Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_The Dude]

I had no idea there was so much history and hard feelings fomenting under this issue, so please except my apologies for starting all this.

Maklelan, although you like to use big latin words, this display of naïvété is pretty darn cute. It makes me want to tossle your little Calvin hair.

If you hadn't cross posted the email then somebody else would have. Probably Juliann herself.

[_asbestosman]

Anyway, she has forced me to embarrass her more on this, so I will detail all the emails in due time.

Nobody can force you to do anything Kevin, especially Julian. Now, you may be justified in doing what you do, or maybe not, but you aren't being forced by anyone unless it's yourself.

Also, it looks like Julian agrees with your speculation on what happened with Dr. Gee and Dr. Ritner on the events. Where she seems to disagree is on whether that implies that Dr. Peterson has therefore smeared Ritner.

Furthermore I fail to see how bias is much of a defense agianst Ritner. Everyone's biased. Big deal. I'm sure LDS faithful who disagree with Ritner would imagine a similar excuse (perhaps "mistaken" instead of biased) even without the thing between Dr. Gee and Dr. Ritner.

This whole thing seems pointless, but I'm happy to leave it in Dr. Ritner's hands as to what needs to be done if indeed Dr. Peterson has libeled him (something which I doubt Dr. Peterson would do).

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey, do us all a favor and take your personality disorder elsewhere. I don't care what you have to say ( I haven't for quite a while) and it appears nobody else does either. Please don't turn this thread into another Jerseygirl show.

Yeah, I agree. Jersey as of late has been spiraling out of control, flailing about wildly and lecturing people on morals and ethics. In fact, increasingly, she has begun to sound very much like our very favorite five-alarmist, Ray A.

"spiraling out of control, flailing about wildly and lecturing people on morals and ethics" = taking a stand against b***s***

I totally cop to it.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

I'd like to apologize to all involved for lighting this tinder box. I had no idea there was so much history and hard feelings fomenting under this issue, so please except my apologies for starting all this.

mak,

I really think you did the right thing in apologizing here and over on MAD. My take is that if you see something potentially harmful to a person instead of spreading it further, you should take it directly to them. I've always regretted any situation where I failed to do just that.

"I'm giving ya pearls here son." - Pacino, Scent of a Woman

Jersey Girl
;-)

[_Analytics]

I had a pleasant exchange with both of the scholars Kevin emailed with false information

EXCUSE ME?? What false information? Juliann is talking out of her ass again. She knows damn well there was no "false" information which is why she only asserts it and NEVER specifies....

I would disagree with you on this one—I have a feeling that Juliann is being sincere; she sincerely believes that you misrepresented what she said.

My interpretation of Juliann is that she just isn’t a very clear thinker or a good communicator. When she hears Mauss or whoever talking, in the moment she gets it, or at least think she does, and nodds in agreement. Then she maps the idea to her perpetual crusade against critics of her church, and it gets muddled. Then doesn’t do a good job of expressing whatever it is that she is thinking.

In the end when you accurately sumarize what she actually said, she may or may not recognize her thoughts in your summary. If one of her gurus disagrees with your summary, that is “proof” that you misrepresented her, because she is already convinced that she is on the same page as the guru.

[_skippy the dead]

"spiraling out of control, flailing about wildly and lecturing people on morals and ethics" = taking a stand against b***s***

I totally cop to it.

Jersey Girl

I'd have to say I'm with you on this one, Jersey. I haven't seen anything from you in this thread that's been out of line or "alarmist" or flailing.

And at least now we know that the "P" in "PM" apparently doesn't mean much to some folks on the board. Something to keep in mind.

[_harmony]

Dear Mr. Graham,

Thank you for the kind and informative note. My response to Gee's relevant academic output will be contained in the book edited by Brent. Gee has been increasingly visible, but not increasingly respected, at meetings. I do not know Mr. Peterson, nor how he would have any knowledge of my involvement with Gee's dissertation (except through misrepresentations by Gee himself), but I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee's work, and I signaled many errors in his work as a reason. If Mr. Peterson continues to make false allegations, I may have to consider a slander or libel lawsuit. In any case, whoever he is, he is neither competent nor legally authorized to discuss the private matter. I have retained my dated correspondence and may put it on-line if such misrepresentations continue.

