Boy, was I wrong

[_sock puppet]

Hi, Wade,

You and I very rarely see eye to eye. This situation is no different. NAMIRS is not the only publishing outlet for Will's KEP analysis piece. If NAMIRS finds a foul-mouthed houligan to be 'unworthy' of being published, I would hope it is based on problems with the substance of the KEP piece, not on Will's foul-mouth. But I am certainly not aware of what might disqualify a submitted piece from being published at NAMIRS.

My point is simply that the two are separate matters. MsJack's purpose is her expose on Will's misogynist, sexist posting history was certainly not to silence Will. There are plenty of publications that wouldn't give a rat's ass about Will's character or his actions, but would judge the KEP piece on its merits vel non. Indeed, I started a thread just yesterday suggesting this might be the place for Will to present his KEP analysis, if he doesn't find another publication to his liking.

But I do applaud you for realizing that Dr Scratch does not have vapid sources. I know that is the Nehor/Simon/DCP screed around here, but it just isn't so.

[_harmony]

I didn't want to return to this cesspool, but personal integrity demands it of me. I recently learned that Will's NAMI (or whatever the journal's name is) articles have been given the boot.

Which means Will's articles don't rise to the level that NAMI requires, and nothing else.

This means that not only was I terribly wrong about the influence of this "backwater" board on LDS apologetic decision-making, but Scratch's network of informants is evidently not entirely incorrect in what they expose.

Yeah,the French aristocrats thought along similiar lines.

Clearly, the threats and smear campaign from many here at MD worked in silencing Will Schryver even among his own. I didn't think that was possible, but I obviously seriously under estimated the power of this mob--which is ironic given how the mob prides itself on free speech and has complained long and hard about censorship in certain quarters. At least this is one way to avoid having to confront Will's arguments.

There was no threat, and was no smears. All there is currently is evidence of Will's inability to control his fingers.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but WE are part of Will's "own". And no one has silenced him here.

There is no censorship to speak of here... that is well evidenced by the fact that for the most part, Will's vile words are allowed to stand.

Will must first put his arguments here. He refuses to do so, likely because a few of our posters would make mincemeat of them.

Now that Will is out of the way, it will be interesting to see who next gets targeted for lynching.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Will is not "out of the way". Will's not banned or even reprimanded. Will's free to post.

[_why me]

It was not anyone's goal here to stifle Will's work. As a matter of fact, most here, critic and faith-supporter alike, have acknowledged that they would like to see Will's work published.

But if Will wants to be an apologist and represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, then he has a responsibility to conduct himself in a manner that is appropriate for that role. And, after reading the material written by Will's own hand, apparently the folks at MI did not feel that Will lived up to that responsibility. Frankly, their action was much more harsh than I expected it to be. My hope was that they would simply take Will aside and ask that he make a public apology, and commit to conduct himself in a more professional manner from this point forward. I think that is what everyone here expected to take place. Do I agree with MI's decision to pull the plug on Will's publication? NO....as a matter of fact, I don't.

I do, however, RESPECT that decision. And so should you.

Will's problem is that he uses his real name on the internet boards. And this was his downfall. If he was using a screen name no one would know who he is. So, his mistake was to be honest in representing himself. And that is a tragedy since many attackers of Will do not use their real name but hide behind a screen name.

Many posters on this board do not conduct themselves in a professional manner and yet, because they hide behind a screen name they can use whatever language they choose without fear of censure.

And how should an apologist act with a bunch of ingrates who hate the LDS church and post personal attacks on a board that has no censuring mechanism?

[_malkie]

It was not anyone's goal here to stifle Will's work. As a matter of fact, most here, critic and faith-supporter alike, have acknowledged that they would like to see Will's work published.

But if Will wants to be an apologist and represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, then he has a responsibility to conduct himself in a manner that is appropriate for that role. And, after reading the material written by Will's own hand, apparently the folks at MI did not feel that Will lived up to that responsibility. Frankly, their action was much more harsh than I expected it to be. My hope was that they would simply take Will aside and ask that he make a public apology, and commit to conduct himself in a more professional manner from this point forward. I think that is what everyone here expected to take place. Do I agree with MI's decision to pull the plug on Will's publication? NO....as a matter of fact, I don't.

I do, however, RESPECT that decision. And so should you.

Will's problem is that he uses his real name on the internet boards. And this was his downfall. If he was using a screen name no one would know who he is. So, his mistake was to be honest in representing himself. And that is a tragedy since many attackers of Will do not use their real name but hide behind a screen name.

Many posters on this board do not conduct themselves in a professional manner and yet, because they hide behind a screen name they can use whatever language they choose without fear of censure.

And how should an apologist act with a bunch of ingrates who hate the LDS church and post personal attacks on a board that has no censuring mechanism?

How about "Christ like"?

[_sock puppet]

And how should an apologist act with a bunch of ingrates who hate the LDS church and post personal attacks on a board that has no censuring mechanism?

Well, if it truly were a Christian denomination the apologist was defending, I think turning the other cheek would be the method Jesus instructed.

[_why me]

Hi, Wade,

My point is simply that the two are separate matters. MsJack's purpose is her expose on Will's misogynist, sexist posting history was certainly not to silence Will.

But I do applaud you for realizing that Dr Scratch does not have vapid sources. I know that is the Nehor/Simon/DCP screed around here, but it just isn't so.

Your first paragraph is bullcrap. She knew quite well what she was doing. Will's problem was in using his real name on this board. He should have used a screen name as scratch and MsJack have done. Then, all would have been well for Will.

Your second paragraph misses a point. There is someone somewhere who is playing the role of a fink or a rat. And that is certainly not noble. And what does that say about a person who hides behind a screen name using rats or finks as sources?

And what a world it would be if we all had a rat or fink to guide us in our sources. Here is a great Al Pacino speech about being a rat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH4p9BQ3V9o

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note) I have moved all blatant personal attacks on Wade to this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=459991#p459991

Please stay on topic and refrain from extensive personal attacks. Thanks.

[_why me]

Well, if it truly were a Christian denomination the apologist was defending, I think turning the other cheek would be the method Jesus instructed.

And did MsJack turn the other cheek? No. Let's not be hypocritical here. This is a rat ship here. Listen to Al Pacino.

[_why me]

How about "Christ like"?

What crap. On this forum, being Christ like is putting oneself up for abuse and never responding to it. People on this forum certainly know how to throw crap on people. But when it is thrown back at them, they bitch and yell foul. What crap.

[_malkie]

How about "Christ like"?

What crap. On this forum, being Christ like is putting oneself up for abuse and never responding to it. People on this forum certainly know how to throw crap on people. But when it is thrown back at them, they bitch and yell foul. What crap.

And your point is ... that apologists should not be expected to behave like Christ? What an interesting idea.