Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_DrW]

With the surge in traffic the board has been receiving lately, I felt this thread worthy of a bump.

Posted on another thread before I saw this one. Seems appropriate to both.
______

The following post appeared on the subject thread on the MADBoard this evening. It didn't last long.

The ad hominem attack thread launched against me last year at MDB was a cleverly crafted propaganda enterprise, replete with forgeries, out-of-context citations, gross exaggerations, and outright lies.

Ms. Jeffries and her cohorts claim they were motivated by a desire to protect women involved in Mormon studies, and that I employed misogynistic tactics in my online debates with women involved in Mormon studies. This is untrue. To my recollection, I have never engaged in substantive online debates with any women at any time, let alone women involved in Mormon studies. My only online conversations with the women on that message board consisted of what were quite often situations where I was up against a dozen or more ex-mormons in aggressive back and forth exchanges dominated by sarcasm, veiled jabs, dark humor, parody, double entendre, and all sorts of ad hominem repartee. It's a great resource if your intention is to cherry-pick quotes to make one of the participants look bad, because context is everything in a situation like that. Even so, I was never guilty of anything that would rise above a PG-13 rating, and that only rarely.

I categorically deny the allegations made against me, and publicly condemn those who crafted them as the deceitful propagandists they are.

- William Schryver

Will,

Such a statement as you have written here must have been made in the belief that nobody whose opinion matters to you would ever venture over to the Board That Shall Not be Named and read the 63 page thread (indictment) for themselves.

There is little doubt that Dr. Peterson’s decision to side with you in the fiasco you describe here counted against him when it came time for NAMIRS to take a new direction.

Since I do not intend to violate the Board Rules and link to the other site, I will simply provide a search string as follows:

“Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver”

Anyone who may be interested in the light of Dr. Peterson’s dismissal knows where to look to see for themselves what you wrote and the context in which you wrote it.

Since this post is in response to assertions made on this thread by William Schryver himself, I respectfully request that the moderators not remove it.

Looks as though the MDD moderators are sticking by their man - maybe the only one they have left. This is sort of like sticking with Joseph Smith after the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society.

[_Kevin Graham]

So now Will claims this thread is based on propaganda, lies, deception, etc? That is pretty rich coming from the guy who lies compulsively and has been shown to be a liar on numerous occasions.

I though he was the one who once said he embraced his comments because they were so funny and so true. He took pride in them, right? From what I remember, he only denied having posted one or two of them. What about the other 50-60 comments that were clearly posted from your account?

[_TrashcanMan79]

So now Will claims this thread is based on propaganda, lies, deception, etc? That is pretty rich coming from the guy who lies compulsively and has been shown to be a liar on numerous occasions.

I though he was the one who once said he embraced his comments because they were so funny and so true. He took pride in them, right? From what I remember, he only denied having posted one or two of them. What about the other 50-60 comments that were clearly posted from your account?

On the first page of this thread, Will takes issue only with the C-word accusation. If he ever took the opportunity to point out any examples of the "forgeries, out-of-context citations, gross exaggerations, and outright lies" from MsJack's posts, I must've missed it.

[_MsJack]

Ms. Jeffries and her cohorts claim they were motivated by a desire to protect women involved in Mormon studies, and that I employed misogynistic tactics in my online debates with women involved in Mormon studies.

The latter half of this sentence is false. I never claimed that William employed misogynistic tactics against women who are already seriously involved in Mormon Studies. I claimed that his treatment of women online might deter women who are involved in Mormon Studies from engaging him. I don't think that liz3564, KimberlyAnn, harmony, or beastie could be said to be seriously involved in Mormon Studies. (beastie would come closest, but to my knowledge, all she has done is a Web site on Mesoamerican studies. I don't believe she has published in journals or periodicals on anything.)

My only online conversations with the women on that message board consisted of what were quite often situations where I was up against a dozen or more ex-mormons in aggressive back and forth exchanges dominated by sarcasm, veiled jabs, dark humor, parody, double entendre, and all sorts of ad hominem repartee.

Yes, but only William's posts in these conversations would repeatedly direct sexism and misogyny towards the female posters. It wasn't like William was just going along with "the boys."

context is everything in a situation like that.

Which is precisely why I provided links to the context for every single quote that I invoked.

I was never guilty of anything that would rise above a PG-13 rating, and that only rarely.

Does William seriously not get that the MPAA rating system has little bearing on whether or not something is misogynist? This quote, from Two and a Half Men producer Lee Aronsohn:

“Enough ladies. I get it. You have periods,” Aronsohn commented.

He applauded women like Whitney Cummings, Chelsea Handler and Tina Fey securing a voice to discuss formerly taboo subjects on TV.

