The Calculated Suppression Of Mormon Apologetics: The Case Of William Schryver

[ttribe]

In fact, it was the clear evidence of lack of thought and of the knee-jerk reactions by a number of posters holding your viewpoint that reminded me of an electronic lynch mob. When Will is accused of being dishonest and unprincipled, when he is told that if he (Will) worked in the poster's company, he would have fired him, lynch mob is indeed an apt description.

Umm, no it isn't an apt description. No one died, and there is no hate crime involved.

I'll say it again, though - I'd fire him if he acted this way in my firm.

Despite all your argument about "understanding, context, etc.", I can see you've made no effort, at all, to understand my position. Nevertheless, you've been a good, loyal, soldier. At least you can take that away from this thread.

[Calm]

Your condemnation presupposes that it is impossible that Will could have had any justification for using such language.

You are assuming that I (and others?) didn't try to understand before I (and others?) made my judgement. He did not just post his comments, he gave his commentary of explaining the context of what he did along with it. I read his posts, I read his justification, I tried to examine if his justification could have had effective results, I saw from what was posted by others that it likely did not unless his justification included something else he did not state. I believe I understood his given justifications. I came up with a couple of justifications that he did not list as possible explanations. To me his current stated justification and any additional ones I came up with on my own were inadequate. I have seen way too many writers and speakers manage to make some very harsh statements appropriately without descending into coarseness. Will is very intelligent and articulate. Why should I therefore expect less than that of him? So far his explanations---which I believe I understand well enough---leave something to be desired so at this point my judgment is that his usage was inappropriate.

There are plenty of ways, for example, to create absurd sexist statements to point out the ridiculousness of such an accusation in a certain situation without using coarseness or reference to physical abuse. There are plenty of other ways to condemn a woman for pettiness, nastiness and other negative attributes than calling her a "*****". If there is some unique quality in coarseness that Will required in his dialogue, his current given justifications, IIRC including that it is the typical quality of responses on that board, appear to me to be inadequate.

It seems to me you are ignoring the fact that he gave an explanation/justification of his behaviour that we have to base any judgment on appropriateness. And it seems to me is that you are asking us to accept that there might be additional explanations that would justify his actions which he has not taken that time to post about for some reason even though he has had plenty of time and opportunity to do so. That he has chosen not to and instead has merely criticize those who judge his use as inappropriate is his choice and thus he has to deal with the consequences of that choice.

If it is the default position (and I think it is) that coarseness is inappropriate, then when it is used someone should be able to demonstrate the justification. And if that justification given is found to be inadequate then unless you are suggesting we perpetually suspend judgment until we can come up with a judgment of appropriateness, I am not sure what more anyone can do with the information that Will has been willing to share.

[ttribe]

You are assuming that I (and others?) didn't try to understand before I (and others?) made my judgement. He did not just post his comments, he gave his commentary of explaining the context of what he did along with it. I read his posts, I read his justification, I tried to examine if his justification could have had effective results, I saw from what was posted by others that it likely did not unless his justification was something he did not state. I believe I understood his justifications that he has already given. I came up with a couple of justifications that he did not list as possible explanations. To me his current stated justification and any additional ones I came up with on my own were inadequate. I have seen way too many writers and speakers manage to make some very harsh statements appropriately without descending into coarseness. Will is very intelligent and articulate. Why should I therefore expect less than that of him? So far his explanations---which I believe I understand well enough---leave something to be desired so at this point my judgment is that his usage was inappropriate.

There are plenty of ways, for example, to create absurd sexist statements to point out the ridiculousness of such an accusation in a certain situation without using coarseness or reference to physical abuse. There are plenty of other ways to condemn a woman for pettiness, nastiness and other negative attributes than calling her a "*****". If there is some unique quality in coarseness that Will required in his dialogue, his current given justifications, IIRC including that it is the typical quality of responses on that board, appear to me to be inadequate.

It seems to me you are ignoring the fact that he gave an explanation/justification of his behaviour that we have to base any judgment on appropriateness. And it seems to me is that you are asking us to accept that there might be additional explanations that would justify his actions which he has not taken that time to post about for some reason even though he has had plenty of time and opportunity to do so. That he has chosen not to and instead has merely criticize those who judge his use as inappropriate is his choice and thus he has to deal with the consequences of that choice.

