Isn't that what your "investigation" is all about, Ludd?
All I was asked to do was to provide, if I could, some examples of the kinds of online behavior that Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver are supposedly so famous for. Offensive stuff. The only caveat was what I quoted in the OP:
… can't use the "Emma Smith is a champion bitch" quote, or the one where he supposedly called a woman a "c***", or the quote from the poster named "WilliamSchryver" (no space between the names). Apparently Schryver has convinced people that those three are forgeries. So we need other things that demonstrate his offensive online behavior. I was told that the quotes contained at the links you sent were "not considered to be offensive enough." They need more and better examples.
They want anything said by Peterson or Hamblin or others associated with F.A.R.M.S. that is similar in nature, or where either of those two have expressed agreement with or support for offensive things Schryver or others have said online.
This is needed absolutely as soon as possible, if you can …
The other person I spoke to about this who knows a little about the affair told me that Schryver had managed to, quote: "muddy the waters" about the authenticity of some of the things attributed to him. That's why they were looking for other things. And they didn't have anything for Peterson and Hamblin.
It wasn't communicated to me as some "big deal", only that if the information could be obtained, it had to happen quickly, otherwise they wouldn't be able to use it, assuming they would use it at all.
Don't you understand that the people looking for this info aren't looking to see this decision reverse. The decision to scuttle the classic FARMS group. They're people who very much agree with the decision to fire Peterson and his group and move the MI in a new direction.
I read all the stuff MsJack provided on all three of the people in question. I have myself done a lot of searches of posts in the past few days. I think it would be a big mistake to try to make an argument from the evidence I have seen that Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver are guilty of the hyperbole that I've seen thrown around on this board about them.
Sorry people, but thems the facts of the matter. I don't know all the reasons. I don't know the history that brought things to this point…your history as individuals and collectively, with those three guys. But in my opinion, there is a disconnect between the hyperbole about them and what is actually out there to read that they have said. I don't care much if that doesn't fit into your community narrative about these things. I resist "community narratives" as much as I can in my walk of life. I'm just telling things the way I see them. I'm not defending anyone so much as I'm just refusing to accuse anyone.
At any rate, I don't think anymore that they're even going to talk about the online stuff. They couldn't put enough of a case together fast enough. So I think defending the decision and direction change will be made mostly from a positive angle now.
"The MI will never be taken seriously in Religious Studies unless they make this change now"...etc.
Also explain how doing apologetics through the MI makes it seem like things such as the FARMS Review are "official church doctrine" and so lots of people are giving way too much authority to the FARMS-approved apologists and their styles and tactics of "defending the kingdom against it's enemies". I don't think they'll say one word about the alleged offensive online behavior of Peterson et al.
Anyway, you guys are so off-base with your reactions to this thread. Tell you the truth, it's almost a bit creepy to me. You really need to put in place some kind of checks and balances to groupthink reflex episodes. God-all-mai-tai people!
All that was asked for were a few examples of offensive things said by three people out of thousands and thousands of posts! I've been aware of this board for about six months and posting on it for less than that. I don't know much of the history of any of these people, except what I've been able to pick up from the things you say about them. None of them have posted here since I've been aware of this place.
William was in the process of having his Book of Abraham research published through MI. A representative of MI, upon reading the compilation from Ms. Jack's thread, influenced the other members of MI to squash the publication.
I'm curious though: this representative of the MI who read the stuff MsJack put together, is she/he on the side of those in favor of the recent change of direction, or one of those on the old FARMS team?
That is the whole reason that Will has been whining.
Schryver has said on the MDDB board that the paper that was squashed was about the length of the scrolls.
How would you describe the relationship between whatever was in the article and Schryver making jokes about breasts on a message board?
There was another paper published recently on that same topic. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the publisher of that article had been persuaded to pull it because it's author was found to have a DUI, or that he smoked pot, or that he had called a woman a "bitch" on a message board? Or even that he had done it 10 times in the past year? How would you feel about that?
There should be information surrounding this on Ms. Jack's thread. If I have time, I will look for a link, but, frankly, I am inclined to let you do a little simple reading yourself, and conduct your own damned research.
I've done a lot of "damned research" but I can't seem to find anything more than what's in MsJack's collections. If there is
more, it looks like everyone here has long forgotten about it, because they can't seem to produce anything else either.