Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Trevor]

Yes there is. Go back to your first reply to my comment to you. YOU clearly musunderstood what I said. Notice that I then went on to corrected your misunderstanding.

Wade, you need to decide what it is you are claiming here. You have spent a good deal of time now saying that I did not understand the concept of hearsay. Now, when I have demonstrated that I clearly did and do, you now say I did not understand you, and then you pretend that there is no difference between these claims. You are shifting between them and not acknowledging that there are two claims here.

Nowhere in this thread is it obvious that I do not understand the meaning of hearsay. Your statement, which was problematic in that it interjected a problem that Kevin has shown was something you inferred without any real justification, only muddied the waters. I had never claimed that I was offering first-hand testimony. I only claimed that I considered my source someone who could.

I repeat Kevin's question: are you saying that Simon has anything better to bring to the table? In other words, was Simon there? Did he see the events in question? If not, then I would say we are both on pretty equal footing. But it is not even clear that he is not a thirdhand source.

What I am saying now is the same thing that I said before, and the same thing I have said all along. Your hearsay evidence is not as authoritative as someone providing documented first-hand testimony. My point hasn't changed, but hopefully your understanding of it has.

All I claimed, Wade, was that what Simon claimed was proved a bald-faced lie was not proved a bald-faced lie. At no time did I say, "I am a firsthand witness of the events. I saw them with my own eyes. They are verily true!"

If I made any error, it was in interpreting your already opaque addition to the thread as meaning that you accused my source of engaging in hearsay instead of actually having witnessed the events firsthand. You might have easily said, "no, I am saying your word is hearsay, not that of your source," and I would have agreed with you. I said as much in my very next post anyway.

Instead you chose to accuse me of not understanding the meaning of hearsay, and then when I showed that was not true you persisted in falsely claiming that I didn't understand the term.

This is the last I will say on the matter. If you don't get it this time around, then I am fine with leaving it at that.

Wade, your deficiencies in English are not my problem. It is not my job to clarify your cryptic and impertinent statements. I "got" all of this a long time ago. Your attempt to make it seem otherwise is just a dishonest face-saving gambit, as anyone can plainly see. If you want to cut your losses now, that's fine with me.

You are free to diverge from the topic to your hearts desire. For my part, i will make a conserted effort to get back on topic.

Is sanctimony in the service of dishonesty a virtue in your mind? Because that is what you are engaging in here.

[_beastie]

For SH’s benefit, just in case he’s not Will and is sincere, I’ve perused the thread “Lamanite Only a Political Designation” to refresh my memory. I didn’t remember the thread being full of vulgarity that far overshadowed Will’s, but I thought I’d check to be sure. The thread was heated and pointed comments were made, but there was no vulgarity until Will started up:

viewtopic.php?p=135564#p135564

Will had asserted:

Some experts in population genetics would argue that his {lehi's} descendants are probably on every continent by now.

Who Knows replied:

lol. why don't you name some of them? Try and name 1 who's not LDS.

Will replied:

Uh, duh! It wouldn't take an LDS expert in population genetics to support my argument. Any such expert would tell you that any man who had produced three or four generations of offspring 2500 years ago would now be the ancestor of almost every living human being.

I've watched you grow dumber over the course of the past two years.

I hope, at least, that you're happier now. What with your wife wearing her tanktop and panties to bed and everything.

My wife just wears the tanktop -- at least for 45 minutes or so. She likes to sleep in her soft flannel jammies.

Will was referencing an earlier thread in which Who Knows talked about how things had changed since leaving the church, and his wife’s sleeping attire was one. So simply mentioning the tanktop is not grave – Who Knows mentioned it himself. But it seems odd to bring it up on a completely unrelated topic, couched in an insult.

Liz reacted:

And this has to do with WK's argument, how?

Quit being such an ass.

Is calling Will an ass harsher than telling someone they’ve “grown dumber” over the years? Not really, they’re probably equivalent. But this isn’t the main event: things deteriorate from here, thanks to Will.

Will replied:

Go away, Lizzie. This conversation is over your pretty little head. You want to moderate my comments, go right ahead. Put some bite in your bitchiness.

Liz replied:

This isn't MAD. We don't censor here.

If I'm speaking as a Moderator, you'll know it.

At the moment, I'm "speaking as a man", as Shades puts it. Actually, I'm "speaking as a Goddess". ;)

Frankly, if I had my choice, you are one poster here I would love to see "go away", as you so eloquently put it.

