Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_TAO]

I have no idea. But as I mentioned, making fun of Will isn't making your position look any better.

Hi TAO! Where did Shades make fun of Will? I haven't been reading all the comments here.

It's not make in the context that you think it is, I believe. I have problems with posts like these exasperating the problem.

But, now that you've asked, I will remind readers that MsJack used at least three forgeries/manipulated posts in her infamous thread.

What's funny is that not even his allies at MD&D believe him.

These sort of posts bother me.

[_Dr. Shades]

Am I wrong? Is there anyone at the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion board who believes William's claim that moderators here, or MsJack herself, altered his words?

I have no idea. But as I mentioned, making fun of Will isn't making your position look any better.

What is "my position?"

Help me out here.

[_Chap]

Am I wrong? Is there anyone at the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion board who believes William's claim that moderators here, or MsJack herself, altered his words?

I have no idea. But as I mentioned, making fun of Will isn't making your position look any better.

It isn't making it any worse either. Whether or not one adds a bit of mockery to a factual claim backed with evidence does nothing to change the plausibility of the claim.

There is for instance no difference in the plausibility of these two claims:

"Mr X has a Mickey Mouse tattoo on his left buttock. To prove it, here is a photo and a notarized affidavit from the tattooist."

"Mr X has a Mickey Mouse tattoo on his left buttock. To prove it, here is a photo and a notarized affidavit from the tattooist. It makes him look really, really stupid - which is not difficult given how dumb he is in any case."

[_DrW]

These sort of posts bother me.

TAO,

Have you considered the fact that, since his bad behavior was summarized publicly by MsJack, each time the number of current posts regarding Will Schryver on this and other boards drops to "background levels" (for Will) it does not take long for him to do something to re-kindle the issue and thereby re-focus attention on himself?

Why do you think this is?

Could it be that all the posts deriding Will Schryver's bad behavior and the associated attention on WILL constitute his preferred form of crack?

What would be ever do without the attention?

From his behavior, he apparently he has little else.

[_Samantabhadra]

For the moderators to have tampered with this post would have meant that Loquacious Lurker originally wrote "Emma's a wench?" Yet he invokes "bastard" as the male counterpart to what William called Emma. I have frequently heard "bastard" invoked as the counterpart to "bitch," but never "wench."

On a slightly unrelated note, I just want to tip my hat at MsJack for some truly fine textual analysis. If Mopologists were half this sophisticated in their analysis of the Book of Mormon...

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo Tomasi, who began posting in the thread 53 minutes after William said it and quoted the post one hour and 58 minutes afterward, stated that he did not recall seeing William use the c-word, and believed he would have remembered it had he seen it. However, he was adamant that he did not believe that harmony was lying about having been called that, as William and his surrogates repeatedly accused harmony of doing. He has since come to believe that harmony edited the post before he saw it (see here and here).

for what it's worth, I just want to confirm that this is an accurate description of my position on the matter.

[_TAO]

I have no idea. But as I mentioned, making fun of Will isn't making your position look any better.

What is "my position?"

Help me out here.

There are some claims on MDDB, that this thing is being used to discourage Will publishing a paper.

Currently, I don't think they are related. But poking these small jokes at Will, as I said, isn't helping.

[_TAO]

I have no idea. But as I mentioned, making fun of Will isn't making your position look any better.

It isn't making it any worse either. Whether or not one adds a bit of mockery to a factual claim backed with evidence does nothing to change the plausibility of the claim.

There is for instance no difference in the plausibility of these two claims:

"Mr X has a Mickey Mouse tattoo on his left buttock. To prove it, here is a photo and a notarized affidavit from the tattooist."

"Mr X has a Mickey Mouse tattoo on his left buttock. To prove it, here is a photo and a notarized affidavit from the tattooist. It makes him look really, really stupid - which is not difficult given how dumb he is in any case."

I wasn't clear as to what claim I was talking about. I'm talking about the relation between the thread and the paper.

[_Drifting]

There are some claims on MDDB, that this thing is being used to discourage Will publishing a paper.

Currently, I don't think they are related. But poking these small jokes at Will, as I said, isn't helping.

I think I can safely say that virtually everyone here is absolutely desperate for Will to publish a paper. I don't see how that eventuality will help William though.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

There are some claims on MDDB, that this thing is being used to discourage Will publishing a paper.

I, for one, would like to read the paper. I'm glad that BYU will not publish it (because Will's rampant public misogyny can only harm BYU's scholarly reputation, no matter how good the article is), but Will should post it on his blog for anyone to read and then judge the scholarship for themselves.