Double Standard--Question for Will, et. al. from MAD

[_Daniel Peterson]

The sad thing is how embarrassing this must be for those who are are innocent at FARMS.

That presumes that they're even aware of it.

Wow, you guys must really have the communications down tight. Are all the FARMS "folks" on the Skinny-l list? do you carry walkie-talkies? Blackberries? Tell me, do you rotate an "on call" schedule for monitoring the activities of anti-Mormons?

I just find it next to unbelievable that you could be aware of what online forums all the FARMS members know of down to the detail of the particular posts. That if any member of FARMS were to come across a post by Will on this forum, that an alert would be triggered and you'd know immediately. These are some highly efficient communications protocols your cell has implemented, this is not the work of amateurs.

Cute. But not a cogent response.

I know all of the staff and leadership of FARMS or the Maxwell Institute very well, and the arguments of critics are a fairly common theme of our conversations. Yet I don't know of anybody actually connected with FARMS or the Maxwell Institute who pays much attention at all to any Mormon-related message board. One or two of the staff look in on the board formerly known as FAIR once in a rare while. None of the leaders appear to have ever done so. Nobody has ever mentioned either this board or the board formerly known as FAIR in any meeting in which I've ever been present (and I'm present at essentially all of them). The leadership of the organization don't seem to care or have even the slightest interest. The staff have a mild and very intermittent interest in some topics on the board formerly known as FAIR. This board, though, has never been mentioned by anybody, to the best of my recollection.

In other words, there seems no reason to believe that people affiliated with FARMS -- I'm talking about the actual staff and leadership of the organization, rather than the roughly three hundred authors who've written for it and its several thousand subscribers -- pay any real attention to the goings on here at all.

[_Tarski]

The sad thing is how embarrassing this must be for those who are are innocent at FARMS.

That presumes that they're even aware of it.

Wow, you guys must really have the communications down tight. Are all the FARMS "folks" on the Skinny-l list? do you carry walkie-talkies? Blackberries? Tell me, do you rotate an "on call" schedule for monitoring the activities of anti-Mormons?

I just find it next to unbelievable that you could be aware of what online forums all the FARMS members know of down to the detail of the particular posts. That if any member of FARMS were to come across a post by Will on this forum, that an alert would be triggered and you'd know immediately. These are some highly efficient communications protocols your cell has implemented, this is not the work of amateurs.

Cute. But not a cogent response.

I know all of the staff and leadership of FARMS or the Maxwell Institute very well, and the arguments of critics are a fairly common theme of our conversations. Yet I don't know of anybody actually connected with FARMS or the Maxwell Institute who pays much attention at all to any Mormon-related message board. One or two of the staff look in on the board formerly known as FAIR once in a rare while. None of the leaders appear to have ever done so. Nobody has ever mentioned either this board or the board formerly known as FAIR in any meeting in which I've ever been present (and I'm present at essentially all of them). The leadership of the organization don't seem to care or have even the slightest interest. The staff have a mild and very intermittent interest in some topics on the board formerly known as FAIR. This board, though, has never been mentioned by anybody, to the best of my recollection.

In other words, there seems no reason to believe that people affiliated with FARMS -- I'm talking about the actual staff and leadership of the organization, rather than the roughly three hundred authors who've written for it and its several thousand subscribers -- pay any real attention to the goings on here at all.

Is Will Schryver a know quantity among these folks?

[_cksalmon]

Unless you're willing to go on record that more FARMS folk than just you are appalled by Will's particular brand of sexually explicit disgusting attempts at insulting humor?

I don't personally know of any FARMS folks who are aware of the existence of this place, let alone of any particular post by Will Schryver here. I've never heard anybody at FARMS ever mention this place. So I'm afraid that I simply can't go on record to testify that they're appalled by anything posted here.

Just to clarify, Dr. Peterson has certainly not gone on record that he is appalled by "Will's particular brand of sexually explicit disgusting attempts at insulting humor." He has not--nor will he, I'd guess--specifically indict Schryver's behavior. His on-topic responses regarding Schryver's nastiness have been coy, at best. .

