DesNews: Maxwell Institute Will Still Do Apologetics

[_Kishkumen]

I find it hard to think of a sillier rhetorical move than the underlined words.

I'm afraid it is more than a silly rhetorical move. What Ray is saying is that he is aware of things that participants in this board have done that, in his view, make the hullabaloo over Will's errant fingers on the keyboard look pretty Mickey Mouse. Of course, the problem with his thinking is that he assumes Jack would suddenly give a pass to Will as the kind of person she wants to sit on a panel with if she were to find that you were an actual pimp.

[Guest]

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.

Whine me, are you mentally challenged? Have we not dedicated two threads, at the very least, to both establishing standard practice in the writing of scholarly book reviews, and detailing how the Review of old transgressed those practices repeatedly? Yes, you know we have, and so your fatuous "contribution" to this post is a pointless distraction.

Yes, we all know that scholars review books and publish those reviews in journals (in fact, I would wager I and a few others know this much better than you do). We also know that those book reviews are actually reviews of books, not reviews of posts on discussion boards, character assassinations, or witch hunts. So, no, Greg's piece on Dehlin, who has not written a book, was not a book review, just as the trashing of Compton based on her role as the moderator at a discussion board was not.

[_Kishkumen]

Even more bad news for you.

Thank you, Will. That means a lot. I have no doubt that the editors would love to receive an article from you on the KEP, and I for one hope that your work will appear in print via this and other venues. I'm glad we're friends again.

He should be condemned forthwith for calling a "proven misogynist", his "friend".

Am I PC-Tuned?

David lives his religion. He is an example to all. Certainly, he ought to be an example to you.

[_Chap]

I find it hard to think of a sillier rhetorical move than the underlined words.

I'm afraid it is more than a silly rhetorical move. What Ray is saying is that he is aware of things that participants in this board have done that, in his view, make the hullabaloo over Will's errant fingers on the keyboard look pretty Mickey Mouse. Of course, the problem with his thinking is that he assumes Jack would suddenly give a pass to Will as the kind of person she wants to sit on a panel with if she were to find that you were an actual pimp.

I am a legitimate businessman, providing travel and employment consultancy services to disadvantaged young women world-wide. Does that make it all right for Schryver?

[_Kishkumen]

I am a legitimate businessman, providing travel and employment consultancy services to disadvantaged young women world-wide. Does that make it all right for Schryver?

I guess in Ray's view it does. Like stemelbow, he thinks that Jesus' teaching about the mote and the beam applies to entire groups of people and organizations. So, if Jack posts on a board where some guys have done some shady things with the ladies, well, he sees her as having no right to judge Schryver for his online antics.

[_MsJack]

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.

You're right, I don't remember the specifics of what you-know-who said to you in a PM, given how quickly it was removed from the forum. But I remember that when it was your daughters being attacked, it upset you enough for you to speak out about it. Yet here you are lecturing me on what women should and should not speak up against. Shame on you, Ray.

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"?

Just like he didn't ask the most important Mormons in my life how I feel about Mormonism before calling me an "anti-Mormon," but I don't see you taking your new BFF to task for it.

I can't even imagine the shrieking about real-life stalking that would have ensued had I attempted to contact any women in his life to find out whether he behaves the same in his home as he does on the Internet. But I already explained all of this to you, and you ignored it.

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

And my conclusion is that you belong on my ignore list for drinking William Schryver's kool-aid and repeatedly making the same accusations that I have already patiently explained to you. Enjoy your stay there.

[_MsJack]

So, if Jack posts on a board where some guys have done some shady things with the ladies, well, he sees her as having no right to judge Schryver for his online antics.

I've spoken out repeatedly when I've seen other members of this forum say and do misogynist things, and will continue to do so, and Ray knows it. I wasn't there for the stuff that Ray wishes to take me to task for.

[_Kishkumen]

So, if Jack posts on a board where some guys have done some shady things with the ladies, well, he sees her as having no right to judge Schryver for his online antics.

I've spoken out repeatedly when I've seen other members of this forum say and do misogynist things, and will continue to do so, and Ray knows it. I wasn't there for the stuff that Ray wishes to take me to task for.

Yes, but it would seem that this does not matter to Ray. Unless you are willing to take everyone to task for every untoward thing they may have done in their interactions with the opposite sex, at any time in their participation on this board, then Ray will view you as a hypocrite.

It is quite a standard to hold anyone to, but there you have it: Ray's standard for warranted and just criticism.

Please ignore what is obviously an impertinent detail to Ray: that the people in question were not on the eve of publishing in the field of Mormon Studies in a journal run at BYU, and that you had no power in the decision making process regarding that publication.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

The "crack whore" comment was made either on Ex-Mo Social or Post-Mo. And you did "flip a gasket" over that one--it was the impetus for your previous "cycle" of attacking Church critics. The one MsJack has in mind involved someone telling you via PM that your daughters were "turning tricks."

[_Darth J]

Your daughters are crack whores, Ray.

For the love of Pete, Darth, was that really necessary?

Good luck publishing with the Maxwell Institute now!

Ah, Reverend Kishkumen, I see that you are making the same mistake that I once did. You appear to erroneously believe, as I used to, that we are to judge these things in terms of common decency.

However, according to experts in this area, it turns out that if Ray does not like my making vulgar, sexualized comments about his daughters, then it means that:

1. Ray is assassinating my character; or
2. Ray is simply furthering his agenda; or
3. Ray is terrified that my compelling theories will see the light of day; or
4. Ray hates everyone who shares any common beliefs with me; or
5. All of the above.