Boy, was I wrong

[_malkie]

Wade,

I don't think you understand the definition of smear. Generally a smear is a lie, deceit, half truth.

I do not wish to rehash all the anti-Will threads. Nor do I wish to argue semantics. My use of the term "smear campaign" fits well how Wikipedia defines it: Sometimes smear is used more generally to include any reputation-damaging activity, including such colloquialisms as mud slinging." You are free to disagree.

My issue all along has been with the reprehensible actions of members of this board, and not with NAMI. I have no reason to "attack" NAMI, which is why I haven't. This may not be a satisfactory answer for you, but I am okay with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, if someone from NAMI came across Will's postings here by chance, and the same decision were made, would you be just as happy or unhappy about the outcome?

And are you certain that this is not the case?

[_wenglund]

This being the case, what choice do the apologists have but to complain to and about the messengers.

It's good that Wade admits that he was wrong about something. I just wonder if he may be mistaken about what he's wrong about.

To see the glaring flaw in your "logic," understand that Will was simply delivering a message, yet many of you had no problem complaining and complaining and complaining ad nauseum about him/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

So, if someone from NAMI came across Will's postings here by chance, and the same decision were made, would you be just as happy or unhappy about the outcome?

And are you certain that this is not the case?

Since, as I have repeatedly stated, my issue isn't with the actions of NAMI, but with the reprehensible actions of people on this board, my sentiments would be no different regardless how NAMI came to learn of things here. And, no, I am not certain they weren't made aware as you suggest. I just find it highly implausible and contrary to what I have heard. However, those involved are in a better position to say than me, and we will just have to wait and find out if they are willing to disclose their actions and what pressure they may have brought to bear on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_malkie]

This being the case, what choice do the apologists have but to complain to and about the messengers.

It's good that Wade admits that he was wrong about something. I just wonder if he may be mistaken about what he's wrong about.

To see the glaring flaw in your "logic," understand that Will was simply delivering a message, yet many of you had no problem complaining and complaining and complaining ad nauseum about him/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps if you had extended the quoted portion a little to the north it would be clear.

I was taking note of the apologists' complaints about critics pointing out that Will's message was objectionable, because they (the apologists) are unwilling to complain to or about the people/organization that took action based on Will's message.

I suspect that the decisionmakers at NAMI care little for the opinions of the critics on this board, and that their decision was based on considerations other than critics' opinions. Of course, I don't know that this is the case, but it seems to me like a reasonable conclusion. I recognise that you may have a different opinion, and recognise your right to it.

[_malkie]

So, if someone from NAMI came across Will's postings here by chance, and the same decision were made, would you be just as happy or unhappy about the outcome?

And are you certain that this is not the case?

Since, as I have repeatedly stated, my issue isn't with the actions of NAMI, but with the reprehensible actions of people on this board, my sentiments would be no different regardless how NAMI came to learn of things here. And, no, I am not certain they weren't made aware as you suggest. I just find it highly implausible and contrary to what I have heard. However, those involved are in a better position to say than me, and we will just have to wait and find out if they are willing to disclose their actions and what pressure they may have brought to bear on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, hypothetically:
1. Will posts material here
2. People here object to Will's postings
3. Someone from NAMI comes across Will's postings
4. Someone at NAMI, or elsewhere in the LDS hierarchy, decides to pull the paper
5. Wade objects to "the reprehensible actions of people on this board" - Will excluded, of course
6. Wade has no problem with NAMI
7. We assume that the people making the decision to pull the paper would not have done so if nobody here found Will's posting objectionable.

Did I get that right?

[_Inconceivable]

Wade,

I don't think you understand the definition of smear. Generally a smear is a lie, deceit, half truth.

I do not wish to rehash all the anti-Will threads..

My issue all along has been with the reprehensible actions of members of this board, and not with NAMI. I have no reason to "attack" NAMI..Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well of course you don't want to rehash the Will is what Will is threads. It just reminds everyone why he doesn't have friends.

No doubt you believe those sophisticated NAMI guys have been duped and are denying Will in poor judgement. You really need to take this up with those clowns instead of those you infer are wallowing in filth.

Wade, you're a crybaby. You're pissed Will has a history and that it demonstrates he's no more than a tool. Why you defend this non-Christian is bad company. You overlook the simple fact that he is his own cesspool.

Is Will the best of what's left to do some damage control on the KEP? Well, we guess so!

Have a nice day

- thanks - inc.

[_TrashcanMan79]

So, hypothetically:
1. Will posts material here
2. People here object to Will's postings
3. Someone from NAMI comes across Will's postings
4. Someone at NAMI, or elsewhere in the LDS hierarchy, decides to pull the paper
5. Wade objects to "the reprehensible actions of people on this board" - Will excluded, of course
6. Wade has no problem with NAMI
7. We assume that the people making the decision to pull the paper would not have done so if nobody here found Will's posting objectionable.

Did I get that right?

Going on what Wade has had to say so far on the matter, you've summed up his angle pretty well. Doesn't make any sense at all, of course, but there you have it. *shrug*

[_beastie]

Can someone give me the original link to and/or title of the thread?

A friend of mine made a back-up database of MADB threads before they made the transition. He doesn't have everything, but I can check to see if he has this one.

This is all I have, the orginal link from the MD discussion.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... ge__st__80

I do not believe DCP originally intended the Aliens metaphor to imply rape. But as he normally does, Will picked up on that possibility and sexualized the insult.

[_malkie]

Wade,

I don't think you understand the definition of smear. Generally a smear is a lie, deceit, half truth.

I do not wish to rehash all the anti-Will threads..

My issue all along has been with the reprehensible actions of members of this board, and not with NAMI. I have no reason to "attack" NAMI..Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well of course you don't want to rehash the Will is what Will is threads. It just reminds everyone why he doesn't have friends.

No doubt you believe those sophisticated NAMI guys have been duped and are denying Will in poor judgement. You really need to take this up with those clowns instead of those you infer are wallowing in filth.

Wade, you're a crybaby. You're pissed Will has a history and that it demonstrates he's no more than a tool. Why you defend this non-Christian is bad company. You overlook the simple fact that he is his own cesspool.

Is Will the best of what's left to do some damage control on the KEP? Well, we guess so!

Have a nice day

- thanks - inc.

Man, inc., you're really treading on thin ice here.

Wade has told us more than once that he has no opinion on the matter (none of his business, he says), and has no axe to grind with NAMI. The only problem he has is with the behaviour of the posters here who are not supporters of Will. We are the ones who have caused the problem, not Will.

by the way, have you noticed any of the apologetic crowd who have had an opinion on NAMI's action? Or am I the only person who has not noticed either praise for or condemnation of the decision to pull Will's paper?

[Sorry, I seem to have a one-track mind on this topic lately - the apologists, who are rarely caught without an opinion on matters to do with the church and its various 'arms', just don't seem to know what to do with this. And who can blame them? It's not exactly a win-win situation for them. However, I keep hoping that if I ask the question often enough one of them will answer. What do you think are the chances?]

[_Inconceivable]

Man, inc., you're really treading on thin ice here.

Wade has told us more than once that he has no opinion on the matter (none of his business, he says), and has no axe to grind with NAMI. The only problem he has is with the behaviour of the posters here who are not supporters of Will. We are the ones who have caused the problem, not Will.

by the way, have you noticed any of the apologetic crowd who have had an opinion on NAMI's action? Or am I the only person who has not noticed either praise for or condemnation of the decision to pull Will's paper?

[Sorry, I seem to have a one-track mind on this topic lately - the apologists, who are rarely caught without an opinion on matters to do with the church and its various 'arms', just don't seem to know what to do with this. And who can blame them? It's not exactly a win-win situation for them. However, I keep hoping that if I ask the question often enough one of them will answer. What do you think are the chances?]

I have an observation here.
Perhaps members within the church might actually fall for the blame the messenger and overlook the real problem ploy (for example: the real reasons Mormons or persecuted are rarely discussed by them). I think many of us here are just not programmed like that anymore. Perhaps that is why the apologists here begin to weep, wail and knash their teeth when they loose control of their frail arguments and weak mis-characterizations. We just don't buy it and it frustrates their craft of denial.

Wade and the others remind me of those that I have known that were members of the old school Mafia. It used to be the best way to discover whether a person belonged to the organization was to ask him if it existed.