It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 5:20 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 771 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 37  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6173
Quote:
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.


Contrary to Will's ignorance, the average annual salary for a Microsoft employed Technical Editor is $101,710. That's average. And Brent is described as "Senior" Editor online.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Microso ... O10,26.htm

So now we know Will's "25 years experience" in the computer industry cannot count for much.

And Simon, I only pointed out that prestigious compaanies don't pay out that kind of money to "uneducated" folks, as you and your ilk love to describe Metcalfe. So you missed the point, and none of this has anything to do with pointing out wealth, only education.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:36 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
sock puppet wrote:
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.

How, pray tell, do you suppose his faith survived until I came along?

LOL!

It's things like this that should constitute sufficient warning to any Latter-day Saint to remain true to the faith, no matter the cost. Because if you don't, the odds are you'll end up as severely disabled, both in respect to logic and irony, as poor sock puppet demonstrates with this last post of his.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:41 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Kevin Graham wrote:
Quote:
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.


Contrary to Will's ignorance, the average annual salary for a Microsoft employed Technical Editor is $101,710. That's average. And Brent is described as "Senior" Editor online.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Microso ... O10,26.htm

Good for Brent! I guess we won't need to pool our funds to fly him out to the next Sunstone conference after all.

Quote:
So now we know Will's "25 years experience" in the computer industry cannot count for much.

Apparently it counts for considerably more (at least in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service) than a Microsoft "Senior Technical Editor". But I'm depending on my new accountant to find some remedies to that situation ...

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6173
Quote:
Hauglid agrees with Schryver's thesis of the EAG dependency question.


Well, that's always been the argument from apologists. All Will did was borrow ideas from people like Chris Smith and Sam Brown to produce a variant explanation as to why it was all dependent on a preexisting text. But does Hauglid agree with this, or Will's explanation for a cipher? I doubt it.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:44 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:40 am
Posts: 4792
OMG...

Who cares what Brent's job description is, how much money he makes, how many children he has, or what games he has worked on. I mean seriously...

What does any of it have to do with the Book of Abraham?

Come on y'all.

Anyone who has been around these parts (smile), for more than a year or two knows that Brent is as knowledgeable as anyone regarding the Book of Abraham issues. The best of the best apologists know this as does anyone who has even remotely kept up on the Book of Abraham issues.

Given Brent's expertise I think it was quite generous of him to agree to debate Will. Further, I think it is ridiculous to even suggest that Brent agree to all of Will's demands. It is like President Obama kindly agreeing to debate my neighbor who is the local tea party planner, then my neighbor demanding Obama go through a ton of hoops to do so.

Seriously, what craziness!

Just keeping it real... :-)

~td~

_________________
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:47 pm 
World's Top Zion Scientist
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 1:11 pm
Posts: 6974
Location: North Side of The Apocalrock
William Schryver wrote:

It's things like this that should constitute sufficient warning to any Latter-day Saint to remain true to the faith, no matter the cost. Because if you don't, the odds are you'll end up as severely disabled, both in respect to logic and irony, as poor sock puppet demonstrates with this last post of his.


Will,
I'll teach you how to play this song. Its a rouser of a tune. Kind of difficult. I do not have a recording of it. Perhaps it can be your theme song. You shouldn't write your own theme song ya know.

THEY WANT TO KNOW GOD
WORDS AND MUSIC BY JAMES Q. MUIR



THERE’S SOMETHING GOING ON
FOUR HORSEMEN APPROACH FROM
THE GATES OF DAWN

WITHOUT A WORD SPOKEN
WE’RE CERTAIN THEY HAVE
ONLY ONE DEMAND

THEY WANT TO KNOW GOD
THEY’VE TRAVELED SO VERY FAR
AND IF SO FAR IS NOT ENOUGH
THEY WILL FINISH WITH US AT DUSK

HOLD, HOLD ON
WE ONLY NEED, NEED ONE
HOLD, HOLD ON
WE ONLY NEED, NEED ONE

ABOUT THE ONE
I BELIEVE THERE CAN BE NO FOOLIN’
WE GOT TIME
WE COULD RUN ‘TILL THE SUN GOES DOWN

‘BOUT THE ONE
I BELIEVE THERE CAN BE NO FOOLIN’
WE GOT TIME
WE COULD RUN ‘TILL THE SUN GOES DOWN

GO ON OUT
ACROSS THE LAND
FIND THE ONE
AND BRING HIM IN (repeat 4Xs)

