From My Informant: Did Brian Hauglid Betray Schryver?

[_Simon Belmont]

I'm left wondering why those who want the LDS church to have a good reputation, who are concerned that publishing an article from a man who clearly does not uphold the standards set by the LDS church, and who take their faith and religion seriously, do not want to be known.

I'm curious about this.

Will probably hunts, too. I don't agree with hunting. Does that mean the church is automatically put in a bad light because one of our members hunt?

[_Pahoran]

Though it has been a long time since I've heard from this particular informant,

I believe the more usual term is "alter."

Still, we can assume certain things.

Naturally; having no actual information, that's all you can do.

Based on what I was told, it seemed that two "factions" developed at the MI

You really have quite a fetish for "factions," don't you?

Perhaps you should take some notice of the "factions" here at the sty.

First, there is the "faction" led by you, and consisting of those who think you actually have credibility. This is known as the stupefaction.

Second, there is the "faction" consisting of those who know that a great deal of what passes for argument here is actually bunk, but they let it pass because they think sticking it to the Church of Jesus Christ is a worthy goal. This faction is led by Kishkumen. Since its hallmark is cynicism and all its communications are corrupt, it is known as the putrefaction.

Third, there is the faction that holds that Latter-day Saints in general, and the Church's defenders in particular, are fair game for whatever abuse and calumny they can heap upon them. This faction is led by Kevin "Magdalena" Graham, and is known as the malefaction.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Buffalo]

Though it has been a long time since I've heard from this particular informant,

I believe the more usual term is "alter."

Still, we can assume certain things.

Naturally; having no actual information, that's all you can do.

Based on what I was told, it seemed that two "factions" developed at the MI

You really have quite a fetish for "factions," don't you?

Perhaps you should take some notice of the "factions" here at the sty.

First, there is the "faction" led by you, and consisting of those who think you actually have credibility. This is known as the stupefaction.

Second, there is the "faction" consisting of those who know that a great deal of what passes for argument here is actually bunk, but they let it pass because they think sticking it to the Church of Jesus Christ is a worthy goal. This faction is led by Kishkumen. Since its hallmark is cynicism and all its communications are corrupt, it is known as the putrefaction.

Third, there is the faction that holds that Latter-day Saints in general, and the Church's defenders in particular, are fair game for whatever abuse and calumny they can heap upon them. This faction is led by Kevin "Magdalena" Graham, and is known as the malefaction.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_CaliforniaKid]

Wow, that's strangely hypnotic.

[_Kishkumen]

This ranks as one of my favorite posts of all time. It is an instant classic. I laughed long and hard. Pahoran, you're indubitably a third degree black belt polemicist--and I totally mean that as a sincere compliment. Kudos.

Perhaps you should take some notice of the "factions" here at the sty.

First, there is the "faction" led by you, and consisting of those who think you actually have credibility. This is known as the stupefaction.

Second, there is the "faction" consisting of those who know that a great deal of what passes for argument here is actually bunk, but they let it pass because they think sticking it to the Church of Jesus Christ is a worthy goal. This faction is led by Kishkumen. Since its hallmark is cynicism and all its communications are corrupt, it is known as the putrefaction.

Third, there is the faction that holds that Latter-day Saints in general, and the Church's defenders in particular, are fair game for whatever abuse and calumny they can heap upon them. This faction is led by Kevin "Magdalena" Graham, and is known as the malefaction.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_schreech]

Perhaps you should take some notice of the "factions" here at the sty.

First, there is the "faction" led by you, and consisting of those who think you actually have credibility. This is known as the stupefaction.

Second, there is the "faction" consisting of those who know that a great deal of what passes for argument here is actually bunk, but they let it pass because they think sticking it to the Church of Jesus Christ is a worthy goal. This faction is led by Kishkumen. Since its hallmark is cynicism and all its communications are corrupt, it is known as the putrefaction.

Third, there is the faction that holds that Latter-day Saints in general, and the Church's defenders in particular, are fair game for whatever abuse and calumny they can heap upon them. This faction is led by Kevin "Magdalena" Graham, and is known as the malefaction.

