Kevin Graham's libel against Ritner?

[_dartagnan]

I suppose it depends on what Kevin was alleged to have been forced to do.

Nobody forced me to do anything. Bokovoy is simply talking out of his butt as usual.

I have maintained that I post here mostly to defend myself from the attacks received on the other board, and this is true. In that sense I feel compelled to defend my self here because it is the only place I can really. And because of this Juliann now thinks this is proof that I have followed some apostate role and joined "group" who is actually in charge of dictating my narrative.

She's such an idiot. I'm just as inclined to disagree with the majority of the atheist posters here as I am the LDS apologists at FAIR. But as it is, they're not the ones attacking me.

[_truth dancer]

Hi EE...

Trying to help out a little here... :-)

That while he attempted to smear Gee and Peterson’s reputation for hinting that Ritner’s biases may in part be a result of his personal academic grudge with Gee, Kevin himself was guilty of a far greater crime by using the man’s sexual preference to smear his reputation in LDS circles.

I think the point that is being missed is that no one thinks that it is a big deal if someone thinks another is gay. Seriously, who cares? I highly doubt Ritner cares in the least. It doesn't seem like slander or a crime or anything other than something similar to.... Ohhh, I heard a rumor harmony has brown hair, or I heard a rumor Bond likes sushi. What does one's sexual preference have to do with one's academic qualifications?

In other words, being gay doesn't make a difference. It doesn't seem like an issues or a criticism or a character flaw or any such thing.

Unless one thinks being gay is some horrible thing it doesn't much matter at all.

You seem to be comparing Kevin's suggestion that Ritner might be gay, with Peterson and Gee claiming Ritner was incompetent (or whatever) as a professor.

Does that make sense?

~dancer~

[_dartagnan]

Keep in mind that David said homosexuality was a "character" flaw. Therefore, for David, it would be a terrible insult. But it seems clear to me that Ritner wasn't offended by it, even calling it minor. Isn't that what really matters? Now they're upset because Ritner didn't respond to it they way they wished he had.