DiscussMormonism.com

An interesting exchange going on at the once aptly named MAD board between Schryver and Chris Smith, with MortalMan jumping in--all over the article wars over the length of the Egyptian papyri.

Schryver wrote:Your disingenuousness is disgraceful. I have made only one unfulfilled promise: that a rebuttal to your scroll-length paper was about to be published. And, as you well know, it WAS about to be published; was already typeset and was to have been the cover article of the most recent issue of The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture when your friends and cohorts in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park produced their Schryver Smear Sheet in a one-shot desperation attempt to silence your opponent's arguments. Of course, you know all of this and were no doubt quite pleased with the results of your friends' endeavor, for it permitted you to proclaim victory in this debate. So congratulations on your friends having bought you a few months of illusory triumph.

Wait a minute. Is this a tacit admission that his publication was pulled because of his online persona?

Since I am now perma-banned from Mormon Dialogue and Discussions, I guess I will have to ask my question over here: what among MsJack's summary of Schryver's vulgar, misogynistic, douchebag behavior was not true?

Chris Smith had nothing to do with my thread on William Schryver. He never knew about it before it was published, he has not said a word to me about it in private since it was published, and I've seen him say very little in public about it.

Very few people knew about the thread before it was published and only one other person made any kind of a significant contribution to it by helping me find a few quotes. It was otherwise a one-woman endeavor and entirely my project from start to finish. The idea that there was some kind of widespread conspiracy for the express purpose of torpedoing William's upcoming publications is pure fabrication.

I vaguely recall someone---I think it was Mortal Man---suggesting that I should write to the Maxwell Institute and ask them to reconsider publishing William's work. I've never done so because, frankly, I never wrote to anyone about publishing William's work one way or another, and I wasn't interested in starting.

That is all.

Oh man, this whole thing makes me LOL!

Darth J wrote:Wait a minute. Is this a tacit admission that his publication was pulled because of his online persona?

Yes, but more importantly, it's a lie to weasel out of responding to Chris Smith's paper on the length of the papyri. All he has to do is claim that FARMS was a hair's breadth away from publishing it, and PRESTO! Nobody can check up on it--or even verify that it ever existed in the first place.

The scarecrow needs to go to Oz and see the Wizard and get a brain.