William Schryver - Modern Martyr

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:08 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

There's no herd mentality here - we all know that, don't we?

Trying to give stemelbow a run for his money?

:lol:

RayAgostini · **Joined:** Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:43 pm **Posts:** 1633

Kishkumen wrote:

Trying to give stemelbow a run for his money?

I know it's very convenient for you to label anyone who opposes you (and I most categorically do) as a troll, and is your escape hatch.

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:19 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

I know it's very convenient for you to label anyone who opposes you (and I most categorically do) as a troll, and is your escape hatch.

Well, since your contribution to the thread consisted of a bad stem impersonation, you really have no room to talk.

RayAgostini · **Joined:** Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:43 pm **Posts:** 1633

Kishkumen wrote:

Well, since your contribution to the thread consisted of a bad stem impersonation, you really have no room to talk.

Putting Bob's wider view in context was a "bad stem impersonation"?

I see.

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:26 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

Putting Bob's wider view in context was a "bad stem impersonation"?

I see.

Being a master of the bleeding obvious was, yes.

Doctor Scratch · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:28 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:

Well, since your contribution to the thread consisted of a bad stem impersonation, you really have no room to talk.

Putting Bob's wider view in context was a "bad stem impersonation"?

I see.

FWIW, Ray, I'd be interested in hearing the "wider context" surrounding your recent bearing of your testimony about the Book of Mormon. Some have suggested that some of the Mopologists have been at your ear. Is that true?

RayAgostini · **Joined:** Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:43 pm **Posts:** 1633

Doctor Scratch wrote:

FWIW, Ray, I'd be interested in hearing the "wider context" surrounding your recent bearing of your testimony about the Book of Mormon. Some have suggested that some of the Mopologists have been at your ear. Is that true?

Funny how Scratch always follows Kishkumen around. :lol:

Yes, they ordered me to bear my testimony of the Book of Mormon, or I might be receiving a visit from the Danites. I was left with no choice.

Doctor Scratch · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:44 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:

FWIW, Ray, I'd be interested in hearing the "wider context" surrounding your recent bearing of your testimony about the Book of Mormon. Some have suggested that some of the Mopologists have been at your ear. Is that true?

Funny how Scratch always follows Kishkumen around. :lol:

Yes, they ordered me to bear my testimony of the Book of Mormon, or I might be receiving a visit from the Danites. I was left with no choice.

You don't want to talk about it? It's this I'm referring to, in case a refresher would be helpful:

viewtopic.php?p=611156#p611156

Later in the thread, Kishkumen noted this:

The Reverend wrote:

I feel very badly about the whole Ray situation. That is all I will say other than this: I don't care to mock him, especially since I think something must be up.

I've been wondering what was "up," too, though if you don't want to say, that's fine.

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:44 pm

Doctor Scratch wrote:

FWIW, Ray, I'd be interested in hearing the "wider context" surrounding your recent bearing of your testimony about the Book of Mormon. Some have suggested that some of the Mopologists have been at your ear. Is that true?

I don't see how it is news that Ray Agostini has a testimony of the Book of Mormon. He has been open about that for a long time. Why would it require a fauxpologist at his ear to bring about such?

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:47 pm

Doctor Scratch wrote:

The Reverend wrote:

I feel very badly about the whole Ray situation. That is all I will say other than this: I don't care to mock him, especially since I think something must be up.

I've been wondering what was "up," too, though if you don't want to say, that's fine.

Well, the real thing that is up is not his testimony of the Book of Mormon, surely.

RayAgostini · **Joined:** Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:43 pm **Posts:** 1633

Kishkumen wrote:

I don't see how it is news that Ray Agostini has a testimony of the Book of Mormon. He has been open about that for a long time. Why would it require a fauxpologist at his ear to bring about such?

On that positive and truthful note, I must be about other more important things for now.

consiglieri · **Joined:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm **Posts:** 2980

Bob Loblaw wrote:

He has some nice photos on his blog.

