Mormon Discussions
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/

Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19926
Page 1 of 11

Author:  Dan Vogel [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:44 am ]
Post subject:  Off topic Schryvery comments reDon Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Nomad,

Quote:
I am amused to see that Schryver and Vogel more or less agree about this Bradley argument. That’s got to be a first.


Funny, Schryver said almost the same thing you said. Wink! Wink! Schryver is highly motivated to agree with me, what’s your excuse? To duplicate his arguments and then to mention me as he did is just too obvious, don’t you think?

Author:  malkie [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Dan Vogel wrote:
Nomad,

Quote:
I am amused to see that Schryver and Vogel more or less agree about this Bradley argument. That’s got to be a first.


Funny, Schryver said almost the same thing you said. Wink! Wink! Schryver is highly motivated to agree with me, what’s your excuse? To duplicate his arguments and then to mention me as he did is just too obvious, don’t you think?

Why, whatever are you suggesting? Nudge! Nudge! Say no more!

ETA: Do you think that Nomad is correct in his assessment of the degree of agreement between you and Schryver?

Author:  Buffalo [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Will, why do you refer to yourself in the third person ("Schryver"). We all know that you're Nomad. Everyone on MAD knows it too. Why the charade?

Author:  malkie [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Buffalo wrote:
Will, why do you refer to yourself in the third person ("Schryver"). We all know that you're Nomad. Everyone on MAD knows it too. Why the charade?

Should Will write a book: "Nomad knows my history"? (;=(

Author:  jon [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

malkie wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Will, why do you refer to yourself in the third person ("Schryver"). We all know that you're Nomad. Everyone on MAD knows it too. Why the charade?

Should Will write a book: "Nomad knows my history"? (;=(


"Nomad is an island unto himselves"

Author:  Buffalo [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

malkie wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Will, why do you refer to yourself in the third person ("Schryver"). We all know that you're Nomad. Everyone on MAD knows it too. Why the charade?

Should Will write a book: "Nomad knows my history"? (;=(


Image

Author:  Fence Sitter [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

malkie wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Will, why do you refer to yourself in the third person ("Schryver"). We all know that you're Nomad. Everyone on MAD knows it too. Why the charade?

Should Will write a book: "Nomad knows my history"? (;=(


Best line of the year!

Author:  Nomad [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  More Schryver derail: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Buffalo wrote:
Will, why do you refer to yourself in the third person ("Schryver"). We all know that you're Nomad. Everyone on MAD knows it too. Why the charade?

As I'm sure the site admins here know very well, I don't post via a proxy. I post from the same IP address and always have. If I were Will's sockpuppet, I'm pretty sure they would have figured that out long before now and "outed" me. But they don't. Because they can't. And I (we?) really don't care either way. At least I don't. You're free to believe what you will. I think it's kind of funny. I think Will thinks it's kind of funny.

-Nomad is an island. Nomad stands alone.

Author:  jon [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Nomad wrote:
That's interesting. I just made this post at MDD that makes a similar point: Read here

You better watch out or people are going to start saying that you are a sockpuppet, too.


No they won't.
I'm clearly not a misogynist.
I'm not a multi personalitied poster sounding mostly like Schryver.

I would be grateful if you never make any connection like that ever again, even in jest.

Author:  Nomad [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

jon wrote:
Nomad wrote:
That's interesting. I just made this post at MDD that makes a similar point: Read here

You better watch out or people are going to start saying that you are a sockpuppet, too.


No they won't.
I'm clearly not a misogynist.
I'm not a multi personalitied poster sounding mostly like Schryver.

I would be grateful if you never make any connection like that ever again, even in jest.

Whatever you say, Will.

Author:  Buffalo [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Maybe Will's/Nomad's strategy is to be so obvious about that people will say "No, it's TOO obvious. It's someone pretending to be Will." If that's the strategy, it's not working.

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

Author:  Nomad [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Buffalo wrote:
Maybe Will's/Nomad's strategy is to be so obvious about that people will say "No, it's TOO obvious. It's someone pretending to be Will." If that's the strategy, it's not working.

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

“Chip” (kudos to DCP for that one) is not the sharpest.

OK, Chip, answer me a couple questions here. I’ve been posting on these boards for years now. Started out on the old FAIR board way back when. Posted for several years, on and off, on the FAIR/MADB/MormonDiscussions.com/MDD boards, but only started tohear about this sockpuppet business after I made posts praising Schryver’s FAIR conference address. Because, as I’m sure everyone must know, only a Schryver sockpuppet would possibly praise any of his work, right?

