Stormy Waters wrote:Honestly I don't understand why apologists don't rid themselves of William. He seems like a loose cannon and much more of a liability than an asset.
I mean haven't they already banned some of the more embarrassing supporters? So why not him?
Do you imagine apologists employ hit men or something? Okay, i know where you all will go with this, but it should be fun.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Stormy Waters wrote:Honestly I don't understand why apologists don't rid themselves of William. He seems like a loose cannon and much more of a liability than an asset.
I mean haven't they already banned some of the more embarrassing supporters? So why not him?
Who have the apologists ever "banned"? What does it mean to be "banned" from FARMS/MI?
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Stormy Waters wrote:Honestly I don't understand why apologists don't rid themselves of William. He seems like a loose cannon and much more of a liability than an asset.
I mean haven't they already banned some of the more embarrassing supporters? So why not him?
Who have the apologists ever "banned"? What does it mean to be "banned" from FARMS/MI?
Stormy Waters wrote:If I'm not mistaken they've banned the likes of Droopy, LdsFaqs, and others. So why not William?
Who is "they?" You mean "mormondialogue.org?"
I don't even know who "they" are. "They" are not FAIR, not FARMS, not MI, not BYU. "They" could be Jehovah's Witnesses for all I personally know. "They" don't speak for the apologetic community.
If Will follows the rules there, then why not let him post?
And so what does a banning mean? I've been banned from this board, at least temporarily. It means nothing.
Stormy Waters wrote:Honestly I don't understand why apologists don't rid themselves of William. He seems like a loose cannon and much more of a liability than an asset.
I mean haven't they already banned some of the more embarrassing supporters? So why not him?
He must have pictures of Juliann.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Stormy Waters wrote:If I'm not mistaken they've banned the likes of Droopy, LdsFaqs, and others. So why not William?
I don't think you should equate "apologists" with the MDDB message board. When FARMS/MI start "banning" people, then we'll be getting somewhere. But from what I've seen, Schryver fits right in with the people at FARMS. I'll bet they love the guy.
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Stormy Waters wrote:I mean from the message board.
I believe if you start a campaign to get Schryver banned from the message board over there, it could happen. campaign begin. He's out of control
Wait a second...this is starting to sound like that which people here often complain about regarding the Church--tossing out people who seem out there and different. Oh man...
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Stormy Waters wrote:I mean from the message board.
I believe if you start a campaign to get Schryver banned from the message board over there, it could happen. campaign begin. He's out of control
Wait a second...this is starting to sound like that which people here often complain about regarding the Church--tossing out people who seem out there and different. Oh man...
Would I do it personally? No. But for a message board that has a track record of silencing dissenters and embarassing supporters? Why wouldn't they?