Oh, my!

I had forgotten about that one.

I just about choked up a lung along with my Diet Dr. Pepper.

I understand dissonance has dropped a few stone since then. Good for her. I'm sure it's nice to have a lap to rest the grandkids on.

Hello Mr. Graham,

Well, unfortunately we're well over a dozen or so ugly comments Mr. Schryver has made to women on this board, about women, or using a feminine epithet. He not only has a historical record of extreme verbal abuse toward women, but is very fond of feminizing his insults to men.

I'm inclined to agree with Ms. Jack that this has become a problem for LDS apologists and academics because to associate yourself with such a base spokesperson for Mormonism is to risk their credibility. I'm not sure any woman, much less and LDS one, would give this man the time of day, and in fact would look unfavorably upon any institution that gives him a platform from which to speak... Since his mannerisms are bi-polar at best, and pathological at worst.

Additionally, he seems fixated on dishonesty when it has been proven conclusively on this very threat he is a shameless liar. It's more bizarre given the common knoledge of and relatively user friendly search function this board employs. It's psychologically fascinating, as Mr. Peterson would put it.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Perhaps Mr. Schryver is unaware that many of his statements, quoted in this thread by MsJack, constitute sexual harassment. If he's ever to sustain a job in the real world, he should learn what constitutes sexual harassment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

Indeed it is.

I just hope Scratch comes through with his promise to get me talked about in major media outlets around the world. I'd especially love to get interviewed by Chris Matthews or Piers Morgan ... although getting Peggy Fletcher Stack's and/or Kristen Moulton's knickers twisted does hold some appeal.

I feel I have to defend myself a touch.

I have rarely if ever engaged Will in any context. I have zero interest in him or anything about him. I don't care.

I recall seeing the C word post before it was edited. I have already posted my thoughts at the time.

I have zero reason to lie. None. I do not care. I merely offered my witness as it seemed like it was needed.

I am not part of any conspiracy against anyone.

This reminds me of that scene in The Empire Strikes Back when Princess Leia calls Hans Solo a "stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking Nerf herder," and Solo's only comeback was, "Who's scruffy-looking?"

By only taking issue with one detail, he confirmed the validity of the message in the entirety.

wow, the Spurven Ten Sing witness must be the most damning eh Will? No dog in the fight, objective witness to the thread in question, poster of good reputation. Yes, you best sling a lot of mud at this one.

I regret having said anything. Too much fuss and not worth a pep pep.

Mr. Spurven never even saw the thread. Nor the post. He never participated in the thread. He's just a dog-piler, like you are. Although you did participate in the thread in question. In fact, you posted within 10 minutes after I did. I'm rather persuaded that you do know the truth of the matter, but are too cowardly to make it known, for fear of offending your tribe here.

Oh, well ... so be it.

As I already observed in my reply to Mr. Scurvy:


I am, I must confess, quite curious to see if Rollo Tomasi and DarthJ will also join the suborned witness club. They are the two people who were most involved in that discussion with me.

I'm sure you do.

Scurvy?

Will has acted exactly like anyone who knows his online personae in the least would expect. For those of you who hope Will will repent or change his behavior: you have more chance of winning the lottery.

A couple of comments:

Will has said he apologized privately to KA after she posted the picture of the dress, because then he realized it was a case of mistaken identity. I already commented on the fact that Will made public comments for which he made a private apology, but there’s more. Will says the picture made him realize it wasn’t KA who was the porn-dressed slush, after all. Yet his response to the picture was:



viewtopic.php?p=294704#p294704

So, according to Will, when KA posted her picture of the dress, he realized his error and apologized privately. And yet he still called her a whore.

Will also claims it was not possible he called Harmony a c*** despite three witnesses who say otherwise, despite the fact that what he said must have been far worse than his normal name-calling, and uses, as evidence, the fact that no on protested his language. Yet look at the responses that his “mildly calling Harmony a hypocrite” engendered.

1. First, of course, Harmony deleted the word and threatened to suspend him, which is an extraordinary action at MD.
2. Stak said “u mad, Willard?”
3. Rollo said “There's no cause for you to treat Harmony that way, Will. For one who apparently claims to follow Christ, you are acting decidedly like an anti-Christ.” My comment: only a very strong word would have prompted “like an anti-Christ”.
4. Kevin G said “You're such a edited by harmony. Violation of Rule #2, Will. I can't wait till we meet.”
5. Kevin G said: “And every time you act like your insensitivity and hatred towards women is justified, just because you read a scripture somewhere that says they're going to hell (to your stupid mind anyway, since we both know no one in LDS leadership would EVER condone your behavior), it clearly throws you into the same category of the worst bigots among Evangelical ranks. You know, the ones Mormons like to complain about and pretend to be so far above them because they tolerate others religious views, etc.”
6. Cam said: “Hello,

I wouldn't mind a shot at Mr. William "Gookie Cookie" Schryver. Mr. Schryver, where could you and I meet in order to test our mettle?

My proposal: We link up at a gym, don some gear, and go at it. MMA, boxing, martial arts... Whatever... It's all allowed.

If you beat me into submission, you get to gloat to your heart's content. If I beat you into submission, you have to apologize, personally, to every female you've insulted on this board, and never insult them again.

