Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_RockSlider]

You participated on the Mark Hoffman thread in question. Do I understand you to be saying that you also claim to have seen where I used the "C" word towards harmony? Will you, too, join the club?

The remark was edited out before I saw it and so I cannot join this special club of yours. However my own experience in following your postings, here and on MAD, leaves no doubt in my mind about who is lying here.

You now have three first hand witnesses to the event. I've also experienced the posting habits of these three individuals while on this board. Their individual posting habits give me no reason to doubt any one of them and as a group of "three witnesses" provide an even stronger witness against you.

As there is no sense in addressing William, I'll address others with a summary of what I believe is going on here:

As I mentioned in a previous post, William has waged a personal war against apostates and especially against his "Fifth Columnist" (of which he would consider Harmony and Liz to be). In this religious jihad of his, lying for the Lord is only a tool, totally approved by his god, to achieve his righteous ends of destroying the threat.

Up until this thread, I've noticed William's posting demeanor had markedly changed to striving to reflect his new found scholarly aires. Isn't it great to see his base traits once again shine through so brightly?

It must be killing him to be holding back so.

[_harmony]

harmony,

Why did you lie about how long my post was up before you edited it?

As can be seen quite clearly in the thread in question, the post where I allegedly used the revolting term in question was up for over two hours before you edited it and the places where both Rollo and I had quoted it.

So why did you lie and say it was only up for a matter of minutes? I guess you forgot that Rollo and I had quoted it, huh?

Will, discuss the impact of your historical foolishness and spite towards women on this bulletin board may have on the women associated with any aspect of Mormon Studies, MI, Book of Abraham apologetics, or anything else you taint with your touch. That is the topic of this thread.

Your attempts to weasel out of taking personal responsibility for your lack of character expected of a LDS priesthood holder are duly noted. Again. And are immaterial to the topic of this thread.

Whether you man up and take responsibility for your actions is secondary to the topic of this thread (thanks for the reminder, Jack. I'll split off everything not pertaining to that, if you want me to). And then discuss the impact of your historical foolishness and spite towards women on this bulletin board on the women associated with any aspect of Mormon Studies, MI, Book of Abraham apologetics, or anything else you taint with your touch.

[_Will Schryver]

You participated on the Mark Hoffman thread in question. Do I understand you to be saying that you also claim to have seen where I used the "C" word towards harmony? Will you, too, join the club?

The remark was edited out before I saw it ...

A lie. My post was time stamped 9:10 am. You made a post on the thread at 9:22 am. My post remained unedited by harmony until sometime around 11:30 am. There is little doubt you saw the post in question, and even less doubt that, had it contained the vulgar pejorative of which I am accused, you would have both noticed it and commented on it.

... and so I cannot join this special club of yours.

So, you'll stand by your tribe, but refrain from joining the club of suborned witnesses.

Well ... I suppose that puts you one rung above your less-honorable cohorts.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Schryver,

What did you say to Ms. Harmony?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Buffalo]

Hello Mr. Schryver,

What did you say to Ms. Harmony?

V/R
Dr. Cam

Keep up, little man. I already answered that question several pages back. The preceding and succeeding context of the thread fully confirms my version of events, and clearly contradicts harmony's. She is a liar. MsJack is complicit in the lie. Stak and Spurven are suborned liars. It remains to be seen who else will join their ranks.

u mad, bro?

Instead of calling everyone liars who calls you out on your sexual harassment, have you ever considered apologizing for sexually harassing the women here?

[_Ceeboo]

Hey William,

If I may ask:

As someone that plays such a large role in LDS apologetics (KEP presentation, MI office meetings, hanging out with "very well known LDS people", etc), do you believe your contributions, choice of words, and/or posts reflect well on the faith/brethren that you defend?

Just trying to make some sense out of all this.

Thanks in advance and peace,
Ceeboo

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Will,

I'm fairly new to this board and I am at a complete loss for words. This behavior is NEVER acceptable. To make matters worse, it is from someone whose purports to be LDS. The LDS scriptures demand better, the Savior demands better and even common decency demands better behavior from you.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the online behavior of most apologists is extremely detrimental to the Church.

