Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

[_Daniel Peterson]

You seem to repeat the fact that you have met his wife as though that were somehow some sort of defense for his misogyny.

I'm aware of no real evidence for misogyny on his part.

MsJack alluded to my supposed serenity about Will Schryver's alleged mistreatment of women. It's a perfectly cogent response to such a comment to reply that I've seen none.

I'm also completely at peace with my wife's serial murders: I've seen none, and there's no evidence for them.

It's true: I seldom get very upset about bad events that I don't believe have occurred, or about misbehavior that I don't believe happened.

And there is a more troubling implication that concerns me here, which is the idea that you would be able to tell if a woman is in a bad relationship just by casual meetings and ordinary interaction.

I have no reason to believe that Mrs. Schryver is in a bad relationship with her husband, nor that the younger Ms. Schryver is in any sense being abused by her father, and I've seen nothing to suggest that they are.

I've seen absolutely nothing, in my discussions with Will Schryver, his wife, or his daughter, that would give rise to even the faintest suspicion of misogyny or abuse.

Of course, anybody can suspect anybody -- including you and Mr. Graham -- on the basis of nothing.

I'm not interested in another Schryverthread.

[_marg]

Ms Jack,

I had not seen that quote. This is my reference

viewtopic.php?p=191950#p191950

it started with the above post in which Ajax comments; “In my experience, Islamic women in their full covering and dress don't strike me as depressed or abused.

And TD responds in her post focusing on the burka:

“Would YOU like living this way? (Not being able to leave your home without a full black cover where you peek out of the black netting of your mask)? Where you have virtually no rights? Where you can't drive a car? Have to walk behind women and girls as an inferior being? “

And then DCP responds to Ajax:

“I've met plenty of such Muslim women myself.

There are, obviously, many oppressed women in the Islamic world. But there are many who willingly and happily choose for themselves to adopt traditional Islamic garb. I know several of them, and I know some of them reasonably well.”

I realize “traditional Islamic garb” can mean hijab though at the time when DCP said "traditional Islamic garb" I certainly was not thinking that given the context of the discussion previously in which TD devoted a whole post to Ajax discussing the burka …and as well Ajax had said a “full covering and dress”. There was no mention or critical comments by DCP of the burka in support of TD's points...that was an obvious opportunity he had to voice such critical comment of the subjugation of women with the burka..but he didn't.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

And there is a more troubling implication that concerns me here, which is the idea that you would be able to tell if a woman is in a bad relationship just by casual meetings and ordinary interaction.

I have no reason to believe that Mrs. Schryver is in a bad relationship with her husband, nor that the younger Ms. Schryver is in any sense being abused by her father, and I've seen nothing to suggest that they are.

I've seen absolutely nothing, in my discussions with Will Schryver, his wife, or his daughter, that would give rise to even the faintest suspicion of misogyny or abuse.

Of course, anybody can suspect anybody -- including you and Mr. Graham -- on the basis of nothing.

I'm not interested in another Schryverthread.

I'm not sure how you could have missed it, because I emphasized it twice. I'm not saying anything negative at all about Will and his relationship with his wife or daughter. I stated that twice in my original post and yet you, oblivious to the point I was making, choose to make a defense of Will as though the accusation of misconduct toward his family was an issue on the table. It isn't. Again, because you apparently didn't comprehend my point the first time, my only issue is that you seem to think that if you have had friendly interactions with someone's wife or family that this means there is no possibility of them having problems at home. That was my point, and I think I went to great lengths to make sure that my comments weren't misunderstood.

I will state it once again so that hopefully you will not make the same mistake you made the last time: I am not making any comment whatsoever about Will's relationships with his family. None. Please do not make the same mistake again.

[_MsJack]

MsJack alluded to my supposed serenity about Will Schryver's alleged mistreatment of women. It's a perfectly cogent response to such a comment to reply that I've seen none.

Okay, Dan. So you haven't seen William Schryver mistreat any women. From my perspective, that leaves only two possibilities:

(1) You have not carefully examined any of the links where William's behavior has been documented.

(2) You don't believe applying derogatory labels to women like "bitch" and "whore" or making lewd and unwelcome comments about their sexuality, their bodies, and their appearance counts as "mistreatment of women."

They're certainly both possibilities, but if (1) is the case, I'm not sure why you're belittling the charge with cutesy anecdotes of having met the Schryvers in real life.

I'm not interested in another Schryverthread.

Nor was I. But the people who like to transform topics into "Schryverthreads" just won't stop being interested in me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not sure how you could have missed it, because I emphasized it twice.

I didn't miss it.