Do we have a deal, good Sir?”
7. Rollo, in response to Will’s assertion “I'll treat that disgusting excuse of womanhood however I'd like, thank you. She deserves every word of imprecation I can muster.” said: “ I'm quite certain your stake president would find such words about another very unbecoming a priesthood holder.”

So the reaction was for posters to ask if Will was mad, to call him the anti-christ, to say his stake president would be concerned, to challenge him to a fight, and to accuse him of insensitivity and hatred towards women.

Yet, according to Will, no one really protested at his language.

Interesting that one thing missing from that thread is Will’s outrage over Harmony’s unjust deletion of his mild accusation of hypocrisy.

It’s hard for me to believe that even the most loyal believers would swallow Will’s denial, particularly when he also denied other things he said, only to have to later eat crow.

No need to presume anything. We have his sexual harassment of women here in black and white, his actual words. The C-word isn't even necessary.

Oh, really? Who will be attending this meeting, I wonder? You've mentioned already that the MI scholars "support" or "find funny" your various comments here. Who are these MI scholars? Care to name them, Will? Or are you afraid that doing so might jeopardize your opportunity to publish?

I've always liked that scene.


What are you talking about?

I have consistently and unequivocally denied the entire allegation.

I have never in my life used the "C" word, in public or private. I consider it one of the very few "taboo" words in the English language. I am offended by anyone who would use it, and would forcefully upbraid anyone using the word in my presence.

As for the other cites in MsJack's propaganda piece, I don't deny any of them. While I did not carefully read every one of her score of posts to start this thread, my impression was that it was only the charge of using the "C" word to which I objected.

I've freely acknowledged writing the others (including the Emma Smith one, which I had forgotten until a link was provided, and for which I apologized--having been legitimately out-of-line on that one).

So other than the few for which I have expressed sincere regret, I otherwise stand by everything I have said--especially the things directed towards beastlie and dissonance, two of the most repulsive women with whom I have ever come into contact in my entire life.

Wouldn't you like to know!


That is not what I said. Of course, a lack of accurate intelligence never impedes your ability to invent anything you'd like.

You should, however, pay closer attention to what I actually do say. It would save you a lot of embarrassment in the long run.


I assure you that nothing that has ever happened on this message board could possibly "jeopardize [my] opportunity to publish."

You people greatly (by several orders of magnitude!) overestimate yourselves.

beastlie:

Again, I look forward to whether or not Rollo, too, will be willing to sell his soul and join the suborned witness club.

As I have said repeatedly, Rollo and DarthJ--certainly no friends of mine--were very much involved in the thread in question, and I am convinced that both would distinctly remember (and would have commented, at the time) had I used the "C" word in a post.

So it will be very interesting to see what they have to say. Part of me won't be surprised if they jump on the bandwagon, simply because they won't be able to resist the temptation to pile on when the target is me.

On the other hand, there is still part of me that wants to hold out hope for the innate goodness of mankind--even LDS apostates. Of course, that might be too much to hope for here in the GSTP.

Did why did you panic by writing numerous LDS scholars to find out what was being said about you so you could preempt their efforts? Gee and Hauglid both sent Bokovoy a copy of the email you sent out to them trying to dig for information about what's been said. Oh, I'd say you're rattled, all right.

And if you think NAMI supports you, then provide names. The fact that you refuse to do so undermines your arrogant confidence in their support of you.

Well this turned out exactly as we suspected. Kudos to Jack for doing all that leg work and making a good record of it.

You are clueless.

1) How idiotic of you to claim you would never use the c-word (contra witnesses) and yet freely refer to them using such things as the b-word and then refer to them as "the most repulsive women with whom.....". What is it in the c-word that is bad will? What is contained in that word that isn't already contain in "most repulsive..."? It's like you don't even realize why the c-word is objectionable.

Does Jesus think beastie is repulsive??

2) Why is it you constantly include gender specificity in your insults? Why is it "most repulsive women" instead of "most repulsive people"? Why bring up "womanhood" or the question of beasties "attractiveness" in the next life? Is Kevin Graham's attractiveness not an issue? LOL
Why do you think your estimation of the attractiveness or womanly virtues, or whorishness etc of females on this board is relevant at all? Why do these sexually charged and gender specific words and phrases keep coming out of you?
You are more transparent in your sexism than anyone I have seen on these boards.

Everything about the way you interact with woman online betrays a deep sexism and chauvinism. Nothing could be more obvious. Woman must admire you and your self aggrandizing notions or they are whores and b-itches. The only good women are those obedient and submissive to your supposed priesthood.

Plenty here talk in sexual terms on occasion but it is out of a healthy uninhibited and undisguised interest in the opposite sex --normal basic horniness, flirtiness and low brow humor appropriate to those of us who don't need to see ourselves as holy.
But with you it is always imbued with thinly veiled anger and aggression.

Also, I know for a fact that the set of (very) prominent apologists that are very unhappy with your behavior is not the empty set. In fact, I know of no example of an apologist that approves though perhaps such exist (so much the worse for them in that case).
I have email with expressions of dismay and I shall seek permission to quote from said email if you insist I am lying about this.

Bingo. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Will has already fired off a series of Defcon-5 emails to various people at the MI.



Indeed.