Calling & Election made sure: The Case of William Schryver

[_Pahoran]

Right.

Right exactly. So why are you pretending the issue is what Will knows to be true? The issue is what's true, not what Will knows.

And in this instance, the only actual evidence is found in Will's statements. Nowhere else.

Your overweening hatred of Will is not evidence of any wrongdoing on his part. And even if he had told all the lies you allege that he told about other subjects, that has no relevance to this issue. It is not a question of Will's word against anyone else's. It is a case of Will's word against nothing at all.

But what Will says about his own intent is evidence about his intent.

Technically, yes. In the same way OJ Simpson's claim that he didn't kill anyone, is evidence that he didn't.

And now you're resorting to damnation by association. There really is nothing beneath you, is there, Kevin?

But for you, all you need is Will's say so. You ignore the mountain of evidence that runs contrary to his claim.

Am I? Really? Where is it?

Show me the "mountain of evidence that runs contrary to his claim," please. I can't wait to see it.

Snip irrelevant blather.

And if you weren't in a constant state of near-apoplectic rage that Will continues to consume oxygen, you'd be able to see that his C&E remarks are so obviously made with tongue in cheek that nobody with a brain larger than a walnut would imagine for a moment that they were serious.

I never raised the C&E issue because I don't see how this is a crucial point to MsJack's argument. I am more concerned with his attacks against the women here, calling them whores and bitches and such.

The C&E issue happens to be the topic of this thread, Kevin. You know, this thread?

I simply responded to your claim that the C&E reference was all a joke based on his godhood status. That argument was shot out of the water with a previous example provided by DrCam.

Was it really?

Jersey Girl didn't seem to reach that conclusion; but then again, she doesn't seem to hate Will quite as obsessively as you do.

The earlier quote simply showed what the prehistory was.

You then had to ask Will to explain that one too. And of course Will gives you some BS explanation related to some off-forum banter between he and the Dude, which you swallow whole uncritically as usual.

Then let's see your evidence that it was "BS."

Where is it?

Because in the absence of such evidence, it cannot be anything more than an assumption of your own.

And what does that assumption prove?

Why, that with all the predictability of a knee jerk -- or any other kind -- you automatically take the most hostile attitude possible towards anything Will says.

And why do you do that?

Because you hate him, of course.

Here's the situation, as far as evidence is concerned: Once in 2007 and once in 2009, Will mentioned that he had already indicated to The Dude that he had his Calling and Election made sure. The second statement was addressed to Dr Shades, in connection with Will's imminent elevation to "God" status on the board; the first was addressed to The Dude, and both referred to some previous conversation that is not presently recorded on the board.

Will's explanation makes perfect sense in light of the context. The remarks in both cases are clearly light-hearted. (I know you simply can't imagine Will being light-hearted about anything at any time, but that's your failing, not his.) Nothing in either the content or context of those statements contradicts Will's explanation in any way. So you see Kevin, it doesn't matter how bitterly you detest and distrust him, the fact remains that there is no other evidence before us, and Will's explanation is the only one available.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Droopy and Pahoran, mostly Pahoran, "silence is consent", you silence or rather non-objection to WS making a mockery of sacred things and making lite of sacred things is very telling.

You condemn others for raising issues against WS and you condemn others for speaking ill of the LDS Church; yet you have yet to speak out against and condemn WS mockery of things held sacred by the LDS. Your silence is your consent to his mockery.

You need to sober up, 3sheets.

Since you asked (or rather nagged incessantly): I don't happen to think it's an appropriate subject to joke about. In fact, now that you mention it, I also don't happen to think that Exaltation is an appropriate subject to joke about. I do not think it side-splittingly hilarious that at 1000 posts -- or any other number -- a poster here gets to be called a "God," although obviously someone once did.

But that's the environment we are posting in.

I wouldn't have made that joke. But the issue here is that making such a joke is a considerably different matter than making such a claim with a straight face. Kevin "The Cracker" Graham knows this perfectly well, which is why he so pertinaciously and bitterly refuses to admit the obvious.

It seems to me that Will's greatest crime -- and the reason he gets so many dog-pile threads dedicated to him here -- is that he refuses to be bound by Marquess of Queensberry rules when he's going up against a gang of no-holds-barred, knock-down drag-out bare-knuckle street-fighters.

In other words, he plays by the same rules as everyone else is permitted to play by.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kevin Graham]

And in this instance, the only actual evidence is found in Will's statements. Nowhere else.

Let's take a look at this situation more closely to fully appreciate the insanity you're offering.

1. Will has a history of belittling women and making sexually explicit and derrogatory remarks towards them. This is indisputable

2. Will also has a history of lying about what he has said towards women in the past. This is indisputable.

3. Harmony claims Will called her the C word.

4. Several witnesses recall the event. Some claim to remember something extraordinarily harsh being said, others don't remember seeing anything at all. This is indisputable.

5. Later on down the road, once Will's behavior has been placed into the spotlight, he denies having said this.

Now according to you, Will's is the only testimony that counts as evidence. Right?

This is nothing short of ridiculous. You simply have no concept of truth worth listening to. Yours is based on only the evidence you're willing to hear. But as I said, you do not understand the proper method of ascertaining credible statements.

We can refute your logic from several angles, not least of which is the fact that Will is the only person with a motive to lie about this.

Your overweening hatred of Will is not evidence of any wrongdoing on his part.

Since I don't hate Will, your comments are nothing more than a desperate attempt to gain sympathy votes for your client. The poor, hated, testimomy bearing Mormon who was just minding his own business when we forced him to engage in " trash talk." Right?

And even if he had told all the lies you allege that he told about other subjects, that has no relevance to this issue.

Now you are burying yourself even deeper. So according to you, a history of documented lies doesn't tarnish one's credibility? Please tell us you're not really this daft.

It is not a question of Will's word against anyone else's. It is a case of Will's word against nothing at all.

Will's word against eye witnesse testimony to the contrary. Your hatred of all apostates has no bearing on the validity of their testimonies.

And now you're resorting to damnation by association. There really is nothing beneath you, is there, Kevin?

I told you to stop using big words you do not understand. Will damns himself with his own actions. He lies regularly on these forums, and therefore he is a liar who cannot be trusted. This is really a simple matter. Here, let me help you out. Imagine Will is an anti-Mormon who said Joseph Smith didn't die as a martyr. You'll quickly, and gladly, condemn him as a liar on all counts now. You see my dear Pahoran, your problem is your own hatred for the lowly "covenant breakers." Yours is nothing but a sad case of blind loyalty taken to the extreme. You have no logical cas eto make. All you have is a slew of basless assertions that you think we're just supposed to take for granted. Like Will's is the only testimony that constitutes real evidence!

Show me the "mountain of evidence that runs contrary to his claim," please. I can't wait to see it.

I already did, and it went in one ear and out the other.

1. Will has a history of denying and lying about stuff he has said in the past. He has no credibility and he clearly has motive to lie about this.

2. Harmony's testimony. She has no motive to lie about this, since she knew there were eye-witnesses to the incident. Why would she risk being proved a liar on such a silly issue? WIll had already established himself as misogynistic

3. Mr. Stak's testimony. He has no motive to lie.

4. My testimony that something atrocious was said. This is proved by my immediate response to him.

5. DrCam's testimony that something atrocious was said. This was proved by his immediate response to him.

6. Will's testimony that he merely called Harmony a "hypocrite" and she freaked out and deleted his post. This pretty much proves he is lying since there is no way in hell that could have been what was said. That kind of statement never would have warranted these reactions from the crowd.

The C&E issue happens to be the topic of this thread, Kevin. You know, this thread?

Which was broken away from the original thread. I've been chasing you around trying to get you to respond to my detailed refutations, but you keep running in circles.

Now, how do you feel knowing that you're here for the sole purpose of defending a man who called Kimberly a whore? Does it make you feel good to call it "trash talk"? Will you partake of sacrament today with a clear conscience? Or maybe you've had your C&E made sure too, and simply don't have a conscience anymore.

Then let's see your evidence that it was "BS."

Where is your evidence that it wasn't BS? Oh yeah, the established liar told you so. Either way, as I said before, it is hardly beyond possibility to speak factually, while keeping one's tongue firmly in cheek. Will loves to speak cryptically in order to send subtle signals. You obviously aren't aware of his style. But as I said before, this nonsense about C&E is important.... why? It doesn't change the fact that he has called women on this forum bitches and whores. For you to jump in and object simply because you think it is beyond his capacity to say the C word, says more about you than anyone else.

[_beastie]

I think that it's important to consider Will's own statement about how he posts on MD:

my story is comprised of multiple opaque ambiguities, deliberately crafted and consciously assembled consistent with my mischievous designs to befuddle, bewilder, and otherwise bedevil you and your cohorts here in the GSTP©.

viewtopic.php?p=454445#p454445

By his own words, Will deliberately tries to confuse issues by crafting "ambiguities". I think the calling and election made sure is a stellar example. I tend to think that Will never had his real calling and election made sure, as the idea of any LDS leader thinking he would deserve such a thing is too outrageous for me to accept. But I think that Will didn't mind people thinking that is what he was actually saying at all. Will has had numerous opportunities to correct this "misunderstanding" and yet never did so. For whatever reason this was one of the "ambiguities" Will probably deliberately crafted and enjoyed.

So I think Pahoran is completely unjustified in criticizing those of us who actually thought Will was asserting he had his real calling and election made sure.

I also want to add to Kevin's point here:

Now, how do you feel knowing that you're here for the sole purpose of defending a man who called Kimberly a whore?

Keep in mind that, according to Will's current story, he called KA a whore after realizing that it was all a case of mistaken identity in the first place. So he didn't even have the infamous black dress and "melons held up by thimbles", or whatever the term was he used to make his "otherwise respected academics" laugh in delight, as an excuse to call her a whore.

Pahoran is truly a nasty piece of work when it comes to his attitude towards apostates, but I don't ever recall him making sexually vulgar statements or sexualizing his insults towards women. I truly think it's Pahoran's sheer bigotry against "apostates" that renders him incapable of simply admitting what MI has admitted by their actions: Will's behavior is unacceptable and the MI should not be tarnished by association with it.

[_malkie]

I think that it's important to consider Will's own statement about how he posts on MD:

my story is comprised of multiple opaque ambiguities, deliberately crafted and consciously assembled consistent with my mischievous designs to befuddle, bewilder, and otherwise bedevil you and your cohorts here in the GSTP©.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 45#p454445

By his own words, Will deliberately tries to confuse issues by crafting "ambiguities". I think the calling and election made sure is a stellar example. I tend to think that Will never had his real calling and election made sure, as the idea of any LDS leader thinking he would deserve such a thing is too outrageous for me to accept. But I think that Will didn't mind people thinking that is what he was actually saying at all. Will has had numerous opportunities to correct this "misunderstanding" and yet never did so. For whatever reason this was one of the "ambiguities" Will probably deliberately crafted and enjoyed.

So I think Pahoran is completely unjustified in criticizing those of us who actually thought Will was asserting he had his real calling and election made sure.

I also want to add to Kevin's point here:

Now, how do you feel knowing that you're here for the sole purpose of defending a man who called Kimberly a whore?

Keep in mind that, according to Will's current story, he called KA a whore after realizing that it was all a case of mistaken identity in the first place. So he didn't even have the infamous black dress and "melons held up by thimbles", or whatever the term was he used to make his "otherwise respected academics" laugh in delight, as an excuse to call her a whore.

Pahoran is truly a nasty piece of work when it comes to his attitude towards apostates, but I don't ever recall him making sexually vulgar statements or sexualizing his insults towards women. I truly think it's Pahoran's sheer bigotry against "apostates" that renders him incapable of simply admitting what MI has admitted by their actions: Will's behavior is unacceptable and the MI should not be tarnished by association with it.

Wait, you're saying that Will is GA material?

Is it perhaps that he was modeling his behaviour on GAs' implying that they have personally spoken with Jesus?

[_3sheets2thewind]

You need to sober up, 3sheets.

Since you asked (or rather nagged incessantly): I don't happen to think it's an appropriate subject to joke about. In fact, now that you mention it, I also don't happen to think that Exaltation is an appropriate subject to joke about. I do not think it side-splittingly hilarious that at 1000 posts -- or any other number -- a poster here gets to be called a "God," although obviously someone once did.

But that's the environment we are posting in.

I wouldn't have made that joke. But the issue here is that making such a joke is a considerably different matter than making such a claim with a straight face. Kevin "The Cracker" Graham knows this perfectly well, which is why he so pertinaciously and bitterly refuses to admit the obvious.

It seems to me that Will's greatest crime -- and the reason he gets so many dog-pile threads dedicated to him here -- is that he refuses to be bound by Marquess of Queensberry rules when he's going up against a gang of no-holds-barred, knock-down drag-out bare-knuckle street-fighters.

In other words, he plays by the same rules as everyone else is permitted to play by.

Regards,
Pahoran

It is good to know that you seemingly condemn WS making such jokes. But as for "playing by the same rules", that is not what Jesus taught is it? Jesus taught turn the other cheek, and if someone sues you at law to give them your cloak also.

WS behaviour is generally terrible and unbecoming someone who claims to be a professional defender, and there is no justification for it. He acts like a child and is therefore treated like a child.

I am glad you do not approve of his disrespect for sacred things, if only more LDS person would speak out against his mockery of sacred things, then perhaps he would change his ways and be a influence of good.

"When in Rome" does not excuse a follower of Christ to engage in sacrilege or debauchery. And surely you could do better in pronouncing your condemnation of his acts while still defending whether he is being misrepresented by another.

[_Pahoran]

And in this instance, the only actual evidence is found in Will's statements. Nowhere else.

Let's take a look at this situation more closely to fully appreciate the insanity you're offering.

Insanity does seem to be a subject you know something about.

1. Will has a history of belittling women and making sexually explicit and derrogatory remarks towards them. This is indisputable

2. Will also has a history of lying about what he has said towards women in the past. This is indisputable.

3. Harmony claims Will called her the C word.

4. Several witnesses recall the event. Some claim to remember something extraordinarily harsh being said, others don't remember seeing anything at all. This is indisputable.

5. Later on down the road, once Will's behavior has been placed into the spotlight, he denies having said this.

Now according to you, Will's is the only testimony that counts as evidence. Right?

Wrong.

This is a thread derail, Kevin.

This thread is not about how many times Will said mean things to wound the delicate feelings of the oh so demure ladies of MDB.

This thread is not about whether or not it may or may not be disputable that he actually said those things, or any of them.

This thread is about one issue, and one issue only: whether or not Will seriously, and with a straight face, claimed to have his Calling and Election made sure.

Snip malice.

And even if he had told all the lies you allege that he told about other subjects, that has no relevance to this issue.

Now you are burying yourself even deeper. So according to you, a history of documented lies doesn't tarnish one's credibility? Please tell us you're not really this daft.

Of course I'm not that daft. And furthermore, you know it. That's why you have to misrepresent the argument.

It is not a question of Will's word against anyone else's. It is a case of Will's word against nothing at all.

Will's word against eye witnesse testimony to the contrary. Your hatred of all apostates has no bearing on the validity of their testimonies.

What "eye witnesse [sic] testimony" is there that Will ever seriously, and with a straight face, claimed to have his Calling and Election made sure?

What "eye witnesse [sic] testimony" is there to show that his two throwaway remarks to that effect were ever anything other than banter?

You keep accusing me of ignoring "eye witnesse [sic] testimony." It's about time for you to produce it, so that we can see whether or not I will ignore it.

That's right: this is a CFR, Kevin.

Just for you.

Snip raving and foaming at the mouth.

Show me the "mountain of evidence that runs contrary to his claim," please. I can't wait to see it.

I already did, and it went in one ear and out the other.

1. Will has a history of denying and lying about stuff he has said in the past. He has no credibility and he clearly has motive to lie about this.

But where is the evidence that contradicts his direct testimony?

2. Harmony's testimony. She has no motive to lie about this, since she knew there were eye-witnesses to the incident. Why would she risk being proved a liar on such a silly issue? WIll had already established himself as misogynistic

What relevance does that have to the issue of whether he seriously claimed to have his Calling and Election made sure?

3. Mr. Stak's testimony. He has no motive to lie.

What does Stak have to say about the issue of whether Will seriously claimed to have his Calling and Election made sure?

4. My testimony that something atrocious was said. This is proved by my immediate response to him.

What do you have to say about the issue of whether Will seriously claimed to have his Calling and Election made sure?

Apart from the gossips' creed, "I wouldn't put it past him?"

5. DrCam's testimony that something atrocious was said. This was proved by his immediate response to him.

What does Cam have to say about the issue of whether Will seriously claimed to have his Calling and Election made sure?

6. Will's testimony that he merely called Harmony a "hypocrite" and she freaked out and deleted his post. This pretty much proves he is lying since there is no way in hell that could have been what was said. That kind of statement never would have warranted these reactions from the crowd.

What's that got to do with the issue of whether Will seriously claimed to have his Calling and Election made sure?

The C&E issue happens to be the topic of this thread, Kevin. You know, this thread?

Which was broken away from the original thread. I've been chasing you around trying to get you to respond to my detailed refutations, but you keep running in circles.

So you've actually got nothing to say about the topic of this thread. You're merely chasing me from thread to thread, badgering me.

Please stop doing that.

I'm asking you nicely.

Snip to end.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

Pahoran is truly a nasty piece of work when it comes to his attitude towards apostates, but I don't ever recall him making sexually vulgar statements or sexualizing his insults towards women.

Didn't Pahoran make a threat against Dr. Cam's family? I seem to recall a thread that actually had to be locked in which a claim was made about Pahoran making actual threats.

[_Pahoran]

Pahoran is truly a nasty piece of work when it comes to his attitude towards apostates, but I don't ever recall him making sexually vulgar statements or sexualizing his insults towards women.

Didn't Pahoran make a threat against Dr. Cam's family? I seem to recall a thread that actually had to be locked in which a claim was made about Pahoran making actual threats.

Do you? I don't recall that.

Does Cam live in the upper North Island of New Zealand? Because if he doesn't, carrying out any "actual threats" against him might be a bit inconvenient.

If anyone with any credibility had made that rather serious accusation, Scratch, I would be demanding that they either support or retract it. However, since it's only you, I merely suggest that you see your specialist about adjusting your meds.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kishkumen]

So where is Will these days? So much has allegedly happened, and yet all we get are protestations of his innocence from his cronies. What gives?