AH FORGET ABOUT
ALL WHO PRETEND
WE KNOW THEY KNOW NOTHING
AND SO OUR TIME IS DONE
IF WE FAIL TO FIND THE ONE
YEAH SO OUR TIME IS DONE
IF WE FAIL TO FIND THE ONE

SO GO ON OUT
AND BRING HIM IN
WE ALL KNOW WHO HAS BEEN
THE ONE WHO KNOWS GOD
HOW WE HATED HIM
BECAUSE HE KNOWS GOD

ALL HE SAID WAS YOUR TIME HAS COME
ALL HE SAID WAS YOUR TIME HAS COME

AND THE LORD HAS NOT BEEN PRAISED
FOR ALL OF THE WONDERS
HIS HANDS HAVE MADE

THIS IS A WORLD OF DOUBT
WITH NO CONSTITUTION
FOR FINDING OUT

SO THEY WANT TO KNOW GOD
THEY TRAVELED SO VERY FAR
AND IF SO FAR IS NOT ENOUGH
THEY WILL FINISH WITH US AT DUSK

HOLD, HOLD ON
WE ONLY NEED, NEED ONE
HOLD, HOLD ON
WE ONLY NEED, NEED ONE

O HEAVEN FORBID
O HEAVEN FORBID
O HEAVEN FORBID

_________________
The Millennial Day Special Events Center...Now showing: THE PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE exhibit of over 200 scriptural icons cut out of one mountain without hands.
51 East 400 South Bountiful, Utah 84010
http://apocalblog.blogspot.com/.

My YouTube videos:HERE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:52 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6173
Quote:
Apparently it counts for considerably more (at least in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service) than a Microsoft "Senior Technical Editor". But I'm depending on my new accountant to find some remedies to that situation ...


Every time you speak you prove your ignorance, and when that happens, you just can't help but throw in something else to brag about. All to divert from the fact that you never knew what the hell you were talking about to begin with. So now you say you make "considerably more" than 100k/year? Why am I not surprised? This was never a competition over salaries, but you just can't help but "one up" Brent on everything, even when we both know you're just making s*** up. I don't believe you work at all. Anyone in the "computer industry" worth his salt wouldn't be free of online credentials or a resume from which he boasts about his expertise to a bunch of worshipping morons.

Remember Will, you're still that idiot who tried tell the forum they could bypass suspension from discussion forums, simply by unplugging their routers for ten seconds. That was when your computer experience was well into its 22nd year! That you've been able to convince people you're a computer expert says more about your fans than anything else.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:07 pm 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 11970
Location: Anywhere but Nuanced Hill
Nomad wrote:
The meaning of the KEP is that they are dependent on a previously received Book of Abraham.


What evidence does Will produce for the direction of this dependency?

In his presentation, his significant/unique word study yielded that there are a significant number of pronouns (people, places and things) that are shared between the EA&G and the Book of Abraham. That argues strongly in favor of dependency between the two documents, but does not suggest the direction of the dependency. The debate since the Sensen papyri was gifted to the COJCOLDS and the KEP documents became public has not been whether there is a dependency or not, but the direction: (a) Book of Abraham dependent on a pre-existing EA&G, (b) EA&G dependent on a pre-existing Book of Abraham, or (c) bi-directional between them as the two documents were developed simultaneously.

Will also observed, without much detail, that the "story" of the text of the Book of Abraham is much more developed than it is in the EA&G. From this Will claims that the EA&G must be dependent on and derivative from a pre-existing Book of Abraham. The evidence however cuts against Will's observation/claim. The EA&G does not begin in the left hand column with the English pronouns, as it would if the EA&G would if it had been drawn from the English text of a pre-existing Book of Abraham. Rather, the EA&G begins with the characters in the left hand column. Then assigned to the right of some of those characters, in the next column to the right, are the phonetic sounds of such characters. In the far right column is where English text is assigned as definition to the character.

Just as each successive degree progressively expanded the English definitions for a character as compared to the prior degrees, so too did the finished Book of Abraham demonstrate another expansion as compared to those in the five degrees of the EA&G. That is, the fact that there's less 'story' in the EA&G than the Book of Abraham suggests that the EA&G came first, as work papers for Joseph Smith as he was working towards what eventually was produced as the Book of Abraham.

Will's cipher theory gives a motive why Smith and scribes might have undertaken to develop the EA&G after the Book of Abraham was already finished. His cipher theory is not evidence that the EA&G in fact was drawn from an already completed Book of Abraham.

Rather, the evidence points to either a bi-directional dependence of the EA&G and Book of Abraham on each other as they were simultaneously being created, or that the Book of Abraham was dependent on the previously drawn up EA&G.