Sincerely,
Robert Ritner

Wow. So Ritner says he has proof that what Dan and Gee are saying is false? Gee maintains that he was the reason Ritner left and Ritner says this is not true. Just think if Ritner decides to present his proof!

The ultimate slap: Ritner doesn't even know who Dan is. Geez, that has got to hurt.

[_beastie]

I would disagree with you on this one—I have a feeling that Juliann is being sincere; she sincerely believes that you misrepresented what she said.

My interpretation of Juliann is that she just isn’t a very clear thinker or a good communicator. When she hears Mauss or whoever talking, in the moment she gets it, or at least think she does, and nodds in agreement. Then she maps the idea to her perpetual crusade against critics of her church, and it gets muddled. Then doesn’t do a good job of expressing whatever it is that she is thinking.

In the end when you accurately sumarize what she actually said, she may or may not recognize her thoughts in your summary. If one of her gurus disagrees with your summary, that is “proof” that you misrepresented her, because she is already convinced that she is on the same page as the guru.

Boy, you have really nailed it. I wonder if remembering this would make interacting with her any easier? Probably not. But you sure nailed it.

[_Dr. Shades]

I had a pleasant exchange with both of the scholars Kevin emailed with false information

EXCUSE ME?? What false information? Juliann is talking out of her ass again. She knows damn well there was no "false" information which is why she only asserts it and NEVER specifies....

Juliann truly exists within her own little world. I recall that Kevin NEVER e-mailed the scholars any information; he merely solicited their opinions.

I know this isn't a substitute for substantive dialogue, but Juliann really, really needs to get laid.

[_dartagnan]

Nobody can force you to do anything Kevin, especially Julian. Now, you may be justified in doing what you do, or maybe not, but you aren't being forced by anyone unless it's yourself.

Strictly speaking that is true, but Juliann has begun her usual attacks on me in a forum where she knows I cannot respond. She knows I never put up with that. Now she is saying I lie to scholars in my emails by providing them false information! She cannot even begin to substantiate such nonsense, but when she comes at me with these types of attacks, I feel compelled to take off the gloves.

Also, it looks like Julian agrees with your speculation on what happened with Dr. Gee and Dr. Ritner on the events. Where she seems to disagree is on whether that implies that Dr. Peterson has therefore smeared Ritner.

I haven’t noticed this, probably because I haven’t been over there today. There is only so much stupidity a person can read without absorbing some of it, so I try to keep my readings of idiotic postings to a bare minimum.

Furthermore I fail to see how bias is much of a defense agianst Ritner. Everyone's biased. Big deal.

It is the only defense they have. Sure, everyone’s bias, but tell that to people like David Bokovoy who dismisses an entire field of biblical scholarship because he thinks it is bias! Virtually every form of apologetic defense, with regards to Ritner, involves some kind of slam against his lack of objectivity, his association with Evangelicals, etc.

I'm sure LDS faithful who disagree with Ritner would imagine a similar excuse (perhaps "mistaken" instead of biased) even without the thing between Dr. Gee and Dr. Ritner.

Nobody has disagreed with Ritner in any relevant apologetic material. None of the apologists have provided any counter-arguments to anything he has said really. The brunt of material relies strictly on argument about subjectivity. That ridiculous FROB piece which should have been written by Gee, was written by someone who has no experience whatsoever in Egyptology. All he did was complain that Ritner was too harsh, and that he was anti-Mormon, bla bla bla.

This whole thing seems pointless, but I'm happy to leave it in Dr. Ritner's hands as to what needs to be done if indeed Dr. Peterson has libeled him (something which I doubt Dr. Peterson would do).

Me too, though I doubt there will be any type of lawsuit. Did anyone really take Gee seriously the other day when he considered filing a lawsuit against “critics” who call him incompetent?