I don't see any particular obligation for me to "go on record" to publicly declare appalling anything said in posts that I haven't read on threads that I haven't followed. I'm responsible for my own posts, but for nobody else's.

And I don't understand your apparently compelling need for me to "speak out" on this topic. It doesn't concern me and it doesn't interest me.

Manifestly. But, you're certainly not unaware.

As I stated, your responses are, at best, coy. You don't dare indict Schryver's behavior in any specific manner (I have no idea why you won't), though I, personally have, on multiple occasions, responded to your comments with quotations of Schryver's nastiness and asked for your personal input. Yes, I was hoping that you'd outright condemn his tack. You didn't. On the one occasion you actually replied semi-directly to me, your response was that I seemed rather combative of late. Nary a mention of Schryver.

I know that you were following the threads because, well, you actually posted on those very threads.

I'm not asking for you to be responsible for anyone else's posts. I am asking, right now, for you to take a stand on Will's nastiness. I'm asking you to take a personal stand. Let me be more specific:
Do you, Dr. Peterson, approbate Schryver's comparison of critics of the LDS Church to "shameless buggerers" who gather in a circle to "spill their seed" [that is, to ejaculate their semen] upon a biscuit tossed into their midst? Or do you find such comments in bad taste and unworthy of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ?

That is my very specific question for you personally. I can and will provide you the URL documentation for these choice quotations from Schryver (although they're already available onsite here).

I predict that you will not answer this very specific and simple question. But, I'd love to be proven wrong on this count.

Again, you're downwind of Schryver's stink.

I don't see any particular obligation for me to "go on record" to publicly declare appalling anything said in posts that I haven't read on threads that I haven't followed.

Consider yourself apprised of the situation. I don't find it at all convincing for you to state, again, essentially, "I have no idea what you're talking about." Educate yourself, if necessary (though, again, I've quoted Schryver's nastiness in response to you on multiple occasions), and then provide us with some sort of LDS moral compass.

Given your manifest prior opportunities to do so, I can't really imagine that you would actually now rise to the occasion and condemn Schryver's nastiness.

I suspect you'll continue to be coy, if you choose to respond at all.

But, I've asked a very specific question. You're certainly under no obligation to speak to it, but I suspect that you can do better than to label me a "Scratchite" or imply (as Will Schryver did) that perhaps I myself am a homosexual because I find his rants offensive to homosexuals.

The sooner you distance yourself from Schryver's tripe, the better.

You haven't done so. I'm asking you to do so.

Chris

[_Gadianton]

In other words, there seems no reason to believe that people affiliated with FARMS -- I'm talking about the actual staff and leadership of the organization, rather than the roughly three hundred authors who've written for it and its several thousand subscribers -- pay any real attention to the goings on here at all

But this is what you're so good at, misdirection. Are you paying attention, Dr. Peterson? At all? You have all these good reasons to suppose that hundreds of FARMS participants couldn't possibly be aware of this forum. But that doesn't matter at all. Because Will, claims, two of these many hundreds are following at least one of his threads and enjoying his insults. Are you saying he's a liar?

Will has said on another thread, I'll have to go back to find it, that he alerted Dr. Midgley to the thread and Dr. Midgley in fact read the thread and found it funny. Are you going to argue that in your many meetings, Dr. Midgley never stood up and admitted to having browsed Will's thread at Will's request? The issue here isn't whether this forum accounts for a significant chunk of your institution's research, but whether two affiliated with it have checked in on Will's threads, likely at Will's request. Your arguments to the contrary of Will's claims make no sense. It's rather hilarious to watch your efforts in this case.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't need to "distance myself" from Will Schryver's posts any more than I need to distance myself from Tarski's or Jersey Girl's or The Nehor's.

I'm simply not going to legitimate the notion that I'm responsible for any other poster here or that I'm somehow obligated, simply because I'm a vocally believing Latter-day Saint, to comment on any other specific poster.

My rhetorical style is pretty clear, I think, as to the kinds of things that I will say and the kinds of things that I won't say. It speaks for itself. And I speak for myself, but for nobody else here. I"ve said, very plainly, that I don't favor crude sexual references. That's sufficient.

I don't appreciate your attempt to drag me into your quarrel. Leave me out of it.

Is Will Schryver a known quantity among these folks?

Some on the small Maxwell Institute staff are aware of him. One or two of those who've written for the Institute probably also know that he has posted regarding the Book of Abraham.

I myself met him briefly at a FAIR conference some years back, and my wife and I once spoke with him and his daughter in the parking lot after an evening performance at the Utah Shakespearean Festival in Cedar City two or three years ago.

Other than myself, I doubt very much that any of the leadership of the Institute (our Executive Director, Associate Executive Director, Assistant Executive Director, Director of FARMS, Director of CPART, Director of Electronic Publishing, accountant, receptionists, or donor liason) are familiar with him.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You have all these good reasons to suppose that hundreds of FARMS participants couldn't possibly be aware of this forum.

Are you paying attention, Gadianton? I specifically said that I can't speak regarding the roughly three hundred people who've written for the Institute at one time or another, nor regarding the thousands of people who subscribe to the Institute's publications. They live across the continent and around the world, and they can do anything they want -- except to pose as representives of the Maxwell Institute.

I spoke specifically about those who are actually affiliated with the Maxwell Institute. I know them all. I know them very well. I communicate with them virtually every day, and have done so for years. I meet with them very often. I don't know a single one of them who follows this board, and I don't know a single one of them who has ever shown evidence of a taste for crude sexual humor.

But that doesn't matter at all. Because Will, claims, two of these many hundreds are following at least one of his threads and enjoying his insults. Are you saying he's a liar?

I don't know for sure what he's actually said or claimed. But I would be really surprised if it turned out that any of the Maxwell Institute leadership or staff has any particular zest for references to masturbation.

Will has said on another thread, I'll have to go back to find it, that he alerted Dr. Midgley to the thread and Dr. Midgley in fact read the thread and found it funny.

Find the reference. If I think it advisable at that point, I'll contact my friend, Dr. Midgley.

Are you going to argue that in your many meetings, Dr. Midgley never stood up and admitted to having browsed Will's thread at Will's request?

I would be happy to argue precisely that, because he never has.

The issue here isn't whether this forum accounts for a significant chunk of your institution's research, but whether two affiliated with it have checked in on Will's threads, likely at Will's request. Your arguments to the contrary of Will's claims make no sense. It's rather hilarious to watch your efforts in this case.

That one or two people who've written for the Maxwell Institute, or even one or two people who serve on the Institute's staff, may have looked in on a relevant and substantive thread or two at Will Schryver's invitation seems to me perfectly plausible. That one or two people affiliated with the Maxwell Institute -- let alone any of its leaders (and, incidentally, Professor Midgley is long retired, and is not, and never was, among the Institute's leaders or its staff) -- follow this place regularly strikes me as quite unlikely. And I simply don't believe that any of the leaders or the staff have expressed a particular relish for crude sexual humor.

[_Gadianton]

and I don't know a single one of them who has ever shown evidence of a taste for crude sexual humor.

Well gee, Dr. Peterson, that's just shocking. Because, you know, I think I am not alone in having been shocked -- not knowing anyone personally associated with FARMS -- at Will's suggestion that we are all a bunch of self-righteous prudes and that his "FARMS friends" have no problem with his references to circle jerks, whores with open sores and lice, and so on. I was left thinking, how on earth has someone like Will, who self-descirbes as soo fantastically intelligent and educated putting himself in a better stratigic position by dropping that one? I mean, my God, it's a good thing it was only me monitoring the thread and not Scratch. You realize, Scratch hasn't even been around, it wasn't his suggestion. No critic had ever suggested something like this. I'd never even thought of making such an accusation. It just came straight out of W.S.'s bragging mouth.

I don't know for sure what he's actually said or claimed

Well, duh. Don't you think you should familiarize yourself with an argument before taking sides on it? I'm not going to go back and put clip all of Will's statements here for you. At most, I'll look for his statement on another thread regarding Midgley's viewing of this forum.

I'll let you in on one last thing here, Will said nothing about the MI or its current administration and main participants. He's only spoken of FARMS. Since I don't believe FARMS exists anymore, I'd think his "FARMS friends" were made years ago probably.

Now, I do have to say that knowing Midgley has thrown around words like "queer" jokingly, that I could see him silently taking satisfaction in Will's crude humor. But honestly, that thought wouldn't have even entered my mind if Will hadn't just come right out and boasted about the laid-back FARMS crowd he migles with who like it served a little "off color" occasionally.

[_Tarski]

I hate to be a party pooper (was that crude? LOL) but I think the pursuit of Dr. P is getting overwrought and a bit paranoid.
As far as I can see, all we have is the following:

1. Will has an abrasive arrogant personality.
2. Will was repeatedly crude.
3. Will claimed that someone approved of, or found humor in, something he said (but what parts?). We don't know who it is or if Will is BSing on this point altogether ( I suspect he is).
4. Dr. P has denied observing Will's comments approvingly and has denied knowing anything about who did or didn't do so. I wouldn't think it so great if he tattled anyway.
5. Dr. P is clearly not prone to vulgarity (while some of us have been on occasion) and by saying that he does not approve of such he has already distanced himself.

The way I see it, Will is the appropriate target, not Dr. P.

Actually, it is more important to attack dubious ideas and beliefs than it is to attack personalities.

DCP should get at least some props for just showing up here while behaving with decor.
Will on the other hand, shows up with crude quips and nothing else.


I think it would be at best weird and at worst boring to expect DCP to police the postings of other Mormon posters.

Finally, I have a selfish personal goal to get Dr. P into an actual debate on religion. When will he ever have time for that if he is always on the defensive over personal accusations?

[_Chap]

[...]

Is Will Schryver a known quantity among these folks?

Some on the small Maxwell Institute staff are aware of him. One or two of those who've written for the Institute probably also know that he has posted regarding the Book of Abraham.

I myself met him briefly at a FAIR conference some years back, and my wife and I once spoke with him and his daughter in the parking lot after an evening performance at the Utah Shakespearean Festival in Cedar City two or three years ago.

Other than myself, I doubt very much that any of the leadership of the Institute (our Executive Director, Associate Executive Director, Assistant Executive Director, Director of FARMS, Director of CPART, Director of Electronic Publishing, accountant, receptionists, or donor liason) are familiar with him.

Somehow I think Schryver may consider himself to have been disowned by his "friends" in "high places".

I wonder if they performed Henry IV part 2 at that Shakespeare Festival? The bit where Falstaff tries to claim the acquaintance of his former drinking chum after Henry has become king?

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/2henryiv/2henryiv.5.5.html

At any rate it seems that some variant of the following scene may be played out next time the obscenity-loving Schryver claims the acquaintance of the good doctor in public, whether in a car park or elsewhere:

Enter KING HENRY V and his train, the Lord Chief- Justice among them

FALSTAFF

God save thy grace, King Hal! my royal Hal!

PISTOL

The heavens thee guard and keep, most royal imp of fame!

FALSTAFF

God save thee, my sweet boy!

KING HENRY IV

My lord chief-justice, speak to that vain man.
Lord Chief-Justice Have you your wits? know you what 'tis to speak?

FALSTAFF

My king! my Jove! I speak to thee, my heart!

KING HENRY IV

I know thee not, old man: fall to thy prayers;
How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!
I have long dream'd of such a kind of man,
So surfeit-swell'd, so old and so profane;
But, being awaked, I do despise my dream.
Make less thy body hence, and more thy grace;
Leave gormandizing; know the grave doth gape
For thee thrice wider than for other men.

Sad ...

[_beastie]

My lord chief-justice, speak to that vain man.
Lord Chief-Justice Have you your wits? know you what 'tis to speak?

FALSTAFF

My king! my Jove! I speak to thee, my heart!

KING HENRY IV

I know thee not, old man: fall to thy prayers;
How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!
I have long dream'd of such a kind of man,
So surfeit-swell'd, so old and so profane;
But, being awaked, I do despise my dream.
Make less thy body hence, and more thy grace;
Leave gormandizing; know the grave doth gape
For thee thrice wider than for other men.

Chap deserves godhood and seventy virgins for this post alone.

:::bowing in reverence::::