_________________
The truth doesn't hurt unless it ought to. B C Forbes

words lose their original meaning in Mormonism when the evidence doesn't support the definition of the word. Craig Paxton

So as white lard is pumped into a Twinkie, God so fills your soul with joy? Gadianton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:40 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Kevin Graham wrote:
Quote:
Apparently it counts for considerably more (at least in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service) than a Microsoft "Senior Technical Editor". But I'm depending on my new accountant to find some remedies to that situation ...


Every time you speak you prove your ignorance, and when that happens, you just can't help but throw in something else to brag about. All to divert from the fact that you never knew what the hell you were talking about to begin with. So now you say you make "considerably more" than 100k/year? Why am I not surprised? This was never a competition over salaries, but you just can't help but "one up" Brent on everything, even when we both know you're just making s*** up. I don't believe you work at all. Anyone in the "computer industry" worth his salt wouldn't be free of online credentials or a resume from which he boasts about his expertise to a bunch of worshipping morons.

Remember Will, you're still that idiot who tried tell the forum they could bypass suspension from discussion forums, simply by unplugging their routers for ten seconds. That was when your computer experience was well into its 22nd year! That you've been able to convince people you're a computer expert says more about your fans than anything else.

<sigh>

The psychotic Cracker Graham calling me a liar ... yet again!

Whatever. I suppose I could post an image of a 1099, but what's the point, really?

Nope. You're absolutely correct Graham. I'm an unemployed bum who hasn't made $100K in ten years, let alone one. Now, if I could just get clients to stop sending those bogus 1099s to the IRS, I'd really be in business!

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 3787
William Schryver wrote:
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.


FWIW, It was your recent treatment of Liz that did me in. Your, how did you call it once, “artistic“ use of borderline vulgarity, as demonstrated here in regards to KA keeps the total lack of respect alive and well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
sock puppet wrote:
Nomad wrote:
The meaning of the KEP is that they are dependent on a previously received Book of Abraham.


What evidence does Will produce for the direction of this dependency?

In his presentation, his significant/unique word study yielded that there are a significant number of pronouns (people, places and things) that are shared between the EA&G and the Book of Abraham. That argues strongly in favor of dependency between the two documents, but does not suggest the direction of the dependency. The debate since the Sensen papyri was gifted to the COJCOLDS and the KEP documents became public has not been whether there is a dependency or not, but the direction: (a) Book of Abraham dependent on a pre-existing EA&G, (b) EA&G dependent on a pre-existing Book of Abraham, or (c) bi-directional between them as the two documents were developed simultaneously.

Will also observed, without much detail, that the "story" of the text of the Book of Abraham is much more developed than it is in the EA&G. From this Will claims that the EA&G must be dependent on and derivative from a pre-existing Book of Abraham. The evidence however cuts against Will's observation/claim. The EA&G does not begin in the left hand column with the English pronouns, as it would if the EA&G would if it had been drawn from the English text of a pre-existing Book of Abraham. Rather, the EA&G begins with the characters in the left hand column. Then assigned to the right of some of those characters, in the next column to the right, are the phonetic sounds of such characters. In the far right column is where English text is assigned as definition to the character.

Just as each successive degree progressively expanded the English definitions for a character as compared to the prior degrees, so too did the finished Book of Abraham demonstrate another expansion as compared to those in the five degrees of the EA&G. That is, the fact that there's less 'story' in the EA&G than the Book of Abraham suggests that the EA&G came first, as work papers for Joseph Smith as he was working towards what eventually was produced as the Book of Abraham.

Will's cipher theory gives a motive why Smith and scribes might have undertaken to develop the EA&G after the Book of Abraham was already finished. His cipher theory is not evidence that the EA&G in fact was drawn from an already completed Book of Abraham.

Rather, the evidence points to either a bi-directional dependence of the EA&G and Book of Abraham on each other as they were simultaneously being created, or that the Book of Abraham was dependent on the previously drawn up EA&G.

I welcome you to author a formal rebuttal of my findings.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
RockSlider wrote:
William Schryver wrote:
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.


FWIW, It was your recent treatment of Liz that did me in. Your, how did you call it once, “artistic“ use of borderline vulgarity, as demonstrated here in regards to KA keeps the total lack of respect alive and well.

My "recent treatment of Liz"? I have no idea what you're talking about, to tell you the truth. In fact, I don't even think I've seen Liz post in months. Is she still around?

