Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

[_Droopy]

She, supported by the more bloodshot-eyed feminists and politically corrected NOM'm and exmos here, fabricated a fantastic calumny of William Schryver, just at the time he had found a publisher for some of his work on the KEP.

By "fabricated" you mean "quoted his own words." She showed what kind of person Mr. Schryver is, and she fabricated nothing.

Given the nature of the charge and the claimed evidence for its legitimacy, it was yet another example of what I've come to call the Anita Hill Syndrome among the Left, and the Mormon Left is no different at all from the non-Mormon Left.

What claimed evidence? I read her thread. She laid it all out carefully and let him hang himself. It's one thing to support Schryver, but it's another thing entirely to pretend he didn't say what he did. He's had years to cultivate his image, and then he whinges when it comes back to bite him.

I can't, really,

No s***. In other words, you lied about MsJack.

because the evidence she claimed to be using to support her allegations did not exist at all. Other evidence and logical argument had to be used.

Since when are a man's own words not evidence? Your stupidity knows no depths.

You are proving something, at this point, but not, I fear, what you think.

I don't mind admitting I can be a prick sometimes, but that's not the point here. You accused someone of lying and then, when pressed on it, started crying about nonexisting evidence.

Let me give you a heads up, Bob. You are now among an entire coterie of liars, slanderers, and vipers

The only one I see lying and slandering is you.

in a viper pit that was dug originally and precisely to be a place for the purveyance of exactly the kind of narrative presently in play with regards to Danial and the MI. That is why MDB exists. Its a place where this kind of thing is gestated, nurtured, and encouraged.

The way to combat lies is with the truth. That you had to lie to attack MsJack shows who is nurturing dishonesty.

You are now a part of it, and it appears that you will be quite comfortable here in the Great and Spacious Trailerpark among the Anointed.

Maybe I will. If posting here means standing up to obvious liars like you, I'll be in good company.

Take this faux moral outrage to some of your comrades in here, Bob.

Ooooh, he used the word "faux." How impressive! How's about you take your lying ass to the Maxwell Institute, where you'll be right at home. Oh yeah that's right: they banned you.

I can name a few of them who could use a good dose of proving their slanders and smears of people they cannot defeat in the marketplace of ideas.

The tu quoque fallacy doesn't work, especially when it's invoked by a now-proven liar.

We're so sorry, Mr. Loblaw, but you haven't said a bloody thing all day...

[_Cicero]

CFR...not that it hasn't happened, but it hasn't been me or anyone else I'm aware of who does apologetic on the Internet on a consistent basis.

OK, can you clarify your views then? You have been using very strident language to criticize him, like this:

With friends like Gerald Bradford, apologetics needs few if any enemies outside its now secularized and apologetically neutral walls.

No, the LDS liberals are controlling the narrative. Its their narrative, after all, and they are all over the Internet controlling and mediating it. Its only a story, at this juncture, and follows Dehlin's story, in general outline, but I'm confident we will have the truth as time goes by.

You may be right about MDB and the Mormon Stories folks, but that's certainly not true about MD&D, FAIR and other places in the bloggernacle. Dan and his editorial team are definitely the victims in the narrative going on in those places.

You'll hate yourself in the morning, but we agree here.

Nah, I really try to always call balls and strikes no matter which team is pitching. Dan and Bill are calling these sources liars publicly, thereby staking their reputations on it, and I respect that. I've met Dan before, but I don't really know him. I've had a lot more experience with Bill. In general, I have found him to be arrogant and rude, but I have never seen him blatantly lie before. So I will definitely take his word over an anonymous source leaking selective information.

[_Bob Loblaw]

We're so sorry, Mr. Loblaw, but you haven't said a bloody thing all day...

Translation: "I know I lied, but I'm trying to deflect it by quoting an old song."

I don't like liars. If you want me to take you seriously, don't lie.

[_Droopy]

I've not lied about Myers. Myers fabricated - and quite obviously given the nature of the asserted evidence - a claim that William had used the 'c' word to attack a female poster. Even some other posters here, hardly friends of Will or the church, openly wondered as to the actual provenance of the alleged text - which didn't exist.

The rest of the claims were of a tiny, vanishingly small component of a number of years of posting that contained a few harshly worded jabs at certain particularly obnoxious ant--Mormon critics of particularly thin skin (not unusual among either exmos or leftists) that were female specific. Will had aimed just as many darts at male critics over the years, if not more, than at female, and material of this kind was a tiny component of his entire posting history, which was, ovarall, intellectual, civil, and idea based.

