Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_Buffalo]

As it is, I appreciate the criticisms. They're helpful.

(I'm serious about that. Substantive criticism is quite rare, and I value it. But, of course, only a microscopic portion of the criticism directed against me here is substantive. Most of it is that I'm a liar and a coward and an arrogant elitist, was a bad bishop, have poor taste in literature and movies and music -- that's one of my personal favorites from Scratch -- am a racist, an anti-Semite, a voyeur, disdain science and scientists, etc.)

Sure, that's understandable. But it seems that those types of criticisms are the ones you respond to the most, by far. Why respond to those but not to the substantive criticism?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why respond to those but not to the substantive criticism?

I respond to substantive matters in other places.

This is not a place where I choose to deal, at any significant length or at the cost of any significant time or effort, with substantive issues.

Too much nonsense, too much static, too little civility, too much anger, too small an audience, too monochromatically hostile an audience, only occasional flickers of intellectual seriousness, etc.

Like it or not, that's my honest evaluation.

But I do appreciate real criticisms. They help me to better formulate what I write for other venues, to anticipate angles of attack, to avoid stupid errors or inadequate expressions, and so forth. The Stak attack and the George Miller criticism here have been useful in that regard. But they're awfully few and far between on this board. For every George Miller, there's at least one Joey, along with a Gadianton, a schreech, a marg, a Scratch, a Kevin Graham, a Spurven ten Sing, a Some Schmo, a DrW, a DrCamNC4Me, a thews, and a Themis.

[_Buffalo]

Why respond to those but not to the substantive criticism?

I respond to substantive matters in other places.

This is not a place where I choose to deal, at any significant length or at the cost of any significant time or effort, with substantive issues.

Too much nonsense, too much static, too little civility, too much anger, too small an audience, too monochromatically hostile an audience, only occasional flickers of intellectual seriousness, etc.

Like it or not, that's my honest evaluation.

But I do appreciate real criticisms. They help me to better formulate what I write for other venues, to anticipate angles of attack, to avoid stupid errors or inadequate expressions, and so forth. The Stak attack and the George Miller criticism here have been useful in that regard. But they're awfully few and far between on this board. For every George Miller, there's at least one Joey, along with a Gadianton, a schreech, a marg, a Scratch, a Kevin Graham, a Spurven ten Sing, a Some Schmo, a DrW, a DrCamNC4Me, a thews, and a Themis.

Yes, but why respond to the material that you think lacks substance but not respond to that which is substantive? It doesn't seem to make sense. You'd think if you were going to spend any time here, it'd be responding to the substance and ignoring the static, or else ignore the whole thing altogether. I realize responding to a single Scratch post is quick and easy, but doesn't all that time and effort add up?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I came here in the first place to dispute the kinds of things Scratch was anonymously posting about me. They're serious allegations -- e.g., that I'm a racist, a mercenary, a liar, an anti-Semite, a religious bigot, a slanderer, a deliberate wrecker of families and of people's careers, with homicidal inclinations, etc. -- and I felt that I could not permit them to go out over the Internet, internationally, unchallenged.

He's been at it for five years now, though. Plainly, I underestimated his dedication and his stamina. (I've never seen anything even remotely like his campaign against me. Anywhere.) And, equally plainly, I've been wasting my time trying to counter him.

On the other hand, I no longer think it matters as much as I once did. My public image is reasonably well established by this point, and there's little that he can do, particularly from this tiny corner of the Web, to change it. And those who buy his line about me are probably beyond my help anyway.

So why am I still here? Force of habit, mostly. There's really little redeeming purpose in my posting here.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't know, Stem. Clearly, the "errors"--whatever they were--were such that Ritner felt he couldn't continue on in support of Gee's doctoral work.

Well then what's the issue here?

The issue is that a highly respectable scholar had such major problems with Gee's work that he took himself off the dissertation committee. As everyone has been telling you here--including DCP--this is a highly irregular thing. It doesn't happen often. It suggests that something was seriously and spectacularly wrong with Gee's scholarship.

Ritner didn't think Gee deserved a PhD, it seems. Why? Neither of us know. We just know that Ritner said he spotted some errors in his works and those errors were passed on to others hoping they too would agree that Gee didn't deserve a PhD.

No, stem. We don't know if that's the case or not. It may be that Gee trimmed out the problematic material before he handed the dissertation over to his new chair. We don't know whether the "errors" were left in or not.

But, in the end, Ritner was wrong.

You don't know that.

Gee was granted a PhD and these supposed errors didn't supply anyone with any reason, it seems, to withhold the candidate from his PhD.

You don't know whether or not the Ph.D. granters ever saw these "errors."

So Ritner doesn't like Gee's work for reasons we can only speculate on? Alls it sounds like to me is Ritner doesn't like Gee.

We don't know the exact reasons, but we know they were significant and substantive enough to cause Ritner to resign from the committee.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I came here in the first place to dispute the kinds of things Scratch was anonymously posting about me.

That's not entirely true. You ought to take a trip down memory lane to read the first several posts you made here. Your first, in fact, was a swipe at your old nemesis, Tal Bachman:

Folks like Bitton, Peterson, McGuire, Juliann, sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all.

I'll let Ben and Juliann speak for themselves, but, in my case (and, I'm very nearly as confident, in the case of my late long-time friend Davis Bitton), this statement is flatly false.

I hold no such view, and never have.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2324&p=50387#p50387

Among the other dozen or so of your first posts (to this iteration of the board) are indeed some of your denials that you ever gossiped about Mike Quinn, plus another set of denials where you insisted that you never attacked--of all people--Runtu. Perhaps most hilarious, though, are these posts:

My answers here are terse because I have no intention of getting bogged down in an endless cycle of posts here. I simply want to correct false statements made about me, and be done with it. Those who insist that I'm a liar will, no doubt, continue to believe that I'm a liar. Those who aren't so sure will at least have heard what I myself have to say.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2384&p=50520#p50520

I've got to go now. Dinner with friends, then a play.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2384&p=50530#p50530

Thanks, Nightingale.

I don't plan to be around here much or for very long -- largely, but not entirely, because of that sort of nonsense.

But I appreciate the sentiments.

Best wishes,

DCP

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2391&p=50586#p50586

Those posts, by the way, are over 4 years old.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Show up.

Attack people.

Complain that nothing worth talking about occurs here.

Attack people.

Claim you're too busy to be bothered with being serious.

Attack people.

11,000 posts.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_stemelbow]

The issue is that a highly respectable scholar had such major problems with Gee's work that he took himself off the dissertation committee. As everyone has been telling you here--including DCP--this is a highly irregular thing. It doesn't happen often. It suggests that something was seriously and spectacularly wrong with Gee's scholarship.

Oh brother. So you’re saying each and every time someone has decided to take him/herself off the dissertation committee that means, without a doubt, the scholarship of the candidate is spectacularly wrong? That is just plain stupid. What’s even more stupid is one has to assume the committee was too stupid, unlike Ritner, to see the spectacularly wrong scholarship produced by the candidate. As the explanation offered by Ritner, its far more likely Ritner simply didn’t’ like Gee—not saying that’s the case here, just that that is far more likely than your absurd claim.

No, stem. We don't know if that's the case or not. It may be that Gee trimmed out the problematic material before he handed the dissertation over to his new chair. We don't know whether the "errors" were left in or not.

You know this is ridiculous. If Gee fixed the errors then there would never have been any reason for Ritner to excuse himself, right? This is just plain stupid.

You don't know that.[/quolte]

It’s a much more likely scenario then the one you are trying to paint.

We don't know the exact reasons, but we know they were significant and substantive enough to cause Ritner to resign from the committee.

It would be much more productive to discuss these things with someone who is willing to think about what has been said on the matter. All you do is take what you want and throw in your “I hate Gee” bias. Whatever, Scratch.

[_Buffalo]

I came here in the first place to dispute the kinds of things Scratch was anonymously posting about me. They're serious allegations -- e.g., that I'm a racist, a mercenary, a liar, an anti-Semite, a religious bigot, a slanderer, a deliberate wrecker of families and of people's careers, with homicidal inclinations, etc. -- and I felt that I could not permit them to go out over the Internet, internationally, unchallenged.

He's been at it for five years now, though. Plainly, I underestimated his dedication and his stamina. (I've never seen anything even remotely like his campaign against me. Anywhere.) And, equally plainly, I've been wasting my time trying to counter him.

On the other hand, I no longer think it matters as much as I once did. My public image is reasonably well established by this point, and there's little that he can do, particularly from this tiny corner of the Web, to change it. And those who buy his line about me are probably beyond my help anyway.

So why am I still here? Force of habit, mostly. There's really little redeeming purpose in my posting here.

Well, you must do as you wish, of course. But have you considered that this strategy actually encourages people to attack you? It's the only way to get a discussion out of you, it seems.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The issue is that a highly respectable scholar had such major problems with Gee's work that he took himself off the dissertation committee. As everyone has been telling you here--including DCP--this is a highly irregular thing. It doesn't happen often. It suggests that something was seriously and spectacularly wrong with Gee's scholarship.

Oh brother. So you’re saying each and every time someone has decided to take him/herself off the dissertation committee that means, without a doubt, the scholarship of the candidate is spectacularly wrong?

No. I'm saying that appears to be the case in *this particular instance.*

That is just plain stupid.

If that's what you think, then yes: it is just plain stupid.

What’s even more stupid is one has to assume the committee was too stupid, unlike Ritner, to see the spectacularly wrong scholarship produced by the candidate.

No. As I noted, it's possible that Gee altered his work before it was read by the new committee member(s).

As the explanation offered by Ritner, its far more likely Ritner simply didn’t’ like Gee—not saying that’s the case here, just that that is far more likely than your absurd claim.

Well, then, I guess you're calling Dr. Ritner a liar. You're so consumed with hatred that you're attempting to smear this well-established scholar.

No, stem. We don't know if that's the case or not. It may be that Gee trimmed out the problematic material before he handed the dissertation over to his new chair. We don't know whether the "errors" were left in or not.

You know this is ridiculous. If Gee fixed the errors then there would never have been any reason for Ritner to excuse himself, right?

No, not necessarily. It really depends on the nature of the "errors."