Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for Help

Ludd · **Joined:** Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm **Posts:** 332

Bob Loblaw wrote:

Blixa wrote:

Who knows? Who cares?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't care enough about Schryver to spend any time digging through old files and stuff. Is he a misogynist? Most people agree that MsJacks thread showed that but some people don't. Is he a pompous empty blowhard? Without question. Has he acted consistently like a jerk online? Yes.

That's all I care to know about him and I already know it.

I understand that pretty much everyone here agrees that Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver are jerks online. I have no reason to doubt that it's true. All I was looking for was some better examples of this than what I have seen so far. But all I get is reassurances that they are guilty of everything said about them. If this case was to go to court, I'm afraid the judge and jury would be hard pressed to convict them on the basis of the evidence that has been accummulated. It's really as simple as that. Juries want evidence, not hearsay. That's just the way it works.

AT this point it really looks to me that although P, H, and S are without a doubt arrogant and sarcastic and good at turning a phrase to make people very angry, there is a big difference between what they really said and how people took it or how it's been spun.

MsJack · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:36 am

Ludd wrote:

AT this point it really looks to me that although P, H, and S are without a doubt arrogant and sarcastic and good at turning a phrase to make people very angry, there is a big difference between what they really said and how people took it or how it's been spun.

Yes, that's right, Ludd. Repeatedly libeling a respected professor of Egyptology just for critiquing his former student is exactly the same as sarcastically turning a phrase in a way that makes people very angry.

I salute Doctor Scratch for a prophet, for having called it on page one:

Doctor Scratch wrote:

I think I can guess how this will wind up: people will fail to provide Ludd with material that meets the phantom "offensiveness level" that was cooked up by his source, and he will therefore conclude that, in fact, there never was any real "offensiveness" and that the whole case against Schryver was contrived by a bunch of manipulative anti-Mormons and apostates.

Ludd · **Joined:** Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm **Posts:** 332

It is very interesting that instead of a flood of examples of where Peterson, Hamblin and Schryver have done things to account for their terrible reputations, all that has really happened is that I have been labeled a "troll" and a "sock puppet" for having asked for those examples.

And no one here seems to think that is strange at all.

beastie · **Joined:** Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 12420

Ludd wrote:

It is very interesting that instead of a flood of examples of where Peterson, Hamblin and Schryver have done things to account for their terrible reputations, all that has really happened is that I have been labeled a "troll" and a "sock puppet" for having asked for those examples.

And no one here seems to think that is strange at all.

I suppose some of us don't think too much of the objectivity of people who are so easily persuaded that Will "successfully muddied the waters" with his laughably fallacious claim that his posters were tampered with here.

MsJack · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:58 am

Ludd wrote:

It is very interesting that instead of a flood of examples of where Peterson, Hamblin and Schryver have done things to account for their terrible reputations, all that has really happened is that I have been labeled a "troll" and a "sock puppet" for having asked for those examples.

And no one here seems to think that is strange at all.

The threads and blog posts that were linked to you provided well over four dozen examples of Peterson, Hamblin and Schryver engaging in poor behavior, yet you've still found a way to conclude that none of it went past being "arrogant and sarcastic" and "turning a phrase to make people angry." The only thing strange here is that you think that anybody would take you seriously after that.

Doctor Scratch · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:09 am

Ludd wrote:

I understand that pretty much everyone here agrees that Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver are jerks online. I have no reason to doubt that it's true. All I was looking for was some better examples of this than what I have seen so far.

Hi, Will.

Actually, you initially asked for examples of "offensiveness," and for evidence that these guys gave (even tacit) approval to your offensiveness. Well, I'd say that Dan's visit to your home recently counts as "tacit approval." Also, it seemed that the narrator and Blair Hodges found Dan's blog entry on female California politicians to be rather "offensive."

As for another instance of "offensiveness," what about your insinuations that you are, in fact, the biological offspring of Hugh Nibley? Would you consider that to be "offensive"? Or is this one of those things that you aren't going to touch with a ten-foot pole?

In any case, now you're just asking for evidence of them being "jerks," despite the fact that you "have no reason to doubt that it's true."

Quote:

But all I get is reassurances that they are guilty of everything said about them. If this case was to go to court, I'm afraid the judge and jury would be hard pressed to convict them on the basis of the evidence that has been accummulated. It's really as simple as that. Juries want evidence, not hearsay. That's just the way it works.

Juries also want to know what the specific accusation is. Offensiveness? Acting like "jerks"? A distinction without a difference?