“But we’re approaching peak vagina on television, the point of labia saturation,” he added.

The current female TV boom contrasts with Two and a Half Men mostly portraying women as bimbos, something Aronsohn isn’t about to apologize for.

“Screw it… We’re centering the show on two very damaged men. What makes men damaged? Sorry, it’s women. I never got my heart broken by a man,” Aronsohn earlier told the Toronto conference during a keynote address.

Wouldn't get more than a PG-13 rating, either. But it's still about as misogynist as it comes.

Perhaps it is time to apply a few updates to this thread.

[_MsJack]

Will,

Such a statement as you have written here must have been made in the belief that nobody whose opinion matters to you would ever venture over to the Board That Shall Not be Named and read the 63 page thread (indictment) for themselves.

There is little doubt that Dr. Peterson’s decision to side with you in the fiasco you describe here counted against him when it came time for NAMIRS to take a new direction.

Since I do not intend to violate the Board Rules and link to the other site, I will simply provide a search string as follows:

“Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver”

Anyone who may be interested in the light of Dr. Peterson’s dismissal knows where to look to see for themselves what you wrote and the context in which you wrote it.

Since this post is in response to assertions made on this thread by William Schryver himself, I respectfully request that the moderators not remove it.

Where does this post appear? Who posted it? Did the MDDB moderators remove it?

[_DrW]

Will,

Such a statement as you have written here must have been made in the belief that nobody whose opinion matters to you would ever venture over to the Board That Shall Not be Named and read the 63 page thread (indictment) for themselves.

There is little doubt that Dr. Peterson’s decision to side with you in the fiasco you describe here counted against him when it came time for NAMIRS to take a new direction.

Since I do not intend to violate the Board Rules and link to the other site, I will simply provide a search string as follows:

“Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver”

Anyone who may be interested in the light of Dr. Peterson’s dismissal knows where to look to see for themselves what you wrote and the context in which you wrote it.

Since this post is in response to assertions made on this thread by William Schryver himself, I respectfully request that the moderators not remove it.

Where does this post appear? Who posted it? Did the MDDB moderators remove it?

This post appeared on Page 22 of the "My Assessment--" Thread by Bill Hamblin on the MADBoard.

As far as I could see, it was up for 15 minutes or so (as approximately Post #425 - #427) before it was removed without comment by a moderator (near where Ares appears to confirm that the subject thread is not about Will Schryver.)

The denial from Schryver was put up by Schryver himself earlier in the thread (Post # 353 on page 18).

As to its authorship; it was not by mere luck that I saw what happened with this particular post.

[_MsJack]

This post appeared on Page 22 of the "My Assessment--" Thread by Bill Hamblin on the MADBoard.

As far as I could see, it was up for 15 minutes or so (as approximately Post #425 - #427) before it was removed without comment by a moderator (near where Ares appears to confirm that the subject thread is not about Will Schryver.)

The denial from Schryver was put up by Schryver himself earlier in the thread (Post # 353 on page 18).

As to its authorship; it was not by mere luck that I saw what happened with this particular post.

Thanks for the information, DrW. Much appreciated.

[_3sheets2thewind]

this thread should be pinned

[_Stormy Waters]

I figured this belonged here.

William, can you address this one, what is the historical context that makes it acceptable?

"No, it’s just because Emma was a champion **** and no one else would have her except Joseph. (Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be checking out the new “Emma Smith as the Exemplar for All Women” movie.)"

Yes, it is a forgery--one that I was even deceived into believing authentic for a period of time.

I originally wrote "wench" and it was subsequently altered (by someone with moderator capabilities) in the original post and also in any post that quoted it.  For months they tried to get me to admit to saying that, and I consistently denied it, knowing I had not written such a thing.  Then, almost magically one day, they produced a quote.  And I was therefore, I felt at the time, compelled to issue an apology for it.  Only later did I discover the evidence that it was a forgery.  I will soon describe in some detail this and the other methods of propaganda legerdemain employed in the campaign by Mormon apostates to silence my apologetic articles and presentations.

Suffice it to say at present that there are no fewer than three attempts at forgery in MsJack's collection of what are mostly manipulated, out-of-context quotes, or greatly exaggerated claims based on posts typical of online banter.  I should note that I have no reason to believe, at this time, that MsJack was complicit in the forgery element of all of this, only that she was entirely indiscriminate and otherwise without compunction when it came to accepting and manipulating information in such a way as to advance her little endeavor.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Can someone explain to me why anyone cares about this douchebag? He's not very bright, his one claim to fame is a stupid and quickly refuted "theory" that not even his friends defend anymore, and he appears to be a garden-variety sociopath.

Do I have that right? If so, why bother with a low-life like that?