Wade leaving David out of it

[_wenglund]

However, due to his exchanges with Will, Wade refused to accept my explanations on this matter and continued to bring up my name as one who had somehow conspired against Will.

To be clear, myself, I was not all that familiar with your explanation (I tended to avoid the threads where your explanation likely appeared, not wishing to become embroiled in a feud between to men that I respect and consider as friends).

Furthermore, in the thread in question, trashcanMan79 first brought your name into the discussion by saying, in part:

Okay, help me understand where you're coming from here, Wade....B) The powers that be at NAMI are (allegedly) troubled enough by Schryver's posts (coupled, possibly, with concerns expressed by Brian Hauglid and/or David Bokovoy) that they decide they don't want to publish Schryver's stuff at this time.

I responded by saying: "I have no idea what all was considered by NAMI, nor do I have any idea what all went through the minds of the powers that be at NAMI when making their decision, nor do I care since it isn't any of my business."

This wasn't me bringing you into the discussion, it was trastrashcan, and I wasn't here refusing to accept your explanation (which I wasn't all that aware of), but rather I was refusing to speak to what I wasn't privy to and that wasn't my business.

Later in that thread Malkie mentioned that "Someone from NAMI comes across Will's postings." And I responded: "Right. But, how did they come across what Will had posted? (Remember, Will felt betrayed by Bokovoy and Hauglid for a reason)."

I am not stating here what I think, but rather Wills perception of the matter. As iterated earlier, admittedly I was not privy to, nor was it my business to know, the goings on at MI.

So, again, I am not here refusing to accept your explanation. Instead, I am clarifying for Malkie, and giving voice to Will's perception.

Shortly after this your "lack of involvement" post showed up, and I readily accepted what you said.

David, I really am not trying to bring you into the matter, and, I am not refusing to accept your explanation, Quite the contrary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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"?

That I tend to be more judicious than Kevin in my use of the word "fact" (I typically, and reasonably, don't consider conclusions that are drawn from facts to be facts, themselves), should not be irrationally construed as casting doubt on what David said (it doesn't). So, naturally, that is exactly what Kevin did.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Enuma Elish]

To be clear, myself, I was not all that familiar with your explanation (I tended to avoid the threads where your explanation likely appeared, not wishing to become embroiled in a feud between to men that I respect and consider as friends).

It's not a "feud" from my perspective. I honestly have no ill feelings whatsoever for Will and am under the impression that the matter has been resolved.

David, I really am not trying to bring you into the matter, and, I am not refusing to accept your explanation, Quite the contrary. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, Wade. I took forward to the day when discussions focus on issues rather than individuals, and sincerely hope that Will is successful in sharing the details of his research. I know that he has put forth a lot of effort into this project and his voice should be heard.

Best,

--DB

[_sock puppet]

Wade, man, for the love of your god, stop this insanity. You're down to your ride, pal.

[_Kishkumen]

Wade,

I appreciate your efforts to clear all of this up. I think it is pretty important to do so. I'll be frank here, Wade, and I don't mean to cause offense, even though what I have to say is not exactly flattering.

You have been regularly representing Will in all of this. Will has proven himself untrustworthy on a number of accounts, as I think should be obvious to anyone who has followed this debacle. The fact that he has pointed the finger at David Bokovoy and refuses to accept David's truthful denial of any involvement in this, complete with fairly persuasive evidence, is pretty damning.

You chose to take Will's side here, and our lack of trust for him extends to you as his sometimes representative. So, when you are unclear in how you are dealing with David's limited involvement in all of this, we can't really be blamed for wondering to what extent you are still taking up Will's cause. You chose to defend Will, and you have to accept that.

And, you know, while I applaud your efforts and accomplishments in written communication, it is a simple fact that you are not the best writer. Your style, semantics, and usage can be extremely opaque. I can't count the many times I have felt like I have to decipher your posts to try to overcome the difficulties presented by your errors. Your defense mechanism in all of this is to blame us, as though your shortcomings were our problem.

While I don't imagine this will suddenly change, I will raise the issue when you yet again act as though your problems communicating are our problem. They are not. You took up the cause of a troubled person with real credibility problems, and you are laboring under your own communication issues. True to his sterling character, David will of course look past all of this, because he truly endeavors to live his religion. We can't be expected simply to accept your take on all of this, especially when doing so involves accepting your representations of Schryver and us, neither of which are particularly believable or accurate.