Response to Dan Peterson

[_dartagnan]

You mean like I supported my recollections of DCP's rumors about Ritner? I supported those with about a half-dozen references, and I was still tarred and feathered.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I can't believe nobody here remembers this remark. WK and CK have to remember it. Wait until they post again.

Juliann and Will started everybody over there crying "libel" and "slander," but I don't think Dr. Gee ever made a remark along those lines. I was one of the first people to read the Gee-challenge thread, and I certainly didn't notice a threat of lawsuit at the time. I doubt I could have missed it if there was such a threat, given how sensitive thetopic was at the time.

[_dartagnan]

Here are the various comments in the thread here:

wtf is this? if you can't 'pass' his test, you can't comment on the Book of Abraham? what a douchebag. wait, can I be threatened with a lawsuit for saying that?- Who Knows - Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:09 pm

I suspect he was pointed to that thread because somebody felt I was engaging in libelous slander and wanted Gee to either sue me or defend himself, or both. – Ck - Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:48 pm


I'm quite confident that, at this point, there is no legal action contemplated…- Willian Schryver - Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:51 pm

I'm glad to hear he's not planning on trying to sue me. CK - Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:07 pm


That lame legal threat was the last straw for me. I am thinking of dedicating an entire website to the incompetence of BYU scholars. Sue me if you dare! Dartagnan -Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:14 am


Yes, I'll say it, and I dare Gee to take legal action against me. Dartagnan - Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:08 pm

I can't say what everyone else was referring to but I know I was speaking of the pinned email.

[_CaliforniaKid]

alter idem just posted something that I apparently missed, and that might be what you thought you read in the email. It's actually from the missing papyrus thread, posted by Will:

"You may disagree with Gee’s argument, but you do so from a position of considerable weakness, considering your complete lack of Egyptological training, your relative ignorance of the history of the Joseph Smith papyri compared to Gee’s, and Gee’s specific expertise concerning the papers of Gustavus Seyffarth. But to libel Gee as a “liar” on the basis of your disagreement with his arguments is unwarranted, to say the least. Indeed, I have been requested to inform you that you may find yourself subjected to legal action in the near future on the basis of your continued insistence on publicly impugning the character of the good professor.

[_truth dancer]

I had a thought...

Maybe it wasn't the mods who did the editing? Could Gee or whomever posted the original post have edited?

If I recall correctly, the mods stated they did not edit it but that doesn't mean it was unedited?

I don't know.. just trying to sort things out in my mind!

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

I had a thought...

Maybe it wasn't the mods who did the editing? Could Gee or whomever posted the original post have edited?

If I recall correctly, the mods stated they did not edit it but that doesn't mean it was unedited?

I don't know.. just trying to sort things out in my mind!

~dancer~

I believe that the mods, not Gee, posted it, so I doubt Gee could have edited it. I don't recall seeing a legal threat in the original post, either, for what it's worth.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Runtu...

Are you sure you saw the post in its original form? Why do you think someone could not have edited the post?

I mean many of us have posted things which we later went back and edited out. No?

I'm not sure what happened either way ... the whole thing just seems so odd.

Ya know?

[_Runtu]

Hi Runtu...

Are you sure you saw the post in its original form? Why do you think someone could not have edited the post?

I mean many of us have posted things which we later went back and edited out. No?

I'm not sure what happened either way ... the whole thing just seems so odd.

Ya know?

I saw the post pretty soon after it appeared, but I'm not unequivocally saying it wasn't there. I just don't remember seeing anything about lawsuits. I sure as heck wouldn't consider my memory iron-clad proof of anything. Just saying I don't remember seeing what Kevin saw.

[_dartagnan]

I have been requested to inform you that you may find yourself subjected to legal action in the near future on the basis of your continued insistence on publicly impugning the character of the good professor.

Well, who else could he be referring to if not Gee himself?

[_Runtu]

For what it's worth, I am not accusing Kevin, Dr. Gee, or anyone else of lying. Memory is not perfect.