Quote:

AT this point it really looks to me that although P, H, and S are without a doubt arrogant and sarcastic and good at turning a phrase to make people very angry, there is a big difference between what they really said and how people took it or how it's been spun.

It's pretty hard to "spin" something like, "Jews have precious few friends in the world," or any number of the things that you or Pahoran have said. Besides, if "higher ups" really are looking into this matter, I'm willing to bet that they wouldn't exactly be 100% cool with official representatives of the Lord's University going out of their way to "make people very angry" for their own amusement.

Bob Loblaw · **Joined:** Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:26 pm **Posts:** 2161

MsJack wrote:

Yes, that's right, Ludd. Repeatedly libeling a respected professor of Egyptology just for critiquing his former student is exactly the same as sarcastically turning a phrase in a way that makes people very angry.

So is repeatedly making sexual overtures to a woman after she has asked him to stop.

So is stalking someone and sending threatening emails.

What color is the air on the planet where Ludd lives?

Obvious troll.

Ludd · **Joined:** Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm **Posts:** 332

OK, it looks as though the only possible reason that no one has been able to come up with examples of Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver being "bad boys" online is because what has been assembled so far are the only examples of their bad behavior. That being the case, I'd like to review some of those things.

Let's start with the Schryver stuff from MsJack's thread titled Mormon Apologetics and Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver.

Schryver wrote:

Quote:

I did go to the exmo conference to hear Brent. And believe me, I remember very well you and your black dress. As I recall, you were struggling to keep the girls tucked in securely. ;-) But don't worry, I didn't feel threatened or ashamed. If one views God as an artist, then certainly the female breast is one of His masterpieces.

Of this quote, MsJack writes that it is:

Quote:

A rather unsettling level of detail …

I'm sorry folks, but normal people outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders.

Schryver wrote:

Quote:

… my heart is still twitterpated at the recollection of her in slinky black dress…

I'm sorry folks, but normal people outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders.

Schryver wrote:

Quote:

You’re perfect in your black dress.

Yup, that is just downright disgusting! :lol:

Schryver wrote:

Quote:

I might note that, if KA did not desire her breasts to be "ogled" on the evening in question, she might have selected from her wardrobe an item of clothing that more effectively covered the body parts in question. The black dress she chose could not have covered more than 40% of the breastage she brought to the occasion. Her attire would have been more appropriate for an AVN expo in Las Vegas.

Yup, that is just downright disgusting! :lol:

I'm sorry folks, but normal people outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders.

Schryver wrote:

Quote:

The breast reduction surgery appears to have been successful.

KA was the one who blogged about her breast reduction surgery. It was hilarious. I laughed. I cried. I blew snot bubbles.

You know, I was a little chagrined about the thought of you moving down a cupsize, but I have to say that, based on your Easter photo, it worked out very well; you look pretty damn hot for a thirty-something mother of 4!

And I still say that Kimberly looks pretty damn hot for a thirty-something mother of 4. You go, girl!

Yup, that is just downright disgusting! :lol:

I'm sorry folks, but normal people outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders.

Schryver wrote:

Quote:

(Kimberly does remain somewhat famous [among a small circle of otherwise respected academics] on account of my descriptions of her having once squeezed her then more voluptuous spirit tabernacle into a slinky black three-sizes-too-small dress at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City, which I attended. One wouldn't have believed it possible to carry melons in a pair of thimbles suspended from a thread, but miracles happen almost every day in this jaded world of cynical disbelievers.)

MsJack describes this as "lewd". That's right-------LEWD.

It's hard to tell if she is saying this tongue in cheek or not. She seems to be serious. But I live in the real world, where people would read something like this and shrug their shoulders. I simply can't imagine ANYONE in the real world that would use the word "lewd" to describe what was said.

Schryver wrote:

Quote:

Yes He does. And I am personally gratified that it bothers you so much. But don’t you worry, in the resurrection there will be no “alpha males” who will have any desire for your “Barbie doll-like” immortal body. I mean, I’m sure you’ll be nice to look at – but you’ll be good for nothing when it comes to the things that matter most. ;-)

[Y]ou’re just jealous that I like Kimberly’s cleavage better than yours. But hey, at 50 what’s a woman to do? ;-)

Just terrible! Horrible! Disgusting!

I'm sorry folks, but normal people outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders.

Schryver wrote:

Quote:

Settle down, beastsheba. I assure you I have no desire whatsoever to watch you bathe.

In the immortal words of Dodge Connelly:
Quote:
"You’re only as young as the women you feel."

And I have no desire to feel sixty-five.

Sorry, but that's funny. But then I'm a fan of George Clooney movies.

Still, normal people outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders.

Do I really need to go on?

