He can also be good-willed and wrong about FE.

Some of you are being completely irrational here. You're letting your esteem and human respect for Dr. Sugenis derail a perfectly legitimate thread critiquing his book as if the original intent was to personally attack him just because the question was raised about there being confirmation bias in his book.

There is NOTHING—NOTHING WHATSOEVER "legitimate" about calling a good and honest man "intellectually dishonest."

Your (plural) objective sin of calumnious character assassination is not remitted by insisting I have "human respect" for Bob or by proclaiming your "rationality." If you were as rational as you imagine, I wouldn't have to repeatedly state that the calumny, not the FE evidence, is at issue.

You may be right and Bob may be wrong about FE, but you are "CLEARLY" (to borrow Lad's self-adulation) wrong in your calumny against him. You might also consider the possibility that you are wrong about both FE and your calumny. You do know that you just might be wrong, don't you? Do you (plural) have the "intellectual honesty" to admit that possibility?

Bottom lines:
Self-proclaimed "rationality" and blame shifting to me do not remit your (plural) objective sin of calumny.
The charge of "intellectual dishonesty" should be explicitly retracted (not merely implicitly retracted with some bullshit re-definition that is not in common use anywhere).
Bob's critics should have the Catholic decency to address their objections to Bob.

Another bottom line:
If it is sinful or an occasion of sin for a child to roll around ground fighting with an opposite-sex trainee, it is at least equally sinful or an occasion of sin  for a child to roll around ground fighting with anyone, whether student or instructor, of any sex because there is no shortage of perverts in any age group and in any vocation.

If anyone has any more bones to pick with me, PM me. In the mean time, I'm going to puke.

Calumny: (the act of making) a statement about someone that is not true and is intended to damage the reputation of that person

I am not attacking Dr. Sugenis by speculating whether his misapplication (dict: the act or process of using something badly, wrongly, or in a way that was not intended) of the Fathers in support of his argument is either wilfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest is not an attack on his character or an attempt to calumniate him. But the misapplication is there and you used it as an opportunity to jump in and cause scandal.

He knows the subject he wrote an 800 PAGE BOOK against; and he knows which Fathers he is misquoting to support his thesis. It is not as though he blindly picked the quotes and they just happen to be out of context.

So either:
A. he's ignorant of what the wider context is and doesn't look at it;
or B. he knows the context and used the quote anyway.
That is the problem here.

You raising a big scandal does nothing to change that just because you have an esteem for him. You're right in that I don't personally know the man. So what? I have to gage him by the words that he says (or writes). And what he has written has shown not only that he is wrong, but that he's misquoted the Fathers on this subject.

Edit: And you also can't claim I'm somehow intent on calumniating him with the intent to damage his reputation when I've bought 5 of his books (including this one) and have encouraged others to buy Geocentrism 101 numerous times.

The man set out to write a book against a certain position, and has clearly misquoted Fathers in favor of his argument. He is liable to criticism for that. No amount of human respect and scandal-raising can cover up that problem.

Calumny: (the act of making) a statement about someone that is not true and is intended to damage the reputation of that person

Calumny
(Latin calvor, to use artifice, to deceive)

Etymologically any form of ruse or fraud employed to deceive another, particularly in judicial proceedings. In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction. It is hardly necessary, however, to observe that as in other breaches of the law the sin may be venial, either because of the trivial character of the subject-matter involved or because of insufficient deliberation in the making of the accusation. Objectively, a calumny is a mortal sin when it is calculated to do serious harm to the person so traduced. Just as in the instance of wrongful damage to person or estate, so the calumniator is bound to adequate reparation for the injury perpetrated by the blackening of another's good name. He is obliged (1) to retract his false statements, and that even though his own reputation may necessarily as a consequence suffer. (2) He must also make good whatever other losses have been sustained by the innocent party as a result of his libellous utterances, provided these same have been in some measure (in confuso) foreseen by him. In canon law the phrase juramentum calumniae is employed to indicate the oath taken by the parties to a litigation, by which they averred that the action was brought and the defence offered in good faith. —Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03190c.htm

so is there something other than pride that stops you calumniators from doing the Catholic solution? (<<< note the question mark. That's not an accusation; it's a question.)

Fine. I retract the above statement. It was poorly-worded and paints a different picture of Dr. Sugenis than was originally intended.

Does it excuse his misapplication of the Fathers or his confirmation bias? No. No it does not.
Does it invalidate any critiques that have been laid out regarding his book? No.
Does it excuse the behavior of either Mark or Charity? Nope.