Boy, was I wrong

[_Buffalo]

Most people here have said that Will's paper should be published. They simply wanted him to stop harassing women. Is that too much to ask?

This is akin to were a small, backwoods town to gang up on one of its residents, and incessantly harangue him for peeing a couple of times in the local cesspool, making threats that lead to the dismissal of his article in the county paper, and went on to claim that they wanted the article published, but only wanted him to stop peeing where he wasn't supposed to, and then inquiring if that asking too much?

Again, if this were really about stopping harassment and improving discourse here at the cesspool, all offenders would have been duly chastened, no threats would have been made, and the matter would have gone no further than this board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm sorry that you don't think that the sexual harassment of women is an issue to be taken seriously.

I'm not aware of anyone else here (besides Why Me) who has engaged in sexual harassment on this forum. You're aware that S.H. isn't the same thing as talking trash, right?

[_wenglund]

All moot considering we have everything Will said exactly as he said it. This is a message board. What you post doesn't go away, like it does in a live conversation.

You forget that at least one of the posts he has been accused of, was deleted by a moderator.

Nevertheless, in no rational sense does a few pieces of empirical evidence render moot advanced systems of judgement (which I alluded to). But, I can accept that it may in your world view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Inconceivable]

You just can't leave this place alone, can you, Wade?

You honestly think we humans don't begin to emulate those things that we let under our skin?

[_Chap]

Most people here have said that Will's paper should be published. They simply wanted him to stop harassing women. Is that too much to ask?

This is akin to were a small, backwoods town to gang up on one of its residents, and incessantly harangue him for peeing a couple of times in the local cesspool, making threats that lead to the dismissal of his article in the county paper, and went on to claim that they wanted the article published, but only wanted him to stop peeing where he wasn't supposed to, and then inquiring if that asking too much?

Again, if this were really about stopping harassment and improving discourse here at the cesspool, all offenders would have been duly chastened, no threats would have been made, and the matter would have gone no further than this board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Bizarre analogies like this neither add to nor subtract from the clear fact that MsJack simply collected in one place a representative sample of Schryver's nastier posts. She pointed out that posts like that were, well, not nice, and did not encourage the participation of women in discussion, and that Schryver really seemed to post like that rather often when addressing women he didn't like or agree with. What terrible persecution!

Evidently someone at the Maxwell Institute saw the collection of Schryver Specials, and funnily enough, got the idea that they didn't want someone who wrote that kind of stuff around their institute. The consequences are entirely Schryver's responsibility - if he didn't want people to be offended why keep posting offensive material?

Oh, I see - it was only meant to offend anti-mormons? So the recipients of Schryver's billets-doux should have carefully hidden them from the eyes of anybody else, and if they discuss them in public they are no better than a lynch mob? I get it.

[_wenglund]

I'm sorry that you don't think that the sexual harassment of women is an issue to be taken seriously.

One cannot correctly extrapolate that conclusion from what i have said.

I'm not aware of anyone else here (besides Why Me) who has engaged in sexual harassment on this forum. You're aware that S.H. isn't the same thing as talking trash, right?

I am aware that people play all sorts of semantic games like the one you are playing here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

All moot considering we have everything Will said exactly as he said it. This is a message board. What you post doesn't go away, like it does in a live conversation.

You forget that at least one of the posts he has been accused of, was deleted by a moderator.

Nevertheless, in no rational sense does a few pieces of empirical evidence render moot advanced systems of judgement (which I alluded to). But, I can accept that it may in your world view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Only one of many, many posts. It changes nothing.

[_Buffalo]

I'm sorry that you don't think that the sexual harassment of women is an issue to be taken seriously.

One cannot correctly extrapolate that conclusion from what i have said.

You compared sexual harassment to peeing in a cesspool. Do you think peeing in a cesspool is a serious offense?

[_wenglund]

Bizarre analogies like this neither add to nor subtract from the clear fact that MsJack simply collected in one place a representative sample of Schryver's nastier posts. She pointed out that posts like that were, well, not nice, and did not encourage the participation of women in discussion, and that Schryver really seemed to post like that rather often when addressing women he didn't like or agree with. What terrible persecution!

Speaking of bizarre, conveniently absent from your caricature is the fact that the thread in question was more than 60 pages in length (and this even after a number of posts were censored and moved to another forum). It contained far more than a sample of what Schryver had written, but also contained accusations he strongly denied--though he admitted to some and also repeatedly apologized for others.

Also absent is the fact that this was one of numerous threads devoted to attacking and ridiculing Mr. Schryver.

There is also the fact that the so-called "nastier posts" highlighted on that thread and others, were standard fare for many participants on this board, yet little if anything was made of their comments.

And, finally, missing from your caricature were the pro-active efforts and threats that extended beyond this board.

But, don't let a few facts surmount your protective denial.

Evidently someone at the Maxwell Institute saw the collection of Schryver Specials, and funnily enough, got the idea that they didn't want someone who wrote that kind of stuff around their institute.

That is pure conjecture on your part. There is reason to believe you are incorrect.

The consequences are entirely Schryver's responsibility - if he didn't want people to be offended why keep posting offensive material?

Oh, I see - it was only meant to offend anti-Mormons? So the recipients of Schryver's billets-doux should have carefully hidden them from the eyes of anybody else, and if they discuss them in public they are no better than a lynch mob? I get it.

Sure, you get it. LOL The phrase, "I get it," could be the motto for most all lynch mobs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

You compared sexual harassment to peeing in a cesspool....

I made not mention of sexual harassment. Please don't project your mob mentality onto me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Right. But, how did they come across what Will had posted? (Remember, Will felt betrayed by Bokovoy and Hauglid for a reason)

For the record, in response to the fact that my name continues to surface in these discussions, I received the following email from a person officially connected with the Institute who occasionally lurks here and at MA&D. I've omitted a brief section of the email which identifies the individual. I share this to establish once and for all my lack of involvement in this affair.

Hi David,

I'm sorry you got dragged into this Will Schryver mess.

Just between you and me I did share some concerns with Jerry Bradford about Will's online behavior.

It was decided that his behavior was not in keeping with the high standards of the Maxwell name.

So he will be publishing his research through another publishing venue... I followed my conscious. I'm more concerned about the reputation of the Institute.

All the best to you.

I appreciate you posting this, David. Your word is sufficient for me to accept that you lacked involvement. I was simply echoing what others here have suggested. I, personally, will no longer drag you in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-