Boy, was I wrong

[_Kevin Graham]

OK, so Wade is a liar. In other words, you "think" and you "assume" and you call others liars but you have nothing, nothing whatsoever but your need to protect your paper thin ego from a well deserved popping.

This entire thing is utterly debasing.

My argument doesn't hang on the notion that wade is a liar. In fact I have approached this with the assumption that he isn't, just for the sake of argument. I can pound you either way since his "informant" hardly counts as valid evidence when it runs contrary to the testimony several respected LDS scholars.

Besides, have you even bothered to ask wade if he agrees with you? Have you not bothered to look at the title of this thread, which he started?

"Boy was I wrong"

Several pages later, droopy assures us "Boy was he right" based on no new evidence whatsoever.

Sigh... just when you think droopy can't possibly look any dumber.

[Guest]

Wade now says he was told Bokovoy was involved, but I think this is just evidence that wade is making s*** up as he goes along, including the whole informant fiasco. There is no evidence of this aside from wade's say-so, and he is just now bringing it up as a poor excuse for "being wrong,"

Hmmm. No evidence aside from someone's say-so, and making things up as they go along.

Remember that 'c' word claim of MsJack that all of us are to take on her say-so, because she's such a angelic, pure-as-driven-snow arbiter of truth and rectitude, for which no evidence exists?

[_Kishkumen]

Never.

I don't care how much you despise us; it shouldn't cause you to abandon reason.

[_Kevin Graham]

Remember that 'c' word claim of MsJack that all of us are to take on her say-so, because she's such a angelic, pure-as-driven-snow arbiter of truth and rectitude, for which no evidence exists?

You're obviously too stupid to know an invalid comparison when you see it. MsJack didn't rely on her say so nor did she expect anyone else to. She presented the claim as it was based on explicit testimonies of at least three individuals who saw it, and numerous others who recall that something disgusting, and quite possibly that, had been said.

Comparing this to wade's claim of having received an anonymous email claiming to know of some massive conspiracy, is ridiculous. And this is why I think wade is making it up; so he can then turn it around and say something stupid like you just did, by calling us hypocrites for believing Will said the C-word. Weak minds think alike I guess.

[_Droopy]

Besides, have you even bothered to ask wade if he agrees with you? Have you not bothered to look at the title of this thread, which he started?

"Boy was I wrong"

Several pages later, droopy assures us "Boy was he right" based on no new evidence whatsoever.

Sigh... just when you think droopy can't possibly look any dumber.

You're clearly psychotic. Wade's OP is about being wrong 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.

Clearly, the threats and smear campaign from many here at MD worked in silencing Will Schryver even among his own. I didn't think that was possible, but I obviously seriously under estimated the power of this mob--which is ironic given how the mob prides itself on free speech and has complained long and hard about censorship in certain quarters. At least this is one way to avoid having to confront Will's arguments.

Now that Will is out of the way, it will be interesting to see who next gets targeted for lynching.

I've not seen anything, in the last few pages since he made clear that which he had promised to make clear, where Wade has admitted that he was "wrong" or lied (made it up as he went along, according to you) about the letter he received and its contents.

The best you can do, as usual, is scream "Liar!" and call names while you run in circles and curse the Book of Abraham.

[_Kevin Graham]

You're missing the point droops, as usual. The point is Wade is wrong. He has been wrong about every facet of this fiasco from the get-go. And now, long after the matter of who blew the whistle has been resolved, you want to use his so-called anonymous email to argue that we were the ones behind it.

You might as well call the press and tell them it was the Russians who killed Usama Bin Laden. As usual, you're too late for the party, and your conclusions are refuted before you can finish spitting them out. But the funniest thing is you're willing to throw respected LDS scholars under the bus, just to be able to entertain this far fetched theory. Because your theory cannot even get off the ground unless they are lying.

