Boy, was I wrong

[_Kishkumen]

Nightlion, my respect for you continues to grow.

[_Droopy]

I was not a reader of much of his sex-capades.

Now this has all the makings of a smear campaign.

Now I have read other notorious posts. Some are just as damning. This chum chucking you propose is the dumbest rationale imaginable. ws has plenty of imagination to push buttons without making a complete Jackass of himself.

Sound and fury signifying nothing. Will said some things over the years that he shouldn't have said, but most of us have, at one time or another as well. I pretty much subscribe to Will's characterization of them as "PG" rated comments, as inappropriate as some of them may have been. Many of the anonymous core posters here have traditionally behaved in a manner on this board that most mature adults who have been out of High School for an extended period of time would find, not only shocking, but the verbiage, as you say, of jackasses.

And now you have made a complete Jackass of yourself, Droopy. I would have rather you did not, first reply and all that. I can imagine the possibility that ws has offered to sacrifice himself without restraint to wholly dominate this board as a tactical maneuver to marginalize the REAL THREAT to the Church that has a presence here.

I could do it several years ago, and I did. During the first couple of years of this board's existence, it would get rather slow during some periods -- until Coggins showed up. Within a matter of an hour or so, I could become the center of attention here as if I had been a chicken nugget dropped into a fire ant nest. Spin off threads geared to attacking and mocking just me, myself, were then generated, sometimes in decent quantities.

Daniel's appearance here could spark the same kind of hyena pack focus.

If you could now make yourself as rare as the Dr remains I would count myself doubly blessed.

Believe me, if this place ever really became an exmo-anti-Mormon echo chamber free from all intellectual challenge and dissent, boredom would kill this place before Obama's energy policies killed the power.

[_Doctor Scratch]

This means that not only was I terribly wrong about the influence of this "backwater" board on LDS apologetic decision-making, but Scratch's network of informants is evidently not entirely incorrect in what they expose.

Hi there, Wade. It's nice of you to admit this. I always strongly advise readers to treat the material from my "informants" with caution, but as you have at last apparently realized, the "intel" seems to turn out correctly more often than not. I hope that you'll be less automatically dismissive (though properly skeptical) in the future, and I hope your new realization prompts you to visit past bits of "intel," such as the report that the Maxwell Institute was ordered to drastically slash its budget, or the allegation that the Brethren have very powerful and mixed emotions on the value of M.I.-style apologetics.

[_Kevin Graham]

Or claim to. Doesn't it strike you as odd to have people like Kishkumen, Graham, and Polygamy Porter wagging their fingers at Will for being "offensive?"

Let it be stated for the record that LDS apologist Loran Blood (who provides permission to use his real name) finds absolutely nothing offensive about a guy accusing a group of people he's never met of engaging in orgiastic anal sex, or circle jerks, or for calling women whores. Nothing offenseive about that at all, according to our South Carolina based "saint." Though neither PP, nor Kishkumen, nor I have ever "wagged our fingers" at William Schryver for being offensive, others have, including women. But for Mr. Loran Blood, they have no right to be offended because, according to Loran, people have said worse things to William. I have asked Will's defenders to provide a single example that would even begin to compare to his attacks, and they've been silent because they know that they are essentially lying through their deceptive little teeth.

Further, we are talking about, as Will himself pointed out, a tiny, indeed vanishingly small fraction of all the posts he's made in as many years.

Another idiotic argument for the intellectually bankrupt. Following this logic. OJ Simpson wasn't really a bad guy at all since the heinouse murder of his wife only accounted for a "vanishingly small fraction" of all the things he'd done throughout his life.

Compared to what goes on in here on a daily basis, Will's stuff is pure Vienna Boys Choir.

You keep asserting this kind of stupidity but like always, you refuse to back up your claims with evidence. Please Loran, provide just one example where anyone here has accused Will of doing anything remotely offensive as engaging in group sodomy, or ejaculating with a group on a biscuit. The floor is yours. Now is your time to shine. Put up or shut up.

Jack's campaign was, indeed, a campaign

There has been absolutely zero evidence for this, but you direct your frustration at Jack because you look like a fool blaming your own apologists who are the real culprits.

and in the whole 'c' word controversy, more than one here was caught with guile.

This is a lie. The C-Word incident was supported by eye witness testimony and contradicted only by Will's unsupported claim that he merely called harmony a hypocrite. The responses by numerous people prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Will is lying through that gaping hole in his teeth. And this was deemed irrelevant anyway since Will's subsequent remarks regarding anal sex and circlejerking was easily enough to put the C-word incident back to fourth or fifth place from being the most offensive remark. And how have you and your ilk tried to address these remarks? By ignoring them and attacking anyone who brings them up, as usual.

Will said some things over the years that he shouldn't have said, but most of us have, at one time or another as well. I pretty much subscribe to Will's characterization of them as "PG" rated comments, as inappropriate as some of them may have been.

