Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_wenglund]

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

Admittedly, humor is in the eye of the beholder, and not everyone will think my material funny. And, that is okay.

Nevertheless, it was painfully obvious from your questions that you really didn't get it.

However, if it helps your self-esteeem to pretend that you did get it, then by all means have at it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kishkumen]

Nevertheless, it was painfully obvious from your questions that you really didn't get it.

If it makes you feel smart to think so, so be it. I really don't care. It is not like your allusions to Deep Throat or the Illuminati were obscure to the point that anyone would miss them. It is just that your riffs on these ideas, were, as I was trying to say, not very funny.

Hence my questions. But whatever. I agree with you that humor is in the eye or ear of the beholder. I await others chiming in to express their appreciation for your gut-busting hilarious humor. As it is, I think the tumbleweed is again an appropriate image.

[_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.

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.

As usual, you cannot respond to the fact that you have been shown to misrepresent documents. All you do in the face of embarrassing refutation, is call your opponent names. That's it. That's all you've ever been about, and that is why the only people who try to support you are those with learning disabilities (Wade) or your sock puppets (Nomad). You have no response to the fact that you accused me of relying on Metcalfe or Vogel in order to acquire the document? As if you were just astonished at the notion that someone would look it up on his own! LOL!

You have no response to the fact that you totally misrepresented it, claiming there were no less than four eye witness testimonies supporting the "long roll" proposition? The fact is you do not know how to properly research much of anything, and I have proved this with every refutation that you're too afraid to address. Your only response is a typical wise-ass quip like "cracker Graham is delusional." Just who the hell do you think you're impressing with these kinds of responses?

[_wenglund]

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.

I wonder if this has anything to do with Kish's and Scratch's shared fixation about my "key" analogy (a fixation they ironically project onto me), that I posted one night on a web page 12 years ago, and which they keep bringing up years after it was gone from the web--not that it matters to me?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

If it makes you feel smart to think so, so be it. I really don't care. It is not like your allusions to Deep Throat or the Illuminati were obscure to the point that anyone would miss them. It is just that your riffs on these ideas, were, as I was trying to say, not very funny.

Hence my questions. But whatever. I agree with you that humor is in the eye or ear of the beholder. I await others chiming in to express their appreciation for your gut-busting hilarious humor. As it is, I think the tumbleweed is again an appropriate image.

Keep telling yourself: "I am good enough, and smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Really! And what would those problems be, exactly? Feel free to PM me with all of the juicy details. Since we don't really know each other, I am sure they will be as revelatory as the various theories regarding your history with the KEP.

[_Kevin Graham]

If it makes you feel smart to think so, so be it. I really don't care. It is not like your allusions to Deep Throat or the Illuminati were obscure to the point that anyone would miss them. It is just that your riffs on these ideas, were, as I was trying to say, not very funny.

Hence my questions. But whatever. I agree with you that humor is in the eye or ear of the beholder. I await others chiming in to express their appreciation for your gut-busting hilarious humor. As it is, I think the tumbleweed is again an appropriate image.

Keep telling yourself: "I am good enough, and smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Another pathetic attempt to come across as funny, witty, or anything except the idiot you are.

[_Kishkumen]

I wonder if this has anything to do with Kish's and Scratch's shared fixation about my "key" analogy (a fixation they ironically project onto me), that I posted one night on a web page 12 years ago, and which they keep bringing up years after it was gone from the web--not that it matters to me?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think the fixation with your key analogy is about an attempt to find humor in something you have done, even if the humor was unintentional on your part. And believe me, almost everyone who encounters the story gets many, many laughs out of it.

[_Kishkumen]

Keep telling yourself: "I am good enough, and smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, Wade. If it works for you, I can see why you think it would work for everyone else too.

[Guest]

Another pathetic attempt to come across as funny, witty, or anything except the idiot you are.

Are you sure? I think Wade is trying to share some heartfelt advice from his personal experience. Personally, I am touched by his concern for others. It is exactly the kind of thing a person who doesn't love himself should do to get his mind off of his obsession with his own sense of inferiority. You go Wade! I believe in your ability to overcome your crippling self-hatred.

Maybe when you lick it, you can finally marry that poor girl you have had on the hook forever (I assume).