It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:05 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 301 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Hey, Pig-in-a-Pokatator:

I can't tell you how pleased I am that you went to the substantial effort of assembling this collection of "Unplugged and Raw in the Trailer Park -- Schryver's Greatest Hits".

I have been able, thanks to you, to incorporate my various sayings, prophecies, admonitions, and condemnations into a single document that I may now conveniently pass down to my posterity for their profit and entertainment.

Indeed, one post in particular stood out to me as I read through those you had collected, and I reprise it here for the benefit of those following this thread:

Speaking of my more cultivated and "proper" friends, some of whom practice LDS apologetics as a hobby:

Quote:
I also happen to know that these particular friends are acutely conscious of the semantic distinctions between a circle jerk as an activity engaged in by adolescent boys (it has nothing to do with homosexuals, contra cksalmon’s frequent misrepresentations thereof) and a circle jerk as "a pompous, self-congratulatory discussion."

Then again, these are educated men who also know the difference between intercourse as "sexual contact" and intercourse as "connection or dealings between persons or groups." As also the difference between incestuous as ” sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry” and incestuous as meaning simply ”excessively or improperly intimate or exclusive”. As also the difference between whore as ”a promiscuous or immoral woman” and whore as “a venal or unscrupulous person”.

In the final analysis, when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

And I choose my words carefully.


Thus, when I characterize Mr. Scratch as a wanton whore whose diseased stench afflicts every corner of this wretched place, that is precisely what I mean. Neither more nor less.

That I have friends (“in high places” as it were) who occasionally find my comments amusing is less attributable to their vulgarity (or my own, for that matter) than it is to their familiarity with the nuances of the English language and their admiration for someone who knows how to wield it with a certain savoir faire. Indeed, much of their amusement is attributable to the motivated ignorance of the majority of the posters here in the GSTP™, and the banal ways in which that apparently-intentional ignorance manifests itself in the comical reactions to the things I say.

And so it is ...

_________________
... 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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:53 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Double-entendre is quite common and useful. However, the point being made here, Will, is that you are inordinately fond of sexual double-entendres, to the extent where it seems LDS folks would be made uncomfortable. Certainly LDS culture decries the sexualization of the over-all culture, and are normally somewhat conservative in terms of sexual terminology and conversation. However, it is also quite possible that they're simply hypocrites who decry this behavior in others, but not one of their own. by the way, I see no reason to assume that posters on this board aren't fully aware of the double-entendre - an odd conclusion you and your peers seem to make.

The secondary point is that you seem literally obsessed with sexual double entendres. Many of us observe that normally men who are so obsessed are often engaging in loud bravado in order to compensate for a feared deficit.

_________________
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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:09 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
beastie wrote:
Double-entendre is quite common and useful. However, the point being made here, Will, is that you are inordinately fond of sexual double-entendres, to the extent where it seems LDS folks would be made uncomfortable. Certainly LDS culture decries the sexualization of the over-all culture, and are normally somewhat conservative in terms of sexual terminology and conversation. However, it is also quite possible that they're simply hypocrites who decry this behavior in others, but not one of their own.

The secondary point is that you seem literally obsessed with sexual double entendres. Many of us observe that normally men who are so obsessed are often engaging in loud bravado in order to compensate for a feared deficit.

beastlie dear, I must say, quite frankly, that I don't think you have a freaking clue about "LDS culture" except as a set of caricatures and stereotypes. And I absolutely know that you haven't a clue concerning the exalted place of sexuality in the doctrine of the restored gospel as taught by Joseph Smith. You never understood the import of phrases like "strength in the loins" nor could you ever appreciate why the LDS canon includes the image of a man/god with an erect penis, an image associated with eternal life and exaltation.

Indeed, in many ways I perceive that you are not that far removed from the troubled unease of Victorian times when it comes to issues of sexuality, and you are therefore unable to conceive how sexuality could possibly have such a prominent place in the eternal order established by God.

It is a strange irony to observe exmormons wringing their hands over the perceived vulgarities of someone who is deliberately and consciously mocking their feigned (or perhaps, sincere?) sensibilities.

In any event, I have things to do now. So carry on with your faux Freudian analysis. It's not much in the way of meaningful, but it's good for a laugh now and then.