I've never said anything to anyone on this message board about which I am ashamed or that wasn't fully deserved by the recipient thereof.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:02 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 3787
William Schryver wrote:
My "recent treatment of Liz"? I have no idea what you're talking about, to tell you the truth. In fact, I don't even think I've seen Liz post in months. Is she still around?

About a month before your presentation, and of course you don't, tempted to look it up, but would be of no use.
Quote:
I've never said anything to anyone on this message board about which I am ashamed or that wasn't fully deserved by the recipient thereof.

and again, of course you have not


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
RockSlider wrote:
William Schryver wrote:
My "recent treatment of Liz"? I have no idea what you're talking about, to tell you the truth. In fact, I don't even think I've seen Liz post in months. Is she still around?

About a month before your presentation, and of course you don't, tempted to look it up, but would be of no use.
Quote:
I've never said anything to anyone on this message board about which I am ashamed or that wasn't fully deserved by the recipient thereof.

and again, of course you have not

Serve it up, Mr. Bold Talker! If it's shame-worthy, I'll be more than willing to issue the requisite apology.

You see, this is what the "investigators" I talked about discovered to be the modus operandi here: one long litany of allegations, but not a single bit of actual, bona fide evidence that I have ever done anything to justify the reputation attributed to me by the congenital liars that predominant here.

If I am the picture of despicable vulgarity and crudeness that you suggest I am, then it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it by linking to posts I have made where this dark side of my character is manifest for all to see. And please don't bother linking to posts of other people claiming I said this, that, or the other. I've seen before how that clever little game works. Link to my own posts, so that we can see everything in its context and judge my nefarious deeds on their merits.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:30 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13418
Nomad wrote:
The meaning of the KEP is that they are dependent on a previously received Book of Abraham.


That doesn't constitute a "meaning". LOL. That's just a chronology.

Quote:
Their purpose appears to be an exercise or an experiment in producing some kind of cipher conforming to something they (Smith, Phelps, Cowdery, etc.) believed to be like the "pure language" of the ancients.

There, that wasn't that hard.


I'll quote Will, responding to Wade who seemed to have a similar misconception:

Quote:
Now, I firmly believe the evidence is compelling that the effective function of these documents is as some kind of enciphering tool. That said, it was ill-conceived and incoherently executed. In other words, it was not a “functioning cipher” by any means. It merely manifests the effective functions of a cipher, albeit one that was abandoned almost as soon as it was begun. Thus it is incomplete and essentially useless.

Most importantly, the “cipher key thesis” is a secondary finding. It most certainly needs further investigation, and there are many people already looking into that angle of my presentation. I look forward to future elaboration/expansion of the thesis on the part of others.

The primary finding concerns the manifest dependency of the Alphabet & Grammar materials on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

One could completely throw out the cipher thesis, and the dependency thesis would still stand. They are not interdependent whatsoever. And, the important fact to remember is that it is the dependency thesis that effectively renders moot all of the critical arguments from the past forty years concerning “translation manuscripts” and the notion that the Alphabet & Grammar were used as a tool to decipher, or “translate” the Egyptian papyri.

It is the text-critical evidence for dependency that is overwhelming within the Alphabet & Grammar documents.

Those whose exposure to this controversy has been minimal are enchanted by the cipher key thesis. That’s fine with me, and I suppose it’s understandable.

But those who are most knowledgeable about the Book of Abraham/Kirtland Egyptian Papers controversy of the past forty years understand perfectly that it is the question of dependency that represents the finding of paramount importance.

This is what the scholars are most focused on at this point in time. And, to date, among those who understand the precepts of textual criticism, there is no one that has examined the evidence who is not convinced that the Alphabet & Grammar is manifestly dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

Bear in mind that, in order to disprove the old critical theories about the KEP, all I need to do is demonstrate that Abr. 1:1 - 2:6 precedes the A&G! Since the so-called “translation manuscripts” go no further than Abr. 2:6, and because Warren Parrish didn’t start writing for Joseph Smith until mid-November 1835, then the “translation manuscript” theory cannot be true if the Alphabet & Grammar is dependent on a pre-existing text of that portion of the Book of Abraham—since we know that the bulk of the A&G was completed before the Parrish document (Ab3 [BA1b]) could have been written.

It matters not one whit if the cipher thesis is correct and stands the test of time. The only thing that matters is whether or not the question of dependency can be established. I am convinced that it has been and will continue to be demonstrated, using nothing but standard text-critical methodologies. Already people like Dan McClellan are applying such methodologies. I look forward to McClellan’s findings as they come forth. I am confident he will confirm everything I have argued to date concerning this issue of dependency.

