FAIR's Mike Parker: Will Schryver "admitted and apologized"?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Pin it on the closest ass.

Done:

Is that him? Looks like Harry Potter's Uncle Vernon gone to seed.

[_Drifting]

Pin it on the closest ass.

Done:

I don't know who this is....but he looks unpublished.....

[_lulu]

His research was done in Church archives with the assistance and support of MI scholars. I don’t know the details, but I think MI has publication rights.

Doing research in the Chruch archives does not give MI publication rights.

Having the assistance and support of MI scholars does not give MI publication rights.

The only thing that would give MI publications rights is if the author signed a document giving it such rights.

If such a document exists, Schryver should say so specifically.

It's an interesting question. We know that Jerry Bradform "canceled" Schryver's publication with the MI. If the MI still holds the rights to it, does that mean that it will never see the light of day? If that's the case, it may help explain the Mopologists' weird behavior about all of this stuff. They can't exactly attack MI administration/BYU/the Church and complain that these institutions are "censoring" Schryver's "research."

I bet you're on to something here, Lulu. After all, the apologists have FAIR--so why not publish both the Schryver stuff and the Greg Smith "hit piece" on FAIR? They just sit there: waiting and waiting and waiting, always saying, "I hope it is one day published." Now that you mention this, it makes it seem as if they cannot publish due to MI/BYU/the Church holding the publishing rights!

Wow: I bet that's exactly what's going on. Because think about it: Schryver was given access to highly sensitive Church materials, so there is probably no way that a publication would ever see the light of day without it getting vetted by Church admin. I don't know that the same is the case for the Greg Smith article, but it may very well be. (Or that it won't ever appear due to the admonitions from Elder ________). What a bummer for them.

If MI is requiring censorship agreements from its writers, that's a pretty big deal for an academic institituion. I wonder if there is a way to confirm this?

[_MsJack]

If MI is requiring censorship agreements from its writers, that's a pretty big deal for an academic institituion. I wonder if there is a way to confirm this?

I can't confirm or deny this explicitly, but I was told that, when his work was canceled, William was encouraged to seek publication elsewhere.

[_MsJack]

You don't know much about academia. You can't get someone off your committee unless there's a good reason, and the reasons have to do with either bias or wrongdoing.

I don't think this is true. That's just what Dan wanted people to believe. My understanding is that changes in thesis and doctoral committees are actually quite routine. Just look at the forms for changes in dissertation committees at these universities:

http://graduate.United Airlines.edu/academics/forms/ ... e_diss.pdf
http://www.odu.edu/ao/gradstudies/forms/mgradform17.pdf
http://www.gs.emory.edu/uploads/Academi ... 20Fill.pdf

None of them have sections for explaining why you want the change. You just put down who's leaving and who's coming on and that's that.

Change in advisor is probably a little bit more unusual, but it can happen.

What Peterson said is equivalent to accusing Ritner of bias or wrongdoing, without any evidence.

Dan accused Ritner of wrongdoing without any evidence because Dan accused Ritner of wrongdoing without any evidence. For example (these quotes were posted later in Kevin's thread, emphases mine):

"It would be the same John Gee who, having suffered much at the hands of Robert Ritner (in ways that no doctoral candidate should have to), successfully petitioned his department to have Ritner replaced as his doctoral advisor, and who then, under the direction of the eminent Yale Egyptologist William Kelly Simpson, proceeded to earn a Ph.D. Yes, it would be that one." - Daniel C. Peterson posting under his "Logic Chopper" alias, 11/20/2002

"Did you know that Dr. Ritner was Gee's dissertation chairman at Yale -- until, after a lengthy period of immense and growing dissatisfaction, Gee successfully petitioned Yale to have Dr. Ritner removed and another person substituted? Such things are not common at Yale." - Daniel C. Peterson posting under his "FreeThinker" alias, 10/31/2003

Even if it were true that Ritner had behaved inappropriately behind-the-scenes at Yale (which, according to Ritner, it isn't), for Dan to spread it around on the Internet just to win a pseudonymous pissing contest on a message board is so beyond-the-pale unprofessional and immature, I almost wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself. It's also a textbook example of FARMS ad hominem (for those people who are apparently blind and still struggling to find instances of this---snort).

This was pretty much the nail in the coffin for me on Ludd's status as a sock puppet/troll. I've brought this incident up to plenty of "normal people outside of message boards" who work in academics. They have always expressed shock over it.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Even if it were true that Ritner had behaved inappropriately behind-the-scenes at Yale (which, according to Ritner, it isn't), for Dan to spread it around on the Internet just to win a pseudonymous pissing contest on a message board is so beyond-the-pale unprofessional and immature, I almost wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself. It's also a textbook example of FARMS ad hominem (for those people who are apparently blind and still struggling to find instances of this---snort).

This was pretty much the nail in the coffin for me on Ludd's status as a sock puppet/troll. I've brought this incident up to plenty of "normal people outside of message boards" who work in academics. They have always expressed shock over it.

I may have overstated things but I agree with you. Every academic I know who has been made aware of Peterson's actions has been shocked and disgusted. Pretty much every 'defense' Ludd has mounted has convinced me he/she is a troll or sockpuppet. What kind of sick person defends that kind of crap?

[Guest]

It is true that changes to a committee can be fairly routine. It is much less routine to change dissertation directors. Usually the faculty member who serves as the dissertation director has invested something in the future success of the student. He or she has expressed confidence in the student by being willing to go through that process with the student, and then promote the student professionally when the student has successfully completed the task.

I wouldn't say that it is an insignificant thing to change advisors. It does, however, happen. Sometimes it happens for fairly innocuous reasons. Sometimes there is a breakdown in the process. Some students have actually failed to complete a degree because of such problems.

I am not privy to the details in this case. Frankly, I don't care about the details. This is the business of Ritner and Gee. What I will say is that it is very unprofessional to bandy about such information, even if you sympathize with one of the concerned parties.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Has Willie "the centre body of the human mopopede" schryver in formed parker that, he, Willie, retracted his apologies?

[_Shulem]

Smoking weed is my bag, baby. LSD 25 and listening to hard rock! The hell with the church! I'm bad -- I'm William Schryver the hood. Want to smoke a joint? I got some beer in the truck. Let's pick up some chicks, man. Let's get wasted.