William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

[_ludwigm]

Will thinks his obsessive reliance on the thesauraus will save him from looking stupid. You can always tell how desperate he gets by his choice of words. This thread is particularly telling. As he began to look dumber and dumber, he thought he had to change the title of this thread, thinking the use of "scatologist" would make him look smarter than if he had used "sciolist."....

There are useful side effects of that type threads (without main effect ) . I can learn new words I never heard until now.

[_William Schryver]

Hey, Pig-in-a-Pokatator:

I can't tell you how pleased I am that you went to the substantial effort of assembling this collection of "Unplugged and Raw in the Trailer Park -- Schryver's Greatest Hits".

I have been able, thanks to you, to incorporate my various sayings, prophecies, admonitions, and condemnations into a single document that I may now conveniently pass down to my posterity for their profit and entertainment.

Indeed, one post in particular stood out to me as I read through those you had collected, and I reprise it here for the benefit of those following this thread:

Speaking of my more cultivated and "proper" friends, some of whom practice LDS apologetics as a hobby:

I also happen to know that these particular friends are acutely conscious of the semantic distinctions between a circle jerk as an activity engaged in by adolescent boys (it has nothing to do with homosexuals, contra cksalmon’s frequent misrepresentations thereof) and a circle jerk as "a pompous, self-congratulatory discussion."

Then again, these are educated men who also know the difference between intercourse as "sexual contact" and intercourse as "connection or dealings between persons or groups." As also the difference between incestuous as ” sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry” and incestuous as meaning simply ”excessively or improperly intimate or exclusive”. As also the difference between whore as ”a promiscuous or immoral woman” and whore as “a venal or unscrupulous person”.

In the final analysis, when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

And I choose my words carefully.

Thus, when I characterize Mr. Scratch as a wanton whore whose diseased stench afflicts every corner of this wretched place, that is precisely what I mean. Neither more nor less.

That I have friends (“in high places” as it were) who occasionally find my comments amusing is less attributable to their vulgarity (or my own, for that matter) than it is to their familiarity with the nuances of the English language and their admiration for someone who knows how to wield it with a certain savoir faire. Indeed, much of their amusement is attributable to the motivated ignorance of the majority of the posters here in the GSTP™, and the banal ways in which that apparently-intentional ignorance manifests itself in the comical reactions to the things I say.

And so it is ...

[_beastie]

Double-entendre is quite common and useful. However, the point being made here, Will, is that you are inordinately fond of sexual double-entendres, to the extent where it seems LDS folks would be made uncomfortable. Certainly LDS culture decries the sexualization of the over-all culture, and are normally somewhat conservative in terms of sexual terminology and conversation. However, it is also quite possible that they're simply hypocrites who decry this behavior in others, but not one of their own. by the way, I see no reason to assume that posters on this board aren't fully aware of the double-entendre - an odd conclusion you and your peers seem to make.

The secondary point is that you seem literally obsessed with sexual double entendres. Many of us observe that normally men who are so obsessed are often engaging in loud bravado in order to compensate for a feared deficit.

[_William Schryver]

Double-entendre is quite common and useful. However, the point being made here, Will, is that you are inordinately fond of sexual double-entendres, to the extent where it seems LDS folks would be made uncomfortable. Certainly LDS culture decries the sexualization of the over-all culture, and are normally somewhat conservative in terms of sexual terminology and conversation. However, it is also quite possible that they're simply hypocrites who decry this behavior in others, but not one of their own.

The secondary point is that you seem literally obsessed with sexual double entendres. Many of us observe that normally men who are so obsessed are often engaging in loud bravado in order to compensate for a feared deficit.

beastlie dear, I must say, quite frankly, that I don't think you have a freaking clue about "LDS culture" except as a set of caricatures and stereotypes. And I absolutely know that you haven't a clue concerning the exalted place of sexuality in the doctrine of the restored gospel as taught by Joseph Smith. You never understood the import of phrases like "strength in the loins" nor could you ever appreciate why the LDS canon includes the image of a man/god with an erect penis, an image associated with eternal life and exaltation.

Indeed, in many ways I perceive that you are not that far removed from the troubled unease of Victorian times when it comes to issues of sexuality, and you are therefore unable to conceive how sexuality could possibly have such a prominent place in the eternal order established by God.

It is a strange irony to observe exmormons wringing their hands over the perceived vulgarities of someone who is deliberately and consciously mocking their feigned (or perhaps, sincere?) sensibilities.

In any event, I have things to do now. So carry on with your faux Freudian analysis. It's not much in the way of meaningful, but it's good for a laugh now and then.

[_Yong Xi]

Double-entendre is quite common and useful. However, the point being made here, Will, is that you are inordinately fond of sexual double-entendres, to the extent where it seems LDS folks would be made uncomfortable. Certainly LDS culture decries the sexualization of the over-all culture, and are normally somewhat conservative in terms of sexual terminology and conversation. However, it is also quite possible that they're simply hypocrites who decry this behavior in others, but not one of their own.

The secondary point is that you seem literally obsessed with sexual double entendres. Many of us observe that normally men who are so obsessed are often engaging in loud bravado in order to compensate for a feared deficit.

beastlie dear, I must say, quite frankly, that I don't think you have a freaking clue about "LDS culture" except as a set of caricatures and stereotypes. And I absolutely know that you haven't a clue concerning the exalted place of sexuality in the doctrine of the restored gospel as taught by Joseph Smith. You never understood the import of phrases like "strength in the loins" nor could you ever appreciate why the LDS canon includes the image of a man/god with an erect penis, an image associated with eternal life and exaltation.

Indeed, in many ways I perceive that you are not that far removed from the troubled unease of Victorian times when it comes to issues of sexuality, and you are therefore unable to conceive how sexuality could possibly have such a prominent place in the eternal order established by God.

It is a strange irony to observe exmormons wringing their hands over the perceived vulgarities of someone who is deliberately and consciously mocking their feigned (or perhaps, sincere?) sensibilities.

In any event, I have things to do now. So carry on with your faux Freudian analysis. It's not much in the way of meaningful, but it's good for a laugh now and then.

Once again, Will commits an act of Beastie-Ality.

You are an embarrassment to primordial goo.

[_Pokatator]

Willie,

In the thread, "According to BC, the posters at MDB are preoccupied with sex" bcspace is quoted:

Sex once tried, frankly, is usually very difficult to give up. There is a reason why the apostle Paul says it is better to marry than to burn (with lust). It is similar to why you see virulent antiMormons, such as those who inhabit mormondiscussions.org, constantly talking and worrying about sex. They are similarly afflicted and/or they know that sex and porn are the best ways to get an active LDS person to fall.

I do believe that you are as crude, rude and sexually perverted as anyone who has ever used this board. I believe that bc should use you as the "poster boy" for his argument.

[_beastie]

beastlie dear, I must say, quite frankly, that I don't think you have a freaking clue about "LDS culture" except as a set of caricatures and stereotypes. And I absolutely know that you haven't a clue concerning the exalted place of sexuality in the doctrine of the restored gospel as taught by Joseph Smith. You never understood the import of phrases like "strength in the loins" nor could you ever appreciate why the LDS canon includes the image of a man/god with an erect penis, an image associated with eternal life and exaltation.

So are you asserting that LDS would generally be comfortable with your double-entendres? So do you use the same sort of phraseology when amongst LDS – on MAD, or at church, or with your home teachers? Your credibility is nearing zero.

I actually agree that your comical obsession with penile virility is quite a good reflection of the gospel as idealized by Joseph Smith. However, once polygamy was halted, that overt phallic worship ceased, and LDS culture became more feminized and its culture reflected that feminization. Instead of the original cult of male virility, it has become the cult of female fertility – home and hearth, in which LDS men are quite often nearly completely neutered (as BY prophesized).

But you don’t live in Joseph Smith’ time, do you? You live in the modern LDS church, and your insinuation that modern LDS would be quite comfortable with your vulgar double-entendres is laughable to anyone who has spent a month amongst LDS, much less fifteen years as an active believer.

Indeed, in many ways I perceive that you are not that far removed from the troubled unease of Victorian times when it comes to issues of sexuality, and you are therefore unable to conceive how sexuality could possibly have such a prominent place in the eternal order established by God.

This is where your case enters the tragic-comedy phase. You are obsessed by sexuality, and you seem to think that the measure of sexuality is the willingness to engage in public vulgarities. That leads me to believe my original suspicion is correct. In my experience, people who truly are comfortable with their sexuality, and have truly satisfying sexual lives have no need to run around mouthing off constantly about sex, in one way or the other. You remind me of a teenage boy, enamored of his own phallus, who makes constant vulgar references to women and sex in general, all the while thinking this makes him look like a “man”. He has no idea it makes him look like a desperate teenage boy who is likely still a virgin.

[_beastie]

Here's an experiment that would help validate Will's claims. I propose that Will start a thread on MAD about this topic. The topic should be about the exalted place of sexuality in the LDS culture and gospel. Will should include the type of details he's mentioned here, and should engage in the same sort of vulgar double-entendres. Let's see how other believers react.

[_ludwigm]

Would be an Eurotrash if I called Pokatator as Pig-in-a-Pokatator, and Beastie as Beastlie?
Is it Ustrash or Amerotrash if somebody uses it from the new world? (Nothing to do with Dvořák!)


The internet makes people depersonalized. I guess, what would say certain people face-to-face to the other.

Really, things seem to be unbearable boring.

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

I propose that Will start a thread on MAD about this topic. The topic should be about the exalted place of sexuality in the LDS culture and gospel.

You know what? That’s not a bad idea at all!

I have many other priorities that must take precedence at the moment, but I enjoin you to remind me from time to time, and I promise to eventually start such a thread on the MAD board. It is a topic well worth discussion in that more civilized venue, and one which should be properly appreciated by anyone claiming to believe in the restored gospel.

Great idea, beastlie! Really.

Will should include the type of details he's mentioned here …

Give me a few examples of these “details” to which you’re referring.

… and should engage in the same sort of vulgar double-entendres.

Ditto.

Give me a few examples of “vulgar double-entendres” I have employed when discussing ”the exalted place of sexuality in the LDS culture and gospel.”

I keep hearing from people about these alleged “vulgarities,” but, try as I might, I’m unable to locate any when I search back through my posts. (Perhaps the “Search” feature is filtering out those horrid things I’ve written?)

On another note, I want to reiterate (as I indicated above) how much I sincerely appreciate Pig-in-a-Pokatator’s diligent effort in assembling the history of my poetic endeavors here in the GSTP™. Having all my poems in one place has greatly assisted me in being able to include them in my personal journal, and to share them with family and friends alike.