Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_Doctor Scratch]

Didn't have to consult one in this case--although I will frankly acknowledge that the advent of good online dictionaries is one of the greatest things about the internet.

Anyway, I thought you were versed in Latin?

I've been brushing up on my Italian lately, since my wife and 18-year-old daughter and I will be traveling there for two weeks in June. In Italian, the verb "to weep" is "piangere," which derives directly from the old Latin word "plangere," which, if I recall correctly, means "to lament." Our English word "plaintive" also derives from the same root.

The general sense of the word is revealed in its online definitions as given by Merriam/Webster:

plangent

1: having a loud reverberating sound <a plangent roar>

2: having an expressive and especially plaintive quality <plangent lyrics>

Examples of PLANGENT:

<a plangent, haunting song about a long-ago love>

<plangent organ music filled the church>

I have never personally encountered the word used in the same sense the good Doctor Scratch seems to want to employ it. Nevertheless, I do not begrudge him his fondness for it. At least it's one he consistently spells correctly.

Hi there, Will. I wonder how many Prescriptivists it would take to come to a consensus that etymology is a reliable means of determining correct usage?

[_wenglund]

According to my COB garage informant (who I refer to as Deep Space 9), here is the latest from the Aluminati: plan's are in the works to have a private ceremony in a secret room somewhere in the Conference Center, where there will be turned over to bro. Schryver a lasered copy of the key to the First Presidency vault.

Of course, this plan is contingient upon approval from both the Packer and Oaks factions--though such may be a mere formality.

My informant surmized that the key to the vault is adorned with a fluer de lis and the initials "P.S.", though s/he thinks the "P" might actually be a "J". S/he couldn't be certain because his/her brief glimps at the stylized writing made it difficult to tell for sure.

I trust that this news will stur the interest of conspiracy theorists like Scratch and his ardent followers and supporters, like Kish.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

Good heavens, Wade---why is it that you've got such a persistent obsession with keys?

[_Will Schryver]

Did you steal the ideas from apologists?

No.

Or from critics?

No.

And CFR that the people from whom you stole the work "regarded [it] as...innovative."

As I have often maintained, the irony chip is the first thing that goes haywire when the newly minted apostate exits the chapel doors.

The after-the-fact outrage from these people--on account of my having plagiarized their work--has been downright deafening.

If you're needed to serve as a "fall guy," this kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

Seeing as how the alleged victims of this idea theft were Chris Smith and Sam Brown, your "fall guy" fantasy would not apply.

Let it be known, in any case, that the idea of the EA/GAEL as the modus operandi for the translation of the papyri into the Book of Abraham (which was the underlying premise of the Smith paper) dates back to at least 1970. The intense interest of W. W. Phelps (and, to a lesser degree, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery) in the concept of a "pure language" is something that has been known of and discussed since long before Sam Brown wrote about it more recently. That said, (and notwithstanding the fact that I vehemently disagree with many of Sam's conjecture-laden conclusions) I did profit greatly from reading both his Joseph in Egypt and The Translator and the Ghostwriter articles.

In my opinion, Smith's and Brown's articles are most valuable from the standpoint that they tend to be 180 degrees wrong on most questions, thus describing the correct conclusions by contrast.

Of course, that's what this place is like all the time.

[_Kishkumen]

In my opinion, Smith's and Brown's articles are most valuable from the standpoint that they tend to be 180 degrees wrong on most questions, thus describing the correct conclusions by contrast.

The correct position being that through revelation, Joseph Smith received the inspired translation of an authentic ancient text of the Book of Abraham, as penned by Abraham himself, pretty much word for word, in the immediate aftermath of Chandler's visit to the Mormons and the sale of the mummies to them.

[_Kishkumen]

According to my COB garage informant (who I refer to as Deep Space 9), here is the latest from the Aluminati: plan's are in the works to have a private ceremony in a secret room somewhere in the Conference Center, where there will be turned over to bro. Schryver a lasered copy of the key to the First Presidency vault.

Are you on drugs? Why did you choose the codename "Deep Space 9"? It is apropos of what exactly? Was it just your favorite Star Trek series?

And who are the "Aluminati"? Are these people members of a secret cabal of Mormon aluminum producers?

And, yes, just what is it with you and keys?

What a looney.

[_wenglund]

Are you on drugs? Why did you choose the codename "Deep Space 9"? It is apropos of what exactly? Was it just your favorite Star Trek series?

And who are the "Aluminati"? Are these people members of a secret cabal of Mormon aluminum producers?

And, yes, just what is it with you and keys?

What a looney.

For the ignorant and humor-impaired among us, let me explain: the name "Deep Space 9" is a play on the name "Deep Throat" of Watergate infamy. The name "Deep Throat" was taken from a porn movie at the time, and was a play on "deep background informant". Meetings with "Deep throat" took place in a parking garage.

The "Aluminati", is obviously a play on the word "illuminati" (a real and ficticious secret organization), and as explained on a previous page of this thread, "this new secret organization has dubbed themselves the 'Aluminati'--owing to the aluminum foil hats (in lieu of tin foil) they use to communicate with each other and to receive orders from the Powers-That-Be."

The "key" in my parody is obviously a play off a critical key in Brown's "Da Vinci Code."

I realize that my humor may be way too complex and esoteric for some simple minds, and thus thought to be "looney" or the products of drugs. And, I am okay with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kishkumen]

I realize that my humor may be way too complex and esoteric for some simple minds, and thus thought to be "looney" or the products of drugs. And, I am okay with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, it's not that we don't get it. It's that you're not very funny.

[_Will Schryver]

I realize that my humor may be way too complex and esoteric for some simple minds, and thus thought to be "looney" or the products of drugs. And, I am okay with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, it's not that we don't get it. It's that you're not very funny.

Nah, it ain't that, Wade. It's just that Kish is having a few problems at home, and it's hard to have a sense of humor with all that pent up tension inside.

[Guest]

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.

I have Graham and Buffalo (among others) on ignore, so I just noticed this post when I was browsing the thread without being logged in.

Anyway ...

Just when you start thinking Scratch is the single most delusional apostate evangelist on this message board, Cracker Graham shows up and reminds you why he is and always will be the champion.

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

I had to self-administer the heimlich on that one.

I wonder if our "proper" researcher can list the best three published articles (by critics) concerning the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers?

Oh, and if you run out of material for your forthcoming "Schryver Exposè," just talk with Scratch. He can fill in the gaps.