If it is the default position (and I think it is) that coarseness is inappropriate, then when it is used someone should be able to demonstrate the justification. And if that justification given is found to be inadequate then unless you are suggesting we perpetually suspend judgment until we can come up with a judgment of appropriateness, I am not sure what more anyone can do with the information that Will has been willing to share.

jwhitlock's argument also seems to presuppose that Will's actions are new. Anyone who has been around LDS apologetics online has seen this behavior by Will many times. Some of us have even patiently, and nicely, asked him to refrain; only to be rebuffed time and again. All this talk about "knee jerk" reactions and "rush to judgment" completely misses the point.

[Calm]

There are a few cases where I believe that coarseness is excusable and even acceptable from those who is not their usual way of speaking and who promote a usual standard of rejecting such in conversation, etc. One of those would be where there was immediate danger and the need to shock someone into attention. In such a case there is no time to think and if what comes out is coarse, then I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that. Another is where someone is surprised and is startled into saying something without thought.

These were not such a case. In fact, jwhitlock (and Will agreed with him) stated there would be a thoughtful reason for Will having done what he did and implied he took time to consider the decision to use such terms before using them.

add-on: It is understandable if, as ERayR states below, these occurrences were heat of the moment responses. And I would have a totally different reaction if this is how Will described them. I wouldn't say they were appropriate still though due to the context Will provides for them.

[Calm]

jwhitlock's argument also seems to presuppose that Will's actions are new. Anyone who has been around LDS apologetics online has seen this behavior by Will many times. Some of us have even patiently, and nicely, asked him to refrain; only to be rebuffed time and again. All this talk about "knee jerk" reactions and "rush to judgment" completely misses the point.

He may have had a point with me as far as the coarseness goes as I don't read the other board and thus have only encountered Will here where his aggressiveness does not, in my memory, make use of coarseness. However, I do think I have a right to make a judgment about Will's motivations in a particular case based my understanding of his own claims as to why he was motivated especially given that Will posted his comments to justify his actions...IOW he was soliciting a judgment, though the one he likely wanted was of acceptance.

If he didn't want to be judged, then he shouldn't have posted his comments along with justifications of why he said such things.

[ERayR]

Cal, it is evident at this point that you have firmly cemented yourself in your viewpoint, and have no desire to understand or address the real point that I am trying to make about all this. The flaw in your continued demands that I find some rationalization for coarseness is that Church leaders are never going to come out and give a laundry list of circumstances and words and rules by which they can or cannot be used. They can only give general counsel and ask us to use the guidance of the Spirit in following it.

Your condemnation presupposes that it is impossible that Will could have had any justification for using such language. You are unwilling to look beyond that supposition, and hence you are unwilling to understand the point I have been trying to make in all this. You misrepresented my own comments not too long ago, and then when I corrected it, you didn't even respond to that, but instead complained that I was making no effort to understand you. Understanding appears to go only one direction, from your viewpoint.

The fact is, no one on this thread on your side of the debate has made any particular effort to consider why understanding of context, background, and intent are necessary in all cases - even in the case of coarse language - before rushing to judgment. It is irrelevant that you think you have been taught that this must always be the case; I have supplied quite a number of examples from the scriptures and from real life why this rush to judgment and this unflinching rejection and condemnation of coarse language is NOT the right thing to do in all cases.

And yet no one has yet directly addressed that point in any kind of cogent fashion.

The only thing I need to point out about such a rigid standard of coarseness is that there are exceptions. You have ignored that, too. I have pointed out that I understand that coarseness is typically not appropriate, but I have also pointed out that understanding needs to come before judgment in such cases. You evidently disagree because you are unwilling to step even one inch outside of the box you have built for yourself on this subject. That's really too bad.

There are some, such as ERayR on this thread, that I think have made a good effort to present a viewpoint of concern that is more thoughtful. I respect that and commend that.

On the other hand, I thoroughly resent the insinuations of how you use the "thoughtful posters" phrase above. Quite a number of posters supporting your position have been clearly unwilling to think outside of their own narrow judgmentalism in this case, which is hardly thoughtful. In addition, to infer that only your position involves "thoughtfulness" seems to indicate that my posts - which again, you haven't really tried to understand, based on your comments - are not thoughtful.

