William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

[Guest]

I need to correct a very egregious typo in one of my posts above. I said:

neither I nor anyone else here stand a chance in a serious debate with him and that makes us feel very put out.

What I meant was "Neither you nor anyone else here stand a chance in a serious debate with him and that makes us feel very put out."

I have no idea how I would fare in a debate with him on the Book of Abraham. This is, of course, rather moot, as I have no intention of ever debating him on this subject. It is also true that I do not have the detailed knowledge of many of the textual and forensic issues over which Metcalf, Smith, Graham et al roast themselves to such juicy perfection, but this, again, is moot, given my testimony of that document.

I just wanted to make this clear so that no one here thinks that I consider myself to be in the same intellectual class as the denizens of the Traierpark, whether they be single wide, double wide, or triple wide denizens.

[_Droopy]

Translation: neither I nor anyone else here stand a chance in a serious debate with him and that makes us feel very put out.

Name a single debate Will has won.

Better yet, name a single debate Will has ever finished.

Or name a debate Will has ever impressed you.

And while you're at it, try naming a single debate Will has ever been willing to have over on this forum.

Will doesn't debate. Will can't debate. WIll obfuscates and tries to impress people with rhetoric. He usually does this over at his lecture chair at MADB.

Here is the part where Dafty doesn't answer the questions. Guaranteed.

Name a single instance in which you have ever engaged in a civil, respectful, intellectually substantive critical debate with anyone, on any subject.

Name one debate you have ever had here that is primarily intellectual and philosophical in nature, and not primarily polemical.

[_Droopy]

Unity, unless it is unity in righteousness in harmony with correct principles, is for lemmings.

Lemmings became notoriously famous because of unsubstantiated myths that they commit mass suicide when they migrate. The myth may exist in more variations. In most forms it does not appear to claim a conscious suicide but rather accidental mass death due to various factors. However in popular culture the alleged behavior is usually referred to as "mass suicide" and hence discussed here as "mass suicide myth".

Driven by strong biological urges, some species of lemmings may migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. Lemmings can and do swim and may choose to cross a body of water in search of a new habitat. This fact and the extremely strong unexplained fluctuations in the population of Norwegian lemmings may have contributed to the development of the myth.

The myth of lemming "mass suicide" is long-standing and has been popularized by a number of factors. In 1955, Disney Studio illustrator Carl Barks drew an Uncle Scrooge adventure comic with the title "The Lemming with the Locket". This comic, which was inspired by a 1954 American Mercury article, showed massive numbers of lemmings jumping over Norwegian cliffs. Even more influential was the 1958 Disney film White Wilderness, which won an Academy Award for Documentary Feature, in which staged footage was shown with lemmings jumping into sure death after faked scenes of mass migration. A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Cruel Camera, found that the lemmings used for White Wilderness were flown from Hudson Bay to Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where they did not jump off the cliff, but in fact were launched off the cliff using a turntable.

In more recent times, the myth is well-known as the basis for the failed Apple Computer 1985 Super Bowl commercial "Lemmings" and the popular 1991 video game Lemmings, in which the player must stop the lemmings from mindlessly marching over cliffs or into traps.

Because of their association with this odd behavior, lemming suicide is a frequently used metaphor in reference to people who go along unquestioningly with popular opinion, with potentially dangerous or fatal consequences. This metaphor is seen many times in popular culture, such as in the video game Lemmings, and in episodes of Red Dwarf and Adult Swim's show Robot Chicken. In Urban Terror, falling to one's death is called doing the lemming thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming#Mass-Suicide_Myth

EDIT: Those who have been studying militant cafeteria Mormonism may remember our previous discussion of using pop culture tropes under the pretense of literacy.

I'm sorry, I meant to say "Unity, unless it is unity in righteousness in harmony with correct principles, is for liberals.", not lemmings.

The problem is that the these are very closely related sub-species with very little differentiation in habits and instincts.

