Schryver Banned from MAD

[_Kevin Graham]

This notion that I have been disrespectful and loading my posts with personal insults is nothing short of a lie, but it is something people need to believe. I have saved all my original posts so I am waiting for "why me" or droopy to come out with some "examples" so I can prove they are lying.

The fact is I started that thread as a refutation of John Gee's 2010 FAIR presentation. It served that purpose well and I've been contacted by several people, LDS apologists included, thanking me for my devastating critique. Hell, even WIlliam Schryver admitted that Gee's argument held no water.

So after presenting my argument, the "special needs" apologist known as Wade Englund jumps into the discussion accusing me of misrepresenting Gee. He did thsi while admitting he had not seen the presentation nor had he read the transcript. He began with this insulting premise and then proceeded to search for evidence on any point, no matter how minor, that would support his predetermined conclusion.

So before I had even responded to the initial replies, Wade had begun the thread by derailing it, accusing me of misrepresenting Gee, claiming I was "self-deluded," that I was "incapable of rational input," and "all chances of having an intelligent discussion [with me] has evaporated", and that I was illustrating my "remarkable penchant for misrepresentation." Wade's entire attack was based in ignorance but he was trying to derail by asking others to address my so-called "error" in assuming Gee conflated two characters as one. I left the thread for a day or two and when I came back I found out that I had been thread-banned but then reinstated shortly after. After wade accused me of misrepresenting Gee and William, I responded: "[Wade] you still do not understand William's cipher theory."

So on the first page of the thread I had said nothing that could have possibly been interpreted as a "personal attack." The mods say the original "personal insults" are still up on the thread so I challenge anyone to show me these insults.

On page two Chris Smith jumped in and explained to wadw why his accusation against me is based in his own ignorance. Had wade bothered to watch the presentation, they he'd know that what I said is true. John Gee really did conflate the third character from the Book of Abraham manuscripts with the Louve character. He claimed they were synonymous. But Wade didn't understand this, and because he has learning disabilities he has issues with basic comprehension. So he tries to dissect two sentences from a transcript to show that my representation of Gee's argument is completely wrong.
I told wade to stop making a fool of himself and go watch the presentation. At that point Ares jumped in and told me not to get personal. So Ares, the Schryver-friendly moderator, had me banned but I was quickly reinstated by the other mods before I knew what had happened. Loran jumped in with the usual rhetoric but was instantly banned as usual, because even the LDS apologists know he never says anything of value.

But what Ares doesn't want to acknowledge is the fact that this had already been personal the second wade launched his tirade of personal attacks on the first page. Wade was permitted to make false accusations against me based in his own ignorance and the mods let him run loose with it because they thought the outcome would be favorable for the apologists. But once I provided screen shot images of the presentation, proving that it was Wade, not I, who had misunderstood and misrepresented Gee, suddenly wade decided to stop talking to me so he wouldn't have to answer for his embarrassing accusation.

On page two the following comments were described as "personal insults" but only a hypocritical apologist would see it this way:

============

"Gee simply doesn't know what he's talking about"

"In summary, both Gee and Schryver have presented baseless arguments that appear to have no justification aside from apologetic necessity. They present their theories with bombastic certitude, gloating that theirs is "reality" vs. the anti-Mormon "fantasy." But at the end of the day the exact opposite is shown to be true. "

There is nothing preventing you or Will from stepping up to the plate to make an argument wade. You removed yourself "out of the picture" because you obviously know by now that there is no possible way to defend Gee's thesis. It is why William abandoned it. And now you're not even interested in defending your baseless claim that I was "misunderstanding" what Gee argued. I highly recommend you download the video presentation in order to see how nonsensical and ironic your accusation really is. FAIR offers a streamed version for only $1.95.

At that point, I hope you come back to the thread and tell us if you still think I "misunderstood" what Gee was saying.
And there is a difference between "parties" here. I don't just tell people they misunderstand things, I demonstrate the fact. Case in point, Will's constant claim that I've misrepresented his thesis might have a chance of selling if he'd reconcile the evidence to the contrary; the numerous citations from his presentation that he absolutely refuses to address. You don't want to address them either. But you'll keep telling your audience that I'm not only misrepresenting, but that I'm doing so intentionally.

============

On page three I tried to get Wade to address the fact that he falsely accused me of misrepresenting Gee, and then Minos jumps in to say:

"Wade has been nothing but polite in his last posts so why are you are trying to start another fight? Move on"

Nothing but nice to me! He speaks to me in third person and accused me of misrepresentation while admitting it is just a hunch, and then when I prove he is wrong I am told to move on. Wade doesn't have to address his false accusation at all. This annoys me, especially when Wade is presenting himself as a credibly voice of reason who is really just interested in the truth. As if he were an agent of civil dialogue and here he is refusing to address the points that refute his nonsense. In reality, he is only interested in putting on a show for his imagined audience, always trying to show how the evil anti-Mormon is guilty of lying and deceiving.

On page four George Miller tried to talk some sense to Wade, but wade would have none of it. I also tried to get wade to address the fact that the evidence I presented proved he was wrong to accuse me of misrepresentation, but the mods deleted my posts. There were no "personal insults" involved and the mods never said there were. They deleted the posts because I was pressing wade to address the issue he started. He wanted a public court held discussing my credibility, but once the evidence took a drastic turn against his own credibility, suddenly the moderators wanted the entire thing dropped.

On page five I noted that Wade's response was obtuse, and the mods deleted it as a "gratuitous insult." A second remark was removed in ths same post. What was my remark? You're not going to believe this:

"So now that irrefutable evidence has been provided, showing that all along it was wade, not I, who was failing miserably at comprehension, his only response to the graphic images is dismissive"

The mods deleted the bolded portion claiming it was a "gratuitous insult." Then a third remark was removed. What did I say that was so horribly offensive? I said:

"Wade doesn't understand that he doesn't get to invent questions that suit his well-poisoning agenda. "

This was removed and I was accused of another "gratuitous insult" when all I did was state the facts. Wade has been trying to poison the well.

So Wade can accuse me of misrepresentation for the first three pages, but the second I tell him that the evidence proves he is the one misrepresenting Gee, suddenly it becomes a "gratuitous insult" and the mods change the rules.

[_Droopy]

This notion that I have been disrespectful and loading my posts with personal insults is...

A clear, unalloyed historical fact, as anyone who has followed your posting history since the Carboniferous Period knows perfectly well, and as my post above shows to still be your modus operandi.

nothing short of a lie, but it is something people need to believe.

Why would we "need" to believe anything like that when we have the direct facts of the matter right before our eyes, and a long, well attested history of it to boot?

I have saved all my original posts so I am waiting for "why me" or droopy to come out with some "examples" so I can prove they are lying.

Apparently you didn't read my post above. I'd be happy to go back into the archives here, or over at the MDD board and dredge up posts and threads at random from any of several years past and bring them here for observation. I know what I would find, and so do you. However, I have far better things to do, including on message boards.

The fact is I started that thread as a refutation of John Gee's 2010 FAIR presentation. It served that purpose well and I've been contacted by several people, LDS apologists included, thanking me for my devastating critique.

Did The Most Interesting Man in the World get a hold of you? He's got your ego, so you might find him welcome company.

So after presenting my argument, the "special needs" apologist known as Wade Englund jumps into the discussion accusing me of misrepresenting Gee.

Just continue slithering on your belly with this kind of thing, Kevin, until you fully lose the ability two walk upright like a man.

It may not be too far off, unless you stand back and take a serious look at yourself and where you're headed.

So before I had even responded to the initial replies, Wade had begun the thread by derailing it, accusing me of misrepresenting Gee, claiming I was "self-deluded," that I was "incapable of rational input," and "all chances of having an intelligent discussion [with me] has evaporated", and that I was illustrating my "remarkable penchant for misrepresentation."

This sounds remarkably - remarkably - like what I and a number of others have been saying about you for a long time. I wonder...

So on the first page of the thread I had said nothing that could have possibly been interpreted as a "personal attack." The mods say the original "personal insults" are still up on the thread so I challenge anyone to show me these insults.

You're right. There aren't any insults - on the first page. See my post above for all pages after the first.

But what Ares doesn't want to acknowledge is the fact that this had already been personal the second wade launched his tirade of personal attacks on the first page. Wade was permitted to make false accusations against me based in his own ignorance and the mods let him run loose with it because they thought the outcome would be favorable for the apologists.

Wade was allowed to state his opinion, an opinion that you misrepresented an LDS scholar, an opinion hardly unlike, and far less strongly worded, than exactly similar accusations you lob at apologists on a regular basis. You cry like a little girl when the principled accusation of misrepresentation comes back your way after you've spent years wailing that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, a fraud, stupid, uneducated, retarded, misogynistic, venal, psychologically unbalanced, and whatever else you can think of while the madness is upon you in these "debates."

But once I provided screen shot images of the presentation, proving that it was Wade, not I, who had misunderstood and misrepresented Gee, suddenly wade decided to stop talking to me so he wouldn't have to answer for his embarrassing accusation.

Actually, he realized, yet again, that you were purposefully pretending not to "get" the point he was trying to make and plowing through the criticism like a runaway concrete truck, and he gave up.

On page two the following comments were described as "personal insults" but only a hypocritical apologist would see it this way:

"Gee simply doesn't know what he's talking about"

This is the calling of a degreed scholar and Egyptologist ( M.A. in Near Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D. in Egyptology at Yale University) an ignorant dunce on a subject upon which he has spent considerable intellectual time and which has direct bearing on the Egyptological discipline, and all by a near continually raving apostate critic of the entire church (let alone the Book of Abraham) venting his personal neurosis in public and who has no credentials in any subject related to the Book of Abraham whatsoever.

In summary, both Gee and Schryver have presented baseless arguments that appear to have no justification aside from apologetic necessity. They present their theories with bombastic certitude...