In fact, it was the clear evidence of lack of thought and of the knee-jerk reactions by a number of posters holding your viewpoint that reminded me of an electronic lynch mob. When Will is accused of being dishonest and unprincipled, when he is told that if he (Will) worked in the poster's company, he would have fired him, lynch mob is indeed an apt description.

I think this quote from you epitomizes exactly how you've missed my point: "It would seem to me rather then requiring us to simply assume that it was appropriate in these situations, that Will should demonstrate why these should be exceptions to the rule." I never said that we should just assume that it was appropriate. I said that we should try to understand before passing judgment. There's a huge difference between the two. What happened here was, in fact, an assumption by you and others from the start that it was inappropriate. Your demand that Will justify himself, and that until he does, you'll go ahead and judge his actions negatively makes, to me, the statement that you don't have any responsibility to try to understand.

And that, to me, is what is disturbing about this whole thing.

Let me try as gently as I know how. You say "understanding of context, background, and intent are necessary in all cases - even in the case of coarse language" This is certainly true in order to understand why he may have felt the need at the time. However as I have stated before "I have been guilty in my past of being course at times but as I have grown older I have come to realize that coarseness is not acceptable in our interactions with others in any circumstance. There are a lot of good people who interact with coarseness but that in no way excuses it. I can certainly understand the lure of interacting that way with some people in some circumstances but that doesn't excuse such." While such discourse may be understandable it is not acceptable, especially from someone who has the eloquence to express themselves otherwise.

This mysterious unwillingness to admit, that while ample provocation was present, an educated person with the ability to express your thoughts in a more acceptable manner baffles me. We all have our less than stellar moments but great lessons are learned when we admit our fallibility and to correct them.This stubborn refusal to admit a minor error in judgement in the heat of a battle is leaving a cloud over whatever else you do. Please step back and reevaluate your stand. While totally understandable, the provocation does not justify coarseness.

[Calm]

I said that we should try to understand before passing judgment.

I am wondering if you are applying the same standard of understanding and charity to all in discussion here. If so, it is honestly rather hard for me to see it with the extreme term "lynch mob". Dogpile, I get, as there are a lot speaking up though I am probably the one using up the most bandwidth. I don't see "lynch mob" since I don't see massive calling for Will to be kicked off the board, not allowed to publish (in fact I've seen the opposite and I for one totally agree with this, his work should be published), or any other calls for punitive actions not do I see much---though some I wouldn't qualify it as "mobbish"--condemning of Will himself, rather it is his actions that are being seen as inappropriate.

[Calm]

This mysterious unwillingness to admit, that while ample provocation was present, an educated person with the ability to express your thoughts in a more acceptable manner baffles me. We all have our less than stellar moments but great lessons are learned when we admit our fallibility and to correct them.This stubborn refusal to admit a minor error in judgement in the heat of a battle is leaving a cloud over whatever else you do. Please step back and reevaluate your stand. While totally understandable, the provocation does not justify coarseness.

Thank you for being eloquent and precise in your comments. I probably should just stop talking and let you speak for me as you are doing much better than I am.

[William Schryver]

Anyone who has been around LDS apologetics online has seen this behavior by Will many times.

ttribe,

This is a lie.

Were it true, the folks at MDB would have documented these "many times". They haven't, because they can't!

If you continue to maintain that coarse language has been a pattern in my online communications, then you are a liar, too. Because it has not been a pattern. What they previously cited is the absolute full extent of my online "coarseness." And I think you know it. But you don't like me, for whatever reason. And because you don't like me, you are apparently willing to join in with the apostate evangelists and their anti-Mormon cohorts in claiming that my message board posting history has been typified by such behavior.

Approximately one dozen posts, containing, at the very worst, language that would bring (at the very most) a PG-13 rating in an American movie. .001% of my posting history containing two or three instances of my employing the word "****" towards a pair of women whose own online posting history has been typified by relentless attacks on the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ.

So do not attempt to pretend that I have been guilty of coarse language "many times," or that my online behavior has been marked by a pattern of vulgarity, profanity, or misogyny--for if you do, you make yourself a liar, and one who is willing to condemn someone whose actual message board posting history has been typified by a bold defense of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ.

[ttribe]

ttribe,

This is a lie.

Were it true, the folks at MDB would have documented these "many times". They haven't, because they can't!

