From My Informant: Did Brian Hauglid Betray Schryver?

[_sock puppet]

for what it's worth, I've had confirmation from a secondary source that this "intel" is correct.

The un-named secondary source in this case is Harvey the rabbit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Now, Wade, you know the Brethren prefer the more respectful "the Spirit" or "the Holy Ghost" to calling the confirmer Harvey the rabbit.

[_Nomad]

Though it has been a long time since I've heard from this particular informant, it seems that the recent fallout involving Will Schryver has brought this invaluable source of "intel" out of hibernation. Obviously, nothing as of yet has been forthcoming from the apologists on this matter, and any attempts to inquire into it at the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board has resulted in one banning after the next. MsJack has apparently corresponded with one of the Maxwell Institute apologists, but she refuses to reveal the identity of this person.

Still, we can assume certain things. For one thing, we know that Will had some rather staunch supporters in the form of people like Royal Skousen and Louis "The Emperor" Midgley. It's probably safe to assume that Drs. Peterson and Hoskisson supported Will's work, too. So who was on the "anti-Will" side of things?

According to my "informant," there were two key MDD/FAIR apologists who led the charge. One of these I will not name; the other, surprisingly, was apparently Brian Hauglid. Per my informant:

Hauglid and [deleted] are the ones who took the lead in taking the facts about Schryver to the heads at the MI and convinced them that publishing him would be a huge mistake....But...Hauglid was the main guy.

Wow! Hauglid has always seemed rather milquetoast and low-key, so these allegations come as quite a surprise to me. Based on what I was told, it seemed that two "factions" developed at the MI--the first being the "old school" Midgley types who would prefer to ignore Schryver's antics, and the other being a bit more attuned to the PR fallout that would likely follow in the wake of any publication. In any event, according to these allegations, it seems that Hauglid and this other apologist were pivotal in helping to make the facts of the matter known to key MI players---esp. M.I. Executive Director M. Gerald Bradford. According to the "intel," Bradford is the key person in terms of putting the kibbosh on Schryver's project.

As always, I want to throw in the usual caveat about treating all this with a grain of salt/healthy skepticism, etc. This particular "informant" has been quite reliable in the past, but apart from better confirmation of the details and facts, my advice is that readers treat the above w/ some skepticism. As I pointed out in my opening paragraph, the apologists have responded to inquiries into this matter with stone-cold silence and flagrant censorship. Thus, part of my motive in posting this "intel" is in the hopes that someone on the Mopologist side of the fence will step forward to offer up the other side of the story.

I find this very hard to believe. I think your imagination is getting the better of you again, Doctor Scratch.

by the way, I'm just curious: why do you smear Hauglid's reputation by name but only refer to the other person anonymously? That makes no sense to me, but I'm sure you ahve some good reason for it.

[_sock puppet]

Though it has been a long time since I've heard from this particular informant, it seems that the recent fallout involving Will Schryver has brought this invaluable source of "intel" out of hibernation. Obviously, nothing as of yet has been forthcoming from the apologists on this matter, and any attempts to inquire into it at the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board has resulted in one banning after the next. MsJack has apparently corresponded with one of the Maxwell Institute apologists, but she refuses to reveal the identity of this person.

Still, we can assume certain things. For one thing, we know that Will had some rather staunch supporters in the form of people like Royal Skousen and Louis "The Emperor" Midgley. It's probably safe to assume that Drs. Peterson and Hoskisson supported Will's work, too. So who was on the "anti-Will" side of things?

According to my "informant," there were two key MDD/FAIR apologists who led the charge. One of these I will not name; the other, surprisingly, was apparently Brian Hauglid. Per my informant:

Hauglid and [deleted] are the ones who took the lead in taking the facts about Schryver to the heads at the MI and convinced them that publishing him would be a huge mistake....But...Hauglid was the main guy.

