DiscussMormonism.com

Oh, now I feel better, especially that you keep repeating it.

Why do you think you are qualified to get into this mix, based upon your past?

beastlie, you are a lying, deceitful bitch of a woman.

I defy anyone to locate anything I have ever written on this board or elsewhere that could be reasonably seen as fitting the description you give above.

I have long understood that you people are not beneath making these sorts of "over-the-top" charges. The things Scratch and others have written about DCP over the years are ample proof of that. And I also understand that you don't find it necessary to document allegations that you make, no matter how outrageous. It is your sole intent to throw out this kind of stuff and then permit it to take on a life of its own. But there is a distinct difference between my carefully-worded "flirtations" and the type of things you insinuate above. So, search away, and let's see what you can turn up. If you fail, then it will be evident to everyone -- at least the honest ones -- that you are little more than a rank propagandist.

And, for the record, I find it difficult to believe that "men" have ever found you attractive, at least not without the aid of excess testosterone, several shots of tequila and extremely dim lighting. You are simply too ugly in soul for it to not show through. It gives me the willies just thinking about what you must really look like ...

So, in your opinion, repeatedly making comments about women’s anatomies and physical attributes do not match that description?

Let’s just look at one thread in particular:

Here’s a sampling of how you behave toward women on this site, starting with the thread that featured the tank-top. The topic was “Lamanite Only A Political Designation?” In the midst of this serious conversation, Will made this post, which triggered the others:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5519&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=varicose+veins&start=63

will

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.

Liz protested:

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

Quit being such an ass.

Will’s response:

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.

Kimberly Ann protested:

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 added more to his comments to liz

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? ;-)

Will’s response:

I'm quite well known for my "unwarranted display of hubris."

But it's nothing my 15-year-old daughter's sharp tongue can't rip to shreds.

Charlemagne (Charles I) lived in the second half of the 8th century A.D. And I think you're right that he had about 20 children. And I'll bet we're distant cousins because we both descend from him and several of his posterity. He's back about 50 generations for me. I can go back another 25 or so from him to a Roman ruler of Gaul who died in 6 A.D.

Oh, and by the way, my "sexist attributes" are not the exclusive province of the "Mormon Priesthood holder." I'm just a normal man. Well, probably a whole lot more manly than many of the "men" I see posting on this board. Most of them have been so utterly emasculated by our oppressive modern feminazi culture that they are only a couple of testosterone molecules shy of being eunuchs.

Now get your fat ass back in the kitchen and whip up a batch of cookies before I slap you silly.

<grin>

I like you KA. I'll bet you'd look good in a tanktop, too. ;-)

Beastie’s snarky comment in return:

I'm sure being a Drama Queen results in the exaggerated need to prove one's maleness, too, as in referring to how females would look in tank tops.

For another example, look at your response to me – you focused on my physical characteristics, emphasizing that no man could possibly be attracted to me. (by the way, there are enough posters here who have seen pictures of me to render your comment silly)

You have a habit, and perhaps people in real life are too polite to point it out to you, or perhaps you don’t do it in real life, but you certainly do it on this board. You have a habit of sexualizing your comments to women, in responding to them in a way that objectifies them, in the proper sense of the word, not the over-used sense of the word. When you disagree with what a female poster says, you often insert some derogatory comment about her physical appearance. When you have reason to believe you would find a female poster physically attractive, you insert some flirtatious, sometimes suggestive comment while dismissing her comments. This all adds up to someone who cyber ogles women, sizing them up like pieces of meat in the market.

William Schryver wrote: beastlie, you are a lying, deceitful bitch of a woman.

LOL... someone's button was pushed.

beastie, to answer your question, my wife and I have a bit of a running joke about flirting with others, but it's not something we'd ever do for real. You're right; it is a simple matter of respect. That WS doesn't recognize this is hardly surprising. He's either full of s***, a total moron or a complete jerk with his wife. Likely all of the above.

Oh ho ho hooooo... The anger sharks are finally surfacing from Will's head. He, a Mormon temple recommend holding member just called another woman a bitch, in anger, after just getting done admitting he ogled KA's body.

Creepy-ass Mormon men and their paper thin piety. Never ends.

Behold, the fruits of Mormonism! Isn't wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?

edit:

My live-in gf would NOT be down with me openly flirting with other women, and in fact, has told me to knock it off when I get too base. The latter happens about once a day.

Oh, now I feel better, especially that you keep repeating the insult and references to my family.

Carry on, tearing into Will about his sexual misbehavior.