_________________
... 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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:30 am 
Apostle

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:56 pm
Posts: 761
William Schryver wrote:
beastie wrote:
Double-entendre is quite common and useful. However, the point being made here, Will, is that you are inordinately fond of sexual double-entendres, to the extent where it seems LDS folks would be made uncomfortable. Certainly LDS culture decries the sexualization of the over-all culture, and are normally somewhat conservative in terms of sexual terminology and conversation. However, it is also quite possible that they're simply hypocrites who decry this behavior in others, but not one of their own.

The secondary point is that you seem literally obsessed with sexual double entendres. Many of us observe that normally men who are so obsessed are often engaging in loud bravado in order to compensate for a feared deficit.

beastlie dear, I must say, quite frankly, that I don't think you have a freaking clue about "LDS culture" except as a set of caricatures and stereotypes. And I absolutely know that you haven't a clue concerning the exalted place of sexuality in the doctrine of the restored gospel as taught by Joseph Smith. You never understood the import of phrases like "strength in the loins" nor could you ever appreciate why the LDS canon includes the image of a man/god with an erect penis, an image associated with eternal life and exaltation.

Indeed, in many ways I perceive that you are not that far removed from the troubled unease of Victorian times when it comes to issues of sexuality, and you are therefore unable to conceive how sexuality could possibly have such a prominent place in the eternal order established by God.

It is a strange irony to observe exmormons wringing their hands over the perceived vulgarities of someone who is deliberately and consciously mocking their feigned (or perhaps, sincere?) sensibilities.

In any event, I have things to do now. So carry on with your faux Freudian analysis. It's not much in the way of meaningful, but it's good for a laugh now and then.


Once again, Will commits an act of Beastie-Ality.

You are an embarrassment to primordial goo.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:47 am 
Famous Potato
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 1417
Location: Idaho
Willie,

In the thread, "According to BC, the posters at MormonDiscussions.com are preoccupied with sex" bcspace is quoted:

Quote:
Sex once tried, frankly, is usually very difficult to give up. There is a reason why the apostle Paul says it is better to marry than to burn (with lust). It is similar to why you see virulent antiMormons, such as those who inhabit mormondiscussions.org, constantly talking and worrying about sex. They are similarly afflicted and/or they know that sex and porn are the best ways to get an active LDS person to fall.


I do believe that you are as crude, rude and sexually perverted as anyone who has ever used this board. I believe that bc should use you as the "poster boy" for his argument.

_________________
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.
bcspace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Quote:
beastlie dear, I must say, quite frankly, that I don't think you have a freaking clue about "LDS culture" except as a set of caricatures and stereotypes. And I absolutely know that you haven't a clue concerning the exalted place of sexuality in the doctrine of the restored gospel as taught by Joseph Smith. You never understood the import of phrases like "strength in the loins" nor could you ever appreciate why the LDS canon includes the image of a man/god with an erect penis, an image associated with eternal life and exaltation.


So are you asserting that LDS would generally be comfortable with your double-entendres? So do you use the same sort of phraseology when amongst LDS – on MAD, or at church, or with your home teachers? Your credibility is nearing zero.

I actually agree that your comical obsession with penile virility is quite a good reflection of the gospel as idealized by Joseph Smith. However, once polygamy was halted, that overt phallic worship ceased, and LDS culture became more feminized and its culture reflected that feminization. Instead of the original cult of male virility, it has become the cult of female fertility – home and hearth, in which LDS men are quite often nearly completely neutered (as BY prophesized).

But you don’t live in Joseph Smith’ time, do you? You live in the modern LDS church, and your insinuation that modern LDS would be quite comfortable with your vulgar double-entendres is laughable to anyone who has spent a month amongst LDS, much less fifteen years as an active believer.

Quote:
Indeed, in many ways I perceive that you are not that far removed from the troubled unease of Victorian times when it comes to issues of sexuality, and you are therefore unable to conceive how sexuality could possibly have such a prominent place in the eternal order established by God.


This is where your case enters the tragic-comedy phase. You are obsessed by sexuality, and you seem to think that the measure of sexuality is the willingness to engage in public vulgarities. That leads me to believe my original suspicion is correct. In my experience, people who truly are comfortable with their sexuality, and have truly satisfying sexual lives have no need to run around mouthing off constantly about sex, in one way or the other. You remind me of a teenage boy, enamored of his own phallus, who makes constant vulgar references to women and sex in general, all the while thinking this makes him look like a “man”. He has no idea it makes him look like a desperate teenage boy who is likely still a virgin.

_________________
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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 11:03 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Here's an experiment that would help validate Will's claims. I propose that Will start a thread on MAD about this topic. The topic should be about the exalted place of sexuality in the LDS culture and gospel. Will should include the type of details he's mentioned here, and should engage in the same sort of vulgar double-entendres. Let's see how other believers react.

_________________
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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 1:43 pm 
tired, less active investigator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:07 am
Posts: 10159
Location: Hungary
Would be an Eurotrash if I called Pokatator as Pig-in-a-Pokatator, and Beastie as Beastlie?
Is it Ustrash or Amerotrash if somebody uses it from the new world? (Nothing to do with Dvořák!)


The internet makes people depersonalized. I guess, what would say certain people face-to-face to the other.

Really, things seem to be unbearable boring.

_________________
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
beastlie:
Quote:
I propose that Will start a thread on MAD about this topic. The topic should be about the exalted place of sexuality in the LDS culture and gospel.

You know what? That’s not a bad idea at all!

I have many other priorities that must take precedence at the moment, but I enjoin you to remind me from time to time, and I promise to eventually start such a thread on the MAD board. It is a topic well worth discussion in that more civilized venue, and one which should be properly appreciated by anyone claiming to believe in the restored gospel.

Great idea, beastlie! Really.

Quote:
Will should include the type of details he's mentioned here …

Give me a few examples of these “details” to which you’re referring.

Quote:
… and should engage in the same sort of vulgar double-entendres.

Ditto.

Give me a few examples of “vulgar double-entendres” I have employed when discussing ”the exalted place of sexuality in the LDS culture and gospel.”

I keep hearing from people about these alleged “vulgarities,” but, try as I might, I’m unable to locate any when I search back through my posts. (Perhaps the “Search” feature is filtering out those horrid things I’ve written?)

On another note, I want to reiterate (as I indicated above) how much I sincerely appreciate Pig-in-a-Pokatator’s diligent effort in assembling the history of my poetic endeavors here in the GSTP™. Having all my poems in one place has greatly assisted me in being able to include them in my personal journal, and to share them with family and friends alike.

_________________
... 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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:07 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Pokatator wrote:
Willie,

In the thread, "According to BC, the posters at MormonDiscussions.com are preoccupied with sex" bcspace is quoted:

Quote:
Sex once tried, frankly, is usually very difficult to give up. There is a reason why the apostle Paul says it is better to marry than to burn (with lust). It is similar to why you see virulent antiMormons, such as those who inhabit mormondiscussions.org, constantly talking and worrying about sex. They are similarly afflicted and/or they know that sex and porn are the best ways to get an active LDS person to fall.


I do believe that you are as crude, rude and sexually perverted as anyone who has ever used this board. I believe that bc should use you as the "poster boy" for his argument.

That's a pretty strong argument, and seems to indicate a conclusion borne of long and serious study of the question.

So, how would you characterize my particular manner of sexual perversion? Please feel free to cite examples from my body of work.

_________________
... 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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 3:14 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Will –

That you apparently see nothing vulgar in the long list of quotes that Pokatator shared is part of the problem. I understand that your upbringing may contribute to this difficulty, however, at your age, I would have expected that you would be able to overcome that handicap a bit and be able to differentiate between vulgar speech and non-vulgar speech. In fact, I’m inclined to assume that you are able to make this differentiation, but you are choosing to be obtuse about this point due to your reluctance to admit your critics have a valid point.

But, in case my assumption is incorrect, and you really cannot differentiate between vulgar speech and non-vulgar speech, then you would engage in the same sort of speech patterns at MAD that you do here. So can you link to some MAD threads wherein you:

1 – Refer to female posters’ bodily attributes in a positive or negative manner. This could be musing about how the female poster would look in a tank top, in a slinky black dress, or whether you admire her cleavage. Alternately, it could be musing about how age or lack of physical appeal probably renders a female poster undesirable, such as musing about varicose veins and whether or not any male could possibly be attracted to her.