Wow! Hauglid has always seemed rather milquetoast and low-key, so these allegations come as quite a surprise to me. Based on what I was told, it seemed that two "factions" developed at the MI--the first being the "old school" Midgley types who would prefer to ignore Schryver's antics, and the other being a bit more attuned to the PR fallout that would likely follow in the wake of any publication. In any event, according to these allegations, it seems that Hauglid and this other apologist were pivotal in helping to make the facts of the matter known to key MI players---esp. M.I. Executive Director M. Gerald Bradford. According to the "intel," Bradford is the key person in terms of putting the kibbosh on Schryver's project.

As always, I want to throw in the usual caveat about treating all this with a grain of salt/healthy skepticism, etc. This particular "informant" has been quite reliable in the past, but apart from better confirmation of the details and facts, my advice is that readers treat the above w/ some skepticism. As I pointed out in my opening paragraph, the apologists have responded to inquiries into this matter with stone-cold silence and flagrant censorship. Thus, part of my motive in posting this "intel" is in the hopes that someone on the Mopologist side of the fence will step forward to offer up the other side of the story.

I find this very hard to believe. I think your imagination is getting the better of you again, Doctor Scratch.

by the way, I'm just curious: why do you smear Hauglid's reputation by name but only refer to the other person anonymously? That makes no sense to me, but I'm sure you have some good reason for it.

I saw it as complimentary of Hauglid, not a smear.

[_wenglund]

Hi, Wade. You're incorrect.

Of course I am correct. You are just denying it in failed hope of saving face, as I predicted.

And it's really interesting that you've only very recently resurfaced to defend Will. Where were you when all of this was blowing up?

Your attempt to deflect attention away from your embarrassment is remarkably transparent, if not boring.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

by the way, I'm just curious: why do you smear Hauglid's reputation by name but only refer to the other person anonymously? That makes no sense to me, but I'm sure you have some good reason for it.

I don't consider this in any way a "smear" of Bro. Hauglid. And yes: I do have my reasons. Would you care to guess what they are?

[_wenglund]

The un-named secondary source in this case is Harvey the rabbit.

LOL. I am afraid that there are a lot more atoms than imagination in this Harvey.

No púcas here, dear Wade.

So says an anonymous poster regarding the unsubstantiated claim of another anonymous poster regarding two alleged secret informants. Quite the amusing conspiratorial team. If there are a "lot more atoms here," they are evidently the kind periodically circling above the head of Jimmy Neutron. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

I saw it as complimentary of Hauglid, not a smear.

Exactly.

Now, raise your hands if you think William isn't desperately trying to contact Hauglid all day today.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wade,

If you've got information that in any way contradicts what's been said here, go ahead and share it. Frankly, it's unclear what you think you're doing. Do you think, for example, that MsJack is lying about Will's paper getting canceled? You would kind of have to for your behavior to make any sense. But if you believe her (and I see no reason to doubt her)---that means that a concerted effort was made by someone at the M.I. to put the kibbosh on Will's paper. Who do *you* think that was? Or do you think that M. Gerald Bradford made an "executive decision" and pulled the plug all by himself?

[_wenglund]

Wade,

If you've got information that in any way contradicts what's been said here, go ahead and share it. Frankly, it's unclear what you think you're doing. Do you think, for example, that MsJack is lying about Will's paper getting canceled? You would kind of have to for your behavior to make any sense. But if you believe her (and I see no reason to doubt her)---that means that a concerted effort was made by someone at the M.I. to put the kibbosh on Will's paper. Who do *you* think that was? Or do you think that M. Gerald Bradford made an "executive decision" and pulled the plug all by himself?

More lame deflections. You know I am right about your imaginary informants, and all your banal game-playing will not change that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Droopy]

Wow! Hauglid has always seemed rather milquetoast and low-key, so these allegations come as quite a surprise to me. Based on what I was told, it seemed that two "factions" developed at the MI-

Here we go...

Stock-in-trade.

Classic Scratch...to the max.