Boy, was I wrong

[Guest]

So:

(a) What reason do you have to think that someone 'threatened' the people at the Maxwell Institute to make them pull back from Schryver?

(b) What kind of threat do you think could have been effective against the Maxwell Institute in this instance?

Those are great questions. However, before answering for myself, I prefer to give another chance to the parties who may have been involved involved to either openly deny or admit to making the threats or knowing about the threats.

For the record, what say all of you: MsJack, Kevin, Kish, Stak, Buffalo, Chap, liz, harmony, beastie, Scratch, Spurven, Malkie, Sock Puppet, mortal man, Consig., etc.?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Won't wash. The idea that everybody here has to respond to your unevidenced ramblings before you have to justify yourself is laughable.

You are showing yourself up as a blowhard with no credibility. Put up or shut up.

[_Runtu]

Aside from the epic irony of Kevin Graham calling others "immoral morons," is anyone else puzzled by the fact that I have mentioned multiple times on this thread that there may have been threats involved, yet not a single denial, nor even a spark of interest, but a whole lot of careful dancing around the issue (and this in addition to the deflection/projection marathon)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Can you be more specific? What kinds of threats are you talking about? Admittedly, this thread lost my interest a long time ago, but I am curious as to what kinds of threats you may have heard of, as this is news to me.

[_Chap]

Aside from the epic irony of Kevin Graham calling others "immoral morons," is anyone else puzzled by the fact that I have mentioned multiple times on this thread that there may have been threats involved, yet not a single denial, nor even a spark of interest, but a whole lot of careful dancing around the issue (and this in addition to the deflection/projection marathon)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Can you be more specific? What kinds of threats are you talking about? Admittedly, this thread lost my interest a long time ago, but I am curious as to what kinds of threats you may have heard of, as this is news to me.

Sorry. First you have to deny or admit making any threats yourself or wenglund will hold aloof (I think you have to consider yourself covered by the 'etc.' in his subsequent post).

[_Runtu]

Sorry. First you have to deny or admit making any threats yourself or wenglund will hold aloof (I think you have to consider yourself covered by the 'etc.' in his subsequent post).

I haven't had anything to do with this whole sordid business beyond expressing my opinion on Will's posting history and the various responses to it. None of that has involved any threats to anyone, so I'm in the clear.

[_malkie]

Aside from the epic irony of Kevin Graham calling others "immoral morons," is anyone else puzzled by the fact that I have mentioned multiple times on this thread that there may have been threats involved, yet not a single denial, nor even a spark of interest, but a whole lot of careful dancing around the issue (and this in addition to the deflection/projection marathon)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Can you be more specific? What kinds of threats are you talking about? Admittedly, this thread lost my interest a long time ago, but I am curious as to what kinds of threats you may have heard of, as this is news to me.

Sorry. First you have to deny or admit making any threats yourself or wenglund will hold aloof (I think you have to consider yourself covered by the 'etc.' in his subsequent post).

Right - don't forget the dancing! - actually, careful dancing.

[_Kevin Graham]

On the Misogyny thread, there are roughly 350 posts by the numerous Willpologists including Will, droopy, wade, Pahoran, simon and Schryver's various sock puppets (malaise, Silver hammer, Nomad). That accounts for roughly 27% of all posts, nearly one in three. One of these defenders posted on every single page except for the two pages following Belienda Schryver's introduction. That's considerable if you understand that there are probably two dozen other posters that would fall into the "critic" category, along with another half dozen who are LDS and neutral on the matter.

I noted during the thread that Will was trying to drive up the number of pages to a record high just so he could stroke his ego with them. It seemed like every time interest in that thread came to a dead halt, Will or one of his sock puppets would post something out of the blue to kick start the thread again. For example:

1. There was a two day period of nothing at page 43. The stagnant thread was being pushed down the page, and then suddenly "Belinda Schryver" decided to grace us with her presence.

2. A similar trend took place when Nomad and Pahoran went on their little marathon posting run on that thread. Pahoran posted twenty times within a few pages and a couple of days before leaving. After posting nothing for weeks, Droopy decided to come back and bombard us with nine posts on the last two pages.

3. Saturday morning May 7th, Will posted a response to Scratch, and was ignored by subsequent posters for five days before Will returned to unleash a 19 post marathon over the next 24 hours.

There are probably more examples, but you get the point. The trend shows that the the Willpologists were every bit as responsible for the ridiculous duration of this thread, and it is most likely intentional. Will loves to brag about how important he is. He used to brag about how a thread he started at MAD was the most viewed thread in history, or something to that effect. Of course it was the first thread everyone saw upon entering the forum, which probably explains why more people had "clicked" on it than any other during that time.

[_Yoda]

Sorry. First you have to deny or admit making any threats yourself or wenglund will hold aloof (I think you have to consider yourself covered by the 'etc.' in his subsequent post).

I haven't had anything to do with this whole sordid business beyond expressing my opinion on Will's posting history and the various responses to it. None of that has involved any threats to anyone, so I'm in the clear.

Same here. I have not threatened anyone. I have expressed my opinion and shown support of MI's decision in this matter. Considering that I was one of the women Will insulted, I think that if anyone is justified to comment, I am.

