Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Simon Belmont]

Look, I'll just say what everyone's thinking:

Of all of them, Silver Hammer is my favorite Simon sock puppet!

I mean, who could think of a more clever name? The Beatles song Maxwell's Silver Hammer? As in Maxwell Institute?

[_Eric]

Will is very ugly towards women. I think using the word is completely in his character.

Maybe. I'm not saying he isn't. I'm just calling it as I see it.

[_Silver Hammer]

Doctor Scratch quotes Will Schryver as saying: “I will be in the MI offices again tomorrow. I have no doubt there will be some brief and amused discussion concerning this latest in a long, long string of coordinated attacks on me. It has become a species of comic relief, in a way.”

He then says: “So, at the very least, Silver Hammer, I think you can agree that Will is saying here that the people at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute: (a) are aware of what he does here, and (b) find it (or reactions thereto) "amusing."”

Actually, the statement links the “brief and amused discussion” to “a long, long string of coordinated attacks” on Mr. Schryver. It’s talking about the “coordinated attacks” and says nothing about the amusement being related to anything Schryver himself has said on message boards. It would be illogical to infer that “the people at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute: (a) are aware of what he does here, and (b) find it (or reactions thereto) "amusing."”

Just because someone is aware of “A,” and might find “A” amusing, does not mean that they are aware of “B” or “C” and find them amusing as well.

You are extending the statement to cover things it does not include.

My point is that Schryver appears to be intentionally ambiguous about what he says, and that you and others here are inclined to represent those things according to what YOU believe he really means. From what I have seen so far, in the examples you have given, there is a significant difference between what was ACTUALLY said, and what you CLAIM was said, or meant.

Are there other examples where the meaning is more explicit than in these you’ve already given me?

[_beastie]

Doctor Scratch quotes Will Schryver as saying: “I will be in the MI offices again tomorrow. I have no doubt there will be some brief and amused discussion concerning this latest in a long, long string of coordinated attacks on me. It has become a species of comic relief, in a way.”

He then says: “So, at the very least, Silver Hammer, I think you can agree that Will is saying here that the people at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute: (a) are aware of what he does here, and (b) find it (or reactions thereto) "amusing."”

Actually, the statement links the “brief and amused discussion” to “a long, long string of coordinated attacks” on Mr. Schryver. It’s talking about the “coordinated attacks” and says nothing about the amusement being related to anything Schryver himself has said on message boards. It would be illogical to infer that “the people at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute: (a) are aware of what he does here, and (b) find it (or reactions thereto) "amusing."”

Just because someone is aware of “A,” and might find “A” amusing, does not mean that they are aware of “B” or “C” and find them amusing as well.

You are extending the statement to cover things it does not include.

My point is that Schryver appears to be intentionally ambiguous about what he says, and that you and others here are inclined to represent those things according to what YOU believe he really means. From what I have seen so far, in the examples you have given, there is a significant difference between what was ACTUALLY said, and what you CLAIM was said, or meant.

Are there other examples where the meaning is more explicit than in these you’ve already given me?

LOL. This sounds like a defense attorney who has no other hope but to obfuscate.

[Guest]

Everything I've seen so far would require me to make assumptions about what are very ambiguous statements.

Exactly. The more important question would be, What assumptions does William Schryver intend his readers to make? Figure that out, and Blair's concerns will come into focus.

Forgive me again, but this statement ["Like I said earlier, Will's claim about a 'small circle of otherwise respected academics' implicates everyone by naming no one"] is not coherent or logical. How can a claim that names no one implicate everyone? To me, a claim that names no one cannot possibly "implicate" anyone.

You're not tracking with his point. While William Schryver names no individual members of the group designated as a "small circle of otherwise respected academics," he claims that group's joint approval.

By claiming the joint approval of the undifferentiated group, he implicates each member of the "small group" as having been approving in some relevant sense. I'm inclined to agree with Blair that this is flight of fancy.