You've really lost it. You were the one who repeated the insult and references to your family. Obviously it didn't really bother you, particularly given how many times you've brought it up to me. You clearly enjoy it, because you think it gives you some sort of bat to use against me. As I said, if that's the biggest bat you can find, I must be a saint.

rcrocket wrote:

beastie wrote:Hey, bob, it's a miracle you have seven kids. I guess that means your wife laid back and thought of England seven times. God knows I'd never let a misogynist touch me.

beastie wrote:No, I did not out details of your personal life.

Hmm. The two quotes don't quite add up, do they?

Oh, you mean she was right when she said your wife laid back and thought of England seven times and that you're really a misogynist?

Hmmm... I understand why you wouldn't like people knowing that.

William Schryver wrote:
Beastlie (an unmarried woman living with a man) and Ray Agostini (an adulterer and long-time “lone wolf” predatory male) lecturing on marital fidelity and the meaning of chastity to a man who has “known” but one woman, who in turn has “known” but one man, and who have been blissfully joined in matrimony for almost three decades.

Folks, it simply does not get any richer than this.

Oh, but it does get richer. You follow a man who married the wives of other men and practiced polygamy in secret while publicly denouncing it.

Inasmuch as this Church of Christ[sic] has been reproached with the crime of fornication...

beastlie:

For another example, look at your response to me – you focused on my physical characteristics …

No it didn’t, you deceitful shrew, it talked about your “ugly soul” that would “come through” and render you unattractive. You’re a liar and a propagandist.

… sizing them up like pieces of meat in the market.

If so, I’d liken you to a ham hock.
.
.
.
antibrain:

My live-in gf would NOT be down with me openly flirting with other women, and in fact, has told me to knock it off when I get too base. The latter happens about once a day.

And if you go to hell, it won’t be for that.

In the words of one wise woman: “I don’t care if you look at the menu, just make sure you come home for dinner.”

But, alas, for beastlie and her Freudian potpourri of issues, any such thoughts are base and dirty and loathsome.

Beastlie? Deceitful shrew?

Can this give us any better demonstration of what Mormonism does to a man? THESE, right here, are the fruits of Mormonism. William Schryver is giving us a real-time demonstration that Mormonism makes men into domineering pigs. There's no peace. There's no humility. There's no kindness. There's only hate, revenge, and anger.

Sounds like the traits of Lucifer's church.

That being said, Joseph Smith had sex with other mens' wives, underaged girls, and was a polygamist. What other kinds of behavior would we or could we expect from his church's adherents?

asbestosman wrote:

Nightingale wrote:But yeah. On this and other issues, the point is not for a supposedly religious man to be the same as others (as they often claim as an excuse) but to be better than. That is the message, right?

No.

I don't see what the problem is with having expectations of people who are preaching to you that they will try to be at least as civil as other people outside their group.

Yes.

OK, I didn't phrase that well, at all. I should have said not that religious people are better than (duh) but that there is a certain standard of behaviour that we claim to follow. There is also the concept of having the light of Christ (Mormons) or the power of the Lord (non-LDS believers) to help overcome at least our more egregious shortcomings.

Obviously, nobody expects any human to be perfect (contrary to what some claim that ex-members do) but I don't think it's out of line to expect people to practice what they literally preach.

I think it's perfectly understandable to be surprised or even shocked that a religious person who comes to this forum to castigate non-believers would be rude and offensive, such as Will S calling beastie a "bitch". Maybe I'm lame for being shocked that apparently some LDS feel they don't need to adhere to standards in certain situations and locations but I am as it's not what I would expect nor what I experience with Christians I know.

I know that the use of what is considered foul language is commonplace these days but even so, it is not what I would expect from someone claiming to have higher standards than the rest of the crowd. I have interacted with atheist males on several boards and even though we may have agreed on precisely nothing they have been largely unfailingly courteous to me. They certainly do not hurl the B word around or worse merely for a difference of opinion. One exception is a non-Christian male on this board who called me a bitch for reasons unclear to me. As I said when that occurred, in my line of work and volunteer activities, a man calling a woman a bitch is considered to be abusive. Maybe that seems OTT to many people but that's how it is for me. I do think that it definitely changes the dynamics of an exchange on the board, though, and makes it personal and unpleasant and certainly doesn't help to advance the conversation. I think it is nasty, low and completely unnecessary and, yes, most often abusive.

So, seeing an LDS man stoop to that is at least surprising to me, if not shocking any more, as the more I read these interactions the more accustomed I get, unfortunately, to such exchanges.

There are also those little principles of working on being modest and self-examining and finding beams in one's own eyes and being non-judgemental that should keep us busy not thinking we're better than anyone else at all, which definitely and demonstrably some, if not all of us, are absolutely not.

My apologies for my dumb comment that does not reflect what I meant to say.

Thanks for pointing that out ABM.