It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:37 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:00 pm 
Cylon wrote:
Thanks, Stormy! This thread is much better already! :wink:

Allow me to humbly apologize for quoting someone you chose to put on ignore. LOL :wink:


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:02 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:45 am
Posts: 7530
Location: somewhere else
liz3564 wrote:
Cylon wrote:
Thanks, Stormy! This thread is much better already! :wink:

Allow me to humbly apologize for quoting someone you chose to put on ignore. LOL :wink:


LOL. It's not perfect, but IGNORE helps make things a bit more civil and appealing.

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:05 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6526
Location: Cassius University
Cylon wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, Dr. Scratch, I think you should also include Hamblin's preface to that statement:
William Hamblin wrote:
All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size:

He's not claiming he has those views about Jews. Omitting his opening statement changes the meaning enough to be misleading. Of course, the fact that he equates "Morgbot" with a racial slur against Jews is, I think, offensive enough.


Eh, I included the link to the original source--I think that's plenty. I've never thought that his disclaimer did much of anything to redeem the rest of his comments, but YMMV.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:08 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13795
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
I would have preferred that Schryver's article had been published. I know so many scum bucket scholars out there. Their articles are published. What makes this any different? Because it is apologetics? Is moral rectitude necessary to make a good apologetic argument?

My guess is that his article simply sucked. But I guess we'll never know now.

No offense to those whom Schryver offended. Certainly I find him to be a total jackass. But IMO this is totally beside the point when it comes to scholarship.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:10 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6526
Location: Cassius University
Hey, Will:

Are you scared about what might happen if your blathering about your Nibley connection gets wider airplay? Would the Brethren be mad if they learned what you said?

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 3808
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Hey, Will:

Are you scared about what might happen if your blathering about your Nibley connection gets wider airplay? Would the Brethren be mad if they learned what you said?


The only ones that would be upset are apostate anyway


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:13 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13795
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
What is the point of this investigation, anyway? Frankly, I don't care. It looks like a complete waste of time to me. None of us have anything to do with what happened at the Maxwell Institute. MDB played no role in that at all. What happened there was an internal issue.

So, this has all the appearance of a snipe hunt.

Before I waste my time on strangers, including the characters named in the OP, I need a compelling reason to do it.

I have yet to see one offered.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:16 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13795
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Hey, Will:

Are you scared about what might happen if your blathering about your Nibley connection gets wider airplay? Would the Brethren be mad if they learned what you said?



Hopefully most people will simply find it nutty. When you get down to it, that is all it is--some nut bragging about bogus crap on the Internet.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:04 pm 
Kishkumen wrote:
What is the point of this investigation, anyway? Frankly, I don't care. It looks like a complete waste of time to me. None of us have anything to do with what happened at the Maxwell Institute. MDB played no role in that at all. What happened there was an internal issue.

So, this has all the appearance of a snipe hunt.

Before I waste my time on strangers, including the characters named in the OP, I need a compelling reason to do it.

I have yet to see one offered.


I am still trying to figure that out myself, particularly since Ludd has indicated that he wasn't even aware of MI making the decision that they did.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:14 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
liz3564 wrote:
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:

Quote:
… 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.

Quote:
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.

Very interesting.

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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:16 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
MsJack wrote:
"Ludd" ~ Plenty of "normal people outside of message boards" have reviewed my thread and decided that William's behavior was unacceptable. Some of them were associated with the Maxwell Institute and made the decision to cancel William's upcoming publications based on it. Argumentum ad populum is already highly fallacious as it is, but in this case, I don't believe the populum you're invoking even exists.

Yes, I made a risqué joke to my personal friend, MrStakhanovite. I did that because I know his sense of humor and I know he's okay with that kind of thing. I would never direct that sort of comment at a stranger on the Internet whom I was having a heated disagreement with. I'm not against occasional bouts of ribald humor with friends. I am against using crude sexual references to debase and deride ideological opponents.

Ideological opponents?

:lol:

Sorry, but that makes me laugh for some reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:20 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
harmony wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
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.


MI and BYU must be thanking their lucky stars that Ms Jack compiled the thread. The embarrassment would have been quick and complete, had they actually allowed him to attach his name to something they put out to the public.