I find it difficult to believe that MsJack herself really even believes what she's saying. It's not like she hasn't engaged in similar double entendre talk. Just a day or two ago I saw that she wrote this:

Quote:

MrStakhanovite wrote:
STOP GANG BANGING ME WHEN I GO AGAINST BOARD ORTHODOXY

Okay.

Next time, I'll at least buy you dinner first.

viewtopic.php?p=612304#p612304

Can you believe it? MsJack loves to make jokes about GANG RAPES!

GANG RAPES!!!!!!

Just terrible! Horrible! Disgusting!

I'm sorry folks, but normal people in the real world outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders, just like no one seemed to even raise an eyebrow when MsJack said that she would at least buy someone dinner before they were gang raped.

Stormy Waters · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:55 am

Ludd wrote:

OK, it looks as though the only possible reason that no one has been able to come up with examples of Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver being "bad boys" online is because what has been assembled so far are the only examples of their bad behavior. That being the case, I'd like to review some of those things.

Let's start with the Schryver stuff from MsJack's thread titled Mormon Apologetics and Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver.

Well at least you've dropped the façade.

Ludd · **Joined:** Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm **Posts:** 332

Doctor Scratch wrote:

Hi, Will.

Whatever.

Hi Kishkumen!

Quote:

Also, it seemed that the narrator and Blair Hodges found Dan's blog entry on female California politicians to be rather "offensive."

Don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:

As for another instance of "offensiveness," what about your insinuations that you are, in fact, the biological offspring of Hugh Nibley? Would you consider that to be "offensive"? Or is this one of those things that you aren't going to touch with a ten-foot pole?

Seriously? When did Schryver insinuate that he was the "biological offspring of Hugh Nibley"? I missed that. But I am seriously interested in learning more. Links please?

Quote:

It's pretty hard to "spin" something like, "Jews have precious few friends in the world," or any number of the things that you or Pahoran have said.

Don't know what you're talking about.

I would agree that "Jews have precious few friends in the world". But what does that have to do with any of this?

Ludd · **Joined:** Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm **Posts:** 332

Stormy Waters wrote:

Ludd wrote:

OK, it looks as though the only possible reason that no one has been able to come up with examples of Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver being "bad boys" online is because what has been assembled so far are the only examples of their bad behavior. That being the case, I'd like to review some of those things.

Let's start with the Schryver stuff from MsJack's thread titled Mormon Apologetics and Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver.

Well at least you've dropped the façade.

What façade is that?

harmony · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:01 pm

Ludd wrote:

I'm sorry folks, but normal people outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders.

No, they wouldn't. No, they haven't. And certainly, no, they will continue to not agree with you. The people in my neighborhood (not just members) would NOT agree with you. Nor would the people in the COB. Nor would the people who attend general conference. Nor would the people who attend stake conference. Nor would the people in ANY ward in the church.

Doctor CamNC4Me · **Joined:** Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am **Posts:** 4537

Ludd wrote:

Can you believe it? MsJack loves to make jokes about GANG RAPES!

GANG RAPES!!!!!!

Just terrible! Horrible! Disgusting!

I'm sorry folks, but normal people in the real world outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders, just like no one seemed to even raise an eyebrow when MsJack said that she would at least buy someone dinner before they were gang raped.

Welp. If anyone doubted this was Will...

- VRDRC

Yoda · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:13 pm

Ludd, let's take the examples you listed from Ms. Jack's thread, and allow Brother Schryver's Priesthood leaders to review them. Let's sit down with Brother Schryver's bishop and explain that he, willingly identifying himself as a representative and apologist for the LDS Church was:

1. Brother Schryver, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who has been married in the temple, was making ogling comments on a public website about a young divorced woman's breasts.

2. Brother Schryver was rabidly insulting a variety of women, some members of the Church, based on his perception of their looks.

And then, we wil allow Brother Schryver's Bishop and/or Stake Preident to view Ms. Jack's thread in full.

I would LOVE to be a fly on that wall.

beastie · **Joined:** Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 12420

Geez, Ludd, you must hang around some really classy folks.

Doctor Scratch · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:33 pm

Ludd wrote:

Quote:

Also, it seemed that the narrator and Blair Hodges found Dan's blog entry on female California politicians to be rather "offensive."

Don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, I rather doubt that. Ask your "friend" who sent you here. I'm sure he knows.

Quote:

As for another instance of "offensiveness," what about your insinuations that you are, in fact, the biological offspring of Hugh Nibley? Would you consider that to be "offensive"? Or is this one of those things that you aren't going to touch with a ten-foot pole?