So we'll just leave it to the Motion Picture Association of America to decide what is acceptable Mormon conduct. Brilliant!

Many of the anonymous core posters here have traditionally behaved in a manner on this board that most mature adults who have been out of High School for an extended period of time would find, not only shocking, but the verbiage, as you say, of jackasses.

None have ever made themselves public figures and then accused an entire group of engaging in anal sex or orgiastic circle jerks. You're just rationalizing like mad here, which makes you look not only like a fool, but a completely immoral one.

I could do it several years ago, and I did. During the first couple of years of this board's existence, it would get rather slow during some periods -- until Coggins showed up. Within a matter of an hour or so, I could become the center of attention here as if I had been a chicken nugget dropped into a fire ant nest.

From what I have seen, you start posts and no one responds because you're such an irrelevant sideshow. Your credibility went out the window a long time ago. Stop trying to equate yourself with the importance of Dan Peterson.

[_sock puppet]

There is also a cesspool of people at this forum who exhibit a penchant for ignorance and blind, unbending loyalty over enlightenment. That they have circled the wagons around their misogynist hero is par for the course with them.

This is not the point. Will's mistake was for using his name on the internet. He was brave to do so but it does entail risks that I am sure that he did not know. When there are people hiding behind screen names condemning people for what they say under their real name, they seem to be a little cowardly.

This is definitely becoming a snitch ship. Al was right in his speech.

You are kidding, right? You, a theist, a religionist really think that Will's mistake was using his real name rather than his mistake being the vulgar, disgusting and misogynist postings? This entire episode might turn out to say more about you than Will's postings do about him.

[_EAllusion]

Kevin -

Will was using circle jerk to mean a meaningless, self-congratulatory discussion group. Will, being Will, just loved the sexual nature of the metaphor and kept adding crude sexual reference on top of sexual reference to it. You seem to think that he was literally referring to an actual circle jerk, but Will is just inordinately fond of double-entendres

Droopy's core argument is obviously wrong. Will is one of the meanest, crudest people on the board. I think there are people who are comparable, but they are few and far between. Have you seen some of the things he's implied about Metcalfe? It goes beyond a pattern of misogynistic comments. Droopy is trying to defame lots of non-Mormon posters here, some of whom appear to be posting in Eagle Scout uniforms, by implying they are consistently even worse. I'm not sure who he thinks he's fooling exactly, but that's the gimmick.

[_Runtu]

Will's problem is that he uses his real name on the internet boards. And this was his downfall. If he was using a screen name no one would know who he is. So, his mistake was to be honest in representing himself. And that is a tragedy since many attackers of Will do not use their real name but hide behind a screen name.

Many posters on this board do not conduct themselves in a professional manner and yet, because they hide behind a screen name they can use whatever language they choose without fear of censure.

And how should an apologist act with a bunch of ingrates who hate the LDS church and post personal attacks on a board that has no censuring mechanism?

I posted under my real name for years, including my final stint on MADB. Strangely, the only people who spent any time trying to shut me up were Will and a few of his friends. My wife got threatening emails from some anonymous coward, and yet you are calling Will a victim.

Here's the problem as I see it. Will boasted repeatedly that he intentionally offended people here, and he said that it made him happy to offend us and even happier if we left the church (he said several times he was "laughing his ass off" when he knew he'd said something hurtful to me or others). He said a lot of things that he should be ashamed of, but shame and self-reflection don't seem to be two of Will's qualities. He wanted to offend, to hurt, to mock--and yet when someone else in a position of some authority, such as those at NAMI, objected to his offensive posts, he acted as if he were the victim of a lynch-mob.

I did not have anything to do with Will's troubles with NAMI. I commented only briefly on the threads about Will's antics, and I certainly did not want his piece to be killed by his behavior here. But he is the person who wrote those things, and he has no one to blame for the consequences. MsJack simply reported what he said, and I'm glad she did.

[_moksha]

Wade, I look forward to your posts. The entire board benefits from controlled righteous indignation without vulgar language. I see you as a vital ingredient to the Mormon Discussions stew. Besides, it is not like you can expect a free exchange of ideas at that other board.

[_Runtu]

Sound and fury signifying nothing. Will said some things over the years that he shouldn't have said, but most of us have, at one time or another as well. I pretty much subscribe to Will's characterization of them as "PG" rated comments, as inappropriate as some of them may have been. Many of the anonymous core posters here have traditionally behaved in a manner on this board that most mature adults who have been out of High School for an extended period of time would find, not only shocking, but the verbiage, as you say, of jackasses.

I said "Screw you" to you the other night because you used my stay in a mental hospital to score a cheap point against someone else. For some reason, I doubt very much that you'll let that go; after all, it was just one brief outburst that does not represent my usual posting style. In fact, you reminded me of my outburst as a parting shot in our conversation, so I look forward to you bringing it up again as evidence of my vulgarity and hypocrisy.