Regards,
Pahoran

Lol - this is all I can think about when I read your posts:

[_Kevin Graham]

Pahoran is a yellow-belt wuss otherwise he wouldn't be running away from me. I've been trying to get him to address the crucial matters while he is here, but he refuses, and even admitted he is running from me. And now he wants to start threads over at MAD (where he knows I cannot respond!) accusing me of being some woman on a forum I haven't been on in over a decade. Why? Because he needs to derail. It is what apologists do when they cannot stand losing debates. He cannot deal with any of the evidence proving his client is a despicable liar, or that he is a coward who uses a pseudonym because he is afraid to let his in real life friends and family know what he is here defending.

So now that you're running over to this thread Pahoran, address a few questions and prove you're not a coward.

Tell us Pahoran, and stop beating about the bush: What do you think about William's claim that Kimberly is a whore? Is that becoming of an LDS priesthood holder? Did she deserve that? And please don't bring up something beastie said in the past about Mormon women thinking of England, as this is merely a diversion that makes you look stupid. Kimberly is not beastie, and Wilbur was not responding to any attacks coming from her. And all you have to say on the matter is that it was in "bad taste," and classify it as mere "trash talk"? I know you're using a pseudonym now, but when this thing takes on a life of its own (and it will) and expands beyond this forum, I can assure you that your name will be attached to your positions on these matters. So now is the time to put up or shut up.

And don't forget to address the rest. What do you think about Will's numerous references to the men here gathered in a circle to masturbate on a biscuit? What do you think about his explicit reference to the lot of us engaging in anal sex with one another? Is this becoming of an LDS priesthood holder?

Wake up! This is the guy you came to defend, so if you want to defend him, then stop insulting everyone's intelligence and get down to the nitty gritty already. Deal with the most egregious examples. If you don't want to defend them, then at least comment on them. And don't play stupid and tell us it was mere "trash talk." And stop wasting everyone's time here, nit picking over irrelevant garbage like the C&E comments. I couldn't care less if Wilbur thinks his calling and election was made sure. His comments about this weren't even cited in the Op Ed that started this whole thing. Beastie raised the issue later on as a possible rationale for why Will would think he was above reproach. That's it. Then you came in, ignored the entirety of MsJack's post, and decided to make much ado about nothing over beastie's interpretation of Will's past C&E comments. This is like Johnny Cochran spending three hours talking about the unusual landscape of the Simpson garden, instead of dealing with the DNA evidence his client left at the scene. Your sole purpose here is to derail, so stop complaining about me chasing you around.

[_Simon Belmont]

You really have quite a fetish for "factions," don't you?

Perhaps you should take some notice of the "factions" here at the sty.

First, there is the "faction" led by you, and consisting of those who think you actually have credibility. This is known as the stupefaction.

Second, there is the "faction" consisting of those who know that a great deal of what passes for argument here is actually bunk, but they let it pass because they think sticking it to the Church of Jesus Christ is a worthy goal. This faction is led by Kishkumen. Since its hallmark is cynicism and all its communications are corrupt, it is known as the putrefaction.

Third, there is the faction that holds that Latter-day Saints in general, and the Church's defenders in particular, are fair game for whatever abuse and calumny they can heap upon them. This faction is led by Kevin "Magdalena" Graham, and is known as the malefaction.

Regards,
Pahoran

QFT. Also, LOL!

[_Kishkumen]

QFT. Also, LOL!

Nah, not really. I think QFL is appropriate, but there are real problems with the characterization (caricature is more accurate).

For example, I don't think that sticking it to the Church of Jesus Christ is a worthy goal. Sticking it to bad apologetics and apologists? Hell yeah! Criticizing corporate Mormonism? Sure!

I am not even sure there is something called the Church of Jesus Christ. Is there?

I am not in favor of pursuing the destruction of others' faith. The rest, in my opinion, is fair game.

[_Simon Belmont]

Nah, not really. I think QFL is appropriate, but there are real problems with the characterization (caricature is more accurate).

There may be, but it is ten times more accurate than any of the factions Scratch has made up (Oaks / Packer factions... really?)

For example, I don't think that sticking it to the Church of Jesus Christ is a worthy goal.

Then you shouldn't do it.

Sticking it to bad apologetics and apologists? Hell yeah!

Why? Let people do what they want to do. You don't believe any more, so why care?