I'm not saying anything negative at all about Will and his relationship with his wife or daughter. I stated that twice in my original post and yet you, oblivious to the point I was making, choose to make a defense of Will as though the accusation of misconduct toward his family was an issue on the table. It isn't.

I didn't think it was, I didn't make a defense of Will as if it was, and I wasn't oblivious to the point you were making.

Again, because you apparently didn't comprehend my point the first time,

I comprehended it fully.

my only issue is that you seem to think that if you have had friendly interactions with someone's wife or family that this means there is no possibility of them having problems at home.

I think absolutely nothing of the kind.

That was my point,

It wasn't relevant to anything I believe or said.

and I think I went to great lengths to make sure that my comments weren't misunderstood.

I didn't misunderstand them.

I will state it once again so that hopefully you will not make the same mistake you made the last time:

I made no mistake the last time.

I am not making any comment whatsoever about Will's relationships with his family. None.

Good. You would have no justification whatever for doing so.

Please do not make the same mistake again.

I didn't make it a first time.

[_thews]

Many non-Wills (including some on this board) are non-ignoramuses. But, alas, several non-Wills on this very board are ignoramuses.

As you like to resort to childish name-calling and bask in your own ignorance Dr. Peterson, let me remind you that your supposed "scholarly" knowledge of Mormon history avoids subjects you can't spin. Are you going to take a stance on this, or will you continue to plead ignorance?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16989&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21

My answer would be that, off the top of my head, I didn't know, and that I would have to do some checking on the matter.

In the meantime, I suggest Don Bradley as the most current authority on the Kinderhook episode. He may be speaking on the topic at the FAIR conference in August, and you're certainly welcome to attend his presentation.

Best wishes.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Maybe you can clarify why your friendly interactions with Will's family have any relevance to the charge that Will exhibited misogynistic behavior elsewhere.

[_wenglund]

Maybe you can clarify why your friendly interactions with Will's family have any relevance to the charge that Will exhibited misogynistic behavior elsewhere.

What part of "I'm not interested in another Schryverthread" did you and Thews not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Maybe you can clarify why your friendly interactions with Will's family have any relevance to the charge that Will exhibited misogynistic behavior elsewhere.

What part of "I'm not interested in another Schryverthread" did you and Thews not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The part where he chose to participate in this thread by commenting on his friendly interactions with Will's family. What part of the fact that he did, by his own volition, participate in a "Schryverthread" do you not understand?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I've seen no serious evidence that Will Schryver is a misogynist.

I'll repeat that: I've seen no serious evidence that Will Schryver is a misogynist.

None.

Perhaps you folks should reprise a few hundred of the posts that were devoted to that endlessly fascinating subject here a few months back. They didn't convince me then, and they probably won't convince me now (particularly since I won't even read them this time), but they certainly revved up several among the dozen or so critics who regularly post here. Got the old adrenaline pumping.

I think that the next Two-Minutes' Schryver-Hate is scheduled for tomorrow morning at 8 AM, though. (I'll be busy.)

I fully understand that the consensus among the sensitive, gentle souls here (including Some Schmo and Polygamy Porter and Joey and Joseph and MrDimWC4Me and Chip) is that Will Schryver is doubleplusungood. That's fine. As the Qur’an says, Lakum diinukum Washington liyy diini.

As you like to resort to childish name-calling

I was having a little fun -- do you know that term? fun? -- with a word (ignoramus) that a previous poster, a critic, had used on this thread. It's not my word. I didn't use it first on this thread, and I seldom use it anywhere else, either.

and bask in your own ignorance Dr. Peterson,

I'll say I do!

Basking in my own ignorance is one of my very favorite activities, and -- I'm still trying to be modest here -- I think, if I may say so, that I've developed quite a remarkable reputation for it. Ignorance is my middle name!

let me remind you that your supposed "scholarly" knowledge of Mormon history avoids subjects you can't spin.

My knowledge avoids potholes, Angela Lansbury, liver, and coconut, too. My knowledge has a will of its own, and can be pretty contrary.

Are you going to take a stance on this, or will you continue to plead ignorance?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16989&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21

My answer would be that, off the top of my head, I didn't know, and that I would have to do some checking on the matter.

In the meantime, I suggest Don Bradley as the most current authority on the Kinderhook episode. He may be speaking on the topic at the FAIR conference in August, and you're certainly welcome to attend his presentation.

I still suggest that you ask Don Bradley, who is the most current authority on the Kinderhook episode. He spoke on the topic at the FAIR conference in August, and is a poster here on this very board. (I hope you were able to attend his presentation.)