Vogel:

Nor I you.

What, pray tell, led you to conclude otherwise?


Well, I only claimed that you have sought to erode its foundations. Your attempt to rephrase my statement for polemical effect is noted. I stand by my own statement concerning your underlying intentions. I believe they have become abundantly clear over the years. Furthermore, I’m fairly certain that a poll of your “friends” above (Peterson, Welch, and Hamblin) might return a result not entirely consistent with your claim that “I’m no different than some of the leading apologists …,” unless you simply mean that you occupy a place opposite them in the debates over these questions.


They aren’t. There is a distinct difference between a polemical adversary and an “enemy.” Don’t you think so?


To dispute the conclusions of those who argue against Book of Mormon historicity or Joseph Smith’s historical claims is not equivalent to making “enemies.” You, of all people, should understand that concept.

.
.
.
.
.
.
========================>

It's my way of pointing out Will's binary world view.

Your apparent inability to distinguish between the intentions of various unbelievers.



That statement was not intended as an attempt to rephrase your statement. It is my own statement to distinguish myself from avowed enemies of "Mormonism."



And there you have it. Will, the mind reader. Despite the clear statements I have made to the contrary, prescient Will knows better.



Will, there you go again with your partial quotes and distortions. My point was: they are not always apologists, and I'm not always a critic.



It would be nice if you viewed things that way. But I don't think so. To you, I'm more than someone that simply has a different opinion than you. I'm trying to discredit Joseph Smith's prophetic claims and erode the church he founded.



Again, this is not an accurate portrayal of your position.

For multiple reasons the irony meter on my computer has been stuck on full throughout this thread.

P.S. for the record: as an apologists, I am not ashamed of Will Schryver.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Will has some entertainment value, but that's about all. He's perhaps the sort of person I'd like to have a drink with in a pub (seriously). But apart from being an attention-whore I think, unfortunately, he's also dishonest. I now firmly believe that he created the Wheat sockpuppet. And he created it as a sort of Dorothy Dixer on Book of Abraham threads. He's also a great divider of people, who can only see in black and white, and sees evil lurking in every criticism of Mormonism, no matter how innocuous or well-intended, and his comments to Dan Vogel show just how divisive he is. Not even DCP will venture there, now, but Will is more than willing to oblige to set the Saints straight on whom they should expurgate and ostracise.

In this category Will is a three star General. Droopy a five-star General.

As a Scratch-certified Key Apologist™ I am not embarrassed by Will either.

Bumping for MAD lurkers.

Bumping with this observation. Readers should also note the violent strains behind Schryver’s rhetoric:







(Emphasis added)




You can add to Schryver’s rhetoric the word “violent” as well as vulgar.

His suspected alter-ego, “Wheat” (another apologist) wrote:



Deborah must feel charmed by his admiration. Maybe her motto is WWWD.

Bumping it in honor of William Schryver, my dirty mouthed friend. It takes one to know one, and I know William boy is dirty.

Paul O

Except for the cites listed below which are NOT mine, I’ve just read through the first post on this thread and found myself laughing all over again at how funny I can be when I put my mind to it.

As I’ve said many times, I hope people DO read everything I have ever written on this message board. Not only will doing so put the lie to the propaganda campaign that has been waged against me, but it will be entertaining for them as well!

LOL!


(A quote from the Bible, of course. Proverbs, IIRC.)


Not that this is even really “vulgar,” but I don’t believe I wrote this. In fact, I’m all but certain I didn’t.


I don’t know where this came from, and it might very well be true, but I didn’t say it.


Not me, either.

As for the rest of them, re-reading them this morning reminds me of why it is the campaign to label me as some kind of champion of vulgarity has never succeeded in convincing anyone outside The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©. The allegation has no basis in the facts, and no matter how you try to paint it, my words simply won’t convict me.

Translation: neither I nor anyone else here stand a chance in a serious debate with him and that makes us feel very put out.



I've seen not the slightest indication of this...ever.



So was Jesus Christ. So is Droopy. So is Thomas Monson. Who here wants to be a part of The World, raise your hands.



Beware they who come crying "unity!" Unity, unless it is unity in righteousness in harmony with correct principles, is for lemmings.



In which case that's "Sir" to you Private.

Lemmings became notoriously famous because of unsubstantiated myths that they commit mass suicide when they migrate. The myth may exist in more variations. In most forms it does not appear to claim a conscious suicide but rather accidental mass death due to various factors. However in popular culture the alleged behavior is usually referred to as "mass suicide" and hence discussed here as "mass suicide myth".

Driven by strong biological urges, some species of lemmings may migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. Lemmings can and do swim and may choose to cross a body of water in search of a new habitat. This fact and the extremely strong unexplained fluctuations in the population of Norwegian lemmings may have contributed to the development of the myth.

The myth of lemming "mass suicide" is long-standing and has been popularized by a number of factors. In 1955, Disney Studio illustrator Carl Barks drew an Uncle Scrooge adventure comic with the title "The Lemming with the Locket". This comic, which was inspired by a 1954 American Mercury article, showed massive numbers of lemmings jumping over Norwegian cliffs. Even more influential was the 1958 Disney film White Wilderness, which won an Academy Award for Documentary Feature, in which staged footage was shown with lemmings jumping into sure death after faked scenes of mass migration. A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Cruel Camera, found that the lemmings used for White Wilderness were flown from Hudson Bay to Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where they did not jump off the cliff, but in fact were launched off the cliff using a turntable.

In more recent times, the myth is well-known as the basis for the failed Apple Computer 1985 Super Bowl commercial "Lemmings" and the popular 1991 video game Lemmings, in which the player must stop the lemmings from mindlessly marching over cliffs or into traps.

Because of their association with this odd behavior, lemming suicide is a frequently used metaphor in reference to people who go along unquestioningly with popular opinion, with potentially dangerous or fatal consequences. This metaphor is seen many times in popular culture, such as in the video game Lemmings, and in episodes of Red Dwarf and Adult Swim's show Robot Chicken. In Urban Terror, falling to one's death is called doing the lemming thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming#Mass-Suicide_Myth

EDIT: Those who have been studying militant cafeteria Mormonism may remember our previous discussion of using pop culture tropes under the pretense of literacy.

Post Reference:

Name a single debate Will has won.

Better yet, name a single debate Will has ever finished.

Or name a debate Will has ever impressed you.

And while you're at it, try naming a single debate Will has ever been willing to have over on this forum.

Will doesn't debate. Will can't debate. WIll obfuscates and tries to impress people with rhetoric. He usually does this over at his lecture chair at MADB.

Here is the part where Dafty doesn't answer the questions. Guaranteed.

Here are just two examples:

"Haran" Dittograph in Ab2

Interlinear Insertion at Abr. 1:12

Although Kevin Graham is very fond of (and very frequently persuaded by) the counter-argument of "you're just an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about," most people are much more intellectually rigorous in their approach to such things.

I need to correct a very egregious typo in one of my posts above. I said:



What I meant was "Neither you nor anyone else here stand a chance in a serious debate with him and that makes us feel very put out."

I have no idea how I would fare in a debate with him on the BofA. This is, of course, rather moot, as I have no intention of ever debating him on this subject. It is also true that I do not have the detailed knowledge of many of the textual and forensic issues over which Metcalf, Smith, Graham et al roast themselves to such juicy perfection, but this, again, is moot, given my testimony of that document.

I just wanted to make this clear so that no one here thinks that I consider myself to be in the same intellectual class as the denizens of the Traierpark, whether they be single wide, double wide, or triple wide denizens.

Name a single instance in which you have ever engaged in a civil, respectful, intellectually substantive critical debate with anyone, on any subject.

Name one debate you have ever had here that is primarily intellectual and philosophical in nature, and not primarily polemical.

I'm sorry, I meant to say "Unity, unless it is unity in righteousness in harmony with correct principles, is for liberals.", not lemmings.

The problem is that the these are very closely related sub-species with very little differentiation in habits and instincts.

Whether more myth than reality or not, its the motif that counts here...at least for liberals.

Based on your reply to Mortal Man over on MAD, I have to say that your argument regarding this insertion achieves new heights when it comes to throwing Joseph Smith under the bus. Your arguments sounds like it will proceed along these lines: Joseph Smith incorrectly assumed that the facsimile had something to do with the Book of Abraham and thus added the interlinear insertion to the Book of Abraham.

I love it! Not only are you tossing Joseph Smith's "mere opinion," you're tossing his cannonized opinion!

Too many to count, but the one in celestial forum between Bokovoy and I should suffice in making the point. He left the debate saying I left him with plenty to think about. Anyway, I knew you wouldn't respond to the questions because the fact is you have no evidence of Will being a master debater. Every once in a blue moon he'll throw something out to keep us occupied, and he'll receive numerous refutations. But he never sticks around to defend his thesis until the end. He'll gladly leave in light of conflicting data that he doesn't know how to account for. This is how I generally run him off, and it works every time.

Just two examples? They are the only examples, and these are discussions you began by launching into a lecture over at MADB pundits forum. In the first example you tried to debate Brent, but he was too busy debating the maatter with Hauglid in private emails and didn't give you the time of day. So Dan Vogel and Chris Smith made quick mincemeat of your baseless assertion and I provided a response over here, which of course you were careful to avoid. It is also worth noting that you began this thread shortly after the embarrassing FAIR presentation of 2006. This was just weeks after I was banned, and your knowledge level on the matter was pathetically low.

And while you started the "debate" in Sept 2006, your last post was at the end of September whereas Chris and Vogel continued to pummel you throughout Feb of 2007. You never responded to them after September, so that pretty much supports what I said. You don't stick around long once you are refuted. You don't have the intellectual stamina.

In your second example, you started a thread on both boards, which is a first I think(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3836&st=0&sk=t&sd=a). The funniest thing about it is while I was responding to it over here, you were picking things I had said and citing them over there as something "a critic" just said. And even though you participated in the refutation I provided here, you started dodging me halfway through the discussion and instead picked things you thought you could score points on over at MADB, and used them over there to do so. I presented a half dozen solid arguments for you to address and you never did. Like I said, you don't finish debates. The thread died at the end of November and picked up again in May 2008, which is when it got heated between us. Why? Because you ran back to MADB and lost the courage to come back and face your critics. I started the thread back up responding to things you were saying at MADB, and noted how you were citing me over there as "a critic."

You returned, jumped in and started responding to people like Shade, Trevor s and chap, but you didn't have the balls to address the points I made. Instead, you came here and said, "ignore Graham (who is painfully aware of how irrelevant he has become when it comes to Book of Abraham conversations" and then you posted a giant photo of rednecks in a trailer park. So irrelevant that you're still using things I say to shape your arguments at MADB? You're such an idiot because you cite me and then say I'm irrelevant in the next breath. You can't have it both ways, but my relevancy is not the issue. Just deal with the rebuttal and stop pretending to be a brave apologist.

OCDroopy, in your vastly superior intellect and erudition that so greatly surpasses that of everyone else here, did you by chance ever stumble across anything that explained the difference between a motif and a metaphor?