Creepy ...

?

How so?

There is apparently a dispute about Metcalfe's occupation.

There is apparently a dispute about how much he's tied down with children at home.

I just thought some simple clarification would be in order. No big deal. If the guy doesn't want to answer, I guess that's fine. He's the one who has let others portray him as something he's not. I just thought he'd like to take the chance to clear the air on these questions. Kevin Graham ways Metcalfe is a video game programmer. That sounds like an interesting profession. Others say he's just a tech writer. Still a noble profession, but different from a programmer. I thought Metcalfe was divorced (heard from mutual acquaintances). Didn't know he had parental custody. He's over 50 years old (by his own account) so I can't imagine his kids are too awful young. Can't see that that is a major concern. It hasn't been in the past when I've seen him at conferences. I didn't see him rushing into the men's room to change messy diapers. Didn't see any kids with him at all.

As far as I know, he has never claimed a profession. But he's never denied what others (like Graham) have claimed about him, either. I'm just curious what the turth is. If he doesn't want to reveal it, that's fine too.

Typical in what respect? This appears to be nothing more than a lazy put down. As in: "Gee, I would like to find something wrong with this statement, but all I can say is that, as usual, Kishkumen is being critical of something an apologist did. Typical."



Oh, I am confident there was more going on there than that, Nomad. Sure, it took a certain new level of overly enthusiastic Schryverian buffoonery to provoke Dr. Hauglid into correcting him, but, to those who have the foggiest clue how academic conversations go, it is easy to recognize that Dr. Hauglid's caution applies equally well to Schryver's general rhetoric regarding his work.

I also noted that, at the very same time, it was none other than Dr. Hauglid who, in the midst of Will and mak's foaming at the mouth about textual criticism being the trump card in any historical debate involving a text, used a signature that stressed the importance of applying other methods in addition to textual criticism. So, nice try, Nomad, but Dr. Hauglid, although clearly a committed Latter-day saint, is, unlike Will, a trained scholar with some understanding of academic discourse. As such, he would undoubtedly prefer that Will conduct his discussion as an academic, instead of a free-wheeling P.T. Barnum.

Most of all, Nomad, take note of this: I am not suggesting that Dr. Hauglid is on a different side of the Book of Abraham/KEP issue from Will. Both of them clearly hold the book to be sacred scripture. And what's more, I am perfectly fine with that. My interest in this matter has absolutely nothing to do with discrediting the Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

My concern is actually rather like the concern that the people associated with FAIR have about Rodney Meldrum's theory: what is the potential negative impact of a bad apologetic strategy? In Will's case, I am concerned when I see a fairly inconsequential historical hypothesis tarted up as a great defense of Mormonism, and then itself defended as though it were crucial to the faith. Oh, Will et al. pretend that they know that this is really neither here nor there when it comes to LDS faith, in the final analysis, but then they defend their position so strenuously, if vapidly, that one has a difficult time taking their protestations of proper perspective seriously.

Furthermore, the real problem is not so much that Will has this intriguing idea, it is that he compromises his credibility and calls it all into question every time he pens a new poison post in which, adding no substance to the debate, he nevertheless writes voluminously about his great triumphs and the ignorance and stupidity of everyone he defines as an enemy to his cause (which cause, I would say, is completely tangled up in his own ego).

At the very least this looks completely bizarre. He would do much better to follow his friends' advice to let his published work speak for him, instead of poisoning his own well to protect his ego in the short term.



Please provide some proof. Anything. You can continue to fabricate charges as stupid as the one I am responding to, but they won't stick. I wish Will all the best. At the same time, his work is, at best, a nifty bit of history. One ought not to pretend that this is hugely significant, as though manufacturing great victories were the most important thing. Far more important is how one behaves as a Christian.

Well, the "turth" is none of your business. And it has nothing to do with the "purpose and meaning" of the KEP.

Also note that Hauglid did not attend William's presentation. Of course even the likes of DCP vehemently defend this as being meaningless.
I have my doubts about this meaninglessness.

