Once again I've missed the fun...

[_beastie]

What "tattoo incident" is that?

Are you referring to the incident where the haters went nuts over a photo of an athlete that supposedly had a tattoo "airbrushed" out of it; I defended BYU for that; and then when it turned out that the athlete in question didn't have the tatt at the time the picture was taken, so the "airbrushing" accusation was false -- and the accusers therefore had egg all over their faces -- somehow that made me look bad?

That "tattoo incident?"

Indeed, you may be right.

You left out the important part. When people mistakenly believed that the tattoo had been airbrushed out, you created a spin in which you asserted that the player would have wanted to tattoo airbrushed out as part of the repentance process. Then the subsequent article showed that he got the tattoo AFTER the picture, which had been from the previous year, so it had nothing to do with the repentance process and wanting to "wash out a statement" about how he perceived himself. But you just ignored how you had gotten it totally wrong and declared victory.

It's a real gift you have, the ability to see yourself victorious no matter what. That's what is funny here.

(snip P's blahblahblah)

Of course I understood that you were parsing and playing semantics, claiming you were only talking about THAT ONE PARTICULAR PIECE. Of course, you and SGW are asking us to accept that it's reasonable to believe that SGW wrote that piece of erotica as an apostate within one month of his previous apologia, and before asserting that he was interested in writing erotica at the same time as he was LDS. I think that strains credulity.

In addition, if you were really claiming that he just wrote that ONE PIECE OF EROTICA as an apostate, while recognizing that he wrote other erotica as a believer, it would be extraordinarily uninteresting and unimportant. It would not be giving you the opportunity to associate his erotica, of which you disapprove, with "YOU LOT."

So why, exactly, did you make the "YOU LOT" comment at all?

Again, your explanation strains credulity.

But I understand that you still view yourself as victorious. You've always been your loudest cheerleader.

[_beastie]

I don't deny that Will provided the ammo. But the fact is that MsJack, by her own up-front admission, decided to go after him only because he was getting somewhere in LDS apologetics.

Evidently LDS apologists must be like Caesar's wife, while anti-Mormons are allowed to be as swinish as they like.

Regards,
Pahoran

That's a distortion of what she said. She expressed concern that someone with a history of misogynist comments would create a climate in which women would be discouraged to participate in discussion.

[_Pahoran]

What I find disturbing is the allegation that he solicited money for a nonexistent LDS journal, and suggested that the donations were charitable.

I also find troubling the allegation that he served a takedown letter leading to a shutdown even though the image in question was not registered with the copyright office.

Has he, or one of his defenders ever addressed those two actions?

I see we're being Jaybeared again.

He was soliciting donations for a journal he wanted to start up. Evidently he's abandoned the project. I don't know if he actually received any donations therefor, but if he did, I'd expect him to give them back.

And a work doesn't have to be registered to be copyright. Copyright attaches to works by default. Registration merely creates a paper trail so that the copyright can be proved if it is ever questioned. Did you really not know that?

The point you're all missing -- or avoiding -- is that none of this would have happened, nor would it ever happen again, if MDB simply stopped allowing threads that target individuals.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

I don't deny that Will provided the ammo. But the fact is that MsJack, by her own up-front admission, decided to go after him only because he was getting somewhere in LDS apologetics.

Evidently LDS apologists must be like Caesar's wife, while anti-Mormons are allowed to be as swinish as they like.

Regards,
Pahoran

I thought she was pretty clear in explaining her reasons, which make sense. I've pretty much stayed out of that whole thread and have made only a few comments on Will's predicament. I am genuinely sorry that NAMI will not be publishing his stuff, but I don't see what MsJack did as being a "petty vendetta."

As I said, I've been the target of such vendettas before. Generally I just apologize if I have done something wrong to provoke said vendetta, and it ends. That's what I was trying to do on MADB when they banned me. They started a thread about me, and a whole bunch of people came out with old grievances, so I apologized, and it was my apology that was mentioned as the reason I was banned. I didn't, and still don't, blame the person who started the thread for vindictively going after me, because he hadn't. He was pointing out some bad behavior, just as MsJack did.

Mind you, I'm not holding a grudge about that board. I don't read MDD unless someone points me to something of interest, and usually I don't stay more than a minute or to. I've lost my emotional connection to that place, and it's fine. But I will own my mistakes and my bad behavior, and I refuse to throw all the blame on the bad faith of others. It would be really easy to do that, but I won't.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't deny that Will provided the ammo. But the fact is that MsJack, by her own up-front admission, decided to go after him only because he was getting somewhere in LDS apologetics.

But you're spinning it Pahoran.

I think MsJack decided to do this because now that William had represented FAIR at their conference and had been bragging about his affiliations with LDS scholars at the NAMI, she knew that there would be a response to his behavior. Had he remained a nobody on an obscure message forum, she would have been equally offended by his remarks, but she would also know that it would be pointless to write up such a critique since nobody in the Church would feel the need to support or condemn him.