Unfortunately, all, including the likes of you, are free to post here.

Will responded:

You could not possibly have said anything that would have honored me more than this.

Thanks, Liz. You've made my day.

Now, certainly, to this point, things have gotten nasty, but if this, alone, were given as proof of Will’s problematic behavior, I would agree with SH, that there was definitely background context and tit-for-tat.

But Will just can’t stop himself from escalating. Despite his claims otherwise, I believe Liz’s comments got under his skin, because he has to try to draw blood. And of course when Will is trying to draw blood with a woman, he tends to go to the same place – her sexual attractiveness.

Liz tried to get back to topic with this comment to Will:

So, according to your argument, the American Indian IS a descendant of Lehi, thus following the teachings of the "average Mormon".

KA, in the meantime, rose to Will’s bait:

What an unwarranted display of hubris! Will Schryver, I doubt anything you could come up with is over Liz's head, and I can assure you it wouldn't be over mine.

I'm going on a fifteen year old memory, but I believe you're still off by sixty or so years with Charlemagne. He may be called by some the "Father of Europe", but his progeny numbered around twenty, if I remember correctly (and I usually do), so I doubt that should be taken literally.

Also, thank you for exemplifying the sexist attributes of Mormon Priesthood holders. I enjoy pointing out the sexism inherent in Mormonism, and your above post does nothing but prove me right.

Will’s reply to Liz:

I deny there was ever any such thing as you imply in this phrase. There may have been prevalent beliefs, but there was, quite simply, no such thing as “common teachings” until the early 20th century, at which time we begin to see these qualified statements regarding the Indians and the Lamanites.



By the way, I know you’re sticking around simply because I told you the conversation was over “your pretty little head.”

In retrospect, I have no idea if you even have a “pretty little head.” You see, I am as handsome as my avatar suggests, but I have serious doubts that you are as good looking as your avatar would lead us believe. I’ll bet you’re a wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins and more good years behind you than ahead of you. Right? ;-)

So, really, was there really a lot of vulgarity launched towards Will, or anywhere on the thread, prior to Will’s escalation?

Certainly there were heated words, and while “ass” may be considered vulgar, so would “bitchiness”. But what I really objected to in this event was Will’s comment:

I’ll bet you’re a wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins and more good years behind you than ahead of you. Right? ;-)

For those of you defending Will, what possible defense do you have of this behavior??? Or are you just going to ignore it, while decrying the fact that some of us think his behavior towards women is a problem that deserves to be pointed out??

[_Trevor]

I guess this is another example of my "convoluted imagination"? Did wade not just bring up "documented first hand testimony" or didn't he? Why bring this up at all wade unless you're trying to say the apologists have "documented first hand testimony" and the critics do not? You're obviously trying to slink away while pretending you've made some kind of significant point, when all you did is illustrate your uselessness on these forums.

One would have expected Wade to offer something more solid than Simon's naked assertion at that point, but he seems to be claiming that all he was doing was saying that hearsay is not proof. This gesture does not make sense, since at no time did I claim to have "proof." So, I think our expectations, which are based on the observed behavior of coherent interlocutors, led us astray here. Wade had no clear reason to bring up hearsay without jumping to the conclusion that I was claiming I had conclusive proof whereas Simon had only a naked assertion. So, Wade proceeds from his initial error to correcting me for responding to something he claims he was not saying--that Simon had better proof than I did.

Here is what I said that prompted Wade's hearsay comment:

No, it really hasn't. And since I heard the story from someone who was actually present, my source is at least equally authoritative to any you might bring to the table.

[_Simon Belmont]

One thing I've learned about Trevor over the months -- he can never admit being wrong.

[_Trevor]

One thing I've learned about Trevor over the months -- he can never admit being wrong.

Stop lying Simon.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

One thing I've learned about Trevor over the months -- he can never admit being wrong.

Well, show that he is wrong and we will see.

[_RockSlider]

What happened to our guest of honor?

After praising Eric and slapping him on the back after his support, I would have thought he would have been all over his new found friend (or an old, small circle of academic buddies) Silver Hammer and how quickly and concisely he analyzed the whole situation and declared William clean, every wit.

Kind of miraculous actually (yes, the cleansing; the disappearance; the added bonuses of Wade and Droopy’s performances – take your pick).

[_wenglund]

Where, in your convoluted mind did you imagine that I had intended to offer evidence--hearsay or otherwise?

