He's not going to. What was telling about his behavior is that, during a spat between two key junior apologists, he clearly sided with Will. That, imo, speaks volumes.

I don't think anyone has the obligation to criticize bad behavior just becuase they may belong to the same group, unless you are also going to defend him. It's those who continue to defend him and yet never say a word about his behavior that I think is hypocritical.

I've heard of this Scyrver guy - what a goofy name. Lik e scrabble game that ran out of vowels.

So I hear he's a bad dude. Is he like violent? Stalking chicks from the board? Meeting men in public restrooms?

From the looks of things around here lately, he seems to be the most disliked of your posters. How come? And if he's so bad, why don't they just throw him off the board?

Anyway, I got some questions about the whole Book of abraham thing. Who is the person to talk to about that kind of stuff? I've read the "by His own hand" book in the last year, so I kind of get it. What I don't is how belivers in Mormonism ratinalize belief the thing when we know that the Egyptian doesn't translate to the book of abraham.

That's gotta be obious to everyone, right? So how to the believers keep on believin' if the parchment doesn't date to Abraham and the scrolls don't have any Abraham book o n them?

I just want to hear from pepole who still believe in Mormonism.

He merely insults the women of the board. He doesn't stalk them, as far as I know. Otherwise, his worst sexual offense seems to be dreaming of randy waitresses and writing songs about them.

I guess the main reason I expected Dan to speak up is because I know from personal experience that he will speak up to make sure everyone knows he is not connected in any way with some other LDS member whom he thinks is a bad example for the Church. Back in 2003 he did precisely this with me simply because I pointed out some historical facts about Muhammed and Islam. He asked me to produce my sources, which I did. He then gave a long explanation why he would not respond to the evidence I presented, saying that he found me to be spiritually deficient and a "bigot." He subsequently called me a bigot on several occasions, simply for stating historical facts regarding Islam. He was also very upset with me for correcting his buddy William Hamblin on dhimmitude, when he was being interviewed on a radio show. Hamblin said the dhimmis could do "whatever they wanted" under Islamic rule, which was an absurdity. Hamblin denied saying that and then I provided the transcript of the show proving he did say it. Hamblin looked like an utter fool for not only forgetting what he said, but for attacking me for simply knowing what he said. That pissed Dan off quite a bit because with the transcript of the show, there was no way he could keep claiming he didn't say this. Anyway...

Apparently, saying Muhammed was responsible for slaughtering hundreds of Jews in one sitting (historical fact) or saying he married a 9 year old girl, is worse than watching a fellow LDS member call ex-LDS women "whores." Dan had gone on record on a number of occasions to express his disdain for my viewpoint on Islamic issues. But he won't lift a finger to distance himself from Schryver's despicable antics towards those evil apostates.

Bill Hamblin seems to have quite a habit of speaking inaccuracies. I recently saw a discussion he had with some Masons about the nature of Freemasonry. By his own admission he had read very little on the topic, and yet he pigheadedly refused to take correction from those who know vast amounts more than him. Reminds me of the artisans in Plato's Apology. The person who is expert in one thing soon comes to believe he is expert in all matters and refuses to listen to others who know more.

When you think about it, this sensitivity over Islam is hauntingly familiar. It is much like sensitivity about unpleasant facts concerning Mormonism. It is not that the facts are wrong; they are just unflattering and people should be free to indulge in a rosy, uncomplicated view of their religion's history, no? I say no. History is practiced for a reason.

Have you considered the possibility that Dan has examined the case you guys have made for Shryver being a bad man and found it wanting?

I know I have.

You know, I have actually talked with Daniel about this off board. You might be surprised to find out what he says. I think it is fair to say that he does not like getting involved in these conflicts, but beyond that you probably ought to refrain from assuming that he necessarily approves of all of Will's behavior.

This is correct. That is the point I was trying to make when Sock Puppet accused me of being "Dan's guardian angel".

As you point out here, Jason, I was merely commenting on the fact that I was aware that he was traveling.

Dan emailed me recently from his iPhone. Have you ever tried to do computer business on an iPhone only? It sucks! LOL

It doesn't sound like he took a laptop with him.

I'm not sure when he will be back, but, Kevin has some valid points. I think you should address those with him, either privately, or in a thread in Celestial.

I would also add that simply because Dan doesn't comment on everything public does not mean that he is not addressing issues with individuals.

There is only one solution to this problem. Will must post a picture of himself in a black dress so that we may comment on his appearance. All those in favor please make it manifest.

Sweet Jesus no. His posts are bad enough.

I saw Will's presentation last August. I know what he looks like. That's messed up.

I too have seen a pitcure of Will and concur with Stem on this. May I suggest a burqa?

I understand that Will has been suspended for a week. Now we see Nomad come out of hiding. Hmm :)

BTW I don't think he is a bad or evil person, but he behaves worse then just about anyone I have read on these boards.

[bump]bump[/[bump]

Why did this get bumped? It happened over a year and a half ago. Is there something new or something else going on with all this shenanigans recently?

The quote from this thread was censored (moved) when a former mod decided it didn't bode well for her pal David and complained. It seems this former mod has a puppet mod that will do her bidding for her.

My last post was NOT off topic.

To the OP of this thread (see page 3), I find this an unusual stance from a supposed scholar, as it lacks critical thought regarding the facts: