Boy, was I wrong

[_wenglund]

So, hypothetically:
1. Will posts material here.

Yes and no. Some of the material posted over a year ago that has been attributed to Will, he adimantly denies posting.

2. People here object to Will's postings.

Yes. People here looked past all the insults, vulgar inuendos, and outright filth pervading this board, and focused on a few isolated comments attributed to Will, and used that as the basis for their smear campaign.

3. Someone from NAMI comes across Will's postings

Right. But, how did they come across what Will had posted? (Remember, Will felt betrayed by Bokovoy and Hauglid for a reason)

4. Someone at NAMI, or elsewhere in the LDS hierarchy, decides to pull the paper

Right. But, what was the reason the paper was pulled? (see berlow)

5. Wade objects to "the reprehensible actions of people on this board" - Will excluded, of course.

Will wasn't involved in any lynch mobs here, otherwise, he wouldn't have been excluded.

6. Wade has no problem with NAMI

Nor does he have any reason to be. They were n't a part of the lynch mob.

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.

"We" have no idea what they assumed, nor can "we" assume that the decision to pull the article was fully, or in part, because Will's posts were deemed objectionable. There may have been other compelling factors--like threats.

Did I get that right?

You got it as right as may have reasonably been expected of someone like you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

I didn't want to return to this cesspool, but personal integrity demands it of me. I recently learned that Will's NAMI (or whatever the journal's name is) articles have been given the boot.

This means that not only was I terribly wrong about the influence of this "backwater" board on LDS apologetic decision-making, but Scratch's network of informants is evidently not entirely incorrect in what they expose.

Clearly, the threats and smear campaign from many here at MD worked in silencing Will Schryver even among his own. I didn't think that was possible, but I obviously seriously under estimated the power of this mob--which is ironic given how the mob prides itself on free speech and has complained long and hard about censorship in certain quarters. At least this is one way to avoid having to confront Will's arguments.

Now that Will is out of the way, it will be interesting to see who next gets targeted for lynching.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Most people here have said that Will's paper should be published. They simply wanted him to stop harassing women. Is that too much to ask?

[_wenglund]

[ 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.

I realize that it would be asking way to much to expect some people here to accurately reflect what my objections have been and why I have objected--and this even though it can be easily done by simply correctly reading and accepting what I have said.

But, I am sure you have your reasons for grossly distorting my actions and motives.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

Will's problem is that he uses his real name on the internet boards. And this was his downfall. If he was using a screen name no one would know who he is. So, his mistake was to be honest in representing himself. And that is a tragedy since many attackers of Will do not use their real name but hide behind a screen name.

Many posters on this board do not conduct themselves in a professional manner and yet, because they hide behind a screen name they can use whatever language they choose without fear of censure.

And how should an apologist act with a bunch of ingrates who hate the LDS church and post personal attacks on a board that has no censuring mechanism?

Given the fact that he's retreated to his Nomad sock puppet, I'd say he's learned his lesson. But he should really start a new one - we all know that Nomad = Will.

[_Buffalo]

Poor Will. The persecution continues and continues. I am sooooo glad for the internet watchdogs who trace and track all the posts by the LDS apologists. Lets keep the spying and snitching a major feature of this board.

It works for BYU!

[_wenglund]

When I was LDS, I believed that personal accountability,willingness to admit wrong-doing, and sincere attempts to ameliorate problematic behavior were an important part of the gospel.

I guess that's another thing I didn't really understand about the church.

The things you mentioned are actually healthy and edifying social skills embraced by developed societies. They go along with things like, presumption of innocence, due process, rules of evidence, fair hearing (which includes a willingness to hear both sides of the issue), careful consideration of the context and extenuating circumstances, adjudication before an impartial tribunal, etc.

These things are designed to protect the innocent and advance civilization, and prevent the kinds of vindictive mob mentality, rushes to judgement, arbitrary targeted smears, rumor-mongering and threats like what has dominated this board over the last several weeks.

Perhaps you and others don't understand this either.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

When I was LDS, I believed that personal accountability,willingness to admit wrong-doing, and sincere attempts to ameliorate problematic behavior were an important part of the gospel.

I guess that's another thing I didn't really understand about the church.

The things you mentioned are actually healthy and edifying social skills embraced by developed societies. They go along with things like, presumption of innocence, due process, rules of evidence, fair hearing (which includes a willingness to hear both sides of the issue), careful consideration of the context and extenuating circumstances, adjudication before an impartial tribunal, etc.

These things are designed to protect the innocent and advance civilization, and prevent the kinds of vindictive mob mentality, rushes to judgement, arbitrary targeted smears, rumor-mongering and threats like what has dominated this board over the last several weeks.

Perhaps you and others don't understand this either.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All moot considering we have everything Will said exactly as he said it. This is a message board. What you post doesn't go away, like it does in a live conversation.

[Guest]

[ 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.

I realize that it would be asking way to much to expect some people here to accurately reflect what my objections have been and why I have objected--and this even though it can be easily done by simply correctly reading and accepting what I have said.

But, I am sure you have your reasons for grossly distorting my actions and motives.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I re-read the OP. You're whining over the fact that MD posters brought to light Will Schryver's deplorable behavior, and that perhaps the "Will" thread had inadvertantly influenced NAMI to boot his KEP paper. Have you even contacted NAMI to confirm your assumptions? I doubt it. So why don't you man up and give them a call?

If Will Schryver wasn't such an abrasive prick I'm sure he'd be singing cumbaya's with NAMI this very moment. God knows (and so do you) that they need all the help they can get. But he's not with them and it's his own damn fault. Evidently they have a problem with overly self absorbed, chauvenistic assholes, but maybe not. Why don't you return and report?

What in the world would possess a guy like you to affiliate/support this kind of creep? I haven't known you to denegrate women for the hell of it like he has done (among other things). Let it go. Have a little dignity.

[_Enuma Elish]

Right. But, how did they come across what Will had posted? (Remember, Will felt betrayed by Bokovoy and Hauglid for a reason)

For the record, in response to the fact that my name continues to surface in these discussions, I received the following email from a person officially connected with the Institute who occasionally lurks here and at MA&D. I've omitted a brief section of the email which identifies the individual. I share this to establish once and for all my lack of involvement in this affair.

Hi David,

I'm sorry you got dragged into this Will Schryver mess.

Just between you and me I did share some concerns with Jerry Bradford about Will's online behavior.

It was decided that his behavior was not in keeping with the high standards of the Maxwell name.

So he will be publishing his research through another publishing venue... I followed my conscious. I'm more concerned about the reputation of the Institute.

All the best to you.

[_wenglund]

Most people here have said that Will's paper should be published. They simply wanted him to stop harassing women. Is that too much to ask?

This is akin to were a small, backwoods town to gang up on one of its residents, and incessantly harangue him for peeing a couple of times in the local cesspool, making threats that lead to the dismissal of his article in the county paper, and went on to claim that they wanted the article published, but only wanted him to stop peeing where he wasn't supposed to, and then inquiring if that asking too much?

Again, if this were really about stopping harassment and improving discourse here at the cesspool, all offenders would have been duly chastened, no threats would have been made, and the matter would have gone no further than this board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-