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).
Except for the pesky facts, your argument is entirely supported... by your own baseless assumptions, thinking precisely the way your Church has instructed you to think about those who have the intellectual fortitude to get out of something they can no longer in good conscience say is true. In the Op Ed created by MsJack, you spent all your time attacking everyone in sight, calling her a female wolverine, insisting her ulterior motives were in plain sight, etc etc. But then there were those pesky facts that contradict your assumptions. You know, like the fact that we took a poll and virtually everyone here wants William to be published by NAMI (there goes your motive theory). And the fact that NAMI only encountered MsJack's complaint, because it was brought to their attention by other LDS scholars (contrary to your intention theory).
And now you want to pretend you agreed all along that Will used sexually explicit comments towards the women? Your initial comments on that thread consisted of all sorts of rationalizations and it was clear you were eating up this idea that Will was entirely misrepresented from start to finish. The evidence? Your own words. First of all, you told Will that you can empathize with him since you had been falsely accused of sexual innuendo in the past by beastie. You also went on to note that Hugh Nibley was falsely accused of things of a sexual nature by people on this forum. You also spent a great deal of time accusing harmony of lying, simply because you've past judgment on her as an unworthy temple recommend holder.
You made it perfectly clear you believed these were giant misrepresentations and that Will never meant what he said. You even denied he called anyone a whore, and when the evidence was thrown in your face, you pretended you didn't see teh scriptural reference, and asked what breat implants have to do with being a prostitute. When the scripture was spelled out for you as if you were a six year old, you then abandoned the discussion because you were shown to be wrong in your assumption that Will was being misrepresented. You were also quick to call the C-word incident a total fabrication because:
1. harmony holds a temple recommend, much to yoru chagrin.
2. Will denied it happened
3. All the testimonies against Will come from apostates.
That was the extent of yours and Nomad's argument that the whole thing was proved to be a lie. Of course this only goes to expose the anti-analytical nature of your mind. All of your conclusions are based on the usual premises. You're going to support the fellow tribe member and name-call the apostate using as many colorful adjectives that you can spit out in a single breath.
So no droopy, you don't get to claim you believed all along that William was guilty of engaging in sexually explicit vulgarity, because it is now an indisputable fact. You spent most of your time trying to either avoid the subject, or downplay it with silly rationals, such as saying his vulgarity represents only a small fraction of his posting history, and that much worse has been said by the "apostates" throughout the years - though we both know you refuse to provide examples because you have none.
The closest you ever came to saying you disagreed with Will's behavior was when you said "I'm not saying that some of what Will has said here is not inappropriate." LOL! That isn't the same thing as saying you believe he acted inappropriately. It is just a sly way of trying to distance yourself from his behavior, while technically not distancing yourself from his behavior.
Now that Hauglid, Gee and NAMI scholars have turned against Will, so has Pahoran ( essentially agreeing that the critics here had it right all along with respect to Will's sexually charged offenses). The only two left are you and wade; two idiots who actually think they're being loyal to something important by blindly defending William to the end.
Face it, you're left defending a weakling of a man who has to hide behind sock puppets to garner support for himself. A man who drags his poor wife into his misogynistic world just to help his own ego in what he calls a trailer park. A man who lies left and right about what his intentions were. Remember, he denies using circle jerk in a sexual way, and even Pahoran now admits that this isn't true. He has clearly accused a number of us of engaging in a sodomistic orgy as well.
This is the guy you defend, all the while attacking a woman that you've never met and know very little about because she refuses to talk to you on a personal level. For you, she is unworthy to hold a temple recommend, but William Schryver is totally worthy, right? At least as an LDS priesthood holder you won't have to worry about harmony entertaining impure thoughts such as anal sex and jerking off on pastries. At the very least, we know Will Schryver's dark and demented mind conjures up such images at will. If I were an LDS bishop, I'd be far more concerned with Will entering and defiling the temple with his presence, than anyone you choose to call apostate.