Scott Lloyd Engages in Smear Tactics Against Sethbag

[_MsJack]

Why is it seemingly okay for Ms Jack to post up controversial things Will Schyver said in the past, but not okay for Scott Lloyd to do something similar with Seth?

The difference is that William was repeatedly asked about the things he had said about women in the past and he always asserted that he stood by his remarks. The only comment that he indicated any public remorse for was calling Emma Smith a "champion bitch." The entire thing could have ended on the first page if William had simply admitted that his remarks were out of line and spoken out of passion and anger in moments of weakness, but that never happened.

Has Sethbag commented on the quote from 2007? Has he recently said something or behaved in a way that would indicate that the Sethbag of 2011 is just as hostile to Mormon apologists as the Sethbag of 2007?

If he fully stands by everything he said in 2007 and shows no remorse for even the tone of his words, then I don't blame Dan for potentially changing his mind about meeting him.

[_Some Schmo]

Seth is easily in my top five favorite posters, and part of it has to do with the fact that the flavor of any given post seems to reflect the context of the conversation at hand. If the topic and tone of the thread deserves an edge, he gives it. If it requires something more gentle, he gives it. If anything, I'm slightly disappointed when he's as gentle as he often is with apologists because I think they deserve more bluntness then he's sometimes willing to impart.

Seth is one of those guys who, when criticized, makes me suspect his critic's motives long before Seth himself. He's changed my mind on several occasions through reasoned, substantive posts (not to mention entertained me to no end). In other words, if you've got a problem with Sethbag, it's probably your problem because it most likely isn't his.

If Dan wants to deny himself a meeting with Seth based on a 4 year old post, he's a dumb ass.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Go ahead, though, and call me a "goon," a "hack," insane, an egomaniac, a bigot, a slanderer, and a "buffoon," and dismiss my professional career as "pathetic." (I take those characterizations from a "discussion" currently going on about me elsewhere.) Then, if I object, announce that I'm a "drama queen" with a persecution complex. That, i think, is the way the game is supposed to be played.

Good god. Is DCP still carrying on about the photo essay discussion on Time's website? Holy crap, what a weirdo!

[_Blixa]

I think, Manfred, that you have to consider what the two were trying to accomplish. In MsJack's case, she stated very clearly that she was concerned for the reputation of Mormon Studies, and worried that an embrasure of Schryver would result in women feeling uncomfortable about participating or speaking up--something that already poses something of a problem in any LDS context.

Here, though--what was Scott's goal? What was accomplished? As far as I can see, all Scott did was interfere in what was otherwise an affable and friendly exchange--and it worked, since Dan Peterson went on to dismiss Sethbag as yet another "anti-Mormon" who isn't worth the time of day. So, did Scott merely not want these two to get along? It's just difficult to see any positives in what Brother Lloyd did. It seems that he set out to stir up contention, and that he got his wish.

I should have read this before posting to Runtu. I think you make some fair points.

Embarrassing to have to aboutface so suddenly, but I don't know that I disagree with you here.

If you can admit you were wrong, that's a good thing. For anyone.

I think Sethbag was sincerely offering a respectful but critical olive branch---and good for him! People change and mellow over the years--well, at least a great many humans do. It looks like Scott Lloyd couldn't let that stand. That's a shame. And its more of a shame if DPC bought it.

[_Yoda]

And its more of a shame if DCP bought it.

He didn't. I just spoke with him via email. He has no problem meeting Sethbag and says that he seems like a nice guy. He was simply disappointed by the earlier comment.

However, it holds no bearing on him being willing to meet Seth for lunch.

[_Tator]

Manfred,

I am very guilty of saying many things that I am not proud of. I am not the same poster I was 7-8 years ago. Scott is welcome to dig up anything he wants to on me and use it how ever he wants. That doesn't make it fair but so be it.

I am the one responsible for the Will Scatologist thread in the past. I did it because I was sick and tired of Will. I did it with not the best of intentions for Will. I made a few mistakes in it and attributed some quotes to Will that he didn't make but for the most part it was accurate. I didn't do it because I cared about Mormon Studies and their reputation. My motives were not noble in any sense they were selfish.

MsJack's thread was perfectly accurate and she had the best of motives for all involved: this board and it's posters, women, Mormon Studies and even for Will.

So Manfred why don't you condemn me and leave MsJack alone?

Just saying....

[_Doctor Scratch]

And its more of a shame if DCP bought it.

He didn't. I just spoke with him via email. He has no problem meeting Sethbag and says that he seems like a nice guy. He was simply disappointed by the earlier comment.

However, it holds no bearing on him being willing to meet Seth for lunch.

Why is he filtering this message through you, via email, rather than publicly clearing this up over on the MDD board? After all, he allowed Seth to get publicly kicked in the nuts by Scott Lloyd, and he contributed to the derision. Why not clear this up out in the open? Is he afraid of "offending" Scott?

[_Yoda]

Why is he filtering this message through you, via email, rather than publicly clearing this up over on the MDD board? After all, he allowed Seth to get publicly kicked in the nuts by Scott Lloyd, and he contributed to the derision. Why not clear this up out in the open? Is he afraid of "offending" Scott?

He didn't filter anything through me at all. He doesn't even know I'm saying anything here. I emailed him on my own and asked him why he was holding a 4 year comment from Seth in higher priority than his current olive branch. It just didn't make sense to me.

He told me that he had no problem with meeting Seth for lunch, and that as far as the 2007 comment goes, it simply caught him by surprise, because he hadn't read it before.

I said that I thought Scott was out of line in mining a comment from Seth that was 4 years old. He has not sent me a return email, so I don't know if he will respond to that or not.

For all I know, or any of us know, Dan and Seth have spoken privately, or Dan plans to. I really don't know.

I just thought I would share what I had learned.

[_sock puppet]

[DCP] told me that he had no problem with meeting Seth for lunch, and that as far as the 2007 comment goes, it simply caught him by surprise, because he hadn't read it before.

Can DCP ever keep his stories straight? It wasn't mere surprise, it was dismissive and expressing the futility of meeting with Sethbag:

Well, maybe it would be a waste of time to discuss this topic with him. His viewpoint seems less interesting to me than I would have expected.

DCP was taken in by Lloyd's obvious ploy.

[_harmony]

DCP was taken in by Lloyd's obvious ploy.

Happens to the best of us.