[_Kevin Graham]

Droopy, wade posted the news about his informant, and then in the next post said:

Okay...now I am obliged to come back yet again to admit I was wrong. While some of what Stak said earlier seemed a bit far fetched to me (I thought it somewhat odd that a non-believer would care so much about the reputation of the Church and the MI), I was evidently mistaken to assume he was being genuine and for taking him at his word. My bad. It was clearly a great joke on me, and one I can laugh with you about.

[Guest]

You're obviously too stupid to know an invalid comparison when you see it. MsJack didn't rely on her say so nor did she expect anyone else to. She presented the claim as it was based on explicit testimonies of at least three individuals who saw it, and numerous others who recall that something disgusting, and quite possibly that, had been said.

Kevin does, indeed, believe that his critics are stupid. So stupid, indeed, that they will not recognize the his utter lack of critical thinking abilities and cluelessness regarding even the rudiments of the logical analysis of the arguments of others.

Let's re-translate his statement above to emphasize the actual evidential nature of the 'c' word claim:

She presented the claim as it was based, without documentary evidence or supporting facts, on explicit testimonies of at least three individuals who claimed they saw it, and numerous others who recall that something disgusting, and quite possibly that, had been said

Notice the weasel words at the end as well. Some "others" recall that "something disgusting" was said, and that "quite possibly," (maybe, perhaps, I guess...) it was the 'c' word. Jack herself also never saw anything at all personally, and had to rely on second, third, and multiple hand sources for her knowledge of it. These others then waited, Anita Hill-like, for a long time until the time was ripe, apparently, to spring the claim.



Move along...nothing to see here.

[_wenglund]

So? How does this change the fact that Bokovoy was not involved until Will got him involved? Quickly, claim I'm missing your ever elusive point, because you're so smart!

It doesn't change the alleged fact, nor was it intended to do anything of the sort--which leads me to ponder why, in all your presumed brilliance, you are asking me these inane questions? are you trying to appear smart? If so, it is having the opposite affect--just so you know.

I wasn't referring to Bokovoy at all! This was Will's initial mistake. He assumed I was referring to Bokovoy months ago when I referred to multiple apologists and scholars working against him.

For someone so fond of calling opponents moronic, you sure are having a terrible time following even your own end of the discussion. So, let me remind you that the post I quoted of you above, was in response to a post by Will, in which he made absolutely no mention or even a hint of Bokovoy, and in fact was referring to the participants on this board in general, and those on the mega thread in particular. His comments were in regards to "threats" of his ouster relevant to what was being said on the mega thread (of which Bokovoy was not a part). This means that it was, in fact YOU, who interjected Bokovoy into the discussion at that point, and it was YOUR statement that contained the words "their efforts." For the third time, if YOU weren't referiring to Bokovoy, then who all were YOU including in the "their"?

Please do your very best to stay on track. Focus your scant grey cells as best you can, and see if you can muster something a little more intelligent that, "Da yup...you's stupid."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Droopy]

Wade:

For someone so fond of calling opponents moronic, you sure are having a terrible time following even your own end of the discussion. So, let me remind you that the post I quoted of you above, was in response to a post by Will, in which he made absolutely no mention or even a hint of Bokovoy, and in fact was referring to the participants on this board in general, and those on the mega thread in particular. His comments were in regards to "threats" of his ouster relevant to what was being said on the mega thread (of which Bokovoy was not a part). This means that it was, in fact YOU, who interjected Bokovoy into the discussion at that point, and it was YOUR statement that contained the words "their efforts." For the third time, if YOU weren't referiring to Bokovoy, then who all were YOU including in the "their"?

Please do your very best to stay on track. Focus your scant grey cells as best you can, and see if you can muster something a little more intelligent that, "Da yup...you's stupid."

Graham responds;

"Duh...which way did he go George? Which way did he go?"

Droopy provides assistance:

"Well, I tell ya whatcha do. You go down to that old tree stump, and turn right, until you come to a rail fence. You'll find him right on the other side, you can't miss 'em."