DiscussMormonism.com

Ritner sent me a very long and detailed email this morning.

In it he accepted my apology, didn't seem concerned at all about the gay rumor, and further explained his position. I will provide a few points he made, but it should be perfectly clear to those who read it that his concern is on Peterson's alleged slander and not on anything I have done to offend him. Sorry David, Juliann and everyone else who wished to dictate the terms of Ritner's concerns. He disagrees with you:

1 - Ritner "explicitly disowned" Gee because of his apologetics pretended that "these non-Egyptological writings had the stamp of scholarly accuracy and my own personal approval as his teacher."

2- "There is no negative, personal 'history' between us, as his class grades would reveal."

3- "I probably shall post on-line mycorrespondence with him (which is my unrestricted intellectual
property) urging him to find a new advisor at Yale." [emphasis mine: If true, then this is huge, as it would prove that Ritner was the one who suggested Gee find another advisor!]

4- "Despite Mr. Peterson's remarks, such changes are not at all unusual or problematic, particularly as I initiated thesuggestion and detailed many changes regarding the accuracy of his work that would be needed for him to continue writing under my direction."

5- "It is my understanding that the offer of a job at BYU spurred the need for a fast conclusion to the dissertation, which required an advisor more willing to accept what I noted as severely problematic." [Wow. This makes sense, because Gee did get a job at BYU almost instantly]

6- "Under the circumstances, it is not extraordinary that Gee followed my suggestion." [contra Peterson]

7- "I was not in any way faulted or reprimanded" ["removed" according to Peterson]

8- "I was fully in agreement with the change that I had urged." [It was Gee's idea, not Ritner's, according to Peterson]

9- "To be blunt, any insinuation that there was a forced removal because the Department accused me of improprieties is false, and the spread of such a lie is being done only to discredit my reputation, as you note."

10- "I am shocked that Peterson, as a professor, would improperly hint at supposed details of confidential reviews (which cannot be seen nor analyzed by non-committee members). This is disgraceful."

11- "It is my wish to let the matter rest after the publication of Brent's volume."

12- "...if my writings have been of assistance to you or others in seeing the reasonable problems with the Abraham text and the actual content of the papyri, then any personal attacks are a minor issue, easily forgotten and forgiven."

Too bad Bokovoy ran off before reading this. I'd hate to see him have to eat his words yet again.

Now we have an anonymous poster slandering Dr. Peterson with the allegations of some third party. Weird, ain't it. What passes for civility on this Board passes for cowardice elsewhere.




rcrocket

rcrocket wrote:Now we have an anonymous poster slandering Dr. Peterson with the allegations of some third party. Weird, ain't it. What passes for civility on this Board passes for cowardice elsewhere.
rcrocket

Unless Robert Ritner wrote to Dartagnan on the understanding that his message would be kept confidential, I don't see what wrong has been done by the act of posting it here.

It would be 'slander' if Dartagnan said that Dr Doughnut was a child molester or a porn merchant. It is not slander to pass on someone else's indignation at the fact (and it is a FACT) that Dr Doughnut HAS suggested several times in MAD posts that there was all kinds of shenanigans about Professor Gee's PhD committee, in a way calculated - as the lawyers say - to suggest that Ritner was not doing his job in a proper and fair-minded way (now that's slander).

rcrocket wrote:anonymous poster

blah blah blah anonymous poster blah blah blah.

It's a tired stupid argument that should be retired. Why don't we just all agree that there will be a standing assumption on the board that "rcrocket" (note: not his entire real life name, but instead an on-line alias) objects to anonymity on the internet and be done with it. That way he doesn't have to waste his valuable time posting it several times on each thread.

Give it a rest.

anonymously yours,
skippy (not my real name)

Yes, it is libel to pass on the comments of another.

Basically, what the anonymite Kevin Graham is trying to do is to destroy Dr. Peterson's reputation with an assault based upon things other than the merits or demerits of Dr. Peterson's work. I am frankly astounded that Ritner is letting himself get into the mud willingly on this.

There is no doubt, Graham's posts are of the very worst sort that you can see in human communication: anonymous attacks calculated to hurt the professional reputation of another.

rcrocket

rcrocket wrote:Yes, it is libel to pass on the comments of another.

Basically, what the anonymite Kevin Graham is trying to do is to destroy Dr. Peterson's reputation with an assault based upon things other than the merits or demerits of Dr. Peterson's work. I am frankly astounded that Ritner is letting himself get into the mud willingly on this.

There is no doubt, Graham's posts are of the very worst sort that you can see in human communication: anonymous attacks calculated to hurt the professional reputation of another.

rcrocket

Kevin is no more guilty of attacking Daniel than Daniel is guilty of attacking Dr Ritner. Obviously Dr Ritner takes his professional reputation very seriously. Equally obviously, Daniel has attacked Dr Ritner's professional reputation several times over the last few years, and Dr Ritner has just now become aware of it.

Personally, I might have to actually buy Brent's book, just to see what all the fuss is about.

rcrocket wrote:Yes, it is libel to pass on the comments of another.

Sigh. Only if the comments are libel. Clearly what Ritner has to say is, at worst, justified as fair comment. Since Dr Doughnut is now saying he was just repeating hearsay, and Ritner is the horse's mouth on this one, I think it is EXTREMELY unlikely that Ritner does not have evidence to back up everthing he says as truth.

Basically, what the anonymite Kevin Graham is trying to do is to destroy Dr. Peterson's reputation with an assault based upon things other than the merits or demerits of Dr. Peterson's work. I am frankly astounded that Ritner is letting himself get into the mud willingly on this.

WTF? Dr Doughnut tried to suggest Ritner was a weaselly character who rightly got slung off the PhD committee of his BYU buddy Gee. Now who tried to damage who first? The fat guy has been repeating this slimy crap for years. Check the other board.

There is no doubt, Graham's posts are of the very worst sort that you can see in human communication: anonymous attacks calculated to hurt the professional reputation of another.
rcrocket

KG is just passing on the non-anonymous posts of someone who is rightly indignant at what Dr Doughnut has - he has now found out - been doing to damage HIS reputation. I don't care if he is anonymous, or reveals he is OJ Simpson. It's irrelevant.

It will be interesting to see who from the other side responds to this. Gee apparently can't speak for himself as is evidenced by DCP's remarks about Ritner and Chaos posting on behalf of Gee at MADB. Bill Hamblin recently spoke on behalf of DCP in a MADB post. So Gee is representd by DCP who is represented by Hamblin.

I guess we'll be hearing from Hamblin's wife.

Now that Bokovoy has fled with egg on his face, I'm just glad crockett is willing to step up to the plate and take over where he left off. We need you. Thanks for being a good sport.

"Kevin," you are pathetic!