No, you lied on both instances and you want to fish for something that will give you some wiggle room, but the fact is Brent doesn't owe you any details about his life. You made claims about his life, claiming to have it on good authority, and he said they are false.

Now you have to explain why you felt the need to lie, which of course you won't. You don't get to become an inquisitor, expecting Brent to provide details of his life to some idiot who is scared to use her real name.

Oh, and saying the "meaning" of the KEP is that it is based on a preexisting text is nothing short of idiotic. You just take Will's idiotic theory and fill it in the blanks and hope it makes sense. But it doesn't. That doesn't tell us the meaning at all. This is like saying the meaning of the dictionary is that it was written by grammarians. WTF?

The whole ciphering bit is something I pray Will tries to push through and I hope he gets some LDS entity to publish it. It could be the most embarrassing piece published by the Church since McConkie's 1966 Mormon Doctrine, which it then had to pull from the shelves.

And the "turth" of Metcalfe's profession is found in numerous online articles:

1998
Brent Lee Metcalfe is a corporate information architect for Novell Inc. Among other things, he designed and engineered the Web-based documentation user interface for several Novell® products, including Novell BorderManager™, Z.E.N.works™, and forthcoming NetWare® 5.0. Brent has been published in c|net's builder.com, and he runs I'm@go w3 design in his spare time
http://www.developer.com/lang/other/art ... popups.htm

2003
Brent Lee Metcalfe is a Web architecture consultant.
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/51 ... 75991.html

2002-2010
Brent Lee Metcalfe has been a developer of 48 games for Microsoft
http://www.mobygames.com/developer/shee ... rId,73856/


Now show me evidence that William Schryver is anything but a crappy singer and even worse musician? http://www.purevolume.com/WillSchryver

[quote]Mr. Kishkumen:

Your spirited reply is fascinating on many levels, but unfortunately very uninformed. It seems as though you have come to believe that what is said here in Wonderland is indicative of what is believed on “the outside” in the real world.

I can empathize with you. Years ago, when I first started posting on these boards, I once was tricked into believing that people here are, generally speaking, sincere and genuine. As a result, I used to hold an opinion of William Schryver, based mostly on the things said here about him, that he was the terrible villain he has been portrayed in the MDB propaganda. An embarrassment to LDS apologetics. And embarrassment to the church. Vulgar and loathsome.

So I made some inquiries of some acquaintances at BYU that would have known a little about him. What I was told was to first of all not believe a single thing that people say at MDB. That they are notorious liars and that they misrepresent almost everything on a routine basis, especially when it comes to people like Daniel Peterson and William Schryver. I was also told that, although Schryver is a bit “rough around the edges” and more than willing than most to go mano a mano with the apostate slimeballs at MDB, one really needs to read what he writes instead of reading what others claim he has written. So I too that advice. And ever since then, my eyes have been opened to your crap.

Bottom line is that the only place Schryver has a poor reputation is among you people. Elsewhere, as far as I have been able to determine, he is held in the highest esteem, especially as a result of his KEP research, which is, from what I can tell, being almost universally regarded as a major apologetic coup. One of the most impressive bits of research and analysis to come along in a long, long time.

It has been mentioned on this board before that there is a suspicion that people from “the church” monitor anti-mormon websites. It’s true. I know it because I personally know someone involved in that business. They keep track of the venom that is spewed, on a daily basis, from places like this insane asylum. I don’t think they log everything, but I think they pay attention, and then they chronicle anything they think is noteworthy. Well, I learned from this acquaintance of mine that William Schryver is just a little famous among the anti-mormon website surfers in Salt Lake City. Far from being looked at as someone who is an embarrassment to the church, it is quite the opposite. It seems he has something approaching folk hero status among them.

So say what you want. Imply what you can. It’s all a fantasy. Made up by you people. Believed and maintained by you people. But it’s like objects on the Star Trek holodeck: throw them out into the real world and they cease to have any substance.

Metcalfe is not a software developer. I know that on good authority. If we wants to call himself something other than a tech writer, he's free to do so. But he's no software developer, and he has never claimed to be.

You're wrong. In fact, Hauglid was interviewed shortly after the presentation. I saw the video.

They knew "a little about him", yet they told you not to believe anything posted at MDB?

Just like Juliann "saw" the transcript.

As they say, "de gustibus non est disputandum."

I've had occasion to see Schryver perform on three separate occasions, in front of a crowd of several hundred people at an annual conference he and I attend (which is where we first met, as a matter of fact).

Not only is he, in my opinion, a very good singer, but also an excellent musician who plays multiple instruments quite well. He was very well received by those who were there when I saw him. He also "sat in" with some other performers and, without any prior rehearsing, played right along with them as thought he'd been playing with them for years, also doing great harmony vocals. I understand he's working on a new album of original songs, of which I've heard a couple samples. Even better stuff than his older efforts that are at the link you provided above.

But you are the consummate Schryver hater (envy driven, no doubt) so it doesn't surprise me to see you go off the way you have.

BTW, seeing your avatar has made me wonder: did you have your lips surgically removed? Is that a new kind of fashion statement or something?

"Liars and apostate slimeballs"?

Are you for real? Or just another Schryver sockpuppet?

Well, Metcalfe, you can certainly see where there is some confusion, since your LinkedIn profile states your current job title as: Technical Editor at Microsoft Game Studios. Now, you may deny this, and I suppose that only you know the details of your current employment, but you certainly cannot blame anyone for theorizing that you are, in fact, a Technical Editor at Microsoft Game Studios.



The point was that you travel to various symposia, anyway, so why would traveling to Utah be an issue?



There is nothing to watch. You haven't produced any material in years, let alone anything on the KEP -- so what makes you an expert?



I understand that, when faced with an opponent such as I, one might act out in this manner and run away, like one did when challenged to an in-person debate.



So, you'll be coming to Utah, then?

Simon Belmont Enterprises
(© 2010 Simon Belmont.)

They did. Now I know why. Next to nothing that is said here (except by the very small handful of faithful Saints who pop in from time to time) has any relationship to reality. Nothing. In fact, most of what is said is the opposite of reality. It's anti-truth. Very interesting in some ways. Very tragic in others.

What's your "good authority"? Reveal your source or be exposed as unreliable.

You're pissing in the wind, Nomad. Even if the Wench's members believe you, your credibility here is limited at best. We tend to at least try to live in the real world here, unlike those who reside with the Wench.



He doesn't have to justify himself to you or anyone else. And why would he? You might try sticking your nose into your own business and keeping it out of his.

Brent Metcalfe's LinkedIn Profile:

Technical Editor at Microsoft Game Studios

Simon Belmont Enterprises
(© 2010 Simon Belmont.)

Nomad, I appreciate your perspective, but most of what you have written is really beside the point. The fact that Will has "fans" means absolutely nothing. If anything, it speaks poorly of the people who approve of his obnoxious and offensive behavior. So, sure, if you want to try to pass this off as "a little rough around the edges," be my guest. At what point do those edges become "smooth"? I mean, the guy is in his 50s. Will he become polished by age 65? Is it more the case that you are so entertained by his apparently scrappy behavior when it comes to denigrating people you consider your enemies that you really don't care?

You also make the mistake of assuming that my information comes from a little bubble on MDB. Sorry, but that is blatantly false. The only thing that keeps me from sharing the hard proof that informs my position is my respect and affection for the various good people of substance whom I have interacted with who have spoken candidly about these subjects. Please, don't insult everyone's intelligence by misrepresenting me or my connections to the real world. If anything, you are proving to me that you are so far up Will's rear end that all you can see is the world as viewed through his own hype and the affection of his misguided fan base, of whom you are surely the club president.

I can't help but think he is every time I read his posts.

That's because here he is his own worst enemy, creating all of the antagonism against him. There are other apologists who come here who don't attract the same negative attention. A little more tact would serve him well. He obviously knows nothing of Ammon's approach to "liars and apostate slimeballs" and people he considers "beyond redemption". Not even God himself would make those sort of judgments.

So, in other words, you should apologize for using one online source to characterize the man's career very selectively. Pretty slimy of you, Simon.