I think it could be safely said that Dan Peterson is at least one of Will's benefactors, which is interesting since no one saw that coming based on the poll results. I had no idea, until recently, that Dan spoke shortly after Will's FAIR presentation and acted as if Will had successfully refuted the critics. Also consider Dan's willingness to lay his neck on the line for Willliam by defending his history of misogyny.
Come now, Will: I know you're reading this. Why don't you come and join us for a pleasant chat? And what about you, Dr. P.? I assume that you're in on this one, too--hence your protection of Will. We can't let this cat out of the bag now, can we?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Will's appearance on that thread was meant to serve a single purpose: to cause a distraction and to kick up smoke. That said, he revealed two things. One of these--I have a pretty good reason to believe--is true. The other, provided that my suspicions are correct, was a red herring.
Ask yourself again: Why would the Maxwell Institute apologists support Will? It would have been easier to simply rid themselves of him. So why go on supporting and defending him--even after the MsJack scandal? Do you really think that they care *that* much about his work? Or, instead, does he somehow "have" something that he can leverage against them?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Kevin Graham wrote:I think it could be safely said that Dan Peterson is at least one of Will's benefactors, which is interesting since no one saw that coming based on the poll results. I had no idea, until recently, that Dan spoke shortly after Will's FAIR presentation and acted as if Will had successfully refuted the critics. Also consider Dan's willingness to lay his neck on the line for Willliam by defending his history of misogyny.
My sense is that Dr. Peterson has been one of Will Schryver's supporters.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Doctor Scratch wrote:Why would the Maxwell Institute apologists support Will? It would have been easier to simply rid themselves of him. So why go on supporting and defending him--even after the MsJack scandal? Do you really think that they care *that* much about his work? Or, instead, does he somehow "have" something that he can leverage against them?
An issue as problematic as the Book of Abraham cries out for cannon fodder with a talent for blowing smoke in everyone's eyes.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Doctor Scratch wrote:Why would the Maxwell Institute apologists support Will? It would have been easier to simply rid themselves of him. So why go on supporting and defending him--even after the MsJack scandal? Do you really think that they care *that* much about his work? Or, instead, does he somehow "have" something that he can leverage against them?
An issue as problematic as the Book of Abraham cries out for cannon fodder with a talent for blowing smoke in everyone's eyes.
Don't they already have that in the form of John Gee?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:Don't they already have that in the form of John Gee?
Cannon fodder is expendable. Someone like Will can go out and spout crazy nonsense that no scholar with any self-respect would push because he has nothing to lose. Gee certainly would not have pushed a theory like Will's. Will does his bit, has his moment in the spotlight, and then evaporates like a fart in the wind. It was a distraction that ultimately served as a further smokescreen or possibility to bamboozle the unsuspecting.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist