beastie wrote:Silver Hammer wrote:William Schryver wrote: "I don’t think you know anything about my relationships with the people you seem to think constitute “1st class apologists.”
If they are embarrassed by me, it doesn’t show in the regular conversations I have with many of them.
Is it possible, perhaps, that they don’t see things the way you do?"
Then MsJack wrote: “According to William, he feels no remorse for his behavior and the "1st class apologists" approve of it as well.”
Forgive me, but I don’t see much to support MsJack’s statement. She’s making an inference, but I don’t think it is justified. From what I can see in this example, Will didn’t say that “1st class apologists” approve of his behavior on message boards. All he said is that in his conversations with them (he doesn’t say what they talk about) he doesn’t think they are embarrassed by him. Maybe the people he’s talking about don’t even know about what Will writes on message boards.
You must have overlooked this citation that Ms. Jack shared in her OP:
Will:You might be interested in the fact that a couple people were once given the task of investigating the basis for the oft-repeated claim of my wanton vulgarity. What was the result of this rather exhaustive investigation? It was that, although a few minor blushes were induced (amidst the belly laughs), there was deemed to be virtually no substantive basis for the allegations; quotes were found to have been routinely taken out of context, thus entirely altering their true meaning, and a large proportion of the "vulgarities" attributed to me were entirely fabricated out of whole cloth (like, for example, the frequently repeated allegation that I called the golden-haired Kimberly Ann a "whore.")
(Kimberly does remain somewhat famous [among a small circle of otherwise respected academics] on account of my descriptions of her having once squeezed her then more voluptuous spirit tabernacle into a slinky black three-sizes-too-small dress at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City, which I attended. One wouldn't have believed it possible to carry melons in a pair of thimbles suspended from a thread, but miracles happen almost every day in this jaded world of cynical disbelievers.)
It was, I must confess, ascertained that I did, in fact, obliquely refer to beastlie and dissonance (once each, as I recall) with variants on the appellative "bitch." But it was concluded that my judgment was so near to the facts of the matter that I could not be convicted by a jury of my peers. LOL!
viewtopic.php?p=369575#p369575
OK, I see what you're talking about now. But is the part in brackets added by someone else? That's what confused me, I think.
At any rate, I still don't see where this implicates people from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. If the part in brackets are his words, then he just mentioned “a small circle of otherwise respected academics.” He doesn’t indicate who these people are, what university they are at, what they do, etc. It’s very ambiguous. Plus, all he says is that “Kimberly does remain somewhat famous” among those “otherwise respected academics.” I don’t read that to necessarily mean they “yukked it up” or agreed with William, only that his descriptions of the person made her somewhat famous among them. It appears to me that you’re reading more into the words than what is justified.