Seriously? When did Schryver insinuate that he was the "biological offspring of Hugh Nibley"? I missed that. But I am seriously interested in learning more. Links please?

You didn't miss it at all, Will, though it doesn't surprise me that you're having second thoughts about the consequences of having made public mention of this. For me, the funniest bit was the allegation that you told people at the FAIR conference that you'd had "communications"--in a spiritual sense, I suppose--with your deceased, (allegedly) biological father.

So tell me, Will: What will happen to you if you start blabbing about this in a more definitive and public way?

Quote:

It's pretty hard to "spin" something like, "Jews have precious few friends in the world," or any number of the things that you or Pahoran have said.

Don't know what you're talking about.

I would agree that "Jews have precious few friends in the world". But what does that have to do with any of this?

Did you not ask for examples of DCP, Hamblin, et al. behaving badly? Re: your attitude towards those of the Jewish persuasion, I'm guessing that you think that "people outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders" about this:

William Hamblin wrote:

“I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count ‘em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they’re a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it’s because he’s a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn’t I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can’t get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I’m not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts.”

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/hamblin- ... cyberspace

I'm sure, too, that you believe that "people outside of this message board" would have no problem with Dan Peterson describing homosexuals as "Korihor"-like traitors in his article, "Text and Context."

Doctor Scratch · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:35 pm

beastie wrote:

Geez, Ludd, you must hang around some really classy folks.

Uh, yeah. They sit around wearing strange goggles, staring at the eclipse and talking about how slavery was actually a good thing since contemporary US blacks now have it pretty good, or how the Holocaust was actually a real benefit to Jews since they got to have their own sovereign state afterwards.

MrStakhanovite · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:50 pm

I do recall Dan Peterson doing his angry clucking hen routine over at the old MAD board, where he pretty much gossiped that Grant Palmer cheated the Church on his retirement stipend/pention and Chris Smith had to be the voice of reason. Chris mentions it here:

Quote:

Friday evening, prior to the first session, I had the pleasure of dining with Bryan Cottle, Don Bradley, Newell Bringhurst, Tom Kimball, and Mike and Ken Reed. Tom told me over dinner that Grant Palmer had been very hurt by the comments recently made about him at MADB, and really appreciated my standing up for him there. I was extremely happy to hear that something good had come from my involvement in that fiasco, since it was pretty costly for me in terms of emotional investment and personal relationships (not to mention time spent online instead of on homework). Tom provided me with a complementary copy of Grant's book, for which I'm very grateful.

The link no longer works, because the thread in question no longer exist. I'd wager it no longer exists because...well, it was shameful.

Blixa · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:25 pm

Stormy Waters wrote:

Ludd wrote:

OK, it looks as though the only possible reason that no one has been able to come up with examples of Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver being "bad boys" online is because what has been assembled so far are the only examples of their bad behavior. That being the case, I'd like to review some of those things.

Let's start with the Schryver stuff from MsJack's thread titled Mormon Apologetics and Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver.

Well at least you've dropped the façade.

Yep. No more "friends" whose opinions matter, it's now Ludd lecturing us that patronizing dismissals and derogatory comments on the looks and age of female posters is something everyone in the real world shrugs at.

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

Doctor Scratch wrote:

I think I can guess how this will wind up: people will fail to provide Ludd with material that meets the phantom "offensiveness level" that was cooked up by his source, and he will therefore conclude that, in fact, there never was any real "offensiveness" and that the whole case against Schryver was contrived by a bunch of manipulative anti-Mormons and apostates.

The thing is, Ludd, we all watched you jump on the Kishkumen dog-pile, so it's pretty clear that you're a sockpuppet--probably of either Simon Belmont or Schryver himself. The basic set-up here is pretty Belmontian, though as always, I'm perfectly willing to allow that I'm wrong.

Bump from page 1 of the thread...

Yoda · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:54 pm

liz3564 wrote:

Ludd, let's take the examples you listed from Ms. Jack's thread, and allow Brother Schryver's Priesthood leaders to review them. Let's sit down with Brother Schryver's bishop and explain that he, willingly identifying himself as a representative and apologist for the LDS Church was:

1. Brother Schryver, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who has been married in the temple, was making ogling comments on a public website about a young divorced woman's breasts.

2. Brother Schryver was rabidly insulting a variety of women, some members of the Church, based on his perception of their looks.

And then, we wil allow Brother Schryver's Bishop and/or Stake Preident to view Ms. Jack's thread in full.

I would LOVE to be a fly on that wall.

And the response from Ludd.....

*crickets*

:wink:

Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for Help

Who is online