If you continue to maintain that coarse language has been a pattern in my online communications, then you are a liar, too. Because it has not been a pattern. What they previously cited is the absolute full extent of my online "coarseness." And I think you know it. But you don't like me, for whatever reason. And because you don't like me, you are apparently willing to join in with the apostate evangelists and their anti-Mormon cohorts in claiming that my message board posting history has been typified by such behavior.

Approximately one dozen posts, containing, at the very worst, language that would bring (at the very most) a PG-13 rating in an American movie. .001% of my posting history containing two or three instances of my employing the word "****" towards a pair of women whose own online posting history has been typified by relentless attacks on the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ.

So do not attempt to pretend that I have been guilty of coarse language "many times," or that my online behavior has been marked by a pattern of vulgarity, profanity, or misogyny--for if you do, you make yourself a liar, and one who is willing to condemn someone whose actual message board posting history has been typified by a bold defense of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ.

Will, I don't have any antipathy toward you. I've already said as much. I confronted you in times past and you blew me off. I was there when you went after Kimberly Ann and you blew me off. I've pointed out, more than once, that your behavior was detracting from your message, and you blew me off. That fact that, now, after all this you are resorting to calling me a liar is just, well, sad. I'm sorry you can't engage in any self-reflection on this. I'm sorry you look at any amount of criticism as a symbol of apostasy and hate. You are welcome to disagree with me, but don't ascribe lying as my method. It's just not right.

You have been a tireless defender of the faith. But, as I've pointed out to you before, you can be unduly harsh and even crude. I don't accept that the ends justify the means. Maybe you do, or maybe you really don't believe your methods have ever been substandard. I don't know. Nevertheless, lashing out at me like this will not help your case. I walked away from LDS apologetics because of the type of behavior we are discussing here. I got caught up in the warrior's mentality for a time and hurt some people. I now regret that because I think there was a better way. You've hurt people too and I'd hoped, for your sake, that you would come to recognize that. I broke my silence to participate in this thread because I thought it wrong for you to paint the picture you were - that you'd not contributed to this mess you blogged about. Surely, there are some who do hate you and would like to see you silenced. I'm not one of them. Nor is everyone who disagrees with you; even passionately. You can, of course, go forward and badmouth me all you want. That's a choice you can make. But I hope that what you'd really see is someone who was trying to get you to come around to a better way. It's up to you.

[Analytics]

Approximately one dozen posts, containing, at the very worst, language that would bring (at the very most) a PG-13 rating in an American movie. .001% of my posting history containing two or three instances of my employing the word "****" towards a pair of women whose own online posting history has been typified by relentless attacks on the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ.

Just doing the math here, if you've used "course language" a dozen times, at that that represents 0.001% of your posting history, that implies that you've made 1.2 million posts. I'm impressed.

In any case, don't forget that you've also directed this language at Joseph Smith's wife. I'm sure he'd give you a high-five for doing so.

[William Schryver]

Will, I don't have any antipathy toward you.

Yes you do, but I really couldn't care less.

... you can be ... crude.

I can be. But I haven't been, as the overwhelmingly general rule.

My pattern of posting has NOT been typified by "crudeness." Not at all. Out of 10,000+ posts, only .001% have contained anything that could be accurately characterized as "crude." You continue to imply otherwise. This is a lie.

I got caught up in the warrior's mentality for a time and hurt some people.

I'm sorry you hurt some people.

I, on the other hand (to paraphrase Porter Rockwell), have never hurt anyone that didn't need hurting.

I now regret that because I think there was a better way.

Good for you and your better way. I welcome you to pursue online dialogue as you choose, and demand the same right for myself.

You've hurt people too ...

Again, if it is true I have "hurt" people (I very seriously doubt it), I will only repeat that I have never hurt anyone that didn't need hurting.

But I hope that what you'd really see is someone who was trying to get you to come around to a better way.

If a "better way," to you, signifies avoiding vulgarity or profanity in my online posts, I've sucessfully done so 99.9% of the time out of 10,000+ posts. I have no doubt your record is better than that, but I'm afraid I am apparently not capable of doing as well as you.

[ttribe]

Yes you do, but I really couldn't care less.

I allow you the courtesy of articulating your own motives. You could allow me the same.

Again, if it is true I have "hurt" people (I very seriously doubt it), I will only repeat that I have never hurt anyone that didn't need hurting.

How do you go about making that determination? "Need hurting?"

[William Schryver]

How do you go about making that determination? "Need hurting?"

