Kevin Graham's libel against Ritner?

[Guest]

Kevin's comments and Professor Peterson's both provide examples of a dubious attempt to discredit a scholar with unfavorable personal disclosures. Both are out of place, and, as has been brought up, involve real people and real lives.

I'm very glad that Kevin has disclaimed his own former practice. And I hope that this latest incident will provide a heads up to others on the inadvisability of airing one' "opponents'" supposed dirty laundry.

Discussions on LDS issues have such a disturbing tendency to become personal that I think we would all do well to steer as far from personalities, as as close to the substantive issues, as we can. I have been overly personal in my own discussions many times, particularyl a few years ago. However, I have kept "dirty laundry" out of my posts. Over time, one becomes aware of the foibles of a good number of others. And I can honestly say that when I've learned private, damaging information about others, including other scholars of Mormon studies, I've kept it out of my conversation, and entirely out of my posting. As goofy and Sunday-Schoolish as it may sound, knowing this, and having turned my posting less and less personal with time gives me a good measure of peace of mind. Feeling "at war" with others is stressful and draining, but not perceiving anyone as an "opponent" or being "out to get" anyone leaves you free to do your own thing quite happily.

And I would indeed be ungrateful if I didn't rise today to...er,

Amen

[Edit]: While I continue to disagree with the posting of secondhand personal detail, or personal detail at all, I want it clear that I would not want to see personal problems created for anyone by virtue of their having previously posted such details.

[_Dr. Shades]

Enuma Elish:

You seem to be conflating two separate issues, which a closer scrutiny of Kevin's e-mail will clarify.

Kevin never said that he heard the homosexuality rumor from Peterson and/or Gee. He said he heard the "kicked off the committee" rumor from them. Let's take a closer look at the relevant part of his e-mail (empasis added):

Professor Ritner,

After reviewing the archives of the forums I came across two instances where I had helped propagate this horrible rumor. At the time I was a die-hard apologist who drank the kool-aid Gee and Peterson were pushing and I was just passing along their "wisdom" without really being concerned about the veracity of it. I was also on the apologetic e-list at the time when a rumor was passed around that you might have been gay. I also beg your forgiveness for having any part in spreading that rumor.

Thus we clearly see that Kevin told Ritner about two rumors, not one. He essentially identified the first one as the Gee/Peterson rumor, which can only be the "kicked off the committee" rumor. His use of the word "also" near the beginning of the next sentence clearly indicates a transition to rumor #2, which he specifically identifies as the homosexuality rumor.

Did you tell Ritner that your public comments included revealing publicly the details of his sexual preference?

He didn't reveal any "details," he only mentioned a rumor. But yes, he told Ritner exactly that, as even the most cursory reading of his e-mail will amply reveal.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Did you tell Ritner that your public comments included revealing publicly the details of his sexual preference?

Let's not just assume the rumor is true, even if we don't find homosexuality offensive or unethical. Until and unless Ritner confirms this himself, it is just a rumor.

-CK

[_Bryan Inks]

If a lawsuit results from this storm in a teacup, it will go down in history as one of the dumbest ever filed.

Ummm. . . having just read the brief for a lawsuit that took place about a year ago, I think this couldn't really be the dumbest ever.

Link To Brief

[_Bryan Inks]

I don't find very convincing somebody who uses the word "idiot" to denounce almost every poster with whom he disagrees, and does so anonymously. Why can't he use his real name when he calls me an idiot?

rcrocket

"Pot meet kettle." "Wassup, nigga!"

[Guest]

You told us that you apologized to Ritner for spreading public statements in LDS circles concerning Ritner’s sexual preference. How can you turn around and state that “Nobody said Ritner was a homosexual. I haven’t said it now and I didn’t say it five years ago.” Why did you tell us then that you had sent him an apology for spreading the information? Are you now denying that you made these statements then:

Good grief you cannot possibly be this dense! It amazes me that you’re supposed to be some kind of well educated scholar, if you cannot see the difference between a statement of fact and an allusion to a possibility. Either that or you’re intentionally trying to be difficult here. Everyone else seems to get it, so let me dumb it down for you:


Statement 1: There is a tree and it is brown.

Statement 2: I heard there might be a tree which might be brown. I am not sure how accurate this statement is, but it would prove interesting.

The second statement is not a statement of fact. In other words, I am not claiming there is definitely a tree, nor am I declaring a definite color. In the Ritner/Gay case I said it was a rumor that he was possibly gay. Hell, everyone is possibly gay.

