FAIR's Mike Parker: Will Schryver "admitted and apologized"?

[_Ludd]

You can't make up stuff like this!

Peterson quoted Gee.

You say Ritner posted on this board. But you don't show what and where-----although the best you could hope for is a he said/he said situation. Still, I want to see the Ritner post. Where is it?

Gee's quote was much more circumspect than DCP's, probably because Gee doesn't want to be caught in a lie. He just said the university removed Ritner, which is true. DCP goes beyond that by saying that Gee had him removed, and there's no evidence for that.

I gave you the link. Why didn't you read it?

I honestly didn't see it. I saw links to the other board. But I didn't see any links to a Ritner post on this board.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I'm denying nothing. I didn't see the link. I went back through the posts on this thread, but I still don't see it. What post was it in?

I give you a link, you don't read it, and then you accuse me of inventing evidence. WTF? I tried to help you but you don't seem to be interested in doing anything but making fun of people here and accusing us of lying, etc.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2109&hilit=Ritner%Second Amendment

I can't help it if you think it's acceptable for people who represent a religious university to behave like douchebags.

[_Cicero]

No. What has happened, from what I have seen, is that many allegations have been made, but no one actually provides evidence for the allegations.

If you think I'm mistaken, then please give some examples in the thread I started for that purpose.

Ludd: It is certainly true that words like misogyny, sexual harassment, ogling and the like will have different meanings for different people based on culture and a whole hose of other factors, which is what Garbe was expressing recently. I get that completely. I grew up in a small town in Utah, but have sinced lived all over the world so I definitely understand that what constitutes misogyny or offensive behavior will be different for each person you talk to. You have stated that most of the people you have shown MsJack's thread to have shrugged their shoulders. I don't know who these people are, but I don't doubt that some people would shrug their shoulders at that (Garbo did).

You are mistaken, however, if you believe just based on your life experiences and group of friends that this behavior would not be considered offensive by most people. Look, if Will worked at the same company as Kimberly Ann and made those exact same comments to her it would be sexual harrasment under any state law that I've read (no doubt about it whatsoever). Will would have exposed his employer to a lawsuit from Kimberly Ann and Will probably would have been fired. Now you could rightfully point out that Will does not work with Kimberly Ann, and that online chat boards are of course a much different environment than the workplace. However, you should at least consider the fact that behavior that would be sexual harrasment in the workplace will very likely be seen as offensive by a lot of people outside of a workplace environment (even in an online discussion board).

[_Bob Loblaw]

Ludd: It is certainly true that words like misogyny, sexual harassment, ogling and the like will have different meanings for different people based on culture and a whole hose of other factors, which is what Garbe was expressing recently. I get that completely. I grew up in a small town in Utah, but have sinced lived all over the world so I definitely understand that what constitutes misogyny or offensive behavior will be different for each person you talk to. You have stated that most of the people you have shown MsJack's thread to have shrugged their shoulders. I don't know who these people are, but I don't doubt that some people would shrug their shoulders at that (Garbo did).

You are mistaken, however, if you believe just based on your life experiences and group of friends that this behavior would not be considered offensive by most people. Look, if Will worked at the same company as Kimberly Ann and made those exact same comments to her it would be sexual harrasment under any state law that I've read (no doubt about it whatsoever). Will would have exposed his employer to a lawsuit from Kimberly Ann and Will probably would have been fired. Now you could rightfully point out that Will does not work with Kimberly Ann, and that online chat boards are of course a much different environment than the workplace. However, you should at least consider the fact that behavior that would be sexual harrasment in the workplace will very likely be seen as offensive by a lot of people outside of a workplace environment (even in an online discussion board).

If I used my work computer or email to say what Schryver did about Kimberly (who is a friend from way back) I'd get fired even if the comments were on a message board.

[_Bob Loblaw]

What matters to me is that William Schryver has said and done some nasty things to good friends of mine. That may bias me against him but nothing he's said or done makes me believe for a second in his lame denials. When you treat people like crap other people don't think very highly of you. That's the reason I don't think much of Mr. Schryver or other people like him.

[_cwald]

I find it very refreshing when I read a thread discussion, and it starts going downhill for the "apologists," that a moderator doesn't jump in lock the thread or start banning people who make sense and make the apologist look bad.

I probably should hang out here more.

[_schreech]

... That's the reason I don't think much of Mr. Schryver or other people like him.

The old-man "I am going show everyone how rebellious and hip I really am at 55" pony-tail was enough for me to not think much of him. The stupid things he says and his utter failure at LDS apologetics have just been butter...

[_Ludd]

I'm denying nothing. I didn't see the link. I went back through the posts on this thread, but I still don't see it. What post was it in?

I give you a link, you don't read it, and then you accuse me of inventing evidence. WTF? I tried to help you but you don't seem to be interested in doing anything but making fun of people here and accusing us of lying, etc.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2109&hilit=Ritner%Second Amendment

I can't help it if you think it's acceptable for people who represent a religious university to behave like douchebags.

I've now read the quote. It wasn't readily apparent the first time I looked through the thread. Sorry about that.

As for the quote itself: Ritner says he requested to be taken off the committee. Gee says otherwise. Who is telling the truth? Why should I privilege one version of the story over the other?

[_Ludd]

What matters to me is that William Schryver has said and done some nasty things to good friends of mine. That may bias me against him but nothing he's said or done makes me believe for a second in his lame denials. When you treat people like crap other people don't think very highly of you. That's the reason I don't think much of Mr. Schryver or other people like him.

Yes. We understand that you don't like Schryver. What isn't clear is that Schryver has done anything to merit your animosity.

[_Ludd]

I find it very refreshing when I read a thread discussion, and it starts going downhill for the "apologists," that a moderator doesn't jump in lock the thread or start banning people who make sense and make the apologist look bad.

I probably should hang out here more.

I'm not a Mormon apologist. If i'm anything, I'm an apologist for truth. It's hard to find much of that here.