So what’s my motivation here? Why wouldn’t Will just post under his own name if he wanted to say something? I’ve seen people say that Nomad never posts except in support of Schryver. But a review of my posting history at FAIR/MADB/MDD would easily disprove that. You just don’t like the idea of someone speaking in favor of Will’s work. You want to believe that there is no way anyone besides himself would do that, right?

How many different posters have now been accused of being Schryver sockpuppets? Got to be a dozen or more. It’s like a knee-jerk reaction here. But I was here long before any of this sockpuppet talk started. As I recall, when the poster “malaise” first appeared a few months ago, he was accused of being a Schryver sockpuppet, only because he spoke negatively about the MsJack smear thread. Read here

It’s all very entertaining in a way. I’ve always said this place is one of the most amazing examples of herd mentality I have ever seen. It continues that way. So carry on.

I’m only sorry that Will has now apparently retired permanently from the boards and won’t come here to “complete” me anymore. lol

I do look forward to his forthcoming articles, as well as those by Bradley and others. It’s looking more and more, to me, like the most interesting Book of Abraham debates are going to take place not between critics and believers, but between the believers themselves.

Author:  Buffalo [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Nomad wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Maybe Will's/Nomad's strategy is to be so obvious about that people will say "No, it's TOO obvious. It's someone pretending to be Will." If that's the strategy, it's not working.

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

“Chip” (kudos to DCP for that one) is not the sharpest.

OK, Chip, answer me a couple questions here. I’ve been posting on these boards for years now. Started out on the old FAIR board way back when. Posted for several years, on and off, on the FAIR/MADB/MormonDiscussions.com/MDD boards, but only started tohear about this sockpuppet business after I made posts praising Schryver’s FAIR conference address. Because, as I’m sure everyone must know, only a Schryver sockpuppet would possibly praise any of his work, right?

So what’s my motivation here? Why wouldn’t Will just post under his own name if he wanted to say something? I’ve seen people say that Nomad never posts except in support of Schryver. But a review of my posting history at FAIR/MADB/MDD would easily disprove that. You just don’t like the idea of someone speaking in favor of Will’s work. You want to believe that there is no way anyone besides himself would do that, right?

How many different posters have now been accused of being Schryver sockpuppets? Got to be a dozen or more. It’s like a knee-jerk reaction here. But I was here long before any of this sockpuppet talk started. As I recall, when the poster “malaise” first appeared a few months ago, he was accused of being a Schryver sockpuppet, only because he spoke negatively about the MsJack smear thread. Read here

It’s all very entertaining in a way. I’ve always said this place is one of the most amazing examples of herd mentality I have ever seen. It continues that way. So carry on.

I’m only sorry that Will has now apparently retired permanently from the boards and won’t come here to “complete” me anymore. lol

I do look forward to his forthcoming articles, as well as those by Bradley and others. It’s looking more and more, to me, like the most interesting Book of Abraham debates are going to take place not between critics and believers, but between the believers themselves.


Two reasons why you, Will, would use a sock puppet:

1) Your name is now mud
2) Even before your name was mud, you used Nomad as a way of getting someone to back you up.

The number one reason why you're Will's sock puppet: you don't post ANYTHING unless it's to agree with or defend or echo Will. I know you think everyone but Will Schryver is an ignoramus, but give us a little more credit than that.

I suppose it's technically possible that some B-level apologist like Will has managed to inspire a fan so (romantically?) devoted that his whole purpose is to do nothing but defend and back up Will, but I rather doubt it. If you were Justin Beiber, maybe.

Author:  Daniel Peterson [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Schryver, burkas re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Many non-Wills (including some on this board) are non-ignoramuses. But, alas, several non-Wills on this very board are ignoramuses.

***

I too have praised things that Will has written, and I don't think that he deserves the total-war obloquy that he's received here.

Ergo, I too am a Schryver sockpuppet.

Personally, though, I'm glad that Will has effectively retired from this (and other) boards. His participation here was not worth his time and effort. Life is good, very good, away from this place.

Incidentally, I had lunch (in a public restaurant!) with Will a few days back. And, a few days before that, in quite another location, I briefly ran into him and his wife. She seems to be quite well, despite living with The Monster.

Author:  Kevin Graham [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Not to mention the fact that Schryver has a documented history of lying about who he is. Remember the "Provis" days? He lied about being himself then to Dan Vogel, and I suspect he was even posting as his wife a few months ago.

