Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Doctor Scratch]

Gee, where did Silver Hammer go? His (her?) presence was a real eye-opener for me. It demonstrates how fundamentally cowardly the Maxwell Institute apologists/sympathizers actually are. Beastie has made utter mincemeat out of his/her observations. I hope SH returns in order to answer for these discrepancies.

Oh, and Wade: as far as I know, Dr. Midgley has never publicly denied that he said vulgar, sexually-tinged things in the presence of Sandra Tanner. He's certainly had ample opportunity to do so. What we got is his apparently sanitized account that was published (of all places) on SHIELDS. You and Simon apparently think that his account is more believable simply because it happens to be in print, in quasi-letter format.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hello,

Mr. Schryver on why he would attend an ex-Mormon conference:

Besides, I only went to the Exmo Conference because I heard there were easy chicks to be found. And, as a matter of fact, I saw several. In fact, I wrote a chronicle of my adventures. Bill Hamblin was one of several who read it. It's since been retired to the "vault," I'm sure.

This is yet more evidence that that Maxwell Institute apologists are privy to Schryver's antics. How, I wonder, did Bill Hamblin react to this? Did he chuckle? Or did he stare stone-faced and disquieted at this "chronicle," only to later "retire" it to "the vault"?

[_RockSlider]

Oh, and Wade: as far as I know, Dr. Midgley has never publicly denied that he said vulgar, sexually-tinged things in the presence of Sandra Tanner.

Ah Wade doesn't care about all that ... Trevor simply caught him with his pants down on accusing Trevor of not understanding hearsay, and now we have walls of Wade obfuscation while he tries to pull them back up.

[_Trevor]

Wade,

Could you please provide a quote from Trevor that would indicate that he did not understand what hearsay evidence is?

I already did. See my post on this thread daed: Wed May 04, 2011 12:10 pm.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dad of Mormon,

Let me know what you think of Wade's "evidence."

[Guest]

[qu

[_Droopy]

Fist of all, Gubber, I appreciate you slowing down the conversation so as to give you a chance to catch up. And, I am fine with you using me as cover.

Ernesto "Che" Gubber.

Even I wouldn't have thought of that.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Mr. Schryver on Feminism:

Disabusing someone like TD of the cherished notions of feminist propaganda represents the acme of futility. The modern myth of linear human social evolution is impregnable to the inconvenient facts of history.

All these years, and your neo-feminist persecution complex is still stoking your resentments.

I’m sure they never thought you were “uppity.” They just thought you were snarly eunuch bait with a run amok case of penis envy.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Wade,

Could you please provide a quote from Trevor that would indicate that he did not understand what hearsay evidence is?

I already did. See my post on this thread daed: Wed May 04, 2011 12:10 pm.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, someone who witnessed the event in question does not qualify, in your mind, as a person who can offer "first-hand testimony"? Is that what you are telling me?

No. Obviously. One would have to seriously mangle my comment in order to come to that mistaken conclusion. You are the one offering hearsay evidence. Please look up the word "hearsay" and learn.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If I heard the story from someone who saw the event, I do not consider that hearsay. You can consider it hearsay coming from me.

Didn't Trevor state that HE had heard firsthand testimony but his testimony to you would be hearsay evidence? Isn't that correct? What is he misunderstanding?

Whether he misunderstood you about something else is a different issue. But I don't see where he said anything that would demonstrate that he didn't understand what hearsay is. Do you agree with me that he did correctly demonstrate in the statement above, which was before your 12:10 post, that he did understand hearsay? If not, could you explain what he got wrong?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Mr. Schryver on polygamy and his attacks on women within its context (bold and italics mine):

I know I'm not bothered in the least by the concept of plural marriage. It's been a common practice throughout all of recorded human history...

The picture that harmony, Truth Dancer, and others paint is nothing but a ridiculous caricature with little basis in historical facts.

Indeed, as incredible as it might seem, I would say that "dissonance" has grown markedly worse in recent weeks when it comes to her outrageously ridiculous tirades.

Watching her quasi-psychotic retorts to Nevo on this thread has been quite astounding at times. She's taken her illogical rants to a level of "loco" I never would have thought possible, even for her.

On the other hand, both Nevo and Don Bradley continue to impress me with the dispassionate fashion in which they present their consistently intelligent arguments. Good job, guys. I can almost always count on learning something valuable from your posts.

Interesting how he vilifies the female perspective while congratulating the Patriarchal one. Here he blitely dismisses another female's opinion on the matter:

Another example of the mythology that passes for "common knowledge" in our world.

A response to another female's opinion on the matter:

Above all, I never cease to be amazed by the narrow-mindedness and culturally arrogant posture of many “modern” people towards the historically common practice of polygyny.

Just to be clear his stance on plural marriage is:

I feel no moral compunction towards the practice of polygyny, per se, although I appreciate that some do. My response to them is: live and let live.

A motivated man could probably impregnate all three [wives] in the course of any given day. :wink:

I assert that, under polygyny, the husband will be more sexually active (what with "variety" being the spice of life, and all)...

I might continue on another post ref Mr. Schryver and his take on "non-doctrinal" plural marriage...

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Sorry I'm so late to this conversation. I just logged in and noted several PM's asking me to comment on the charge of Will calling harmony the "c" word. It's been over 6 months since the thread in question occurred, so my memory is pretty hazy. But I can honestly say that I do not recall ever seeing Will use the "c" word, in that thread or in any other. And given how repulsed I am by that word, I'm pretty sure I would remember if he had. Of course, Will could have used such a word and it was edited out before I saw it, but I have NO evidence at all of this. If memory serves, my statement then to Will about his poor treatment of harmony had more to do with his tone than any profanity, but it certainly wasn't about him using the "c" word (or my response would have been much worse).