DesNews: Maxwell Institute Will Still Do Apologetics

[_RayAgostini]

Ray's history with women is, needless to say, "checkered." I don't know why he would wander into a conversation like this without seriously reviewing his own history.

I don't know why you remain a cowardly anonymous assassin, self-righteously pointing your muddy finger at others in judgement, while you remain out of bounds because we don't know whether you're a convicted rapist or wife-basher in real life. No one knows your name, and no one can check on you. Not even Ms. Jack.

[_MsJack]

Your Schryver post here was spiteful, and revengeful. It was totally unnecessary, considering the vast majority of transgressions that have occurred here not only in regard to misogyny, and wiping some females off as "common sluts", which was, admittedly, before your time.

This is what's known as mansplainin', Ray, and it officially makes me think less of you. Who do you think you are to tell me what is and is not "necessary" when a man is aggressively sexualizing the women he engages? Especially when you never lifted a finger in protest? On top of this, I recall you flipping a gasket and becoming quite upset when a member of this forum called your daughters "crack whores." So defending your daughters was "necessary," but defending the women of this forum and female religious leaders from being called "bitch" and "loathsome specimen of womanhood" and "whore" isn't necessary? Wasn't so easy to shrug it all off when it was the women in your life who needed defending, was it?

I've already addressed your "but so many other people on this forum are misogynist" line of argument elsewhere. Go read what I wrote to you before and reply there if you wish.

[_3sheets2thewind]

My ax isn't sharp enough, or daring enough in the sense of fools go where angels fear to tread, to judge someone's character on 0.001% of what they've contributed to an Internet forum, and invite total public ridicule upon them because of this.

ray, what pathetic drivel. Will stated on this board "when in Rome" as it were concerning his conduct here.

Whether .001% or 100%, the damage is the same.

[_Drifting]

Your Schryver post here was spiteful, and revengeful. It was totally unnecessary, considering the vast majority of transgressions that have occurred here not only in regard to misogyny, and wiping some females off as "common sluts", which was, admittedly, before your time.

This is what's known as mansplainin', Ray, and it officially makes me think less of you. Who do you think you are to tell me what is and is not "necessary" when a man is aggressively sexualizing the women he engages? Especially when you never lifted a finger in protest? On top of this, I recall you flipping a gasket and becoming quite upset when a member of this forum called your daughters "crack whores." So defending your daughters was "necessary," but defending the women of this forum and female religious leaders from being called "bitch" and "loathsome specimen of womanhood" and "whore" isn't necessary? Wasn't so easy to shrug it all off when it was the women in your life who needed defending, was it?

I've already addressed your "but so many other people on this forum are misogynist" line of argument elsewhere. Go read what I wrote to you before and reply there if you wish.

You have to allow for Ray's style to be influenced by LDS teachings.
In other words, you're just a woman and you should listen carefully to and obey the words of a man. It's a serious problem that men brought up in the Church sometimes don't know they suffer from.

[_RayAgostini]

This is what's known as mansplainin', Ray, and it officially makes me think less of you. Who do you think you are to tell me what is and is not "necessary" when a man is aggressively sexualizing the women he engages? Especially when you never lifted a finger in protest? On top of this, I recall you flipping a gasket and becoming quite upset when a member of this forum called your daughters "crack whores."

It sounds like a nice story, but the problem is that no one on "this forum" ever called my daughters "crack whores". So you must have false memory syndrome, or something.

I've decided that your research isn't all that impressive, either, but I'll leave that for another post or thread.

So defending your daughters was "necessary," but defending the women of this forum and female religious leaders from being called "bitch" and "loathsome specimen of womanhood" and "whore" isn't necessary? Wasn't so easy to shrug it all off when it was the women in your life who needed defending, was it?

I've already addressed your "but so many other people on this forum are misogynist" line of argument elsewhere. Go read what I wrote to you before and reply there if you wish.

And my conclusion is that you're biased against Mormon apologists.

