Boy, was I wrong

[_malkie]

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 it 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. Most other people who have read Schryver will I feel think more highly of the Maxwell Institute as a result - 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.

You should count yourself lucky, Chap. Seems like, in spite of my attempts to weasel my way in, I was never even written in ... (;=(

Some people just have no appreciation.
====

by the way, Dr Shades:
1. could you please relax the imbedded quotes rule just a little - perhaps allow 3 or 4 levels? On a short thread with few participants it is not a problem, but on a thread like this it takes a bit of effort to try to sort out who said what into a 2-imbed limit.
2. The message - "You may embed only 2 quotes within each other." - is a little counterintuitive - unless you have Klein-bottle or Möbius-strip quotes (or, perhaps, rather badly-formed ones) I don't see how they can be imbedded within each other.

[_Kevin Graham]

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:

But that isn't how it appears in your first post on page 17 of this thread. Instead, it appears as:

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

This clearly makes it look I said this when I didn't.

[_Buffalo]

T...Wade has spent so much effort in defending Will.

CFR

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18535&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

You're welcome.

[_wenglund]

If anyone is interested in the evidence I have collected thus far (I have only read through the first half of the mega thread) in support of the perception that this "surreal" affair went beyond simply calling for an apology and attempting to improve MD discourse to that of "threats," consider the following:

In this post Beastie advocates sending messages to respected apologists hoping they will "lance this boil now before it causes even bigger problems in the future."

In this post, and in contravention to Liz's claim that: " If you commit to go forward, behaving in an adult manner, and treat people here with respect, that is all any of us can ask. That is all any of us ARE asking," Beastie goes on to state: " Personally, there is nothing Will can say or do that will convince me he's reformed due to that fact. My interest in this is not to reform Will, but to warn apologists of what a mess they will have to deal with in the future if they don't deal with it now."

Here, Beastie goes one step further, and says: " For that reason, I genuinely hope that apologists will lance this boil. OTOH, if they don't, and turn a blind eye or even, as Will claims, enjoy his dark side, then they do deserve the negative blow-back that will inevitably occur sometime in the future, probably in a much more public setting than a minor internet board. And at that moment, feeling that they deserve it, I will find it humorous once again." (Emphasis mine)

Inconcievable calls for Will to be banned from the entire board.in this post.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

-continued-

Here, interestingly enough, Scratch drops these threatening hints in the guise of a prediction: " (1) The apologists will cut their losses and Will's project will be terminated. (Has anyone emailed a link of this thread to Paul Hoskisson? If Paul H. is Ed. in Chief of the project, he'll wind up having to deal with the blowback once this is published. So, someone may want to give him a "heads up.") (2) The MI publishes Will's work, and this whole affair received much, much wider circulation. (The SL Trib? RfM? KSL? How widely will this be known, one wonders?) In short: this would be like "Metcalfe is Butthead" times a trillion."

Ironically, after Will said to Msjck, " you've crossed the line now. There's no turning back. You'll have to ride this wave all the way in, for better or worse. I hope you're up to it. Watch out for the rocks ...", Scratch states: " That sounds an awful lot like a threat, Will. What is it that you're suggesting here, exactly? That MsJack is going to be targeted for a smear campaign by the Maxwell Institute?" And, Stak followed up with "There it is." (see here)

Most brazen, is this from harmony: " The credibility of those institutions that are involved in Mormon Studies will likely not be devastated by Will's foolishness. Will isn't a big enough fish in that pond for his character flaws to matter. However, his initial posts and the most recent exhibition of his character flaws on this thread will not disappear into the ether, either, and when (not if... when) this attitude shows up in the Mormon Studies world, the documentation on this thread will stand as a witness against any denials he may attempt. The internet world is overlapping the real world more and more. People have even been known to send links to employers and partners. Employers and associates have been known to run internet searches. An institution that guards its reputation as closely as the LDS church closely scrutinizes any links to professionals in the field of Mormon Studies. Any internet search will turn up Will's posts." (see here)

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

-continued-

In this post, Scratch is even less subtle in his threat to Will: " You had better come clean. It's only a matter of time before your misbehavior is circulated to other, more problematic (for you) venues."

Scratch goes even further and declares, " I think that LoaP is right to put pressure on the powers-that-be, regardless.." (See Here)

Regarding a departing comment comment by Silver Hammer, Beastie clearly levels the following threat: " If this is the going to be the reaction of MI - that Will's misogyny has been exaggerated, and the real problem is the hostility of this place - then they deserve what they will get when Will's misdeeds become the next Metcalfe is a Butthead episode. And I guarantee it will. I'm imagining a Sunstone article discussing online behavior in defending the church, say, as an illustration of why some of the brethren appear to be concerned about this issue." (See here)(Emphasis mine)

I will post more as my research proceeds, which will likely be after the weekend since I am leaving shortly to go out of town.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi there, Wade.

