Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Dad of a Mormon]

By way of clarification, is it now being claimed that the "C" word wasn't actually seen, but "c***" was, and instead of deleting just the alleged omodified word, or moving the post to the terrestrial or tellestial forums where such modified versions of swear words are quite common and permissable, the entire post was deleted after several hours, and no outrage was expressed until after the post was deleted?

And, even though this thread is entirely personal in nature, instead of the entire thread being moved to the other forums, only those selectively presumed personal posts which don't favor the prevailing personal attacks, are removed to the other forums?

I am just trying to get a sense for how bizarre things are want to get here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think the initial assumption was that the C-word would have been filtered. But as Stak demonstrates in the telestial forum, that isn't necessarily the case. It is easy to get around the filter by just adding spaces or joining it with another word.

I think MsJack has raised a very real possibility: that Will used the word and forgot that he used it. She even showed how Will probably did this before. Which actually makes me feel a little better about Will. It was frustrating to think that he was deliberately lying.

[_wenglund]

Is it a parody when nobody gets it?

That is an interesting philosophical question, though made moot by the fact that at least one person does get it.

But, you have a point regarding knowing your audience. It doesn't always work to talk to those who can't or are unwilling to hear.

Given your frequent recourse to pragmatic approaches which seek to achieve a certain goal by the quickest and best method, I didn't understand what you were trying to do for most of the thread. Why not leave the carnival? Maybe I can take a few of you with me if I stay for a second. :)

Were my goal to end the carnival, you may have a point. If, however, my intent is to determine whether there are bounds to some people's propriety here, then you don't. As it is, I am interested to see to what extremes the folks here are intent to go in their quest for selective personal distruction.

I am also hoping to expose how little this really has to do with people's moral outrage and wishing to right presumed wrongs and to raise the quality of human discourse, but about silencing, in an unseemly way, one's critics--ironic on on a number of levels, I know.

And, it was good of you to be numbered among the willing participant--"moderately" as it were. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I said nothing about William that was "personal" and only addressed things he has said on this forum...

So, when I address things that people have said and done in this thread, though mostly directed to no one specifically or in particular, that is considered as "personal." Yet, when you and hords of others address specifically what William allegedly has said, it isn't "personal." Got it.

I think I am starting to get the hang of certain minds around here--up is down and down is up. :)

You, Droopy, and anyone else who would like to argue against the OP are welcome to do so at your leisure.

...but in another forum of course.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Simon Belmont]

I'm sorry, but I just have to post my famous picture here:




(posting this in no way means I have taken either side. It just seemed appropriate)

[_Jason Bourne]

Here is the key difference. My statements are an obvious parody, and they aren't a part of a massive pile-on. Were you capable of taking pause form your self-righteous indignation, this might have occurred to you. As it is...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh the irony that Wade continues to entertain us with is just never ending.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

As it is, I am interested to see to what extremes the folks here are intent to go in their quest for selective personal distruction.

I'd say something like "have fun experimenting on people," but someone might take it literally, so I'll just say I lost respect for you just now, and of course, that I am holier-than-thou. ;)

[_KimberlyAnn]

I'm sorry, but I just have to post my famous picture here:




(posting this in no way means I have taken either side. It just seemed appropriate)

Why waste many arrows when one ample set of boobies is more than enough to knock Will off balance?

Photoshop that, Belmont.

KA

[_wenglund]

I think the initial assumption was that the C-word would have been filtered. But as Stak demonstrates in the telestial forum, that isn't necessarily the case. It is easy to get around the filter by just adding spaces or joining it with another word.

I think MsJack has raised a very real possibility: that Will used the word and forgot that he used it. She even showed how Will probably did this before. Which actually makes me feel a little better about Will. It was frustrating to think that he was deliberately lying.

Had Will not denied having written what is alleged, and not claimed to have never used the word in public or in private, and had he not owned up to other disparaging comments; and had Harmony and Stak and Spurve claimed to have seen the word written in such a way as to avoied the automatic software censor, rather than claiming to have seen the word, itself; were there some empirical way to determine whether Stak and Spurve were logged in and viewing the post during the two hours prior to harmony's censor, and had those participating during the two hours prior to her censorship had made mention of the alleged offense, and had just the alleged word been deleted, or had the post been moved to another forum where it was permitted to stand in its now alleged modified form, instead of the whole thing being deleted, then MsJack may have a case.

She does, however, have a point about false memory. Unfortunately, she doesn't grant the distinct possibility that it wasn't Will who was falsely remembering.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ceeboo]

My error

[_wenglund]

I'd say something like "have fun experimenting on people," but someone might take it literally, so I'll just say I lost respect for you just now, and of course, that I am holier-than-thou. ;)

I would be disappointed in myself were my social 'experiment" to entail goading people into extreme behaviors.

But, it wasn't. Instead, I was interested to see how far they were willing to go in SPITE of my not-so-subtle reminders to the contrary about presumption of innocense, rules of evidence, and more appropriate venues, and more effectual approaches to judging.

Evidently, one of the problems of group indignation and mob mentality is that it profoundly blinds people to their own indignant or disappointing behavior. They are so intense in pointing the finger of outrage that they fail to see their own outrageous actions, and this even when it is being repeatedly pointed out to them.

Now, you evidently were human enough to have gotten somewhat caught up in the firestorm--though I still respect you very much and am not the least bit disappointed in you (and this since I tend to thoughtfully judge people on balance rather than rashly in terms of a single instance).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-