Will Schryver's Benefactor

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.

Who is Schryver's Likely Benefactor?

 
Total votes: 0

_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Will Schryver's Benefactor

Post by _Kishkumen »

Drifting wrote:If Schryver indeed has some benefactor one wonders why Will STILL hasn't been published when he himself was adamant he would be...


He's terrified to expose himself to real criticism of his ideas once fully laid out for actual scholars to examine carefully.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_cacheman
_Emeritus
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:22 pm

Re: Will Schryver's Benefactor

Post by _cacheman »

Does this have anything to do with Josephine?
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Will Schryver's Benefactor

Post by _Kevin Graham »

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.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Will Schryver's Benefactor

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Someone posted a link to a *separate* Ugo Perego thread, but that wasn't the one I had in mind. Rather, I was thinking of this one:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13107

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
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Will Schryver's Benefactor

Post by _RockSlider »

the transparent someone was me ...

ok, this link was a very interesting read. I noted that DCP never did respond on that thread. Did he respond in public elsewhere on this topic?

More information on his behind the scenes PM's about the topic please.

No public comment from him does scream out something is way different about this one.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Will Schryver's Benefactor

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

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
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Will Schryver's Benefactor

Post by _Kishkumen »

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
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Will Schryver's Benefactor

Post by _Kishkumen »

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
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Will Schryver's Benefactor

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Kishkumen wrote:
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
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Will Schryver's Benefactor

Post by _Kishkumen »

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
Post Reply