Page 30 of 37

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:33 am
by Molok
Simon Belmont wrote:

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/


Brent Metcalfe's LinkedIn Profile:

Technical Editor at Microsoft Game Studios

Simon Belmont Enterprises
(© 2010 Simon Belmont.)

Jesus Christ simon, do you have a crush on this guy? If not, why are you on his nuts so much?

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:37 am
by Kishkumen
Nomad wrote: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.


ROFLMAO!!! Are you Schryver's wife, his girlfriend? What?

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:39 am
by Themis
Simon Belmont wrote:
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.


I see you are still being a major hypocrite. Why would anyone want to waste their time with you when it became obvious how biased and uninformed you are about many church issues like the Book of Abraham, polygamy, etc. Don't forget now that Brent has not run away from Will, but Will is the one who will not debate the issue right now, but then that wouldn't fit with your biased view or your hypocritical behavior towards Brent.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:41 am
by Simon Belmont
Themis wrote: but Will is the one who will not debate the issue right now, but then that wouldn't fit with your biased view or your hypocritical behavior towards Brent.



Where did Will state this?

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:43 am
by Themis
Simon Belmont wrote:
Themis wrote: but Will is the one who will not debate the issue right now, but then that wouldn't fit with your biased view or your hypocritical behavior towards Brent.



Where did Will state this?


Try reading the thread for once. He has said he wont debate until he has published his theory. Have you really not read this or were you to busy attacking Brent?

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:45 am
by Kevin Graham
ROFLMAO!!! Are you Schryver's wife, his girlfriend? What?


I threw Nomad this bone just to see how she'd go fetch.

She didn't disappoint.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:53 am
by William Schryver
Kishkumen wrote:
Nomad wrote: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.


ROFLMAO!!! Are you Schryver's wife, his girlfriend? What?

He wouldn't do as a girlfriend, I'm afraid. Way too much body hair.

No, Nomad's just one of my dozen or so devoted fans, and I thank him sincerely for arranging for me to borrow that uber-excellent Larrivee guitar the last time we visited. I may just have to buy one for myself now. I really loved the feel and projection of that guitar! Problem is that now my Tacoma has finally "seasoned" to the point that it's all I really want to play these days; well, that and my Strat through my new Blues Deluxe reissue.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:58 am
by Kevin Graham
Simon and Will are too dumb to understand the difference between writing and editing. Brent's professional background obviously includes various IT related fields of expertise. And if anyone thinks getting a job at Microsoft (that pays roughly $100k/year for Technical Editing) is something that can be easily obtained "without an education," then he is a moron.

Will, don't quit your day job. If you ever get one.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:00 am
by Ray A
Nomad wrote: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.


Boy, if this isn't a give away I don't know what is. The insatiable ego is out of control. Either this is Schryver or one of his extraodrinarily obsequious curs.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:01 am
by Kevin Graham
He wouldn't do as a girlfriend, I'm afraid. Way too much body hair.


Talk about a Freudian slip...

Will obviously likes his men clean shaven.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:04 am
by Simon Belmont
Kevin Graham wrote:that pays roughly $100k/year for Technical Editing


Oh wow, Angry McAngerton. You just shot yourself in the foot.

It Brent is so wealthy, why can't he afford to fly to Utah?

LOL, idiot.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:18 am
by Kevin Graham
Who said he was wealthy? $100k/year does not a wealthy man make.

And who said he couldn't afford it?

I can afford to fly to China to argue with a moron, but I'm not going to.

In the immortal words of Heath Ledger: "If you're good at something, never do it for free."

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:27 am
by RockSlider
Nomad wrote:...
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 MormonDiscussions.com propaganda. An embarrassment to LDS apologetics. And embarrassment to the church. Vulgar and loathsome.
...


How could you have followed this board for several years and not have experienced William's vulgar and nasty nature first hand?

old examples:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9005&p=237231&hilit=William+Schryver+vulgar#p237231

For a more recent example, a month or two before his presentation he came here and cut loose on Liz, totally unprovoked and unwarranted.

I have no respect for William, and cannot image any Christian supporting his long history of nastiness on this board.


Who are you really?

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:28 am
by Kishkumen
William Schryver wrote:He wouldn't do as a girlfriend, I'm afraid. Way too much body hair.


Well, what he lacks in smoothness of skin he surely makes up in undying devotion. Maybe you ought to reconsider.

William Schryver wrote:No, Nomad's just one of my dozen or so devoted fans...


I don't know which is more amusing, the fact that you talk about your "fans," or the fact that you have roughly a dozen of them.

No matter. Best wishes to you, William. I look forward to reading your work. I find your online behavior repugnant, but I will not let it prejudice me against what you publish.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:48 pm
by William Schryver
RockSlider wrote:I have no respect for William, and cannot image any Christian supporting his long history of nastiness on this board.

Of course you don't!

I have yet to meet a single apostate, apostate-in-progress, or apostate sympathizer who has anything but the most profound antipathy towards me.

Funny, that, don't you think?

