From My Informant: Did Brian Hauglid Betray Schryver?

[_EAllusion]

Also, Will is one of the more vulgar, meanspirited posters on the board. He's roughly on par with polygamy porter at the top of the charts. The implication that he was merely sinking to the standard of the Beasties and truthdancers of the board is false. That was the intended smear.

[_EAllusion]

Personally, I thought his cutting comments towards Emma Smith would rub many Mormons the wrong way. It's one thing to call a modern apostate a whore, they are filthy apostates after all, but it's another to go after someone oft venerated by Mormons. Yet Will still attracts plenty of defenders of such behavior. It's like the resurrected zombie of Brigham Young is posting.

[Guest]

deleted

[_Pahoran]

Pahoran

Well, I haven't been a very regular poster here, so I may have missed something; but the last such thread I saw had a title similar to "Will Schryver the Vulgar Scatologist." Are you saying there have been similar threads aimed at others?

If so, were any of the targets not Mormons?

Regards,
Pahoran

Geez, Pahoran, I'm not up for repeating myself 500 times here. Just above the post of mine that you are responding to, is another post that I made to Belmont with a link.

Actually, I view the "targets" as the female posters to whom the original comments were directed and yes, these were non-LDS posters.

Oh, so if a thread is put together entirely to discuss one poster, that poster can't be a "target" unless she's a girrrrrrl.

Got it.

Only women can be victims[TM] because women are gentle and defenceless; and if any man dares to disagree, they'll kick him in the gonads.

Incidentally, while the thread you linked to does talk (in general) about some posters harassing some other posters, it isn't quite what I was asking about, is it? I mean, it wasn't dedicated to rubbing one single poster's nose in a collection of his past misdeeds, was it?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Continuing....Pahoran, I think you know me well enough to know that when confronted with that type of thing, I typically take care of it myself in any number of ways in full public view, unless the language is extremely lewd. In those cases, I might contact admin or complain to admin in full public view.

If you take a look at the Ray A. thread I linked to, that was after I'd had my fill of such remarks and simply left the board. I was not the only female poster to leave the board.

I did look at it. I noticed that Beastie returned from an absence to make a long post arguing that the bad behaviour of apostate males must somehow be the fault of the Church of Jesus Christ.

No wonder she's so sensitive about my criticisms of the notorious "Christine Jonsen" libel.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Also, Will is one of the more vulgar, meanspirited posters on the board. He's roughly on par with polygamy porter at the top of the charts.

Fine. Can you point me to a thread with a title similar to "Polygamy Porter, Vulgar Scatologist?"

Personally, I thought his cutting comments towards Emma Smith would rub many Mormons the wrong way. It's one thing to call a modern apostate a whore, they are filthy apostates after all, but it's another to go after someone oft venerated by Mormons.

In point of fact, his remarks about Emma did rub me the wrong way; then I saw that he had rather graciously apologised. Do you have any evidence that he has backslid in that regard?

Yet Will still attracts plenty of defenders of such behavior. It's like the resurrected zombie of Brigham Young is posting.

CFR that anyone has defended Will's remarks about Emma.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Jersey Girl]

I am going to intersperse my comments between your comments. Live with it!


Pahorah: Oh, so if a thread is put together entirely to discuss one poster, that poster can't be a "target" unless she's a girrrrrrl.

Got it.

Jersey Girl: No, and you know better than that.

Pahoran: Only women can be victims[TM] because women are gentle and defenceless; and if any man dares to disagree, they'll kick him in the gonads.

Jersey Girl: Oh just shut up. :-D I didn't say that and you know it.

Pahoran: Incidentally, while the thread you linked to does talk (in general) about some posters harassing some other posters, it isn't quite what I was asking about, is it? I mean, it wasn't dedicated to rubbing one single poster's nose in a collection of his past misdeeds, was it?

Regards,
Pahoran

Jersey Girl: It was a collection of posters. Why does that matter to you? The point is that it was addressed. Are you planning to drag me into some sort of arm wrestling contest now? I hope not.

I'd win.
;-)

[_TrashcanMan79]

Just thought I'd bring to your attention a post made by Nomad in the Celestial:

I was wrong about Will being in Europe this week. It turns out that doesn’t happen until next week. I asked him by e-mail about this WilliamSchryver post and him acknowledging that it was his. His reply:

I do not know how it was made to appear that I acknowledged making that post, but I did not.

As I have done every single time this quote has been mentioned (this thread is not the first time—that quote has been around for at least two years), I did not post as “WilliamSchryver” (no space between the names). I did not make the post in question.

Whoever did do it is to be commended for mimicking my style quite well. But it was not I.

-WS

P.S. I regret to say that it is true what has been reported about the traitors Hauglid and Bokovoy. My only commentary on their actions is: “You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”

William Schryver e-mail to Nomad 5/24/2011

If Nomad is to believed (always a big "if," I realize), it would appear Scratch's intel was correct.

[_Doctor Scratch]

All right. I'll go ahead and admit that it was indeed David Bokovoy who was (along with Hauglid) originally identified in the "intel" I received. My thinking was that Will already had a vendetta against David, and thus there was no reason to toss more fuel on the fire, hence why I omitted his name from the OP. I often have to weight which "intel" to post and which to keep on the down-low, and this was the call I made this time.

In any event, I'll be waiting very patiently to hear Dr. Peterson, LifeOnaPlate, Simon Belmont, Pahoran, etc. tell me how I'm wrong, how I'm just making everything up, how my "informant" is a figment of my imagination, etc., etc.

[_Simon Belmont]

All right. I'll go ahead and admit that it was indeed David Bokovoy who was (along with Hauglid) originally identified in the "intel" I received. My thinking was that Will already had a vendetta against David, and thus there was no reason to toss more fuel on the fire, hence why I omitted his name from the OP. I often have to weight which "intel" to post and which to keep on the down-low, and this was the call I made this time.

In any event, I'll be waiting very patiently to hear Dr. Peterson, LifeOnaPlate, Simon Belmont, Pahoran, etc. tell me how I'm wrong, how I'm just making everything up, how my "informant" is a figment of my imagination, etc., etc.

Well, was it DavidBokovoy, David_Bokovoy, David Bokovoy, Bokovoy_David, or DavBok?