2 – Refer to other posters or their arguments with sexually explicit phrases, such as “orgiastic circle jerks”, a “thousand orgasms”, “flaccid”, “skanky whore with lice”, “slut”, “piss on your rug”, “____”, “snot nosed bastard”.

Showing us that you do utilize the same sort of language in front of LDS that you do in front of us, and that those same LDS have no problem with your choice of words will provide evidence of your assertion. Being unable provide evidence that you do engage in the same sort of language in front of LDS that you do in front of us undermines your assertion.

_________________
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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 6:00 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 21070
Location: Koloburbia
Ray A wrote:
. If Mormons are happy they can post on MAD to their heart's content. I'm not going to spoil their party.


That is fine and good, but what would happen on a long term basis to Will, with MAD not allowing him to express his true self through their insistence on decorum. If one fills a giant gas bag with too much hot air and allows none to come fizzling out, then it will explode. Thank goodness for the release valve of this forum.

I am not comparing Will with such a giant gas bag, I was talking about the over acumulation of hot air.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 6:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
beastie wrote:
Will –

That you apparently see nothing vulgar in the long list of quotes that Pokatator shared is part of the problem. I understand that your upbringing may contribute to this difficulty, however, at your age, I would have expected that you would be able to overcome that handicap a bit and be able to differentiate between vulgar speech and non-vulgar speech. In fact, I’m inclined to assume that you are able to make this differentiation, but you are choosing to be obtuse about this point due to your reluctance to admit your critics have a valid point.

But, in case my assumption is incorrect, and you really cannot differentiate between vulgar speech and non-vulgar speech, then you would engage in the same sort of speech patterns at MAD that you do here. So can you link to some MAD threads wherein you:

1 – Refer to female posters’ bodily attributes in a positive or negative manner. This could be musing about how the female poster would look in a tank top, in a slinky black dress, or whether you admire her cleavage. Alternately, it could be musing about how age or lack of physical appeal probably renders a female poster undesirable, such as musing about varicose veins and whether or not any male could possibly be attracted to her.

2 – Refer to other posters or their arguments with sexually explicit phrases, such as “orgiastic circle jerks”, a “thousand orgasms”, “flaccid”, “skanky whore with lice”, “slut”, “piss on your rug”, “____”, “snot nosed bastard”.

Showing us that you do utilize the same sort of language in front of LDS that you do in front of us, and that those same LDS have no problem with your choice of words will provide evidence of your assertion. Being unable provide evidence that you do engage in the same sort of language in front of LDS that you do in front of us undermines your assertion.

beastlie, beastlie, beastlie,

I see that once again (as often manifest in your pseudo-scholarly hobby) you fail to grasp the key concept that context is everything.

_________________
... 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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 6:57 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Quote:
beastlie, beastlie, beastlie,

I see that once again (as often manifest in your pseudo-scholarly hobby) you fail to grasp the key concept that context is everything.



As I suspected. Of course you cannot provide evidence that you use such language on MAD. You don't. So don't bother protesting that I don't understand LDS culture.

The context is that you think that posters on this board deserve your trailer trash behavior. Well, some may deserve that, but others do not. That you are incapable of discerning that difference is as much of a problem as your trailer trash upbringing. You can take Will out of the trailer park, but you clearly cannot take the trailer park out of Will.

_________________
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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 7:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
beastie wrote:
Quote:
beastlie, beastlie, beastlie,

I see that once again (as often manifest in your pseudo-scholarly hobby) you fail to grasp the key concept that context is everything.



As I suspected. Of course you cannot provide evidence that you use such language on MAD. You don't. So don't bother protesting that I don't understand LDS culture.

The context is that you think that posters on this board deserve your trailer trash behavior. Well, some may deserve that, but others do not. That you are incapable of discerning that difference is as much of a problem as your trailer trash upbringing. You can take Will out of the trailer park, but you clearly cannot take the trailer park out of Will.

Che magnifico!

