In other words, you are relying upon gossip.
Eye-witness testimony Pahoran, the same kind of testimony that you and your ilk rely upon to claim there is evidence for the Book of Mormon. Except none of us claim to have seen it with our "spiritual" eyes.
Because, after all, the evidence has been conveniently expunged. And Will denies having used that term, which was not referred to by anyone who replied to Will before Harmony edited the post.
Conveniently expunged? No, Pahoran, "conveniently" expunged would be Joseph Smith conveniently expunging the translated 116 pages, because he couldn't risk having the original being uncovered at a later date, proving he was a fraud once compared to the second copy.
Harmony was simply following protocol as a Mod, by deleting the offensive material. Your argument that Harmony would have never referenced to the C-word as a "personal attack" is weak at best. In fact, borderline idiotic. Personal attacks and vulgarity typically go hand in hand, and are not mutually exclusive. What is your theory here, that she intentionally deleted it only because she thought it would be a good idea to accuse WIll of saying something he didn't say, despite the fact that there were numerous witnesses who could have seen it? Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? I was in that thread, and while I don't recollect exactly what was said, it was enough to piss me off to the point that I challenged WIll face to face, as did DrCam. As far as I can tell, this was an unprecedented reaction for either of us. If it wasn't the C -word, it was something equal to that in vulgarity.
Now, tou claim you'd take Will's word over Harmony's any day of the week, but this says more about you and your devout loyalty to your tribe than it says anything about Harmony's credibility. Aren't you the same guy who gushed all over Will's presentation back in August, before it was undressed and shown to be a pretty dumb argument? You see my dear Pahoran, Will has a documented history of lying here and elsewhere, particularly when called out for saying things he wishes he could take back.
He was recently called out for calling Joseph Smith's first wife a B word, and he vehemently denied saying it only because he thought it was also deleted. But once the evidence was presented, he was forced to admit having said it. So he has a history of denying stuff he has said. In any other context, this would make Will's testimony worthless to all parties. But for you, it means nothing, since he's a fellow apologist and you're out to protect your own. For you, the evil apostates are always in the wrong. Just look at you reference Harmony as a horrible person for "deceiving" her Bishop during TR interviewing. You chose your dog in this fight long ago, and now that yours is bleeding and gasping for his last breath, you're upset because things didn't work out the way your Mormon worldview would suggest it should. The apologist is the liar here, not the apostate. Your argument amounts to nothing more than saying William didn't means what he said, because he now denies that he meant what he said. Well, duh! Obviously he is going to deny it NOW, but this is coming from a man who has a documented history of lying on these forums when he thinks he can get away with it.
Oh, and Rollos' failure to see the offensive comment doesn't mean it wasn't there. Obviously SOMETHING was there because the reaction from the crowd was extremely aggressive towards William. According to Will, he only said that Harmony was a hypocrite! Yeah, right. As if we'd be asking to go toe to toe with William over something like that!
You mean this quote that is NOT from Will Schryver? This quote that he explicitly denied having made. This quote made by someone who registered as "WilliamSchryver", made one post that he/she made to sound like Will, then never posted again?
This is exactly why I say you are a liar.
Pretty lame evidence she is a liar. Will has a history of signing up with different names and then deleting them. He did this at MAD years ago, and he deleted his account just last year, only to sign up yet again with another variant of "William Schryver." You and Pahoran are on weak ground because your argument amounts to nothing more than "you're all liars because Will says so!"
Of course, you do not understand the irony in that, and nether of you are prepared to address the indisputable instances of flat out lies, coming from this guy.