Are not these your words?

Yes, and unfortunately for you I know the difference between a statement of fact and a statement of possibility. I never needed to apologize for “calling him gay” for the same reason I wouldn’t need to apologize for insisting a brown tree exists. I never made that statement.

How in the world can you state that no one, including you, said that Ritner was a homosexual?

As a professor of English I can assure you I am on solid ground here. Your inability to comprehend a basic English sentence speaks volumes of the way your doggy loyalty and apologetic zeal has blinded you to the fundamentals of human communication. I mean English is your native language, right?

In response to my assertion that the comments Dan and John Gee allegedly made were nothing compared to your statements made in order to reveal the man’s sexual preference in an effort to discredit his views, you claimed that you sent Ritner an apology and informed him of your public comments that “Gee and Peterson were pushing."

That’s right. And nothing in my statement specifies that this was in reference to the homosexuality rumor, and you know this. You’ve been trying to spin this from the start, making it sound like I am hiding something. Stop sucking on that bone Dan just threw you and think for once.

You owe the board an explanation.

Well the board moderator doesn’t seem to be as confused as you are, and neither does anyone else, but I suspect your alleged confusion is by design.

Did you tell Ritner that your public comments included revealing publicly the details of his sexual preference?

Yes.

Did, as your post would lead us to believe, John Gee and Dan Peterson spoon-feed this information regarding Ritner’s sexuality to you?

No, and the post led no one to believe this - including you. Either your comprehension skills are abhorrent, or you're just throwing out rhetoric.

Did you in fact use Ritner’s sexual orientation in an effort to smear his reputation in LDS circles?

No. Dan Peterson used the sexual orientation of Michael Quinn to smear his reputation in LDS circles.

In orderfor me to have done this, I would have to have known what his sexual orientation was. I never stated one way or another. I relayed a rumor of his possible gayness; a rumor which originated on the apologetic e-list at the time. This is backed up by the fact that the original post states unambiguously that it was a rumor I had just heard.

Aren’t you dizzy from all this spin yet? Dan Peterson refers to the homosexuality of Quinn as fact, and everything is OK. I mention the possible homosexuality of Ritner and suddenly you're sick to your stomach?

Calling me disturbed and falsely claiming to be sick to your stomach doesn’t mean much in light of your own bigoted comments that suggest homosexuality is a "character" flaw. Now go back to Dan for another doggy biscuit. Good boy.

[_Enuma Elish]

Dr. Shades,

Of course Kevin has become quite proficient at spinning words and posts to his advantage. The mere fact that he would try to play semantic games between saying Ritner might be gay vs. saying that Ritner is gay illustrates how important it is to pin him down on an issue.

Why does the phrase “I did not inhale” keep coming to mind?!

Kevin wasn’t just as guilty as Peterson and Gee. I would venture to guess that notwithstanding the conditional element Kevin wishes to emphasize regarding his public announcement concerning Ritner’s sexuality, that Kevin's statement regarding the possibility of his gayness would matter little to Ritner.

Also, notice the way in which Kevin carefully worded his involvement in the situation:

I was also on the apologetic e-list at the time when a rumor was passed around that you might have been gay. I also beg your forgiveness for having any part in spreading that rumor.

With the statements, “I was on an email list,” “any part,” Kevin did not tell Ritner that he, in fact, was the one responsible for publicly posting the information regarding Ritner’s sexuality.

I also believe that Kevin specifically prefaced this statement regarding the information that Gee and Peterson were allegedly “pushing” in order to specifically conflate the two crimes. Remember that in the beginning of this thread, Kevin falsely stated “ I was just as guilty as the next person when it came to propagating rumors about him.”

Don’t let him fool you, the man will never accept responsibility for his actions. The statement, “I was just repeating what I heard” does little to absolve Kevin from the crime and in fact renders his “apology” less than sincere.

Make no mistake about it, Kevin is clever enough to try and conflate these issues and deemphasize his role (while pinning the “apologists made me do it” excuse carefully on to each and every post).

Given the seriousness of the situation Kevin has created, I have attempted to force Kevin to clarify so that readers, including Ritner himself, will not in fact fall into Kevin’s carefully laid trap of conflating these issues.

What Kevin did was in my mind far more despicable than Dan’s inconsequential statements that there exists a personal academic history between Ritner and Gee, yet Kevin had the nerve to initially present this situation to Ritner in a way that made Gee and Peterson look like they were the bad guys.