This is where Graham's delusional and self justifying state of mind takes off and soars. As I've repeated said many times, it is precisely the critics who have carried haughty airs of certainty around for years while the apologetic community speaks of plausibility and tentative conclusions. A major difference between them is that the critics think they can prove the Book of Abraham a fraud through scholarly research. Apologists wouldn't dream of claiming that the Book of Abraham could be demonstrated to be what the Church claims it to be, or proven to be otherwise by those methods.

The difference in attitude is and has always been striking.

gloating that theirs is "reality" vs. the anti-Mormon "fantasy."

As I've pointed out before, if your world is not one of fantasy, but of reality, your attitude and approach to the principled disagreements of others would appear out of place, as much of is indicative of deep and pervasive insecurities in your own position - and the perceived high stakes of being shown to be in error.

There is nothing preventing you or Will from stepping up to the plate to make an argument...

I understand Will has this in the works. Perhaps Wade does to. Patience is a virtue...

I'll just snip this unbearable self justifying rubbish and point out, yet again, that Graham, as usual, peppered his intellectually based arguments with liberal doses of cut-downs, insinuations of low intelligence and rank ignorance of the issues in question, and baiting others to fire back and get banned.

The evidence speaks for itself.

[_Darth J]

This is the calling of a degreed scholar and Egyptologist ( M.A. in Near Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D. in Egyptology at Yale University) an ignorant dunce on a subject upon which he has spent considerable intellectual time and which has direct bearing on the Egyptological discipline, and all by a near continually raving apostate critic of the entire church (let alone the Book of Abraham) venting his personal neurosis in public and who has no credentials in any subject related to the Book of Abraham whatsoever.

And now, let's pause while Droopy tells us about how the American legal system works and how lawyers don't know anything about the Constitution.

We'll start with him telling us how message board posts look just like legal briefs and the Socratic method is employed in court.

[_Darth J]

This is where Graham's delusional and self justifying state of mind takes off and soars. As I've repeated said many times, it is precisely the critics who have carried haughty airs of certainty around for years while the apologetic community speaks of plausibility and tentative conclusions. A major difference between them is that the critics think they can prove the Book of Abraham a fraud through scholarly research. Apologists wouldn't dream of claiming that the Book of Abraham could be demonstrated to be what the Church claims it to be, or proven to be otherwise by those methods.

The difference in attitude is and has always been striking.

So you don't know the Church is true.

As I've pointed out before, if your world is not one of fantasy, but of reality, your attitude and approach to the principled disagreements of others would appear out of place, as much of is indicative of deep and pervasive insecurities in your own position - and the perceived high stakes of being shown to be in error.

So we're going to leave it at an open question whether the Church is true, instead of a foregone conclusion.

[_Drifting]

This notion that I have been disrespectful and loading my posts with personal insults is nothing short of a lie, but it is something people need to believe. I have saved all my original posts so I am waiting for "why me" or droopy to come out with some "examples" so I can prove they are lying.

I think this is a fair challenge.

Droopy and Why Me, put up or shut up.

[_Yoda]

This notion that I have been disrespectful and loading my posts with personal insults is nothing short of a lie, but it is something people need to believe. I have saved all my original posts so I am waiting for "why me" or droopy to come out with some "examples" so I can prove they are lying.

I think this is a fair challenge.

Droopy and Why Me, put up or shut up.

Agreed.

[_Analytics]

Does anyone have the feeling Will will be back? The motivation to keep Pahoran around, no matter what he may say, should also apply to Mr. Schryver. They both provide a raw type of apologetic service.

The difference between Pahoran and Schryver is that Pahoran is a team player while Schryver is not. Schryver gets really emotional and will make public attacks or insinuations about people on his team (e.g. his insinuations about why the MI chose not to publish his stuff, and his attack on Don Bradley in response to his Kinderhook research).

Pahoran is like the enforcer on a basketball team who the coach will put in to make an intentional foul. Pahoran willingly plays that role, and doesn't whine about it when they call the foul.

[_Yoda]

Does anyone have the feeling Will will be back? The motivation to keep Pahoran around, no matter what he may say, should also apply to Mr. Schryver. They both provide a raw type of apologetic service.

The difference between Pahoran and Schryver is that Pahoran is a team player while Schryver is not. Schryver gets really emotional and will make public attacks or insinuations about people on his team (e.g. his insinuations about why the MI chose not to publish his stuff, and his attack on Don Bradley in response to his Kinderhook research).

Pahoran is like the enforcer on a basketball team who the coach will put in to make an intentional foul. Pahoran willingly plays that role, and doesn't whine about it when they call the foul.

This is a great analogy. I am curious, though. What, exactly was Schryver's insinuatioins regarding MI choosing not to publish?

[_Buffalo]

He has contributed a great deal of substance here, though. Like......umm.......

Anyway, how are you today, Buffalo?

:D

[_Buffalo]

Well, you have a long history of quite cutting insults at MAD, combined with a history of not having ever contributed anything of substance. I think that's where they're giving Kevin slack - substance.

In the past he was probably as acerbic as you are, but that is no longer the case.

One flew over the cuckoo's nest.

But some flew into it, and have not been heard from since.

Until, that is, 2006.

Very, er, profound.