Boy, was I wrong

[_Buffalo]

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.

CFR (ie let's see a count)

[_consiglieri]

Because I have been busy actually working, I haven't had the chance to contribute to this thread, but wish to do so now for the record:

1. MsJack--You have done an inestimable service to, of all organizations, the NAMI, by alerting them to a ticking time-bomb. I am sure they applaud you for your efforts, as do I.

2. Whyme, Droopy and Wade--You should be ashamed of yourselves for blaming Will's bad conduct on anybody other than himself. Your defense of Will acts as an endorsement of his behavior. I am surprised by the lot of you. You should apologize.

3. NAMI--Did the right thing by pulling Will's paper.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_malkie]

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.

Are you saying, perhaps, that they have the form of academia, but deny the power thereof?

Consider me to be suitably chastened.

[_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 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.

I thought that they did have an opinion too - but were perhaps a little shy to express it.

I was genuinely puzzled by Wade's insistence that he had no opinion because it was none of his business. In my experience, opinions come unbidden, regardless of whether the topic is my business or not - on any topic that affects me. And certainly if it affects me to the extend to posting many messages to a message board. I'm at a loss to understand how to avoid having an opinion.

3. NAMI--Did the right thing by pulling Will's paper.

Hi Consig. If I may be so bold, could you please explain your reasoning? I could make an assumption, but I'd rather read what you have to say.

[_Kevin Graham]

Wade, Droopy, Nomad and whyme love to entertain this silly assumption that Will's remarks were not intended to be sexual in nature; that we apostates somehow read that into his comments; that we ignore context, etc..

However, Pahoran just admitted that this Willpologetic argument no longer holds water. This means it is the group of Willpologists who have been misrepresenting what Will has said, not vice versa.

[_malkie]

Wade, Droopy, Nomad and whyme love to entertain this silly assumption that Will's remarks were not intended to be sexual in nature; that we apostates somehow read that into his comments; that we ignore context, etc..

However, Pahoran just admitted that this Willpologetic argument no longer holds water. This means it is the group of Willpologists who have been misrepresenting what Will has said, not vice versa.

Implicit in that, perhaps, is that the NAMI folks made the same mistake as the critics - otherwise why would they pull the paper.

[_Droopy]

Wade, Droopy, Nomad and whyme love to entertain this silly assumption that Will's remarks were not intended to be sexual in nature; that we apostates somehow read that into his comments; that we ignore context, etc..

However, Pahoran just admitted that this Willpologetic argument no longer holds water. This means it is the group of Willpologists who have been misrepresenting what Will has said, not vice versa.

I have misrepresented nothing. I've maintained all along that Will has said things, here and there, infrequently and rarely, in the past, that are inappropriate and should not have been said. I've also maintained that the pseudo-pious moral outrage at, what he has characterized as "PG rated" commentary, and the charge of "misogyny" are completely disingenuous and utterly manufactured, and have a clear ulterior motive (and hence, the clear hypocrisy of those here who have long histories of far worse use of language, not only regarding sexual themes, but in the area of general character assassination and flaming insults at TBMs and apologists, but who have savaged Will for the very same sins, even though his are few and far between, and there's are continuous and unbroken).

I know this, you know this, Jack knows this, and let's stop the needless pretending.

There's no need for it any longer.

[_consiglieri]

Hi Consig. If I may be so bold, could you please explain your reasoning? I could make an assumption, but I'd rather read what you have to say.

Hi, Malkie!

It may be more of a gut reaction than anything else, but sometimes the gut is right where the head is wrong.

I'll give it a try with my head, though . . .

There comes a time when a particular author, by his words and conduct, attracts so much negative attention to his own personality, that it makes it seem like an endorsement of his behavior to publish any of his work, regardless of its merit.

How was that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_malkie]

Wade, Droopy, Nomad and whyme love to entertain this silly assumption that Will's remarks were not intended to be sexual in nature; that we apostates somehow read that into his comments; that we ignore context, etc..

However, Pahoran just admitted that this Willpologetic argument no longer holds water. This means it is the group of Willpologists who have been misrepresenting what Will has said, not vice versa.

I have misrepresented nothing. I've maintained all along that Will has said things, here and there, infrequently and rarely, in the past, that are inappropriate and should not have been said. I've also maintained that the pseudo-pious moral outrage at, what he has characterized as "PG rated" commentary, and the charge of "misogyny" are completely disingenuous and utterly manufactured, and have a clear ulterior motive (and hence, the clear hypocrisy of those here who have long histories of far worse use of language, not only regarding sexual themes, but in the area of general character assassination and flaming insults at TBMs and apologists, but who have savaged Will for the very same sins, even though his are few and far between, and there's are continuous and unbroken).

I know this, you know this, Jack knows this, and let's stop the needless pretending.

There's no need for it any longer.

Any speculation on how and why the NAMI folks were so badly misled that they pulled the paper?

[_malkie]

Hi Consig. If I may be so bold, could you please explain your reasoning? I could make an assumption, but I'd rather read what you have to say.

Hi, Malkie!

It may be more of a gut reaction than anything else, but sometimes the gut is right where the head is wrong.

I'll give it a try with my head, though . . .

There comes a time when a particular author, by his words and conduct, attracts so much negative attention to his own personality, that it makes it seem like an endorsement of his behavior to publish any of his work, regardless of its merit.

How was that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thanks - that would have been my guess, or close at least.

I'd be happy to see the paper published, if a suitable willing publisher could be found.