Bravo! Sinceramente. Bravo!

That's one you should practice in front of a mirror in order to get it "just right."


:lol:

_________________
... 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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 7:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Quote:
Che magnifico!

Bravo! Sinceramente. Bravo!

That's one you should practice in front of a mirror in order to get it "just right."


You're confused. My name is beastie, not Will.

_________________
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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 7:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
beastie wrote:
Quote:
Che magnifico!

Bravo! Sinceramente. Bravo!

That's one you should practice in front of a mirror in order to get it "just right."


You're confused. My name is beastie, not Will.

Au contraire!

And you know it, of course. You're just playing the false modesty card for effect.

You are an absolute natural!

_________________
... 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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 7:30 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Too chicken to risk it, aren't ya, Will?

_________________
(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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 6:46 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20507
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
harmony wrote:
Too chicken to risk it, aren't ya, Will?


Very much so. Just like he chickened his way into his present career.

_________________
“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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 2:47 am 
Pokatator wrote:
Will, you just can’t seem to figure out why you are not even a 2nd class apologist or why you aren’t part of the Skinny-L or why DCP and the apologetic calvary never come running to your rescue. Could it be that you have offended them? Or, possibly that they find you as vulgar as everyone else here at “The Great and Spacious Trailer Park” finds you.

While I am not a fan of the major of mopologists, DCP included. At least, DCP and others have not sank to the level that you have Willy. For the most part they are gentlemen. I truly believe that Willy you are an embarrassment to DCP and others. I will start with a few examples how you even offend them.

From the thread: Welcome question for Mr. Peterson: Where is the stone box?
Quote:
Dan,

If you insist on coming over here to Shadyburg, and in the process increase their traffic several fold, the least you could do is permit me to begin charging (per head) for the privilege and honor of scrapping with you.

You know, we could sneak down tonight and turn the sprinklers on the field at Lavell Edwards Stadium, make a nice mudhole at midfield, and I could charge ten bucks a pop to have you and Scratch and Scratch wrestle. I’d split the proceeds with you 60/40.

In fact, now that I think about it, I’ll bet people would pay even more to watch Julie Reynolds and beastie go after it!

Mmmmmmmmmmm … let me see … $15 bucks for admission, $3 hotdogs, $6 spiked Sprite … we could have a bona fide riot on our hands in no time at all.

Give it some thought …


Willy, I doubt that DCP found that post funny, maybe, but I doubt it. Also, Willy you insult another MAD icon, Juliann. This really can’t be considered an intelligent apologetic advancement maneuver on your part. I also believe that DCP didn’t approve of your treatment of his dearest MAD moderator.

From the thread: What is the Mopologetic "skinny-l" Listserve?
Quote:
You know, Dan, I understand my morbid fascination with the goings on here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park. I more or less grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and so I have a soft spot in my heart for snotty-nosed, shabby bastard children like Mr. Scratch and his cohorts here in the Circle Jerk Suite.

What's your excuse?


A question I really doubt that DCP appreciated being asked. He's not going to descend to your level.

Quote:
What's the current exhibition at the art museum? If it's still the Minerva Teichert stuff, I'd love to check it out again. Then I could go talk to my uppity BYU professor friends afterwards. You know, they're all so damn geeky, it makes you wonder how they could possibly be uppity, but higher education can do that to a man, you know, the whole "puffed up with learning" disease?


I am sure that DCP loved that post especially when it seems to be directed at him.

Quote:
However, I’m really sorry to disappoint you, but like I told you before, I’ve already got my calling and election made sure, so I really can’t go wrong from here on out unless I shed some innocent blood – and we both know I ain’t gonna find any of that here.


The height of arrogance, I am sure DCP liked your arrogance, not.

Some quotes by DCP during discourse about Willy’s vulgarness that I believe indicate he doesn’t approve of Willy’s style and vulgarness:

Quote:
… potty humor and crude sexual references aren't my style. (In case anybody has managed not to notice that.)


Quote:
I'm not a fan of crude sexual jokes and bathroom humor and I don't typically follow exchanges where I can see that that's the direction they're taking.


Quote:
I've said that I don't endorse and don't engage in crude sexual humor.

That's pretty clear.


About the best endorsement that DCP gave you Willy is the following:

Quote:
Some on the small Maxwell Institute staff are aware of him. One or two of those who've written for the Institute probably also know that he has posted regarding the Book of Abraham.

I myself met him briefly at a FAIR conference some years back, and my wife and I once spoke with him and his daughter in the parking lot after an evening performance at the Utah Shakespearean Festival in Cedar City two or three years ago.

Other than myself, I doubt very much that any of the leadership of the Institute (our Executive Director, Associate Executive Director, Assistant Executive Director, Director of FARMS, Director of CPART, Director of Electronic Publishing, accountant, receptionists, or donor liason) are familiar with him.


Willy you are a nobody!

The following is a small medley of Willy’s potty mouthed posts. While I will say that in some cases he was provoked but for most part Willy is just plain vulgar without provoking. This is just his normal operating mode. This vulgarity gets directed everywhere and to everyone even to his own wife.

Quote:
Like a skanky whore with festering sores and lice crawling through her hair, Scratchy shows wherever she goes, the stench of disease precedes her.


Quote:
… a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit.


Quote:
For whatever it's worth, TD, I want you to know that I would never piss on your rug.

Even if you did buy it at Walmart.


Quote:
First of all, you try to tell my beloved 22-year-old "wenchlette" to "shut up and do as you're told." She'd kick your pansy-ass from here to Montana, let you stew in your humiliation for a while, then come back and mock you for good measure.


Quote:
As for my my wife, the "Wrong-headed-wench" -- well, you should hear what she calls me.


Quote:
Anyway, that one character flaw aside, I respect The Dude for not being afraid to wear his godless-heathen-bastardness on his sleeve. I'll speak in his behalf when they damn him to eternal torment, and I'll bring along a full cooler of Pilsner Urquels when I go to visit him in hell.


Quote:
What gratuituous self-flattery!!! You’d love that, wouldn’t you? It’d be like a thousand orgasms times two. Well, OK … maybe not a thousand x 2, but you get the idea.


Quote:
And now for something completely stupid....
That, and a pair of testicles, of course.


Quote:
Per Kimberly Ann’s request, and because my heart is still twitterpated at the recollection of her in slinky black dress


Quote:
Now, the bad boys in the room may resume their circle jerk unimpeded by any sense that they're engaged in something immoral.


Quote:
Why don't you just get off your habit-fattened ass and drag your broken heart and contrite spirit into the bishop's office, lay it all on the table, and begin the process? You stupid bastard! Don't you know that it's either now or later? And that it's a lot better to just get it over with now rather than waiting until the day when you'll wish you could do anything rather than be exposed to "the glance of his all-searching eye?"


Quote:
Unlike me. I revel in being simultaneously malicious and condescending. And if I can piss someone off in the process, all the better.

And if I ever meet Mr. Scratch on the street, I'll knock him on his ass, pin him to the ground, and stick blades of grass up his nose until he cries.


Quote:
Funny you should say that. I was teaching a primary class at the time that photo was taken. (The bishop in our new ward wouldn't dare turn me loose on the adults at that point.) It was a class with 7 extremely rowdy 9-year-old boys and 2 shy girls. I had a great time dealing with them. The boys were really obedient after the first Sunday when I grabbed the worst offender and pressed him against the ceiling and told him he'd better behave or he wouldn't live through the day.


Dare I say, CHILD ABUSE!

Quote:
Oh, well TD. It looks like someone else gets the girls again and we're left alone with the rug and the bag ...

Hey, stop bogartin' that bone!


Quote:
I love to read the testimonies of the women who claimed that Joseph had slept with them. It took cajones to do that back in the late 19th century. And they weren’t any too ashamed of it, either. They were downright honored to have shared a bed with Joseph Smith.

Us good TBM guys have that effect on our women. If you don’t believe me, just ask my wife.


Quote:
Yeah, that's real nice of you wench. Now get back in the kitchen and make me some cookies.

And take off those damn shoes before I smack you silly!


From the thread: Praise to the man! (Gary Gygax obituary)
Quote:
I'll be over shortly to piss on your rug.


Quote:
GoodK is just like you, Scratchy. He doesn't know s*** from Shinola.

