Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Will Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:12 pm

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Will Schryver »

Dad of a Mormon wrote:So is it now your claim that you actually typed c*** but intended some other word?

Yes, there is some definite unraveling going on here. On that I agree.

I know it is a mighty challenge for one of your rather limited capacities, but please try to keep up ...
I thought myself the wiser to have viewed the evidence left of such a great demise. I followed every step. But the only thing I ever learned before the journey's end was there was nothing there to learn, only something to forget.
_Dad of a Mormon
_Emeritus
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:28 am

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Dad of a Mormon »

Will Schryver wrote:
Dad of a Mormon wrote:So is it now your claim that you actually typed c*** but intended some other word?

Yes, there is some definite unraveling going on here. On that I agree.

I know it is a mighty challenge for one of your rather limited capacities, but please try to keep up ...


Are you SERIOUSLY so deluded that you think there is anyone that believes your story? REALLY?

YOU are the one who tried unsuccessfully to make the asterisks an issue. It was a transparently desperate attempt, but I guess it is all that you've got.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Buffalo »

Will Schryver wrote:Will never even said anything remotely related to the allegations being leveled against him.

Will never even contemplated saying anything remotely related to the allegations being leveled against him.



Just like Will never called Emma a b****.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Will Schryver wrote:You know, upon reflection, it occurs to me that it's far better to be mocked in public and respected in private than respected in public and mocked in private. But I'm kind of funny that way ...


I guess this quote is as good as any in response to harmony, who seems to think I haven't been bullied by Will. It's his MO if he doesn't like you.

Is anyone interested in just ignoring him? I get the feeling some people must enjoy the attention. Or maybe people think things will change. After all this time is it worth waiting for an apology from a stranger on the internet? Why not move on?
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Ceeboo »

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
YOU are the one who tried unsuccessfully to make the asterisks an issue. It was a transparently desperate attempt, but I guess it is all that you've got.



Hey Dad (Brings a smile to my face when I type "Dad"),

In an effort to shed some degree of fairness to this bizarre thread:

This juror (That's me, Ceeboo) happens to find the recent developments in this thread (and what it seems to at least suggest) to be worthy, at the very least, to call the crucifixion off for a moment. (At least for the Cunt portion of this mind-bender)

Anyhoooo,

Peace,
Ceeboo
_Dad of a Mormon
_Emeritus
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:28 am

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Dad of a Mormon »

Ceeboo wrote:
Dad of a Mormon wrote:
YOU are the one who tried unsuccessfully to make the asterisks an issue. It was a transparently desperate attempt, but I guess it is all that you've got.



Hey Dad (Brings a smile to my face when I type "Dad"),

In an effort to shed some degree of fairness to this bizarre thread:

This juror (That's me, Ceeboo) happens to find the recent developments in this thread (and what it seems to at least suggest) to be worthy, at the very least, to call the crucifixion off for a moment. (At least for the c*** portion of this mind-bender)

Anyhoooo,

Peace,
Ceeboo


How so? How does the fact that c*** occurred in the post instead of the actual word change anything?
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

The issue of the censored word is a red herring. First of all, it does nothing to detract from the first-hand witness testimony of Spurven and Mr. Stak. Second, we might as well ask, "When was this censorship policy instituted?" Was the asterisk censorship installed after Will hurled the epithet? If it had already been in place, then there are at least three possibilities:

(1) Will had *already* used the c-word on the board, and he thus knew that it would get censored
(2) He tried to use the word and it got censored (thus surprising him)
(3) He put the asterisks in place himself, knowing that his message would come across loud and clear, albeit "sanitized" per Will's own Bizarro-TBM "standards."

Regardless of which possibility fits the facts, it doesn't change the raw truth of the matter, which is that Will intended to fling this word at Harmony.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _wenglund »

I, too, would like to compliment Eric for swimming in the opposite direction as the piranha feeding frenzy. Even more, I would like to compliment Runtu for not joining in at all, and to Kish and liz for limiting their participation on this thread to a single post. Ceebo deserves honorable mention as well. It is a tribute to your admirable character. Good on ya. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Will Schryver wrote:
Anyway, in my absence from the board, I see several new pages have been produced. I can't hope to read it all, but I'll scan through the posts of Blair "More Holier Than Thou" Hodges*, MsJack, and perhaps even Doctor Scratch. I'm sure I can come up with a little something to say in their behalf.



It is a sad thing that you need to attack LOAP for his fair and measured remark.

It is a sad thing that you continue to vehemently call people liars over and over again.

It is a sad thing that you continue to call to women repulsive.

You are sinking your own ship Will.

I already said I would concede that you may not have said the nasty word. Yet even without it there is plenty of filth and debauchery that comes from you that convicts you. That you are unable to admit it, apologize and move on is a wonder to me. I noted that I think you are bright. I imagine and like to think that most people on this board and other boards regardless of their position are decent persons in real life. The two women you seem to despise I know a little bit about and I can tell you they are not repulsive human beings. I used to be more opposed to them when I was in the hobby apologist mode. I went up against them frequently. But I never viewed them as repulsive or any of the other words you use against them. I don't recall viewing any of my opponents is such a way. Why you act this way, and even continue to act this way is beyond me. Perhaps you need to to keep your own faith intact. Perhaps my viewing the critics as real humans with valid worries, issues and concerns was my undoing. Who knows.

But it is not surprising. Your antics towards apostatized LDS folk or even those on the fringes is abhorrent. Your glee in pronouncing curses, threatening those who may oppose you in some sort of mysterious way, your apparent glee in what you think will be God's judgment on such persons at his bar, your desire to root out those who may be participating members but less than what you think they should be in their testimony...all this speaks poorly on one who claims to be a disciple of Christ.

But I really don't care. As I said you are sinking your own ship so have at it.

What is disappointing is you do represent the LDS Church in a certain way. And for me, in spite of my complaints about it, I still think it is a good organization and one I participate in. So I have a vested interest. And As noted you certainly are ignoring the admonitions of the LDS leaders who you claim to follow.

As for Droopy and Wade what can I say? I would be embarrassed were I you. Will is clearly in the wrong. Why don't you encourage him to come clean on this?

Wade are there hypocrites here? Yep. I am one of them to a certain extent. So are you. Don't accuse people of lacking charity when your very posts are anything but charitable. But Ms Jack is not a hypocrite at all nor is there anything hypocritical in this thread from her. Also One wonders where your humble Christ like orientation has disappeared as of late. Hypocrites indeed.

Droopy your verbose posts are full of spite for the wrong people. And yes Will's behavior was far beyond PG. Do you really want to take a die on every hill tactic here? I mean really. Think about what we are taught. A defender of the faith has to be above reproach. If not things come back to bite us. Really, you should encourage Will to do better. Your defense here of any of this is, well, pathetic.

I am sure that my words won't be pleasing to a number of you here. I don't care really. I am sure I will be tossed in with the GSTP sneer, Fifth column label and filthy hypocritical apostate name tag. But you know and I know that I have also criticized critics. I have not been a fan of a number of critics on this board and have opposed bad behavior on their part as well. This thread though is not the place to comment about that.


I doubt I will say much more on this thread. I will be away for sometime starting tomorrow anyway.

Best wishes to all.
_Dad of a Mormon
_Emeritus
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:28 am

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Dad of a Mormon »

wenglund wrote:I, too, would like to compliment Eric for swimming in the opposite direction as the piranha feeding frenzy. Even more, I would like to compliment Runtu for not joining in at all, and to Kish and liz for limiting their participation on this thread to a single post. Ceebo deserves honorable mention as well. It is a tribute to your admirable character. Good on ya. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I thought that Eric's observation was interesting as well, but I think his assumption that it would be weird to censor a post with c*** but not the actual word is just flat out wrong. If the intent was to call someone the c-word, it doesn't matter whether the actual word appears or not. You don't need an actual 'c' followed by an actual 'u' followed by an actual 'n' followed by the last letter in the word.

I appreciate Ceeboo's fairness, but in this case I think he is mistaken. Possibly he is making the assumption that everyone claimed to have seen the actual word. But no one said that. MsJack never claimed to have seen anything and was simply reporting what she was told by harmony. harmony simply responded to the question about whether Will had called her a "c***" in the affirmative. MrStak said that Will used the C-word, which would be true even if all that appeared was "c***". Same claim from Spurven.

In the end, either Will used the C-word or he didn't. Obviously, someone is lying. If harmony, MrStak, and Spurven are all lying, I find it reprehensible. But the evidence is clearly on their side. I just think that one side should own up to what happened. And based on the evidence we have, I think it is pretty clear that Will is lying.

EDITED TO ADD: I just reviewed Spurven's posts again, and Spurven seems to be more clear on claiming to have seen the actual word. That would seem to be an odd claim if all he saw was c***. So I'll admit that I find that information a little disconcerting. I hope he will clarify what he meant.

ETA 2: Corrected incorrect pronoun usage.

ETA 3: MrStak has demonstrated that it is quite easy to circumvent the filter mechanism, so it is quite possible that Will did use the actual word.
Last edited by Guest on Tue May 03, 2011 5:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply