beastie wrote:There is more than sufficient evidence for the case against Will even without the C word incident.
This is what I don't understand. There's no need to make one incident the whole discussion, while ignoring all the rest. They are all equally ugly, disgusting, derogatory, full of attempts to unrighteously dominate.
Address all those other equally ugly posts. There are literally years worth of ugly posts to address. Focusing on one post while ignoring all the rest is part of the rabbit hole/red herring tactic that Will wants to see, so his behavior goes unaddressed.
It is true that it doesn't get Will off the hook for the other stuff, but I think the c-word issue is relevant given how strongly he denied it and how strongly others have supported it. Maybe this is all exercise about the limits of human memory. Nevertheless, for me, whether this should or shouldn't be the focus of this thread, I am still very interested in getting to the bottom of this and would very much appreciate your comments.
Is there any chance the post may have been edited twice, once to edit out the c-word and one to remove the whole section since it was a blatant personal attack. Do you remember in what form you first saw the c-word and was it edited or unedited at that point?
Dad of a Mormon wrote:It is true that it doesn't get Will off the hook for the other stuff, but I think the c-word issue is relevant given how strongly he denied it and how strongly others have supported it. Maybe this is all exercise about the limits of human memory. Nevertheless, for me, whether this should or shouldn't be the focus of this thread, I am still very interested in getting to the bottom of this and would very much appreciate your comments.
Is there any chance the post may have been edited twice, once to edit out the c-word and one to remove the whole section since it was a blatant personal attack. Do you remember in what form you first saw the c-word and was it edited or unedited at that point?
From my memory: I saw the word and edited it out. In hindsight, I could have done things a lot differently. At the time, I was simply shocked and reacted. In all my years, online and in real life, I'd never been called that before. What I should have done was edit it out of the post, while copying the original post to the moderator forum for safekeeping, so Will could neither deny nor erase. By editing it out, I allowed Will the opportunity to weasel out of his responsibility.
So my punishment for being shocked is Will is allowed to continue to impune my integrity. That sounds just, doesn't it? At least I've learned who my friends are.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Dad of a Mormon wrote:It is true that it doesn't get Will off the hook for the other stuff, but I think the c-word issue is relevant given how strongly he denied it and how strongly others have supported it. Maybe this is all exercise about the limits of human memory. Nevertheless, for me, whether this should or shouldn't be the focus of this thread, I am still very interested in getting to the bottom of this and would very much appreciate your comments.
Is there any chance the post may have been edited twice, once to edit out the c-word and one to remove the whole section since it was a blatant personal attack. Do you remember in what form you first saw the c-word and was it edited or unedited at that point?
From my memory: I saw the word and edited it out. In hindsight, I could have done things a lot differently. At the time, I was simply shocked and reacted. In all my years, online and in real life, I'd never been called that before. What I should have done was edit it out of the post, while copying the original post to the moderator forum for safekeeping, so Will could neither deny nor erase. By editing it out, I allowed Will the opportunity to weasel out of his responsibility.
So my punishment for being shocked is Will is allowed to continue to impune my integrity. That sounds just, doesn't it? At least I've learned who my friends are.
I know that I am being tedious here, but just to clarify:
You saw the word in what form as far as you remember? Did it originally have all four letters or were there asterisks? Was there anything about it that might indicate that it was written out in a special way as to avoid filtering?
And by editing it out, you mean you removed the whole section? Or just the word and edited it out for the personal attacks later? I would assume that would mean you also edited any quotes of the original section, such as what Rollo presumably included in his post. Correct?
Eric suggested that this might be case of mistaken identity and that you may have edited another post with the C-word from another poster. Do you think that is possible?
I really appreciate you answering these questions.
I just hung up with the jury foreman, because of many other cases that have to be heard, the foreman has asked that you cast your vote at this time. (The "evidence" has all been given)
On count 1: (Shryver called someone at MDB the C-word), what say you?
I just hung up with the jury foreman, because of many other cases that have to be heard, the foreman has asked that you cast your vote at this time. (The "evidence" has all been given)
On count 1: (Shryver called someone at MDB the C-word), what say you?
I love how the Mopolopologists are using this red herring for all it's worth.
V/R Dr. Cam
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
I just hung up with the jury foreman, because of many other cases that have to be heard, the foreman has asked that you cast your vote at this time. (The "evidence" has all been given)
On count 1: (Shryver called someone at MDB the C-word), what say you?
Dad of a Mormon wrote:Do you keep a record of moderator actions? I know that this would normally be private, but are there any records of who edited the post and when?
There is a Moderator log which time stamps and identifies which Moderator took which action. However, it does not detail exactly what was edited out.
I copy/pasted the actual log of Harmony's action(minus her IP address). This is the only record we have access to:
Moderator Log wrote:harmony 2xx.xxx.xxx.xxx Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:30 pm Edited post “Re: Why wasn't Mark Hoffman executed?” written by » William Schryver View topic | View forum
Dad of a Mormon wrote: Is this a criminal court or a civil case?
Criminal
Peace, Ceeboo
Not guilty. I would have awarded damages to the plaintiff (assuming Will is the defendant) in a civil case. There are just some facts on both sides that I can't explain.
Dad of a Mormon wrote: Not guilty. I would have awarded damages to the plaintiff (assuming Will is the defendant) in a civil case. There are just some facts on both sides that I can't explain.
Very well (and just IMHO):
Bailiff, could you please remove the restraints from Shryver and take him to court #4, his next trial will be heard there.