It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:10 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, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
harmony wrote:
Welcome, Dan. We are truly blessed, with your presence and Mr Bagley's also. I'm not sure what we did to deserve such celebrities among us, but it was probably our penchant of allowing William to hang himself regularly here. It's definitely worth the price of admission.

Settle down, dissonance. You'll give yourself a stroke.

:lol:!

Who knew that sycophancy was capable of achieving orgasm?
.
.
.
======================>

_________________
... 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 Jul 26, 2009 3:26 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 20850
Location: Koloburbia
William Schryver wrote:
.

It has been said, quite repeatedly in fact, that I have spouted "vulgarities" and what not. Now you have come along and claim that what I have written is "provocative." In all of this, no one has ever actually pointed to something specific I have said/written and singled it out for condemnation.

I have asked, over and over and over again, for examples of my "excesses," but no one will accommodate me.


Personally, I hate research that take more than 10 minutes of Googling. It is non-recreational. :biggrin: What we need is for Scratch to extend his powers beyond the scope of Dr. Peterson for this one. Perhaps he could make a compendium to help jog our memory.


Quote:
I asked you also to specify what things you found "provocative" (I assume you have used that term in a somewhat pejorative fashion, but I'm not certain).


Let's just say that I think provocative in this case, means something you have written that draws strong responses. The terms vugar and scatological seem pejorative. I think of provocative as a more kinder and gentler description. Hope that makes sense. Have you ever noticed when any of those cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants, take offense when described in this manner? Not that you personally would ever say anything remotely similar to this provocative description.

:wink:

_________________
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 Jul 26, 2009 3:29 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
William Schryver wrote:
harmony wrote:
Welcome, Dan. We are truly blessed, with your presence and Mr Bagley's also. I'm not sure what we did to deserve such celebrities among us, but it was probably our penchant of allowing William to hang himself regularly here. It's definitely worth the price of admission.

Settle down, dissonance. You'll give yourself a stroke.

:lol:!

Who knew that sycophancy was capable of achieving orgasm?


Your jealousy is showing, William.

_________________
(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: Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:34 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
William Schryver wrote:
Spoken by one whose entire raison d'etre is to discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, and to erode the foundations of the church he founded.

Self-awareness is obviously not one of your strong suits.


I suspect his reasons for existence include more than just that. Family... friends... spouse... lover... career... neighborhood... hobbies...

Just because they are unknown to you doesn't mean they don't exist (we've had this discussion before, William. Your egocentric worldview notwithstanding, you are not the center of everyone's universe, no matter what those who love you say.

_________________
(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: Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:36 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
moksha:
Quote:
Have you ever noticed when any of those cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants, take offense when described in this manner? Not that you personally would ever say anything remotely similar to this provocative description.

So, so true. I'm much more eloquent when describing the "cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants."

_________________
... 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 Jul 26, 2009 3:39 pm 
Quote:
Who knew that sycophancy was capable of achieving orgasm?


Oh William, you're such a bad boy. Clean up your mess.

:wink:

Paul O


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:44 pm 
Bishop

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 494
moksha wrote:
Personally, I hate research that take more than 10 minutes of Googling. It is non-recreational.


I've decided that I will take the time to point out those lines of dialogue that I think are funny and render honor to those who meet my ever-changing and undefined criteria of amusing and/or of interest.

This line met that criteria. Congrats, little penguin. May they someday write songs about you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
dissonance wrote:
Your jealousy is showing, William.

I've never been jealous of sycophants.

Especially those who are so desperate to associate with "celebrity" that they believe people like Dan Vogel and Will Bagley constitute such. :lol:

All celebrity is relative, of course, but when you consider the fact that Vogel and Bagley are only known for writing bad Mormon history, and that the market for bad Mormon history represents a mere fraction of the already small market for Mormon history in general, then I think you get closer to appreciating how "celebrated" these two would-be "historians" really are.

_________________
... 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 Jul 26, 2009 4:18 pm 
Bishop

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 494
William Schryver wrote:
...bad Mormon history...Mormon history in general...


What do you know, two in a row.

It is hard for a gentile such as myself to distinguish between them.

Well said, good sir.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:27 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
William Schryver wrote:
dissonance wrote:
Your jealousy is showing, William.

I've never been jealous of sycophants.


Oh, try again, William. You are jealous of anyone who draws the spotlight off yourself.

Quote:
Especially those who are so desperate to associate with "celebrity" that they believe people like Dan Vogel and Will Bagley constitute such. :lol:


They are published; you aren't. People buy their books; no one buys anything of yours, especially your lame arguments. They are strangers here; you aren't. I welcome most people when they first land on our corner of the 'net. You, alas, don't.

Quote:
All celebrity is relative, of course, but when you consider the fact that Vogel and Bagley are only known for writing bad Mormon history, and that the market for bad Mormon history represents a mere fraction of the already small market for Mormon history in general, then I think you get closer to appreciating how "celebrated" these two would-be "historians" really are.


I'm an equal opportunity welcomer, William. Heaven knows, every time Daniel returns, I welcome him too. You, I ignore, but that's only to be expected.

_________________
(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: Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:37 pm 
harmony wrote:

They are published; you aren't. People buy their books; no one buys anything of yours, especially your lame arguments.



Image


:lol:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:08 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 14181
William Schryver wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:
I'm not sure Will has been sincere about a single thing he's written about himself... well, ever. Not on this board, anyway.

Mmmmmmm ... how intriguing.

Just what do you imagine the truth to be?

I don’t know what the truth is, but I have a pretty good idea what it isn’t. It’s not difficult to recognize an unrealistic caricature when I see one.

I suspect the truth is that you’re a frightened, insecure little boy hiding in a misogynistic, deluded adult’s body, but I’ll resist declaring that as fact, despite the abundance of evidence favoring that conclusion. Benefit of the doubt, and all that.

_________________
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:20 pm
Posts: 1267
Location: Shady Acres
William Schryver wrote:
Chrissie Kellie Salmon


Will apparently knows that my first name is "Chris[topher]" (Gr. "bearer of Christ") and that my middle name is "Kelly" (a masculine spelling derived from the name of an Irish friend of my parents).

What I find interesting here is that William Schryver has apparently attempted to insult me via the feminization of the spellings of my first and middle names. Rather than "Chris" or "Christopher," William Schryver here inserts a feminine form, derivative of my first name: "Chrissie." And, for my middle name, he inserts, again, a typically feminine spelling, "Kellie," rather than, in deference to the heritage of my Irish middle name, the masculine "Kelly."

Oh my, it must just strike William Schryver as oh-so-clever to refer to me in an artificially feminized manner.

To be sure, I don't care one way or the other, in this instance. I just find it quite telling that Schryver finds, and must find, if his intended insult is to carry any weight at all, his intentional feminization of my first and middle names to be derogatorily humorous.

This is, to be sure, a glowing example of a quite contrived, and amateur, lay LDS apologetic. But, there it is: Plain Stupid.

cks

_________________
Wouldn't it be best, to be together then...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
cksalmon wrote:
William Schryver wrote:
Chrissie Kellie Salmon


Will apparently knows that my first name is "Chris[topher]" (Gr. "bearer of Christ") and that my middle name is "Kelly" (a masculine spelling derived from the name of an Irish friend of my parents).

What I find interesting here is that William Schryver has apparently attempted to insult me via the feminization of the spellings of my first and middle names. Rather than "Chris" or "Christopher," William Schryver here inserts a feminine form, derivative of my first name: "Chrissie." And, for my middle name, he inserts, again, a typically feminine spelling, "Kellie," rather than, in deference to the heritage of my Irish middle name, the masculine "Kelly."

Oh my, it must just strike William Schryver as oh-so-clever to refer to me in an artificially feminized manner.

To be sure, I don't care one way or the other, in this instance. I just find it quite telling that Schryver finds, and must find, if his intended insult is to carry any weight at all, his intentional feminization of my first and middle names to be derogatorily humorous.

This is, to be sure, a glowing example of a quite contrived, and amateur, lay LDS apologetic. But, there it is: Plain Stupid.

cks

My sincerest apologies!

All along, I thought you were a girl.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

_________________
... 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: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:41 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Quote:
This is, to be sure, a glowing example of a quite contrived, and amateur, lay LDS apologetic. But, there it is: Plain Stupid.


This is the third time a defender of the faith has engaged in this behavior within recent history on this board. It's beginning to look like a pattern.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:20 pm
Posts: 1267
Location: Shady Acres
William Schryver wrote:
My sincerest apologies!

