Boy, was I wrong

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Where there's a Will there's a.... short black skirt...

I propose MsJack attend the next Fair conference in a short black skirt and loooooooong jacket..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7aDstrDMf0

[_wenglund]

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

You evidently believe you know what you are talking about.

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

Again, it is clear that you believe you know what you are talking about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_malkie]

I'm now left wondering if anyone on the apologetic "team" would like to make a statement about whether NAMI did the right thing in pulling the plug.

I had got the impression from the initial outcry that almost all of the apologists thought that NAMI should publish Will's article. Since they (NAMI) declined to do so, has anyone said that they think NAMI made the wrong decision (apart from critics, that is). Or has anyone said that they think NAMI made the right decision.

Or is everyone as studiously neutral as Wade seems to have declared himself to be. Nobody has an opinion because it is none of their business?

Are the critics (or at least Wade) setting a precedent here?

[Gadianton]

(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.

Just to be clear, I did not request this nor do I agree with this decision. I believe personal attacks on me are quite fitting for this thread. It is also quite fitting for this board--at least threads personally attacking select individuals. In fact, I believe these personal attacks were emblematic of the high and just cause to which you all ascribe.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Polygamy-Porter]

(Moderator Note) I have moved all blatant personal attacks on Wade to this thread:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 91#p459991

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

Just to be clear, I did not request this nor do I agree with this decision. I believe personal attacks on me are quite fitting for this thread. It is also quite fitting for this board--at least threads personally attacking select individuals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, does a short black skirt in a loooonnnnngg jacket pique your interest?

[_hobo1512]

There is also a cesspool of people at this forum who exhibit a penchant for ignorance and blind, unbending loyalty over enlightenment. That they have circled the wagons around their misogynist hero is par for the course with them.

This is not the point. Will's mistake was for using his name on the internet. He was brave to do so but it does entail risks that I am sure that he did not know. When there are people hiding behind screen names condemning people for what they say under their real name, they seem to be a little cowardly.

This is definitely becoming a snitch ship. Al was right in his speech.

You keep harping about Will using his real name, and complaining about others using an alternative name, or screen name.

What's your real name? With all of your whacked out views and statements, I can see that as the reason you are hiding behind a screen name.

Pot meet kettle.

[_Droopy]

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.

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.

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.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You seem like you're wrong about most things, so this shouldn't come as a big surprise.

Wade used the term "cesspool" for a reason, as you've just demonstrated.

[_wenglund]

Really? You can remain completely neutral on it because it is not your business?

Obviously.

I applaud your ability to so compartmentalize your thinking.

We all do. Some of us are just better than others at keeping our noses pretty much in our own business.

Other people, less charitable than I, might think that you simply prefer not to say that they were wrong (or, if you prefer, to say that they were right) regardless of what you think.

People are free to think whatever they want, even regarding reading. my mind

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_TrashcanMan79]

Wade, why isn't your quarrel with the Neal A. Maxwell Institute?

Because what they decided for themselves is none of my business.

They're the only ones with any decision making power in this whole ordeal.

Right, though their decision is evidently not entirely devoid of outside influence.

Seems silly to hold anyone on this board (except for Will, of course) responsible for the powers that be at NAMI being troubled by Will's posts here.

It seems silly to me to not consider outside influence. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay, help me understand where you're coming from here, Wade:

A) Schryver makes multiple posts that some folks find offensive.

B) The powers that be at NAMI are (allegedly) troubled enough by Schryver's posts (coupled, possibly, with concerns expressed by Brian Hauglid and/or David Bokovoy) that they decide they don't want to publish Schryver's stuff at this time.

C) (Oh yeah, MsJack compiled a lot of Will's more objectionable posts into one convenient location with links to the original discussions so Will's posts could be read in their complete and proper context.)


Your reactions:

A)




B)




C)


Have I got that about right?

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I have no idea what the OP is about (because I'm small fish), but I must ask, why look at the world as a place full of "cesspools"?

I don't, and never have viewed the world as anything close to that. I am grateful that much of the world is not cesspoolish like this place. To me, most people around the world know how to behave in ways that are healthy, mutually edifying, and not socially repelling. And, I wish the same for the participants here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-