Doctor Scratch wrote:I think I can guess how this will wind up: people will fail to provide Ludd with material that meets the phantom "offensiveness level" that was cooked up by his source, and he will therefore conclude that, in fact, there never was any real "offensiveness" and that the whole case against Schryver was contrived by a bunch of manipulative anti-Mormons and apostates.
The thing is, Ludd, we all watched you jump on the Kishkumen dog-pile, so it's pretty clear that you're a sockpuppet--probably of either Simon Belmont or Schryver himself. The basic set-up here is pretty Belmontian, though as always, I'm perfectly willing to allow that I'm wrong.
Bump from page 1 of the thread...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
liz3564 wrote:Ludd, let's take the examples you listed from Ms. Jack's thread, and allow Brother Schryver's Priesthood leaders to review them. Let's sit down with Brother Schryver's bishop and explain that he, willingly identifying himself as a representative and apologist for the LDS Church was:
1. Brother Schryver, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who has been married in the temple, was making ogling comments on a public website about a young divorced woman's breasts.
2. Brother Schryver was rabidly insulting a variety of women, some members of the Church, based on his perception of their looks.
And then, we wil allow Brother Schryver's Bishop and/or Stake Preident to view Ms. Jack's thread in full.
Blixa wrote:Yep. No more "friends" whose opinions matter, it's now Ludd lecturing us that patronizing dismissals and derogatory comments on the looks and age of female posters is something everyone in the real world shrugs at.
I bet this isn't the first time Schryver has come back here to demand examples and then dismiss them as not counting. What a douchebag.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
liz3564 wrote:Ludd, let's take the examples you listed from Ms. Jack's thread, and allow Brother Schryver's Priesthood leaders to review them. Let's sit down with Brother Schryver's bishop and explain that he, willingly identifying himself as a representative and apologist for the LDS Church was:
1. Brother Schryver, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who has been married in the temple, was making ogling comments on a public website about a young divorced woman's breasts.
2. Brother Schryver was rabidly insulting a variety of women, some members of the Church, based on his perception of their looks.
And then, we wil allow Brother Schryver's Bishop and/or Stake Preident to view Ms. Jack's thread in full.
I would LOVE to be a fly on that wall.
What's stopping you from doing this?
P.S. How does one go about "rabidly insulting a variety of women"? Is that what Schryver was doing when he wrote the bit about carrying melons in thimbles?
liz3564 wrote:Ludd, let's take the examples you listed from Ms. Jack's thread, and allow Brother Schryver's Priesthood leaders to review them. Let's sit down with Brother Schryver's bishop and explain that he, willingly identifying himself as a representative and apologist for the LDS Church was:
1. Brother Schryver, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who has been married in the temple, was making ogling comments on a public website about a young divorced woman's breasts.
2. Brother Schryver was rabidly insulting a variety of women, some members of the Church, based on his perception of their looks.
And then, we wil allow Brother Schryver's Bishop and/or Stake Preident to view Ms. Jack's thread in full.
I would LOVE to be a fly on that wall.
And the response from Ludd.....
*crickets*
by the way: I missed where Schryver identified himself as a "representative of the LDS church". Link please?
Whoever Ludd is or isn't, he's certainly proved that he's not anyone we should give any further attention to on the subject of what is or isn't offensive.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Did you not ask for examples of DCP, Hamblin, et al. behaving badly? Re: your attitude towards those of the Jewish persuasion, I'm guessing that you think that "people outside of this message board would read this and shrug their shoulders" about this:
William Hamblin wrote:“I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count ‘em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they’re a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it’s because he’s a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn’t I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can’t get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I’m not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts.”
In the interest of full disclosure, Dr. Scratch, I think you should also include Hamblin's preface to that statement:
William Hamblin wrote:All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size:
He's not claiming he has those views about Jews. Omitting his opening statement changes the meaning enough to be misleading. Of course, the fact that he equates "Morgbot" with a racial slur against Jews is, I think, offensive enough.
liz3564 wrote:Ludd, let's take the examples you listed from Ms. Jack's thread, and allow Brother Schryver's Priesthood leaders to review them. Let's sit down with Brother Schryver's bishop and explain that he, willingly identifying himself as a representative and apologist for the LDS Church was:
1. Brother Schryver, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who has been married in the temple, was making ogling comments on a public website about a young divorced woman's breasts.
2. Brother Schryver was rabidly insulting a variety of women, some members of the Church, based on his perception of their looks.
And then, we wil allow Brother Schryver's Bishop and/or Stake Preident to view Ms. Jack's thread in full.
I would LOVE to be a fly on that wall.
What's stopping you from doing this?
P.S. How does one go about "rabidly insulting a variety of women"? Is that what Schryver was doing when he wrote the bit about carrying melons in thimbles?
You're the one who is supposedly looking for "evidence". I honestly don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about William. All I am stating is that you have a very dim view of what Priesthood leaders find troubling or offensive if you honestly feel that these statements are minor.
harmony wrote:All that is needed is to put "circle jerk" in the search engine. If that's not offensive enough, nothing will be.
Tator wrote:1000+
Willy Ludd wrote:"Circle jerk" is offensive? Sexist? Misogynist?
Offensive - YES Sexist - YES Misogynist - When used as Will used to demean females on this board - YES
What planet are you from? Even Kolobians if they existed would be offended according to your church.
a.k.a. Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
Blixa wrote:Yep. No more "friends" whose opinions matter, it's now Ludd lecturing us that patronizing dismissals and derogatory comments on the looks and age of female posters is something everyone in the real world shrugs at.
Do you buy dinner first for gang rape victims too?
Is that what Schryver was doing when he wrote the bit about carrying melons in thimbles?