Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_stemelbow]

For me this has nothing to do with "attacks on LDS." Judged on what I know and have experienced in academia, and the responses of Gee, DCP and Ritner, the short answer is yes.

Cool. So you agree with the way Scratch has spun it. I guess I can't say I'm surprised.

The longer answer might help you to understand not only why I agree (though not with the inappropriate terms you have cast it in, like "screwing up royally"), but also why you don't understand what the argument is about nor what the stakes involved are. However, you've previously indicated that anything beyond a sound byte is "long winded."

Oh jeez. I tease ya once that your characterization as being short is actually kinda long relative to posts here, and you go off on something I never said. Can't ya take a joke? No playfulness at all inside ya?

It's not the contrempts over Gee's dissertation that is shocking. It is the way it has been characterized by Gee and DCP and the places in which they've been spreading their story. That is entirely unprofessional on a scale I have very rarely witnessed.

Interesting that you take such issue with these two, but side so happily with Scratch in his mischaracterizations. Ah well....what's a guy to do when people will play such games?

[_Kevin Graham]

Which part is a lie Stem?

You did exactly what I said you did. You're not interested in what Dan did wrong, you said so yourself. You said Ritner didn't appear to like Gee as if that is something based on the available data. If he didn't like him he could have simply failed him. But the fact that he urged Gee to get someone else, is evidence enough that he was trying to help him out. He wasn't compelled or forced to do this. He did it as a favor to Gee.

[_stemelbow]

Which part is a lie Stem?

The part in which you said or tried to characterize me as not seeing anything wrong that a Mormon does. I do too. Why is it you guys are so eager to paint me as something I'm not? When an LDS person does it to you guys you throw fits, but you seem quick to do it LDS.

You did exactly what I said you did. You're not interested in what Dan did wrong, you said so yourself.

Kevin, not being interested in what he did wrong is not the same as me not accepting that LDS folks do somethings wrong sometimes. Partially, I'm not interested because Dan has put a lid on it due to past legal threats. I don't know his side of the story.

You said Ritner didn't appear to like Gee as if that is something based on the available data. If he didn't like him he could have simply failed him. But the fact that he urged Gee to get someone else, is evidence enough that he was trying to help him out. He wasn't compelled or forced to do this. He did it as a favor to Gee.

That could be the case. I didn't say Ritner didn't like Gee, or whatever. It also could be the case that Ritner told him to get someone else, because Ritner had no viable basis for failing him for his dissertation work. If Ritner felt Gee didn't deserve a Ph.D then the reasonable thing for him to do was to fail him. But instead he didn't do that, he sent him off for someone else to award him his Ph.D. It doesn't make much sense. If the problems Ritner had with Gee's work was so bad Gee didn't deserve a Ph.D than Yale would never had awarded Gee a Ph.D. But Yale did. Ritner's complaint of problems didn't necessarily mean to suggest Gee didn't earn a Ph.D by his dissertation work. But its surely been spun that way here.

[_Jaybear]

If the problems Ritner had with Gee's work was so bad Gee didn't deserve a Ph.D than Yale would never had awarded Gee a Ph.D. But Yale did.

Deserve is a subjective concept. People often get things others think they don't deserve and are denied things that others think they deserve.

That, however, is not the issue. The issue is whether Gee lied when he claimed that he had Ritner removed from his committee. If false, its a slanderous statement.

by the way, once Ritner set the record straight, and promised to release emails proving Gee to be a liar, has Gee directly, or through Peterson repeated the scurrilous allegation.

If not, then under the circumstances, its quite obvious to me who was lying.

[_Chap]

If Ritner felt Gee didn't deserve a Ph.D then the reasonable thing for him to do was to fail him. But instead he didn't do that, he sent him off for someone else to award him his Ph.D. It doesn't make much sense.

There is a lot you do not understand about how people with jobs in universities resolve conflicts in their professional lives.