From this Myers and the Internet anti-Mormon posse here that collected around her concocted a "misogyny" meme, a sop to the techniques of political correctness is which ideological enemies are smeared with broad brush strokes of moral infamy for doing nothing more than calling names now and then, so long as the name called or the person called the name can be deployed as an ideological icon.

It fooled no one save those, as is always the case under theses kinds of circumstances, who did not wish to be fooled, or were playing others for fools themselves.

Beyond this, I'm not going to resurrect all of this, as I've found that Morlocks are not usually given to giving their prey the benefit of any doubts.

[_Droopy]

OK, can you clarify your views then? You have been using very strident language to criticize him, like this:

With friends like Gerald Bradford, apologetics needs few if any enemies outside its now secularized and apologetically neutral walls.

Yes, I've never termed him an apostate. And you don't seem to have much basis for claiming that this is now the coin of the realm on apolgetic message boards.

Nah, I really try to always call balls and strikes no matter which team is pitching. Dan and Bill are calling these sources liars publicly, thereby staking their reputations on it, and I respect that. I've met Dan before, but I don't really know him. I've had a lot more experience with Bill. In general, I have found him to be arrogant and rude, but I have never seen him blatantly lie before. So I will definitely take his word over an anonymous source leaking selective information.

Welcome to what we have come to call the Great and Spacious Trailerpark. In here, most apologists are understood to be liars, deceivers, guttersnipes, stupes, idiots, morons, and, in general nasty, brutish, and short.

Critics of the church, on the other hand, spend most of their time polishing their halos.

You'll get the picture in time.

[_Droopy]

Translation: "I know I lied, but I'm trying to deflect it by quoting an old song."

I do not lie, my little Morlock. You may not like my opinions, but I do not lie, about anyone or anything I believe to be the case. I'm not big on Freud, but projection was definitely one of his big bull's eyes.

I don't like liars. If you want me to take you seriously, don't lie.

I'm going to ignore you utterly. That should solve the problem.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I do not lie, my little Morlock. You may not like my opinions, but I do not lie, about anyone or anything I believe to be the case. I'm not big on Freud, but projection was definitely one of his big bull's eyes.

You attacked MsJack by claiming she had lied and fabricated evidence. When called on it, you couldn't come up with anything to back up your assertion. That makes you a liar, and you can either apologize to MsJack or confirm that you approve of lying.

I'm going to ignore you utterly. That should solve the problem.

Right. Just like you're going to leave this board for the nth time.

[Guest]

Yes, I've never termed him an apostate. And you don't seem to have much basis for claiming that this is now the coin of the realm on apolgetic message boards.

So what is he then? Just a useful idiot for apostates? Did he commit any sins by firing Dan that he needs to repent of? I ask since you seem to be very eager to judge people and call them to repent.

Welcome to what we have come to call the Great and Spacious Trailerpark. In here, most apologists are understood to be liars, deceivers, guttersnipes, stupes, idiots, morons, and, in general nasty, brutish, and short.

And you appear to feel the same about anyone that disagrees with you. I'll acknowledge that this board seems to be a lot more about personal attacks rather than engaging on issues, but you appear to be one the worst offenders. As I said, I try to call it like I see it and so I have very little respect for those who always toe the party line (e.g., I like Bill O'Reilly even though I frequently disagree with him, but I detest Sean Hannity). So tell me Droopy, has Schryver said anything on this board or elsewhere that you disagree with? What's your view of Emma Smith?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Welcome to what we have come to call the Great and Spacious Trailerpark. In here, most apologists are understood to be liars, deceivers, guttersnipes, stupes, idiots, morons, and, in general nasty, brutish, and short.

There are a lot of decent, honest, intelligent apologists. Most don't post here so we're stuck with you.

Critics of the church, on the other hand, spend most of their time polishing their halos.

You'll get the picture in time.

I traded in my halo for a hammer and sickle, don't you know?

[_Bob Loblaw]

And you appear to feel the same about anyone that disagrees with you. I'll acknowledge that this board seems to be a lot more about personal attacks rather then engaging on issues, but you appear to be one the worst offenders. As I said, I try to call it like I see it and so I have very little respect for those who always toe the party line (e.g., I like Bill O'Reilly even though I frequently disagree with him, but I detest Sean Hannity). So tell me Droopy, has Schryver said anything on this board or elsewhere that you disagree with? What's your view of Emma Smith?

That's what apologetics has become, unfortunately: personal attacks instead of engaging on issues. Droopy is, as you say, well-rehearsed in this tactic, but maybe I should stop taking the bait and just let him rant away.