Do those statements really seem "threatening" to you? (And if so, how, and in what sense?) See: I don't view them as "threatening" at all. They seem wisely predictive of potential outcomes, and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the M.I. evidently saw things the same way.

But, hey: if you want to portray the Neal A. Maxwell Institute as the sort of tremblingly weak and fearful organization that capitulates to speculation from a bunch of anonymous message board posters, don't let me stop you.

[_Kevin Graham]

Beastie advocates sending messages to respected apologists hoping they will "lance this boil now before it causes even bigger problems in the future."

So? How does this support your "informant's" claim that she conspired with a bunch of apostates to make threats against NAMI?

In this post, and in contravention to Liz's claim that: " If you commit to go forward, behaving in an adult manner, and treat people here with respect, that is all any of us can ask. That is all any of us ARE asking," Beastie goes on to state: " Personally, there is nothing Will can say or do that will convince me he's reformed due to that fact. My interest in this is not to reform Will, but to warn apologists of what a mess they will have to deal with in the future if they don't deal with it now."

That's some great advice, but it doesn't come close to supporting what you have implied via your "informant."

Beastie goes one step further, and says: " For that reason, I genuinely hope that apologists will lance this boil. OTOH, if they don't, and turn a blind eye or even, as Will claims, enjoy his dark side, then they do deserve the negative blow-back that will inevitably occur sometime in the future, probably in a much more public setting than a minor internet board. And at that moment, feeling that they deserve it, I will find it humorous once again." (Emphasis mine)

Ditto above.

Inconcievable calls for Will to be banned from the entire board.in this post.

Inconceivable is LDS and her request to remove Will from the forum doesn't even begin to support what you're trying to prove. You do realize that account membership on this forum, and publication at NAMI are two different things, right?

Here, interestingly enough, Scratch drops these threatening hints in the guise of a prediction: " (1) The apologists will cut their losses and Will's project will be terminated. (Has anyone emailed a link of this thread to Paul Hoskisson? If Paul H. is Ed. in Chief of the project, he'll wind up having to deal with the blowback once this is published. So, someone may want to give him a "heads up.")

Again, predictions that came to pass is not evidence of a conspiracy, it is only evidence that Mr. Scratch's predictions were grounded in common sense.

Ironically, after Will said to Msjck, " you've crossed the line now. There's no turning back. You'll have to ride this wave all the way in, for better or worse. I hope you're up to it. Watch out for the rocks ...", Scratch states: " That sounds an awful lot like a threat, Will. What is it that you're suggesting here, exactly? That MsJack is going to be targeted for a smear campaign by the Maxwell Institute?" And, Stak followed up with "There it is." (see here)

So Will threatens MsJack. No surprise there.

Most brazen, is this from harmony: " The credibility of those institutions that are involved in Mormon Studies will likely not be devastated by Will's foolishness. Will isn't a big enough fish in that pond for his character flaws to matter. However, his initial posts and the most recent exhibition of his character flaws on this thread will not disappear into the ether, either, and when (not if... when) this attitude shows up in the Mormon Studies world, the documentation on this thread will stand as a witness against any denials he may attempt. The internet world is overlapping the real world more and more. People have even been known to send links to employers and partners. Employers and associates have been known to run internet searches. An institution that guards its reputation as closely as the LDS church closely scrutinizes any links to professionals in the field of Mormon Studies. Any internet search will turn up Will's posts." (see here)

So all you have provided is evidence that the apostates were smart enough to realize the situation for what it really is, while Wilbur and his Wilpologists were in denial over the whole matter. Well, duh. You're idiots and arrogant ones at that, thinking Will was so important that he could actually get away with this kind of behavior and then be rewarded with publication.

Scratch is even less subtle in his threat to Will: " You had better come clean. It's only a matter of time before your misbehavior is circulated to other, more problematic (for you) venues."

Again, Scratch makes a reasonable prediction that came true. This is not evidence he was involved in a conspiracy.

Scratch goes even further and declares, " I think that LoaP is right to put pressure on the powers-that-be, regardless.."

Which only goes to contradict what you're trying to prove. As we said all along, it was agroup of LDS apologists/scholars who contacted NAMI. The "apostates" just sat back and watched the show and made their own predictions. I remember making the same predictions while saying I hope they publish him anyway.

