Boy, was I wrong

[_Tator]

Wade wrote:

Like Bro. Bokovoy, I received an email from a source who will remain anonymous, that essentially said that a group of MDers (including MsJack, harmony, beastie, Kevin Graham, Doctor Scratch, MrStakhanovite, and Spurven Ten Sing, among others), conspired together. They threatened the MI by saying that, if the MI published Will's work, they would go public in a major way with their allegations—contacting newspapers, other ex-Mormon sites, various blogs, etc.

Hey, Mister Guy in a Kayak

How about a conspiracy of one? On May 1, 2009 I posted the William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics thread. On May 10, 2009, I sent the Word document of the OP to 2 relatives and 1 friend at the COB. I didn't hear anything back for a couple of months but was later told it was "interesting" and that it was reluctantly passed on. I have heard nothing else from those sources about this subject since and I have not asked. Did it plant a seed? Maybe, maybe not.

Perhaps it didn't get much traction because I do admit my thread was not really well done. It had a couple of quotes I attributed to Will that he did not say. I have admitted and apologized for that many times. But MsJack's thread is a job very well done and contains no errors or mis-quotes and is much more researched and professional. My attempt was a hobbyist type project I did over several days. But our motivation was rooted in the same objection as indicated in my post of:

May 2, 2009

My speculation on Willie is that he is trying to over compensate for his inadequacies; intellectually, physically and socially. Usually when you see a guy beating his chest like Tarzan beefing up his virility, his conquests, his studness, usually they are the opposite. That is how I see Will when he constantly infers sexually into everything. I can pretty much stomach guys like this in male gatherings, locker room talk, on the golf course, male work settings, and etc. But what really offends me is when be berates females and even his wife. This is a great big character flaw in my opinion. He sees women as an object, a sex object.

So, in my view, Willie was rejected by the women in his life whether it started with his mom, who knows, but most likely he had no girl friends growing up. Also I think Willie was blessed with being born with a very small penis and now tries to compensate for it.

Truly, Willie does not equal stud.

I was offended by how Will was treating women. This post of mine was not polite or nice and I was angry at Will, I am not proud of that post. MsJack did not get angry or stoop to my level or to Will's level. Her work was truly professional and accurate and perhaps that is why it got "traction" and my attempt did not.

Wade, for the record I want Will to get his case published I say "let it stand on its own merits". I never threatened anyone or conspired with anyone but next time pick on me too! Please, Wade be an equal opportunity internet bully and attack the conspiracy of one, too!

[_wenglund]

Yooookkkaaaa, Kevin. After this last inexplicable performance from you, I am not sure it is anyone's interest, least of all yours, to continue pressing the point. It is best just to leave you with the intractable delusion that you haven't been wrong, and that I can't prove that you have been. It is obvious that there are psychological factors at play here that are best dealt with in a professional setting.

Granted, I have reached this point with you several times in the past. So, once again I wish you well, say what you will.

Now, if there is anyone else who may doubt that Kevin was wrong on several points, and who is open to reason, I will be happy to oblige with further examination of each point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Droopy]

Stop trying to expand your unique club of morons to include all my critics. Not all my critics are stupid, but you and wade most certainly are, and the best part is you make the case for me.

A scholar and a gentleman. Mature, urbane, and refined.

Uh huh. So says the moron who jumped into this thread with his eyes wide shut.

Actually, I had read all the salient posts before I jumped in. The whole thing is still an open question at this point.

There is nothing "weasle" about this as what I said was a fact,

Of course. Its a fact that "some others" recall "something disgusting" having been said, and that "quite possibly" it may have been the arch misogynist William Schryver who said "it." No weasel words, just anonymous people recalling possible profanities that perhaps, maybe, were said by William. Nothing weasily there, just cold, hard, documented fact.

and it is entirely relevant to the matter at hand, which is whether this instance is anywhere near comparable to wade's claim that he received an email from some anonymous poster.

Unless Wade is lying through his teeth, then he did.

It isn't. Wade's is supported by no evidence oither than his say-so. That's it. Nothing more.

So is Jack, by her own and by the claims of others, (how many of which are deeply hostile to Will on principle?), who themselves can produce nothing in the way of evidence beyond their own second hand say-so.

Bokovoy posts the email and it mentions at least one person who can verify the data therein. Wade keeps his email secret like it is something special to him, only alluding to portions of it so he can criticize us for making assumptions about what it does or doesn't contain.

Are we talking about the same email? Bokovoy doesn't mention the "threat" or the names in Wade's letter, or does he?

Exactly, which is pretty much what I said, and it runs contrary to your clueless assertion that she expected people to take her word for it. She presented the eye witness testimony and people can choose to believe or reject it. Of course, for people like you and wade, all you need is Will's denial, and the rest must be a bunch of liars.

Well, that sword cuts two ways, but the fact of the matter still remains that no documentation exits, and the time between the alleged vulgarity and the springing of Jack's anti-Will thread based on it was quite substantial, all of which seems to indicate that, whatever was said, it didn't register as important until, much later, it became fodder for a well poisoning expedition.

All of the witnesses to the event are first hand sources for themselves, but to us, they are second hand sources. There are no "third hand sources" involved, which would be a source based on what someone else said someone else said someone else saw.

Forgive my rhetorical excesses. Let's just say that not a shred of evidence exists to support the entire allegation, and the "eyewitness testimony" we have is only claims of eyewitness, not evidence of it.

God you're dumb!

Stop swearing, its a bad habit.

We waited for what? You make absolutely no sense. If these "others" wanted to lie, then they could have simply lied by saying they saw the C-word. But the rest of them didn't say they saw the C-word; they said they recall seeing something pretty disgusting, and they were not at all surprised to hear that three first hand witnesses testified that it was the C-word.

As Will pointed out, there was a long time lag between the alleged incident and the great moral outcry against it, which is plausibly indicative of a perception of indifference to whatever it was when it happened, and that the swelling of it into a moral outrage (whatever it was) was an afterthought.

[_Droopy]

A great many things go way over Kevin's head, but that this did surprises even me.

Again, you deceptively attribute to me something I never said. You wrote your post in a way that said I was the one who said the sentence using the F word, which is proved false by anyone willing to check the original post. Your problem, droopy, has always been that your audience is way smarter than you.

No I didn't. I wrote the post in a way that pointed out that you were now getting a taste of your own medicine, and that you had so inflamed another person that they were spoon feeding it to you. Are you that detached from waking reality that you have to lie and dissemble even about the simplest of discourse?

[_Kevin Graham]

Yooookkkaaaa, Kevin. After this last inexplicable performance from you, I am not sure it is anyone's interest, least of all yours, to contin-

Right wade. I mop the floors with you and you act like you're confused by my response.

It is like a broken record, every time. You are shown to be a complete moron after you spend numerous long winded posts trying to prove you're not, and then when I hit you with a coffin nail, you insist you're the only reasonable, open-minded, rational etc person there is. Of course wade. This is what you have to keep telling yourself. I know.

Just remember wade, your insistence that I explain what "their" referred to when it was right there in the same citation, is proof positive you have serious comprehension issues. Your ability to spin every embarrassing moment into a quick victory, is a credit to your imagination. But your problem is you're never arguing in a coherent manner, and you try to spend all your time setting people up for traps just so you can gloat about how smart you are to make them fall into them. This is all you do, and you're failure to succeed only makes you look dumber. And now droopy doesn't know what to do now that he realizes you disagreed with him all along. Or do you? You're duplicitous on the matter as Kish is illustrating in another thread.

[_Kevin Graham]

No I didn't. I

You're lying again. Seriously droopy, you quoted the citation and then said "Kevin Graham wrote" right in front of it, which is being deceptive since I never said that.

wrote the post in a way that pointed out that you were now getting a taste of your own medicine, and that you had soinflamed another person that they were spoon feeding it to you

Spoon feeding what? You make no sense. Malaise did nothing that bothered me. I thought it was hilarious how badly she didn't want to be confused with William Schryver. And who could blame her?

Are you that detached from waking reality that you have to lie and dissemble even about the simplest of discourse?

I'm not lying, but you certainly are. Your post claims I stated something I never stated. Put down the Jack Daniels, sober up a bit, and then come back and look at what you posted.

And now you're running back to this irrelevant quip because you're trying to divert attention away from your latest embarrassment at the end of this thread. My "sanitized" version and all that BS you said... lol. While your buddy agrees that what David said is true. Or so he said, before he insinuated the opposite.

[_Kevin Graham]

Of course. Its a fact that "some others" recall "something disgusting" having been said, and that "quite possibly" it may have been the arch misogynist William Schryver who said "it."

Why do you keep lying like this? I never said this. There is absolutely no question who said it.

No weasel words, just anonymous people recalling possible profanities that perhaps, maybe, were said by William.

Again, you're lying. It was never questioned who said it.

Nothing weasily there, just cold, hard, documented fact.

