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

[William Schryver]

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.

The fact of the matter is that those people hate me because of the things I have said to them in the 99.9% of the posts that contained no vulgarity or profanity, but which did constitute "rebukes" of them and the evil of their apostate ways.

I do not pretend that the Spirit prompted me to use profanity in those extremely rare instances where I did. No, but I will say that I was prompted to rebuke them those many times I did when I did NOT use any coarse language.

Again, the fact of the matter is that I have VERY RARELY used coarse language. If people here or elsewhere want to condemn me for the .001% of the time I may have used coarse language, that is their prerogative, but I'm not going to wring my hands or hang my head in shame over using a couple mild profanities in the course of 6+ years of message board posting.

[Calm]

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.

I am not sure what you are responding to since I was only referring to the usage of the term "lynch mob".

[William Schryver]

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?

Are you serious?

I guess you are.

Well, then, here's my reply: "orgy" is exactly the appropriate word to describe the jubilant celebrations that frequently occur at MDB.

People are trying to tell you gently that there is a better way to make the same points.

You mean the way I do things 99.9% of the time?

They are hoping this will be a learning experience ...

Oh, it's been a learning experience, that's for certain. But not the kind I think you have in mind.

Again, the fact of the matter is that I have VERY RARELY used coarse language. It's not my style. It never has been.

If people here or elsewhere want to condemn me for the .001% of the time I may have used coarse language, that is their prerogative, but I'm not going to wring my hands or hang my head in shame over using a couple mild profanities in the course of 6+ years of message board posting.

[William Schryver]

I am not sure what you are responding to since I was only referring to the usage of the term "lynch mob".

"Lynch Mob" is precisely the accurate term to describe the majority of posters at MDB in relation to their actions towards me and Dan Peterson. Precisely.

[William Schryver]

Does that include you calling me a "liar"?

If you insist on suggesting that my typical pattern of behavior in 6+ years of online posting has consisted of vulgarity, profanity, misogyny, etc., then you are a liar. Because it is demonstrably untrue.

[ERayR]

Are you serious?

I guess you are.

Well, then, here's my reply: "orgy" is exactly the appropriate word to describe the jubilant celebrations that frequently occur at MDB.

You mean the way I do things 99.9% of the time?

Oh, it's been a learning experience, that's for certain. But not the kind I think you have in mind.

Again, the fact of the matter is that I have VERY RARELY used coarse language. It's not my style. It never has been.

If people here or elsewhere want to condemn me for the .001% of the time I may have used coarse language, that is their prerogative, but I'm not going to wring my hands or hang my head in shame over using a couple mild profanities in the course of 6+ years of message board posting.

Gentle doesn't work so here it is: The persecution complex doesn't become you and detracts from you overall.

[jwhitlock]

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

Speaking of attack modes.

You said nothing of the sort. I quote: "I will just say, if Will was at my firm and had conducted himself like this, he wouldn't just be disciplined. I'd fire him. End of story."

When it comes to attack modes, you get back what you sow.

[William Schryver]

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.

Do you believe "coarseness" is an accurate term to describe my typical mode of language in 6+ years of message board posting, a good portion of which you have been in a position to observe?

[William Schryver]

Gentle doesn't work so here it is: The persecution complex doesn't become you and detracts from you overall.

I don't have a persecution complex, although it is undeniable that I have been an almost constant target of persecution for many years now.

Do you believe "coarseness" is an accurate term to describe my typical mode of language in 6+ years of message board posting, a good portion of which you have been in a position to observe?

[William Schryver]

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.

Math is not my strong suit. I guess it should be .01% of the time. Boy, that sure makes it a lot worse, doesn't it?

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.

I did not do that.

[mapman]

Are you serious?

I guess you are.

Well, then, here's my reply: "orgy" is exactly the appropriate word to describe the jubilant celebrations that frequently occur at MDB.

Um? My dictionary says an orgy is "a wild gathering marked by promiscuous sexual activity,excessive drinking, etc". I assume that you don't think that that was literally what was happening, so your sexualizing of the incident is bizarre, to say the least. I think that "jubilant celebrations" would be a far more appropriate description.

[ttribe]

You said nothing of the sort. I quote: "I will just say, if Will was at my firm and had conducted himself like this, he wouldn't just be disciplined. I'd fire him. End of story."

When it comes to attack modes, you get back what you sow.

Okay, I'll clarify. I only meant that to refer to conduct in the work place. I assure I had no "private" acts in mind when I made that statement. Plus, there was the context of Mr. Crockett's statement. Perhaps you can call me a "liar" now too. You're prerogative.

It's clear my opinion is neither welcomed nor am I given the courtesies you demand for yourselves. I'll call it done and go back to staying away from this place. I stood up as a witness to Will's behavior when certain acts were "categorically denied" and that's all I intended to comment on. I hate the tone LDS apologetics has taken; it's nothing but rancor and ugliness anymore. Take your victories, but they're Pyrrhic, I assure you.

[jwhitlock]

I am not sure what you are responding to since I was only referring to the usage of the term "lynch mob".

You reprimand me for my use of "lynch mob" as some kind of evidence of lack of understanding and charity, while pointedly ignoring the inflammatory language of other posters on your side of things. You did the same thing in an earlier post when you used "thoughtful posters" for those on your side of the POV.

What on earth do you expect me to think when it comes to being "one sided"?

[ERayR]

I don't have a persecution complex, although it is undeniable that I have been an almost constant target of persecution for many years now.

Do you believe "coarseness" is an accurate term to describe my typical mode of language in 6+ years of message board posting, a good portion of which you have been in a position to observe?

No I do not and that has been one of the things I liked about your posts. Do I think your tiny little bit of coarseness was in error? Yes I do. I think that in your position you should hold yourself above that. One can get sharp without stooping to coarseness. Please understand I say this not to condemn you but to give you something that I think will only help you in the future. If you have made an error say "sorry folks I don't know what came over me" then drown them with a vocabulary and reasoning they haven't the ability to understand.

I don't know you personally but shucks man I love ya.

[William Schryver]

You said nothing of the sort. I quote: "I will just say, if Will was at my firm and had conducted himself like this, he wouldn't just be disciplined. I'd fire him. End of story."

When it comes to attack modes, you get back what you sow.

It's amazing isn't it?

ttribe is saying that if he found out one of his employees had used the word "****" towards a couple women in a non-work-related highly polemical message board environment, that he would FIRE that person.

[ERayR]

Um? My dictionary says an orgy is "a wild gathering marked by promiscuous sexual activity,excessive drinking, etc". I assume that you don't think that that was literally what was happening, so your sexualizing of the incident is bizarre, to say the least.

Orgy is a perfectly good descriptive word.

If your going to define a word don't just pick your favorite give them all. Funny you should pick the sex related one and it wasn't even first. Read em:

1

: secret ceremonial rites held in honor of an ancient Greek or Roman deity and usually characterized by ecstatic singing and dancing

2

a : drunken revelry b : a sexual encounter involving many people; also : an excessive sexual indulgence

3

: excessive indulgence in something especially to satisfy an inordinate appetite or craving <an orgy of destruction> <a national orgy of thrill seeking and risk taking — K. T. Greenfeld>

[Glenn101]

So, now that we have put .1% of Will's postings over six years under a microscope and made our judgements, can we now get back to the message? Has anyone found any evidence that Will is overstating his case, actually, paranoid, or maybe, just maybe, has he made a point?

Glenn

[William Schryver]

No I do not and that has been one of the things I liked about your posts. Do I think your tiny little bit of coarseness was in error? Yes I do. I think that in your position you should hold yourself above that.

And, quite frankly, I have.

One can get sharp without stooping to coarseness.

And that is what I do ............ 99.99% of the time. I regret that you have been so exercised by the .01% of the time when I have "stooped to coarseness" in my language towards a disgusting lynch mob of vulgar, profane people.

Please understand I say this not to condemn you ...

That's comforting.

... but to give you something that I think will only help you in the future.

If I were you, I'd save my breath. Or keystrokes, if you will.

If you have made an error say "sorry folks I don't know what came over me" then drown them with a vocabulary and reasoning they haven't the ability to understand.

I've done better than that. I stopped posting at MDB a long time ago. That's why the posts they cite that you consider to be "coarse" are mostly dated in 2008 or 2009.

[blackstrap]

Just to clarify. 10 coarse posts out of 10,000 is 1 out of a 1000 or .001 which can also be expressed as a percentage , ie. 0.1%

Would that all of %$^&*$ humanity could constrain their &^%$&^$ language to such a (!*@^# level.

[William Schryver]

So, now that we have put .1% of Will's postings over six years under a microscope and made our judgements, can we now get back to the message? Has anyone found any evidence that Will is overstating his case, actually, paranoid, or maybe, just maybe, has he made a point?

Glenn

Thanks, Glenn. It's refreshing to hear a few voices of sanity in this sea of madness.

[mapman]

Orgy is a perfectly good descriptive word.

If your going to define a word don't just pick your favorite give them all. Funny you should pick the sex related one and it wasn't even first. Read em:

1

: secret ceremonial rites held in honor of an ancient Greek or Roman deity and usually characterized by ecstatic singing and dancing

2

a : drunken revelry b : a sexual encounter involving many people; also : an excessive sexual indulgence

3

: excessive indulgence in something especially to satisfy an inordinate appetite or craving <an orgy of destruction> <a national orgy of thrill seeking and risk taking — K. T. Greenfeld>

Well, that was the first definition in my dictionary and I think by far the most common usage. But your right, words can mean different things and I can't read his mind to know which definition he meant.

[William Schryver]

Just to clarify. 10 coarse posts out of 10,000 is 1 out of a 1000 or .001 which can also be expressed as a percentage , ie. 0.1%

Thanks. I'll adjust my postings from this point forward.

This is why I enlisted Ed Slack to do the mathematical heavy lifting in my scroll-length paper.

[ERayR]

So, now that we have put .1% of Will's postings over six years under a microscope and made our judgements, can we now get back to the message? Has anyone found any evidence that Will is overstating his case, actually, paranoid, or maybe, just maybe, has he made a point?

Glenn

Just because you seem paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

[jwhitlock]

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.

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?

Please, Cal. You agreed with ERay's assessment (you commented that he stated it eloquently) that I was basically wrong.

Since I tend to think outside the box, it's apparent that we're not going to agree. I've made myself clear, and you've made yourself clear on this. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I also demand that they not attribute motivations and rationalizations to me based on their biases rather than what I have written. That's happened a great deal to me on this thread, and as I expressed to ERay (IIRC), the clear lack of understanding in people's responses to me have made me more, not less, sympathetic to Will.

I will admit that you've tried to be mostly fair. There are some others who have made not even a token effort of trying to understand or be accurate when responding. Some have specifically accused me of supporting crudeness and obscenity. It's been frustrating to try to step outside and understand and to be slapped down. Much of it has not been thoughtful or charitable.

[mapman]

I'm getting pretty disturbed by the way this conversation has gone, and I can't imagine that I'll get anything useful out of following it further, so I'm going to withdraw. I'll just repeat what I said at first: that I look forward to reading Will's research and hope the best for him.