All along, I thought you were a girl.

Thanks for setting the record straight.


Absolutely Priceless. William Schryver here attempts to excuse his manifest sexism by feigning ignorance of my gender: "All along, I thought you were a girl." Which, would make his obvious feminization tactics a moot point, as he apparently thinks.

And this is the "rising" star to whose posts DCP has affixed his manifest approval, on more than one occasion.

Folks, this just is LDS apologetics in its very most amateurish, lay-level, instantiation.

Behold, I give you: William Schryver.

I would venture a guess that William Schryver's mind has not entertained a genuinely, sincere, thought for, lo, these many years.

Behold the fruit of your apologetic loins, DCP.

cks

_________________
Wouldn't it be best, to be together then...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:20 pm 
Cupcake Queen
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:03 am
Posts: 3171
There is reason to believe that our resident Vulgar Scatologist has been defacing ladies' rooms across the country. I offer as evidence this restroom door I encountered at a historical monument in Santa Fe, New Mexico:

Image

KA

_________________
Bicycle Built for Two


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:21 pm 
Will wrote:
I've never been jealous of sycophants.


Hmmm....it must be the orgasm you're jealous of, then. :wink:

It's OK, Will.....In this life, women can easily experience multiple orgasms.

Maybe if you become a God in the next life, you can improve men's chances of the same. :lol:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:23 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm
Posts: 6691
Quote:
My sincerest apologies!
All along, I thought you were a girl.
Thanks for setting the record straight.


I figured this was said with the greatest possible sarcasm and as a further insult.

But then again, with such a duality/integrity problem how could one make the call?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:16 am 
Prophet
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:26 pm
Posts: 859
Quote:
Quote:
I can handle my mistakes being pointed out ...

Yes, that was so apparent in the thread where I pointed one out. :lol:


Yes, in that thread it was apparent that I can gracefully handle my mistakes being discussed. It was equally apparent that you couldn’t.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't choose my enemies, they choose me. They need enemies to define themselves, I don't.

Spoken by one whose entire raison d'etre is to discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, and to erode the foundations of the church he founded.

Self-awareness is obviously not one of your strong suits.


Well, if you knew me as well as your statement above implies, you would know that I have consistently stated, both on the MAD board and in print, that scholarship cannot “discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.” That is a matter of faith. What my work might do is bring the definition of “prophet” more in line with historical data. Ironically, some true believers regard the efforts of FARMS and other apologists who try to bring Book of Mormon historicity in line with archaeological data by suggesting limited geography , etc. as an attempt to “to erode the foundations of the church.” Challenging traditional views is what scholars do. Whether this leads to a crisis of faith, a modification, or a complete denial is not a concern for scholars.

True, a lot of what I do pertains to controversial subjects, but not everything. I’m no different than some of the leading apologists (such as Dan Peterson, Jack Welch, Bill Hamblin, etc.) who also write on less controversial topics, such as glossolalia (or in tongues tongues) in the early LDS Church or James Colin Brewster. Indeed, I have spent the last decade working on a critical edition of the History of the Church, which I assure you will benefit all scholars working on Mormon studies regardless of personal conclusions. Anyone familiar with my five-volume Early Mormon Documents knows that I debunk many favorite anti-Mormon claims. I can’t stop you from defining me through your narrow apologetic prism, but I remain confident that those who do not choose me as their enemy will have a more balanced view.

Will, I have not chosen you as an enemy—that is not my intention. I do not seek the demise of the LDS Church. I only seek to impart information and to raise the level of discussion. Why in your world view are those who have a different interpretation of Mormon origins automatically enemies? Is it wise or healthy to make enemies of everyone who questions Book of Mormon historicity or some of Joseph Smith’s historical claims?

_________________
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:32 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Dan Vogel wrote:
Will, I have not chosen you as an enemy—that is not my intention. I do not seek the demise of the LDS Church. I only seek to impart information and to raise the level of discussion. Why in your world view are those who have a different interpretation of Mormon origins automatically enemies? Is it wise or healthy to make enemies of everyone who questions Book of Mormon historicity or some of Joseph Smith’s historical claims?


Will's a lightweight, an apologist wannabe with a vulgar vocabulary who craves attention. Why do you care what he thinks?

_________________
(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  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 301 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fence Sitter, Meadowchik, Stem and 8 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