Piques of Anger and Posting

[_cksalmon]

I think, at this point, any reasonable person can see that Schryver is a very poor excuse for a defender of the True Gospel.

Yet, because he can't afford to be wrong, he just keeps piling his own verbal feces around him.

I find it odd that Daniel Peterson always has to run along home whenever Will's patent vulgarity and ridiculous ad hominen attacks are brought to the fore.

Even Dan "I'm sorry you broke your arrogance meter. Was it a gift from your mother?" Peterson (certainly not an exemplar of scholarly engagement with critics, and prone, like Hamblin, to wanton immaturity in the service of the LDS faith) refuses to comment in any way on Will's potty-minded diatribes. I don't suppose that Dan has been authorized to comment negatively on Will's ridiculously shoddy behavior. Otherwise, I'm sure he would, right?

I mean, surely Will's not just a joke among LDS critics?

Hey, Dan Peterson: what do you make of Schryver's metaphor? I've confronted you with it twice now, and you've fled the scene both times.

Per Schryver, in defense of the Gospel, critics are like homosexuals who get together to masturbate in a circle.

They're all shameless buggerers. Will means this "critique" to be taken quite seriously. He's just calling it how he sees it.

What does Will's metaphor say about homosexuals? What does it say about LDS critics?

Dare you comment? I doubt it.

You have tended to stay as far away from Will's ridiculous polemics as possible (if only by fleeing the scene).

This is your apologetic progeny.

Midgley meets Hamblin, with even more bile but no credentials.

A shining endorsement of the Restoration of all things, I'm sure.

[_William Schryver]

Cervello di Merda:

You are out of line asswipe.

Oh, my! What might this profound preface possibly portend?

Hurling insults at us is typical for mo'pologists who are cornered, however insulting family members outside of the conversation is very immature.

Native English speakers will strain futilely identifying the evidence of my “insulting family members outside of the conversation.” At any rate, your exegetical idiosycrasies notwithstanding, the pregnant irony of a scatologically-obsessed cervello di merda like you lecturing anyone on immaturity has made this day’s foray into The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™ one to be noted in the annals.

(No, no, no. Stand up straight. I said “annals.”)

Over the years of scaring Mormon defenders into a corner …

Yes, we’ve all seen how carefully you select your marks when yielding to the urge to scratch your insatiable itch to “scare Mormon defenders into a corner.” Your conquests on the “Talk to a Missionary” chatline attest to your dauntless intrepidity.

Most who lash out like you are doing now Will, typically have some other deep dark issue that they are battling, and your actions speak very loudly here.

Like whispers in a megaphone . . .

[_Ren]

Yes. Thank God. I’m sure yours is rolling in her grave as we speak, her high hopes shattered by the lie that you live.

For sure, there's plenty of unnecessary vulgarity to be found around these parts.

...but using another posters dead parent as part of their cheap swipe?
...I guess that kind of wit requires an MADB 'pundit' to produce.

I think I remember Christ made a similar wisecrack as he dined with the sinners.
...oh - wait...

[_cksalmon]

(No, no, no. Stand up straight. I said “annals.”)

And, yet another gay "joke" directed at critics.

Dan?

"Annals" and "anal?"

That's pretty funny, huh? SHIELDS worthy?

Novak will have to the judge.

[_William Schryver]

I think, at this point, any reasonable person can see that Schryver is a very poor excuse for a defender of the True Gospel.

Yet, because he can't afford to be wrong, he just keeps piling his own verbal feces around him.

I find it odd that Daniel Peterson always has to run along home whenever Will's patent vulgarity and ridiculous ad hominen attacks are brought to the fore.

Even Dan "I'm sorry you broke your arrogance meter. Was it a gift from your mother?" Peterson (certainly not an exemplar of scholarly engagement with critics, and prone, like Hamblin, to wanton immaturity in the service of the LDS faith) refuses to comment in any way on Will's potty-minded diatribes. I don't suppose that Dan has been authorized to comment negatively on Will's ridiculously shoddy behavior. Otherwise, I'm sure he would, right?

I mean, surely Will's not just a joke among LDS critics?

Hey, Dan Peterson: what do you make of Schryver's metaphor? I've confronted you with it twice now, and you've fled the scene both times.

Per Schryver, in defense of the Gospel, critics are like homosexuals who get together to masturbate in a circle.

They're all shameless buggerers. Will means this "critique" to be taken quite seriously. He's just calling it how he sees it.

What does Will's metaphor say about homosexuals? What does it say about LDS critics?

Dare you comment? I doubt it.

You have tended to stay as far away from Will's ridiculous polemics as possible (if only by fleeing the scene).

