It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:01 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 771 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:37 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 9797
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Kevin Graham wrote:
He cannot make a website to save his life, which requires minimal HTML skill. He tried once, and then abandoned his blank page after screwing up his first attempt at a hyperlink.

+10

Kevin Graham wrote:
This is like someone claiming to know the intricate details of the modern Hybrid engine, simply because he manages somehow to make a living rebuilding 2-stroke lawnmowers.

+5

Kevin Graham wrote:
He kept the domain to host his numerous KEP related images but when he couldn't figure out how to stop me from stealing them, he shut down the site altogether.

+15

Kevin Graham wrote:
Anyone truly up to date would have an up to date resume, especially if he is a contractor. Maybe Will couldn't figure out how to put a resume online.

+5

ROTFLMFAO!! Kevin, you're KILLIN' me over here!!

_________________
"[D. Michael Quinn] is excommunicated so we can't trust anything he ever said? Why does that work for him but not for the witnesses to the Book of Mormon?"

--ZelphtheGreat, 10/17/2013


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:44 pm 
Dr. Shades wrote:

ROTFLMFAO!! Kevin, you're KILLIN' me over here!!


Wait... you're above the rules?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Simon Belmont wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:

ROTFLMFAO!! Kevin, you're KILLIN' me over here!!


Wait... you're above the rules?

Simon, my friend, there are NO rules in this place when it comes to me. Literally anything is permitted, and by anyone.

And, quite frankly, I prefer it that way.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:01 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 9797
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Simon Belmont wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
ROTFLMFAO!! Kevin, you're KILLIN' me over here!!

Wait... you're above the rules?

??? Please quote me the rule that forbids people from finding things to be funny.

_________________
"[D. Michael Quinn] is excommunicated so we can't trust anything he ever said? Why does that work for him but not for the witnesses to the Book of Mormon?"

--ZelphtheGreat, 10/17/2013


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:01 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12077
Location: Bunkerville, Nevada
Simon Belmont wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:

ROTFLMFAO!! Kevin, you're KILLIN' me over here!!


Wait... you're above the rules?


That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

_________________
"I don't recognize the United States government as even existing."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:07 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18138
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Simon Belmont wrote:
Wait... you're above the rules?


Chill, Simon. Shades broke no rule.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:54 pm 
Dr. Shades wrote:
??? Please quote me the rule that forbids people from finding things to be funny.


You quoted KG's personal attacks against Will, then you encouraged him.

I just want to know what the standing it: harmony says "clean it up" but in this case, you seemed to encourage it.

Edit: I have no idea what thews just said, but there is also a reason I have him on ignore...

Because I love him so much.


Last edited by Simon Belmont on Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:09 pm 
abstract
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:26 am
Posts: 3030
William Schryver wrote:
Simon, my friend, there are NO rules in this place when it comes to me. Literally anything is permitted, and by anyone.

And, quite frankly, I prefer it that way.

Hey poser… latching onto the [Telestial comment deleted] that is Simon “the liar” Belmont isn’t going to help your cause. Your only purpose here is to attempt to build your absurd reverse engineered theories that somehow makes sense to brainwashed minds. If you could win a debate you’d enter it… epic fail on your part. You have nothing but false hope that people like Wade latch onto as it gives false hope that Mormonism is actually true when you know for a fact it’s false. How much did you get for your soul William? How much does God owe you for turning into an epic liar? …it all comes back around… karma… good luck with that poser.

_________________
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:54 pm 
William Schryver you are dead wrong! You don't know what you are talking about. You don't know all the rules of this board.

Isn't that right, Dr. Shades? Can I talk freely to William or am I constrained by rules that others don't have to abide? Do please set William boy straight. Otherwise, I'd love to say a few words -- it would give me utter pleasure.

Paul O


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:29 am 
William Schryver wrote:
Simon, my friend, there are NO rules in this place when it comes to me. Literally anything is permitted, and by anyone.

And, quite frankly, I prefer it that way.


I am beginning to see how right you are. I had higher hopes for this place, but there is serious protectionism in place for critics only.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:42 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7465
Simon Belmont wrote:

I am beginning to see how right you are. I had higher hopes for this place, but there is serious protectionism in place for critics only.


With all the bad behavior of you and Will and no suspensions, I think your statement carries no validity. Critics only have an advantage of numbers. Why don't you try some of those attacks you like to do around here on believers at Madb and see how long you last.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:41 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13161
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
I am beginning to see how right you are. I had higher hopes for this place, but there is serious protectionism in place for critics only.


Wow, how low you have stooped! Should I start calling you Baby Simon instead of Young Simon? This board is so far superior to MA&D in its fair application of well-defined rules that you have absolutely no grounds for your bellyaching. We actually hold public discussions of the rules here. Will people find a way around rules? You bet, but things have improved because of the few rules we have and the very fair way they are enforced. It can't be helped that so few LDS people are able to tolerate a free discussion of their religion.

It is not that I necessarily blame them. They do, after all, hold their faith sacred and dear, but the apologists at least should have more guts. Why call yourself an apologist if you can't take the heat? No, the apologists generally can't take it. They go huddle around the hearth at MA&D, where the moderators make sure the fire never gets too hot, but is always just right for the baby apologists. I'll give the few apologists who come here one thing: you guys should be commended for your fortitude. It is only when you start whining like this that I question your virtus.

