From My Informant: Did Brian Hauglid Betray Schryver?

[_Kishkumen]

Oh, I don't doubt they are actual registered members of MDB who PM Scratch. But I happen to have reliable information that says they are playing him for a fool, because they know he will post whatever they tell him.

Yes, Daniel Peterson gave me exactly the same story. Doctor Scratch is aware of his opinion. And, no, not every informant is a registered member of this board.

[_Simon Belmont]

Yes, Daniel Peterson gave me exactly the same story. Doctor Scratch is aware of his opinion. And, no, not every informant is a registered member of this board.

My information does not come from Dr. Peterson.

And how do you (think you) know so much about these "informants" and the methods they use to contact Scratch?

[_Kevin Graham]

You are arrogantly presuming to determine what I'm supposed to regard as "the crucial matters," and then arrogantly demanding that I give them enough attention to satisfy you.

It doesn't take arrogance to know that the crucial matters regarding Will Schryver's predicament has little or nothing to do with the red herrings you conveninetly choose to focus on. They have everything to do with his despicable behavior, such as calling women whores or insisting we're all engaged in sodomistic orgy. You can't come here and pretend to ignore these things because you're just "not interested." You are interested or else you never would have come back here to defend him. These are the things that most likely ticked off the talking heads at NAMI. I seriously doubt they give a rat's ass about his C&E being made sure, which is pretty much the only thing from the Schryver hall of Shame that "interests" you.

Like you're that important.

No, Pahoran, Will is that important. He is the reason you rushed back to the forum to mount a defense on his behalf. Try to stay focused on why you're really here.

I "admitted" no such thing. You are making that up out of whole cloth, as you habitually do.

You didn't ask me to stop chasing you down? This implies you're willfully running away, which should be obvious to anyone following the Pahoran obstacle course.

I visit the threads that interest me, and post such comments as seem me good.

Which are, conveniently, only the threads related to your preferred red herrings. You won't speak up against Will's behavior without serious qualification or rationalization, which speaks volumes about what kind of person you really are. Criticizing the offended for being "traitors" is more important to you than criticizing the behavior of a fellow apologist who says we're all having anal sex with one another. Just how foul does an apologist have to be before you're willing to step up and do the right thing? Well, apparently, there is no limit, since you're not interested in doing the right thing. You're only interested in helping your tribe save face by refusing to condemn one of your own. That makes you an intellectual coward.

The fact that you insist on yapping along behind me does not mean I am running away from you, and indeed your ridiculous assumption that I am borders on the delusional.

Yes it does, especially when I am asking you to address the issues while you come up with one lame excuse after another as to why you shouldn't have to.

You're frothing at the mouth, Magdalena. How can a thread I start on another forum possibly "derail" any discussion here?

If you call me Magdalena again, I promise you'll regret it. Especially if you care anything at all (and I know you do) about keeping your real life identity separate from your hideous online persona as "Pahoran." I'm going to be starting my own blog soon, and this will be one of the first topics I'll be writing about.

I don't need to prove anything to you, Magdalena; and if you think you can manipulate me with childish taunts of "Chicken!" then you'd better think again.

Get it right [nickname deleted]. You're a coward who chooses to defend a despicable character solely on the basis of his religious loyalty and contempt for the "traitors," as you choose to refer to us. I wouldn't dare humilate chickens by comparing them to the likes of you. The reason you will not respond to the specific questions, is because the wrong answer could indirectly associate you with the same repulsive behavior (not that your legacy as one of the most disliked apologists in history, is really much better). You want to maintain a safe distance from Will's antics while at the same time, serve as his defender. What a pickle you're in. The only way you can maneuver in this field of denial and dissonance, is to be extremely careful which arguments you respond to. And that is what we're witnessing right now.

Essentially, your tribal loyalty is more important to you than integrity, period. And you just proved it. Such is the way of modern LDS apologetics. It was one of the main reasons I got out of it, and eventually the Church. Truth and integrity mean nothing to you folks. All you care about is giving those evil "traitors" payback, or at the very least, try to give the impression that what you're doing constitutes a valid form of retaliation. But in the end you're still a little coward hiding behind a pseudonym. The same little man who made much ado about JP Holding using a pseudonym. Your own logic condemns you.

[_Kishkumen]

My information does not come from Dr. Peterson.

Mine does.

And how do you (think you) know so much about these "informants" and the methods they use to contact Scratch?

I have my sources.

[_Kevin Graham]

In the thread on C&E, Pahoran insisted left after right that the reference was to his "posting status." He focused only on this issue because he was hoping to make his conclusion on this issue (that we were all wrong) cover the broader issue of the latest expose of Will's character. He said:

The more I look into the carefully constructed case against Will, the more I think he's been misrepresented.

This is a common trick by FARMS apologists. They love to pull out one possible error, present it as an indisputable error, and then use this to have the entire case thrown out (the case against Schryver). And yet, despite Pahoran's claim, there is absolutely no evidence he had "looked into" this beyond the irrelevant C&E reference, which wasn't even part of the "case" to begin with!

He even ridiculed beastie by saying she already knew the C&E referred to his posting status, but implied she was simply lying about it anyway!

It was then proven that Wilbur referenced his C&E long before his posting status had changed, so instead of pulling his foot from his mouth, Pahoran ran back to the drawing board. Now, he says, the C&E talk all originates from an off forum joke between Will and the dude. OK, so he now admits that it had nothing to do with his posting status! Despite the fact that he maintained it throughout most of the thread while ridiculing everyone else for failing to see that this is what the "evidence" suggests. For Pahoran, folks like beastie couldn't genuinely believe that Will's words were meant to be understood literally.

So then I provide the "context" of the "C-word" thread and proved that Wilbur actually does believe his calling and election is made sure. He doesn't say it in those words, but he guarantees us that he knows with absolute certainty he is going to heaven, despite his human "weaknesses." If that isn't the equivalent of having your calling and election made sure, then what is? This wasn't tongue-in cheek. It was a serious response to a serious criticism by Rollo who said he behavior was anti-Christ.

Pahoran has been dodging this point, even though it is relevant to the only subject in which he has shown "interest." He refuses to acknowledge that Will has made many comments over the years that would make a reasonable reader believe this is precisely the message Wilbur was trying to convey. In short, we know Will's style better than he does, and he is not in any position to defend him.

[_Pahoran]

It's very interesting, amidst all that's been going on, that Pahoran sees fit to attack/insult Kevin by calling him a female name.

You are leaping to uninformed conclusions, as usual, Scratch. One of Kevin's many sockpuppets -- he has more on any given day than Shari Lewis had in her entire career -- was on CARM, and used the name "Magdalena."

Likewise, there was a poster named "Magdalena" on MA&DB a while back. I don't know that that was Kevin too, but that poster has since been banned.

(I guess Pah has decided that feminizing Kevin is a better means of assaulting him than Pah's usual class/race-based insult? I.e., "The Cracker"?) I daresay that this is quite a misstep on Pahoran's part, though it clearly speaks volumes about the sort of person he is.

Bit slow on the uptake, aren't you? I guess you've never heard of "graham crackers."

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Madison54]

I have read through all 58 pages or so of the main thread regarding Will Schryver + this thread and others about him. I read about this on another forum and then came over to read what had been written. I had no idea who Schryver was so I had no preconceived opinion on this whole situation.

After reading through all of this, I absolutely cannot believe that any church member in good standing could possibly come on here and defend Will Schryver's behavior. It has been proven without ANY doubt that he wrote the crude, insulting, demeaning, crass posts (no one can dispute that, he has admitted writing them). He has convicted himself by his own hand.

Yet, Pahoran, Wenglund, Droopy, Nomad and a few others (who claim to be active Mormons?) come on here and not only defend him but they then turn around and have the audacity to put the blame on those who simply brought it to the attention of the group who was going to be putting their reputation on the line by publishing this poor excuse of a man and church member's writings.

Pahoran, Wengland and others should be thanking those who did this. But instead they continue to embarrass themselves by calling others childish names and writing moronic posts (they have no other defense because there IS NO DEFENSE for what Will has done here). But they'd be more effective if they just stayed silent. All they've accomplished is to join Will and look just as despicable as he looks.

The only question I'm left with is this:

Why on earth does anyone pay any attention to these guys? Why not just simply ignore Pahoran, Wengland, Droopy, and Nomad? Why do you even respond to them? Their posts are completely ridiculous, they have a complete lack of intelligence and cohesiveness to them, and contain absolutely no substance whatsoever.

Unless all of you just love the interaction and the bantering back and forth, I quite frankly would not ever even respond to them. You have the indisputable facts and evidence on your side. Will Schryder could be the most brilliant apologist alive but that doesn't change the fact that he is a disgrace and an embarrassment because of his actions on here.

Pahoran, Wengland, Droopy, and Nomad (+ others) need to ask yourselves if at your next ward activity, you heard someone speaking the garbage and crudeness that Will has been spewing in writing on here, how many people would want to associate with him and how many would vote to have Will represent the church? Better yet, print out some of his crude comments and read them out loud in your next sacrament meeting talk. What? You wouldn't do that? Well then, why on earth would you think it was just fine for him to speak that way to others on here? And why would you actually defend him and then ridicule those who have found it so offensive?

And...to all those I've named in this post....I know you'll start attacking me and calling me names (if you follow your boringly predictable, completely ineffective M.O.....yawn.....), but I will not respond so don't waste your time.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Hi Madison!

Would you mind providing a link to the thread on the other forum discussing our darling Will? I'm interested in seeing how all this is being perceived elsewhere on the innerwebz. Thanks!

[_Simon Belmont]

...
The only question I'm left with is this:

Why on earth does anyone pay any attention to these guys? ...

And yet you care enough to compose a 532 word post.

[_Pahoran]

Pahoran, Wengland, Droopy, and Nomad (+ others) need to ask yourselves if at your next ward activity, you heard someone speaking the garbage and crudeness that Will has been spewing in writing on here, how many people would want to associate with him and how many would vote to have Will represent the church? Better yet, print out some of his crude comments and read them out loud in your next sacrament meeting talk. What? You wouldn't do that? Well then, why on earth would you think it was just fine for him to speak that way to others on here? And why would you actually defend him and then ridicule those who have found it so offensive?

And...to all those I've named in this post....I know you'll start attacking me and calling me names (if you follow your boringly predictable, completely ineffective M.O.....yawn.....), but I will not respond so don't waste your time.

So you expect us to listen to you, but you won't take any notice of anything we might say in response.

In other words, you don't see this as a discussion forum so much as a pulpit from which you may preach.

Got it.

The point you're missing is that this isn't a ward activity. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that Will said everything that's been attributed to him -- including those things he disputes -- the fact remains that none of it was really that far out of the common way around here. It's so shockingly bad only because Will is a Mormon; if he'd been one of those on the "other side of the aisle," nobody would have turned a hair.

Will's greatest crime, as I've pointed out before, is that he refuses to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules when he's going up against a gang of no-holds-barred, knock-down, drag-out, bare-knuckle, down-and-dirty street-fighters.

Now it is possible to make the argument that Church members should only play by those rules, and if the environment is such that playing by those rules would leave them at such a distinct disadvantage, then they should stay out of that environment. I'm prepared to listen to that argument, just as soon as it is put to me by someone who actually practices what they are preaching. But given that Will is participating here, this is the environment that prevails.

Regards,
Pahoran