Will-haters? Yes, that must be it.
Yes, it is, as your posting history here demonstrates. Nor is the hatred in any way limited to William.
I mean it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the plethora of evidence proving he is a despicable character who has unjustifiably denigrated women on this forum. I feel sorry for his wife and daughter, who have a father and husband who is notorious for such antics.
I have an apt comment regarding the above, but I'll keep it to myself.
The fact that he backs off the men like a frightened mouse (he has several of us on ignore),
Why shouldn't he ignore you? What have you ever brought to this, or any other message board, but empty, angry rhetoric, personal bile, and red faced mendacity disguised as intellectual critique?
And notice that no one you consider "reasonable" has concluded Will didn't use the C-Word. Rollo, for example, admits that he may very well have said it; he just didn't see it.
It wasn't seen. The original post was went unmentioned for a very long period of time before a firestorm erupted over it (the classic Anita Hill gambit that, in our second/third wave saturated popular intellectual environment, means that when a female goes after a male, the female has
carte blanche credibility by default, and the male is given neither the slightest benefit of the doubt nor allowed even a remnant of human decency to remain as features of his personal character).
That Will has character defects, making him no different at all from the rest of us, no one is denying. The question is, will those defects of character attract constructive criticism from concerned friends, or attempts at public degradation and defamation by self interested hyenas doing what they do best: snapping, slavering, and drooling over what they perceive to be an inviting bloody carcass?
This is hardly evidence that Will's nonsensical version holds water.
It appears to. The documentary evidence for the claim apparently does not exist. A long span of time went by before it was made the subject of moral outrage, indicating the distinct possibility that the idea of using is as a point of criticism had to gestate for a while and be "worked up" before being made public.
As Will has pointed out, quite plausibly, had such a thing really been said, the feeding frenzy would have begun immediately, and not delayed and, apparently, forgotten by most.
Again, no one is addressing the illogical argument Schryver has put forth.
Its simply the fact that you don't really understand what logic is, or how it works, or why it's important, that forces you to describe as illogical inferentially plausible explanations.
Does it really make sense that calling harmony a "hypocrite" and an "embarrassment" would result in such a firestorm of protest? At the very least, we should be able to conclude that Will is lying about what he says he said. So it is hardly a stretch to see him lying about what he didn't say.
To conclude that, you would have to have some compelling, or at least plausible evidence. As you do not, your leap to your conclusion is nothing more than further evidence of your own personal bigotry and hatred of Will.
You'd make a great product liability lawyer Kevin.