Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

No. "The posse" is here, among us. It is the core, anti-Mormon, left/liberal population of Mormondiscussion.com.

It is the Kevin Klux Klan.

It is the Shady Acres Syndicate.

It is...the Cesspark.

Thanks, Droopy. Please stop by tomorrow because I am posting my new book review of Cleon Skousen's "The 5,000 Year Leap".

[_Buffalo]

This is just you're own intellectual insecurity writhing to the surface, yet again. The very fact that you think you have to do this kind of thing to everybody who disagrees with you is the smoking gun. Who else do we know who needs to preen and stroke his intellectual insecurity in public?

We wouldn't have far to look.

Not around here.

No, not everyone who disagrees with her. Just you. :)

You really are all bluster, no substance. :)

[Guest]

And you wonder why your propaganda crapola doesn’t play well outside this stinky sewer. You are a compulsive liar. And not a very good one at that. I see you’re still trying to make some of your bigger lies stick. Good luck with that.

Will Schryver never said a word about your "sexuality". Of course, you know that. He did make reference to your willingness to talk nasty on this message board. At least when you’re not working hard to present the image of the ever-so-upright “Christian lady”. What a joke that is!

I can recall many times when you have engaged in dirty talk on this board, along with liz and Kimberly ann and others. And those are just the rare times when I've been paying attention. I'm sure it has happened a lot more than what I have seen personally. All Will is saying is that now you don’t have any reason to convince people like DCP that you are some paragon of virtue, you can be a little more open about your nastiness. No one here will accuse you of hypocrisy. You can be sure of that.

Will, why don't you just defend yourself under your own name? You've already got Droopy to play the slavering sycophant. You don't need your Nomad sock puppet too.

[_MsJack]

You are a compulsive liar.

Rich coming from you.

I've joked about sex on the forums (usually in threads that were already humorous or about sex). I'm allowed to initiate jokes about my own sex life.

I've never joked with William Schryver about sex, and I've never joked about sessions in "the Goddess suite."

And when I say that kind of joking is unwelcome in the conversation or has crossed my comfort line, I mean it. It shouldn't take more than that for someone to back down and drop it.

[Guest]

Heck, for the past half decade or so, Dan Peterson has been telling me that I'm "insane," "emotionally and/or mentally disturbed,"

Yes, I'm inclined to think that Scratch is off his rocker. Or else, that he's pretending to be.

And, of course, it should be kept in mind that I've only responded to his attacks on me. I didn't initiate this. I'd never heard of him until he opened his anonymous campaign against me.

And it should be further kept in mind that, while he has been engaged in a crusade to malign and defame a real public person (me) by name for the past five full years, I've been responding to, and occasionally mocking, a pseudonymous message board phantom.

that I deserve to be incarcerated and/or "committed,"

I've never said that. I've sometimes wondered -- more than half in jest -- if he posts from an institution, but I have no viewpoint on whether or not he deserves to be committed or incarcerated. I know essentially nothing about him beyond his posting persona, but he's plainly fairly high-functioning. So I think it more likely that he gets out-patient care than that he's actually in a straightjacket.

that I deserve to be shot,

This is the kind of ludicrous falsehood that suggests he's either nuts or pretending to be nuts.

I've never said that he deserves to be shot.

that I have no friends,

I have no idea whether he has any friends in real life. I don't know who he is.

Whereas he tracks me constantly (even searching to find out what I've purchased on Amazon.com, and such things), keeps files on me, and comments on me incessantly, I have no idea who he is, and I've made no particular attempt to find out anything about his real life identity.

If he were ever to drop his malevolent crusade against me, I would probably never think of him again. As it is, to tell the truth, I think about him less and less, and that's quite pleasant.

that I'm unemployed,

If he lives in an institution, he probably is unemployed.

But, as I say, I suspect that he most likely hasn't been institutionalized.

that I need "smelling salts"

He definitely needs an emergency humor transplant.

and/or that I need to be heavily medicated due to mental illness (using mental illness as a means of insult is a favorite of his) etc., etc.

Not really. It's just that, after being the target of his crusade for the past half-decade -- a crusade that I think is astoundingly bizarre -- alternative explanations for its implacable obsessiveness seem to become less and less plausible. He doesn't appear to me to be a normal person.

And now, to compound my sins, I'll offer this: Will Schryver's on-line posting style is not mine. But I've met him in person on several occasions over the years, and there is nothing, so far as I can tell, "creepy" about him.

(Incidentally, as to the c*** word, did anybody ever actually prove that he used it? He vehemently denies having ever done so, here or anywhere else. That's the worst of the things alleged against him here, and, if I'm not mistaken, several even of his critics on this board came to his defense on that point.)

[_Nomad]

You are a compulsive liar.

Rich coming from you.

I've joked about sex on the forums (usually in threads that were already humorous or about sex). I'm allowed to initiate jokes about my own sex life.

I've never joked with William Schryver about sex, and I've never joked about sessions in "the Goddess suite."

And when I say that kind of joking is unwelcome in the conversation or has crossed my comfort line, I mean it. It shouldn't take more than that for someone to back down and drop it.

He never said a word about sex or sexuality to you. Not one. Just like he never used called harmony the “c” word, or ever called anyone a whore, or a slut. Like I said, you’re a compulsive liar. And a bad propagandist. I’m just glad you’ve kept it up long enough that others have been able to realize it. How does it feel to have marginalized yourself so badly in the eyes of those you were trying to influence? How does it feel to have sunk your flimsy reputation for “neutrality” and “objectivity”? How does it feel to have become known as a liar and an anti-mormon propagandist? Oh, I’m sure your popularity here is higher than ever. Congratulations, you’re the queen of the MDB toilet, with a plunger for a scepter. Make that your avatar.

[_Buffalo]

He never said a word about sex or sexuality to you. Not one. Just like he never used called harmony the “c” word, or ever called anyone a whore, or a slut. Like I said, you’re a compulsive liar. And a bad propagandist. I’m just glad you’ve kept it up long enough that others have been able to realize it. How does it feel to have marginalized yourself so badly in the eyes of those you were trying to influence? How does it feel to have sunk your flimsy reputation for “neutrality” and “objectivity”? How does it feel to have become known as a liar and an anti-mormon propagandist? Oh, I’m sure your popularity here is higher than ever. Congratulations, you’re the queen of the MDB toilet, with a plunger for a scepter. Make that your avatar.

Actually, she's pretty well respected, while you, er, cough, Will, have lost all credibility among your peers. Sucks to be you. :o

Will, doesn't it bother you that the only person willing to defend you (other than your sock puppets) is a pseudo-intellectual social pariah John Bircher at war with his own sexuality?

[Guest]

He never said a word about sex or sexuality to you.

The "Goddess Suite" is a well-known erotic joke in these parts. Guess you haven't been paying as much attention as you thought you had.

How does it feel to have marginalized yourself so badly in the eyes of those you were trying to influence?

Who was I trying to influence?

How does it feel to have sunk your flimsy reputation for “neutrality” and “objectivity”?

With whom have I sunk my reputation? Just a few posts ago, a recent FAIR Conference speaker said:

Know, in either case, that making Jack out to be an anti-Mormon would be a very, very, very hard sell. Perhaps you aren't aware that Jack went to BYU, and is married to a Latter-day Saint? I've known her online for seven or eight years, used to chat with her frequently on ZLMB, and have spoken with her in person. And in my experience Jack is very fair and charitable. While being devoutly part of Evangelical Christianity, a faith of which so many of the adherents are anti-Mormon, she has managed to be a friend to Latter-day Saints. Would that all Evangelical Christians were as "anti-Mormon" as Jack!

Doesn't sound like my reputation has changed at all.

How does it feel to have become known as a liar and an anti-mormon propagandist?

Who thinks I'm a liar and an anti-Mormon propagandist? If your answers are "Droopy, Pahoran, Wade Englund, and William's sock drawer," I gotta say, I'm unconcerned.

And if you don't have any names to drop in answer to those questions, then I'm really, really unconcerned.

Oh, I’m sure your popularity here is higher than ever. Congratulations, you’re the queen of the MDB toilet, with a plunger for a scepter. Make that your avatar.

Um . . . okay. Sounds like you're a lot more passionate about this place than I am. Good luck with that.

----------

[Guest]

Will Schryver's on-line posting style is not mine. But I've met him in person on several occasions over the years, and there is nothing, so far as I can tell, "creepy" about him.

Your opinion of what William is like in person when he (presumably) isn't talking about anyone's breasts or their repulsive womanhood or their suggestive excesses in the Goddess Suite really means a lot to me.

(Incidentally, as to the c*** word, did anybody ever actually prove that he used it? He vehemently denies having ever done so, here or anywhere else. That's the worst of the things alleged against him here, and, if I'm not mistaken, several even of his critics on this board came to his defense on that point.)

There is no way to "prove" that he used it. It was deleted by the mod that he said it to and this forum has no change log, and no one took a screenshot of it or anything.

Three people claimed to have seen him use it before it was deleted, one of whom commented within minutes of seeing it and whose comment seems to reflect that it was there. One person who was active in the thread at the time did not remember seeing it, but was not sure whether he saw the post before it was edited or not.

I only recall one critic, Eric, defending William on the point. Others (like Tarski) pointed out that it's perfectly silly to think "c---" is off-limits but the other things William says are no big deal.

How idiotic of you to claim you would never use the c-word (contra witnesses) and yet freely refer to them using such things as the b-word and then refer to them as "the most repulsive women with whom.....". What is it in the c-word that is bad will? What is contained in that word that isn't already contain in "most repulsive..."? It's like you don't even realize why the c-word is objectionable.

viewtopic.php?p=449954#p449954

If this thread is about to become "Did William really use the c-word? Episode II," I'm officially checking out. The first thread is still there for examination if anyone still cares.

----------

[_Doctor Scratch]

Heck, for the past half decade or so, Dan Peterson has been telling me that I'm "insane," "emotionally and/or mentally disturbed,"

Yes, I'm inclined to think that Scratch is off his rocker. Or else, that he's pretending to be.