In the meantime feel free to smack the straw man of whether or not the A&G and Counting documents constitute a functional cipher. I have already made it perfectly clear that it was not and never could have been. Rather, it was an endeavor marked by complex and sometimes conflicting motivations: the desire to encrypt and the desire to produce something that was typical of their eccentric notions of “pure language.”


http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... e__st__480

The "cipher/pure language" theory is secondary and of little importance. Will identifies the chronology as the primary point. Apparently he suffers from the same problem you do: an inability to distinguish a statement about chronology from a statement about meaning and purpose.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:38 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13418
William Schryver wrote:

Serve it up, Mr. Bold Talker! If it's shame-worthy, I'll be more than willing to issue the requisite apology.

You see, this is what the "investigators" I talked about discovered to be the modus operandi here: one long litany of allegations, but not a single bit of actual, bona fide evidence that I have ever done anything to justify the reputation attributed to me by the congenital liars that predominant here.

If I am the picture of despicable vulgarity and crudeness that you suggest I am, then it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it by linking to posts I have made where this dark side of my character is manifest for all to see. And please don't bother linking to posts of other people claiming I said this, that, or the other. I've seen before how that clever little game works. Link to my own posts, so that we can see everything in its context and judge my nefarious deeds on their merits.


Oh, for heaven's sake, you must have a very odd definition of vulgar. I assume that most people would find your recent comment to me to be quite vulgar:

Quote:
Settle down, beastsheba. I assure you I have no desire whatsoever to watch you bathe.

In the immortal words of Dodge Connelly:
Quote:
”You’re only as young as the women you feel.”


And I have no desire to feel sixty-five.


viewtopic.php?p=356746#p356746

If this isn't vulgar (as well as frankly bizarre, and sad for your wife, who is apparently my age), then what is?

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:53 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
Nomad wrote:
Kevin Graham wrote:
Now show me evidence that William Schryver is anything but a crappy singer and even worse musician? http://www.purevolume.com/WillSchryver

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.


Can we chill on the textual fellatio?

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:07 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 3787
William Schryver wrote:
Serve it up, Mr. Bold Talker! If it's shame-worthy, I'll be more than willing to issue the requisite apology.


Liz calls a spade a spade, reminding you of this very topic (your history of vulgarity) and worse yet points out her opinion of your treatment of Trevor. But she also finishes up noting, “at the base of it all, we do, in fact care for one another” and mentions many here’s support or your daughter – she being the first to publically call attention to it on this site.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=320848#p320848

And your response:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=321279#p321279

You attacked likely your only supporter from this site. But of course she is a woman and this is the trailer park.

Vulgarity, chauvinism, no confidentiality, grandiosity, self righteousness … what’s the use, it’s just another example of William, the one and only worthy of adulation.

edit:

first link was wrong


Last edited by RockSlider on Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6173
Quote:
The psychotic Cracker Graham calling me a liar ... yet again!


More than that, I actually proved it... yet again! You've lied about the KEP and now you've lied about what Technical Editors make, posturing as an authority on the matter... yet again!

Quote:
Whatever. I suppose I could post an image of a 1099, but what's the point, really?


You tell me Will. What was the point of your boast? Posting your 1099 would be the first time you ever backed up something you've tried to brag about?

Quote:
Nope. You're absolutely correct Graham. I'm an unemployed bum who hasn't made $100K in ten years, let alone one. Now, if I could just get clients to stop sending those bogus 1099s to the IRS, I'd really be in business!


What clients? Word of mouth, "give the faithful brother a job" type networking? Why is it that the internet knows nothing of you as a computer wiz and the only evidence that you're a programmer comes from someone using a pseudonym?

Utah has the highest concentration of college graduates in the country, and Utah pay is much lower than that which can be found elsewhere. But you want us to believe that you, a college drop out, make "considerably more" than all of those who actually earned an education in the field? Sure, OK.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 3787
Kevin Graham wrote:
What clients? Word of mouth, "give the faithful brother a job" type networking? Why is it that the internet knows nothing of you as a computer wiz and the only evidence that you're a programmer comes from someone using a pseudonym?


I also have been in the field for a day or two (30 years), all my peers, for several years now are in the 90k - 110k range, here in Utah. I also doubt that William has any real strengths in this field.

Of course he could easily prove me wrong by citing the details of his last contract and allowing me to question him on some technical aspects of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:23 pm 
Come here, Nomad. Draw close to me so the devil can whisper something in your ears, boy.

"You can get out of my kingdom, I want no such men in it."

Paul O


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 771 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 37  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: son of Ishmael and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group