Will Schryver: Kneel before Zod

[_dartagnan]

I want readers on the board to consider what others have to say, and not just your version of what they have to say. You are a pretty big dog in this pack. It seems like a lot of them roll over and expose their bellies when you enter the room to let you know they will let you dominate them. I think the reason you keep snarling at me is because I don't.

This is baseless rhetoric without a shred of evidence, and it is an insult to them more than it is for me. You don’t find people here agreeing with me simply because I speak. You don’t find people here citing me as an authority. I'm not even sure how many do agree with me. They certainly aren't in the business of providing me with accolades simply for speaking; which was standard fare at FAIR/MAD. You just assume everyone does. And no, you do not want people to hear both sides. You want people to read FARMS because that is all you read.

You have put yourself forward as an expert on this subject. I suppose you do know quite a bit about it.

No I haven’t. I have read more than most members and far more than you’ll probably ever read, but that is because I am not a lazy reader and I don’t limit myself to the LDS apologetic version of things. I just posted a new topic discussing why Nibley and Gee should not be trusted.

But you aren't objective. You have a viewpoint as biased as any apologist you care to name.

This is flat out false. You can’t seem to accept the fact that quite recently I was an apologist. I wanted the apologetic side to be true more than anyone around me; so much so that I was the only one willing to tackle Metcalfe head-on. I quickly realized why nobody wanted to do it. It was an dead-end road for the believer who opens himself up to reason.

Now when I simply reiterate what I have learned, as a means to help people make informed decisions base don all the data (not just the data provided at FARMS), you and your ilk attack me for bias as if any bias I might have is anywhere near your own? What a joke. You need the Church to be true much more than I need it to be false. Sometimes I still hold out hope that one of you guys will come up with a miracle and turn everything that I have learned, completely around. But all you do is make an embarrassment of the apologetic field. You don’t promote education on the subject. You don’t want people to see both sides. You don’t encourage prospective converts to read anything critical about the matter, and the reason is expressed in Will’s own admission that nobody who knew the whole story could ever come to any conclusion other than Joseph Smith was a fraud.

By your own admission, it isn’t the apologetics that balances the question. Apologetics only serves to retain people who already believe. They do nothing to convince non-believers because non-believers would never believe this unless they were ignorant of all the facts. This is why FROB s so necessary for you guys. It is their way of saying, “Don’t read these books, let us review them for you… you’re too stupid to understand that they are full of lies.”

But in everything I have read from you on the subject, you have not ever said "In my opinnioin"

For the same reason I never say “In my opinion, I think God exists,” or “In my opinion my wife is not a man.”

"the way I interpret this" etc.

The reason is simple: because so much of the critical evidence is not based on “interpretation.” Most of the apologetic nonsense you guys are constantly pumping out is entirely based on conjecture and interpretation, but this isn’t so for the critics. Some of it is, but the huge blocks of evidence are pretty much indisputable. For you to keep pounding this irrelevant point that scholars never speak in absolute terms, only tells us how unfamiliar you are with scholars. Where do you guys get this nonsense? Scholarship is constantly speaking in absolute terms.

You make flat out statements that this is the way it is. And you expect all the little puppies to take your word for it.

No I don’t. I say it the way it is and expect people to prove me wrong if they have a problem with it. None of you have been successful at this because you’re counter-arguments are not geared to refute reason or common sense. They are only designed to give the believer an added incentive to keep holding out hope that the Church is still true.

Your behavior toward other scholars is not "scholarly."

If my arguments refute their nonsense, and that is good enough for me. That’s what really matters to people. They don’t care if truth is demonstrated by an amateur or a degreed expert. What they care about is that truth has been demonstrated. And your so-called “scholars” have acted no better than I have when it comes to dealing with the opposition. They speak just as dogmatically in their assertions as any critic. Take for example John Gee’s ridiculous assertion that the entire Book of Abraham was completed before the fall of 1835!! He provided not a single reference or reason to believe this and he circumvented a ton of evidence that says otherwise. But if the Book of Abraham was already completed before the KEP were written, then this means he doesn’t have to deal with any of the claims that the KEP were the original translation manuscripts. So he just makes stuff up out of thin air and declares it to be factual.

If someone disagrees with you they are stupid

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, it has everything to do with their stupid comments. People disagree with me all the time and you don’t see me calling them stupid. How many times have I called bcspace stupid? LifeonaPlate? Bokovoy? Stop trying to lump yourself into a category for which you don’t qualify. If you don’t like being called stupid, then stop making stupid comments and actually lift your pinky and make an effort to educate yourself on the issues.

This is not the enlightened scholar leading others to truth.

So? Who ever said I was? Don’t get me confused with the aspirations of some of your cohorts.

It is an ego in search of a reputation.

And what is your evidence for this? How do you justify this vicious attack on me? There is simply no way anyone can leave your little tribe and be anything other than an egomaniac or some other unflattering title.

I merely want the other readers here to look at the material themselves.

You want them to read refuted material fro FARMS, and I have no problem with that as long as they get the full picture. You don’t want that. I’ve read it all already and know that Gee and Nibley cannot be trusted with sources and I can and have proved it. All you have proved is that you know how to sit at your computer all day and click FARMS hyperlinks. That is the extent of your “independent research.”

Ps: You did it again charity. You successfully hijacked another thread and made it personal. Drawing attention to my character when this has nothing to do with me or YOU for that matter. You exhume ignorance and foster neurosis. Do us all a favor and piss off. You never add anything of substance to any thread you are in.

Don't run Will off like you run everyone else away.

[_charity]

But you aren't objective. You have a viewpoint as biased as any apologist you care to name.

This is flat out false. You can’t seem to accept the fact that quite recently I was an apologist. I wanted the apologetic side to be true more than anyone around me; so much so that I was the only one willing to tackle Metcalfe head-on. I quickly realized why nobody wanted to do it. It was an dead-end road for the believer who opens himself up to reason.

I know you considered yourself an apologist at one time. One of the requisites for an apologist is knowledge. I am sorry you let Metcalfe turn you. He hasn't made a dent in others, and not because they can't "reason," although you repeatedly say that.

But in everything I have read from you on the subject, you have not ever said "In my opinnioin"

For the same reason I never say “In my opinion, I think God exists,” or “In my opinion my wife is not a man.”

Most true scholars allow that they don't know everything. The only way you can continue to learn is to admit that there is something to learn. You seem to have closed your mind.

"the way I interpret this" etc.

The reason is simple: because so much of the critical evidence is not based on “interpretation.” Most of the apologetic nonsense you guys are constantly pumping out is entirely based on conjecture and interpretation, but this isn’t so for the critics. Some of it is, but the huge blocks of evidence are pretty much indisputable. For you to keep pounding this irrelevant point that scholars never speak in absolute terms, only tells us how unfamiliar you are with scholars. Where do you guys get this nonsense? Scholarship is constantly speaking in absolute terms.

Wow. Absolute knowledge. Pretty heady stuff. And not at all the scientist view of things. There is always more to learn. And sometimes that "more" sets what you think you know on its head.

I say it the way it is and expect people to prove me wrong if they have a problem with it. None of you have been successful at this because you’re counter-arguments are not geared to refute reason or common sense. They are only designed to give the believer an added incentive to keep holding out hope that the Church is still true.

The disdain with which you hold other people and their opnions is really sad.

Don't run Will off like you run everyone else away.

I expect Will can choose if he wants to engage your arguments or not, regardless of any interchange between us. Or are you trying to set me up as big baddie so you can play victim? Could it be that others have engaged your argument, found it lacking, refuted it, and not wanted to go over old ground? If you have something new to say, I expect you will find all kinds of people jumping in.

[_harmony]

I know you considered yourself an apologist at one time. One of the requisites for an apologist is knowledge. I am sorry you let Metcalfe turn you. He hasn't made a dent in others, and not because they can't "reason," although you repeatedly say that.

Brent makes a formidable argument which you have obviously not been privileged to witness, charity. No one who has witnessed the debates he participates in ever comes away with the idea that he doesn't know his material. I suspect the reason the "others" you refer to aren't dented is because they've never been brave enough to actually engage him. Kevin did, and the shellacking he took is the stuff of internet legends. It was a polite shellacking, but Kevin's (and the apologists who were feeding him information) argument just didn't stand up to Brent's. You might want to read it, if you can find it somewhere.

Most true scholars allow that they don't know everything. The only way you can continue to learn is to admit that there is something to learn. You seem to have closed your mind.

