Boy, was I wrong

[_sock puppet]

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-

Let's start with Will, then. A reformed Will, one who is healthy, edifying, and socially attractive, would be such a change, a person might be justified in thinking he'd finally converted!

Then we can progress to you, Wade, and to Pahoran and to Droopy and to...

Somehow I doubt that's going to happen though.

Silly, harmony, you apostate, you. Don't you get it? If you're defending "the Church" and JSJr, anything you do is justified and not in need of reform. On the other hand, if you are not a defender, you're just being part of a disgusting cesspool by pointing out facts, evidence and reason.

[_Jersey Girl]

For those unaware, Droopy was either trolling or has some of the most appalling views concerning the mentally r*******, mentally ill, and institutionalization that I've ever seen.

To recap some of his expressed views:

People who are mentally ill can almost never contribute to the economy
People who are mentally ill and/or cognitively disabled should almost always be institutionalized
The institutionalization system in the 20th century prior to the '80's is the preferable way to treat the those with cognitive disabilities and/or mental illness.

He continued to defend the latter even after I pointed out the various ways that system was horribly abusive. He made so many offensive statements defending these and other ideas that it's hard to recall them all. He was very interested in blaming the consequences of deinstitutionalization in the 80's - such the spike in homelesses - on leftists agitating for getting people out of institutions rather than Regean administration for defunding outpatient and community integration services after pushing deinstitutionalization. In the process of that, he tried to use the fact that Runtu was open about talking about his history of mental illness to score some polemical points. Runtu told him to F off, and wasn't wrong to do so.

Really. I'd like to see him defend those positions regarding mental illness publicly on this forum.

Yes, Loran, if you're reading here...that's a challenge, sir.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Has a link been given to this interaction?

It was in chat. Droopy was randomly accusing people of being drunk while coming off like a belligerent drunk. I remember in one exchange Droopy complained he didn't want to have to go to the library and see people smelling like piss outside.

Simon's IP locator placed Loran(Droopy) at this fine establishment while in the chat room with us at that time:

[_MsJack]

Interestingly, it appears that the original MAD thread did not survive the transition to MDD.

Can someone give me the original link to and/or title of the thread?

A friend of mine made a back-up database of MADB threads before they made the transition. He doesn't have everything, but I can check to see if he has this one.

[_Runtu]

Kevin -

I think you just misunderstand what Will was doing. I don't deny the other references are purely sexual in of themselves normally. It's just that he's playing off of the initial double entendre rather than make literal accusations of literal circle jerks. I've seen him do this other times*. Again, he's playing off of the initial sexual pun. It's like accusing someone of mental masturbation, but indulging the metaphor by offering them a towel to clean up. Will was being crude, but in a slightly different way than you are imagining.


*Remember that MADB thread where various posters, including DCP, were using sex, rape really, metaphors in reference to Beastie? I'm pretty sure Will was the poster to was the least subtle with it and took it the furthest. There's a reference to that thread on this board somewhere.

That's how I read what Will was doing, but I'm mystified why he thought it was either witty or so inoffensive that his apologist friends wouldn't notice it.

[_Runtu]

For those unaware, Droopy was either trolling or has some of the most appalling views concerning the mentally r*******, mentally ill, and institutionalization that I've ever seen.

To recap some of his expressed views:

People who are mentally ill can almost never contribute to the economy
People who are mentally ill and/or cognitively disabled should almost always be institutionalized
The institutionalization system in the 20th century prior to the '80's is the preferable way to treat the those with cognitive disabilities and/or mental illness.

He continued to defend the latter even after I pointed out the various ways that system was horribly abusive. He made so many offensive statements defending these and other ideas that it's hard to recall them all. He was very interested in blaming the consequences of deinstitutionalization in the 80's - such the spike in homelesses - on leftists agitating for getting people out of institutions rather than Regean administration for defunding outpatient and community integration services after pushing deinstitutionalization. In the process of that, he tried to use the fact that Runtu was open about talking about his history of mental illness to score some polemical points. Runtu told him to F off, and wasn't wrong to do so.

I'm not sorry for getting angry, but I did apologize for using bad language. Your recap is pretty much spot on.

[_Inconceivable]

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-

Wade,

I don't think you understand the definition of smear. Generally a smear is a lie, deceipt, half truth. Please identify the smears you are referring to. Will's character is abrasive and foul mouthed among other things. It is people like him that bring the cesspool to MD.

I would suggest that Will's behavior did not compliment what the members of NAMIRS believes it ought to represent. I do not think they like him.

Why would you not attack NAMIRS. Why is it that you are so intent on name calling the messengers? So far as I can tell, they have only brought to light statements that Will has made in a very public forum. Are NAMIRS incapable of determining true vs. error? In your opinion, apparently so. I would conclude you may think even less of them than the place you have labelled a cesspool.

So why are you here, then? Do you generally stick your head in the toilet before flushing and carry on a conversation with what you just dropped into it?

weird.

[_wenglund]

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.

Hi there, Wade. It's nice of you to admit this. I always strongly advise readers to treat the material from my "informants" with caution, but as you have at last apparently realized, the "intel" seems to turn out correctly more often than not. ...

My saying that your "intel" is "not entirely incorrect," is a far cry from the words you just tried to slip into my mouth (i.e. "seems to turn out correctly more often than not").

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_malkie]

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-

Wade,

I don't think you understand the definition of smear. Generally a smear is a lie, deceipt, half truth. Please identify the smears you are referring to. Will's character is abrasive and foul mouthed among other things. It is people like him that bring the cesspool to MD.

I would suggest that Will's behavior did not compliment what the members of NAMIRS believes it ought to represent. I do not think they like him.

Why would you not attack NAMIRS. Why is it that you are so intent on name calling the messengers? So far as I can tell, they have only brought to light statements that Will has made in a very public forum. Are NAMIRS incapable of determining true vs. error? In your opinion, apparently so. I would conclude you may think even less of them than the place you have labelled a cesspool.

So why are you here, then? Do you generally stick your head in the toilet before flushing and carry on a conversation with what you just dropped into it?

weird.

Wade has already stated that he has no opinion - it's none of his business.

On another thread I've invited other apologists to opine on NAMI's action, but so far nobody seems to be willing to say that NAMI was right, or that NAMI was wrong.

This being the case, what choice do the apologists have but to complain to and about the messengers.

It's good that Wade admits that he was wrong about something. I just wonder if he may be mistaken about what he's wrong about.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I don't think you understand the definition of smear. Generally a smear is a lie, deceit, half truth.

I do not wish to rehash all the anti-Will threads. Nor do I wish to argue semantics. My use of the term "smear campaign" fits well how Wikipedia defines it: Sometimes smear is used more generally to include any reputation-damaging activity, including such colloquialisms as mud slinging." You are free to disagree.

My issue all along has been with the reprehensible actions of members of this board, and not with NAMI. I have no reason to "attack" NAMI, which is why I haven't. This may not be a satisfactory answer for you, but I am okay with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-