Boy, was I wrong

[_Droopy]

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.

Your clever, or semi-clever sophistries will no longer do Jack. Will's responses, and the responses of this alleged sockpuppets comprise a tiny fraction of content of that thread, which is oriented solely to the defamation of his character.

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.

Thank you for admitting openly that you singled out William for personal destruction. This honesty is appreciated.

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.

He apparently has made some arguably inappropriate statements in the past - very infrequently and comprising a vanishingly small fraction of his total posting history. Judging him as "misogynist," however, is just a page taken, for tactical reasons, out of the old feminist playbook of politically correct well poisoning that knowingly conflates negative quirks of personality or scattered defects of character with a deep and pervasive attitude for which no particular evidence exists, the purpose of which is the public destruction of the character of the target.

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.

This is, again, a very clever defensive tactic, but unpersuasive. The point both I and, I believe Wade, is trying to make, is that many of Will's most insistent character assassins here do not, and have never, at least on this board, practiced what they preach regarding proper behavior and Will's alleged abyssal sins. Will's notoriety, to the degree he has attained it, is a separate issue, to which the letter mentioned by David earlier speaks, but which has nothing to do with the brazen hypocrisy on display here in the GASCP.

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.

Oh, I have, and so have you, but you're trying to tap dance you way out of the hole you've dug yourself, and I'll be happy to give you the shovel to do it.

[_Droopy]

He thinks he can get away with simply claiming we've done worse, without any evidence;

Oh, there's plenty of evidence. Many thousands of posts worth of evidence since this board began. Graham knows, however, that since I don't live on this board like he does (like a glassy eyed D&D fanatic lost in his own self created realms of fantasy), I'm not likely to take a week out of my time and plumb the archives for the "evidence."

Graham knows very well what I'm talking about, as he's been here himself for quite a while and has been a major contributor in his own right to this board's nasty reputation.



Your feverish ravings may now continue.

[_Tator]

Droopy, Droopy, Droopy, Droopy....

you're

sagging,
sagging,
sagging,
saagggingg.
ssaaagggginggg

[_MsJack]

Will's responses, and the responses of this alleged sockpuppets comprise a tiny fraction of content of that thread

Mmm, no.

which is oriented solely to the defamation of his character.

If there was any defamation of character on that thread, it was (a) William defaming his own character via his self-destructive behavior, and (b) Willpologists like yourself attempting to defame my character with your false statements about me.

Thank you for admitting openly that you singled out William for personal destruction. This honesty is appreciated.

No thank you for twisting my words into say something I never said. The dishonesty is not appreciated.

He apparently has made some arguably inappropriate statements in the past - very infrequently and comprising a vanishingly small fraction of his total posting history.

Do you really not understand what a terrible argument this is? There's a reason defense attorneys for violent criminals don't attempt to argue that their clients have only murdered a vanishingly small fraction of the people they have ever met, or people trying to get out of tickets don't argue that the times they were caught speeding account for only a vanishingly small fraction of their total driving time.

Incidentally, you're also engaging in a strawman, because my post was never meant to be representative of William's total posting history. It was meant to demonstrate patterns that frequently emerge in his dealings with women. Pointing to his "total posting history"---most of which seldom gave him the chance to deal with women---doesn't address the complaint.

Judging him as "misogynist,"

I didn't judge him as misogynist, I judged the behavior that he has regularly displayed towards women on our forum as misogynist. The difference is thin but legitimate and the conflation is entirely yours.

If you had searched my pre-WS-thread posts or my blog, you'd have found that I ever-so-rarely use the term "misogyny" or "misogynist." If this is part of some "old feminist playbook," it's not a playbook I've consulted very often.

But misogyny is real and I don't have a problem calling it out on those rare occasions when I do encounter it. With William's posts on our forum, it was the real deal.

This is, again, a very clever defensive tactic, but unpersuasive. The point both I and, I believe Wade, is trying to make, is that many of Will's most insistent character assassins here do not, and have never, at least on this board, practiced what they preach regarding proper behavior and Will's alleged abyssal sins.

But I do practice what I preach, and I do call out the poor behavior that I witness from other posters on this forum on a fairly regular basis. So if this is your critique, it doesn't apply to me.

Oh, I have, and so have you

No, you didn't. You proved that on the thread in question when you labeled me "anonymous" in spite of the fact that I had clearly identified myself by my real name in my OP.

but you're trying to tap dance you way out of the hole you've dug yourself, and I'll be happy to give you the shovel to do it.

Mmmhmm. You just keep telling yourself that, Droops.

[_why me]

Precisely. Will's "online behavior" has functioned for some weeks now as a wonderful and effective pretext justifying an all out assault on Will's character and personal integrity that has now run to 63 pages of character assassination supported and abetted by many among the most egregious in the sustained presentation of posts, language, and subject matter equal to, and in many cases well beyond, anything Will has ever written online.

Precisely right and that has been my point all along. Will has been persecuted on this board relentlessly for quite some time. He has been attacked, mocked and bashed for defending the LDS church. How he reponds to the attacks is his own matter. To assume that a LDS poster needs to respond in kindness, dignity and with respect after being attacked over and over again denies the human being inside us all.

For those at the Maxwell Institute who have read his comments to the troubled critics on this board, lost all context in which they have been made. The people who made the judgement on Will would never subject themselves to such mocking and bashing. But Will stayed the course and continued the fight on the critics own turf.

Did he make mistakes? Sure. But he derseves at least a purple heart.

[_why me]

Oh, there's plenty of evidence. Many thousands of posts worth of evidence since this board began. Graham knows, however, that since I don't live on this board like he does (like a glassy eyed D&D fanatic lost in his own self created realms of fantasy), I'm not likely to take a week out of my time and plumb the archives for the "evidence."

.

Dear Droopy,

The critics on this board are more or less made of Teflon. They are treated as royalty on this board. However Will did do a wonderful service on this board. He has deflected the criticism to himself. Before Will came to this board, Dan was routinely bashed, mocked and beatened down. Will gave Dan a break from the criticism. As such, the maxwell institute deserves to award him a purple heart and a silver star for bravery. Now did this soldier occasionally lose it on the battlefield. Yes. But what soldier does not succumb to battle fatique? I do believe that this good soldier is now taking a much needed rest from the battle. But the critics are still in the fight, taking aim at this good soldier and more threads are being opened dedicated to this good soldier.

[_3sheets2thewind]

To assume that a LDS poster needs to respond in kindness, dignity and with respect after being attacked over and over again denies the human being inside us all.

Endure to the End, put off the natural man. Should better be expected of the LDS especially those LDS who publicly proclaim to be defenders of the faith, Yes, LDS and non-lds can rightly expect that defenders of the LDS would behave better than how they are treated. To excuse WS behaviour is simply to discredit yourself.

For those at the Maxwell Institute who have read his comments to the troubled critics on this board, lost all context in which they have been made.

Your right, those silly ninnies at the Maxwell Institute just don't understand that in context it is perfectly appropriate, in the defense of the LDS Faith, to use the term circle jerk, or whore, bitch, or to repeatedly, as a married man, speak fragantlly and openly about another womans breasts.

Those fuddie duddies at the Maxwell Institute, just have stick up there bum, they don't understand that it is appropriate for LDS defending the LDS Church to mock sacred things of the Temple, because we all know, sacred ordinances of the Temple make for very funny and appropriate jokes.

Thanks for clearing the whole thing. Next time I encountered a anti I walk up and say "Why do you go play 'hide and go f yourself'" I am sure that is perfectly acceptable on the Temple Grounds during a Easter pageant, or on the side walk at Temple Square. Hopefully, Thomas S. himself come out and personally thank me for my valiant and entirely acceptable vulgarity.


In a weird way seeing WS behaviour has helped to try and be a better person. I do not think anything above level of WS behaviour and so how I judge I will be judged also; so I make the conscious effort to be the better person.

[_why me]

Endure to the End, put off the natural man. Should better be expected of the LDS especially those LDS who publicly proclaim to be defenders of the faith, Yes, LDS and non-lds can rightly expect that defenders of the LDS would behave better than how they are treated. To excuse WS behaviour is simply to discredit yourself.


In a weird way seeing WS behaviour has helped to try and be a better person. I do not think anything above level of WS behaviour and so how I judge I will be judged also; so I make the conscious effort to be the better person.

Yes, the LDS should be meek, humble, understanding, benevolent, loving, friendly etc. And the exmo, can be not understanding, unkind, unloving, unfriendly, aggressive etc to LDS posters. Sounds good and abusive of the critics. To know that the LDS will be kind to the unkind, loving to the haters gives the critics an outlet for their angst and aggressive behavior and receive nothing but kindness in return which they spit out into the face of the LDS poster.

Too bad the LDS are human too.

[_why me]

And good ol' MsJack calls me antiprotestant because I pointed out that it were protestants burning Mormon homes, with not much complaints from the protestant pastors. The LDS supporters just can not win from the name calling.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh, there's plenty of evidence. Many thousands of posts worth of evidence since this board began.

And yet you fail to produce a single example; typical of LDS apologetic sophistry.

Graham knows, however, that since I don't live on this board like he does

Let's check that score again --

Droopy: 3, 686 posts since May 2008
Kevin Graham: 2,640 posts since October 2006

But according to you, I'm the one who lives on this forum? No, droppy, the opposite is true and it is sad you cannot remain sober enough to do basic math.

(like a glassy eyed D&D fanatic lost in his own self created realms of fantasy), I'm not likely to take a week out of my time and plumb the archives for the "evidence."

Only because you know you're lying, and cannot produce a single example. If you could you would, and your inability to do proper research and innate laziness has little to do with this fact.

Graham knows very well what I'm talking about, as he's been here himself for quite a while and has been a major contributor in his own right to this board's nasty reputation.

I do not have a nasty reputation. I have a reputation for being a turncoat, which is all that matters to the small minds in LDS apologetics. If I were such a nasty person, strange that it is folks from the apologetic vanguard would come to me to complain about the vulgarity of one of their own.

Your feverish ravings may now continue.

My feverish ravings? I'm not the one throwing a conniption fit every month or so, insisting I'll never return to the forum, only to return twenty minutes later. The only thing we really have in common is that the LDS apologetic "dialogue" board wants nothing to do with either of us. But I'm an apostate, so what's your excuse? You cannot get along with anyone, regarless of which side they hail from.

Will's responses, and the responses of this alleged sockpuppets comprise a tiny fraction of content of that thread

LOL! Once again, droopy illustrates his warped reductionist thinking in that he believes he can reduce everything to quantity of posts - i.e. Will's despicable behavior exists in only a small fraction of his posting history as a whole, therefore it should be dismissed. Funny claim coming from a guy who just said he is not inclined to reasearch these things out for verification. Welcome to droopy's universe, where research and verification mean nothing - all that matters is droopy's idiotic declarations of "fact."

Why me adds more stupidity to this thread by leaning into another fastball, trying to take one for the team:

Precisely right and that has been my point all along. Will has been persecuted on this board relentlessly for quite some time. He has been attacked, mocked and bashed for defending the LDS church.

You're lying again. I already proved to you that Will is only criticized for his attacks and his lies, not his defense of his faith. You then fled the scene when you were shown to be a defender of a man who accuses us of engaging in group anal sex and orgiastic circle jerks.

For those at the Maxwell Institute who have read his comments to the troubled critics on this board, lost all context in which they have been made. The people who made the judgement on Will would never subject themselves to such mocking and bashing. But Will stayed the course and continued the fight on the critics own turf.

Again, comments like these are the reason you hide behind a pseudonym. Only wade is stupid enough to use his real name and stand by such idiotic and despicable attempts to defend someone with Will's character. You continue to lie about "context" refusing to engage the debate about whether context really does vindicate him; like droopy you just want to be able to assert BS without having to back it up. Like Will, this makes you a man of low moral character. You're merely defending yrou own because he is one of your own. That's the only reason. None of you have any logical basis for your defense askde from this. Your states reasons have been so blown out of the water that it resulted in Pahoran fleeing the scene of teh crime in embarrassment.