Let's just say I have a special gift of discernment when it comes to such things.

In any case, it is something I reserve for very special and very rare instances.

[MorningStar]

Will, in your blog post you said you wanted a chance to defend yourself and you were told it didn't matter if it was true or not - it would be taken to the media if MI published your paper.

I don't think the people who collected your worst posts and passed them on did so out of concern for anyone. They just strongly dislike you, so they spun it in a way that they thought would capture the most attention. "Look how Will Schryver talks to women! How horrible!" Meanwhile, the same people have no problem with Juliann being insulted. From what I've read, you are just as likely to say insulting things to men as women. You're an equal opportunity insulter. You have been an informative poster, but also a pretty combative one.

Anyone could have just as easily Googled your name and encountered the offending comments as employers sometimes do these days. Deciding to be "coarse" on the Internet using your real name is something that can come back to haunt you. It was a risk even if you didn't make anyone on that board angry.

If you had been given the opportunity to defend yourself, the explanations you have provided here would not have made things better at all. A lot of us know the board history/drama, but viewing the comments "in context" still doesn't make them any more palatable.

In your blog post you said, "There immediately ensued (as those familiar with the place can well imagine) a veritable orgy of jubilant celebration at Mormon Discussions."

Why the word orgy? Out of all the descriptive words you could have chosen, why make group sex pop into people's minds? And even if the posts in question makes up 0.01% of your overall posts, I think the most helpful thing you can do is to admit you took things too far and that calling Harmony and Beastie b***** was not the right thing to do even if that's how you feel about them. I have said plenty of things in my life out of anger, fear, hurt, etc., but I know it wasn't coming from the Spirit.

People are trying to tell you gently that there is a better way to make the same points. They are hoping this will be a learning experience and a lot of people do want to read your paper.

[jwhitlock]

And part of that understanding and context would be the authorization of those who used such language to condemn those who God judged as sinful.

I would consider the prophets of the current Church those authorized to do so at this time. I don't believe that someone should take on the role of that level of condemnation with such language applied to specific individuals just because he feels like it or even because he feels called to it. I don't trust people's ability to self analyze their own motivations to condemn others sufficiently enough to accept such a "calling" on trust alone. Nor do I think simply having the priesthood gives one enough discernment to engage in such behaviour attacking specific people in such a way. Nowhere in the scriptures or the teachings of the modern prophets can one find such justification of selfappointed missions, in my opinion. Feel free to point out anything does.

Authorization to rebuke comes to anyone by the Spirit (per D&C 121) and is not limited in the way you claim it is. Since we are commanded to all be prophets in our own right, this is an artificial limitation you're creating here.

While it's you're prerogative not to trust people's ability as you've expressed here, it's also an indication of where you're coming from. You don't trust Will to have enough self determination or direction by the Spirit or anything to be able to validate his language in this case. It's an artificial limitation. Your assumption concerning self appointed missions is also speculation on your part, and is not the only possibility for what's happening here.

I understand fully where you're coming from. You presume Will to be guilty until proven innocent - precisely because of what you've described here - while a trust Will enough to presume him innocent until proven guilty. That's a foundational difference that we're not going to get past.

[ttribe]

Let's just say I have a special gift of discernment when it comes to such things.

In any case, it is something I reserve for very special and very rare instances.

Does that include you calling me a "liar"?

[jwhitlock]

Umm, no it isn't an apt description. No one died, and there is no hate crime involved.

I'll say it again, though - I'd fire him if he acted this way in my firm.

Despite all your argument about "understanding, context, etc.", I can see you've made no effort, at all, to understand my position. Nevertheless, you've been a good, loyal, soldier. At least you can take that away from this thread.

Fine. I'll avoid "lynch mob" and instead use "dogpile" since Cal seems to think that's appropriate.

And I'd hate to work for you. I have some understanding of the complex issues of personal privacy and social networks in relation to employment, and your knee jerk statement that you would automatically punish an employee for his non-work, private activities would not only get you into trouble, but indicate a level of employer control that is distasteful to me.

Not to mention your accusations of dishonesty and unprincipled behavior, which you seem to be strangely quiet about.

I do have a good understanding of your position. Given some of the attitudes you've displayed on this thread, as you've gone into attack mode, I'm reasonably sure that you're not interested in understanding anything outside of your predetermined viewpoint on this. A real discussion requires some attempt to understand, and you have not once been able to represent back to me what I really was trying to say. I can see why Will has been generally frustrated with you.