Please be specific in the types of threats you are referring to, Wade. Since you mentioned my name...what threats have I supposedly made?

And, frankly, what do you think that I could say or do that could possibly influence MI? I have absolutely no connection with their organization whatsoever. Yes, I am an instructor in Higher Education, but in a completely different state, at a completely different school.

My desire in this whole instance has never been to squash Will's publishing efforts. Frankly, I was disappointed that Will's work was not going to be published.

My concern has always been with Will's behavior in an official capacity as an LDS apologist, representing the LDS Church. The LDS Church is MY church, Wade. I have a right to voice my opinions on how those who represent MY church act in a public arena.

Will failed to behave in an appropriate manner AS AN APOLOGIST. My desire as far as action with Will was three-fold:

1. I wanted to see him chastised by those whom he respected and would actually listen to.

2. I wanted him to acknowledge that his actions were inappropriate and apologize publicly.

3. I wanted him to refrain from future inappropriateness.

Frankly, the only action that I have seen come to pass is #1. And, unfortunately, it doesn't sound like Will actually took the chastisement to heart.

It is unfortunate.

As far as MI's decision not to publish Will's work is concerned....I don't agree with their decision, but I do respect it. I think that MI was looking out for their organization's reputation as part of BYU, which is directly tied to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

As I have stated previously, I sincerely hope that Will is able to find another venue for his publication. And, if his work is, indeed substantial, I am sure that won't be a problem.

So, Wade....now that I have repeated for the umpteenth time, my stance in all of this....Why don't you do me the courtesy of answering MY questions?

Who is it that you seem to think I threatened? Why?

Do you have so little faith in MI that you doubt they could investigate this incident appropriately? They don't strike me as the kind of organization that would make a haphazard decision.

Do you really believe that we, at MDB, have such a strong power of influence that we could actually trick writers and administrators employed by Brigham Young University? I, for one, trust their abilities. Why don't you?

Also, how do you explain that staunch defenders of the faith, some who are published and are familiar with BYU and MI agree with the evidence presented in Jack's thread?

[_Buffalo]

I admit it. It was me. I threatened to give the entire board purple nurples unless they made Schryver sit in the rickety old folding chair at the next Mopologist picnic. Apparently they're so protective of their nipples that they kicked Schryver out of the treehouse altogether. My bad.

[_malkie]

So:

(a) What reason do you have to think that someone 'threatened' the people at the Maxwell Institute to make them pull back from Schryver?

(b) What kind of threat do you think could have been effective against the Maxwell Institute in this instance?

Those are great questions. However, before answering for myself, I prefer to give another chance to the parties who may have been involved to either openly deny or admit to making the threats or knowing about the threats.

For the record, what say all of you: MsJack, Kevin, Kish, Stak, Buffalo, Chap, liz, harmony, beastie, Scratch, Spurven, Sock Puppet, mortal man, Consig., etc.?

So far, Malkie is on record as denies making threats or knowing about the threats.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I did deny making threats, but have not, until now, denied knowing about them - I didn't realize that that was also a requirement. So, now I also deny knowing about threats - apart from vague references by yourself, Wade, and perhaps other apologists - I just don't remember any more. However, I do maintain my denial of the dancing. (;=)

I have to wonder, though, why it matters to you - I didn't expect that you would believe a denial from someone like me (can you tell that you go to me with that one, Wade?).

[_Chap]

I think that any attempt to respond to wenglund's demand for denial is quite pointless.

Recall how it started. In the post that started this thread, he said:

Clearly, the threats and smear campaign from many here at MD worked in silencing Will Schryver even among his own.

Wenglund just throws out the word 'threats' with no justification. Unsurprisingly, this part of his post does not become a point of major interest for the discussion. The thread proceeds along other lines.

But now wenglund's paranoia gets to work. Nobody is denying that they made a threat ... so hey! everybody is obviously going to great lengths to say nothing about threats! What a give-away! Something is clearly going on here ...

So finally we got:

Aside from the epic irony of Kevin Graham calling others "immoral morons," is anyone else puzzled by the fact that I have mentioned multiple times on this thread that there may have been threats involved, yet not a single denial, nor even a spark of interest, but a whole lot of careful dancing around the issue (and this in addition to the deflection/projection marathon)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I then pointed out that I had in fact referred to and dismissed the 'threat' issue already, and asked:

(a) What reason do you have to think that someone 'threatened' the people at the Maxwell Institute to make them pull back from Schryver?

(b) What kind of threat do you think could have been effective against the Maxwell Institute in this instance?

To which he responded:

Those are great questions. However, before answering for myself, I prefer to give another chance to the parties who may have been involved to either openly deny or admit to making the threats or knowing about the threats.

We are being invited into wenglund's paranoia here ... to respond to him we have to talk about whether we made "the threats", Old Testament whether we knew about "the threats". But so far wenglund has not provided any reason whatsoever to think that anyone threatened anyone, or would even need to in order for the MI to have given Schryver the boot.

Those who want to join in by saying 'it wasn't me' are welcome of course. But isn't this response more appropriate, under the circumstances?

Put up or shut up.