Yes, three first hand accounts who saw him post it, and several others who recall the incident but cannot remember what it was he posted. What is so mysterious about this? Nothing. Numerous people like me recall Will had said something extremely disgusting during that incident. DrCam and I were so upset by the way he insulted Harmony that we challenged him in real life. Neither of us had ever done that before, so obviously Will must have said something extremely insulting that was unprecedented for him, for us to react teh way we did. Several others reacted in a similar manner. But according to you, Will is telling the truth when he says that all he did was call harmony a hypocrite. Yeah, you probably would expect rational folks to buy that.

Unless Wade is lying through his teeth, then he did.

Duh. You just refuse to believe any of your fellow LDS tribesmen would ever lie.

So is Jack, by her own and by the claims of others

In one breath you equate them and then in the second breath you show why they are not equal. Wade doesn't have numerous first hand accounts backing his story, whereas Jack does.

how many of which are deeply hostile to Will on principle?

None, obviously. Spurven is LDS from what I understand, and he had never made enemies with anyone on this forum. He simply felt obligated to tell what he saw. Trying to discredit him is pointless. Besides, if your theory were true, then DrCam and I would have lied and said we remembered him saying it.

who themselves can produce nothing in the way of evidence beyond their own second hand say-so.

First hand accounts, you don't take well to education do you? I already explained this.

Well, that sword cuts two ways, but the fact of the matter still remains that no documentation exits, and the time between the alleged vulgarity and the springing of Jack's anti-Will thread based on it was quite substantial

How does this change the fact that all you have is the denial by someone who had recently been caught lying about his slur against Emma Smith, and Jack has a half dozen first hand witnesses testifying against Will?

all of which seems to indicate that, whatever was said, it didn't register as important until, much later, it became fodder for a well poisoning expedition.

You are speaking in ignorance again. Will came back to the forum a few months ago, posting his usual taunts and his run ins with folks like Bokovoy brought greater attention to his misogynistic behavior, which caught the attention of MsJack. You attribute to her malicious intentions because you need to, it isn't because you have a reasonable basis for it.

Let's just say that not a shred of evidence exists to support the entire allegation, and the "eyewitness testimony" we have is only claims of eyewitness, not evidence of it.

You're apparently do not understand what constitutes evidence. If this were a court of law William would be convicted within an hour. Eye wiitness testimony is the best kind of evidence there is in cases like these. For you to completely dismiss a half dozen first hand witnesses is typical of those who leap to preferred coclusions without any understanding of or concern for evidence.

As Will pointed out, there was a long time lag between the alleged incident and the great moral outcry against it, which is plausibly indicative of a perception of indifference to whatever it was when it happened, and that the swelling of it into a moral outrage (whatever it was) was an afterthought.

You're always serving as Will's mouthpiece, reiterating his ridiculous defense arguments as if they're solid. The Op Ed consisted of numerous offenses, not just that single event. The "time lag" between his offenses and the Op Ed has no bearing on its validity. But Will is the one who came to the forum and begged us to do an expose of him. He asked me to do it several times, and eventually his arrogance pissed off the wrong woman. That, and his recent run ins with bokovoy, brought greater attention to his notorious legacy as a the apologetic misogynist. So there is no chronological mystery here to mull over. MsJack came across this stuff and after seeing teh way other women had been abused by William, decided to put together a piece that exposes his true character.

[_Droopy]

You're lying again. Seriously droopy, you quoted the citation and then said "Kevin Graham wrote" right in front of it, which is being deceptive since I never said that.

Psychopath, take the needle out of your arm, the staw out of your left nostril, and the tube of Super Glue out of the right, and try to focus. The "Kevin Graham wrote" was part of the header in the block quote in your own post. I didn't put it there, but simply failed to edit the post. No one in their right mind, seeing that, and then seeing my response could have misunderstood my meaning.

A post directed at you said:

Demonstrate that I am Will's sock puppet or go f*** yourself. not everyone agrees with your fucktarded witch hunt kevin.

You responded with:

Whatever you say Will.

At the very least we get to see yet another example of the despicable characters that are attracted to the call of Willpologia.

My response was:

Good to see Kevin get some of his own medicine, and I'm sure he's very satisfied with himself that he finally elicited this kind of anger from the target of this relentless defamation and bomb throwing.

Get it Mr. Personality Disorder? You were getting some of your own medicine (i.e., insults and vulgar put downs) from someone else. If you inflamed someone else to the point of calling you the names you were called, how could you have been the one using the profanity and hurling the insults?

You are a completely unhinged lunatic utterly disassociated from normative reality.

I'm not lying, but you certainly are. Your post claims I stated something I never stated. Put down the Jack Daniels, sober up a bit, and then come back and look at what you posted.

I didn't lie. The header was the header. It was part of your original quote. Here is how it looks if I block quote it right now:

Demonstrate that I am Will's sock puppet or go f*** yourself. not everyone agrees with your fucktarded witch hunt kevin.

