EAllusion wrote:That was an exceptionally insincere notpology. He didn't even make it "I'm sorry you were offended" levels of notpology. Good stuff for a person who's main hobby is defending a faith based in contrition and forgiveness.
Or even "I'm sorry if anyone was offended".
Yeah, "I still don't think I really did it, but the evidence seems to indicate that I probably did, so if anyone was offended, I apologize" isn't much of an apology. Weak sauce.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
MsJack wrote:And yes, repeatedly addressing women's arguments by sexualizing them and invoking their appearance, breasts, bodies, ages, sex life, or attractiveness to you does count as misogynist. Quite blatantly so.
[sarcasm]Don't ridiculous; when he did that his language was usually PG at worst. Therefore there was nothing wrong with it.[/sarcasm]
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Schryver is one of those issues I just try not to invest in as a matter of principle. He appears to have an insatiable appetite for attention, however negative and/or humiliating, and my default response to that kind of person is to permanently ignore them. I do appreciate Ms. Jack's diligence in documenting his online behavior. I don't have that level of intestinal fortitude myself. Her formidable indictment should serve as ample warning against any inclination to take him too seriously.