Listen Forrest, I know this is hard for you to connect the dots in even a short string of discussion points, but let me, for the sake of our readers, illustrate how this is all flying straight over your head, as usual. Here is how this exchange played itself out:

Scratch: Midgley was a prick at the Tanner's store

Simon: This was shown to be a bald-faced lie multiple times. Yet you perpetuate the myth.

Trevor: No, it really hasn't. And since I heard the story from someone who was actually present, my source is at least equally authoritative to any you might bring to the table.

wade: I hate to breaak it to you Trevor, but hearsay is not as authoritative as documented first-hand testimony. Sorry.

Ok, is your last comment a figment of my "convoluted" imagination or did you actually bring up "first hand testimony" as if this is what Simon had?

Fist of all, Gubber, I appreciate you slowing down the conversation so as to give you a chance to catch up. And, I am fine with you using me as cover.

Second, yes, I actually did bring up "first hand tesimony," but no, it wasn't because I intended to introduce the first-hand testimony, myself, as you mistakenly presumed. Are you still with me? Or, am I moving to fast?

Third, Simon didn't present any evidence at that point, himself, but simply made the non-descript reference to: "This was shown to be a bald-faced lie multiple times." Notice, that Simon didn't mention me by name, and so one cannot reasonably assume from this that Simon expected, or that I intended, to present evidence myself. Keeping up?

If you were not trying to imply that Simon has "documented first-hand testimony" compared to Trevor's "hearsay" then what the hell was your point?

Fourth, there is one thing for certain, my point wasn't to imply that I would provide documented firsthand evidence, as obviously evinced by the fact that I am not Simon, nor was I a part of the exchange between Simon and Trevor.

Fifth, again, my comment had in mind the non-descript reference to: "This was shown to be a bald-faced lie multiple times." Having been privy to what, on multiple occasions, was shown, which included documented statements from Dr. Midgley, my point did not have in mind me providing that documented first-hand evidence--as evince by the conspicuous absence of anything remotely suggesting that I would.

If it was to prove that nothing has been proven, then your quibble is with Simon since he is the only one who claimed that something has been proven.

My point made no mention of what had or had not been proven either way (yet another of your false presumptions). It was entirely silent on the issue of proof. My point, again, spoke solely to the matter of hearsay not being as authoritative as first-hand testimony. It did not, in any way, intimate that I would be providing evidence. Did you get it that time?

Trevor's point was that both sides rely on testimony offered by people who were there. Therefore Simon is wrong to insist one version has been proven over the other.

And, my point (please listen carefully here) has to do with the manner in which the testimonies are presented. There is an authoritative difference between someone's hearsay of what someone who was allegedly there had allegedly said, and someone providing documented first-hand testimony. Did the light finally dawn in your convoluted brain?

Please carefully note that there is nothing in what I just said that could reasonably be interpreted as me intimating that I would be providing documented first-hand testimony. To think that I did, would be a figment of one's convoluted imagination. Have you reached cognition yet?

All you did here was illustrate your abject ignorance on the matter while trying to spin it in a way to make yourself look like you're a teacher. Always giving lessons, eh wade? Do you have any idea how stupid this makes you look? You're slowly deginerating into one of the most useless posters on the boards.

I understand your defensive reaction. You obviously showed yourself as a buffoon, and your standard MO is to project, deflect, and self-delude. The good news is, at least I am compassionate enough to allow you your games.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Mr. Schryver on why he would attend an ex-Mormon conference:

Besides, I only went to the Exmo Conference because I heard there were easy chicks to be found. And, as a matter of fact, I saw several. In fact, I wrote a chronicle of my adventures. Bill Hamblin was one of several who read it. It's since been retired to the "vault," I'm sure.

I only lingered an hour or two. But the laughs started from before I ever even walked in the place. The prologue was a female Australian exmo outside the doors, double-fisting a Manhattan and a Cape Cod while recounting her conquest of the previous night between drags on a Marlboro. That was followed shortly by Tal Bachman staggering up to the urinal next to me, propping a half-empty six-pack atop the porcelain and asking me if I was enjoying "the show."

Who knows what is hyperbole, and what is the truth... At least Ms. Belinda Schryver is ok with his free wheelin' lifestyle!

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Could you please provide a quote from Trevor that would indicate that he did not understand what hearsay evidence is?

I already did. See my post on this thread daed: Wed May 04, 2011 12:10 pm.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-