But, I leave it to you to determine what assumptions William Schryver may have intended his readers to come to regarding the identity of the "small circle of otherwise respected academics." And whether his ambiguity is exculpatory.

EDIT: But, better yet, to cut out the middleman, I'd suggest you ask William Schryver, here, directly, on this thread, to identify the group he had in mind in that reference. My guess is that you will not get an answer, but he may surprise me(us?). You seem genuinely interested in the issue. Why not ask him? Given your evinced interest in this particular facet of the discussion, I would think it strange if you didn't ask him, personally, for clarification. I'm curious, too. Just who are the members of "that small circle of otherwise respected academics?"

[_Silver Hammer]

Thank you for the link. You say this is a man who is "well respected by critics and apologist alike." I have no reason to doubt you, but I don't know who "LifeonaPlate" is.

You sure about that, Silver Hammer? I mean, the guy posted right at the top of this very page. Are you sure that you don't know him? Maybe you're just trying to avoid coming between two contributors to the Maxwell Institute?

I don't know anyone named "LifeonaPlate."

I don't know anyone named "Doctor Scratch" or "beastie" or any of the other interesting names on this blog. "Rockslider" said that "LifeonaPlate" was well respected by critics and apologists alike. I have no reason to doubt that, but I still don't know who "LifeonaPlate" is.

[_moksha]

Why is anyone bothering, if they know Will to be a bad dude who is looking for controversy online? Just let it go, is my advice. Will's not going to change things up, so be the bigger person and forget it.

So you don't find merit in his friends trying to perform an intervention to help Will deal with female posters in a more appropriate manner? When you say his star is not in ascension, I imagine Will would like to change that, thus making such an intervention vital. As you point out, he is not going to change on his own. I cannot imagine any apologist wishing Will to go busting into a bookstore and harassing the proprietors at some future date, thus making such an intervention compelling.

[_RockSlider]

"Rockslider" said that "LifeonaPlate" was well respected by critics and apologists alike. I have no reason to doubt that, but I still don't know who "LifeonaPlate" is.

Ah sure you do William, he's one of those towards the top of your 5th list

[_Silver Hammer]

Cksalmon said: “You're not tracking with his point. While William Schryver names no individual members of the group designated as a "small circle of otherwise respected academics," he claims that group's joint approval.”

This is not correct. In the quote that was given, Schryver says that a certain person is “somewhat famous” among an unnamed “small circle of otherwise respected academics.”

He says nothing that would suggest this group of academics approves of anything at all. The statement says no more or less than what it says: that because of a description Schryver made of her, this person is “somewhat famous” among a small group of people.

I must admit that I am becoming more and more intrigued by the fact that EVERYONE who has conversed with me so far on this topic is doing the EXACT SAME THING: quote a statement from Schryver, insist it says something it doesn’t, then get defensive and offended when the illogic of their unwarranted inferences is noted. I did not expect to see what I am seeing.

[_beastie]

Cksalmon said: “You're not tracking with his point. While William Schryver names no individual members of the group designated as a "small circle of otherwise respected academics," he claims that group's joint approval.”

This is not correct. In the quote that was given, Schryver says that a certain person is “somewhat famous” among an unnamed “small circle of otherwise respected academics.”

He says nothing that would suggest this group of academics approves of anything at all. The statement says no more or less than what it says: that because of a description Schryver made of her, this person is “somewhat famous” among a small group of people.

I must admit that I am becoming more and more intrigued by the fact that EVERYONE who has conversed with me so far on this topic is doing the EXACT SAME THING: quote a statement from Schryver, insist it says something it doesn’t, then get defensive and offended when the illogic of their unwarranted inferences is noted. I did not expect to see what I am seeing.

I must admit that I am becoming more and more intrigued by the notion that someone who knows none of these "interesting" characters would become involved in this thread.

My goodness, who is this LoaP? I know not these people!! lol