Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

Kevin Graham wrote:
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.



Holy Jesus, it didn't even occure to me that William was homosexual! Wow, what an eye opener. No wonder Nomad is constantly sniffing about him.

Paul O

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

Simon Belmont wrote:
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.



Oh Simon, I love it when you rail on others. Keep it up. I want you to ignore the counsel in the D&C as much as possible. I'm feeding on your wickedness.

Thank you, and you'll be well paid. The devil will reward you.

Paul O
Last edited by Paul Osborne on Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Simon Belmont

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Simon Belmont »

Kevin Graham wrote: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.


It doesn't matter, Angry McAngerton, you said Brent was not a technical writer/editor, and Brent said that he wasn't either, but clearly he is.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by harmony »

Simon Belmont wrote:It doesn't matter, Angry McAngerton, you said Brent was not a technical writer/editor, and Brent said that he wasn't either, but clearly he is.


Brent said he wasn't a technical writer. He didn't say he wasn't a technical editor. One day, even you will grow in reading comprehension, young Simon.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

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


And thus, it remains a theory. However, the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 remain false -- and that's a proven fact. Isn't that right, William -- my apostate brother?

Paul O

Simon Belmont

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Simon Belmont »

harmony wrote:Brent said he wasn't a technical writer. He didn't say he wasn't a technical editor. One day, even you will grow in reading comprehension, young Simon.


Oh, I see! So, Brent can be a hyper-literalist and debate the nuanced meaning of individual words, but I cannot. Your blaring double standard is idiotic.

Do you even know what an "editor" does?

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

Simon Belmont wrote:
harmony wrote:Brent said he wasn't a technical writer. He didn't say he wasn't a technical editor. One day, even you will grow in reading comprehension, young Simon.


Oh, I see! So, Brent can be a hyper-literalist and debate the nuanced meaning of individual words, but I cannot. Your blaring double standard is idiotic.

Do you even know what an "editor" does?


Simon, you do realize that if this board was like MAD you would be banned by now. Aren't you grateful for this wonderful opportunity to get your rocks off? I love it, keep it up. It moves me.

Paul O

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by sock puppet »

Nomad wrote:The meaning of the KEP is that they are dependent on a previously received Book of Abraham.
sock puppet wrote:
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 EAllusion&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 EAllusion&G, (b) EAllusion&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 EAllusion&G. From this Will claims that the EAllusion&G must be dependent on and derivative from a pre-existing Book of Abraham. The evidence however cuts against Will's observation/claim. The EAllusion&G does not begin in the left hand column with the English pronouns, as it would if the EAllusion&G would if it had been drawn from the English text of a pre-existing Book of Abraham. Rather, the EAllusion&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 EAllusion&G. That is, the fact that there's less 'story' in the EAllusion&G than the Book of Abraham suggests that the EAllusion&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 EAllusion&G after the Book of Abraham was already finished. His cipher theory is not evidence that the EAllusion&G in fact was drawn from an already completed Book of Abraham.

Rather, the evidence points to either a bi-directional dependence of the EAllusion&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 EAllusion&G.
William Schryver wrote:I welcome you to author a formal rebuttal of my findings.

Will, since the details of your findings have not been made available other than to your close 'of the faith' confidantes, a formal rebuttal is not feasible at this time. At what findings would a rebuttal be aimed? What is feasible is to discuss your findings to the limited extent you have yet made them known generally. That is your oral presentation and slides, and you do not make a transcript of your oral presentation available. So your invitation for a formal rebuttal is merely a rhetorical trick, an attempt to try and appease your gaggle of followers.

On the other hand, if you are serious, then you can PM the document in which you have included your findings, in scholarly detail. Or, if you do not yet have such prepared, then either your target is intentionally designed to be an elusive and moving one or you will here discuss your findings in the level of depth to which you disclosed them at FAIR--to which I have provided a rebuttal of equal detail.

In short, debate here your findings or provide them in further detail than you did at FAIR.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by harmony »

Simon Belmont wrote:Oh, I see! So, Brent can be a hyper-literalist and debate the nuanced meaning of individual words, but I cannot. Your blaring double standard is idiotic.

Do you even know what an "editor" does?


Well, I know editors aren't writers. If they were, they'd be called... writers.

You realize, of course, that they have different jobs, right? Writers... write. Editors... edit. Surely even you can understand words with only 2 syllables.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

User avatar
RockSlider
God
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by RockSlider »

harmony wrote:
Simon Belmont wrote:Oh, I see! So, Brent can be a hyper-literalist and debate the nuanced meaning of individual words, but I cannot. Your blaring double standard is idiotic.

Do you even know what an "editor" does?


Well, I know editors aren't writers. If they were, they'd be called... writers.

You realize, of course, that they have different jobs, right? Writers... write. Editors... edit. Surely even you can understand words with only 2 syllables.


Gee, I wonder if you said the "Editor" on the following link's job at MI was a writer, do you think he would be offended? Do you suppose he would have a “hyper-literalist” view on the differences between the two?

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/about/a ... ration.php

I’m pretty sure I know the answer.

note that even in the technical industry - writers don't end up on administrative lists

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21005
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kishkumen »

William Schryver wrote: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.