Could there perhaps be some reason for this?

[_Kevin Graham]

The part in which you said or tried to characterize me as not seeing anything wrong that a Mormon does. I do too. Why is it you guys are so eager to paint me as something I'm not? When an LDS person does it to you guys you throw fits, but you seem quick to do it LDS.

OK, so how am I supposed to interpret your unwillingness to consider Dan Peterson's possible wrongdoing in this matter, along with your presistence in painting Gee the victim? What you still haven't grasped is the fact that none of this is about slamming Gee. This incident became public knowledge only because Dan Peterson thought he could use it to slam Ritner. That's it. It is the only reason any of us are talking about it now. When I point this out, folks like you twist it to make Ritner's position "confusing" as if it doesn't "make sense" etc. Constantly throwing doubt on his testimony while remaining entirely "uninterested" in what Dan Peterson has said or done.

That could be the case. I didn't say Ritner didn't like Gee, or whatever.

I'm pretty sure you strongly implied that he didn't.

It also could be the case that Ritner told him to get someone else, because Ritner had no viable basis for failing him for his dissertation work.

You see, here you go again. Constantly looking for some way to make Ritner the evil guy and Gee the innocent victim. You say you're operating strictly on the data, but then you launch into these wild speculations with not a single shred of evidence. Why can't we simply accept what Ritner said? It makes perfect sense to those in the know. Even Dan refuses to challenge Ritner's claims.

But as I said, you can't seem to get a stranglehold on the fact that this isn't about whether or not Gee got a doctorate, or a legitimate doctorate, or whatever. It never was. Ritner never said Gee's doctorate wasn't legit, and neither have I. All you are doing is following Dan Peterson's straw man.

If Ritner felt Gee didn't deserve a Ph.D then the reasonable thing for him to do was to fail him. But instead he didn't do that, he sent him off for someone else to award him his Ph.D. It doesn't make much sense.

You're still repeating yourself while ignoring everything that has been said to you. It makes perfect sense if you do not want your name attached to that person's doctorate. Gee had a history of using Ritner's name for apologetic crap Ritner didn't agree with. Ritner's refusal to take part in his doctoral process was a statement for all future purposes, that he does not condone Gee's apologetic endeavors. That appears to be what Ritner was getting at. He didn't "fail him" because he isn't a jerk. He tried to help him get his doctorate while urging him to get someone else to do it.

If the problems Ritner had with Gee's work was so bad Gee didn't deserve a Ph.D than Yale would never had awarded Gee a Ph.D. But Yale did

Straw man has been officialy knocked over. Feel better?

Ritner's complaint of problems didn't necessarily mean to suggest Gee didn't earn a Ph.D by his dissertation work. But its surely been spun that way here.

I don't think it has. I think you're the one who is so dizzy from spinning with Dan's straw man. I've stated from the very beginning what the issue is and what it isn't. You seem to ignore what I say and continue to beat the straw.

[_stemelbow]

There is a lot you do not understand about how people with jobs in universities resolve conflicts in their professional lives.

Could there perhaps be some reason for this?

For me not understanding? Yes. I do not have a job, nor have I ever had a job at a univeristy. But I asked questions that went unanswered. The issue remains quite murky it seems. Scratch's response was, well Gee made spectacular errors and screwed up royally. Ritner was right to not support him getting a Ph.D. I asked you and others here if you agreed with Scratch's spin, but got only blixa answering saying she agreed. What do you think?

[_stemelbow]

OK, so how am I supposed to interpret your unwillingness to consider Dan Peterson's possible wrongdoing in this matter, along with your presistence in painting Gee the victim? What you still haven't grasped is the fact that none of this is about slamming Gee. This incident became public knowledge only because Dan Peterson thought he could use it to slam Ritner. That's it. It is the only reason any of us are talking about it now. When I point this out, folks like you twist it to make Ritner's position "confusing" as if it doesn't "make sense" etc. Constantly throwing doubt on his testimony while remaining entirely "uninterested" in what Dan Peterson has said or done.

