It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:02 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1610 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 77  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 8:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:58 pm
Posts: 4104
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 8:53 am 
High Priest

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 380
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 8:56 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6521
Location: Cassius University
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 9:03 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
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)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 9:28 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9093
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 9:36 am 
High Priest

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 380
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 Dad of a Mormon on Tue May 03, 2011 10:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:06 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:58 pm
Posts: 4104
Hey again Dad,

Dad of a Mormon wrote:

I appreciate Ceeboo's fairness, but in this case I think she is mistaken.


I am almost certain (about 93 %) that Ceeboo is a male (I have seen Ceeboo in the shower) :)

Quote:
Possibly she is making the assumption


See shower reference above. :)


Peace,
Ceeboo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:08 am 
High Priest

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 380
Ceeboo wrote:
Hey again Dad,

Dad of a Mormon wrote:

I appreciate Ceeboo's fairness, but in this case I think she is mistaken.


I am almost certain (about 93 %) that Ceeboo is a male (I have seen Ceeboo in the shower) :)

Quote:
Possibly she is making the assumption


See shower reference above. :)


Peace,
Ceeboo


My sincere apologies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:15 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:58 pm
Posts: 4104
Dad of a Mormon wrote:

My sincere apologies.



Although certainly appreciated, clearly not needed (Just playing in hopes to offer a few smiles)


Peace,
Ceeboo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:38 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3453
Location: Palatine, IL
Dad of a Mormon wrote:
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.

Dad of a Mormon, with all due respect, I have to disagree with you that these are the only options. Ever heard of false memory syndrome? The human memory is created and highly malleable, and none of us can remember every detail that happens to us in a given day. Where the brain can't remember, it often fills in the gaps with words, phrases, and other memories that seem to fit. People are also known to have involuntarily erased memories of things they have done that they are ashamed of and to have passionately defended false memories even after being shown that they aren't true.

I don't want to go into details, but I grew up in an abusive home situation. I could give a lot of very specific accounts of the things my father said and did to me and the abuse he heaped on me. If you asked him today (and he is a kinder, gentler man today), my father would almost certainly deny everything, and I don't think it's because he's a liar. I think that, in the eleven years since I left home, his brain really has involuntarily replaced the memories of what he did to me.

William's comment to harmony was made over six months ago. He made it in the heat of the moment, it was probably one of dozens of comments that he was making around the Internet at the time, and he hasn't been reminded of it since. It's entirely possible that he no longer remembers making it and, thus, isn't lying. FWIW, I also don't believe that he was lying about not having remembered saying Emma Smith was a "champion bitch." I think he really did not remember saying it.

It is, however, entirely impossible that harmony, MrStakhanovite and Spurven Ten Sing are jointly misremembering, and outright laughable to think that they've conspired to make something up about him.

As I said earlier in this thread, there was no conspiracy. This thread was my own doing, I alone took the initiative to get it done, and I think everyone would be surprised at the amount of time it actually took to compose. Coding the damned BBCode to look neat and clean was the most taxing part about it all. (I enjoy writing web code about as much as I enjoyed the hurtie needle part of getting my tattoo last year.)

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:45 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Jason Bourne wrote:
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....


Here is the key difference. My statements are an obvious parody, and they aren't a part of a massive pile-on. Were you capable of taking pause form your self-righteous indignation, this might have occurred to you. As it is...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
wenglund wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
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....


Here is the key difference. My statements are an obvious parody, and they aren't a part of a massive pile-on. Were you capable of taking pause form your self-righteous indignation, this might have occurred to you. As it is...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Are you sure you understand what "parody" means? You've also claimed that Will's sexual harassment is parody - of what I'm not sure. Is he doing an impression of Andrew Dice Clay?

Image

_________________
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.


Last edited by Buffalo on Tue May 03, 2011 11:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:59 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:50 am
Posts: 2799
wenglund wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
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....


Here is the key difference. My statements are an obvious parody, and they aren't a part of a massive pile-on. Were you capable of taking pause form your self-righteous indignation, this might have occurred to you. As it is...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Is it a parody when nobody gets it? Given your frequent recourse to pragmatic approaches which seek to achieve a certain goal by the quickest and best method, I didn't understand what you were trying to do for most of the thread. Why not leave the carnival? Maybe I can take a few of you with me if I stay for a second. :)

_________________
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.*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 11:00 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
By way of clarification, is it now being claimed that the "C" word wasn't actually seen, but "c***" was, and instead of deleting just the alleged omodified word, or moving the post to the terrestrial or tellestial forums where such modified versions of swear words are quite common and permissable, the entire post was deleted after several hours, and no outrage was expressed until after the post was deleted?

And, even though this thread is entirely personal in nature, instead of the entire thread being moved to the other forums, only those selectively presumed personal posts which don't favor the prevailing personal attacks, are removed to the other forums?

I am just trying to get a sense for how bizarre things are want to get here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 11:06 am 
High Priest

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 380
MsJack wrote:
Dad of a Mormon wrote:
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.

Dad of a Mormon, with all due respect, I have to disagree with you that these are the only options. Ever heard of false memory syndrome? The human memory is created and highly malleable, and none of us can remember every detail that happens to us in a given day. Where the brain can't remember, it often fills in the gaps with words, phrases, and other memories that seem to fit. People are also known to have involuntarily erased memories of things they have done that they are ashamed of and to have passionately defended false memories even after being shown that they aren't true.

