Once again I've missed the fun...

[Guest]

Based upon my experience with you, I'll be sure to double-check all your assertions. The fact that you assert that I've got something wrong means that it's probably right.

You seem to have me confused with someone else. Then again, you've been confused about a lot of things lately, just like you were confused about the sexual nature of William Schryver's use of "circle jerk."

EDIT: Missed this one:

When I said he was one of "your lot" I meant ideologically, not in terms of his forum membership. He and I are both still members here, but I certainly don't count myself as one of "your lot."

Well, I've never been a purveyor of erotica in any form, so I regret to inform you that he still wasn't one of "my lot" in any sense of the term. Since he was still writing LDS apologetic works at about that time, it sounds like he remained one of "your lot" in at least some sense of the term.

Note that I've corrected your gratuitous expression of spite.

Not gratuitous, and explained in full by me here.

by the way, red text is for moderators only. Please do not impersonate the moderators by using it.

No. He is claiming that he put it there, but when he later thought better of it, he wasn't able to remove it.

He's welcome to claim that, but given the ease with which he found a way to remove it once it came up here, I don't believe him.

And once upon a time I would have taken it as a given that a self-proclaimed "Christian" would never pursue spiteful little vendettas against an array of ideological targets.

Well then, you're in luck, because I've certainly never done anything of the sort.

I have taken a stand against those who espouse misogyny in their writing, but I see nothing un-Christian or spiteful about doing so. If anything is un-Christian or spiteful, it's misogyny.

As I recall, that individual openly apologised for that, and has not since repeated the error. As a self-proclaimed "Christian," I might have expected that repentance might mean something to you.

I never saw this apology---got a link for it? And please note that I don't consider a promise to apologize or an "expression of regret" to be the same thing as an apology.

Furthermore, William was invited to speak before he ever started claiming he'd apologized for the remark.

Actually apostasy is usually a process, not an event. Perceptive Latter-day Saints are not suprised by a person's departure from the Church being preceded by departure from its standards

We're talking about what outsiders perceive though, Pahoran. And a perceptive outsider would have had no way of knowing that his erotic writing was but a thing of his past and not something he condoned as an LDS apologist today.

Besides, it looks like others have found good reason to doubt his timeline of events.

Here's a little hint: if I were to be as maliciously dishonest as that muck-raking diva, I could pretend that I'd forgotten who she was; but, as always, I'm better than that.

It's you, of course. The resident queen of muck-raking.

[SNIP]

It happened because PP was following your example.

I figured you meant me, but here's why I was giving you the benefit of the doubt: on the thread in question, I specifically denounced Polygamy Porter's decision to link to a picture of SeattleSmutWriter's family and asked him to remove it. Point in fact, that was my only participation in the original thread. Surely, I thought, Pahoran wouldn't be so "maliciously dishonest" as to try and link me with behavior that I had specifically spoken out against on the very thread under discussion?

But no, it turns out, you were being that "maliciously dishonest." How about that.

In any case, thanks for making that obvious.

I agree that that is odd, and probably not likely to succeed. I fail to see why that makes him fair game for the kind of spite attack for which this board in general -- and you in particular -- are so justly famous.

I haven't engaged in any "spiteful attacks" on anyone on this forum, let alone SeattleSmutWriter, though you'll no doubt continue to try to smear me as having done such. Honesty clearly isn't on the agenda today.

This is amazing. A formal request to remove something is "illegal" simply because in your opinion the pirating of the image was all good?

Fair Use. Please look it up.

You might also look up the case of Michael Crook, a political commentator who attempted to issue false DMCAs against several sites for photoshopping criticism onto an image of him. This was what Plagiarism Today had to say about the case:

Even if Crook were the copyright holder of the image, fair use would almost certainly permit the image to be used. It was an insignificant part of the broadcast, used for non-commercial criticism or commentary purposes that did not damage the market value of the original work. It’s practically a textbook fair use argument.

I would say that all of the same points applied to the use of SSW's image here at MDB. It was an insignificant part of his erotica, it was used for non-commercial criticism and commentary purposes and it did not damage the market value of the original work. That's exactly the sort of speech that Fair Use law is supposed to apply to.

However, you seem to disagree, so you tell me: why is it that you think Fair Use law should not have applied in this case?

"Pure irresponsibility" how? Who was harmed? It seems to me that protecting themselves against the risk of legal action is the responsible thing to do.

It was "pure irresponsibility" because they should have given the owners of MDB time to act before pulling the entire site. That's pretty standard procedure when a DMCA notice is filed.

The latest (and AFAICT, the longest) Will Schryver bash-fest was your doing, and it consists of nothing but dishing the dirt.

Ah, I see. So you're still attempting to smear me because I voiced sincere concerns over the misogyny William Schryver was displaying on this forum.

I guess you're free to keep doing that, but I will continue to defer to the Maxwell Institute, which took my concerns seriously and acted on them. How grateful I am that they have shown more concern for treating women with respect than you have ever shown.

As for your insincere expressions of regret, how about this:

The note I received last week informing me that his work was being canceled came as something of a shock.

That wasn't an expression of regret, nor was it insincere. I guess this means you're back to making up stuff about me because you have nothing else to argue.

Or this:

An outcome where William is barred from publishing because he refuses to abandon his offending behavior is not what I would have wanted, but in 47+ pages of this issue being discussed, William showed not the slightest sign of changing his ways.

I guess this can be characterized as an expression of regret, but it wasn't insincere.

That's right; he did it to himself. He combed through hundreds of posts pulling out a handful of rude remarks, all to support the obvious lie that he was a "misogynist."

He made the misogynist remarks Pahoran, not me. And again, you must have a very low opinion of the Maxwell Institute to think that they would fall for an "obvious lie." But I guess I can't stop you from thinking that.

Or this:

And no, I took no "glee" in exposing what he was doing. Ask my husband. The time I spent combing through William's posts and compiling all the things he said about women made me want to throw up. I frequently had to step away from my computer and regroup with him about how awful it all was.

Also not an "expression of regret," and indeed, very sincere.

It would have, had I ever been in any doubt that you have absolutely no moral qualms about declaring open season on your ideological opponents; all of whom, just coincidentally, happen to be Mormon apologists of one sort or another.

I haven't declared "open season" on SeattleSmutWriter. I've only made about three substantive comments on his antics, and that all happened after he declared his intentions to further endanger this forum with frivolous legal claims. And I don't hate SeattleSmutWriter; I had him as a friend on Facebook before he declared war on this forum. Before all of this went down, I had no negative opinions of him other than thinking the arguments he posts on blogs weren't that great. Now my negative opinion of him largely consists of thinking he's a jerk who blames others for his own misfortunes, and he still has bad arguments.

Sounds like your evidence against me consists mostly of your own malevolent fantasies about who I am and assertions concerning much more innocuous things that I've said and done.

Wish I could say that's a surprise, but it looks like "malicious dishonesty" is really all you have left.

[_Pahoran]

...So let's see if I've got this right.

From what I've heard, some years ago, when he was still one of your lot, SeattleGhostWriter wrote some "erotica" which was placed on an Internet site he didn't control.

Later on, he repented and returned to the Church, but was unable to get his material removed from that site.

Then Polygamy Porter decided to follow the example of the muck-raking diva and go after SGW. In the process, he posted copyrighted photos of SGW and his family.

Am I on track so far?

You are completely off track.

As SGW's cached myspace profile demonstrates here:

Snipped link to in real life information.

SGW was actually writing erotica at the same time as he was an active Mormon. Not only does he talk about receiving a calling as ward missionary on the profile, but he also states:

As an up and coming author, I am attempting to develop a new form of Hardboiled Detective mystery with Erotica as the backdrop. I enjoy all things sensual, intense, passionate, intimate and seductive while attempting to accomplish the goal of hooking the reader into the world of words where they transform into a very intense descriptive realm the reader can be lost in.

And in the next paragraph:

Also, am interested in meeting other people who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon), and those who enjoy writing, have a taste for classic literature, and those who enjoy good philosophical discussions.

I know that SGW claimed on MDD that he was "out of the church" at the time he wrote erotica, but either he has an incredibly poor memory or was trying to save face.

In other words, you are accusing him of lying.

However, he didn't say he was out of the Church when he wrote all the erotica he's ever written. He said that he wrote a particular piece of erotica that someone here had jumped on.

If he is still writing something he calls "erotica," I'd wonder how that's compatible with Church standards. But I do not see that that somehow justifies yet another of the dog-pile threads for which this sty is becoming famous.

But I do have a suggestion: How about, instead of creating spiteful vendettas against individuals, you change the culture here so that you can discuss ideas and events, and leave personalities out of it?

Interesting concept!

In the meantime, I have a question; two, actually:

Who was the MDB moderator (or "upper echelon someone" ) who offered drugs for sexual favours? And who orchestrated the cover-up?

You are again incorrect, as is the moderator who keeps repeating the story. No one was offered drugs for sexual favors. The person in question, who was emotionally troubled and told other stories, including some about active members, as well, never claimed that as far as I know, and I am familiar with her claims.

Well then, if she never claimed it, how do you know she is "the person in question?"

And how did all the posts relating to the matter manage to disappear?

Instead of being parlayed into a 60+ page thread?

Could it be that the accused party was not an LDS defender, and thus was considered to be a fully human person with rights?

What a novel idea!

I don't know where Nemesis is getting his information, but it is twisted and distorted.

Then feel free to give us the straight dope (no pun intended) on this story.

by the way, as soon as you leave personalities out of it, then you're welcome to preach.

When you see me start a vendetta thread that runs to 60 pages or more, then you're welcome to call me on the carpet for it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

In other words, you are accusing him of lying.

However, he didn't say he was out of the Church when he wrote all the erotica he's ever written. He said that he wrote a particular piece of erotica that someone here had jumped on.

If he is still writing something he calls "erotica," I'd wonder how that's compatible with Church standards. But I do not see that that somehow justifies yet another of the dog-pile threads for which this sty is becoming famous.

When one person makes two directly contradictory claims, then that person is either lying or has a terrible memory.

Well then, if she never claimed it, how do you know she is "the person in question?"

And how did all the posts relating to the matter manage to disappear?

Instead of being parlayed into a 60+ page thread?

Could it be that the accused party was not an LDS defender, and thus was considered to be a fully human person with rights?

What a novel idea!

I don't recall there ever being posts relating to the matter. It was a behind-the-scenes accusation made by a person who likely had serious emotional challenges. I assume this is the same individual because some parts are "almost" right, but not quite.

I will not repeat any details here due to the fact that there is no substantiation to offer, unlike in Will Schryver's case, who not only admitted making the statements in question with one exception, but was also quite proud of them.

When you see me start a vendetta thread that runs to 60 pages or more, then you're welcome to call me on the carpet for it.

Regards,
Pahoran

No poster can control how many pages a thread lasts. This is a weak attempt to portray not only your statements on this thread, but just about every thread you've ever participated on as fundamentally different than focusing on "personalities."

[_Jersey Girl]

You know I watch these things as a bystander because I remain fascinated by human behavior. Having said that...

Well then, if she never claimed it, how do you know she is "the person in question?"

Pahoran, the poster's screen name was published on MD&D by a moderator.

And how did all the posts relating to the matter manage to disappear?

That's a good question. According to the MD&D moderator who made mention of this, the poster in question came to MD&D to complain or vent, whatever you'd like to call it.

Where are those posts?

The moderator supplied no link. Perhaps they still appear on MD&D and the search feature there will help you locate them.

[_Chap]

In the meantime, I have a question; two, actually:

Who was the MDB moderator (or "upper echelon someone" ) who offered drugs for sexual favours? And who orchestrated the cover-up?

Regards,
Pahoran

Dunno. You tell us.

Nobody has ever offered me drugs for sexual favors, on this board or in real life. I have never offered anyone drugs for sexual favors, on this board or in real life.

I have never, ever, heard any rumors that anyone did anything of the kind in association with activities on this board. I think you will get that answer from pretty well every other poster here, and it would be sincere.

So unless you are going to play the wenglund 'You all have to deny doing anything bad before I say anything' game (yawn ...), how about cutting to the chase and telling us all:


1. What exactly it is that you believe happened on this board, and when.

2. What grounds you have for thinking that such a thing occurred.

3, What relevance the alleged event has to discussions about Mormonism. We never, after all, said that the posters are perfect, to coin a phrase.

I wonder if we shall get a direct reply to this?

Please note that Pahoran's question contains an assertion that a moderator on this board offered drugs for sexual favors. It seems reasonable to ask that he should explain the grounds for making such an assertion so positively.

Of course if someone offered Pahoran drugs in return for sexual favors, he would be entitled to say that he had direct knowledge of the fact. Since (let us hope) no-one would have been so bizarre as to do that, Pahoran must have other grounds for the assertion, and I hope he will be straightforward enough to say precisely what those grounds are.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Any loyal Latter-day Saint who posts here is painting a target on his back.

So you're begging for trouble or what? Feeling attention-deprived, maybe?

[Guest]

I don't recall there ever being posts relating to the matter. It was a behind-the-scenes accusation made by a person who likely had serious emotional challenges. I assume this is the same individual because some parts are "almost" right, but not quite.

I will not repeat any details here due to the fact that there is no substantiation to offer, unlike in Will Schryver's case, who not only admitted making the statements in question with one exception, but was also quite proud of them.

They are really scraping if this is what they have come up with. It doesn't surprise me that they would find unsavory posts and members on a board that does not ban anyone (including some apologists that even they won't suffer) or censor practically anything. It does surprise me that this was the most damning thing they could come up with... some ancient, unsubstantiated accusation from a lady who, If I recall correctly, was not all that objectionable but perhaps troubled.

Compare this with the fact that the MDD board has moderation policies that would make the Chinese government censors proud, and I can't say I am all that concerned with their opinion about much of anything. And I don't really say this to be mean. They do their thing. We do ours. I prefer ours, for all of its very real pitfalls.

[_Blixa]

And COBOL if I remember correctly. COBOL? I'm so sorry you went through that.

Thanks for that bit of PTSD flashback, asbestos! Yes, I once edited (but only partly wrote) the Sperry Univac COBOL Programmer's Reference Guide. I also worked on the companion Troubleshooting Guide which had a super cool fold-out flow chart centerfold. I can't begin to describe the horror those two tomes were. All us technical writers and editors used to go to a bar called the Goalpost and drink tequila shots and play Space Invaders to rid that evil from our souls.

[_Kishkumen]

Any loyal Latter-day Saint who posts here is painting a target on his back.

So you're begging for trouble or what? Feeling attention-deprived, maybe?

I would say that any loyal Latter-day saint who is either disingenuous, a sophist, a nuisance, or just a plain asshole probably does paint a target on his or her back by posting here in ways that reflect those characteristics. Big surprise.

Compare them with those who don't resemble one of those descriptors, and the likelihood that everyone will dog pile that person greatly diminishes.

[_TrashcanMan79]

I am not ashamed of my piece...

Then why did you delete it?