FAIR's Mike Parker: Will Schryver "admitted and apologized"?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I haven't read every page of the thread. Are we still pretending that Ludd is on a fact finding mission for someone else, or did he drop that façade at some point?

He dropped it. The fact is that Schryver/Ludd's reputation and ability to publish with BYU took a severe hit after the truth of his antics reached the MI, and now it has taken another hit in light of the rumors about his relationship with Nibley (which he himself helped to fuel). What you are seeing from him now is a last-ditch attempt to salvage whatever he can, but he's probably doomed.

[_Ludd]

The quotes from DCP hint that Ritner did something wrong and Gee had to petition to get him removed from the committee. Where is DCP's evidence? He has none. It's funny that you ask me for my source but not DCP.

!

What are you talking about? In the first place, this is a conversation from years ago. I wasn't involved in it. From what I can tell, Peterson is quoting Gee himself. That isn't evidence? Quoting the very person involved in the affair? :surprise:

I told you before I don't break confidences but you can see the same evidence I did if you do your homework.

Huh? Is it written in invisible ink somewhere?

But let me get this straight: you have evidence that Peterson was lying about this, but you can't show us the evidence. But if we "did our homework" then we'd see the same evidence that you can't give us because otherwise you'd be forced to "break confidences"?

And you wonder why this place has lost all credibility when it comes to these kinds of irresponsible allegations that you make here?

Unbelieveable!

If you really wanted to know what happened with Ritner and why, you would not be asking me.

Uh, weren't you the one who claimed to have the evidence in the first place?

Unreal. Absolutely unreal.

At any rate, you've basically answered my questions. This is just another irresponsible allegation that you have no evidence for, but because no one here ever questions the allegations, evidence is not necessary.

[_Ludd]

I haven't read every page of the thread. Are we still pretending that Ludd is on a fact finding mission for someone else, or did he drop that façade at some point?

The person who first asked me to make inquiries here found out pretty quickly that there was no credible evidence for the allegations that had been made. So they moved on without it. They will not be attempting to demonstrate that Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver have been guilty of offensive online behavior. There is no evidence for it.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Uh, weren't you the one who claimed to have the evidence in the first place?

Unreal. Absolutely unreal.

At any rate, you've basically answered my questions. This is just another irresponsible allegation that you have no evidence for, but because no one here ever questions the allegations, evidence is not necessary.

Get the evidence yourself. You know who to talk to. Why did I ever give you the benefit of the doubt? I hate being reminded that some people are more interested in winning than in truth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

An email from Ritner was posted here on this board. Come on, Will. This is weak stuff from you.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The person who first asked me to make inquiries here found out pretty quickly that there was no credible evidence for the allegations that had been made. So they moved on without it. They will not be attempting to demonstrate that Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver have been guilty of offensive online behavior. There is no evidence for it.

This alleged person must be a hell of a lot smarter than the GAs and BYU's administration. You hang out with a pretty stellar crowd.

[_Bob Loblaw]

An email from Ritner was posted here on this board. Come on, Will. This is weak stuff from you.

That's not evidence, but hearsay from DCP is. And this guy just wants the truth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Some excellent remarks from BHodges on the Millenial Star comments:

For the record:

I wouldn’t say I was ever “friends” with Will Schryver, but I had several exchanges with him online where I essentially told him that his behavior would be used as an excuse to ignore his actual scholarship. One such exchange resulted in his cancelling of a scheduled interview I was going to conduct with him on the FAIR Podcast regarding his work on the Joseph Smith papyrus. He felt my remarks were something like friendly fire, and thus relegated me to a category of apostate-enablers.

Note his rhetorical lumping of any criticism of him as consisting of “propaganda created by the MDB crowd.” I’m certainly not, nor have I ever been, part of any “crowd” at MDB, and I personally contacted Schryver via email as well as left comments which he responded to on another message board regarding his online antics. I can’t keep track of whether he defends them as being OK or whether he denies they ever occurred because if I recall correctly he’s done both of these things.

All this being said, I also grant that his arguments themselves vis a vis his scholarship can be analyzed apart from his online behavior, and that those who would dismiss his work (now unpublished) based on his being rude or crude are basically employing a form of the dreaded “ad hominem” fallacy against him. The pragmatic fact of the matter is, though, that image matters. I put my own somewhat on the line by even entering this discussion presently.


[...]

ps- I’m glad, given the way things have worked out, that I didn’t interview Schryver. But this is *not* because I believe his work is useless or wrong. In fact, I’m not conversant with it. It may very well be fine work. I’d like to see it published somewhere because it regards a very interesting and puzzling subject, From what I understand, he’s worked very hard on it. His behavior doesn’t necessarily compromise the quality of his research, which deserves to be assessed on its own merits. This can be done through blogs or other more open-access venues if no other publication is willing or able to publish it.

I myself, and my guess is many of you, have sometimes acted stupidly online, and the stone-throwing isn’t advancing the scholarship. (Provoking stone-throwers ain’t helping, either!)

[_Ludd]

I haven't read every page of the thread. Are we still pretending that Ludd is on a fact finding mission for someone else, or did he drop that façade at some point?

He dropped it. The fact is that Schryver/Ludd's reputation and ability to publish with BYU took a severe hit after the truth of his antics reached the MI, and now it has taken another hit in light of the rumors about his relationship with Nibley (which he himself helped to fuel). What you are seeing from him now is a last-ditch attempt to salvage whatever he can, but he's probably doomed.

I think there is reason to believe that Bradford was convinced by the allegations made here concerning Schryver. Whether or not that was the reason the article in question was not published, I don't know. From what I have seen, there were other political machinations in play at the time. I think it's very possible that Schryver's article was just a victim of the bigger conflict between Bradford and Peterson. That's what Peterson seemed to be saying in his email to Bradford.

[_Ludd]

Uh, weren't you the one who claimed to have the evidence in the first place?

Unreal. Absolutely unreal.

At any rate, you've basically answered my questions. This is just another irresponsible allegation that you have no evidence for, but because no one here ever questions the allegations, evidence is not necessary.

Get the evidence yourself. You know who to talk to. Why did I ever give you the benefit of the doubt? I hate being reminded that some people are more interested in winning than in truth.

You're hilarious!

First you post what you suggest is an example of Peterson being a liar.

I ask for the evidence.

You say, "get the evidence yourself".

Wow!