You realize what you just did, don't you, charity? You just slammed our own apologists, who approach everything from the worldview that the church is true. Their minds are closed to anything not supporting that worldview.

There is always more to learn. And sometimes that "more" sets what you think you know on its head.

Perhaps you should talk to our LDS apologists about this. Perhaps they will listen. Or perhaps not.

The disdain with which you hold other people and their opnions is really sad.

Charity, please. Clean up your own backyard before you start worrying about others. Our own apologists take disdain to an entirely new level. After you've challenged them on this, then come back and challenge Kevin.

Could it be that others have engaged your argument, found it lacking, refuted it, and not wanted to go over old ground? If you have something new to say, I expect you will find all kinds of people jumping

Well, of course people have challenged Kevin. There's no other reason for him to keep getting kicked off MAD, except that people keep disagreeing with him! That doesn't mean his argument isn't sound. It's too bad they keep challenging the messenger instead of the message.

[_guy sajer]

I know you considered yourself an apologist at one time. One of the requisites for an apologist is knowledge. I am sorry you let Metcalfe turn you. He hasn't made a dent in others, and not because they can't "reason," although you repeatedly say that.

Brent makes a formidable argument which you have obviously not been privileged to witness, charity. No one who has witnessed the debates he participates in ever comes away with the idea that he doesn't know his material. I suspect the reason the "others" you refer to aren't dented is because they've never been brave enough to actually engage him. Kevin did, and the shellacking he took is the stuff of internet legends. It was a polite shellacking, but Kevin's (and the apologists who were feeding him information) argument just didn't stand up to Brent's. You might want to read it, if you can find it somewhere.

Most true scholars allow that they don't know everything. The only way you can continue to learn is to admit that there is something to learn. You seem to have closed your mind.

You realize what you just did, don't you, charity? You just slammed our own apologists, who approach everything from the worldview that the church is true. Their minds are closed to anything not supporting that worldview.

There is always more to learn. And sometimes that "more" sets what you think you know on its head.

Perhaps you should talk to our LDS apologists about this. Perhaps they will listen. Or perhaps not.

The disdain with which you hold other people and their opnions is really sad.

Charity, please. Clean up your own backyard before you start worrying about others. Our own apologists take disdain to an entirely new level. After you've challenged them on this, then come back and challenge Kevin.

Could it be that others have engaged your argument, found it lacking, refuted it, and not wanted to go over old ground? If you have something new to say, I expect you will find all kinds of people jumping

Well, of course people have challenged Kevin. There's no other reason for him to keep getting kicked off MAD, except that people keep disagreeing with him! That doesn't mean his argument isn't sound. It's too bad they keep challenging the messenger instead of the message.

And all of us ex-Mo's rejected our heritage, put our family status in jeopardy, suffered emotionally, left lucrative & rewarding jobs, lost people who we thought were our friends, completely altered our world views, admitted that we had been wrong for decades, etc. because we are closed minded?

This act in itself is evidence that we are willing to consider alternative views, whereas in your case, Charity, I see absolutely NO evidence that you have ever actually considered the possibility that you are wrong. This is true also for many of your apologetic friends.

You offer us absolutely no compelling evidence to change our minds, and then you chastize us for not being more open-minded.

What a frigg'n hypocrite!

[Guest]

I know you considered yourself an apologist at one time.

So does everyone else.

One of the requisites for an apologist is knowledge.

Not really, most apologists over there are void of any significant knowledge. But what’s your point? Scott Gordon, President of FAIR informed me that I was one of the most knowledgeable of the apologists. I was fighting for the cause using the latest in the apologetic arsenal, and it didn’t even make a dent. You’re trying to make the problem me, when the fact is the problem is Book of Abraham apologetics. It is making the whole lot of your look completely stupid the more you keep feeding people Gee and Nibley.

I am sorry you let Metcalfe turn you.

He didn’t. Do you ever intend to speak on that which you know, or do you just like being eternally foolish?

The evidence turned me. Metcalfe was definitely instrumental in that, but it can hardly be said that he did it. He and I didn’t exchange any emails during my transition. All he did was present a case and I deduced the rest from that. I did what the rest of you refuse to do because apparently your need for the Church to be true outweighs any evidence that could possibly exist.

He hasn't made a dent in others

This isn’t true at all. There are several former apologists who have been seriously “dented” by the whole Book of Abraham controversy. The problem for you guys is that the more we discuss it, the more aware people become about it. Beforehand nobody knew jack squat because the Church doesn’t really discuss it that much.

not because they can't "reason," although you repeatedly say that.

Charity I don’t need to say anything because they have already made my case for me. David Bokovoy came here and declared to all struggling Mormons that if any evidence appears to contradict their already made up premise that the Church is true, then one must alter one’s paradigm so the evidence doesn’t really destroy your faith. This is bass ackwards, which is the antithesis of logical deduction and rationale thinking. It is an attempt to make confirmation bias sound like an appealing alternative without acknowledging how fallacious it is. Will Schryver admitted to me that if he did not already have a testimony, he could never believe the Book of Abraham was true. This is because these guys know just as well as I do that based on evidence and reason alone, the apologetic front hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell to win this debate.

So you guys already unwittingly admit that your talk about reason and logic are just terms you like to throw out there to make your position seem sound. But when it all boils down to it, and when the last apologetic theory has bitten the dust, you revert back to this desperate attempt to save all the struggling members by telling them what really matters is their testimony, not all of this business about reasoning. After all, Mormon thought teaches its members that reasoning is a weakness of man, and one should instead accept what the Church says without question. Even if the prophet came and asked me for my wife’s hand in marriage, according to Brigham Young I should say, “Sure, would you like some butter with that”?

Most true scholars allow that they don't know everything.

You’re derailing again. I never said I knew everything.

The only way you can continue to learn is to admit that there is something to learn.

That is the problem you guys have. You refuse to allow any “learning” to take place if that “learning” entails logical conclusions that the Church isn’t what it has always claimed to be. That simply doesn’t compute in your world of “I know the Church is true.” If you want to prove the Church’s position, then do it if you think you can. You know you’ll eventually tell me to “go pray about it” because that is all you have. So far all you have done is babble and attack me.

You seem to have closed your mind.

It was open enough to be corrected, and it was open enough to change, right? That is far more than you and your ilk at FAIR can say. You guys have your heads so far in the sand your butts could be used as speed bumps.

Wow. Absolute knowledge. Pretty heady stuff. And not at all the scientist view of things.

Yes they do. Your problem is that you cannot distinguish between what has been proved and what is still up in the air. What has been proved is always spoken in absolute terms. The apologists like yourself refuse to consider the possibility that any proof could really exist, so you’re always throwing it up in the air hoping it will land in a different way. You complicate the living hell out of a simple issue and then get your crew of apologists with degress to dissect it in ways that would make non-LDS scholars laugh their boots off. You don’t have any objective scholars on your side. All you have are LDS scholars who are apologists first and foremost.

There is always more to learn.

Not for your type there isn’t. The only thing you are interested in “learning” with regards to the Book of Abraham, is how the next FARMS review will show another anti-Mormon author being duplicitous.

The disdain with which you hold other people and their opnions is really sad.

This is another lie. I do not fault people for holding simple opinions contrary to my own. What pisses me off is when they fly off the handle and attack anyone who disagrees with them. Case in point, the thread at MAD where Will jumped all over BishopRic in the worst way imaginable, simply because he expressed his own opinion. People who express an opinion don’t bother me, but most of you cannot simply express an opinion without making some ignorant back-handed jab at those who disagree. Stop projecting.

I expect Will can choose if he wants to engage your arguments or not, regardless of any interchange between us. Or are you trying to set me up as big baddie so you can play victim?

I am a victim of your stupidity, but that is about it. You have not addressed anything pertinent to this thread; all you have done is derail. This what you do best. You’re an apologetic virus FAIR sends out to cause disruption in forums where real dialogue is actually possible.

Could it be that others have engaged your argument, found it lacking

Could be.

refuted it

Where? Show me. Just one.

and not wanted to go over old ground?

Hell anything is possible, but this silly “could be, would be, might be” nonsense means nothing unless you can provide an example.

If you have something new to say, I expect you will find all kinds of people jumping in.

And if you have nothing to say, we all expect you to be speaking anyway.

[_dartagnan]

Kevin did, and the shellacking he took is the stuff of internet legends. It was a polite shellacking

And this is another point. Charity implies that I wasn’t really an apologist because I didn’t have the required knowledge to debate Metcalfe. This assume that if some tru apologist wanted to mop the floors with Brent, then they very well could have.