And, of course, it should be kept in mind that I've only responded to his attacks on me. I didn't initiate this. I'd never heard of him until he opened his anonymous campaign against me.

That's not true at all. How forgetful you've become!

See: what happened is that I began posting on the old FAIRboard, and you began to get flustered. I was posting on a thread that dealt with race and the Church, and you dispensed your subtly racist tidbit about how you think interracial couples should be "warned" before getting married. I responded that your suggestion seemed problematic Then you proceeded to say--over and over--"Am I a racist, Scratch? Am I a racist, Scratch?" When I didn't directly say, "Yes," I was put on the queue. If anyone initiated aggressive interaction, it was you.

Later, of course, while posting out of the queue, I made some critical remarks about the peer review process at FARMS, and--out of the blue--you asserted there on the board that I had called you a "douchbag" or an "asshat" or something like that. Of course, this was completely false, but it didn't stop you from posting it, or reveling in the "humiliation" that you'd doled out to me.

When I appeared here on MDB to protest what happened, you sent me an email. Remember that? It was titled "Mea Culpa," though it's hard to take serious a "mea culpa" that was little more than a pretext for conducting some kind of interrogation. You proceeded to essentially label me a liar, and, after a few emails, you insisted that I was on a "vindictive crusade," or something to that extent. This was after just a couple of exchanges. I remember scratching my head thinking: Gee, Daniel Peterson smears me, tells me that I "should feel embarrassed" over remarks I never made, he effectively causes me to be banned from the FAIRboard, he calls me a liar, "interrogates" me on whether or not and to what extent I'd participated on RfM, and when I object to this kind of treatment, I'm "on a vindictive crusade"? But as I well know by now, over-reaction is one of your stocks-in-trade.

Regardless, I have an extremely hard time seeing how you can innocently claim that *I* was someone the one who "started it." Even if I'd never posted to the old FAIRboard, and we'd never experienced any of those conflicts, I would have objected to your 25+ year career of pissing all over people who are in enormous amounts of pain. I would have objected to your gossip mongering, to the smear campaigns in the FARMS Review, to your SHIELDS stuff, the Skinny-L antics, the stuff with Eric; Ritnergate; the 2nd Watson Letter, and so on. You aren't some poor little innocent "victim," Dan. You've been aggressively going after people for close to three decades.

And it should be further kept in mind that, while he has been engaged in a crusade to malign and defame a real public person (me) by name for the past five full years,

You've "defamed" yourself. The scope and range of people who know about the enormous legacy of infamy you've built for yourself extends far beyond anything I've ever said. I can bump into people who've never heard of "Doctor Scratch" who nonetheless know that Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, Louis Midgley, and the rest of the Skinny-L crew are grade-A jerks. And as you know, I'm not the only one who has been pointing this out. Before I turned up, you would have been more than happy to haul out one of your dozens of quotes from your RfM archive, just to show to everyone how splendidly "reviled" you are. You had hundreds of enemies before I came on the scene--as I recall, around the time that I first began reading the boards, you were obsessed with Tal Bachman, whom you called "Tall Tales Bachman." It wasn't long after that that you began ripping into Rollo Tomasi. You've just decided to fixate on me in recent years.

that I deserve to be incarcerated and/or "committed,"

I've never said that. I've sometimes wondered -- more than half in jest -- if he posts from an institution, but I have no viewpoint on whether or not he deserves to be committed or incarcerated. I know essentially nothing about him beyond his posting persona, but he's plainly fairly high-functioning. So I think it more likely that he gets out-patient care than that he's actually in a straightjacket.

Hey: okay. Go ahead and make jokes like this if you think it's funny. Ha ha, Dan.

Whereas he tracks me constantly (even searching to find out what I've purchased on Amazon.com, and such things)

Are you deliberately misrepresenting the facts, Dan? You invited me and everyone else here to look at your Amazon.com profile:

How hopelessly pretentious, mindlessly hostile, and spectacularly ignorant you are, Scratch, to presume to know what I read and what I listen to.

Here's a clue: Look for my name as a reviewer on Amazon.com.

(emphasis added)

viewtopic.php?p=254283#p254283

If you don't want people to look at your Amazon.com profile, don't invite them to do so. Or, what--are you going to complain the next time someone reads your "Mormon Times" article after you post a link? (And *I* am supposed to be the crazy one?)

and/or that I need to be heavily medicated due to mental illness (using mental illness as a means of insult is a favorite of his) etc., etc.

Not really. It's just that, after being the target of his crusade for the past half-decade -- a crusade that I think is astoundingly bizarre -- alternative explanations for its implacable obsessiveness seem to become less and less plausible. He doesn't appear to me to be a normal person.

Well, Dr. P., I can't say that I much understand how a group of men would dither away 25+ years of their lives in pursuit of smearing people, plotting "hijacks" of conference presentations, sending random emails to and picking fights with Internet critics, etc. You've actually woven all this stuff into your professional lives. At least I can say that my criticism has been limited to the boards. You guys have actually made a career out of what you do.