Regarding a departing comment comment by Silver Hammer, Beastie clearly levels the following threat: " If this is the going to be the reaction of MI - that Will's misogyny has been exaggerated, and the real problem is the hostility of this place - then they deserve what they will get when Will's misdeeds become the next Metcalfe is a Butthead episode. And I guarantee it will. I'm imagining a Sunstone article discussing online behavior in defending the church, say, as an illustration of why some of the brethren appear to be concerned about this issue." (See here)(Emphasis mine)

This isn't a threat you idiot, it is a statement of fact. You keep referring to all these predictions as threats, which illustrates just how desperate you are for evidence for your conspiracy theory. You keep trying to fabricate evidence from irrelevant anecdotes by shaping them with rhetoric. The funniest thing about this whole ordeal is that you keep pretending we don't know who was responsible for contacting NAMI. We know. LDS scholars have come forward on this matter. LDS apologists have come forward on this matter. So for you to keep trying to blame everyone else is ridiculous, and further proof that you cannot be trusted on matters that require serious research ability, rational thinking and critical-analytical skills. You scrolled through the exchanges and picked out things you thought you could twist to your favor, very much the same way Will Schryver does. It just goes to show how disinterested you really are in the facts. It is why your ant-research mentality prevents you from actually contacting NAMI to get the full scoop from the horse's mouth. You're afraid it will contradict all your crazy presuppositions that you and droopy share.

You know, that we're all to blame for everything because we're a bunch of lying scoundrels who are up to no good. And Will, well, he is a victim who was forced to call women whores and insist we're all engaged in group anal sex. That's the guy you're defending. Feel proud wade, feel very proud.

[_sock puppet]

Wade,

Today's lesson is the difference between a threat and a forecast. Let's first look at the elements of a threat. The definition of a threat can be found here

A threat is an act of coercion wherein an act is proposed to elicit a negative response. It is a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another person.

What act, Will, was proposed by those that you have claimed made threats? What? There's no mention that if Will does not, for example, apologize, then they will snitch on Will? There weren't any such proposals of adverse action?

Notice how beastie, per your quote and description, said there was nothing Will could do to redeem himself? Not a threat. She wasn't asking him to do or refrain from doing anything, or else she would contact NAMIRS. She also remarked that if NAMIRS takes no action now to lance the boil that Will is, then NAMIRS deserves the greater blowback that would come if NAMIRS did publish Will, and placing her reputation on the line by predicting that the blowback would be greater but along the lines of NAMIR's fiasco over Metcalfe is a Butthead.

As to Dr Scratch, will I am sure to you knee-jerk apologists he is a menacing character that always presents a 'threat' to your fearful little minds. But that does not mean that Dr Scratch made a threat to Will. But again, there is no action proposed to Will that will be taken by Dr Scratch if Will does not do or refrain from doing something. Here, the coercion is all in your mind, Wade, much like Will seeing conspiracies where there are only shadows cast from his own conduct. Did Dr Scratch threaten to contact NAMIRS if Will did not 'come clean'? No, not quite. He simply observed, without coercion, that "It's only a matter of time before your [Will's] misbehavior is circulated to other, more problematic (for you [Will]) venues." That's a warning that perhaps Will ought to cut his losses and run from NAMIRS before other Will's misbehavior is circulated to other venues. Dr Scratch did not write or imply that he would cause that circulation. Indeed, he indicated "It's only a matter of time" until it would be circulated. Predictive? Yes. Warning? Yes. Threatening? No.

Even Will did not, in your mini-expose, make a threat to MsJack. He simply observed that the episode had by then progressed to the point of no return. Dr Scratch asked Will if it was a threat, but Will did not identify any action that he would take in response if Ms Jack did not stop her thread. Rather Will merely told her of his resolve and that it was then too late to turn back.

Let's see, Wade, you said harmony's was the most brazen example of a threat. What action (or omission to act) did she propose to Will that she would take if he did not do something she was wanting from Will? Where, Wade, where?

liz said the most that could be asked of Will is his committing to go forth and sin no more. liz did not spell out to Will that if he did not, she would take some action designed for Will to abhor and fear. No threat there.

There was no coercion based on Will's expected fear of some proposed action by these MDB posters that Wade has maligned by claiming threats were made by them.

So, when a statement about a likely future consequence is made without the proposed, coercive action if the hearer does not do or refrain from doing something, what have we? Not a threat. Rather we have a forecast.

Forecasting is the process of making statements about events whose actual outcomes (typically) have not yet been observed. A commonplace example might be estimation for some variable of interest at some specified future date.

Will, in some states, threats are a crime because of their coercive interference with another's free will. Implying that these MDB posters have made threats, and thus perhaps crimes, when they have not is slanderous and thus possibly actionable. I doubt that Dr Shades would want MDB to be the forum for hosting your actionable slander. Indeed, Dr Shades shut down a thread just 5 months ago because someone raised this specter then in a similar vein.

[_wenglund]

Hi there, Wade.

Do those statements really seem "threatening" to you?

They seem about as threatening to me as "watch out for the rocks" seemed threatening to you.

But, we are just getting started here. Again, I am only half way through one of numerous anti-Will threads. And, when I am finished, my research won't account for any chats, PM's, or emails that I don't have access to. Stay tuned.

I look forward to reading all the anticipated down-playing and dismissals, some of which has already begun.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-