Whether more myth than reality or not, its the motif that counts here...at least for liberals.

[Guest]

Interlinear Insertion at Abr. 1:12

Based on your reply to Mortal Man over on MAD, I have to say that your argument regarding this insertion achieves new heights when it comes to throwing Joseph Smith under the bus. Your arguments sounds like it will proceed along these lines: Joseph Smith incorrectly assumed that the facsimile had something to do with the Book of Abraham and thus added the interlinear insertion to the Book of Abraham.

I love it! Not only are you tossing Joseph Smith's "mere opinion," you're tossing his cannonized opinion!

[_Kevin Graham]

Name a single instance in which you have ever engaged in a civil, respectful, intellectually substantive critical debate with anyone, on any subject.

Too many to count, but the one in celestial forum between Bokovoy and I should suffice in making the point. He left the debate saying I left him with plenty to think about. Anyway, I knew you wouldn't respond to the questions because the fact is you have no evidence of Will being a master debater. Every once in a blue moon he'll throw something out to keep us occupied, and he'll receive numerous refutations. But he never sticks around to defend his thesis until the end. He'll gladly leave in light of conflicting data that he doesn't know how to account for. This is how I generally run him off, and it works every time.

Here are just two examples:

Just two examples? They are the only examples, and these are discussions you began by launching into a lecture over at MADB pundits forum. In the first example you tried to debate Brent, but he was too busy debating the maatter with Hauglid in private emails and didn't give you the time of day. So Dan Vogel and Chris Smith made quick mincemeat of your baseless assertion and I provided a response over here, which of course you were careful to avoid. It is also worth noting that you began this thread shortly after the embarrassing FAIR presentation of 2006. This was just weeks after I was banned, and your knowledge level on the matter was pathetically low.

And while you started the "debate" in Sept 2006, your last post was at the end of September whereas Chris and Vogel continued to pummel you throughout Feb of 2007. You never responded to them after September, so that pretty much supports what I said. You don't stick around long once you are refuted. You don't have the intellectual stamina.

In your second example, you started a thread on both boards, which is a first I think(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3836&st=0&sk=t&sd=a). The funniest thing about it is while I was responding to it over here, you were picking things I had said and citing them over there as something "a critic" just said. And even though you participated in the refutation I provided here, you started dodging me halfway through the discussion and instead picked things you thought you could score points on over at MADB, and used them over there to do so. I presented a half dozen solid arguments for you to address and you never did. Like I said, you don't finish debates. The thread died at the end of November and picked up again in May 2008, which is when it got heated between us. Why? Because you ran back to MADB and lost the courage to come back and face your critics. I started the thread back up responding to things you were saying at MADB, and noted how you were citing me over there as "a critic."

You returned, jumped in and started responding to people like Shade, Trevor s and chap, but you didn't have the balls to address the points I made. Instead, you came here and said, "ignore Graham (who is painfully aware of how irrelevant he has become when it comes to Book of Abraham conversations" and then you posted a giant photo of rednecks in a trailer park. So irrelevant that you're still using things I say to shape your arguments at MADB? You're such an idiot because you cite me and then say I'm irrelevant in the next breath. You can't have it both ways, but my relevancy is not the issue. Just deal with the rebuttal and stop pretending to be a brave apologist.

[_Darth J]

I'm sorry, I meant to say "Unity, unless it is unity in righteousness in harmony with correct principles, is for liberals.", not lemmings.

The problem is that the these are very closely related sub-species with very little differentiation in habits and instincts.

Whether more myth than reality or not, its the motif that counts here...at least for liberals.

OCDroopy, in your vastly superior intellect and erudition that so greatly surpasses that of everyone else here, did you by chance ever stumble across anything that explained the difference between a motif and a metaphor?

[_Darth J]

I just wanted to make this clear so that no one here thinks that I consider myself to be in the same intellectual class as the denizens of the Traierpark, whether they be single wide, double wide, or triple wide denizens.

