Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_wenglund]

[If by "transcribe" you mean cut-n-paste from a Word document on my own computer, I have done both. I appreciate the interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was just curious because you have such a detailed list. That is quite an effort you've made. Good for you.

It was good of you to say so. Some day I hope to learn how to really do research.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kishkumen]

It was good of you to say so. Some day I hope to learn how to really do research.

As far as I can see, you are doing real research. There are many approaches to real research. Detailed notes and thoughts about the text are definitely part of it.

[_Buffalo]

It's like I said, when it comes to out-of-control self-delusion, the Cracker man's the world champ, hands down. He's obviously got some very serious, albeit carefully concealed, issues in his life. Hard to say what they might be. If I had beastlie's consummate diagnostician skills, I'd probably conjecture that the Cracker man has some deeply rooted insecurities, coupled with a heaping tablespoon of old-fashioned unfulfilled narcissistic desires for grandeur.

Other than that, though, ya gotta admit he wields a mean meat cleaver.

[_Kishkumen]

Ah, don't be sore about my "troubles at home" quip. I said I was sorry ...

Gee, Will, I had no idea you were such a sensitive guy. You're all heart.

[_Kevin Graham]

Considering the extreme dislike for anything FAIR common among these posters, I don't think you're doing yourself any favors boasting about this. Its weird to me that so much from FAIR is discounted by posters here before even considering what is said. I think your boast, if true, is impressive, though. So you're safe with me.

Who the hell is "boasting"? I stated a fact which should prove people like Will and Wade are idiots for pretending to be "laughing" at my researching abilities. Funny how when I was an apologist, my services were constantly being called upon, precisely because my ability to research was well respected. Now that I'm apostate, I don't know what proper research means?

They say they're laughing and yet they cannot produce a single example to laugh at. Where have I researched anything that was presented incorrectly? Just one example should suffice. I can produce literally dozens by folks like wade and Will, but as we know, the folks on the apologetic side don't care about evidence, they only care about having a pissing contest with assertions. Wade and Will choose to engage in a "no it's not, but you are" tit-for-tat form of rebuttal, thinking whoever lasts the longest must win the debate. But you folks never engage the evidence I present. Ever. Will Schryver is an intellectual fraud who cannot be trusted. He knows it, and you guys know it too. But you continue with this charade of a non-debate debate, because you have to keep up appearances for other believers. You seem to think that so long as you're technically typing up replies to the critics, that this means you're somehow actually hanging in with the debate. But you abandon the debate for obvious exhibitions in dissonance. This is all wade ever does. Same with Simon, Wilbur, Droopy, and you as well at times. I present evidence XYZ, and you guys, at all costs, derail the subject so that XYZ is no longer in the spotlight. Trying to turn every exchange into a battle of literary wit might be entertaining to simple minds, but the critical thinkers see right though it. Yours is an intellectually bankrupt position, which is why the apologists have to engage every issue like this. When you cannot win on intellectual grounds, try to appear intellectual while acting like you're just too smart to bother responding to your opponent. Oh, and if possible, pretend you're laughing at him when in fact you're banging your head against your thesaurus trying to compensate for your inability to argue effectively.

[_sock puppet]

In my opinion, Smith's and Brown's articles are most valuable from the standpoint that they tend to be 180 degrees wrong on most questions, thus describing the correct conclusions by contrast.

Of course, that's what this place is like all the time.

So, you simply took whatever Smith or Brown stated, turned in 180 degrees on it head, and restated it as such and that is your thesis?

A bit reactionary even for you, isn't, Will?

[_Kevin Graham]

So, you simply took whatever Smith or Brown stated, turned in 180 degrees on it head, and restated it as such and that is your thesis?

A bit reactionary even for you, isn't, Will?

That about sums it up. Real scholars discover important information, while Will takes that information and tells the scholars they're not using it properly. They're all wrong because Will says so. He'd love to provide an actual argument supported with evidence, but he knows all he needs to do to convince the dead-heads at FAIR is to merely assert that it is so. It must have something to do with his expertise in writing obsolete code, I'm sure.

Will is the Glenn Beck of Mormon apologetics. Eventually his antics will prove too damaging to their credibility, and they'll have to get rid of him too.

[_sock puppet]

So, you simply took whatever Smith or Brown stated, turned in 180 degrees on it head, and restated it as such and that is your thesis?

A bit reactionary even for you, isn't, Will?

That about sums it up. Real scholars discover important information, while Will takes that information and tells the scholars they're not using it properly. They're all wrong because Will says so. He'd love to provide an actual argument supported with evidence, but he knows all he needs to do to convince the dead-heads at FAIR is to merely assert that it is so. It must have something to do with his expertise in writing obsolete code, I'm sure.

Will is the Glenn Beck of Mormon apologetics. Eventually his antics will prove too damaging to their credibility, and they'll have to get rid of him too.

And Will is good at promising them what they yearn to hear. It's as hard as getting a caged lion to eat a raw steak. He'll gobble it up, and your arm too if you let him.

[Guest]

Cracker Graham:

Real scholars discover important information, while Will takes that information and tells the scholars they're not using it properly.

An interesting observation, and one that I think has considerable merit.

In fact, it brought to mind the experience of Galileo, who had access to the observations/data of the “real scholars” of his day—men who had long observed the motions of the sun, moon, stars, and planets, and then concluded that the solar system was geocentric in nature. Galileo acknowledged their observations, and then added to them his own, eventually pronouncing the popularly held conclusions to be incorrect; effectively telling everyone that they were not interpreting the available information properly; that, in fact, the solar system was heliocentric.

Several other similar events from the history of science come to mind. Indeed, the reinterpretation (and subsequent expansion) of existing data is a veritable hallmark of some of the greatest scientists from the time of the Enlightenment forward to the present day. The autodidact Wright brothers constitute one of the most stunning examples.

I therefore acknowledge what is one of Graham’s occasional moments of inadvertent incisiveness—although, in the process, he (ironically enough) merely serves to mimic the role of the blind scholars who had access to a considerable body of data, but could not seem to interpret it correctly, often leaving it for men “uncorrupted by higher education” to come along and open everyone’s eyes to the simple truths of the matter.

[_Kishkumen]

I therefore acknowledge what is one of Graham’s rare moments of inadvertent incisiveness—although, in the process, he (ironically enough) merely serves to mimic the role of the blind scholars who had access to a considerable body of data, but could not seem to interpret it correctly, often leaving it for men “uncorrupted by higher education” to come along and open everyone’s eyes to the simple truths of the matter.