I don't want to go into details, but I grew up in an abusive home situation. I could give a lot of very specific accounts of the things my father said and did to me and the abuse he heaped on me. If you asked him today (and he is a kinder, gentler man today), my father would almost certainly deny everything, and I don't think it's because he's a liar. I think that, in the eleven years since I left home, his brain really has involuntarily replaced the memories of what he did to me.

William's comment to harmony was made over six months ago. He made it in the heat of the moment, it was probably one of dozens of comments that he was making around the Internet at the time, and he hasn't been reminded of it since. It's entirely possible that he no longer remembers making it and, thus, isn't lying. FWIW, I also don't believe that he was lying about not having remembered saying Emma Smith was a "champion bitch." I think he really did not remember saying it.

It is, however, entirely impossible that harmony, MrStakhanovite and Spurven Ten Sing are jointly misremembering, and outright laughable to think that they've conspired to make something up about him.

As I said earlier in this thread, there was no conspiracy. This thread was my own doing, I alone took the initiative to get it done, and I think everyone would be surprised at the amount of time it actually took to compose. Coding the damned BBCode to look neat and clean was the most taxing part about it all. (I enjoy writing web code about as much as I enjoyed the hurtie needle part of getting my tattoo last year.)


I had actually considered that he may have forgotten this, but it just seemed too unlikely to me. Especially since he has twice tried to reconstruct what he did say. But now that you have brought it up, your theory is entirely plausible. I think it must be extremely frustrating to him to not be able to remember these incidents, only to later have to admit that they did, in fact, happen. Of course, in this case, he may never have to admit anything because there is no hard evidence, only the recollection of people who saw it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 11:14 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3453
Location: Palatine, IL
wenglund wrote:
And, even though this thread is entirely personal in nature, instead of the entire thread being moved to the other forums, only those selectively presumed personal posts which don't favor the prevailing personal attacks, are removed to the other forums?

This thread has a substantive OP that calls for substantive engagement. I said nothing about William that was "personal" and only addressed things he has said on this forum, and I've done my best to report personal attacks on him that have appeared in this thread for removal to other forums.

Other people have complained about things William has said about his wife or suggested that his wife must be appalled at all of this. I deliberately ignored any and all material dealing with his wife and family because I felt it was too personal.

You, Droopy, and anyone else who would like to argue against the OP are welcome to do so at your leisure.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 11:14 am 
High Priest

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 380
wenglund wrote:
By way of clarification, is it now being claimed that the "C" word wasn't actually seen, but "c***" was, and instead of deleting just the alleged omodified word, or moving the post to the terrestrial or tellestial forums where such modified versions of swear words are quite common and permissable, the entire post was deleted after several hours, and no outrage was expressed until after the post was deleted?

And, even though this thread is entirely personal in nature, instead of the entire thread being moved to the other forums, only those selectively presumed personal posts which don't favor the prevailing personal attacks, are removed to the other forums?

I am just trying to get a sense for how bizarre things are want to get here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I think the initial assumption was that the C-word would have been filtered. But as Stak demonstrates in the telestial forum, that isn't necessarily the case. It is easy to get around the filter by just adding spaces or joining it with another word.

I think MsJack has raised a very real possibility: that Will used the word and forgot that he used it. She even showed how Will probably did this before. Which actually makes me feel a little better about Will. It was frustrating to think that he was deliberately lying.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 11:36 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
LifeOnaPlate wrote:
Is it a parody when nobody gets it?


That is an interesting philosophical question, though made moot by the fact that at least one person does get it.

But, you have a point regarding knowing your audience. It doesn't always work to talk to those who can't or are unwilling to hear.

Quote:
Given your frequent recourse to pragmatic approaches which seek to achieve a certain goal by the quickest and best method, I didn't understand what you were trying to do for most of the thread. Why not leave the carnival? Maybe I can take a few of you with me if I stay for a second. :)


Were my goal to end the carnival, you may have a point. If, however, my intent is to determine whether there are bounds to some people's propriety here, then you don't. As it is, I am interested to see to what extremes the folks here are intent to go in their quest for selective personal distruction.

I am also hoping to expose how little this really has to do with people's moral outrage and wishing to right presumed wrongs and to raise the quality of human discourse, but about silencing, in an unseemly way, one's critics--ironic on on a number of levels, I know.

And, it was good of you to be numbered among the willing participant--"moderately" as it were. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 11:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
MsJack wrote:
I said nothing about William that was "personal" and only addressed things he has said on this forum...


So, when I address things that people have said and done in this thread, though mostly directed to no one specifically or in particular, that is considered as "personal." Yet, when you and hords of others address specifically what William allegedly has said, it isn't "personal." Got it.

I think I am starting to get the hang of certain minds around here--up is down and down is up. :)

Quote:
You, Droopy, and anyone else who would like to argue against the OP are welcome to do so at your leisure.


...but in another forum of course.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 11:54 am 
I'm sorry, but I just have to post my famous picture here:


Image

(posting this in no way means I have taken either side. It just seemed appropriate)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 11:58 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9093
wenglund wrote:

Here is the key difference. My statements are an obvious parody, and they aren't a part of a massive pile-on. Were you capable of taking pause form your self-righteous indignation, this might have occurred to you. As it is...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-



Oh the irony that Wade continues to entertain us with is just never ending.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1610 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 77  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brad Hudson, cognitiveharmony, Eyepatch, Google [Bot], Quasimodo, russellwades and 32 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:  
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