I just wanted to make this clear so that no one here thinks that I consider myself to be in the same intellectual class as the denizens of the Trailer Park,* whether they be single-wide, double-wide, or triple-wide denizens.


*Trailer park is an open compound word.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Droopy,

Oh my, I had to set my leather-bound copy of Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life down, and implore you to cease with your drunken shennanigans, Sir. I myself take up residence on occasion in a sort of "monastic" trailer situated in Paradise Cove of Malibu. I can certainly attest to the fact that although a trailer park it may be, by no means is it filled with the riffle of human slag you are so fond of denigrating.

Once again, I beg you good Sir to attend your Alcoholic Anonymous meetings again, repent to your god via your goodly Bishop, and post another public atonement on this board in order to repair the damage you have sown.

Good day to your, Sir.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_William Schryver]

Name a single instance in which you have ever engaged in a civil, respectful, intellectually substantive critical debate with anyone, on any subject.

Too many to count, but the one in celestial forum between Bokovoy and I should suffice in making the point. He left the debate saying I left him with plenty to think about. Anyway, I knew you wouldn't respond to the questions because the fact is you have no evidence of Will being a master debater. Every once in a blue moon he'll throw something out to keep us occupied, and he'll receive numerous refutations. But he never sticks around to defend his thesis until the end. He'll gladly leave in light of conflicting data that he doesn't know how to account for. This is how I generally run him off, and it works every time.

Here are just two examples:

Just two examples? They are the only examples, and these are discussions you began by launching into a lecture over at MADB pundits forum. In the first example you tried to debate Brent, but he was too busy debating the maatter with Hauglid in private emails and didn't give you the time of day. So Dan Vogel and Chris Smith made quick mincemeat of your baseless assertion and I provided a response over here, which of course you were careful to avoid. It is also worth noting that you began this thread shortly after the embarrassing FAIR presentation of 2006. This was just weeks after I was banned, and your knowledge level on the matter was pathetically low.

And while you started the "debate" in Sept 2006, your last post was at the end of September whereas Chris and Vogel continued to pummel you throughout Feb of 2007. You never responded to them after September, so that pretty much supports what I said. You don't stick around long once you are refuted. You don't have the intellectual stamina.

In your second example, you started a thread on both boards, which is a first I think(http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... &sk=t&sd=a). The funniest thing about it is while I was responding to it over here, you were picking things I had said and citing them over there as something "a critic" just said. And even though you participated in the refutation I provided here, you started dodging me halfway through the discussion and instead picked things you thought you could score points on over at MADB, and used them over there to do so. I presented a half dozen solid arguments for you to address and you never did. Like I said, you don't finish debates. The thread died at the end of November and picked up again in May 2008, which is when it got heated between us. Why? Because you ran back to MADB and lost the courage to come back and face your critics. I started the thread back up responding to things you were saying at MADB, and noted how you were citing me over there as "a critic."

You returned, jumped in and started responding to people like Shade, Trevor s and chap, but you didn't have the balls to address the points I made. Instead, you came here and said, "ignore Graham (who is painfully aware of how irrelevant he has become when it comes to Book of Abraham conversations" and then you posted a giant photo of rednecks in a trailer park. So irrelevant that you're still using things I say to shape your arguments at MADB? You're such an idiot because you cite me and then say I'm irrelevant in the next breath. You can't have it both ways, but my relevancy is not the issue. Just deal with the rebuttal and stop pretending to be a brave apologist.

Classic "Cracker" Graham. Lots of talk of "refutation," but absolutely nothing in the way of actual arguments. In fact, I've recently reviewed the discussions he and I had on these two particular issues. Graham NEVER produces a single counter-argument except to suggest that I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. Absolutely hilarious!