I suppose in your mind you were supposed to interpret it as painting me and my position as something totally other than me and my actual position. I suppose in your mind that means lying about me is good.

I'm pretty sure you strongly implied that he didn't.

I don’t think I did.

It also could be the case that Ritner told him to get someone else, because Ritner had no viable basis for failing him for his dissertation work.

You see, here you go again. Constantly looking for some way to make Ritner the evil guy and Gee the innocent victim. [/quote]

How is what I just said looking for some way to make Ritner the evil guy? I am considering all that was said and suggesting what could have happened. Ritner doesn’t have to be considered evil at all if he objected to support Gee as a Ph.D candidate, but also knew he had no right to fail him and knowing Gee wholly deserved a Ph.D, thus letting others support Gee. Didn’t Ritner himself say he had no interest to support Gee, for one, because he didn’t want to be associated with Gee’s apologetics?

You say you're operating strictly on the data, but then you launch into these wild speculations with not a single shred of evidence. Why can't we simply accept what Ritner said? It makes perfect sense to those in the know. Even Dan refuses to challenge Ritner's claims.

How have I challenged Ritner’s claims? He’s the one who said he decided to take himself off as Gee’s dissertation chair guy. He said he did so because of problems he had with Gee’s work. Gee’s work, yet, still earned him a Ph.D. Well, we don’t know th specifics of these problems (scratch keeps saying the problems Ritner had was that Gee’s work had spectacular errors that showed Gee royally screwed up).

But as I said, you can't seem to get a stranglehold on the fact that this isn't about whether or not Gee got a doctorate, or a legitimate doctorate, or whatever. It never was. Ritner never said Gee's doctorate wasn't legit, and neither have I. All you are doing is following Dan Peterson's straw man.

You obviously don’t know what I’m doing. I came in asking a couple of question, for which I got little answer but a lot of response, including tons of condescension and outright mischaracterization, particularly by Scratch. I’m contesting the mischaracterization by Scratch and continuing to defend myself, as it turns out.

You're still repeating yourself while ignoring everything that has been said to you. It makes perfect sense if you do not want your name attached to that person's doctorate. Gee had a history of using Ritner's name for apologetic crap Ritner didn't agree with. Ritner's refusal to take part in his doctoral process was a statement for all future purposes, that he does not condone Gee's apologetic endeavors. That appears to be what Ritner was getting at. He didn't "fail him" because he isn't a jerk. He tried to help him get his doctorate while urging him to get someone else to do it.

Kevin, that’s actually a far more reasonable idea that what Scratch has spun. But then it makes it sound a little personal, which Ritner said it was not personal. So, taking Ritner’s word, I don’t know if this speculation quite fits.

I don't think it has. I think you're the one who is so dizzy from spinning with Dan's straw man. I've stated from the very beginning what the issue is and what it isn't. You seem to ignore what I say and continue to beat the straw.

If you’ll notice I don’t even know what the heck Dan’s position is on this. You fighting me on this is just silly.

[_Doctor Scratch]

That could be the case. I didn't say Ritner didn't like Gee, or whatever.

I'm pretty sure you strongly implied that he didn't.

I don’t think I did.

You don't? Judge for yourself:

Alls it sounds like to me is Ritner doesn't like Gee.

viewtopic.php?p=497156#p497156

[_Kishkumen]

Oh come on Trevor the Kishkumen, even you can accept the notion that Bokovoy, for instance, ranks higher than myself. Perhaps you laugh at the upper echelon?

I don't think the enterprise of apologetics as currently configured has the kind of organizational structure in place to have echelons. It is more like an array of cottage, voluntary efforts, a few of which receive support from the LDS Church. I thought you guys were eager to disabuse us of the notion of these hierarchies on the grounds that they are "Scratchian" or some such.