Here is the problem with that thesis:

1) There were several notable apologists present during this event. Ben McGuire, D.Charles Pyle, Dan Peterson, Gtaggart, etc.. Yet, none of them took the challenge.
2) The “knowledge” I was using was coming straight from Gee’s emails, as he was walking me through the debate on the side. He clearly didn’t have the guts to take Brent on, so he used me as his patsy so that if his arguments proved to be embarrassing, then I would be the one left in the spotlight. So if charity thinks the knowledge I used was inadequate, then she is right. But that knowledge represented the best knowledge the apologetic front had to offer.

I felt like I was sitting at the dinner table while some strange food was passed our way, and everyone refused to take a bite until I tried it first. If I ended up dead, they knew the recipe was bad. One dead apologist was worth the risk of finding out if Gee’s crap apologetic was tenable.

[_charity]

Brent makes a formidable argument which you have obviously not been privileged to witness, charity. No one who has witnessed the debates he participates in ever comes away with the idea that he doesn't know his material.

I never said he wasn't. I have seen Metcalf on TV and read some of what he has written. I have heard LDS apologist speak in terms of respect with what Metcalfe knows. Of course, they don't agree with everything he says. But you read something into my post that wasn't there.

I suspect the reason the "others" you refer to aren't dented is because they've never been brave enough to actually engage him. Kevin did, and the shellacking he took is the stuff of internet legends. It was a polite shellacking, but Kevin's (and the apologists who were feeding him information) argument just didn't stand up to Brent's. You might want to read it, if you can find it somewhere.

I don't agree with your suspicions. The apologists who "aren't dented" have their own persuasive arguments. But this is one of those black white things. If you are playing with black checkers, white pieces, even kings, don't persuade you. And if Kevin took a shallacking, as you say, it could be he didn't have all the pieces on the board when he started to play

Most true scholars allow that they don't know everything. The only way you can continue to learn is to admit that there is something to learn. You seem to have closed your mind.

You realize what you just did, don't you, charity? You just slammed our own apologists, who approach everything from the worldview that the church is true. Their minds are closed to anything not supporting that worldview.

I don't think I did that. We aren't talking about the worldview. We are talking about facts, about new discoveries. For instance, everyone thought the door was shut on the papyri before those fragments were found. What about some obscure collection giving up the "missing" roll? Won't that change things a little? But it may not change anyone's worldview, even so.

There is always more to learn. And sometimes that "more" sets what you think you know on its head.

Perhaps you should talk to our LDS apologists about this. Perhaps they will listen. Or perhaps not.

I don't know that they need to be told that.

The disdain with which you hold other people and their opnions is really sad.

Charity, please. Clean up your own backyard before you start worrying about others. Our own apologists take disdain to an entirely new level. After you've challenged them on this, then come back and challenge Kevin.

It isn't a very good argument to say, "well, they do it, too." Does or does not Kevin treat people who disagree with him with disdain? Read his posts.

Could it be that others have engaged your argument, found it lacking, refuted it, and not wanted to go over old ground? If you have something new to say, I expect you will find all kinds of people jumping

Well, of course people have challenged Kevin. There's no other reason for him to keep getting kicked off MAD, except that people keep disagreeing with him! That doesn't mean his argument isn't sound. It's too bad they keep challenging the messenger instead of the message.

I have told you that when I first became acquainted with Kevin, on the old FAIR board, he was continually posting political material. And being warned. And being warned. And finally booted. It doesn't speak well for a person to persist in behavior which is not allowed. A civil person plays by the rules. I don't think Kevin ever got the boot for an argument against the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. But you see how he works over here. Calling people idiots. Telling them they are incomptenet and fakes. That kind of behavior is not allowed at MA&D. When he does that, he gets kicked off. Justifiably.

[_dartagnan]

The apologists who "aren't dented" have their own persuasive arguments.

Persuasive to whom? To them, that’s who. These arguments are silly and are driven by confirmation bias. These arguments do not persuade people who are not already LDS. This is what drives you guys nuts because the critical arguments persuade people on both sides of the fence. You might like to think I’m the only one but I am not. I’m just the only one who among the active apologists at FAIR. But that is really just a small group anyway.

