Silver Hammer wrote:Doctor Scratch quotes Will Schryver as saying: “I will be in the MI offices again tomorrow. I have no doubt there will be some brief and amused discussion concerning this latest in a long, long string of coordinated attacks on me. It has become a species of comic relief, in a way.”
He then says: “So, at the very least, Silver Hammer, I think you can agree that Will is saying here that the people at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute: (a) are aware of what he does here, and (b) find it (or reactions thereto) "amusing."”
Actually, the statement links the “brief and amused discussion” to “a long, long string of coordinated attacks” on Mr. Schryver. It’s talking about the “coordinated attacks” and says nothing about the amusement being related to anything Schryver himself has said on message boards.
Yes, that's correct. And this "latest...in the attacks" happens to be based on a long, long, thoroughly cited and cross-checked, indefatigably documented string of misogynistic behavior on the part of William Schryver. So, this seems to mean that the MI people find criticism of this nature "amusing."
But as CK points out (quite aptly) you could simply pose your questions to Will himself. (Though I cheerfully predict that you won't.)
It would be illogical to infer that “the people at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute: (a) are aware of what he does here,
No, not really. We know for certain that Daniel C. Peterson is "aware of what he does here."
and (b) find it (or reactions thereto) "amusing."”
Will is clearly saying that they find *something* amusing, and that this "something" pertains directly and specifically to the content and nature of this thread.
Just because someone is aware of “A,” and might find “A” amusing, does not mean that they are aware of “B” or “C” and find them amusing as well.
"A" in this case is the criticism of Will's misogynist behavior. I guess you could argue that the MI apologists merely think that the
criticism / "attacks" are amusing---i.e., that Will is essentially lying to them, saying something along the lines of, "Hey, the people at the GSTP are attacking me," and that they're responding with knee-slapping mirth over this vague, unaccountable, and specifics-free comment. Is that what you're assuming?
You are extending the statement to cover things it does not include.
My point is that Schryver appears to be intentionally ambiguous about what he says, and that you and others here are inclined to represent those things according to what YOU believe he really means.
There are a finite number of things that he can mean. I agree that he's been "ambiguous" in so far as he hasn't named any names. But he has clearly said that the MI apologists find "amusing" the things that have happened to him here. And the latest thing that has happened to him here is an extremely thorough and well-documented account of his misogynist behavior. (Which, by the way, you seem to have a neutral attitude towards.)
"[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