Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _MsJack »

Daniel Peterson wrote: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

Thanks, Dan.

That's all that I needed to hear.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_Simon Belmont

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Simon Belmont »

MsJack wrote:Thanks, Dan.

That's all that I needed to hear.


Not to prolong the Schryver-bashing, but people will say a lot of things on Internet message boards that don't match their real life personalities.

For example, I am a jerk to most critics here. If I met them in real life, there is no way I would be unkind. It's not who I am. It's far too easy to be unkind to faceless nameless screennames on the Internet.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Dan, you obviously hold the behavior of your fellow loyalists to a much lower standard and you should know this. I wonder what Hoskisson and Hauglid think about your defense of Schryver. Have you tried to throw your weight around to change their minds? It isn't us you need to convince.

Everything MsJack has presented in in fact "evidence" by every definition of the term, and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it does violence to your credibility. Especially in light of your past silliness, insisting that any "parallel" imagined by an apologist counts as valid "evidence" for the Books of Abraham/Mormon.

So Schryver doesn't abuse his wife and kids. Who the hell ever said he did? You're ignoring what he has said and done and focusing on what he hasn't said or done. Your apologetics for fellow loyalists is not much different from your apologetics of Mormon related issues.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

MsJack wrote:That's all that I needed to hear.

Actually, to really understand my point of view you would need to have heard somewhat more.

But that's fine.
_mikwut
_Emeritus
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:20 am

More derail: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _mikwut »

Kevin,

Everything MsJack has presented in in fact "evidence" by every definition of the term, and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it does violence to your credibility. Especially in light of your past silliness, insisting that any "parallel" imagined by an apologist counts as valid "evidence" for the Books of Abraham/Mormon.

So Schryver doesn't abuse his wife and kids. Who the hell ever said he did? You're ignoring what he has said and done and focusing on what he hasn't said or done. Your apologetics for fellow loyalists is not much different from your apologetics of Mormon related issues.


Why does this matter so much?

mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi

"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

I have to say that, while I'm not really all that surprised, I find Dr. Peterson's comments on this thread quite disappointing. If I recall correctly, I said during the initial posting of MsJack's assessment of Schryver's posting career that Dr. Peterson actually seemed/seems to enjoy and like Schryver's "locker room" antics. I'm sure there is a part of DCP that really relishes the vicious and misogynist slamming of female critics of the Church. There is a part of him that is genuinely sadistic, and that enjoys trying to humiliate and emotionally wound critics, including female critics, and I think that his affection for Will is just another part of this.

All that said, I found it remarkable and telling that he decided to have a "lunch date" with Will. It seemed clear at one point that Will's prospects of publishing with the Maxwell Institute were nil, on account of his unsavory behavior, though now it appears that DCP is going to bat for him. I was told at one point that the folks at the M.I. were divided in their assessment of MsJack's posting--with some of them thinking that association w/ Will was too dangerous and others (including, as I recall, Dr. Midgley) thinking that there should be zero capitulation whatsoever to the "antis." In other words, they would rather tank the entire reputation of FARMS rather than show weakness in the face of criticism.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

wenglund wrote:
Perhaps the two cents could have been better spent buying a sense of humor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Actually, Bobby Peru, I'm laughing right now. Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _wenglund »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Perhaps the two cents could have been better spent buying a sense of humor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Actually, Bobby Peru, I'm laughing right now. Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.


Good for you. It was money well spent. If you have any change left over, perhaps you can also buy a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Themis »

wenglund wrote:
That is one perspective. Others of us have a different perspective, and don't believe Joseph got the Book of Abraham "translation" wrong.


Sorry but the evidence is just to much on this issue. The apologetics are the weakest I have seen on any LDS issue.

At the very least, though, I hope people now realize that there is evidence that Joseph, as well as the Church, believed the Book of Abraham translation was revelatory, while the same may not be said of the KP "translation."


We also know that Joseph's use of the Gael at a minimum was meant for translating, not that it could actually translate anything accurately. Will be interesting to see where this new information leads.
42
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _wenglund »

Themis wrote:[quote="wenglund"[Sorry but the evidence is just to much on this issue. The apologetics are the weakest I have seen on any LDS issue.


That is one opinion. Again, others of us reasonably disagree.

We also know that Joseph's use of the Gael at a minimum was meant for translating, not that it could actually translate anything accurately.


I am not sure how much can reasonably be extrapolated regarding the meaning of the KEP from at best as single instance of a comparison of a single character.

Will be interesting to see where this new information leads.


Me, too.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
Post Reply