Then again, that's never stopped you from turning a turd into a meal, has it?


Quote:
Here Scratchy and GoodK and a small group of intimate friends were pleasantly engaged in another of the now-almost-legendary Shadyville Circle Jerks, and you open the door and turn on the lights.


Quote:
I've watched you grow dumber over the course of the past two years.

I hope, at least, that you're happier now. What with your wife wearing her tanktop and panties to bed and everything.

My wife just wears the tanktop -- at least for 45 minutes or so. She likes to sleep in her soft flannel jammies.


Quote:
Go away, Lizzie. This conversation is over your pretty little head. You want to moderate my comments, go right ahead. Put some bite in your bitchiness.


Quote:
In retrospect, I have no idea if you even have a “pretty little head.” You see, I am as handsome as my avatar suggests, but I have serious doubts that you are as good looking as your avatar would lead us believe. I’ll bet you’re a wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins and more good years behind you than ahead of you. Right?

That’s a side of me, and that was just how it manifest itself in my actions.


Quote:
And besides, you’re just jealous that I like Kimberly’s cleavage better than yours. But hey, at 50 what’s a woman to do?


Quote:
No, it’s just because Emma was a champion ____ and no one else would have her except Joseph.


Quote:
By the way, I for one am quite confident that most of you losers here in the Trailer Park are shameless buggerers. Else why your proclivity for the orgiastic circle jerks in which you all enthusiastically participate? Like this thread, for example. Graham tosses out the biscuit, and you're all in a circle on a moment's notice.


Quote:
Naturally, no one wants to be called a snotty-nosed shabby bastard child to his/her own face. That’s why I do it via message board.


Quote:
Mad, dishonest, stupid or now ... even vulgar.

I have you beat by one order of denigration.


Quote:
Like a skanky whore with festering sores and lice crawling through her hair, Scratchy shows wherever she goes, the stench of disease precedes her.


Quote:
And, like the shabby trailer park slut you are, I'm sure you'll keep on scoring them, one after another until all the faces look the same.


Quote:
He saith as he hastens to join the shameless circle again.


Quote:
I hope you and your incestuous, whorish, slutish, circle-jerking clan have a wonderful weekend.


Quote:
News to me. I’ve got a great wench … er, sweetheart. She’s one middle-aged baby boomer hottie with all the skills I could ask for – and more. In fact, she could also kick your ass from here to next week – and beyond.


Quote:
Omg. You're an actor with a mullet from Cedar City, Utah? LOLOL. You're a f****in' douche... lolol...


Quote:
By the way, liz, just for the record, I actually think you'd look quite hot in a tank top. On the back of a Harley. With a tattoo. Of a scorpion. On the small of your back.

Oooh, baby!


Willy talking about his Stake President:
Quote:
No need now. I've pointed him to this message board and given him specific links to the threads in question. I think that's him I hear laughing right now from half way across town.

You see, my dear antagonist, the flaw in your plan to "expose" me is that I am absolutely no different on this message board than I am in real life. That's a game for others to play. My stake president would not be shocked (or chagrined) at me calling you apostates filthy whores of Babylon. Indeed, he might just add a few adjectives to the mix.

It's no wonder you people couldn't hack it as Mormons. You don't have a freaking clue -- about the nature of God or His people. That's why it shocks you to have someone declare that Porter Rockwell is in heaven, and apostates go to hell.


William Schryver wrote:
Quote:
We all know that you're really just a dorky-looking fat man who used to be a dorky-looking kid who wished he could hang with the cool people in high school, but was too freaking geeky to even get a date until he was eighteen-years-old. You aspire to cool, but you don't even know what it means. Cool is tossing fish food in a piranha tank and then smacking the little bastards with your fist when they rise to the bait.

And of course you'd regard my most recent work as "increasingly obnoxious." After all, you've never been averse to taking your place right in the middle of the circle, heartily pounding out an approving beat [this presumably referring to the act of stroking one's glans during a masturbatory act] for each and every orgiastic excess. You belong here.


Quote:
Furthermore, you are a cowardly and shameless liar, sir. You are a whorish panderer to the sordid desires of your clientele here in the GSTP™. You and Scratchy are a matched pair of filthy harlots whose stench must even wrinkle the noses of long-time residents.


