Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Chap]

If it were an attempt at verse, as you claim, there would be some meter to it.

Can you tell me what meter it is in?

You can't? Oh, that's because it wasn't mean to be verse, and doesn't resemble verse.

Thanks for playing.

I really don't know what to say to someone who writes like this without falling into Schmo-like epithets, and a long discussion of literary forms would take us even further off topic.

Hmm .. What Would Belmont Do?

Ye, I've got it ... tell him to Google 'Verse'!!!! That should reveal whether or not it is always the case that no non-metrical writing is given the designation 'verse' . Though how someone can have passed through the school system without knowing beats me.

Avoiding the use of the term 'verse' until Belmont has found out what it means, I'll still say that this stuff was a pretty poor attempt at poetry ... or is he going to tell me it is just ludicrously bad prose? As M. Jourdain was delighted to learn, it's one or the other ..

And here we see the ego of Chap, who has no doubt that he is perfect.

For when a typo is made, leaving out the word access, Chap, like the elephant, never forgets.

He uses this single typo as, what he views, a large stick with which to relentlessly beat the offender.

But his hate and anger will consume him, you see, as Chap ceases to be tender.

Like Atlas bearing the weight of the world, Chap bears the weight of his massive ego.

It will crush him.

[_Simon Belmont]

I really don't know what to say to someone who writes like this without falling into Schmo-like epithets, and a long discussion of literary forms would take us even further off topic.

Of course you don't. You're at a loss for words. Your ego is once again, as the old saying goes, writing checks you simply cannot cash. What literary genius you posses.

Ye, I've got it ... tell him to Google 'Verse'!!!!

I'm well aware of what verse is. For fun, here is the definition from Dictionary.com

–noun

• 1.
  (not in technical use) a stanza.
• 2.
  a succession of metrical feet written, printed, or orally composed as one line; one of the lines of a poem.
• 3.
  a particular type of metrical line: a hexameter verse.

So, I ask again, if what I wrote to you was meant to be verse what meter is it in?

The truth is, of course, it is nothing like verse and was not meant to be verse.

Avoiding the use of the term 'verse' until Belmont has found out what it means, I'll still say that this stuff was a pretty poor attempt at poetry ... or is he going to tell me it is just ludicrously bad prose? As M. Jourdain was delighted to learn, it's one or the other ..

It is neither. It is simply a paragraph, and a truthful one at that.

[_Kishkumen]

I guess Simon is not familiar with the concept of free verse.

[_Chap]

I really don't know what to say to someone who writes like this without falling into Schmo-like epithets, and a long discussion of literary forms would take us even further off topic.

Of course you don't. You're at a loss for words. Your ego is once again, as the old saying goes, writing checks you simply cannot cash. What literary genius you posses.

Ye, I've got it ... tell him to Google 'Verse'!!!!

I'm well aware of what verse is. For fun, here is the definition from Dictionary.com

–noun

• 1.
  (not in technical use) a stanza.
• 2.
  a succession of metrical feet written, printed, or orally composed as one line; one of the lines of a poem.
• 3.
  a particular type of metrical line: a hexameter verse.

So, I ask again, if what I wrote to you was meant to be verse what meter is it in?

The truth is, of course, it is nothing like verse and was not meant to be verse.

Avoiding the use of the term 'verse' until Belmont has found out what it means, I'll still say that this stuff was a pretty poor attempt at poetry ... or is he going to tell me it is just ludicrously bad prose? As M. Jourdain was delighted to learn, it's one or the other ..

It is neither. It is simply a paragraph, and a truthful one at that.

Look, I'll help this poor man: there is a thing called Free Verse. Belmont may not have met it, but that is the name of that particular literary form, it's classified as poetry even by literary critics who don't like it, and it doesn't have to have meter. Some very good poets have written free verse, and some very bad ones too.

Here is some of it by a very good poet:

PHILOMELA

by: Matthew Arnold (1822-1888)

HARK! ah, the Nightingale!
The tawny-throated!
Hark! from that moonlit cedar what a burst!
What triumph! hark--what pain!

O wanderer from a Grecian shore,
Still, after many years, in distant lands,
Still nourishing in thy bewilder'd brain
That wild, unquench'd, deep-sunken, old-world pain--
Say, will it never heal?
And can this fragrant lawn
With its cool trees, and night,
And the sweet, tranquil Thames,
And moonshine, and the dew,
To thy rack'd heart and brain
Afford no balm?

I suspect Belmont hasn't met M. Jourdain, and I am not about to try to explain.

[_Nomad]

MsJack:

Speak for yourself, Belinda Damon Hammer.

I see that you aren’t too particular about what lies you believe, as long as they further your agenda.

This was the entire post made under the handle WilliamSchryver on March 23, 2009:

Will has, on several occasions, denied having made this post and denied posting under the name “WilliamSchryver”. How and by whom it was made to appear (earlier in this thread) that he acknowledged making the post is a mystery that remains to be uncovered. But considering how the “c***” lie was built, I wouldn’t put anything past the moderators and members of this message board.

[_Runtu]

How and by whom it was made to appear (earlier in this thread) that he acknowledged making the post is a mystery that remains to be uncovered. But considering how the “c***” lie was built, I wouldn’t put anything past the moderators and members of this message board.

Oddly enough, I wouldn't put anything past you and Will, either. As far as I know, the mods here do not have a track record of messing with people's posts (unlike a certain other board). It shouldn't be all that hard to determine whether Will's acknowledgment was faked or not.