Kevin is trying to destroy reputations and careers. He did it with Ritner and he’s trying to do it again with Peterson and Gee.

In my mind, Kevin’s actions both past and present, should not be allowed in any forum.

[_dartagnan]

David, you're just upset because I didn't say what you wanted me to say - what you have insisted I said when I clearly didn't - so now you're trying to pretend you have some kind of grammatical basis for making your accusations. There is a reason the word "might" exists in the English language. It expresses possibility, not certainty. This is not a game of semantics until you decided to play stupid on basic terms. I was careful in what I said five years ago and I am careful in what I say today. That is your problem I know, because you are unable to hold me to claims I never made.

Cry us a river, OK?

Everything you just blathered is based in what you claim to think,(i.e. "in my mind") and what you wish were true; it is not based on what you know or what you can demonstrate. You're no better than Juliann when it comes to your psychoanalysis of my emails, trying to tell me what I meant, what I " tried to conflate" or whatever. You sound desperate now, but we've seen this before from you and Juliann. You have no basis for your attacks against me and you know it, so now you're left with mind-reading. You're a bunch of sick hypocrites who are responsible for writing the most disgusting scripts against critics, and now you act indignant because one of your own no longer knows his place.

Given your personal angst against me and blind loyalty towards your masters at BYU, it is little wonder you have stooped this low. Why would anyone care what is "in [your] mind" about me given your relentless attacks on me every time I offer the slightest criticsim of one of your precious mentors? This is not an argument. You have been reduced to pleading with Shades to accept your feelings on the matter. You cannot demonstrate anything that you have asserted, and now you want to blame me for this because I know how to properly use the word " might."

Pathetic.

Sure, there are people who refuse to take responsibility here, but those would include you and Dan Peterson. Your attempt to rewrite my email in order to somehow mitigate the sincerity of my apology, is disgusting in itself.

And I think you owe the board an explanation as to why you think homosexuality is a character flaw.

[_harmony]

Make no mistake about it, Kevin is clever enough to try and conflate these issues and deemphasize his role (while pinning the “apologists made me do it” excuse carefully on to each and every post).

Strange, but I don't see this at all. I certainly don't see "the apologists made me do it" anywhere. I see Kevin taking his personal responsibility very seriously, and apologizing for his past behavior. I don't see anything similiar from Daniel or Gee.

What Kevin did was in my mind far more despicable than Dan’s inconsequential statements that there exists a personal academic history between Ritner and Gee, yet Kevin had the nerve to initially present this situation to Ritner in a way that made Gee and Peterson look like they were the bad guys.

I think we need to look at what Dr Ritner sees as inconsequential, not what Daniel sees as inconsequential. It sounds to me like Dr Ritner sees the past academic history as pretty important, and he wants to set the record straight. Dr Ritner's story is that he took himself off the committee, which is a completely different story than the one Gee and Daniel have been spreading.

Kevin is trying to destroy reputations and careers. He did it with Ritner and he’s trying to do it again with Peterson and Gee.

Again, I don't see this. I see him giving information to Dr Ritner about what Gee and Daniel (who Ritner claims to not know at all) have been saying about him on public boards. Looks to me like the ones trying to destroy Dr Ritner's career are Gee and Daniel.

In my mind, Kevin’s actions both past and present, should not be allowed in any forum.

No doubt your mod friends on MAD agree. Thankfully we here do not. Otherwise the true story from Dr Ritner would never have seen the light of day.

[_asbestosman]

Make no mistake about it, Kevin is clever enough to try and conflate these issues and deemphasize his role (while pinning the “apologists made me do it” excuse carefully on to each and every post).

Strange, but I don't see this at all. I certainly don't see "the apologists made me do it" anywhere.

I suppose it depends on what Kevin was alleged to have been forced to do. I think it may have come from a remark Kevin made about Julian forcing his hand. I called him on that and he agreed that strictly speaking I was right that Julian didn't force him to do anything. However, he maintains that Julian's actions require him to defend his reputation. I suppose that's understandable, but I really don't want to say either way as I'm not Julian nor Kevin.

I do, however, think it odd that Kevin would use his language somewhat loosely in this instance about his hand being forced and yet maintain that he was careful with his words when he spoke of the possibility of Ritner being a homosexul now and is careful with his words today too. Interesting.