William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by _Some Schmo »

cksalmon wrote: Through no fault of your own, Relief Society, you've unfortunately encouraged William Schryver to renewed discussion of his favorite topic: William Schryver. This, his personal "bad penny" fetish, is well-known to interested readers.

My very unsolicited advice would be not to encourage his predilection to luxuriate in all things Schryver.

cks

Well, this is mostly correct, except that I would say Will doesn't really want to talk about himself (I imagine that would be pretty painful for him); he wants to talk about what he wants us (and himself) to believe about himself.

I'm not sure Will has been sincere about a single thing he's written about himself... well, ever. Not on this board, anyway.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_StructureCop
_Emeritus
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:05 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by _StructureCop »

This thread cracks me up.
The missing roll theory can go to hell. -- Paul Osborne

The evidence will never be compelling for either side of the argument in rational terms. -- John Clark
_William Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:58 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by _William Schryver »

moksha:
Page one was many posts ago, but what Pokatator quoted certainly seems provocative. So was it a form of cathartic release?

As you can see above, I have recently reviewed the Pig-in-a-Pokatator's initial post, and I extracted from it the five items I consider most representative of the "crimes" with which I am accused.

It has been said, quite repeatedly in fact, that I have spouted "vulgarities" and what not. Now you have come along and claim that what I have written is "provocative." In all of this, no one has ever actually pointed to something specific I have said/written and singled it out for condemnation.

I have asked, over and over and over again, for examples of my "excesses," but no one will accommodate me. I asked you also to specify what things you found "provocative" (I assume you have used that term in a somewhat pejorative fashion, but I'm not certain). But you have declined, just like everybody else, merely pointing to the first post and casually saying, in effect, "You know ... that stuff." Well, no, I don't know what you're talking about. If there is something I have written that you find particularly offensive in some fashion, please--let's talk about it. Either you can make me see where I have "gone over the line" or I can make you see where you have misinterpreted something. Or, perhaps, you will find that there really wasn't anything of substance to condemn in the first place.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
_William Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:58 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by _William Schryver »

Some Schmo wrote:
cksalmon wrote: Through no fault of your own, Relief Society, you've unfortunately encouraged William Schryver to renewed discussion of his favorite topic: William Schryver. This, his personal "bad penny" fetish, is well-known to interested readers.

My very unsolicited advice would be not to encourage his predilection to luxuriate in all things Schryver.

cks

Well, this is mostly correct, except that I would say Will doesn't really want to talk about himself (I imagine that would be pretty painful for him); he wants to talk about what he wants us (and himself) to believe about himself.

I'm not sure Will has been sincere about a single thing he's written about himself... well, ever. Not on this board, anyway.

Mmmmmmm ... how intriguing.

Just what do you imagine the truth to be?

Maybe I'm just a sockpuppet for Mr. Scratch, huh?
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by _Dan Vogel »

Ray A wrote:
William Schryver wrote:Hee, hee, hee. Yeah, except that the citation WAS in error, and Dan admitted it. But keep at your myth-building. Eventually, it might take.


I didn't see anywhere on the thread where Vogel admitted it was an error, but maybe I missed it.

Your concluding post (for which the mods re-opened the thread) ended with:

William Schryver wrote:This thread has obviously run its course. Neither side is persuaded – again. No surprise there. I will be checking on the status and actual location of Ms d 3408 fd 4 later this week and will report it in the KEP thread in the Pundits forum.


Did you check, and did Vogel later concede an error in Pundits?


Believing himself an expert in all things Abraham, Will began our discussion at FAIR by claiming he didn't know of such a document and therefore no such document existed. We were discussion a sheet of paper in Oliver Cowdery's hand containing characters from the Book of Mormon, which I incorrectly believed was among the KEP. My impression that it was with the KEP came from the fact that it was included on a microfilm of the KEP, which the Tanners and Mike Marquardt published in the 1970s. I admitted that I was wrong about the location, but Will never admitted he was wrong about denying the existence of the Cowdery document.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by _RockSlider »

Dan Vogel wrote:I admitted that I was wrong about the location, but Will never admitted he was wrong about denying the existence of the Cowdery document.


hehe ... well look whos lurking

yes, to someone with no vested interest one way or the other (I don't know either party or have any real interest in the topic at hand) this is where William got caught with his pants down. Someone noted that the thread was locked/unlocked for William to get in a last word ... now I have no idea if this is true, but it did strike me funny that he had the last posts.
_William Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:58 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by _William Schryver »

“Mr.” Vogel:
Believing himself an expert in all things Abraham …

Oh, yes. I’ve claimed that so often in the past, haven’t I?