Thereby qualifying him to critique photo essays . . . .

consiglieri · **Joined:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm **Posts:** 2980

Ludd wrote:

My only knowledge of Hauglid is from the video of his 2006 FAIR conference talk. I'm sure he's a real nice guy and all, but that was without a doubt the most BORING presentation ever! The guy has ZERO charisma and zero public speaking skills. It was painful to watch.

As Darrick Evenson now is, Will Schryver may become.

consiglieri · **Joined:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm **Posts:** 2980

MrStakhanovite wrote:

Quote:

Over the course of the next few years I identified several significant elements of text-critical evidence in the two manuscripts Hauglid provided me. I was also brought into contact with BYU Professor of Egyptology John Gee, who was working in concert with Hauglid in this study of the KEP. One thing led to another; my apparent knack for text-criticism was manifest; and as the number of important findings I made increased from month to month, Professors Hauglid and Gee ultimately invited me to prepare the manuscript of a book-length analysis of a portion of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers that was to have become a volume in the Studies in the Book of Abraham series, published by the Maxwell Institute.

W.T.F.

Exactly.

And William wept when he saw there were no more superlatives to apply to himself.

Or names to drop.

Or doubters to impugn.

Or people who give a flying crap.

consiglieri · **Joined:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm **Posts:** 2980

Bob Loblaw wrote:

It occurs to me that if Brian Hauglid got ideas from his research assistants it's customary for authors to mention the assistants in the acknowledgments, not the body of the book. Does anyone have Hauglid's book? If so it's an easy thing to check if Schryver is being honest here.

Assuming he's being honest about his "important findings" in the first instance, of course.

Yoda · **Posted:** Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:21 am

Awesome post, Bob Crockett! :smile:

You just gained my respect. I am sure that probably matters little to you based on our previous posting history, but there it is. Sending cyber hugs your way for speaking the truth no matter the consequences of the MAD board. You know you are always welcome to post here.

Fence Sitter wrote:

Another interesting tidbit from Bob Crockett.

Quote:

Time to stop, Will. You haven't defended yourself adequately here. If a member of my law firm posted in an email the stuff you've posted here from your exchanges with Kimberly, he or she would be disciplined. It doesn't matter that you try and make a joke out of it.

And to bring Paul Hoskisson's name into this mess is really poor form.

I call on your high-falutin' friends, your mega posters on this board, the Pahorans, the Seleks, the USUs, the Calmoriahs, the Petersons, the Hamblins, the Christiansens, the Gardners, to step forward and say here and now that they see no offense to or problems with any of your justifications in this thread. If at least half of that list do so, I'll shut up. Otherwise, I hope you don't mind if I have made up my mind here and now to say that I must disavow your voice amongst the voices of apologists.

I am betting he might get 2 of those to conditionally support Will's remarks.

consiglieri · **Joined:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm **Posts:** 2980

cwald wrote:

And now it is unlocked?

What the hell?

Schryver evidently spoke the word "friend" in elvish.

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:33 am

consiglieri wrote:

And William wept when he saw there were no more superlatives to apply to himself.

Or names to drop.

Or doubters to impugn.

Or people who give a flying crap.

OK. Big lulz on that post.

:lol:

consiglieri · **Joined:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm **Posts:** 2980

Madison54 wrote:

Is Schryver just not very bright? I cannot think of any other explanation. He cannot even come close to disguising himself when he comes on here pretending to be someone else.

Also, he cannot stop posting and re-posting and then posting again about his brilliant unpublished and rejected paper. How embarrassing for him.
Add to this how he continually draws attention to his blatant misogynistic behavior and writings (even posting links to it in his most recent writings).

Self-awareness is not Will's strong suit.

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:41 am

consiglieri wrote:

And William wept when he saw there were no more superlatives to apply to himself.

Or names to drop.

Or doubters to impugn.

Or people who give a flying crap.

Maybe he can start generating them like he does supportive sock puppets.

consiglieri · **Joined:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm **Posts:** 2980

Kishkumen wrote:

Maybe he can start generating them like he does supportive sock puppets.

I especially liked the way "Ludd" found Will's KEP presentation so intellectual that he had listened to it two times and still can't figure out what he is talking about.

That Will is one smart guy if Ludd can't understand him.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

William Schryver - Modern Martyr

Who is online