why me wrote: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.
I've seen some posters around here argue that an "anti-Mormon" is someone who regularly interprets situations involving Mormons in the worst light possible. And while I generally dislike the term "anti-Mormon" because so many LDS apologists have overused and abused the term, I actually think that's one of the better definitions I've heard.
My application of "anti-Protestant" to you is similar. You are constantly interpreting events involving Protestants in the worst light possible and going out of your way to bring up things that will make us look bad.
If you want a stark example of your ugly anti-Protestantism, see
this thread here, where you use my affiliation as an evangelical to make an
a priori assumption about my position on Israel and then attack me and all evangelicals over it. The thread had absolutely nothing to do with modern-day Israeli politics, but you just couldn't resist bringing it up simply because of my faith.
That is why I call you an anti-Protestant. There aren't very many people whom I find well-suited to the concept, but it fits you like a glove.
malkie wrote: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?
I do. New information that has come to me in the past few weeks has led me to conclude that my thread was far from the prime counteragent of William's publication aspirations. My post was simply a catalyst that led others to make their move on plans they'd been hovering over for some time.
Unfortunately, I don't have anything I could share in public to prove that, and anything I could say would be hearsay from anonymous sources. Since I am the only one that acted publicly, I have little doubt that the entirety of the credit or the blame (depending on your perspective) will continue to be heaped on me.
wenglund wrote:I have mentioned multiple times on this thread that there may have been threats involved, yet not a single denial, nor even a spark of interest, but a whole lot of careful dancing around the issue (and this in addition to the deflection/projection marathon)?
I was waiting for you to be more specific as to which parties you believe issued threats before I was going to care. I noticed your "threats" claim pages ago, but I figured if I bothered to deny having any part in threats, you would simply do your little
obscurantisme terroriste thing and claim that you never meant me in the first place and how silly of me to even think you could mean that, blah blah blah.
But since you're hinting that I'm involved somehow by dropping things like this:
wenglund wrote:Maybe he, or some else here, can talk MsJack, harmony, beastie, and Stak into going on record. We will see.
No, I have never been involved in any "threats" against the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. Nor did I ever initiate contact with anyone at the MI to discuss
anything remotely related to William Schryver. The only things I even said about the MI in my "Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny" original post was that William was claiming the MI had plans to publish his work and that I considered it to be a credible scholarly organization.
Satisfied?