[Calm]

I understand fully where you're coming from. You presume Will to be guilty until proven innocent - precisely because of what you've described here - while a trust Will enough to presume him innocent until proven guilty. That's a foundational difference that we're not going to get past.

Absolutely not. Will has made his case. I didn't judge him until after he had done so.

[ttribe]

Fine. I'll avoid "lynch mob" and instead use "dogpile" since Cal seems to think that's appropriate.

And I'd hate to work for you. I have some understanding of the complex issues of personal privacy and social networks in relation to employment, and your knee jerk statement that you would automatically punish an employee for his non-work, private activities would not only get you into trouble, but indicate a level of employer control that is distasteful to me.

[sigh] I said if this was done in my office. Give it a rest.

Not to mention your accusations of dishonesty and unprincipled behavior, which you seem to be strangely quiet about.

I do have a good understanding of your position. Given some of the attitudes you've displayed on this thread, as you've gone into attack mode, I'm reasonably sure that you're not interested in understanding anything outside of your predetermined viewpoint on this. A real discussion requires some attempt to understand, and you have not once been able to represent back to me what I really was trying to say. I can see why Will has been generally frustrated with you.

Speaking of attack modes.

[jwhitlock]

You are assuming that I (and others?) didn't try to understand before I (and others?) made my judgement. He did not just post his comments, he gave his commentary of explaining the context of what he did along with it. I read his posts, I read his justification, I tried to examine if his justification could have had effective results, I saw from what was posted by others that it likely did not unless his justification included something else he did not state. I believe I understood his given justifications. I came up with a couple of justifications that he did not list as possible explanations. To me his current stated justification and any additional ones I came up with on my own were inadequate. I have seen way too many writers and speakers manage to make some very harsh statements appropriately without descending into coarseness. Will is very intelligent and articulate. Why should I therefore expect less than that of him? So far his explanations---which I believe I understand well enough---leave something to be desired so at this point my judgment is that his usage was inappropriate.

There are plenty of ways, for example, to create absurd sexist statements to point out the ridiculousness of such an accusation in a certain situation without using coarseness or reference to physical abuse. There are plenty of other ways to condemn a woman for pettiness, nastiness and other negative attributes than calling her a "*****". If there is some unique quality in coarseness that Will required in his dialogue, his current given justifications, IIRC including that it is the typical quality of responses on that board, appear to me to be inadequate.

It seems to me you are ignoring the fact that he gave an explanation/justification of his behaviour that we have to base any judgment on appropriateness. And it seems to me is that you are asking us to accept that there might be additional explanations that would justify his actions which he has not taken that time to post about for some reason even though he has had plenty of time and opportunity to do so. That he has chosen not to and instead has merely criticize those who judge his use as inappropriate is his choice and thus he has to deal with the consequences of that choice.

If it is the default position (and I think it is) that coarseness is inappropriate, then when it is used someone should be able to demonstrate the justification. And if that justification given is found to be inadequate then unless you are suggesting we perpetually suspend judgment until we can come up with a judgment of appropriateness, I am not sure what more anyone can do with the information that Will has been willing to share.

I came to a somewhat different conclusion after reviewing the same evidence, and considering possibilities that you may not have thought of. I also explained why I could consider such possibilities given my background and my current environment. If you are unable to accept that someone else may have a different perspective that you are unaware of, and if you are so sure of the completeness and validity of your own perspective, then you've missed something significant.

I learned long ago that my perspective can be incomplete and that I need to be carefuly in any judgment that I make. As I noted before, I've also tried to develop an innocent until proven guilty attitude, which appears to be a difference between us both.

[Calm]

f you are unable to accept that someone else may have a different perspective that you are unaware of, and if you are so sure of the completeness and validity of your own perspective, then you've missed something significant.

Please show me where I've said someone could not have a different perspective.

You are the one who has been telling me my perspective is wrong, I believe. I've been defending my perspective, not telling you yours is wrong.

As I noted before, I've also tried to develop an innocent until proven guilty attitude, which appears to be a difference between us both.

Yet again and hopefully for the last time, Will presented his case...and I judged him "guilty" for these specific occurrences he himself posted based on his explanation of why he posted them. He seems satisfied with his case since he has not offered additional clarifications. What else more would have been appropriate?