And if Kevin took a shallacking, as you say, it could be he didn't have all the pieces on the board when he started to play

This is your wishful thinking. None of the apologists have ever stood up and beaten Brent Metcalfe in a debate. None. Period. Don’t you get it? He has been online for many years and these mysterious apologists you allude to, never show their faces. How convenient to keep claiming their superior argumentative knowledge when they don’t show up for the debate. You don’t have any apologetic arguments I haven’t already heard.

Having said that, that was the most pleasurable shellacking I ever took. Brent was a scholar and a gentleman through the entire thing. He kindly and cordially presented his case, and even when I made stupid arguments he didn’t rub it in. He simply left it to everyone to make up their own minds. That event was perhaps the biggest blow to Book of Abraham apologetics in a long while, which is why you who weren’t even there like to recreate it to suit your own agenda.

[quote[ It isn't a very good argument to say, "well, they do it, too."[/quote]

That isn’t her argument. It is just too ironic that someone like you could possibly wander off the reservation and criticize anyone else for bias, closed-mindedness and incivility. This is like a prostitute wandering from the whorehouse to tell the gals down at the Church dance that their skirts are too short.

Does or does not Kevin treat people who disagree with him with disdain? Read his posts.

Stop trying to drag everyone into your category. You have established yourself as an idiot and an embarrassment as an ambassador for FAIR. But if you stop making stupid comments and I’ll stop describing them as such.

when I first became acquainted with Kevin, on the old FAIR board, he was continually posting political material.

No I wasn’t. Talking about issues related in some way to Islam is not political.

And being warned. And being warned. And finally booted.

The mods have changed their reasons so many times for booting me they can’t even keep track of them.

It doesn't speak well for a person to persist in behavior which is not allowed. A civil person plays by the rules.

You’re so full of it charity. If you think you’re going to get anyone HERE to sympathize with your claim that those who are banned from Mad are those who are uncivil and refuse to play by the rules, then you’re dumber than I thought (well… not really)

I don't think Kevin ever got the boot for an argument against the authenticity of the Book of Abraham.

I never said I did. I got the boot for criticizing their prized scholars. They said I wasgiven more leniency than anyone in the history of the forum because the apologetic material I frequently posted was just too valuable a contribution. They could take the fact that I would occasionally knock heads with DCP over Islamic issues. But when Brian Hauglid hit the scene and he and I started discussing the issues, and when he decided to cowardly attack me in the pundits forum which had been shut off from everyone except he and Metcalfe, that is when I took the gloves off and criticized his crazy apologetic attempts. I said he was “fabricating” an excuse to back out of the debate because he was losing, and the mods immediately banned me. It had absolutely nothing to do with “political” thread. Al you have to do is go look up the last post I made in August of last year. No politics were being discussed anywhere near that discussion.

But you see how he works over here. Calling people idiots

Just you charity, because you earned it so well.

Telling them they are incomptenet and fakes

I have demonstrated incompetence in others (check out the new thread about Nibley and Gee) but I don’t recall telling anyone here that he or she is fake.

That kind of behavior is not allowed at MA&D. When he does that, he gets kicked off. Justifiably.

So you’re telling me I was now banned at MAD for behavior I have recently expressed HERE?

Anyone who reads my pre-exile posts at FAIR cannot reasonably call me uncivil. Heck, as I already proved over and over, the record shows notable posters over there protesting the mods for reprimanding me as much as they did. People like Gtaggart, TomNosser, and even Will Schryver.

You’ve been shooting in the dark so long here that now you’ve shot yourself in the eye.

[_charity]

I really cannot understand why I have gotten under your skin so badly. If I am a nothing, a gnat to be swatted, why do you spend so much time in instulting me? I have seen posters on FAIR and MA&D that I find silly and completey unpersuasive. I simply do not respond to their posts. I certainly don't waste my time in composing insults. Insuliting me, responding in length only makes people wonder what is going on with you.

So I can't figure you out. I would ignore you, but it is like watching a train wreck. You know you shouldn't, and it is going to be gruesome, but you just can't help but watch.

You could do yourself a favor and leave off the personal insutls. If you find one of my posts with an argument you want to refute, attack the argument, not me. Isn't that what all the anti-Mormons always complain about, that apologists attack the messenger and not the message?

[_William Schryver]

KG:

Will Schryver, kneel before Zod!

Me: Not tonight, you pitiful little crackpot. Never!