You wouldn't know how much, or to what degree, I support the progress of women.

You can take another look Here. Just read through my posts there.

All of my life, I have respected and honoured women and their achievements, not the least being my very own mother.

You didn't ask the most important women in Will Schryver's life to make a judgement on whether he's a "misogynist". That is, his wife and daughters. Why not email them and ask what they think? Then we might get some "context"?

But I know how strong the temptation to be popular here is, even when it goes contrary to the truth.

[_Darth J]

Yes, I have noted as much, and discussed my hopes, but it should also be noted that Peterson has mentioned that reviews will be published there, which suggests to me that there may be slams like the Compton piece or the scuttled Dehlin "review." We will just have to see.

Most Reviews in an academic journal do critique other academic work. It is the academic process. All academics know this. If Compton writes a book, it will be reviewed and critiqued if necessary. Now as far as Greg's piece, it should be published and John can respond if he wishes.

Why Me, I'm sure that as an outside observer of Mormonism, all of this fascinates you. But when you have a 100-page article---regardless of its tone---about some guy with a podcast apostatizing from your church, you have officially forfeited any pretense of being an academic journal.

[_Chap]

Ray ~ What I'm into is men not engaging the women they disagree with by sexualizing them. I don't care what % of a person's posts such instances comprise; I will speak out against it when I see it. The fact that I can't do that without being decried as an "anti-Mormon," "feminazi," "extreme feminist," "female supremacist," "conscienceless," "spiteful" and "outright man-hater" is pretty telling.

The fact that you take me to task for "demonisation" and then sit around on your derrière while your new BFFs say all of the above about me is also telling.

... But go ahead, Jack, and stand on your soap box, winning the approval and adoration of the very people you might otherwise despise, if you knew the truth.

I find it hard to think of a sillier rhetorical move than the underlined words. How does Ray A know that I am not one of the three Nephites? There is about as much and as little reason for believing that as there is for believing without evidence that I (or any body else on this board) am so depraved that MsJack would be ashamed to be on the same board as me.

By the way, if it is illegitimate for MsJack to complain about certain behaviors of a particular poster on this board that she finds offensive, it is just as illegitimate for Ray A to complain about those aspects of MsJack's online behavior that he does not find to his taste.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ray's history with women is, needless to say, "checkered." I don't know why he would wander into a conversation like this without seriously reviewing his own history.

I don't know why you remain a cowardly anonymous assassin, self-righteously pointing your muddy finger at others in judgement, while you remain out of bounds because we don't know whether you're a convicted rapist or wife-basher in real life. No one knows your name, and no one can check on you. Not even Ms. Jack.

Wow, Mr. Ray. That's kind of limiting. Maybe Dr. Scratch is a serial killer, too? Or perhaps he's a pimp who runs crack whores?

You're an angry guy. I'm not sure Mormonism is having a refining effect on you, brother. You may want to re-look that.

- VRDRC

[_Chap]

...

You're an angry guy. I'm not sure Mormonism is having a refining effect on you, brother. You may want to re-look that.

- VRDRC

So far as I can see, Ray A's life has made him an angry person. That's probably just bad luck: I suspect he is no more at fault in this than most of us.

I am not sure that his involvement with the CoJCoLDS and its critics has made him any angrier than he would otherwise have been - I guess that all it has done is to provide a convenient and safe focus for anger which might otherwise blast off in all kinds of unpredictable directions, including back towards Ray himself.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Could be... Sometimes the system you're in can have a certain kind of effect on you. What works for one personality type within the system has the exact opposite effect on another. My father mellowed out considerably when he left the Mormon church after having spent a lifetime involved with it. Then I look at my father-in-law you can clearly see the calming influence it has on him. Different guys, same system, different results.

I kinda sorta remember Mr. Ray before his re-conversion to Mormonism. I don't recall him being such a Simon Belmont, but with Anger Shark issues.

I think Mormonism, the system, is having a detrimental effect on Mr. Ray.

- VRDRC