Seriously, it is one thing to praise someone, but it is another to have a total man-crush on someone. So far I've seen no evidence that anyone could possibly be so in love with Will in this way, except Will. Wade comes close, but wade is clearly engaged and has been engaged with various apologetics for many, many years. We all know who wade is.

Nomad is the mysterious figure who pops up whenever Will is in need of support. Will can disappear for months, but the second he shows up, suddenly Nomad comes in to offer support.

Let's see. Nomad signs up and makes one post in Fe of 2009. He says nothing else until three months later when a Schryver debate is started. Virtually everything he has posted since that time has been related to a Schryverism of some sort. Though not an expert on any of the relaated Book of Abraham subjects, he pops in just to throw in a plug for the amazing Will Schryver. He then goes to the other forum and lies, by saying he's never seen anyone respond to Schryver's arguments. This is precisely the same tactic used by Schryver. And however he tries to mask his posting style, much of the usual Schryverisms seep through. I searched through all of Nomad's posts and even in threads that have no apparent connection to Schryver, he ends up talking about Schryver this and Schryver that. Really pathetic.

Author:  Doctor CamNC4Me [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Hello,

"Nomad" is an open account with multiple persons who have access to it.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Author:  MsJack [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

/begin-derail

Nomad wrote:
As I recall, when the poster “malaise” first appeared a few months ago, she was accused of being a Schryver sockpuppet, only because she spoke negatively about the thread wherein MsJack carefully documented William Schryver's misogynist antics. Read here

Fix't.

People are accused of being William Schryver sock puppets because it's 100% certain that he uses them, and mysterious newly-registered posters always seem to crop up in support of him whenever he's under fire.

You're accused of being a William Schryver sock puppet because you never deviate from William's opinions and positions in the slightest, and you spend 95% of your time here defending and fawning over him. We all know nobody loves William Schryver as much as William Schryver. And then, there was Nomad.

Nobody believes you when you say you're not William Schryver because you're a proven liar.

/end-derail

I hope you all enjoy your discussion of Don Bradley's fascinating presentation.

Author:  Will Schryver [ Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

MsJack wrote:
Nomad wrote:
As I recall, when the poster “malaise” first appeared a few months ago, she was accused of being a Schryver sockpuppet, only because she spoke negatively about the thread wherein MsJack carefully, deceitfully, and unconscionably smeared a man in what turned out to be a desperate and ultimately vain attempt to silence his voice.


People are accused of being William Schryver sock puppets because it’s a reflex, an instinctive reaction to the notion that anyone would speak in favor of such a universally despised enemy of apostate evangelism. We do what we do because we can, and no one can stop us, and we are so confident of the unquestioning receptiveness of our target audience, that we can tell them anything we want, and they will accept it.


Quote:
All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in William Schryver.

They piled upon him the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by their whole race from Adam and Eve down; and then, as if their chest had been a mortar, they burst their hot heart's shell upon it.

“Towards thee we roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last we grapple with thee; from hell's heart we stab at thee; for hate's sake we spit our last breath at thee.”

Author:  Everybody Wang Chung [ Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Will Schryver wrote:

“Towards thee we roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last we grapple with thee; from hell's heart we stab at thee; for hate's sake we spit our last breath at thee.”



Ahab utters these words—his last—after Moby Dick destroys the Pequod, the whale victory has been inevitable. In a meaningless demonstration of defiance, Ahab uses his last breath to curse the whale and his own miserable fate. He is, spiritually, already in “hell’s heart,” and he acquiesces to his own imminent death.

Will, Ahab and the whale are both shown to equally evil and beyond redemption. Which one do you identify with?

Author:  MsJack [ Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Welcome back to your main handle, William.

Nice avatar, by the way. I'm not a fan of Jeepers Creepers 2, but the opening scene was scary enough, and I think it works for you.

Author:  Persephone [ Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

I couldn’t help but notice a little something in two recent posts:

Speaking of Will Schryver, Nomad (Will?) wrote:
Quote:
I do look forward to his forthcoming articles …


And then, speaking of MsJack’s devastating exposè, Will (Nomad?) wrote:
Quote:
… what turned out to be a desperate and ultimately vain attempt to silence his voice.


Are these hints that the MI is still going ahead with plans to publish things authored by this toxic scumbag? Could we really be so fortunate? Oh, I do hope so! I can’t imagine anything that would more effectively destroy what little reputation for professional scholarship they have left.

So let’s keep our fingers crossed!

Page 1 of 11 All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/