MsJack responds: The Calculated Suppression of Misogyny

TrashcanMan79 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:18 pm **Posts:** 738

Jack posted a link on page seven in the other thread, but just to ensure that it doesn't go unnoticed...

The Calculated Suppression of Misogyny: Or, the Real Story of My Involvement in L’affaire de William Schryver

Bob Loblaw · **Joined:** Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:26 pm **Posts:** 2203

Great response. Maybe Schryver will say that the other conspiracists were hiding in the grassy knoll where they filmed the fake lunar landing.

Kevin Graham · **Joined:** Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm **Posts:** 4878

Dumb as he is, Will has yet to suppress commentary in the comments section of his blog.

kjones · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:07 pm

I don't recall encountering Will S. in my reading at the MDB. I'll have to keep my eye out for him.

Cicero · **Joined:** Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:09 am **Posts:** 742

The link to her blog on MD&D has been taken down. Nemesis apparently doesn't think MsJack deserves a voice in this debate.

And then we get this touching post from Pahoran who apparently doesn't read this board either.

Pahoran wrote:

A detail that might be of some interest here.

At the time of her original poison pen campaign against Will, Ms Jack proclaimed that it had given her no pleasure to start another dog-pile exercise; indeed, she said that she had shed many and bitter tears (in the dark watches of the night) while gathering her ammunition. Evidently the obvious relish and malicious zest she displayed as she stuck it to Will was just a matter of putting on a brave face to mask her deep anguish.

Anyway, when this subject came up again a few weeks ago, she somehow managed, despite being so deeply traumatised the first time around, to screw up her courage and bump her original hit piece back to the top of the forum that has the wildly optimistic descriptor of "Terrestrial."

Also, she gave a remarkable justification for the effort that cost her so much agony: the poor, poor women that Will had so deeply hurt might be intimidated about disagreeing with anything he published in a formal venue. You see, in Ms Jack's mind, "Mormon studies" is only secondarily about Mormons; mostly, it's about the wimmin.

And yet, despite that, she denied that she ever wanted Will's publication to be suppressed. Exactly what she did hope to achieve -- and how it would help protect helpless anti-Mormon females from his male cruelty if his article was published and they dared to comment -- remains opaque.

Regards,
Pahoran

"wimmin"?? What a colossal prick.

Darth J · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:48 pm

Somewhere, Ed Decker must be bitterly weeping in the realization that for all his anti-Mormon efforts, he will never, ever approach the effectiveness of people like Pahoran in turning people off to the LDS Church.

Bob Loblaw · **Joined:** Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:26 pm **Posts:** 2203

Cicero wrote:

"wimmin"?? What a colossal prick.

Wow, the hatred is just dripping from that guy's frothing mouth.

Stormy Waters · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:01 pm

Cicero wrote:

The link to her blog on MD&D has been taken down. Nemesis apparently doesn't think MsJack deserves a voice in this debate.

Why not just outright admit that they know they can't win in a fair fight? They've essentially done it already.

just me · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:19 pm

Disgusting.

MsJack · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:22 pm

Nemesis wrote:

If i wanted her to have access and a voice here I would let her post here. I don't so I removed the link.

Nemesis

Almost as surprising as Tom & Katie breaking up.

Pahoran wrote:

A detail that might be of some interest here.

At the time of her original poison pen campaign against Will, Ms Jack proclaimed that it had given her no pleasure to start another dog-pile exercise; indeed, she said that she had shed many and bitter tears (in the dark watches of the night) while gathering her ammunition. Evidently the obvious relish and malicious zest she displayed as she stuck it to Will was just a matter of putting on a brave face to mask her deep anguish.

Anyway, when this subject came up again a few weeks ago, she somehow managed, despite being so deeply traumatised the first time around, to screw up her courage and bump her original hit piece back to the top of the forum that has the wildly optimistic descriptor of "Terrestrial."

Also, she gave a remarkable justification for the effort that cost her so much agony: the poor, poor women that Will had so deeply hurt might be intimidated about disagreeing with anything he published in a formal venue. You see, in Ms Jack's mind, "Mormon studies" is only secondarily about Mormons; mostly, it's about the wimmin.

And yet, despite that, she denied that she ever wanted Will's publication to be suppressed. Exactly what she did hope to achieve -- and how it would help protect helpless anti-Mormon females from his male cruelty if his article was published and they dared to comment -- remains opaque.

Regards,
Pahoran

Translation: "I don't have an actual substantive argument against anything Ms. Jack has written, so I'll just make vague accusations of insincerity on her part."

EDIT: BTW, I've just updated my misogyny thread to refute these nonsensical accusations of forgery.

Stormy Waters · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:18 pm

Pahoran wrote:

Val, I think you're a good guy, and I'm sorry you feel condescended to. But the fact is that I've had a number of interactions with Ms Jack. I reported her remarks accurately according to my recollection. I find her protestations of deep sorrow while she sharpened up the knife to stick into Will to be utterly unconvincing; I believe she enjoyed every minute of it, and revelled in the thought that she was causing trouble for him. I find her to be totally partisan in all of her dealings relating to Mormon things -- for example, if an extreme anti-Mormon contradicts a Latter-day Saint, she absolutely and implicitly trusts everything the anti-Mormon says and assumes that the Mormon is lying. I speak from personal experience in this.

I also regard her as a rather extreme feminist, a female supremacist, if not an outright man-hater, who holds the most peripheral interests of even a very few women to be overwhelmingly more important than anything they might possibly come in contact with. Which is to say, however much I might distrust her descriptions of her personal struggles, I believe her to be completely sincere when she declares that the hurt feelings of three or four women who choose to feel insulted by Will are more important -- to her -- than the publication of a potentially significant paper on Mormon historiography.