Well, Mr. Cracker, you can blather on all you want, but on these two particular points, the facts are clear, and I'm afraid they're not in your favor. Indeed, the reason I keep bringing up these two things is because there is no "debate" on them anymore--except perhaps in your twisted mind. Bottom line is that I was right about both things, and the arguments I have presented have gone un-rebutted--by anyone. There is most definitely a dittograph (a visual copying error). It is clearly indicated by the "Haran" homoioteleuton that facilitated the dittograph. I already posted, (almost four years ago!) Royal Skousen's affirmation of my analysis. Since then it has been confirmed by others with extensive training and experience in textual criticism. Not that it's even susceptible to much dispute! It's one of the more obvious findings in the entire KEP manuscript collection.

Also, the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12: simply put, my analysis of the locus is 100% correct, and it has been confirmed by several others with the appropriate unassailable credentials--in both textual criticism and forensic document analysis.

You're really up against it on these things. And the ironic part is that these two little issues are absolutely minor in comparison to the other findings I have made about which very few people know a single thing! Although the dittograph and the Abr. 1:12 insertion are nice little findings, they absolutely pale in significance to the things I will talk about on August 6th. I've been working all day long trying to finish up the last bit of work on what has now become my third major methodological approach/study of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. It is, I believe, the most significant and illustrative of the three analytical/logical angles I have taken to date. All told, these three major studies have produced over 300 pages of carefully formatted research findings that will form part of the extensive appendices of my book. In addition, I have, to date, completed four other "minor" studies that deal with important KEP questions, like (for example) who was the driving force and primary innovator behind the whole project.

Not that you will ever acknowledge any of this, of course. LOL! You'll keep droning on about how you've "mopped the floors" with me on this, that, and the other ... but it doesn't matter, since (and I'm sorry to have to break the news to you) at this point in time, no one really gives a rat's ass what you think about any of this stuff. When it comes to the issues concerning the relationship of the KEP to the Book of Abraham, you are not a player in the discussion. You haven't been for a long, long time. You had the opportunity, way back when, to make the right decisions that could have potentially positioned you to do what I am now doing. But your pride and faithlessness destroyed you, and now you (along with the poor, pitiful Paul Osborne) have spiraled down to the sorry state in which we find you.

It's sad, but true.

[_Kevin Graham]

Man you're a glutton for punishment, I tell ya.

You came here and said you never saw any responses. I showed them to you. I proved you lied, again. You participated in them but decided to respond to everyone and their dog, but not me. You even pretended recently, that you never knew about any such responses. But you were involved in these discussions! You attacked me instead of dealing with the criticisms, pointing out some perceived flaw in my psychology. Saying I'm all "upset" because I've realized how irrelevant I've become, bla bla bla. This isn't a response, this is projection. I calmly and crefully presented you with 7-8 solid arguments that conflict with your silly theory. In any other field of scholarship, evidence that undermines a thesis must be dealt with before a thesis is treated as a viable option. But you and Hauglid don't do that because you're not scholars, you're apologists.

You begin with the premise that the KEP has to be reduced in some way so Joseph Smith can't be held accountable. So you come up with alls orts of arguments designed to serve that purpose. But I presented numerous arguments that challenge those arguments and you never responded. By way of analogy, this is like a kid with a telescope trying to forward a theory that people live on the moon. He believes it because Brigham Young said so. Other scientists point to verifiable data that strongly undermines this thesis, such as the sun's radiation that whips the moon regularly, the lack of oxygen/water, weak gravity/atmosphere, no observable evidence of human colonization, etc. But none of this matters to the kid who has a testimony that Brigham Young was a true prophet. So he continues along the bunny trail, ignoring the world around him, along with the mountain of evidence leaning against him. This is essentially you.

You think you're more important than you are for apologetics, and this has always been so. You're not really good at much of anything except coming up with witty comments to divert. You come here to offer diversions, not responses to criticisms. This is what I was proving here. You don't debate. You can't debate. You're a small fry who hides under the wing of the MAD moderators. Every time you present yourself here, you get refuted with ease. If not by me, then by others. This isn't really something to brag about, for you or me.