You might be interested in the fact that a couple people were once given the task of investigating the basis for the oft-repeated claim of my wanton vulgarity. What was the result of this rather exhaustive investigation? It was that, although a few minor blushes were induced (amidst the belly laughs), there was deemed to be virtually no substantive basis for the allegations; quotes were found to have been routinely taken out of context, thus entirely altering their true meaning, and a large proportion of the "vulgarities" attributed to me were entirely fabricated out of whole cloth (like, for example, the frequently repeated allegation that I called the golden-haired Kimberly Ann a "whore.")

(Kimberly does remain somewhat famous [among a small circle of otherwise respected academics] on account of my descriptions of her having once squeezed her then more voluptuous spirit tabernacle into a slinky black three-sizes-too-small dress at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City, which I attended. One wouldn't have believed it possible to carry melons in a pair of thimbles suspended from a thread, but miracles happen almost every day in this jaded world of cynical disbelievers.)

It was, I must confess, ascertained that I did, in fact, obliquely refer to beastlie and dissonance (once each, as I recall) with variants on the appellative "____." But it was concluded that my judgment was so near to the facts of the matter that I could not be convicted by a jury of my peers. LOL! Nevertheless, I have long since refrained from any similar rhetorical excesses, notwithstanding the severe violence thus inflicted against my natural tendencies.

So you see, my dear erstwhile brother, this gambit has long since lost its propaganda value among those who matter most--although I'm sure it will continue to constitute a staple of anti-Schryver rhetoric on this message board.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:55 pm
by Kishkumen
William Schryver wrote:I have yet to meet a single apostate, apostate-in-progress, or apostate sympathizer who has anything but the most profound antipathy towards me.

Funny, that, don't you think?


Was that before or after your meeting them? If you claim before, then you stand condemned of the narcissism you habitually indulge in. If you say after, it is certainly no credit to your behavior.

The truth of the matter, Will, is that while I doubt there are many of your co-religionists who venomously oppose you out in the open--after all, you do benefit from their Christianity at the very times when yours is threadbare in appearance--there are, nevertheless, good LDS people who do not condone your behavior online. So, sure you won't see them decrying your behavior in public, but that is hardly because they endorse all of your shenanigans.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:05 pm
by Simon Belmont
Kevin Graham wrote:Who said he was wealthy? $100k/year does not a wealthy man make.

And who said he couldn't afford it?

I can afford to fly to China to argue with a moron, but I'm not going to.

In the immortal words of Heath Ledger: "If you're good at something, never do it for free."


Angry McAngerton,

Do you know anything about Microsoft, other than when you turn on your computer it says Microsoft Windows 95?

If 100k is not "wealthy" then why did you feel the need to boast about Brent probably making at least that much? To show that he is, in more ways than one the object of your worship?

Image

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:07 pm
by Kishkumen
Simon Belmont wrote:If 100k is not "wealthy" then why did you feel the need to boast about Brent probably making at least that much?


So, you are in the computer industry, I am assuming, and you don't know how to parse that message?

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:23 pm
by William Schryver
Kissassman wrote:
William Schryver wrote:I have yet to meet a single apostate, apostate-in-progress, or apostate sympathizer who has anything but the most profound antipathy towards me.

Funny, that, don't you think?


Was that before or after your meeting them? If you claim before, then you stand condemned of the narcissism you habitually indulge in. If you say after, it is certainly no credit to your behavior.

The truth of the matter, Will, is that while I doubt there are many of your co-religionists who venomously oppose you out in the open--after all, you do benefit from their Christianity at the very times when yours is threadbare in appearance--there are, nevertheless, good LDS people who do not condone your behavior online. So, sure you won't see them decrying your behavior in public, but that is hardly because they endorse all of your shenanigans.

I like how you conveniently ignore the crux of the matter: a concerted search was made for substance to my alleged "shenanigans." And yet this search revealed nothing of substance! What it did reveal (as I predicted) was that there was obviously a concerted effort (on the part of apostates, apostates-in-progress, and apostate sympathizers) to manufacture and perpetuate a reputation for "vulgarity," but that the imputations were without foundation. The bottom line is that the esteem in which I am held increased rather than decreased as a result of an objective investigation of the charges against me.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:45 pm
by William Schryver
Kishkumen wrote:
Simon Belmont wrote:If 100k is not "wealthy" then why did you feel the need to boast about Brent probably making at least that much?


So, you are in the computer industry, I am assuming, and you don't know how to parse that message?

I have been in the "computer industry" for over 25 years (the majority of which time I have worked as a "lone-wolf" contractor). I know of no precedent in the software development world for a technical writer/editor drawing a salary in six figures. Programmers? Possibly. The good ones, that is. In fact, such a figure (and more) is commonplace among my peers in the field of contract programming, although it would be a very rare exception (if seen at all) among programmers working as an employee for a company--even (or especially) for Microsoft.

Now, if someone were in an upper-middle management position at a profitable company, 100K+ is no doubt a distinct possibility.

Not that I care a whit either way. I hope Metcalfe is healthy, wealthy, and wise--and remains so all the days of his life--even if I don't believe he is anywhere near the expert in text-criticism that he and his acolytes would like to believe he is.

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:14 pm
by sock puppet
Nomad wrote:Hauglid agrees with Schryver's thesis of the EAG dependency question.

Of course, Hauglid, does. If he didn't, his faith would be smashed against the rocks. Hauglid agrees with Will's thesis because Hauglid needs to believe it.