Someone has a terrible comprehension problem. Here, I'll do it again for you Graham (it has appeared many times in this thread and, look!, it's even in "list" format):
I agree someone has a problem, but it has nothing to do with me or my comprehension since nothing you listed has been proved. I think the problem is your neophyte understanding of proof. You also have problems understanding what it means to “lie.” Whatever one wants to believe about the editing of the email, it can hardly be denied that I genuinely believed it was. This is supported by the fact that last week I noted, in response to Gee’s email, that “his threat to sue” was ridiculous, and I went further to dare him to do so. Now why would I have written that a week ago if I didn’t really believe Gee said something about a possible lawsuit against his critics? The point here is that if I genuinely believe this to be true, then I am not lying or attempting to deceive.
Further, it appears Dr. Shades recalls this in the initial post as well, although he attributes the commentary to Chaos and not Gee. In any event, what he remembers is no longer there. When I get back in town I’ll check my cached files and see what comes up.
That Gee sent an email with a legal threat in it.
Gee confirmed with Dan that he has considered legal action and has even discussed it with an attorney. I elaborated twice on the thread that Gee never really threatened anyone, but he did allude to the fact that he was entertaining the possibility. This is consistent with Dan’s recent conversation with Gee. Please illustrate where you have proved this didn’t happen.
That the moderators posted said e-mail with said legal threat in it.
Well, naturally they posted it or else we wouldn’t have seen it. You’re just trying to make this into something it isn’t: two possible errors as opposed to one.
That the moderators then edited out the alleged legal threat from the post.
That’s right. Please show me your “proof” that this isn’t true. All you have done is provide the moderator’s say-so; the same moderators who admittedly snoop private messages but lie about their reasons for doing so. Yes, that is something I did actually demonstrate. The Moderators have a history of taking damage control measures, especially when they got busted for snooping into the ironically named “private messages.”
That Peterson somehow influenced the moderators to edit out the alleged threat from the said post of Gee's e-mail.
I didn’t say he influenced them directly. His pedantic reaction to the prospect of a Ritner lawsuit has obviously traumatized the entire board there. They don’t know what to make of his reaction other than to launch out at me as if I made him gossip false rumors. His reaction is even unsettling to me, so imagine how the mods are reacting. They will do what’s best for their “protected” posters. They have a history of this.
DCP is the law there, period. If he lashes out at lawsuits everyone knows they better have all their ducks in order and better not say anything that promotes a lawsuit. Problem was, lawsuits had already been suggested before Dan had time to read these threads, so he ended up condemning comments made by Gee via William Schryver, without even knowing it. So when he starts barking at me and Ritner about how lawsuits impact "real lives" he is undermining Gee's threat via Schryver.
In any event, they forgot to edit out William Schryver’s declaration that “someone” (Gee obviously) told him to warn us all of possible lawsuits if we continued to call Gee incompetent. And yes, I am glad my toungue-in-cheek remarks we able to lighten things up over there. It’s good to see Dan posting again without the depressing doomsday scenarios about how a lawsuit could destroy his life and possibly force his children to the brink of starvation.
While you guys are trying to buy time with these red herrings, we’re all still waiting in anticipation to find out the answer to the real question that matters.
Who was it that told William Schryver to warn us about possible lawsuits?
The apologist on the grassy knoll?