Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8091
- Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:07 am
Re: Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
I mentioned this in chat this evening.
I had a strange thought occur to me about Will's wife.
Might she take the final read on why Will's silly work not being published simply because he was flirting with a woman in a short black skirt and a loooooong jacket?
I had a strange thought occur to me about Will's wife.
Might she take the final read on why Will's silly work not being published simply because he was flirting with a woman in a short black skirt and a loooooong jacket?
New name: Boaz
The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 17063
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm
Re: Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
Manfred wrote:Please don't misunderstand; I don't necessarily approve of every moderator decision made at the MAD board, but it seems to me that discussing the recent Schyrver incident over there is in blatant violation of that board's clearly stated guidelines.
I mean no disrespect to MsJack, and I have no personal reason to not believe her account of being contacted by someone close to the situation at NAMI, but at the end of the day this whole ordeal is based on nothing but hearsay from some alleged anonymous source. Unless and until Will or someone speaking in an official capacity for NAMI chooses to comment, this whole subject invites nothing but speculation and gossip (clearly prohibited in MAD's board rules). What's more, it invites nothing but speculation and gossip about a registered member of the MAD board. This isn't tolerated over there, and this is, of course, nothing new. I would even submit that a thread speculating/gossiping about the personal affairs of Brent Metcalfe or Richard Abanes would be deleted from that board just as quickly.
Where am I wrong here?
manfred, I agree. Why should MD&D allow discussion of anything for that matter.
On the other hand, I will herald the greater latitude and freedom of speech I am allowed here every chance I get. Halelujah! for MDB.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4947
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm
Re: Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
Polygamy-Porter wrote:Those cats over on yonder board don't think that Dan's s*** stinks. So when he lays out a big steaming turd of a thread you can bet it will not get buried especially since his roadies seem to enjoy the warm stench that it gives off..
....and to think that this board is waxing apoplectic in thread after thread over Will's alleged vulgarities.
The silence regarding posts like this is deafening in a very telling way, and underscores yet again my point that the anti-Will threads are not about discouraging incivility and attempting to promote mutual respect and raise the level of discourse around here, but hypocritical targeting of certain opponents for smear campaigns.
Busted!
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:03 am
Re: Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
harmony wrote:
You aren't wrong. I agree completely. I think absolutely NOTHING should be discussed at MAD. Ever.
Oh, wait. That's the status quo already.
Nevermind
After reading a few threads over there this evening, I agree with your sentiments.
Maybe the "discussions" are to remind people who left, exactly why they left.
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13426
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm
Re: Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
wenglund wrote:....and to think that this board is waxing apoplectic in thread after thread over Will's alleged vulgarities.
Alleged? Come on Wade. You can't be that stupid can you?
The silence regarding posts like this is deafening in a very telling way, and underscores yet again my point that the anti-Will threads are not about discouraging incivility and attempting to promote mutual respect and raise the level of discourse around here, but hypocritical targeting of certain opponents for smear campaigns.
Busted!
I agree that you have been busted. Discouraging incivility and attepting to promote and raise the level of discourse starts with oneself. I suggest you start there.
42
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 22508
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm
Re: Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
wenglund wrote: ... my point that the anti-Will threads are not about discouraging incivility and attempting to promote mutual respect and raise the level of discourse around here, but hypocritical targeting of certain opponents for smear campaigns.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
So you are saying that the utterance of insulting vulgarities will be condemned by some since it fits their agenda and defended by others because Will is perceived as an avenging angel who says things others wish they could say if they had no decency filters to inhibit such remarks. That makes sense in a dimension were perfidy is met with an equally strong counter reaction.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4947
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm
Re: Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
moksha wrote:So you are saying that the utterance of insulting vulgarities will be condemned by some since it fits their agenda and defended by others because Will is perceived as an avenging angel who says things others wish they could say if they had no decency filters to inhibit such remarks.
I made no mention of defending Will. So, your interpretation of my comments is at best only half right.
But, you may take solace in the fact that being half right is well above the average around here.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13426
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm
Re: Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
wenglund wrote:But, you may take solace in the fact that being half right is well above the average around here.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
And way above average for you. :)
42
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4947
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm
Re: Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
Themis wrote:wenglund wrote:But, you may take solace in the fact that being half right is well above the average around here.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
And way above average for you. :)
As expected, you are entirely wrong in saying this (likely due to being clueless about the qualifying context for my comment), thus causing the average to go slightly down.
But, I do appreciate you unwittingly providing an object lesson that underscores what I said.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Re: Why *should* MAD permit discussion of the Schryver Scandal?
A few minutes ago Pahoran started a thread speculating as to whether some poster on CARM is Kevin G.
LOL! Really?
I have not been to the CARM forum in at least ten years. I've had nothing to do with any of the Evangelical forums since the time when I was operating as an LDS apologist.
But I love how Pahoran takes advantage of the opportunity to slander folks on a forum where he knows they cannot defend themselves (notice he didn't raise the point over here, nor did he ask me about it), and then turns around and pitches a fit if anyone dares mention his real life identity. What a hypocrite.