From My Informant: DCP & Schryver Ordered to Stand Down

[_Doctor Scratch]

Presumably it was DCP himself who told you this. And yet, oddly, the fact that he has to do this behind the scenes and in secret only serves to reinforce the validity of my informant's "intel."

Still waiting for you to post either your personal, or your employer's financial records, since you think it would be "so easy" for Dr. Peterson to do so.

I never said that it would be "so easy" for Doctor Peterson to post the MI's budget. I said that I considered my informant's allegations to be reliable because they were the sort of allegations that could be easily invalidated via real, hard, concrete evidence--evidence which the apologists never, ever produce.

And your insistence here doesn't make a lick of sense, Simon. For one thing, you are assuming that I have access to my employer's budget, even though I might not. (DCP openly stated that he'd been in a budget meeting right around the time that I was passed that particular piece of intel.) For another thing, I've never asked for DCP's "personal financial records."

I imagine you will do no such thing, since your raison d'être is to apply highly unfair double standards to people you imagine to be your enemies. By doing this, you can seem to win every argument.

I don't see how there is anything "unfair" about relaying information I was given. It seems to me that you're over-reacting. I am actually doing the apologists a favor by pointing out how easy it would be to falsify the allegations. That the apologists refuse to falsify the claims in any kind of meaningful way is not my problem.

[_Simon Belmont]

I never said that it would be "so easy" for Doctor Peterson to post the MI's budget. I said that I considered my informant's allegations to be reliable because they were the sort of allegations that could be easily invalidated via real, hard, concrete evidence--evidence which the apologists never, ever produce.

Tell me, then, what makes you think that it is okay for an employee to post an employer's financial records on a public forum on the Internet?

For one thing, you are assuming that I have access to my employer's budget, even though I might not.

Being in a "budget meeting" does not necessarily mean that DCP has access to MI's financial statements, let alone the permission to post them online, on a public Internet forum. Your request is ridiculous.

I don't see how there is anything "unfair" about relaying information I was given.

What is unfair is that you expect people to simply post employer's financial records on a public Internet forum, when you are willing to do no such thing.

It seems to me that you're over-reacting. I am actually doing the apologists a favor by pointing out how easy it would be to falsify the allegations. That the apologists refuse to falsify the claims in any kind of meaningful way is not my problem.

Actually doing apologists a favor would look something like this:

Do not begin threads with false information coming out of your rumor mill/peanut gallery. Information is fine, when it is validated and truthful. Can you, perhaps, point to one of these "informant" posts that actually turned out to be true?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Once again we see Mopologists engaging in abject character assassination rather than engaging in anything substantive reference Mormon discussions.

To be disparaged by the likes of Mr. Schryver, The Wizard, who apparently likes to curse apostates with his "priesthood power", is akin to being yapped at by a puppy. It's silly. He can't compete on any level (intellectual nor physical), so he resorts to weird threats of priesthood cursing... Or what have you.

To be disparaged by Mr. Belmont is simply... Hrm... Well, it's as if this cat were to get aggressive with me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwyMB19q7ms

These people actually believe in a man-god that lives on a planet with his polygamous wives making babies. For eternity. And they believe they can become just like him.

And I'm the dim one...

All right. Well, when Mr. Simon "Red Shirt Guy" Belmont wants to stop lying about his Mphil, job, and anything else he is more than welcome to discuss Mormon-related issues in a substantive and thoughtful manner.

I won't hold my breath.

V/R
Dr. CamNC4Me

Post Script- Nomad is Mr. William Schryver

[_The Nehor]

Indeed, I secretly abduct hamsters and am training them to go spelunking in my lower colon, Richard Gere-style

There you go, The Nehor. I fixed that for you.

Look, I realize you are angry because your silly made-up story flopped but that's no reason to drop your facade of maturity and descend to childish insults.

[_Kishkumen]

Do not begin threads with false information coming out of your rumor mill/peanut gallery. Information is fine, when it is validated and truthful. Can you, perhaps, point to one of these "informant" posts that actually turned out to be true?

Scratch is free to share rumors or speculate to his heart's content. Who are you to say that he should not?

So, Simon, do you imagine that you will shame him out of the practice?

[_Kishkumen]

Look, I realize you are angry because your silly made-up story flopped but that's no reason to drop your facade of maturity and descend to childish insults.

Look out, Nehor is winding up to go into Söze mode!

[_Doctor Scratch]

I never said that it would be "so easy" for Doctor Peterson to post the MI's budget. I said that I considered my informant's allegations to be reliable because they were the sort of allegations that could be easily invalidated via real, hard, concrete evidence--evidence which the apologists never, ever produce.

Tell me, then, what makes you think that it is okay for an employee to post an employer's financial records on a public forum on the Internet?

Where did I say that I thought it was "okay"? I said that it would nullify my informant's claims.

For one thing, you are assuming that I have access to my employer's budget, even though I might not.

Being in a "budget meeting" does not necessarily mean that DCP has access to MI's financial statements, let alone the permission to post them online, on a public Internet forum. Your request is ridiculous.

Simon: I didn't "request" anything. All I did was point out (for the umpteenth time) how easily falsifiable my informant's allegations are.

I don't see how there is anything "unfair" about relaying information I was given.

What is unfair is that you expect people to simply post employer's financial records on a public Internet forum, when you are willing to do no such thing.

Where did I ever say that I "expect people" to "simply post" financial records?

It seems to me that you're over-reacting. I am actually doing the apologists a favor by pointing out how easy it would be to falsify the allegations. That the apologists refuse to falsify the claims in any kind of meaningful way is not my problem.

Actually doing apologists a favor would look something like this:

Do not begin threads with false information coming out of your rumor mill/peanut gallery. Information is fine, when it is validated and truthful.

As far as I know, it is truthful. What reasons do you have to believe that it's not?

Can you, perhaps, point to one of these "informant" posts that actually turned out to be true?

Yes. The one about Scott Gordon meeting w/ Elder Oaks was true. So was the tidbit about Rod Meldrum's book being pulled from the shelves of Deseret Book.

ETA: Nomad also said that this particular "intel" was correct in the case of Will Schryver. He really was told to "stand down" by the GAs.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Look, I realize you are angry because your silly made-up story flopped but that's no reason to drop your facade of maturity and descend to childish insults.

In what sense was my post "childish" and/or "insulting"? By my reckoning, it was quite "adult" and very insightful, too.

[_schreech]

To be disparaged by Mr. Belmont is simply... Hrm... Well, it's as if this cat were to get aggressive with me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwyMB19q7ms

These people actually believe in a man-god that lives on a planet with his polygamous wives making babies. For eternity. And they believe they can become just like him.

All right. Well, when Mr. Simon "Red Shirt Guy" Belmont wants to stop lying about his Mphil, job, and anything else he is more than welcome to discuss Mormon-related issues in a substantive and thoughtful manner.

That.video.was.awesome....I'd bet he knows all our ip addresses....

[_dblagent007]

As for Doctor Scratch's information, I don't know where or how he came across it, but for once in my years of watching his pathetic career, I can confirm that he is more or less correct, at least as far as it refers to Schryver. I don't know about Peterson's situation.

Scratch was right! Wow. The brethren have put a gag order on Schryver. This certainly ups the plausibility of Peterson also being subject to a gag order despite what Jason says.

Not that Scratch or anyone else here has a clue as to the reasons for the "gag order". From what I've been able to learn about the situation, the main idea was to keep Schryver from wasting his precious time and inadvertantly revealing anything to help the "enemy" until he is finished with his research and publications. Not that I know any of the details. I don't. But that's how it was explained to me.

Hmm, this seems really dumb. In essence, they want Schryver to commit his tripe to print before he tests it on critics. I guess the many times Schryver has had his butt kicked in the Book of Abraham debate has only served to embolden them to the point that they want to commit his ideas to print so he can't run away as fast as he does on message boards.

I've never heard anyone suggest that Schryver was "doing damage to the cause" by his message board posting. People I've spoken with who know about his message board posting seem to regard him as head and shoulders above his opponents and have made particular mention of how pleased they are that someone finally came along who exposed Brent Metcalf as the fraud he is.

Whoa, what? Where and when did Schryver ever show that Metcalf is a fraud? As I recall, Brent said he would debate Will on a podcast only to be met by fifty demands on Will's part. I don't think Brent was the one running away or showing that he was a fraud. It is plain that Schryver is the fraud.