[_MsJack]

I see that you aren’t too particular about what lies you believe, as long as they further your agenda.

Thinking that a single person named William Schryver has been operating on this forum under the handles Nomad, Belinda Schryver, and Silver Hammer in addition to his Will Schryver and William Schryver handles isn't a lie. In the case of Silver Hammer it's a certainty, and in the case of the Nomad and Belinda Schryver handles, it's a theory. People aren't liars for believing in theories.

Will has, on several occasions, denied having made this post and denied posting under the name “WilliamSchryver”. How and by whom it was made to appear (earlier in this thread) that he acknowledged making the post is a mystery that remains to be uncovered. But considering how the “c***” lie was built, I wouldn’t put anything past the moderators and members of this message board.

How it was "made to appear"? I don't even know what you mean by that. As I have demonstrated to you four or five times now, it was William himself who claimed to have made the comment on Friday, May 6, 2011 at 9:16 am (CST). Buffalo responded to said comment and captured the text in which William owned up to making the WilliamSchryver comment 8 minutes later. William made other comments in the thread on that same day at 8:08 AM, 8:13 AM, 9:38 AM, 9:47 AM, 9:50 AM, 11:25 AM, 11:29 AM, 11:48 AM, 11:52 AM, 12:18 PM, 12:35 PM, 12:45 PM, 1:07 PM, 1:33 PM, 1:43 PM, 1:54 PM, 2:00 PM, 2:08 PM, 2:14 PM, 2:22 PM, 2:53 PM, 3:31 PM, and 11:55 PM. He posted in the thread no fewer then 24 times that day, and has never complained about his account being hacked, so I think we can rule out the possibility that someone else was posting as him.

The only way it could have been "made to appear" that William owned up to making the WilliamSchryver comment is if the people on this forum with administrator or moderator access later went into his 5/6/11 9:16 AM post and Buffalo's 5/6/11 9:24 AM post and changed what they said. As you said in your post:

I wouldn’t put anything past the moderators and members of this message board.

So if you're accusing the moderating team here of editing William's posts, I think you need to say it clearly, because that's a pretty serious accusation to make.

I would ask Buffalo to come and tell us whether or not it looks like his post (which quotes William's post) has been modified at all, but I'm sure you'll just call him a "suborned witness" if he doesn't remember it the way you want him to remember it.

By the way, I'm repeating the extent of the evidence that William made the post in question for anyone who is reading this now but hasn't kept up on this.

------------------------------

This was the entire post made under the handle WilliamSchryver on March 23, 2009:

Harmony is just bitter that the daily circle jerks in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park™ are the closest she has come to a bona fide sexual experience in over 40 years.

I simply cannot understand how her husband has resisted the urge to off himself for so long. Of all the men in human history who have felt compelled, no matter the cost, to “stick it out” with a bitch of a wife – Joseph Smith included – if anyone deserves the reward of 72 virgins in heaven, it’s that poor man.

As for the rest of you, and your compulsive obsession with your former faith and those who defend it against people like you, and in the way of expressing my sincere gratitude for your recognition of my meager efforts in the cause, I can only say: I couldn’t have done it without all you special folks here in the GSTP.

Despite our occasional spats over the years, I knew all along that you really do like me.

[Sniffles, wipes a tear, tosses the plastic trophy in the overflowing dumpster, and after exiting the trailer park once again, takes the earliest opportunity to thoroughly wash his hands and dust his feet …]

In my thread, on May 6 2011, jon asked William:

Will, yes or no - did you say this:

''Harmony is just bitter that the daily circle jerks in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park™ are the closest she has come to a bona fide sexual experience in over 40 years.

I simply cannot understand how her husband has resisted the urge to off himself for so long. Of all the men in human history who have felt compelled, no matter the cost, to “stick it out” with a bitch of a wife – Joseph Smith included – if anyone deserves the reward of 72 virgins in heaven, it’s that poor man.''

To which William replied on the same day:

LOL!

Yes. Yes, I did write that. Of course, it’s divorced from its context, like everything else has been. In its original context, it’s abundantly clear that it is a tongue-in-cheek (albeit sharply barbed) remark. But, no matter. It’s funny even on its own. A bit rough and cutting? Oh, yes. It was meant to be.

So, there you go. When confronted with the words themselves and not a question about the handle, William wholeheartedly owned it.

[_Dr. Shades]

I guess Simon is not familiar with the concept of free verse.

Free verse is a form of cheating.

[_Simon Belmont]

Look, I'll help this poor man: there is a thing called Free Verse.

Oh, pardon me, Chap. Where did you say "free verse" in this quote from you:

I thought this looked odd, until I realized that it was an attempt at verse.

I do not see the word "free," but I am certain you will be more than happy to point out where you stated it.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

*wow!* Working late tonight... tired... about to drool on my keyboard... but what the...

Surely “Nomad”—if that is her/his real name—is a twisted sock puppet intent on trashing every last inkling of Will Schryver’s credibility...

David Bokovoy and Brian Hauglid “traitors”?—Really?! “[T]raitors” of what?—Someone’s interminable hubris?!

“[T]raitors”?—The opining of a soul caught up in Twilight Zone paranoia.

Brian and David are capable thinkers who loyally grapple with their faith’s complexities. Dubbing them “traitors” is truly bizarre.

Kind regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown