Jersey Girl wrote:WSFurthermore, MsJack has done more to damage her own reputation (at least in certain circles) than she ever could have imagined.
How?
Eric wrote:I'm speaking only for myself... but by referring to men as "cad[s]" and refusing to read responses on this thread discussing the evidence against the c-word incident.
MsJack wrote:I never called you or anyone else specifically a "cad." I said that anyone who would not have some empathy for what harmony has been subjected to is a cad, and I stand by that completely. I guess that could apply to you "if the shoe fits," but I wouldn't know. I don't read every post you write on this forum and have scanned through this thread pretty quickly.
Ceeboo wrote:Hello beastie,
I realize that you are asking this to William but I thought I would share my perspective. for what it's worth.
Clearly, in my estimation, it is the "shock value" that makes William as popular as he is.
Simply put, it makes little difference (to some) if you approve of the behavior. It is the very behavior itself that keeps all tuned in and curious as to what will be posted next. (It works, to be sure)
by the way: I happen to believe it is highly desired, by design, and clearly has the effect/impact that was/is intended
Peace,
Ceeboo
beastie wrote:Ceeboo wrote:Hello beastie,
I realize that you are asking this to William but I thought I would share my perspective. for what it's worth.
Clearly, in my estimation, it is the "shock value" that makes William as popular as he is.
Simply put, it makes little difference (to some) if you approve of the behavior. It is the very behavior itself that keeps all tuned in and curious as to what will be posted next. (It works, to be sure)
by the way: I happen to believe it is highly desired, by design, and clearly has the effect/impact that was/is intended
Peace,
Ceeboo
I agree with you. Will intends his behavior to shock. He is an internet version of a radio "shock-jock". And this would not, in and of itself, be particularly notable except for the fact Will may become a notable Book of Abraham apologist. If and when that happens, I feel quite certain that his online behavior will eventually be exposed in a more public fashion, as was the "Metcalfe is a Butthead" episode. Of course, Will's behavior is far more problematic than that episode.
But yes, Will just does this to get attention, and he succeeds. If all I were interested in were modifying Will's behavior, I would suggest everyone put him on ignore. Only ignoring the behavior would extinguish it. Will lives for the audience. But I'm not interested in modifying Will's behavior. I'm interested in how his fellow apologists react to Will's behavior. So far, with some exceptions like LoaP and David, it's been ignore, minimize, justify, and perhaps secretly condone. You notice that Silver hammer was not interested in Will's statements, but rather in trying to present "plausible deniability" in regards to whether or not respected apologists enjoy his behavior. The plausible deniability, which lead Will has followed, was to suggest that it wasn't respected apologists that Will was referring to as the group of "respected academics", but rather some other, unknown group that Will has contact with. I think that's pretty sad, and laughable, but gives us an idea of how the apologists are going to handle this.
beastie wrote:MsJack wrote:I never called you or anyone else specifically a "cad." I said that anyone who would not have some empathy for what harmony has been subjected to is a cad, and I stand by that completely. I guess that could apply to you "if the shoe fits," but I wouldn't know. I don't read every post you write on this forum and have scanned through this thread pretty quickly.
I'm bumping this up to address Eric's assertion that MsJack damaged her credibility by calling men cads. Jack was very clear in her statement. Anyone -man or woman - who would not have some empathy for what Harmony has been subjected to (at the hands of Will) is a cad. I agree. Will has said vile things to Harmony, completely outside the C-word incident. For heaven's sake, Will said being in the "circle jerk" here is the closest Harmony can get to sex, and her husband is a saint for not leaving her. Whether or not you agree with Harmony's views, or whether or not Harmony's moderation has made you angry in the past, you should feel some empathy for the treatment she has endured at Will's hands. And, frankly, "cad" is a very mild term compared to the terms Will has used.
Anyone -man or woman - who would not have some empathy for what Harmony has been subjected to (at the hands of Will) is a cad. I agree.
I'm not saying Will hasn't treated harmony poorly. I'm saying that in a thread about name calling and making sexist remarks, it would probably be more powerful if the thread author hadn't resorted to implying that certain men are "cads."
Jersey Girl wrote:
EricI'm not saying Will hasn't treated harmony poorly. I'm saying that in a thread about name calling and making sexist remarks, it would probably be more powerful if the thread author hadn't resorted to implying that certain men are "cads."
Why isn't it okay to describe a poster such as WS as a "cad" if the evidence supplied bears that out? It's not okay to summarize?
She wasn't using it to describe WS.
