William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

[_William Schryver]

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.

Dan,

We've been over this ground so many times. I don't really think it worth our while to do so again.

I understand why you concluded what you did. I tried to explain previously that you were mistaken; that you mistook my coyness and desire to camouflage my intentions for bona fide ignorance about what is, as you know, quite a well-known document.

I will say this, once and for all: I now regret having ever started that thread. I was just trying to make a statement about the Nibley bashing that was so prevalent at that time. But that objective was never attained, and we ended up "niggling" over two inconsequential points for several supremely wasteful pages. So, there you have it, a formal apology from me for having made a big deal out of a very minor error in your book.

By the way, have you ever been known to frequent the Kroger's near the Holiday Inn Express, near the freeway exit off 270 in Gahanna? I was passing through that area a few months back, and I saw someone I thought for a moment was you, but have since concluded it was not.

[_Dan Vogel]

We've been over this ground so many times. I don't really think it worth our while to do so again.

I don't think so either. But I do it for the amusement of those reading along.

I understand why you concluded what you did. I tried to explain previously that you were mistaken; that you mistook my coyness and desire to camouflage my intentions for bona fide ignorance about what is, as you know, quite a well-known document.

Sorry, but I don't believe you. I prefer to believe you were telling the truth the first time. You have motive to prevaricate now, whereas the first time you didn't.

I will say this, once and for all: I now regret having ever started that thread. I was just trying to make a statement about the Nibley bashing that was so prevalent at that time. But that objective was never attained, and we ended up "niggling" over two inconsequential points for several supremely wasteful pages. So, there you have it, a formal apology from me for having made a big deal out of a very minor error in your book.

I can handle my mistakes being pointed out, but I find unfounded and reckless accusations of fabricating sources difficult to shrug off.

By the way, have you ever been known to frequent the Kroger's near the Holiday Inn Express, near the freeway exit off 270 in Gahanna? I was passing through that area a few months back, and I saw someone I thought for a moment was you, but have since concluded it was not.

No.

"Choose your enemies wisely, because they will define you."- Bono

I don't choose my enemies, they choose me. They need enemies to define themselves, I don't. Peace!

[_harmony]

Welcome, Dan. We are truly blessed, with your presence and Mr Bagley's also. I'm not sure what we did to deserve such celebrities among us, but it was probably our penchant of allowing William to hang himself regularly here. It's definitely worth the price of admission.

[_William Schryver]

Vogel:

I can handle my mistakes being pointed out ...

Yes, that was so apparent in the thread where I pointed one out.

I don't choose my enemies, they choose me. They need enemies to define themselves, I don't.

Spoken by one whose entire raison d'etre is to discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, and to erode the foundations of the church he founded.

Self-awareness is obviously not one of your strong suits.

[_William Schryver]

Welcome, Dan. We are truly blessed, with your presence and Mr Bagley's also. I'm not sure what we did to deserve such celebrities among us, but it was probably our penchant of allowing William to hang himself regularly here. It's definitely worth the price of admission.

Settle down, dissonance. You'll give yourself a stroke.

!

Who knew that sycophancy was capable of achieving orgasm?
.
.
.
======================>

[_moksha]

.

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.

Personally, I hate research that take more than 10 minutes of Googling. It is non-recreational. What we need is for Scratch to extend his powers beyond the scope of Dr. Peterson for this one. Perhaps he could make a compendium to help jog our memory.

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).

Let's just say that I think provocative in this case, means something you have written that draws strong responses. The terms vugar and scatological seem pejorative. I think of provocative as a more kinder and gentler description. Hope that makes sense. Have you ever noticed when any of those cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants, take offense when described in this manner? Not that you personally would ever say anything remotely similar to this provocative description.

[_harmony]

Welcome, Dan. We are truly blessed, with your presence and Mr Bagley's also. I'm not sure what we did to deserve such celebrities among us, but it was probably our penchant of allowing William to hang himself regularly here. It's definitely worth the price of admission.

Settle down, dissonance. You'll give yourself a stroke.

!

Who knew that sycophancy was capable of achieving orgasm?

Your jealousy is showing, William.

[_harmony]

Spoken by one whose entire raison d'etre is to discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, and to erode the foundations of the church he founded.

Self-awareness is obviously not one of your strong suits.

I suspect his reasons for existence include more than just that. Family... friends... spouse... lover... career... neighborhood... hobbies...

Just because they are unknown to you doesn't mean they don't exist (we've had this discussion before, William. Your egocentric worldview notwithstanding, you are not the center of everyone's universe, no matter what those who love you say.

[_William Schryver]

moksha:

Have you ever noticed when any of those cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants, take offense when described in this manner? Not that you personally would ever say anything remotely similar to this provocative description.

So, so true. I'm much more eloquent when describing the "cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants."

[_Paul Osborne]

Who knew that sycophancy was capable of achieving orgasm?

Oh William, you're such a bad boy. Clean up your mess.



Paul O