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

[_Kevin Graham]

Dan is guilty of the same thing. He said Will has been unjustifiably demonized by MsJack. He read all the evidence and couldn't bring himself to denounce anything he said.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

I gave pass to Will on the C word as I did not see it and proof could not be found. But even without it Will's comments were much more than:

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.

If you as a priesthood holder who crows on and on about how his actions here in calling sinners such as me and other NOMers on the carpet is part of his oath anc covenant of can turn around and simpy dismiss things Will said to women here all I can say is shame on you. You are really something of a wonder. Die on all hills Droopy. You are lying about Ms Jack and it is here for all to read.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Dan is guilty of the same thing. He said Will has been unjustifiably demonized by MsJack. He read all the evidence and couldn't bring himself to denounce anything he said.

We all know that MsJack spends all her leisure time demonizing people like William Schryver.

[_Jason Bourne]

Will admitted to having used language in an ad hominem fashion that was not appropriate. He had. So have I. So have most of the anti-Mormons in here, and in far greater profusion and intensity than Will ever has or likely ever will.

He also said that they were PG rated, and in this, too, as I checked the sources provided by his own critics, he was accurate, and again, while a vast majority of personal attacks in this forum, including a wealth of it directed against Will, is of the X rated variety.

See my siggy.

Will called Emma Smith a bitch and recently blatently lied about is on MDD where he said he called her a wench but Mods here edited to say bitch. He is a liar. You seem to be in good company because you are lying about Ms Jack. Also, it is rather funny to see you say you mostly are not the attacker here and you usually try to engage in reasonable honest debate. Sure a few times you have. But no you are mostly strident and it attack dog mode here. Anyone can see that. Why you could not even last at MDD. They kicked you out more than once. Why is that?

Yet us scum and denziens welcome you here to the cesspool. How odd.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Yet us scum and denziens welcome you here to the cesspool. How odd.

Do you ever get the feeling that some apologists just don't believe in being kind to anyone who criticizes the church? I don't understand it, but that's how it seems to me.

[_Cicero]

Yet us scum and denziens welcome you here to the cesspool. How odd.

Do you ever get the feeling that some apologists just don't believe in being kind to anyone who criticizes the church? I don't understand it, but that's how it seems to me.

Actually the type of apologetics that irks me the most is not the "attack dog" style exemplified by Will or Droopy, but rather the infantalizing style best exemplified by Wade Englund. Here is one of Wade's recent responses to a questioner on MD&D (h/t to Stormy Waters). It is technically "nice" but I find it much more insulting on so many levels than anything I've seen from Will or Droopy (although I am a man):

With all due respect, sometimes the stumblers in faith aren't the best ones to speak about what is the best way to avoid loss of faith. As previously intimated, in cases such as yours, where there is a loss of faith in relation to a lack of information, it isn't really the lack of information that has caused the loss of faith (though it may seem that way to those who have lost faith), but rather the fussing and fretting over and attending to typically irrelevant information, which in turn distracts attention away from the true source of faith--i..e Christ and the Spirit. To use an earlier analogy, in a way it is like blaming one's failure to succeed in math on the lack of disclosure about the personal lives of the 30 most famous mathematicians. If one's attention is focused on the personal lives of mathematicians rather than on learing and doing math, then it should come as no surprise if one struggles and fails at math. And, logically, that struggle or failure in math isn't because of the lack of disclosure about the personal lives of mathematicians, but from being distracted from studying mathematics by attending to irrelevancies like the personal lives of mathematicians. Those who are succeeding in math would know better.

Make sense?]

[_Bob Loblaw]

Actually the type of apologetics that irks me the most is not the "attack dog" style exemplified by Will or Droopy, but rather the infantalizing style best exemplified by Wade Englund. Here is one of Wade's recent responses to a questioner on MD&D (h/t to Stormy Waters). It is technically "nice" but I find it much more insulting on so many levels than anything I've seen from Will or Droopy (although I am a man):

All you need to know about Wade:

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article- ... rmons.html