromley text was to pull out certain portions of the model without explaining the context of the original model, which was studying new religious groups that were held in disrepute by the larger society in general, and hence, the oppositional groups created to fight the new religions were comprised largely of people from the larger society who had never been members of the group, but were escalating the concern of the larger group about the danger of the new religion. Former members of the religion were used, more or less, as "props" in the larger war between the new religious movement and the host society in general.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Charity’s comment is particularly entertaining, as she so reliably is in general:

Her reply to Kevin:

Kevin,

1. Why don't you post over here with your real name as juliann does?

2. Why do you ask Ritner about Gee's CV? (That is one of the furthest out in the boonies question I have heard.)

3. Why should we trust you that the e-mails are complete and not edited? Your conduct is not exactly conducive to engendering confidence in you.


I particularly enjoyed the second statement, given the context of Gee’s own “test”.

This is formulaic. Instead of focusing on the actual issue, focus instead on the messenger. Why doesn't kevin use his "real name"? Why did he ask about the CV? Why should they TRUST him given his suspicious CONDUCT?

This is the new, modern version of the past "Martha Brotherton is a whore from her mother's breast" tactic.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

The whole argument that I edit emails is stupid, but it is really all they have to go on, so they are clinging to it for dear life. It is a baseless theory they conjure up for the sake of casting some desperately needed doubt on my credibility. It also derails the subject, which serves a secondary purpose for them. None of the sociologists I spoke with resented having confided in me. Bromley ended up sending me some pdf files of what he had written, as a kind gesture. Mauss sent me emails even after I though the exchange had died. They gave me permission to post their emails. Juliann got pissed off about this and started circulating the lie that I had edited their emails.

Mauss gave me permission to post his emails before he realized it involved Juliann. He never said I couldn't continue to cite him but I sensed he wished he had never been dragged into it. And of course, Juliann had dragged him into it, not me. All I did was email him to ask him his view to see if he supported Juliann's method. He clearly didn't. Juliann had been beating this sociology straw man for years. I finally decided to go to the "experts" to see whether they agreed with her thesis.

Juliann is an idiot. I cannot believe she is still a glutton for punishment, just tempting me to embarrass her some more. I guess I will have to dig up the email fiasco from months ago and post it online somewhere. Maybe I will include it in the upcoming website dealing with the errors of BYU scholars. Maybe the website will have a broader interest since Juliann is not a scholar, or maybe she will be the exception. I haven't decided, but I should have more time to devote to this project sometime later next month when I return from our trip to Italy.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Post Reply