Boy, was I wrong

[_malkie]

So, hypothetically:
1. Will posts material here.

Yes and no. Some of the material posted over a year ago that has been attributed to Will, he adimantly denies posting.

2. People here object to Will's postings.

Yes. People here looked past all the insults, vulgar inuendos, and outright filth pervading this board, and focused on a few isolated comments attributed to Will, and used that as the basis for their smear campaign.

3. Someone from NAMI comes across Will's postings

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

4. Someone at NAMI, or elsewhere in the LDS hierarchy, decides to pull the paper

Right. But, what was the reason the paper was pulled? (see berlow)

5. Wade objects to "the reprehensible actions of people on this board" - Will excluded, of course.

Will wasn't involved in any lynch mobs here, otherwise, he wouldn't have been excluded.

6. Wade has no problem with NAMI

Nor does he have any reason to be. They were n't a part of the lynch mob.

7. We assume that the people making the decision to pull the paper would not have done so if nobody here found Will's posting objectionable.

"We" have no idea what they assumed, nor can "we" assume that the decision to pull the article was fully, or in part, because Will's posts were deemed objectionable. There may have been other compelling factors--like threats.

Did I get that right?

You got it as right as may have reasonably been expected of someone like you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Care to expand on the classification?

[_Droopy]

The only reason it ran to 63 pages was due to the idiotic and desperate attempts by immoral morons, mostly comprised of Schryver sock puppets, trying to either downplay, excuse or justify his behavior.

Don't forget that.

Duck and cover, and watch out for flying glass.

[_MsJack]

assault on Will's character and personal integrity that has now run to 63 pages of character assassination

Please. Obfuscatory posting from Willpologists and William Schryver sock puppets has contributed to the length of that thread every bit as much as criticism of William has.

Bring Paul Osborne, Kevin Graham, PP, Kishkumen, Nortinski, Cam, Some Schmo, Scratch, etc., etc., etc., etc., into this grand inquisition and we might be able to start discussing some degree of credibility.

From the OP of "Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver":

Normally I would not bother with a thread of this magnitude devoted to calling out the poor behavior of another forum participant. Frankly, I see terrible behavior on discussion forums all the time (this one included), from commentators representing all ends of the religious and political spectrum, so if I made this level of effort to call out terrible behavior wherever I see it, I would seldom have time to post about anything else.

[SNIP]

Why this thread then? I feel that this thread has become necessary on account of the fact that William seems to be gaining notoriety in the LDS apologetic and scholarly community. [SNIPPED --- List of William's accomplishments and alleged upcoming publications in Mormon apologetics and academia.]

The point: William Schryver is no longer just another man making misogynist and lewd comments to women on the Internet---after all, it isn't as if those are noteworthy or hard to find. He is now a respected apologist and aspiring LDS scholar making misogynist and lewd comments to women on the Internet. The consequences this will have on the scholarly process when it comes to William's contributions to Mormon academia need to be addressed.

viewtopic.php?p=449270#p449270

Or in other words, Droopy: show me where the people you listed have engaged in misogynist and lewd behavior towards women on the Internet, and show me where they're aspiring to make contributions to academia, speaking at conferences and receiving glowing press coverage of their work, and I'll be happy to call some attention to the behavior in question. I won't hold my breath.

Once again, I urge you to read the material you're attempting to critique before you start posting critiques of it, not after. I daresay it's the intellectual thing to do.

[_beastie]

I think this is the funniest thread I've ever read.

[_moksha]

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.

Is there any reason to assume that Will's research would not reach as many people being posted on the MAD board rather than through the Maxwell Institute? The number of readers appreciating his contribution to apologetics could access his work at MAD just as well, as long as they kept the thread open - just remember, no bad language or they might close it.

[_Kevin Graham]

wade's analysis, far from being a non-sequitur (which Kevin clearly doesn't understand involves a logical relation between premises and conclusion in an argument)

Wade has no analysis, and yes his conclusion is a non sequitur based on his own self-serving premises that he invents from thin air. Since you frequently engage in the same type of illogical thinking, it is little wonder you're almost always the only person who relates to wade's anti-analytical way of thought.

points to a deep disconnect between the stated motives of the OP (moral outrage and Will's morally obnoxious and despicable behavior online) and the actual behavior of many of hi detractors here

Even if you were correct about our "behavior" (and you're not, since all we have done is allow Will to condemn himself) the stated purpose by the author of the thread has no connection whatsoever with the "behavior of many of his detractors." That you and wade assert otherwise illustrates the non sequitur. Again, you're an idiot for even thinking in these terms. MsJack is not a Schryver "detractor." The most successful detractor of Will Schryver is Schryver himself. You're just pissed off because the main group of individuals involved in outing Schryver to his would be publisher, was comprised of LDS scholars. All you're left with is calling them names.

Your responses are always the same. You call this place a cesspool but you cannot pull yourself from us. We define you. You have no life without us. You have a conniption fit, swearing to leave only to return minutes or hours later, while at the same time complaining about how horrible this place is. That makes you a sad joke.

Funny that Schryver's only defenders are two morons who have no credibility, even from those within their tribe. One who has had too many brain cells destroyed due to alcohol abuse and another with a laundry list of learning disabilities that result in the same scripted responses over and over. Everyone else is either closed-minded or they're failing to grasp his ever elusive point. There is no way to intellectually engage any of these issues with you two. You're just a couple of uneducated hacks who feel like your ignorance can somehow be balanced out by your overwhelming loyalty to your tribe.

[_Kevin Graham]

You're wasting your time MsJack, because droopy doesn't believe his own BS like you seem to imagine. This is the same guy who fled the scene after I proved he was defending William, a guy who accuses us all of engaging in group anal sex. He claims the C-word incident was a lie, but he cannot find a way to defend his indisputable claims that we're all a bunch of buggerers who ejaculate on biscuits. Why defend such despicable characters? He thinks he can get away with simply claiming we've done worse, without any evidence; by merely "existing" as hypocritical apostates, (add thirty more negative adjectives droopy likes to use) etc. But he cannot provide any specifics that approach the level of vulgarity embraced by Schryver.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I think this is the funniest thread I've ever read.

Huh. What little I've read of this thread reminds me of Charlie Brown's teacher: "Wuaaa, wuaah wuaa wuaaa-wuaaa wua wua wuaah wua."





KA

[_beastie]

I think this is the funniest thread I've ever read.

Huh. What little I've read of this thread reminds me of Charlie Brown's teacher: "Wuaaa, wuaah wuaa wuaaa-wuaaa wua wua wuaah wua."

Exactly. That's why it's so funny. It kind of sums up something about internet boards.

[_Tator]

I think this is the funniest thread I've ever read.

Huh. What little I've read of this thread reminds me of Charlie Brown's teacher: "Wuaaa, wuaah wuaa wuaaa-wuaaa wua wua wuaah wua."





KA

Exactly........and that is the cutest little hear-no-evil monkey I have ever seen. ):"