Where have I done this? Either cite evidence for your claim or withdraw the charge.

I don't think it would be unusual at all for David to communicate with Kevin. Have you read any of David and Kevin's debates and exchanges? In spite of their differences, they are IRL friends.

I guess David is just a better judge of character than Droopy. I would say I am surprised, but look who Droopy is defending here.

Its been years since you dood it, but you dood it.

But no need to feel bad about that, as this is only the tip of the iceberg relative to your behavior here since this board crawled out of the promordial soup and grew legs.

If anyone wants confirmation of Red Kevin's psychology and attitude, they have several years of posts here as exhibit 'A'.

Where, Droopy? I suggest that you go and find it, or else withdraw the charge. Your latest meltdown here on the board happened in part because you apparently "forgot" some incredibly appalling things that you said in the chatroom. So, is this how you're going to react in the wake of all that?

Your recollection has been challenged, Droopy. Either put up or shut up.



Feel bad about what? You have zero evidence.

Droopy, I'm not sure that one of us here has any room to talk about psychology and attitude. We're quite a collection of misfits, myself included. I happen to like Kevin very much and consider him a friend. I am also happy to have you around, even though I find many of your views objectionable.

I have no idea, I just remember you block quoting me, on several occasions, in which the quoted text attributed to me was made up.



I won't withdraw the charge because its exactly what I remember.



You weren't in that chat, and so have no idea what you're talking about. I did, indeed, forgot the exact language I used, but could easily call Delusion on the carpet for the simple reason that, whatever I did say, and however he chose to interpret it, the overall views he ascribed to me are not views that I hold.



Really, to have a pathological liar, shameless character assassin and ad hominem conspiracy theorist react with such moral outrage at being accused of making up text in other people's names causes my jaw to drop.

As you have no character to defend Scratch, from whence the reaction?



But as we have seen here, over and over again, evidence has rarely been the criteria by which to judge the accuracy of claims made about other individuals, and you, yourself, have been preeminent among those for whom it has never gotten on the way of a good defamation (just ask DCP, who could go on for days on end about your "malevolent stalker" days).

Actually, Droopy---you're right. I hope that you don't bother to go and find any evidence and that, instead, you just claim to accurately recall--based purely on your memory--something that happened "years ago." Given that this is you we're talking about, I'm sure that your recollections all by themselves have a whole ton of credibility.

Lol. Maybe, if I have the time, I'll go back and find that post where you admitted to somehow "forgetting" about a key aspect of the pre-1990 temple ceremony. I remember that poor Beastie was just aghast at your "forgetfulness" over that.

I would say that this is terribad apologia in a nutshell. Trust me, the competent and thoughtful apologists are shaking their heads at the displays being put on by Will's defenders.

But otherwise, QFT.

BTW, no one is contesting that doppelgängers happen on our forums. They do, and in fact, several people on the original 2009 thread wherein WilliamSchryver made his debut questioned whether or not it was the real William. Had William's denials in this thread remained consistent, I'd have likely given him the benefit of the doubt and changed my OP to note that the quote in question appeared to be the work of a doppelgänger.

However, William ignored my request for clarification on the matter, and the next mention of it on the thread was when jon asked him about the dubious quote a few days later. When jon asked him, William affirmed that he wrote it. Mystery solved.

If William's defenders want me to change my OP so as to no longer ascribe the quote to William, I'm going to need a better explanation for William's affirmation of the quote than this fanatical "THE MODERATORS DEED EET!!!" nonsense.

Like I said above: if you believe that the moderators are editing people's posts to make them say things that they did not say, I don't know why you even post here. I can deal with censorship, but I could never deal with someone changing my own words to make it look like I said something I never said, something that is the polar opposite of what I did say.

BTW, I noticed that someone registered here as Bill Schryver last week. Might I suggest one of William's sock puppets---I mean, underlings---contact him to make sure that's his handle? If not, he should probably contact the mods about nipping this impostor in the bud.

I, for one, wouldn't think of asking you to change a thing. Your posts, from beginning to end, are the hallmark of reasonableness and impeccable analysis, and haven't the least hint of vindictiveness, rashness, or confirmation bias.

Mind you, I don't say this because gaining your approval, of all people, isn't of utmost importance to me (How could it not be given your meteoric rise to the forefront of the MD mob and atop the chart of LDS apologetic slayers?). But, rather, by way of humble explanation.



This timely concern you now have for Will imposters is further confirmation of your impartiality and purity of judgement as well as magnanimity. Truly remarkable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And after two days of non-action, yet another Willpologist rescues the thread from the bottom of the page with a frivolous, entirely unnecessary post.

I agree. This whole affair as been bizarre in the extreme.



The hatred provoked in me is less than zero. So, that is quite some testament you have imagined. LOL



Not only isn't this the only thing I can concluded, it didn't register on my radar until after Will's article was dumped. My focus hasn't been on Will's predicament, but rather on the reprehensible state of the MD mob.

I am not sure the basis upon which you conjured these fantasies about me, but it certainly makes this thread all the more surreal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We are ever so grateful, though, that the newly crowned Grande Dame of MD mobocracy, has condescended to restore this thread to its unrivaled scholarly depth, and this via the quantum burst of mind-boggling dense substance of her last post. The intensity of the white-hot stream of consciousness conveyed therein will forever burn in my memory, if not throughout all time, and melt away any visage of unintended irony.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

u mad, wade?

Not at all. Just observant--in a chiding sort of way.

Truth is, I have been chortling near non-stop while posting here today. In a way, it has been very healthy since the joyful laughter has helped move the flem out of my chest, somewhat relieving my stubborn, Memorial Weekend cold. So, the good folks here have blessed me in ways they probably would never have guessed. And for that I say:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

lol


Willpologetics amuses me as well.

With the surge in traffic the board has been receiving lately, I felt this thread worthy of a bump.

Posted on another thread before I saw this one. Seems appropriate to both.
______

The following post appeared on the subject thread on the MADBoard this evening. It didn't last long.





Looks as though the MDD moderators are sticking by their man - maybe the only one they have left. This is sort of like sticking with Joseph Smith after the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society.

So now Will claims this thread is based on propaganda, lies, deception, etc? That is pretty rich coming from the guy who lies compulsively and has been shown to be a liar on numerous occasions.

I though he was the one who once said he embraced his comments because they were so funny and so true. He took pride in them, right? From what I remember, he only denied having posted one or two of them. What about the other 50-60 comments that were clearly posted from your account?

On the first page of this thread, Will takes issue only with the C-word accusation. If he ever took the opportunity to point out any examples of the "forgeries, out-of-context citations, gross exaggerations, and outright lies" from MsJack's posts, I must've missed it.