And it just so happens that I think her priorities in that matter are as heavily skewed by her ideology as her views towards Will are by her intense personal hatreds.

Regards,
Pahoran

Wow, Pahoran you're a nutjob. You're a complete dick and a coward.

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:21 pm

Cicero wrote:

"wimmin"?? What a colossal prick.

Another misogynist. That's why he has no problem with Will's misogyny.

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:22 pm

Darth J wrote:

Somewhere, Ed Decker must be bitterly weeping in the realization that for all his anti-Mormon efforts, he will never, ever approach the effectiveness of people like Pahoran in turning people off to the LDS Church.

No kidding.

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:23 pm

MsJack wrote:

Almost as surprising as Tom & Katie breaking up.

You must have been sleeping with Katie, you extremist female supremacist.

just me · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:28 pm

Kishkumen wrote:

MsJack wrote:

Almost as surprising as Tom & Katie breaking up.

You must have been sleeping with Katie, you extremist female supremacist.

Ms.Jack cannot deign to comment to you right now, as you are of the male persuasion and she has much more important female issues to deal with.

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:46 pm

just me wrote:

Ms.Jack cannot deign to comment to you right now, as you are of the male persuasion and she has much more important female issues to deal with.

I'm not worthy!

Would it help if I claimed that I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body?

Valentinus · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:07 pm

Stormy Waters wrote:

Pahoran wrote:

Val, I think you're a good guy, and I'm sorry you feel condescended to. But the fact is that I've had a number of interactions with Ms Jack. I reported her remarks accurately according to my recollection. I find her protestations of deep sorrow while she sharpened up the knife to stick into Will to be utterly unconvincing; I believe she enjoyed every minute of it, and revelled in the thought that she was causing trouble for him. I find her to be totally partisan in all of her dealings relating to Mormon things -- for example, if an extreme anti-Mormon contradicts a Latter-day Saint, she absolutely and implicitly trusts everything the anti-Mormon says and assumes that the Mormon is lying. I speak from personal experience in this.

I also regard her as a rather extreme feminist, a female supremacist, if not an outright man-hater, who holds the most peripheral interests of even a very few women to be overwhelmingly more important than anything they might possibly come in contact with. Which is to say, however much I might distrust her descriptions of her personal struggles, I believe her to be completely sincere when she declares that the hurt feelings of three or four women who choose to feel insulted by Will are more important -- to her -- than the publication of a potentially significant paper on Mormon historiography.

And it just so happens that I think her priorities in that matter are as heavily skewed by her ideology as her views towards Will are by her intense personal hatreds.

Regards,
Pahoran

Wow, Pahoran you're a nutjob. You're a complete dick and a coward.

This was his response to my post concerning his characterization of MsJack.

MsJack · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:58 pm

Concerning what Pahoran is saying about me at MDDB right now:

In the summer of 2010, when the stuff with DCP and Pahoran's review of J. P. Holding's book in the FARMS Review was going on, Pahoran claimed that, back in the day, he had apologized to Holding for publishing his real name in the review. Kevin claimed that he had done no such thing. When it was that much (Kevin's word against Pahoran's), I was willing to give Pahoran the benefit of the doubt.

Later on, Kevin discovered that he still had the old e-mails from their conversations from back in the day, and he posted those here. The e-mails demonstrated that Pahoran had never apologized to Holding. Not long after this, Pahoran sent me a private message accusing me of an "intentional falsehood" for something or another (can't remember what, exactly, that accusation was about). I thought this was rich coming from a man who had just been demonstrated to have articulated a falsehood about an apology to someone (whether intentional or not), and I was annoyed with Pahoran for dumping his trademark incivility into my inbox, so I taunted him for "being caught red-handed lying about having apologized to Holding." I may have been hasty in accusing Pahoran of lying. After all, it's possible that he was just honestly mistaken about the whole thing. But as I said, he had just accused me of lying, so I returned the favor.

For Pahoran to represent this as me taking an "anti-Mormon's" word over his for no reason whatsoever is just beyond false. I didn't take Kevin's word on the matter over his until Kevin backed it up with evidence, and then I only said anything about it when Pahoran gratuitously PM'ed me to provoke me. Once again though, I'll give Pahoran the benefit of the doubt and assume he honestly can't remember the details here and isn't deliberately misrepresenting the events.

Pahoran's reaction to all this, btw, was to violate my privacy by posting a snippet from that correspondence in his signature at MDDB, which the moderators refused to remove. He only removed it when calmoriah got in touch with him and nicely asked him to.

(BTW, these PMs happened at MADB, not here, and Pahoran is already discussing them there without my permission (again), so I assume it's okay for me to set the record straight here.)

cwald · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:10 pm

Well he did have this back handed compliment to say about you.

Quote:

No, Ms Jack isn't responsible for the content of that pit (apart from what she contributes herself.) That is the purview of "Dr Shades."

In fact, much as I criticise Ms Jack for her intensely personal and relentless vendettas, looked at objectively, her contributions are actually around the top end, in terms of quality, for that board.

Which, when you think about it, really says something about that board.

Regards,
Pahoran

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

Kishkumen wrote:

just me wrote:

Ms.Jack cannot deign to comment to you right now, as you are of the male persuasion and she has much more important female issues to deal with.

I'm not worthy!

Would it help if I claimed that I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body?

Only if you're black.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

As an aside, does anyone take [deleted]...err...I mean Pahoran...seriously?

MsJack responds: The Calculated Suppression of Misogyny

Who is online