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

[Calm]

"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.

I believe however, that jwhitlock was referring to this thread. If not, then perhaps he could correct my misunderstanding.

[William Schryver]

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.

Okay, Tim. In the context of what I think you're saying, then, let's regard my posts on this message board as being the "work place". You would be hard pressed to find, in over 5000+ of my posts on this board, a single instance of vulgarity or profanity, etc.

MDB is a different place altogether. My solution to being sucked into "coarse" behavior there was to stop posting there.

I have not done so in a long, long time.

That is why the posts they cite are all (IIRC) dated from 2008 and 2009. Doesn't that tell you something? Don't you think my solution to the "problem" (to the extent there was one .1% of the time) was the best one, all things considered?

[Calm]

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"?

My "side of things" would be those posters who are not using inflammatory language, such as ERayR, Anijen and mapman off the top of my head.

[ERayR]

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.

I wasn't "exercised" about the coarseness what seems odd to me is your inability to say I erred and move on. This has not been an issue of the remarks that others condemned but rather your seeming lack of ability to entertain the idea that you may had erred.

Glad you have given up the futility of posting at the trailer park. As I have posted before it's no good wrestling in the mud with a pig. You only get muddy and the pig enjoys it.

[William Schryver]

Calmoriah,

I will also pose the question to you that I posed to ttribe:

It has been, I believe, well over a year since I last posted at MDB. Even prior to my last post on that board in 2011, I had been posting VERY rarely for the previous year or so. The posts containing the allegedly "coarse" language are dated from 2008 and 2009 (IIRC). To the extent I was sometimes drawn into using "coarse" language .1% of the time while posting at MDB, wouldn't you say that my solution of withdrawing permanently from that place represents the best solution to "the problem" as you seem to see it?

[William Schryver]

I wasn't "exercised" about the coarseness what seems odd to me is your inability to say I erred and move on.

Well, it's obviously because I don't feel I "erred." But, since I did come to see that the lynch mob there would attempt to make me an offender for a word, I made the conscious decision to permanently withdraw from that place.

Wouldn't you say that my solution to "the problem" has been fully adequate?

[Calm]

It was a great solution. I've never posted there for a very good reason.

What I don't understand is why you felt you had to justify any past remarks made there.

[jwhitlock]

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.

The failure to see the ugliness on your side is duly noted. Good luck.

[ERayR]

Well, it's obviously because I don't feel I "erred." But, since I did come to see that the lynch mob there would attempt to make me an offender for a word, I made the conscious decision to permanently withdraw from that place.

Wouldn't you say that my solution to "the problem" has been fully adequate?

Yup and wise. I looked in over there about 4 years ago and decided that wasn't the kind of insanity I wanted in my life. I know me and I could easily get drawn into the coarseness. It will give you more time to work on productive endeavors.

[William Schryver]

My "side of things" would be those posters who are not using inflammatory language, such as ERayR, Anijen and mapman off the top of my head.

Have I used "inflammatory language" on this thread? Have you ever observed me using "coarse" language while posting on this message board?

We have also established that I used "non-coarse" language 99.9% of the time when I used to post at MDB.

Then how can you, in good conscience, perpetuate the image of me as one whose typical online behavior is vulgar, profane, or "coarse" in nature? Because that is what you have done, and what you continue to do. The people at MDB have now made you their heroine of the day because you have done precisely that. Therefore you have, in essence, and whether you intended to do so or not, aligned yourself with an apostate mob to condemn a fellow Saint and aid in the attempt to figuratively "lynch" him in public.

I find what you have done here utterly shameful, and you have permanently degraded yourself in my eyes.

[Calm]

Whatever.

The people at MDB have now made you their heroine of the day because you have done precisely that.

Wouldn't know. Wouldn't care.

The fact that I have stated several times any judgment I was making was only in regard to the two cases you yourself chose to post about seems to have been overlooked. Don't have much else to say.

[William Schryver]

It was a great solution. I've never posted there for a very good reason.

What I don't understand is why you felt you had to justify any past remarks made there.

I attempted to justify nothing. As far as I'm concerned, nothing I have done there required justification. I get that you don't agree with my assessment. What I don't get is that you have willingly attempted to perpetuate a false image of me as one whose typical online behavior has consisted of "coarse" language and also aligned yourself with an apostate mob in an attempt to effect a public lynching of a fellow Saint.

What I don't understand is how you justify what you have done here. I find it despicable. I would never do such a thing. And I consider the occasional slip of a coarse term here and there to be far less a crime than that of joining with an apostate lynch mob.

I'd rather have one jwhitlock next to me in a foxhole than 1000 of the politically correct, easily manipulated weaklings who are becoming so prevalent in the Church these days.

[ERayR]

The people at MDB have now made you their heroine of the day because you have done precisely that.

And that is precisely why these family squabbles are unwise. However, Sometimes they happen in a need to clear the air. The wise thing to do is don't let them linger so that the denizens of MDB can continue to use it.

[Calm]

What I don't understand is how you justify what you have done here. I find it despicable. I would never do such a thing. And I consider the occasional slip of a coarse term here and there to be far less a crime than that of joining with an apostate lynch mob.

Right, you would never condemn a fellow Saint. Got that.

Feel free to complain to the mods.

[jwhitlock]

My "side of things" would be those posters who are not using inflammatory language, such as ERayR, Anijen and mapman off the top of my head.

Interestingly enough, there were quite a number of other people on your side (supporting your viewpoint), some of whom you referred to in favorable terms or gave rep points to that aren't included in that list. And some of them were quite inflammatory.

And I don't think you can really claim Anijen on your side, who was probably the closest thing to a neutral person on this thread.

[William Schryver]

I think this thread has fully run its course.

I've said what I wanted to say. Others have done likewise.

So I'm locking it.

[Nemesis]

I can still post neener neener!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nemesis

[William Schryver]

No, my blog post is about "The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics."

But, now that you've asked, I will remind readers that MsJack used at least three forgeries/manipulated posts in her infamous thread. I have already talked about this in another thread from a few months ago.

The most offensive things I was alleged to have said are fakes:

• The allegation that I called harmony a "c***".
  
• The allegation that I called Emma Smith a "champion b****". (As I explained in detail on the other thread, I was even tricked by this one, but ultimately figured out what they had done.)
  
• The single post from a sock puppet named "WilliamSchryver," who registered, made a post directed to harmony, and then never made another post.
  

Did I call harmony and beastie "deceitful **** of a woman"? I did. I don't regret it.

I am opening this thread again to expand further on what I wrote above.

I have been researching the "Emma Smith was a champion ****" quote. As is rather well known, I denied writing that for many months prior to the MDB mob producing "evidence" of it in the form of a link to the post where those words appear. Faced with the reality of that post, I apologized for having written it. Since that time I became persuaded that my post was very likely modified by one of the moderators at MDB.

However, try as I might, I cannot assemble sufficient evidence to support my belief that that particular post was tampered with. Therefore I must simply revert to my earlier apology for having said it in the first place (assuming that I did, in fact, say it). I consent that it is possible I wrote it, because I'm not a big fan of Emma Smith, and the discussion in which this post appeared was particularly heated. So, again, I apologize to the long-deceased Emma Smith for calling her a ****. If I did it, I was out of line and it was not warranted.

As for using the dreaded "b" word in reference to harmony and beastie ... well, I'm sorry to disappoint those anxious to condemn me, but I don't feel bad about it. They are, as I said at the time, two extraordinarily deceitful women.

As to the claim made by harmony that I called her the infamous "c" word in a post she claims to have subsequently deleted (she is a moderator at MDB), that is an absolute lie. She knows it. Her suborned witnesses know it. They are shameless liars. I have never used that word in my life, whether in private or in public.

I also did not make the post under the moniker "WilliamSchryver" (no space between the names), although I commend whoever did it for mimicking my writing style quite well. Even if I had written it, it is hardly evidence supporting the allegation of misogyny. I am not a misogynist, any more than are Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin, both of whom have had that allegation made of them in recent weeks.

However, "MsJack" IS a deceitful propagandist, as has become abundantly apparent to a great many people over the course of the past several months. If nothing else good has come of the events of the past year, at least the real Bridget Jeffries has been unmasked in the eyes of many people who had previously believed her to be an objective observer of Mormonism.

I again reiterate the demonstrable fact that, out of over 10,000 posts in over six years of message board posting, the MDB mob was only able to dig up this mere handful of allegedly offensive things I have ever written. Less than .1% of my total posting history! All things considered, I think that's a pretty damn good record. Would that we all bridled our tongues so well ...