_________________
"[T]here are other values that underpin Mormon leadership even more deeply — and they're the same ones espoused by Harvard Business School. I am fortunate to have been one of a number of Mormons who studied at the Harvard Business School." ~ Professor Clayton M. Christensen, Harvard Business School


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:45 am 
Kishkumen wrote:
Wow, how low you have stooped!


You're part of the problem. Enabling the critic protectionism.

Quote:
Should I start calling you Baby Simon instead of Young Simon? This board is so far superior to MA&D in its fair application of well-defined rules that you have absolutely no grounds for your bellyaching.


Show me one public flogging of a critic here. I have received a few.

Quote:
We actually hold public discussions of the rules here. Will people find a way around rules? You bet, but things have improved because of the few rules we have and the very fair way they are enforced. It can't be helped that so few LDS people are able to tolerate a free discussion of their religion.


I can tolerate it. I cannot tolerate unfair rules.

Quote:
It is not that I necessarily blame them. They do, after all, hold their faith sacred and dear, but the apologists at least should have more guts. Why call yourself an apologist if you can't take the heat? No, the apologists generally can't take it. They go huddle around the hearth at MA&D, where the moderators make sure the fire never gets too hot, but is always just right for the baby apologists. I'll give the few apologists who come here one thing: you guys should be commended for your fortitude. It is only when you start whining like this that I question your virtus.


In medio stat virtus, Kishkumen. Perhaps CAF would better serve my needs.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:59 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13161
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
You're part of the problem. Enabling the critic protectionism.


I ennable nothing. I am not a moderator. I am part of the community, and I daresay I have done a lot more to improve things here than Snotball Simon Belmont. Indeed, it was I who helped agitate for Universal Rule #7 in response to things that occurred in a disagreement I had with Doctor Scratch. It did not make me a popular guy, but I toughed it out. I just love how know-nothings like you cruise in full of a sense of their own righteousness and disdain for others, ready to tell others what to do and acting as they know the first thing about whom it is they address. You need some serious schooling, Baby Simon.

Simon Belmont wrote:
Show me one public flogging of a critic here. I have received a few.


As have I, ignoramus. I have taken crap from apologists and critics. Really, what you are all about is an agenda to end criticism of Mormonism, which you view as entirely inappropriate. You want the world to be like the inside of the COB, where the GAs are treated like perfect gods and everyone rushes around to wipe their fannies for them without so much as a peep when a GA acts like a tool.

Sorry, Baby Simon. Outside of the corridors of LDS power, people do not cower and refuse to criticize. And it is all for the better. In fact, the Church owes its critics a hell of a lot. The critics do not allow Mormons to remain complacent, which they surely would do, if they were not challenged a little and prompted to reflect on what they do now and then. The critics are one of God's gifts to Mormonism. You are just too blinded by your Mopologetic agenda to realize that.

Simon Belmont wrote:
I can tolerate it. I cannot tolerate unfair rules.


Sure you can. March right on over to MA&D and see how well you tolerate them. You'll be free of any of the rudeness you encounter here. Oh sure, rules will be selectively applied--applied in accordance with the whims of individual moderators and the celebrity of the participant--but you won't have to look at dirty words, naughty avatars, or unflattering depictions of your religion. My guess is that you'll do swimmingly, and I will lose what little respect I have for you.

Simon Belmont wrote:
In medio stat virtus, Kishkumen. Perhaps CAF would better serve my needs.


Well, Baby Simon, virtus is not turning your tail and running when you see that the enemy is holding a gladius and not a wooden practice sword. You want to fight with wooden swords in a playpen where the LDS moderators swoop in to make sure that Spartacus doesn't bruise your pretty little face. Go ahead and run little boy, and we will lose all respect for you. Stay here and take your beating like a man, instead of whining about it, and we just may think you have something.

_________________
"[T]here are other values that underpin Mormon leadership even more deeply — and they're the same ones espoused by Harvard Business School. I am fortunate to have been one of a number of Mormons who studied at the Harvard Business School." ~ Professor Clayton M. Christensen, Harvard Business School


Last edited by Kishkumen on Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:13 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 9797
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Simon Belmont wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
??? Please quote me the rule that forbids people from finding things to be funny.

You quoted KG's personal attacks against Will, then you encouraged him.

I just want to know what the standing it: harmony says "clean it up" but in this case, you seemed to encourage it.

One man's witty criticism is another man's personal attack.

Universal Rule #8 says:

8. Moderators and administrators will follow the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Try to see things from their point of view.

Rule for the Terrestrial Forum #2 says:

2. No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed.

Note that, unlike the equivalent rule for the Celestial Forum, it doesn't say "no personal attacks whatsoever." The operative words are "blatant" and "obvious."

Kevin's "attacks" were delivered with a great deal of flair and panache. They were also well within "PG" to "PG-13" caliber. So there's no reason they can't stay.

_________________
"[D. Michael Quinn] is excommunicated so we can't trust anything he ever said? Why does that work for him but not for the witnesses to the Book of Mormon?"

--ZelphtheGreat, 10/17/2013


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 771 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CaliforniaKid, cognitiveharmony, Daniel2, Dr. Shades, Google [Bot], moksha, MSNbot Media, palerobber, SteelHead, sunstoned and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group