Boy, was I wrong

[_Chap]

Is this thread still going on?

It appears that nothing can discourage wenglund, whyme, and - yes - Droopy (!) whose latest farewell (‘Fin’, ‘Ciao’ etc.) has been torn up so that he can contribute his unique and strange flavor (welcome back, Droops!)

But surely all their efforts are being exerted in the wrong place? Thanks to Scratch, and now David Bokovoy, we know what happened at the Maxwell Institute:

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.

And that’s it. David’s contact, whoever he may be, looked at the kind of stuff that Schryver posted, didn’t like it, and told his MI colleagues. They agreed with him that what they saw was not acceptable. Thus was Schryver booted.

Now, as Lenin once said (Droopy will know where), the question in any situation like this is ‘What Is To Be Done?’. And the right thing for wenglund/whyme/Droopy to do if they want to correct what they evidently conceive to be a monstrous injustice done to Schryver is to persuade the Maxwell Institute to reverse their decision.

If they are right, that should be easy enough. The main point of the case they make here seems to be that if only the MI knew the context of Schryver’s apparently offensive posts they would see it all quite differently. Since the ‘context changes all’ argument is one frequently used at the MI, their case is assured of a sympathetic reception.

So there you go! Choose the Right, and get to it! Move on, and don’t get mad, get even! I'm sure all three of you must be confident that you can win, since the MI people are reasonable guys who share your religion and morality (well, not quite whyme), not nasty anti-mormons whose only source of amusement is dogpiling on a decent, faithful, priesthood holder like Schryver.

Return and report.

[_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 non-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.

[_malkie]

Does anyone here really think that the NAMI action (booting Will's paper) was the result of anything other than Will's own words coming to the attention of decision makers at NAMI?
And, if so, do you have anything to back this up?
If something other than Will's words condemned his paper, were the people at NAMI coerced, deceived, or what?

Now that they know about this place (if they didn't before), I wonder if they are still having a look every so often, and cheering on those who continue to insist that Will did nothing wrong or (at least) nothing to be ashamed of, given the provocation he was allegedly subjected to.

I know, it's none of my business, any more than it is Wade's, but what do you expect of "someone like [me]"? I'm curious (pun intended) and I frequently have opinions on things that are none of my business.

The people who made the judgement on Will would never subject themselves to such mocking and bashing.

Do you have reason to think that, or is your statement just hot air? I mean, do you know who "[t]he people" are, and what they may have subjected themselves to?

[_Chap]

I agree with malkie that the position of wenglund/Droopy/whyme on this thread is questionable.

But as I indicated in my post above, the real issue so far as I see it is why these people are not writing to the Maxwell Institute to convince them that Schryver has been unjustly treated. Nothing they post here is helping their martyred hero one little bit.

[_malkie]

I agree with malkie that the position of wenglund/Droopy/whyme on this thread is questionable.

But as I indicated in my post above, the real issue so far as I see it is why these people are not writing to the Maxwell Institute to convince them that Schryver has been unjustly treated. Nothing they post here is helping their martyred hero one little bit.

Perhaps they are not writing because (at least in the case of Wade) they see what goes on at MI/NAMI as none of their business, and something about which they legitimately have no opinion.

I may be unusual in this respect, but I find it almost impossible not to have an opinion, whether it is my business or not. I thought that was human nature. Of course, my my wife might say that I am not always governed by human nature. (;=(

Of course they seem to be in a bind. Do they:

- refuse to publish, and perhaps thereby impede scholarship (assuming that the paper has merit - but if it is not published how will we know)
- publish, and accept that they will be criticised on the basis of the characteristics of the writer, not the paper

I'm really puzzled here. What do other academic institutions do?

If it is needed, is there a "standard" explanation/defence for publishing the work of someone whose persona is non grata (weak attempt at humour, I admit). If so, and the paper is a real game changer, why would they not publish and take their lumps, knowing that they are following academic tradition.

[_jon]

I think in terms of Misogyny Will's potential chances for publication by NAMI being reduced to zero there are only three possible conclusions that can be reached:

1. The postings on this board directly influence the publication decisions of NAMI regardless of whether they are factual or not.
2. The behaviour of Will posted on this site is something that NAMI finds credible/authentic and therefore does not want to be associated with him.
or
3. Will's material was rubbish

weglund, do you really want to stick to your position that it was #1?

[_Chap]

I agree with malkie that the position of wenglund/Droopy/whyme on this thread is questionable.

But as I indicated in my post above, the real issue so far as I see it is why these people are not writing to the Maxwell Institute to convince them that Schryver has been unjustly treated. Nothing they post here is helping their martyred hero one little bit.

Perhaps they are not writing because (at least in the case of Wade) they see what goes on at MI/NAMI as none of their business, and something about which they legitimately have no opinion.

I think it is clear that they do have an opinion - they think that the people at the MI have made an unfair decision on the basis of incomplete or biased evidence supplied by people who are out to get Schryver and damage Mormon apologetics in the process. They obviously think this is a legitimate opinion too.

If they are sincere, they should let the MI know what they think the MI needs to know in order to make the right decision. If they don't, it will look as if their real interest is in dog-piling on critics in revenge for the critics (as they see it) having dog-piled on their persecuted hero.

Of course they seem to be in a bind. Do they:

- refuse to publish, and perhaps thereby impede scholarship (assuming that the paper has merit - but if it is not published how will we know)
- publish, and accept that they will be criticised on the basis of the characteristics of the writer, not the paper

I'm really puzzled here. What do other academic institutions do?

I have not so far heard of a case where a normal academic journal refuses to publish work that would otherwise be welcomed on the basis that the author is unpleasant in some aspect of his life that is irrelevant to his academic achievement as evidenced in the submitted work. If, for instance, one was to harass female colleagues by saying insulting things to them when one met them in the library, the retribution would take the form of a rebuke from a head of department, or a warning that library access would be withdrawn if the behavior continued.

But being published by the MI is not like being published by the editors of a normal academic journal, since the MI is an institution devoted specifically to the defense of a religion that holds itself out as adhering to standards of conduct in daily life that many in the modern USA would regard as puritanical. It is reasonable for such an institution not to wish to get too close to someone who (so they seem to believe) has standards of personal conduct that in certain respects fall below those advocated by their own (and his own) religious leaders.

[_DrW]

I'm really puzzled here. What do other academic institutions do?

One thing that critics could do to help put the issue with the Maxwell Institute and Will's "paper" in perspective is to cease referring to what MI and the apologists do as "academic".

The Maxwell Institute is not an academic institution. It is a group of apologists. It is not engaged in free inquiry by any stretch of the imagination.

The sole purpose of MI is to obfuscate, distort, excuse, and do everything possible to try to defend the indefensible for the benefit of those who do not wish to find or face the truth.

Mormon apologist papers are no more "academic" than those presented at a Star Trek convention.

[_Chap]

The Maxwell Institute is not an academic institution. It is a group of apologists. It is not engaged in free inquiry by any stretch of the imagination.

The sole purpose of MI is to obfuscate, distort, excuse, and do everything possible to try to defend the indefensible for the benefit of those who do not wish to find or face the truth.

Yup, it would be a great place for Schryver's work to be published.

That's why I think that, if his friends here think he is being unjustly excluded by the MI on the basis of false information. they should do their very best to persuade the MI to reverse its decision by sending them more correct information.

No, seriously - if they mean what they say, that is. It is really getting to be one of those 'put up or shut up' situations.

[_Buffalo]

It's okay, Wade. I know you have a communication problem - it's no biggie.

You managed to deflect healthy introspection while falsely projecting. That was quite a feat, even for you. Kevin Graham must be teaching you well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You respond like this so often I might suspect that you have a word document open at all time, full of your favorite pat retorts for you to C&P. A little more effort on your part wouldn't go unappreciated, Wade. ;)