So it wasn't simply because "he was getting somewhere in LDS apologetics." This makes it sound like she was just out to hurt the guy, or maybe we were all scared of his apologetics. That makes you a dishonest person Pahoran because you know this is false on both counts. She was careful to point out that " I consider both FAIR and the Maxwell Institute to be credible scholarly organizations." Hence, she was doing both organizations a favor by drawing their attention to what would be a PR nightmare for them if they continued to feed his ego with speaking engagements and promises of publication. A truly mischievous critic would wait until Schryver was published before making his true character known to the internet world. She did you all a favor. She gave you the opportunity to distance yourself from this walking time-bomb, and many of you already have.

[_Pahoran]

What "tattoo incident" is that?

Are you referring to the incident where the haters went nuts over a photo of an athlete that supposedly had a tattoo "airbrushed" out of it; I defended BYU for that; and then when it turned out that the athlete in question didn't have the tatt at the time the picture was taken, so the "airbrushing" accusation was false -- and the accusers therefore had egg all over their faces -- somehow that made me look bad?

That "tattoo incident?"

Indeed, you may be right.

You left out the important part.

Did I?

Most people would think that "the important part" of a discussion about a false accusation is that the accusation was false. What does your partisan prejudice dictate that "the important part" of such a discussion must be?

When people mistakenly believed that the tattoo had been airbrushed out, you created a spin in which you asserted that the player would have wanted to tattoo airbrushed out as part of the repentance process. Then the subsequent article showed that he got the tattoo AFTER the picture, which had been from the previous year, so it had nothing to do with the repentance process and wanting to "wash out a statement" about how he perceived himself. But you just ignored how you had gotten it totally wrong and declared victory.

I accept that my arguments were moot. I believe I accepted that at the time.

And why were they moot?

Because the airbrush accusation was false.

It's a real gift you have, the ability to see yourself victorious no matter what. That's what is funny here.

What's funny is that you think that an accusation that was proven false somehow reflects upon the defenders more than the accusers.

You really see everything through the lens of your own partisan prejudice, don't you?

Of course I understood that you were parsing and playing semantics, claiming you were only talking about THAT ONE PARTICULAR PIECE. Of course, you and SGW are asking us to accept that it's reasonable to believe that SGW wrote that piece of erotica as an apostate within one month of his previous apologia, and before asserting that he was interested in writing erotica at the same time as he was LDS. I think that strains credulity.

In addition, if you were really claiming that he just wrote that ONE PIECE OF EROTICA as an apostate, while recognizing that he wrote other erotica as a believer, it would be extraordinarily uninteresting and unimportant. It would not be giving you the opportunity to associate his erotica, of which you disapprove, with "YOU LOT."

So why, exactly, did you make the "YOU LOT" comment at all?

I made it because YOU LOT were using that particular piece as an excuse to attack him.

That's the only reason why that particular piece was of any relevance to the discussion at all.

Did you really not understand that, Beastie?

The great risk with stubbornly playing dumb, which seems to be one of your favourite tactics, is that people will come to believe you really are that dumb. Is that what you really want?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_wenglund]

After all, Will had some rather original ideas about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and look where they got him.

Regards,
Pahoran

Let's just keep pretending that Will's ideas and not his sexual harassment are at the heart of this. I'm sure that's a comforting thought to hold onto. :)

Quite so. Anyone and everyone on this board who has expressed things that may be interpreted as vulgarities or sexual innuendos or harassment, have all invariably had countless threads devoted to condemning their actions and in which the members of the board pile on in their condemnations. Who would dare pretend things have occurred any differently than this?

And, there is certainly no irony in a person operating online under the guise of a buffalo, lecturing others about pretending.

What a joke.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

It just amazes me that Pahoran, even after admitted that William Schryver is guilty of pretty much everything we said he was guilty of (sans the C-word), that he can only bring himself to condemn the person who brought all of this to our attention.

That doesn't sound like someone who truly condemns William's behavior. He's still out to make everyone here a bunch of evil characters who are out to smear others. It is amazing that he doesn't think this will come back to bite him in the ass in the future. NAMI was smart enough to avoid any support of Schryver, for precisely that reason. Pahoran it seems, isn't that smart.

[_Kishkumen]

Quite so.

Wade, could you remind me of the specific argument(s) that Will was forwarding that critics were so frightened of? I can't seem to recall it/them.

[_Kevin Graham]

Anyone and everyone on this board who has expressed things that may be interpreted as vulgarities or sexual innuendos or harassment

In the case of William Schryver, there was no room for "interpretation" since he made it explicitly clear what he said. And to equate Will's vulgarity with what usually goes on around here is dishonest. I recently challenged droopy to produce a single example of vulgarity that compares to what William has said. He cannot produce and neither can you, so please stop pretending Will was in Rome and speaking like the Romans. Will was speaking like Will, and that was very much unlike what anyone else here has ever said, and you can add the top five most offensive apostates on this forum, and you still wouldn't equal one of Will Schryver's offenses.