Why would MI and BYU have been embarrassed by publishing a paper about scroll length? Haven't they done that before? What would have happened if they had published Schryver's paper? Seriously. What would have happened?

Quote:
Will, on the other hand... well, let's hope he gets published somewhere. I want to see some of our folks have a shot at him... again.

This doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't they "have a shot at him" if the MI had published his paper?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:21 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
Blixa wrote:
Cylon wrote:
Thanks, Stormy! This thread is much better already! :wink:


Isn't it? If only one could do it IRL...

Who would be on your IRL ignore list?

How would that work?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:24 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Eh, I included the link to the original source--I think that's plenty. I've never thought that his disclaimer did much of anything to redeem the rest of his comments, but YMMV.

I'm sure most of the people here would agree with you, Kishkumen. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:29 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
Kishkumen wrote:
My guess is that his article simply sucked.

So you don't believe the article was squashed because of the online behavior, but because it "simply sucked"?

Why would it have been slated for publication in the first place if it "simply sucked"? And then be pulled only because "it simply sucked"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:30 pm 
Ludd wrote:
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?


I have no idea.

Ludd wrote:
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 is no relationship if you are discussing material. But if you are writing a paper which is published by Brigham Young University, which is an official arm of the Church, and you are publishing that material as an LDS apologist, then you damned well better carry the type of reputation and decorum that is becoming of an LDS Priesthood holder.

Again, if you honestly believe that Schryver's comments were appropriate, then you know very little about my Church and the way Priesthood holders should conduct themselves.

Ludd wrote:
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?


See my answer above.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:32 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Hey, Will:

Are you scared about what might happen if your blathering about your Nibley connection gets wider airplay? Would the Brethren be mad if they learned what you said?

Kishkumen:

I asked you earlier what Schryver had said about Nibley. I'm still waiting for you to give us a quote. Are you saying that Schryver has claimed, or "insinuated" that he is Nibley's son? I know where it was said about him. I saw at least one thread about it. But I didn't see anywhere where he had claimed it himself. I can't believe I would have missed something like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:34 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Hey, Will:

Are you scared about what might happen if your blathering about your Nibley connection gets wider airplay? Would the Brethren be mad if they learned what you said?

To me this post is a lot like the one from someone who popped into this thread early on and said something about Schryver committing adultery and getting a woman pregnant. No evidence for the claim. More like graffitti written on the wall by some anonymous person passing by.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:38 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
Kishkumen wrote:
What is the point of this investigation, anyway? Frankly, I don't care. It looks like a complete waste of time to me. None of us have anything to do with what happened at the Maxwell Institute. MDB played no role in that at all. What happened there was an internal issue.

So, this has all the appearance of a snipe hunt.

Before I waste my time on strangers, including the characters named in the OP, I need a compelling reason to do it.

I have yet to see one offered.

Doctor Scratch:

By all means do not waste your time on strangers. All I was ever hoping was that you would quote just one thing said by Peterson, Hamblin, or Schryver that you consider to be a good example of the online behavior they are supposedly famous for. It is absolutely a waste of time because now I'm only interested out of curiosity. Nothing more. Give me a single example.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:39 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
Kishkumen wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Hey, Will:

Are you scared about what might happen if your blathering about your Nibley connection gets wider airplay? Would the Brethren be mad if they learned what you said?



Hopefully most people will simply find it nutty. When you get down to it, that is all it is--some nut bragging about bogus crap on the Internet.

Where was Schryver bragging about this?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:45 pm 
1st Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Posts: 462
liz3564 wrote:
...if you are writing a paper which is published by Brigham Young University, which is an official arm of the Church, and you are publishing that material as an LDS apologist, then you damned well better carry the type of reputation and decorum that is becoming of an LDS Priesthood holder.

Is this true?

I'm serious.

To get published at Brigham Young University, is it a pre-requisite that someone must have "the type of reputation and decorum that is becoming of an LDS Priesthood holder"? Do you have to have a current temple recommend and be abiding by the BYU honor code and all that stuff? If this is true, I had no idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cognitiveharmony, Google [Bot], mackay11, Mayan Elephant, Sethbag and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group