That's how it comes up when one pushes the "quote" button.

Please don't give the nice young men in the clean white jackets a hard time when they come to take you away Kevin.

They're only trying to help you.

[_Dr. Shades]

This means that not only was I terribly wrong about the influence of this "backwater" board on LDS apologetic decision-making, but Scratch's network of informants is evidently not entirely incorrect in what they expose.

Correct on both counts, maestro.

Clearly, the threats and smear campaign from many here at MD worked in silencing Will Schryver even among his own.

"Silenced?" The folks at the NAMIRS can easily change their minds whenever they choose. Nobody has a gun to their heads. Your argument is with them, not us.

I didn't think that was possible, but I obviously seriously under estimated the power of this mob--which is ironic given how the mob prides itself on free speech and has complained long and hard about censorship in certain quarters.

You're overreacting. If William wishes to publish his stuff, he can build a website and upload it anytime he wishes. He doesn't need the NAMIRS to publish his material.

At least this is one way to avoid having to confront Will's arguments.

His arguments have already been confronted: The verdict is that William proved that Joseph Smith was a much bigger liar than even the critics thought he was.

Now that Will is out of the way, it will be interesting to see who next gets targeted for lynching.

"Out of the way?" Like I said, no one is stopping him from publishing whatever he wants.

[_Chap]

To the post below, I can only say: Well, yes, of course.

It is insulting to the people at the Maxwell Institute to suggest that they would run scared because a bunch of us anonymous cowards on our obscure message board threatened to tell lies to the media about them. But if this has happened, it should be easy for Droopy and wenglund to contact them and explain how badly they have been deceived. Why aren't they doing that, instead of posting endlessly here?

May I mention a further piece of craziness in wenglund's conspiracy theory (from which I am almost sorry to see I appear to have been written out)? He says that the "threat" to the Maxwell Institute was made by people such as "beastie, harmony, Scratch ..." and a list of other very disparate posters designated by their board names.

Is it seriously suggested that all these people got together and jointly signed all their board names to an email to the Maxwell Institute? Why on earth would they do that? It makes no sense at all. Or is wenglund suggesting that somehow they all conspired to have an anonymous message sent? In that case who on earth apart from the group would know who they all were? Does wenglund think that one of these people would be likely to be so tormented in their conscience that they would blow the gaff to him, even assuming the wild implausibility that they did get together?

On an Occam's razor basis, and in the light of the email from a friend at the Maxwell Institute posted by David Bokovoy, it is hard to see any reason for wanting to believe in anything more complex than the obvious explanation:

1. Somebody drew Schryver's nasty posting style in relation to women to the attention of the Maxwell Institute.
2. The Maxwell Institute people concluded that his behavior was not up to their standards - like the man said in the email to David Bokovoy, which everyone seems to accept as genuine.
3. They told Schryver to look elsewhere for publication.

Why imagine more than this?

Well, one answer might be that wenglund has incontrovertible evidence that something else did happen. Until he produces his evidence, that has as much credibility to me (and I think to everybody else but Droopy) as the Tooth Fairy.

A more likely reason is that wenglund and Droopy cannot bear to think that people at the Maxwell Institute actually looked at some of the stuff Schryver said about and to women online, and were genuinely moved to distaste. Hence their willingness to believe in any alternative, no matter how implausible or redundant.

Most other people who have read Schryver will I feel think more highly of the Maxwell Institute as a result of their rejection of his behavior - even though I still wish Schryver good luck in finding or (why not?) creating another a place to publish his work.

This means that not only was I terribly wrong about the influence of this "backwater" board on LDS apologetic decision-making, but Scratch's network of informants is evidently not entirely incorrect in what they expose.

Correct on both counts, maestro.

Clearly, the threats and smear campaign from many here at MD worked in silencing Will Schryver even among his own.

"Silenced?" The folks at the NAMIRS can easily change their minds whenever they choose. Nobody has a gun to their heads. Your argument is with them, not us.

I didn't think that was possible, but I obviously seriously under estimated the power of this mob--which is ironic given how the mob prides itself on free speech and has complained long and hard about censorship in certain quarters.

You're overreacting. If William wishes to publish his stuff, he can build a website and upload it anytime he wishes. He doesn't need the NAMIRS to publish his material.

At least this is one way to avoid having to confront Will's arguments.

His arguments have already been confronted: The verdict is that William proved that Joseph Smith was a much bigger liar than even the critics thought he was.

Now that Will is out of the way, it will be interesting to see who next gets targeted for lynching.

"Out of the way?" Like I said, no one is stopping him from publishing whatever he wants.