Wade leaving David out of it

[_Buffalo]

Bokovoy = class act. Will should take notes.

[_stemelbow]

I feel bad that David's name has been brought up so much in this whole affair, which affair I'm not really caught up to speed on totally. But reading his response here helps.

I can't understand why Will did not conclude that his behavior here, in particular, was not going to cause some repercussions. I said it elsewhere, but it makes sense to me. Its a religious venue. Why should they tolerate behavior they find offensive among their own? That would probably offend me if they did, come to think of it.

[_wenglund]

My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread, but my intent upon returning to the board was only to clear up a few matters via a single thread. As you may well guess, that is where my attention has pretty much been focused for the last week or so (with the exception of researching the mega anti-Will thread as part of clearing up a few matters). However, I just happened to notice this thread on the index page.

With that having been said, I will address each point in the OP, but because of other commitments that are soon taking me out of town, I can't promise to address other posts until after I return.

In response to David Bokovoy coming here to lay the rumors of his involvement in the Schryver affair to rest, Wade offers the following generous words:

I appreciate you posting this, David. Your word is sufficient for me to accept that you lacked involvement. I was simply echoing what others here have suggested. I, personally, will no longer drag you in.

Then he tells us that he, like David, has received an anonymous email, but his source, which he does not quote, implicates many members of MDB in a supposed conspiracy to prevent Schryver's articles from being published by the NAMI.

I am under the impression that threats (along the lines of raising a stink in the press and such if the paper were published) were made that influenced the decision to jettison Will's article. I have no impression as to where and how exactly the alleged threats were made or conveyed to the person or persons who made the decision.

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.

Admittedly, like with David, my source is at best second-hand. However, given the general ready acceptance of David's posts, I trust you all will readily accept mine as well.

Does Wade really accept David's story?

Yes. Without hesitation.

It seems to me that he is kind of insinuating that David's email was not credible, like maybe David made the whole thing up, and only our preference for David over Wade and Will makes us accept David's post.

Understandably, you got it exactly backwards. I am insinuating that since many of you rightly trusted David's email, it would be right, for the same reasons, to trust mine as well.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_sock puppet]

Will sees conspiracies in mere shadows. He castigates what others recognize to be Will's substantive allies. Will is showing the signs of an undersiege mentality.

However, the LDS Church survived Porter Rockwell. So it seems only probable the NAMIRS will survive despite its pre-publication involvement with Will Schryver.

As one who chose to take a pass and stay out of the fray on this situation with NAMIRS snubbing Will because of his vulgarity but nevertheless kept a watchful eye on the situation as it has unfolded and its subsequent recriminations, I am left wondering, who is more Schryverian? Will or Wade?

[_sock puppet]

Understandably, you got it exactly backwards. I am insinuating that since many of you rightly trusted David's email, it would be right, for the same reasons, to trust mine as well.

Not really. David has earned the trust that other posters here place in him.

[_wenglund]

[quote='Kish']My suspicions that he does not trust or believe David only deepens when he later writes the following:

In light of David Bokovoy's earlier post in which he endeavored to establish his "lack of involvement in the affair," I found this comment from Kevin Graham on the mega anti-Will thread to be of interest:

Why did you [Will Schryver] panic by writing numerous LDS scholars to find out what was being said about you so you could preempt their efforts? Gee and Hauglid both sent Bokovoy a copy of the email you sent out to them trying to dig for information about what's been said.

If Bokovoy was not involved, why was he being sent these emails? And, how would Kevin Graham know what Bokovoy was sent? And, why is Kish writing to David for confirmation if, again, David lacked involvement?

[/quote]

These are perfectly legitimate clarifying questions. The email from David was given as evidence of lhis "lack of involvement." I did not read this to mean, "no involvement," just a lack thereof. I was exploring what little involvement, if any, there may have been. Evidently, David's involvement consisted, at the very least, simply and indirectly in being informed by several MI personnel about Will's query, and passing that information on to a former member and critic, Kevin Graham.

I don't view this as inconsistent with what David said, and so there is no reason here to suspect that I didn't trust what he said.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

Understandably, you got it exactly backwards. I am insinuating that since many of you rightly trusted David's email, it would be right, for the same reasons, to trust mine as well.

So even though you don't trust your own email (because you trust David's story without hesitation!) you think it is important to argue on multiple threads why we should trust your email?

As I said so many times before, you're an idiot, and you so often waste everyone's time. This is no exception. I suppose this is where you claim you were leading us into a trap and we were just too stupid to fall for it. Gosh you're so smart wade!

To suggest that trusting David's email means we have to trust yours is just more evidence of your learning disabilities. You illicitly equate all sorts of things that are fundamentally incomparable. For one thing, we know who David is, and his email wasn't from an anonymous poster. David has credibility and no reason to lie. His email mentions names in the email that would allow the careful research to probe further and verify the data. But you don't know how to research anything, so you resort to wild conspiracy theories.

Now compare this to your email from an anonymous person, who essentially contradicts everything the most credible LDS scholar had already said. Oh, you say you accept David's claim without hesitation, but then you spend several posts explaining why you think we should trust your email, even though you don't.

This makes you the most useless poster on this forum.

[_Enuma Elish]

These are perfectly legitimate clarifying questions. The email from David was given as evidence of lhis "lack of involvement." I did not read this to mean, "no involvement," just a lack thereof. I was exploring what little involvement, if any, there may have been. Evidently, David's involvement consisted, at the very least, simply and indirectly in being informed by several MI personnel about Will's query, and passing that information on to a former member and critic, Kevin Graham.

In reality, this event is not a major issue in my life. I probably did at some point discuss this matter with Kevin, I don't recall. But, remember, Kevin's initial knowledge of Will's email came in the same way it did for everyone here in the forum, i.e. via Will's public post in which he shared the email he had sent stating that I was involved in a behind the scene's effort to block his work.

Will chose to make a portion of the contents of his email public.

[_wenglund]

Wade, hewing to the promise he made to David, continues to keep him out of it:

Wade's informant says nothing about Bokovoy.

And you know this how? (I am asking because I know for a fact that it is diametrically incorrect. I simply omitted mentioning that part of the email.)

So, evidently, this source, which did not write David, included David in his email

I have no idea whether my source had written to David or not. I was only speaking to what was contained in the email I received from the source. Contrary to Kevin's false and presumptuous assertion, the email did contain David's name. The fact that it contained his name, and the fact that I disclosed, by way of correction, that it contained his name, can in no reasonable way be construed as me casting doubt on David or not trusting what he said.

Nor can it rightly be said that I brought Bokovoy into the discussion. Kevin did. I was simply correcting his wrong.

You obviously assumed incorrectly. Like Bokovoy, I excluded portions of the email that I though might inadvertently reveal the identity of the sender. Bokovoy's name was a part of the excluded portion.

No, not the group I explicitly mentioned. I am saying his name was mentioned in the email, contrary to your false claim.

How would Bokovoy's name inadvertently reveal the identity of the sender?

This is getting really silly. It is not just Bokovoy's name, itself, that may reveal the identity of the source, but the "portion of the email" that contained Bokovoys name.

Was the sender Bokovoy?

No. (I would think that obvious from what I did disclose about the email)

Is Wade really doing a good job of keeping his promise to David?

Not that it is any of your business (the promise was between David and I), and not that I need to answer to you, but I don't view my correcting Kevin after he brought Bokovoy into the dissuasion, and now my correcting you after you made the Bokovoy comments the focus of this thread (the title of this thread notwithstanding), as the least bit problematic to my promise.

Granted that Wade is a confused person, I would say he has definitely failed to keep his word by leaving David out of this.

Let's see…you open a thread that focuses almost exclusively on comments about Bokovoy, you re-hash and nit-pick those comments to the nth degree, and jump to several false conclusion in relation thereto, which you then expect me to answer for, and yet in your mind you view me as the one who is bringing Bokovoy into the discussion, and I am the one who is supposedly confused. This, from a guy who assumes that because someone's name is mentioned in an email, that must mean the email is from that someone--as if people never mention other people in their emails.

What a joke. I am sorry I even bothered with this nonsense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

From the previous thread I said,

How does this change the fact that Bokovoy was not involved until Will got him involved?

And wade responded:

It doesn't change the alleged fact

Sure doesn't sound like wade accepts David's story "without hesitation" here, otherwise why qualify it as merely "alleged"?

Wade was busy last night trying to master a few pronoun exercises for fifth graders. For those wondering what I've had to deal with last night:

Kevin:

Why did [Will Schryver] panic by writing numerous LDS scholars to find out what was being said about you so you could preempt their efforts? Gee and Hauglid both sent Bokovoy a copy of the email you sent out to them trying to dig for information about what's been said.

wade:

Besides, if you look very carefully at your own statement, you spoke of "their efforts"--which you alledged Will was to preempt by writing to "numerous LDS scholars.

Kevin:

So? How does this change the fact that Bokovoy was not involved until Will got him involved? Quickly, claim I'm missing your ever elusive point, because you're so smart!

wade:

It doesn't change the alleged fact, nor was it intended to do anything of the sort-which leads me to ponder why, in all your presumed brilliance, you are asking me these inane questions? are you trying to appear smart? If so, it is having the opposite affect--just so you know.... Last time I checked, David Bokovoy is only one person. Who else were you referring to in using the plural "their"?... His comments were in regards to "threats" of his ouster relevant to what was being said on the mega thread (of which Bokovoy was not a part). This means that it was, in fact YOU, who interjected Bokovoy into the discussion at that point, and it was YOUR statement that contained the words "their efforts."

Kevin:

I only "interjected Bokovoy," to the extent that I said he was the recipient of numerous emails from those who had been contacted by Schryver....I clearly idenitified "Gee and Hauglid "and last time I checked, they represent two different people, which would, as some of us learned in grade school, constitute a plurality.