But I do not agree that this is the crux of the matter, William. The crux of the matter is that you take it upon yourself to defend the Church and yet do not behave like a Christian or a representative of the LDS Church when you do so. You have obviously completely ignored Elder Ballard's counsel about how to represent the LDS faith online. Your interesting report of an investigation into your vulgarity that you claim turned up nothing is beside the point. So, sure, if your pals have no problem with you being a potty mouth, I agree that this is no big deal. It is more your disobedience to apostolic counsel and your failure to treat others as Christ would have you do that is truly troubling. And I am sorry, but claiming that this is all apostate rumor-mongering and persecution of your innocent little soul won't quite do.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21005
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kishkumen »

William Schryver wrote: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.


Gospel living according to the Living Christ:

Jesus Christ wrote:But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


Gospel living according to William Schryver, and I paraphrase:

William Schryver in the MormonDiscussions.com translation wrote:Some say unto you "turn the other cheek," but I say unto you, "give as good as you get."
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

Simon Belmont

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Simon Belmont »

harmony wrote:Well, I know editors aren't writers. If they were, they'd be called... writers.


Good one, harmony.

What is involved in editing something?

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

But I do not agree that this is the crux of the matter, William. The crux of the matter is that you take it upon yourself to defend the Church and yet do not behave like a Christian or a representative of the LDS Church when you do so . . . .


Kishie,

Get a hold of yourself! Let William bring shame to the church. Don't remind him of his failures lest you prick his mind with guilt and he soul searches into some far reaching stretch of his acid soaked brain and be converted to a chapel Mormon never to be heard of again.

Let William speak out. Let him get nasty. Don't tell him that he isn't a Christian. Who gives a damn! All we care about is bringing shame to the LDS church through the BofA and William is an instrument in our hands if we play it properly. You see Kishie, he wants to be played. He wants to be stroked and fondled in a caring way (nothing sexual intended SHADES) but he wants to be loved and appreciated. That is William's greatest desire and need. I feel it.

We love William! Thank you William for your contributions to the show! Keep it up as long as you can, man.

Paul O

User avatar
RockSlider
God
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by RockSlider »

Simon Belmont wrote:
harmony wrote:Well, I know editors aren't writers. If they were, they'd be called... writers.


Good one, harmony.

What is involved in editing something?


You seem to have skimmed over my post ... i.e. writers typically work for editors.

Editors are the bosses.

Simon Belmont

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Simon Belmont »

RockSlider wrote:
You seem to have skimmed over my post ... i.e. writers typically work for editors.

Editors are the bosses.


Do editors edit? Does editing include writing anything?

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by sock puppet »

Simon Belmont wrote:
harmony wrote:Well, I know editors aren't writers. If they were, they'd be called... writers.


Good one, harmony.

What is involved in editing something?

Writers compose, editors chop it down to make it readable.

User avatar
RockSlider
God
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by RockSlider »

Simon Belmont wrote:
RockSlider wrote:You seem to have skimmed over my post ... i.e. writers typically work for editors.
Editors are the bosses.

Do editors edit? Does editing include writing anything?


DCP appears to be a very prolific writer, sure editors write. They likely wrote for many many years before advancing to the position of editor.

I don’t get you point in all of this? It appears you might simply be

1. Back peddling out of your stating as fact that Brent’s vocation was a technical writer, which appears to have been proven false.
2. In this back peddling you are belittling Brent’s actual life accomplishments (which appear to be quite impressive).
3. Backing a man I’m not sure you know much about (other than he’s pro-mormon), and doing God’s will by bashing another man you seem to know nothing about (other than he is not pro Mormon).

I admire a man who can admit when he is wrong, even if it is in the silence of no response when seeing/realizing his error. Surely you have recognized your error in this thing at this point in time, right?

Simon Belmont

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Simon Belmont »

RockSlider wrote:Do editors edit? Does editing include writing anything?


DCP appears to be a very prolific writer, sure editors write. They likely wrote for many many years before advancing to the position of editor.

I don’t get you point in all of this? [/quote]

The point is Metcalfe lied about being a technical writer. I know no one will believe me, but when I checked his LinkedIn last month, it said "Technical Writer at Microsoft Game Studios." It was only recently changed to Editor. Now, if Brent got a promotion, congratulations, but at the time I first said it, he was a technical writer.

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

Simon Belmont wrote:
The point is Metcalfe lied about being a technical writer.


Even if that's true -- so what, big deal. Look at the translator's lies regarding Facsimile No. 3!!!! Tell me one thing in the Explanations that Joe got right in his pretended translations. Joe was a L I A R! If you disagree, prove me wrong. I'm humble.

Metcalfe is a saint compared to Joe Smith.

Paul O

Simon Belmont

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Simon Belmont »

Paul Osborne wrote:
Simon Belmont wrote:
The point is Metcalfe lied about being a technical writer.


Even if that's true -- so what, big deal. Look at the translator's lies regarding Facsimile No. 3!!!! Tell me one thing in the Explanations that Joe got right in his pretended translations. Joe was a L I A R! If you disagree, prove me wrong. I'm humble.

Metcalfe is a saint compared to Joe Smith.

Paul O


When Joseph looked through his seer stone he saw exactly what the Lord intended.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Fence Sitter, msnobody and 22 guests