Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_Buffalo]

Will's other benefactor:

[_Kevin Graham]

Stop being an idiot wade. I think we're all done trying to educate you on this subject. There is no hypocrisy here, as you do not understand the obvious differences.

Unlike Will, I never once presented myself as an expert on anything related to the subject. Just because I refuted a moron on numerous occasions doesn't mean I present myself as an expert, it only means I know more than the moron. That in and of itself isn't really saying much about my knowledge on the subject, but I tend to think I know more than most, and would fare very well in a debate with anyone on the matter. Even though I have been asked to speak or present on this subject on numerous occasions, I never have (I've even been asked to be interviewed by none other than Schryver!).

Contrast this to Schryver who has been involved in apologetic presentations and now publications. The fact is Schryver borrowed key points that were revealed to him from those he had been debating, and then turned around to do apologetic presentations giving the impression that he just came up with this stuff on his own. The whole lot of you are making a habit of doing this because for you, it is important to trick your readers into thinking you're uncovering cryptic truths on your own.

Recently I had to point out to you why Joseph Smith was the source for the "pure language" by providing a document you knew nothing about. Did I rely on Marquardt? No. All he did was publish the KEP documents. The document I referred to was available for download from an online LDS library.

Some of us just happen to know how to do proper research.

Contrast this to Will's previous abuse of the Haven account, as he cut and pasted entire block quotes from Gee's article. I responded by researching the document Will failed to provide, and I proved he misused the document and tried to deceive his readers into thinking there were numerous testimonies supporting a "long" scroll. Will's only response to my expose of his deception was complain that I must have had help from Metcalfe because I was able to, within fifteen minutes, get a copy of the document he never bothered to research, let alone read - he merely trusted Gee's take on it. And even though he thanks no less than six MAD apologists for helping him write up that silly short article, it was the apostate critic who decimated it with just a few clicks of the mouse.

When it all boils down to it, Will's greatest contributions are those he asserts. It is a smoke and mirror game for him. He typically makes grandiose claims about what he will prove, and then after asserting his conclusions, he leaves us in the dark concerning evidence and sound reasoning. That of course, is always to come last, at some future point in time, either in publication or presentation. We're supposed to just have faith in him.

So he does things backwards, unlike scholars. Why go through all the work of researching and providing an evidence-based argument first, when you can skip the intellectual labor and just jump to the astonishing conclusions and bask in the glory of victory. All those fawning supporters at MAD eat it up.

[_Kevin Graham]

In your haste to project, you have evidently confused anger with the pleasure of exposing flaming hypocrisy.

Perhaps, though, in your narrow and inverted world view there is no difference. Up is down, and down is up. LOL

Yeah, well, I hadn't noticed that Kevin was shy about crediting others for their ideas, as much as he has talked about Brent Metcalfe. But maybe your perceptions are accurate, in some dimension at least.

I've praised Metcalfe more times than I can count, but he and I discuss this matter very infrequently. I think we have a short email exchange once a year about something regarding the KEP, but on the whole, most of my arguments are based on my own observations. He is responsible for exposing me to the documents and providing a very general outline of the arguments from the critics. But most of the confirming details I have worked out on my own.

A review of the forum's history will show Metcalfe will occasionally come the forum to confirm my observations (such as the importance of placing the Egyptian characters before their corresponding translation). As far as I know, I was also the first to engage the dittograph topic. Metcalfe spoke very little on that subject, only to say that he generally agreed with my argument, but would publish his disagreements in an upcoming book.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yes---it really comes as no surprise that Will has essentially cribbed most of his theories from other apologists/scholars. I'll point out again that my basic inquiry seems more plangent than ever: Why is this "autodidact from Hickville [sic], UT" being allowed to conduct this sort of research?

[_wenglund]

Some of us just happen to know how to do proper research.

This made my day. Did you crib this quote from your mentors at the Flat Earth Society? Or, Dr. Scratch's infomants? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_sock puppet]

You admit giving him too much credit in the beginning and I think you're doing it again right now. Most of what Will relayed in his presentation was based on materials and information he borrowed from Chris Smith and Sam Brown. The observations you attribute to Will were already observed by true scholars. All Will did was take from it what he thought he could use to spin an apologetic, and hype it up via the Mormon tabloids.

A while back Andrew Cook showed that Will only came across the Phelps letter because he and Chris Smith were discussing it on the forum. Chris also brought it up in his paper, which Will admittedly read just prior to formulating his argument using that letter. But nowhere does he acknowledge their work, which clearly influenced Will's arguments. For this reason, it is easy to assume Will just had a stroke of genius and saw what no one else saw, particularly masonic cipher symbols, etc. The fact is, we already knew this stuff. But Will had to omit pertinent material they already discussed in order to sell his argument to his apologetic cronies. If he should be given credit for anything, it is his deceptive techniques, as usual.

That could be, Kevin. I was aware of the Phelps letter some time ago thanks to Chris too. I don't think you should worry too much about me thanking Will because I feel he has done something so earth-shattering. Rather, I believe that the very act of getting a conversation going can be a service. If he borrowed ideas from others, and has made no original contribution that will make a difference in the end, I still believe that he will have provoked many conversations that might not have taken place otherwise. Maybe he put things before an LDS audience that they might have been more resistant too if put in a different way or shared in a different context. I am in favor of more discussion.

So, in sum, Will's a provocateur. Not really surprising.

[_Kishkumen]

I'll point out again that my basic inquiry seems more plangent than ever: Why is this "autodidact from Hickville [sic], UT" being allowed to conduct this sort of research?

I guess if you guys are right, then he really hasn't done much of anything!

[_sock puppet]

I'll point out again that my basic inquiry seems more plangent than ever: Why is this "autodidact from Hickville [sic], UT" being allowed to conduct this sort of research?

I guess if you guys are right, then he really hasn't done much of anything!

I don't think he's done anything--yet--except (a) promote himself and (b) show how desparate Mormon leaders and apologists are for a rabbit to be pulled out of the hat and save the BoAbr and JSJr. His cockamaymie pronouncements that he's proven the BoAbr text preceded the KEP because they share a significant number of words falls flat, short of his publishing something that shows how that interdependence runs one direction rather than the other. That the Mormon leaders let Will examine the KEP and that the Mormon apologists had premature mental ejaculations (such as Greg Smith's) show just how desparate they all are for a BoAbr savior. Will touted himself as that, they bowed, and then he delivered what? Nothing so far.

[_Kishkumen]

This made my day. Did you crib this quote from your mentors at the Flat Earth Society? Or, Dr. Scratch's infomants? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What a patently ignorant and, yes, stupid comment.

[_Will Schryver]

... it really comes as no surprise that Will has essentially cribbed most of his theories from other apologists/scholars.

Explaining, of course, why my FAIR conference paper was regarded as so unexpectedly innovative by so many of the apologists/scholars whose theories/findings I shamelessly stole. The after-the-fact outrage from these people--on account of my having plagiarized their work--has been downright deafening.

I'll point out again that my basic inquiry seems more plangent than ever: Why is this "autodidact from Hickville [sic], UT" being allowed to conduct this sort of research?

Especially when he's merely engaged in "cribbing" findings from other apologists and scholars, right?

(LOL!)

By the way, I've yet to perceive a sense of plaintive lamentation ("plangent") in any of your inquiries. ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.")