[jwhitlock]

He may have had a point with me as far as the coarseness goes as I don't read the other board and thus have only encountered Will here where his aggressiveness does not, in my memory, make use of coarseness. However, I do think I have a right to make a judgment about Will's motivations in a particular case based my understanding of his own claims as to why he was motivated especially given that Will posted his comments to justify his actions...IOW he was soliciting a judgment, though the one he likely wanted was of acceptance.

If he didn't want to be judged, then he shouldn't have posted his comments along with justifications of why he said such things.

I think you miss the point - though Will can clarify, if he wants - about his motiviations.

I doubt he wanted acceptance. I think he expected judgment. He wanted people to read it. He wanted it all out there.

I find that interesting and somewhat unusual. And since looking for and trying to understand motivations is one of my primary drivers, I felt it necessary to look for what I considered the real reasons behind his comments, rather than rushing to judgment. And when I use the term "rushing to judgment", even if one has observed a situation for some time, if they have already made up their mind about things early on in the process, they have indeed rushed to judgment.

[jwhitlock]

Let me try as gently as I know how. You say "understanding of context, background, and intent are necessary in all cases - even in the case of coarse language" This is certainly true in order to understand why he may have felt the need at the time. However as I have stated before "I have been guilty in my past of being course at times but as I have grown older I have come to realize that coarseness is not acceptable in our interactions with others in any circumstance. There are a lot of good people who interact with coarseness but that in no way excuses it. I can certainly understand the lure of interacting that way with some people in some circumstances but that doesn't excuse such." While such discourse may be understandable it is not acceptable, especially from someone who has the eloquence to express themselves otherwise.

This mysterious unwillingness to admit, that while ample provocation was present, an educated person with the ability to express your thoughts in a more acceptable manner baffles me. We all have our less than stellar moments but great lessons are learned when we admit our fallibility and to correct them.This stubborn refusal to admit a minor error in judgement in the heat of a battle is leaving a cloud over whatever else you do. Please step back and reevaluate your stand. While totally understandable, the provocation does not justify coarseness.

ERay - I appreciate your candor, but as I expressed earlier in another post, excusing or justifying the coarseness itself had no relevance to the point I was trying to make. After quite a bit of additional outside research during this thread, while I readily admit (and have done so consistently during this thread) that coarseness is generally inappropriate, I cannot agree with the claim that it must never be used. That exception will never be done away with until this temporal existence is done away with.

It's not a matter of "there was no other way to express it". I'm sure there was. However, it is what it is, and it was deliberate on Will's part, and there was a reason for it other than just the heat of the battle. It had nothing to do with the provocation, but appeared to be a measured response. I'm willing to be corrected on that perception by Will, if it is incorrect.

With that in mind, I hardly consider my stand a minor (or any other) error in judgment. I haven't made my stand in the heat of battle. I understood (and stated as much) that I knew my perspective on this would be unpopular. I'm not posting this just to stir anything up. I think about what's written, I consider the sources, I consider the tone, and I consider the arguments made, and again, the whole purpose of my posting has been to point out that there is and continues to be a deliberate lack of effort on the part of some to understand Will's perspective and motivation in what and how he posts. I've been as open as I possibly could about the reasons for my stand, only to see others totally ignore that and instead concentrate on debate in support of their own stands. That's why I have been so adamant about the lack of effort to understand in this thread. It's not only about what Will has posted, but what I have posted.

That's it. I don't take a stand because everyone else is thinking that way. I take it because I feel it's right, for me, if for no one else. I've explained myself as well as I can, and if that gets ignored, then so be it.

[jwhitlock]

I am wondering if you are applying the same standard of understanding and charity to all in discussion here. If so, it is honestly rather hard for me to see it with the extreme term "lynch mob". Dogpile, I get, as there are a lot speaking up though I am probably the one using up the most bandwidth. I don't see "lynch mob" since I don't see massive calling for Will to be kicked off the board, not allowed to publish (in fact I've seen the opposite and I for one totally agree with this, his work should be published), or any other calls for punitive actions not do I see much---though some I wouldn't qualify it as "mobbish"--condemning of Will himself, rather it is his actions that are being seen as inappropriate.

Are you that unaware of the terms that have been applied to Will, and the misrepresentations that have been made of what I have posted, to think that it's as one-sided as you portray it here?

It isn't.