It's called "having a life," Kevin. I recommend you try getting one.
It is called choosing to have integrity Pahoran. You are the one who raised these issues and tried to defend trhem while implying the entire case against Schryver was one big misrepresentation. You did this based on your scant knowledge of the subject matter and continued down this path of apologetic suicide so long as you sensed plausible deniability was in the air. I have since shot this possibility out of the water, I simply expected you to admit defending the guilty (Will) and wrongly accusing the innocent (MsJack).
Why is this too much to ask?
It might help you overcome your obsessive hatefulness.
Ah, the ole "you're being hateful" canard won't save you this time, Pahoran. Not that it ever has... because I love you.
Based upon the additional information I have read, I agree that Will used circle-jerk in a sexual way.
Excellent. Now do you deem it appropriate to apologize for MsJack, since you accused her of basing her entire case on one giant misrepresentation? (I know, I'm pushing it, right?)
Furthermore, I did not deny defending Will. I denied that I came here to defend Will, or that he was my "client." I also denied that I had any obligation to address any arguments that did not take my interest.
But I am only asking you to address the arguments that
did take your interest. You clearly had an interest to defend Will as innocent of teh charges against him, as you just admitted. So, why not address the specific stronger arguments that condemn him the most? Instead, you picked out a couple of examples to address, only because you felt they were in error. Now that you know they aren't in error, and MsJack and others have
correctly represented Will's attacks, how do you feel about having defended such a despicable character while accusing us of being merely hateful individuals? Do you as a fellow LDS codemn his behavior?
I still deny these baseless falsehoods, of which you are the author.
Fine, WIll doesn't literally pay you to act as his attorney. You didn't come here for teh specific reason of defending Will. Instead, you have gone out of your way to defend William's character
pro bono, and chose to defend him only after having come across these threads by
accident. Clear distinctions I grant you, but not really much of a difference.
Nice attempt to make this into a clone of the Schryver thread.
This thread is focused on the topic of your tactics, Kevin. In particular, your failed attempt at intimidation.
Yes, and your lame attempts to attack and label me as an "intimidator" have already been sufficiently dealt with and you decided to drop it. I raised these points about your behavior here, only because I know you are participating in this thread. You refuse to address them when I mention them elsewhere, and that is the only reason I do so here. So if it is being derailed, you're to blame for it.
Oh, I know you deny it now, because it failed.
And why did it fail?
Well, it failed because it's you, isn't it?
It failed? Let's see. My goal was to stop you from calling me Magdalena. You have since stopped that. But according to you, I failed at what I set out to do? More impressively, you became the very first Willpologist to come to grips with reality and admit the fact that he was not "misunderstood" and was in fact trying to be sexually explicit in his vulgarity. This was all because I kept pounding you to respond to specifics, which you have, finally. That's one hell of a "Mission accomplished"!
And since you actually had the nerve to try to deny that "if you don't stop, you'll regret it" is an attempt at intimidation, it shows that your frequent and hysterical screams of "LIAR!" flung exclusively at people you hate, are stones thrown from within a glass house.
You can spin it for yourself however you want, but to call this intimidation is silly. I merely pointed out that my longstanding favor towards you (refusing to reveal your name to the public) would be quickly lifted if you did not cease with your baseless accusations against me. To view this as a threat is silly. It is simply a fact that I have indulged your wishes ever since you whined to me about your concerns a few years ago. I have no obligation to continue doing you this favor, off-forum. The only thing I threatened to do was tell the truth, and of course we know how LDS apologists are intimidated by the truth, which explains your arbitrary and gratuitous use of the word intimidation.
I have a confession to make, Kevin. I actually saw this post a couple of days ago, but I was waiting to see if one of the resident sycophants would gush all over it for being such a wonderfully "truthful summary" of the exchange....So it seemed appropriate to let him walk a few metres in my moccasins; so I posted his in real life name and told the mods what I was doing, and why. So, thank you for presenting your cherry-picked selections.
My cherry-picked selections? I was specifically addressing the insinuation that youes was a new and improved online persona, and merely highlighted your short history of posts in the Op Ed. So naturally I was focused on what you were saying, and was not psychoanalyzing as to why you were saying it. But did I say anything that wasn't true? No. I said you broke a forum rule by sharing Kish's in real life identity to the world - which most people
don't know. And if MsJack did what you said, then yes she is guilty of breaking the same rule. How does this in any way change my synopsis of your posting record on that thread as a staunch, blind defender of William Schryver, who immediately and illicitly assumes that he has been grossly misrepresented?
Once again, you are lying.
About what? I merely proved that what Will Schryver has been shown to have indisputably said about the lot of us engaging in sexual orgies of a sodomistic nature, is much worse than using the C-word towards a single individual. How is this a lie? The C-word is a quick emotional outburst. The other examples involved well thought out attacks of a sexually explicit nature, providing the rest of us with a more in depth look into the dark, demented mind of your Book of Abraham hero.