This is your apologetic progeny.

Midgley meets Hamblin, with even more bile but no credentials.

A shining endorsement of the Restoration of all things, I'm sure.

As he trembles (AGAIN!) in a faux orgasm of moral outrage . . .

I repeat:

I am but a journalist as it pertains to these particular observations. I report what I see: A group of men (and several women), figuratively in a circle, mocking God and their former brethren as they wantonly spill the seed of their intellect in alternating paroxysms of vanity and nihilistic resignation.

Behold the wisdom of taking matters into your own hands.

I continue to be mildly amused by the counter-caricature you have concocted. You seem to have become voyeuristically-obsessed with this tawdry scene you have imagined for yourself. It almost makes one wonder -- perhaps the gentleman doth protest too much?

[_moksha]

I am uncertain what to make of Will's statements. If they do not flow from an angry defense of some perceived wrong, but are derisive comments coming from some well of pent up hatred - well I do not know what to say. However, it seems that even hatred has its roots in anger whether he denies the anger or not.

Mr. Scratch wrote some things that no doubt sparked his anger and his lashing out at the entire group was just a diffuse expression of that anger - sort of like a wild anal-compulsive discharge that suddenly spewed forth.

Single wide indeed! Will, you said some really hurtful things to Harmony.

[_Scottie]

I know that you revel in these kinds of comments. In fact, in some kind of sick, psychopathic way, I think they sustain you.

But, for Harmony's sake, I will feed you to let her know of my disgust.

You are one of the most cruel, foul and disgusting people I have ever had the misfortune of knowing. I don't hate easily. I can probably count on one hand the number of people I hate. As I hold up my fingers to count them, the middle finger represents you.

[_Jersey Girl]

This is crazy. Just...simply...crazy behavior.

The references to outings: smack of cult.
The references to family members (not just "yer mother" but "yer dead mother") are about the most sick and twisted thing I see on these boards.

Ever.

And this is humorous to whom?

harmony's status in the church: not anyone's business
harmony's TR: not anyone's business

The church is a part of harmony's life. And when she offers up criticism, she what. Get's a slap in the face to her? No, to her mother.

Is this what LDS men think of women, both the living and the deceased? Or is it simply what LDS men think of human beings in general?

What is the priesthood for? Is it a responsibility or is it an attitude wherein some guy on a message board thinks he can belittle what...a person and uses their deceased mother to do it?

Does anyone else see how...insane...this...looks?

Is this a joke? Who exactly is laughing?

Will?

Is Will laughing because he thinks he got over on harmony with his remarks? Does he think anything he stated with regards to harmony is at all laughable?

It's the stuff of bottom feeders and the only thing I can think of that is remotely laughable is the possibility that Will thinks that it isn't the stuff of bottom feeders.

There is not much that offends my sensibilities, but moves like that are really it.

You are the move you make, Will. And so am I.

Scottie, if you are reading here, you're exactly right. I own my abrasiveness and here's my report card comment for the day:

"Does not play well with the despicably cruel."

[_cksalmon]

I continue to be mildly amused by the counter-caricature you have concocted. You seem to have become voyeuristically-obsessed with this tawdry scene you have imagined for yourself. It almost makes one wonder -- perhaps the gentleman doth protest too much?

Cue ridiculousness.

Will here insinuates that I'm homosexual because I take offense at the fact that he himself has been caustically and ridiculously demeaning to both homosexuals and critics. Third joke?

Dan?

What about this one? Is this one funny, too? Can we get Novak on the line?

(Let's indulge Will's petulance: per Will, now I'm the the one who concocted the "tawdry scene" he himself provided).

Schryver, Mormonism would be far more credible were you not to consider yourself amongst its faithful devotees. Thankfully, you are a minority: an LDS apologist--however uncredentialed and amateur you might be.

[_beastie]

Will is just being Will. I hope no one takes his vulgar comments to heart. Consider the source, and no one will.

Personally, I think Will should make as many of his vulgar comments as possible. Who knows? Maybe some critic is quietly putting together a dossier of inane, stupid, and vulgar comments that apologists make. Maybe a critic will one day even write an essay about it, and feature Wee Willie. His five minutes of fame. The applause eternal echoing in his mind. Women throwing themselves at his feet.

Here's something to think about: if Mormonism is true after all, then dear Will could become a god one day. Some poor saps on some planet in the future would worship Will! That should be enough to make any believer take pause about the reasonableness of LDS theology.

Come to think of it, however, the Bible of the Old Testament is a vulgar, malicious fellow, too. Quite a preening drama queen, too.