Everyone, I would like to apologize to you on their behalf, and assure you that the vast majority of LDS do not act this way or hold these same beliefs and attitudes toward women.

Remember that regardless of how good, scholarly or thorough an apologists' work is, it will have absolutely no affect if the reader is disappointed in the apologist's behavior.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Will,

I know that you don't have a problem engaging in character assassination against Mormon critics, but do you have any regrets entangling Droopy in this fiasco? I realize that you can easily justify this in your mind as long as you think that the only people you are hurting are anti-Mormons. But Droopy apparently was willing to defend you, so now you have a faithful TBM who may get hurt when you eventually have to admit that what you are claiming is not true. Does that concern you?

[_Will Schryver]

Hey William,

If I may ask:

As someone that plays such a large role in LDS apologetics (KEP presentation, MI office meetings, hanging out with "very well known LDS people", etc), do you believe your contributions, choice of words, and/or posts reflect well on the faith/brethren that you defend?

Just trying to make some sense out of all this.

Thanks in advance and peace,
Ceeboo

I have, over the course of over five years, made upwards of 10,000 posts on this and that "other" message board (through its various incarnations). Of those 10,000 posts, I have been guilty of being somewhat of a "naughty boy" in about a dozen. Other than my unwarranted characterization of Emma Smith as a "champion bitch"--for which I have sincerely apologized, and my teasing Kimberly Ann on account of what appears to have been a case of mistaken identity (for which I have also apologized), I have no particular regrets for anything I have said.

My colorful characterizations of beastlie and harmony are spot on.

My characterizations of Doctor Scratch and the vast majority of the denizens of the Great and Spacious Trailer Park are spot on.

Even so, these "colorful characterizations" constitute a mere 1/10th of 1% of my total posting output. If measured by words rather than posts, the "colorful characterizations" would likely amount to less than 1/100th of 1% of the whole.

No one has been able (until MsJack's and harmony's recent fabrications out of whole cloth) to add to the list of my offenses for many, many moons now. I guess I've "reformed," as it were. (LOL!)

At any rate, in answer to your question: Yes. Without a doubt. My contributions, choice of words, and/or posts reflect well on the faith/brethren that I defend? It is one of my defining characteristics.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey William,

If I may ask:

As someone that plays such a large role in LDS apologetics (KEP presentation, MI office meetings, hanging out with "very well known LDS people", etc), do you believe your contributions, choice of words, and/or posts reflect well on the faith/brethren that you defend?

Just trying to make some sense out of all this.

Thanks in advance and peace,
Ceeboo

I have, over the course of over five years, made upwards of 10,000 posts on this and that "other" message board (through its various incarnations). Of those 10,000 posts, I have been guilty of being somewhat of a "naughty boy" in about a dozen. Other than my unwarranted characterization of Emma Smith as a "champion bitch"--for which I have sincerely apologized, and my teasing Kimberly Ann on account of what appears to have been a case of mistaken identity (for which I have also apologized), I have no particular regrets for anything I have said.

My colorful characterizations of beastlie and harmony are spot on.

My characterizations of Doctor Scratch and the vast majority of the denizens of the Great and Spacious Trailer Park are spot on.

Even so, these "colorful characterizations" constitute a mere 1/10th of 1% of my total posting output. If measured by words rather than posts, the "colorful characterizations" would likely amount to less than 1/100th of 1% of the whole.

No one has been able (until MsJack's and harmony's recent fabrications out of whole cloth) to add to the list of my offenses for many, many moons now. I guess I've "reformed," as it were. (LOL!)

At any rate, in answer to your question: Yes. Without a doubt. My contributions, choice of words, and/or posts reflect well on the faith/brethren that I defend? It is one of my defining characteristics.

Thanks!

I appreciate the time given to reply.

Peace,
Ceeboo