***
Quote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:
If, having surveyed the writings and speeches of a representative sample of defenders of the faith (e.g., Louis Midgley, Brant Gardner, yours truly, William Hamblin, David Paulsen, Davis Bitton, Matthew Roper, John Welch, Blake Ostler, etc.), you find that tawdry, base ridiculousness and crude sexual metaphors are typical of them, or even publicly approved by them -- if, say, FARMS and FAIR provide a receptive venue for such discourse in the manner in which this board is receptive to the discourse of boaz & lidia, infymus, TAK, Mercury, Chap, poor antishock8, Some Schmo, Polygamy Porter, and the like -- you'll have a secure basis for your generalization.


Runtu wrote:
Quote:
Dan, Will is the one suggesting that you guys privately enjoy this kind of crudeness, so appealing to the idea that Mercury et al. are worse in public doesn't help.


****

Willy referring to his supposed friends:
Quote:
I also happen to know that these particular friends are acutely conscious of the semantic distinctions between a circle jerk as an activity engaged in by adolescent boys (it has nothing to do with homosexuals, contra cksalmon’s frequent misrepresentations thereof) and a circle jerk as "a pompous, self-congratulatory discussion."

Then again, these are educated men who also know the difference between intercourse as "sexual contact" and intercourse as "connection or dealings between persons or groups." As also the difference between incestuous as ” sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry” and incestuous as meaning simply ”excessively or improperly intimate or exclusive”. As also the difference between whore as ”a promiscuous or immoral woman” and whore as “a venal or unscrupulous person”.

In the final analysis, when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

And I choose my words carefully.

Thus, when I characterize Mr. Scratch as a wanton whore whose diseased stench afflicts every corner of this wretched place, that is precisely what I mean. Neither more nor less.

That I have friends (“in high places” as it were) who occasionally find my comments amusing is less attributable to their vulgarity (or my own, for that matter) than it is to their familiarity with the nuances of the English language and their admiration for someone who knows how to wield it with a certain savoir faire. Indeed, much of their amusement is attributable to the motivated ignorance of the majority of the posters here in the GSTP™, and the banal ways in which that apparently-intentional ignorance manifests itself in the comical reactions to the things I say.


Willy you are pathetic, do you really have friends? “Choose your words carefully”, sure you do!

From the thread: Every LDS MormonDiscussions.com and MAD poster going against the prophets...

beastie wrote:
Quote:
Will, I never doubted, even for a second, that you would be proud of your "accomplishments" here.

However, I, for one, hope you continue your standard level of obnoxious, sexually-tinged posting. It's a great advertisement for the LDS church and its members.


Will wrote in reply:
Quote:
I think you should, instead of repeatedly telling us how obnoxious I am, actually demonstrate it via example. Like the thing I said to Liz that you just quoted above. That was great. I think you should assemble all the outrageously-vulgar things I have said into a single post, so that -- in future -- everyone can just link to that single location when the question of Schryver vulgarity comes up.

Come on! Make it happen. Show the world just how B A D I really am.


Perhaps, this thread can serve this purpose.

For a mass example of Willy’s vulgar antics I suggest a review of the following thread.

Double Standard--Question for Will, et. al. from MAD

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6745&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=double+standard&start=294

Willy will never make it to bottom tier of apologetics yet alone the top tier of apologetics, he is too vulgar, he offends them and he is no gentleman.

Willy’s favorite refrain:

Whore
Idiot
Lice crawling through your hair
Legendary Shadyville Circle Jerk
Indignant
Slut
Asshole
Bastard
Uppity
Turd
Testicle
Harlot
Evil
Act of stroking one's glans during a masturbatory act
Douche

You own words speak for themselves.

Have a blessed day!
Pok



Lest We Forget.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 4:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm
Posts: 6001
I confess my puritanical eyebrows are somewhat raised over Herr Schryver's scatological comments.

But then, after my somewhat infamous stint in the telestial kingdom some years back, I suppose I shouldn't be throwing stones. :rolleyes:

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

_________________
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 301 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exiled, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 19 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