Terrestrial comments from Will Schryver thread

[_beastie]

Oh, he's just bent out of shape because he couldn't deny that his lyrics regarding me were sexually suggestive.

You see, reptilian, bomb throwing provocateurs such as yourself can go on and on and on with this kind of thing because of the degree of subjectivity of the matter and the fact that I cannot possibly prove that the lyrics were not sexually suggestive. The fact that they were not (in my own mind, when I wrote them) has no bearing on anything because, as an apologist, I'm the target, period.

I can deal with that, but the claims you've made here are defamatory, mean spirited, and, well, the kind of thing a low down, dirty, maggot infested, commie-lib, good for nothing bottom feeding apostate would indulge themselves in.

In fact, even without the "apostate" part, the rest still holds together quite well.

Now that he brought it up, I do remember him making questionable comments to other female posters, such as moniker. (here's a thread in which she listed all the suggestive things he said about her:
viewtopic.php?p=157878#p157878 )

Same old material. You will notice that this was not a suggestive innuendo or reference, but a jab at her having been a stripper. I apologized to her for that immediately, and she accepted that apology, as I recall.

This is the only other reference, since this board's inception, that beastie can produce.

Bottom feeding...and, it appears, loving it.

But since droopy isn't an up and coming apologist, and actually not particularly a favorite of the notable apologists, his case is entirely different and not worth derailing this thread.

The David Bokovoy Glee Club at the MADboards doesn't like me much, its true, but not because of anything I've ever said in an apologetic context (I don't consider my ongoing dust ups with David as being "apologetic" in the normal sense of that term).

Droopy,

I have no desire to rehash this issue with you. I had forgotten about it until you brought it up, in fact, which is pretty indicative of my interest in the topic.

For those who are interested in whether or not I unfairly accused Droopy of using sexual innuendoes to insult female posters, please see these threads:

viewtopic.php?p=331226#p331226


viewtopic.php?p=157878#p157878

Thank you for letting me know how sincere your apology was to me, Droopy. In other words – not sincere at all. Just like your other “apologies” – scare quotes intended.

[_beastie]

Will is here and under this particular knife, again, because of his work in the apologetic arena, with particular emphasis on his Book of Abraham arguments and ongoing challenge to the Book of Abraham's critics.

LOL.

So the sole reason Will is "under this particular knife" is because of his truly excellent work in Book of Abraham apologia.

Care to point me to where, say, Brant Gardner was put under this particular knife due to his truly excellent work in Book of Mormon apologia?

[_MsJack]

I realize now that your facetious detectors aren't functioning

Thankfully, our "misogynist people whose reprehensible behavior should not be defended by us" detectors have been working great for some time now. Would you like us to try and help you fix yours?

I wonder what you would accept as evidence of an attack if not a thread devoted to leveling and pursuing unflattering charges against someone?

Here, Wade, allow me to break it down for you.

This is what a hypothetical personal attack would look like:

"I guess this explains why Wade Englund is still single."

This is what a non-hypothetical, non-personal critique of someone's behavior looks like:

"The behavior William has displayed towards women here at Mormon Discussions has been undeniably and consistently misogynist."

See the difference?

Would calling someone "pathetic"

It was your argument that I called "pathetic." Don't worry, I'll forgive the embarrassing mix-up on your part.

and insinuating that they are making "poop" up?

There was no insinuation about it, and again, this dealt with your argument. You made an assertion about my argument, and then failed to answer a CFR. I arrived at the logical conclusion that you were making things up. If you'd like to prove me wrong, then answer the CFR.

and equating them with a crying baby count?

Yes, Wade, that was a personal attack. Glad to see that you're learning.

[_Buffalo]

Hey MsJack and Buffalo,

I realize now that your facetious detectors aren't functioning, but I wonder what you would accept as evidence of an attack if not a thread devoted to leveling and pursuing unflattering charges against someone? Would calling someone "pathetic" and equating them with a crying baby count? and insinuating that they are making "poop" up?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Have you considered that your facetious emitter is faulty?

Still waiting for even one personal attack against Will from MsJack.

[_wenglund]

Here, Wade, allow me to break it down for you.

This is what a hypothetical personal attack would look like:

"I guess this explains why Wade Englund is still single."

This is what a non-hypothetical, non-personal critique of someone's behavior looks like:

"The behavior William has displayed towards women here at Mormon Discussions has been undeniably and consistently misogynist."

See the difference?

Yes, the first is about me, personally, and the second is about Will, personallly. The first atacks my marital statrus, and the second attacks Will's alleged behavior. The first is something you didn't do, and the second is something you did do.

So, if I understand you correctly, something is a personall attack if you don't attacks me, personally, regarding my marital status, but it isn't a personal attack if you attack Will, personally, regarding his behavior . Right?

Yu'r the funny lady.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

Yes, the first is about me, personally, and the second is about Will, personallly. The first atacks my marital statrus, and the second attacks Will's alleged behavior. The first is something you didn't do, and the second is something you did do.

So, if I understand you correctly, something is a personall attack if you don't personally attacks ne and my marital status, but it isn't a personal attack if you personally attack Will and his behavior. Right?

Yu'r the funny lady.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Quoting Will's sexually harassing statements and disapproving of them is the same as personally attacking him. Good to know.

[_The Reaping]

Yes, the first is about me, personally, and the second is about Will, personallly. The first atacks my marital statrus, and the second attacks Will's alleged behavior. The first is something you didn't do, and the second is something you did do.

So, if I understand you correctly, something is a personall attack if you don't personally attacks ne and my marital status, but it isn't a personal attack if you personally attack Will and his behavior. Right?

Yu'r the funny lady.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Quoting Will's sexually harassing statements and disapproving of them is the same as personally attacking him. Good to know.

No, labelling will as a misogynist would be personally attacking him. Something the entire thread did from the beginning.

[_wenglund]

Quoting Will's sexually harassing statements and disapproving of them is the same as personally attacking him. Good to know.

I am pleased to see that I could help you get past your nuance challenge on this matter. If it helps, remember that MsJack devoted an entire thread where she and a horde of other MD participants have piled on what you delicately refer to as disapproval (a lame play at semantic games).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

No, labelling will as a misogynist would be personally attacking him. Something the entire thread did from the beginning.

I believe that MsJack labeled some of Will's words and behavior as misogynist, not Will himself. That Will's words/behavior were misogynist is beyond question.

[_Kishkumen]

The time for me to be concerned with Schryver's Book of Abraham research will be when it is published.