Here's the difference, Loran. I acknowledged what I said, and I immediately apologized to you. I find it incredibly disappointing that you would defend someone who routinely had said intentionally hurtful and offensive things but who refuses to apologize for them, let alone even acknowledge them. For the life of me, I don't know why you and Wade and others are rushing to defend that kind of behavior.

I don't hate Will, and I certainly don't want his publication to get quashed. But I certainly will not defend his behavior here. Am I a hypocrite? Maybe so, but that doesn't change what Will said or did. And if I am a hypocrite for not defending him, you are just as much a hypocrite for defending him for behavior you find execrable in other people.

I could do it several years ago, and I did. During the first couple of years of this board's existence, it would get rather slow during some periods -- until Coggins showed up. Within a matter of an hour or so, I could become the center of attention here as if I had been a chicken nugget dropped into a fire ant nest. Spin off threads geared to attacking and mocking just me, myself, were then generated, sometimes in decent quantities.

I've tried to be fair to you, not that you have ever reciprocated. It's not enough for you to disagree with people. No, you have to let them know how evil and stupid they are. That's why I don't generally respond to you: how on earth are you supposed to have any kind of "intellectually serious" discussion with someone who thinks you're stupid and evil even before you type a word?

Daniel's appearance here could spark the same kind of hyena pack focus.

That is true, but you are no Dan Peterson.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin -
Will was using circle jerk to mean a meaningless, self-congratulatory discussion group. Will, being Will, just loved the sexual nature of the metaphor and kept adding crude sexual reference on top of sexual reference to it. You seem to think that he was literally referring to an actual circle jerk, but Will is just inordinately fond of double-entendres

That conclusion isn't supported by all the evidence. Will Schryver previously stated:

By the way, I for one am quite confident that most of you losers here in the Trailer Park are shameless buggerers. Else why your proclivity for the orgiastic circle jerks in which you all enthusiastically participate? Like this thread, for example. Graham tosses out the biscuit, and you're all in a circle on a moment's notice

Urban dictionary notes that people often confuse the "limp biscuit" game with circle jerks:

"*NOT* when a group of males stand in a circle to jerk off onto a cookie or anything of the sort. That r******* frat game is called "Limp Biscuit"... which kind of indirectly explains why the band of the same namesake is so f*****g horrible.

So thanks to Will's "biscuit" comment, there can be no doubt what Will meant in this context. In another example Will says,

And of course you'd regard my most recent work as "increasingly obnoxious." After all, you've never been averse to taking your place right in the middle of the circle, heartily pounding out an approving beat for each and every orgiastic excess. You belong here.

According to Urban Dictionary the circle jerk also refers to:

A fraternity initiation ritual or hazing whereby the lights are turned off. The plege or pledges are told it's a circle jerk. The actives pound their fists together in the darkness simulating the sound of jerking off. The lights are then turned on suddenly and the pledge or pledges are the only ones in the circle with their dicks out.

Hence, there can be no doubt what Will was referring to when he says "pounding out an approving beat."
We can also be confident in this meaning because Will uses the word "orgiastic." Urban Dictionary on the word Orgiastic:

The new word replacing "horny" the same definition but different word. cause horny blows. Spread the word that horny is out.

Urban Dictionary defines Orgy:

1.Sex party involving many partners
2. A party where many people engage in sex at the same time.
3. A large group of people screwing togethe
4... you get the point

Urban Dictionary defines Circle Jerk many ways too:

1. When a group of males sit in a circle, jerking each other off.
2. When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos as if they were extensions of their genitals (ergo, the mastubatory insinuation).
3. A masturbation party; can be with guys or girls. Everyone usually sits in a circle and jacks off in the company of other people.
4. Group masturbation, usually males, sitting or standing in a circle jerking themselves or each other off.
5. You get the point...

In the context of his "orgiastic circle jerk" comment, Will calls us a bunch of "buggerers" which might go over the heads of anyone not familiar with British or Austrailian slang. Urban dictionary defines the verb bugger as follows:

1. Technically means to sodomize, but most people use the word in a variety of situations, often without realizing the true meaning.

2. Australian, derived from buggering, which means anal intercourse. Now mostly used as a slang word as an exclamation of surprise or discontent. May be used to refer to a creature or human.

3. To sodomize someone.

4. vb. the act of committing sodomy

n. person who commits sodomy (n.), ie. has anal intercourse.

So if you're saying Will didn't really think we were having anal sex, or he didn't really think we were stanidng around ejaculating, then obviously you're right. But that is beside the point too, and would be like Runtu arguing that he didn't really believe droopy could literally have sex with himself when he said "F-you." It was just another way of saying "piss off."

What never ceases to amaze me by all of this is the Mormon apologist's willingness to excuse all manner of sins that exist on their side. Again:

Apostates + false statements = lies.
LDS members + false statements = imperfect human
Apostates + revolting comments = despicable person
LDS member + revolting comments = victim.
Apostate + temple recommend = despicable liar
Despicable LDS member + temple recommend = imperfect human.

Like the Energizer Bunny, the double standards go on and on and on...