Truth be told, I only currently claim to be an expert on a handful of items related to the KEP: the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12 and the “Haran” dittograph being among that handful. I hope you’ll read with interest my forthcoming offerings on those two topics.

by the way, nice to see you’re still around and apparently apprising yourself, quite regularly, of the goings on in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™. One might have thought you had completely freed yourself from the bad habit that following these threads represents, but I guess you’ve simply chosen to observe in silence—assuming you’re not using some clever sockpuppet, of course. :wink:

In any case, you write:
Will began our discussion at FAIR by claiming he didn't know of such a document and therefore no such document existed.

Not entirely accurate, as you well know. I began the conversation claiming I didn’t know of any such document in the location you specified.

I admitted that I was wrong about the location, but Will never admitted he was wrong about denying the existence of the Cowdery document.

Alas, it was your mistake on both counts. Not only did you specify an incorrect location for the document, but you incorrectly interpreted my coyness in the opening posts—I suspsect quite intentionally, as a matter of fact. Once your error was made certain, claiming I was ignorant about the document’s existence was the only “face-saving” measure available to you. And, surrounded by many of your closest friends and admirers, your ploy had all the appearance of being well-received at the time.

All the same, good to hear from you again. It has been a while, hasn’t it? I hope all your projects are going well.
.
.
.
Backslider:
hehe ... well look whos lurking

yes, to someone with no vested interest one way or the other (I don't know either party or have any real interest in the topic at hand) this is where William got caught with his pants down. Someone noted that the thread was locked/unlocked for William to get in a last word ... now I have no idea if this is true, but it did strick me funny that he had the last posts.

Hehe, indeed.

You know, backslider, you’re going to fit in rather nicely here. You have learned, almost by instinct it would seem, how to chime in with the casual “golf clap” of approval at all the appropriate times. That is a sign of an accomplished GSTP™ circle-jerker. So, congratulations on finding this new home. You seem quite comfortable with the surroundings. (In fact, you have settled in almost too comfortably already—as though you have a long familiarity with it.) Be that as it may, I trust that you will have a long and fruitful experience here in the Trailer Park, where birds of a feather … well, you know how it works, don’t you?
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

William Schryver wrote:Be that as it may, I trust that you will have a long and fruitful experience here in the Trailer Park, where birds of a feather … well, you know how it works, don’t you?


Sir,

Are you referencing the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board? Because it is clearly a "bird sanctuary" if I have ever seen one.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by _RockSlider »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:...


No Doc, I'm afraid he is talking about here. In registering at mad yesterday and reading their posting rules, I do not believe there is anything I've posted here that I could have posted there with out deletions or a flat out ban.

I have no problem being associated with a free flying flock who's thoughts/writings are not censored with tools ranging from guilt to force by threat of excommunication (see Pedersen letter notes).

In my limited study of Christ, it's my take he personally would be residing in GSTP and would express a bit of disdain against the High and mighty educated rabbi's living in the luxury neighborhoods.

It also seems my limited study of the Book of Mormon could summarize everything down to one sin which caused the downfall of an entire people/nation ... The sin of inequality (and hence pride).

Yes William, you are correct. I feel much more comfortable here, in the trailer park.
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by _Dan Vogel »

Believing himself an expert in all things Abraham …

Oh, yes. I’ve claimed that so often in the past, haven’t I?

Truth be told, I only currently claim to be an expert on a handful of items related to the KEP: the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12 and the “Haran” dittograph being among that handful. I hope you’ll read with interest my forthcoming offerings on those two topics.


Does the term tongue-in-cheek mean anything to you?

Not entirely accurate, as you well know. I began the conversation claiming I didn’t know of any such document in the location you specified.


Well, you said that but you initially also said in so many words that the document in question didn't exist. As the following quotes from the original thread show:

According to my research, there is no such document among the “Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers”. And therefore I am led to believe that this citation is completely inaccurate, and I am left to wonder what it portends about the reliability of the research in this so-called “definitive” biography of Joseph Smith. Certainly one bad reference does not a bad book make, but this is quite an extraordinary claim that Vogel has made, and one that does not seem to stand up under close scrutiny.


By the way, I have yet to see a correction/retraction from Mr. Vogel regarding the apparently inaccurate reference I cited. I'm actually a bit disappointed. I was hoping that there really is another source of Book of Mormon characters. That would be a significant historical discovery, indeed.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Post Reply