It is currently Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:14 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 300 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 10:00 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
Droopy wrote:

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.



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 Trailer Park,* whether they be single-wide, double-wide, or triple-wide denizens.


*Trailer park is an open compound word.

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 3:27 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 5713
Hello Mr. Droopy,

Oh my, I had to set my leather-bound copy of Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life down, and implore you to cease with your drunken shennanigans, Sir. I myself take up residence on occasion in a sort of "monastic" trailer situated in Paradise Cove of Malibu. I can certainly attest to the fact that although a trailer park it may be, by no means is it filled with the riffle of human slag you are so fond of denigrating.

Once again, I beg you good Sir to attend your Alcoholic Anonymous meetings again, repent to your god via your goodly Bishop, and post another public atonement on this board in order to repair the damage you have sown.

Good day to your, Sir.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

_________________
http://www.strategycenter.net/doclib/20080107_coughlin_extremistjihad.pdf

www.cesletter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 3:02 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Kevin Graham wrote:
Quote:
Name a single instance in which you have ever engaged in a civil, respectful, intellectually substantive critical debate with anyone, on any subject.

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.
Quote:
Here are just two examples:

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(http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... &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.

Classic "Cracker" Graham. Lots of talk of "refutation," but absolutely nothing in the way of actual arguments. In fact, I've recently reviewed the discussions he and I had on these two particular issues. Graham NEVER produces a single counter-argument except to suggest that I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. Absolutely hilarious!

Well, Mr. Cracker, you can blather on all you want, but on these two particular points, the facts are clear, and I'm afraid they're not in your favor. Indeed, the reason I keep bringing up these two things is because there is no "debate" on them anymore--except perhaps in your twisted mind. Bottom line is that I was right about both things, and the arguments I have presented have gone un-rebutted--by anyone. There is most definitely a dittograph (a visual copying error). It is clearly indicated by the "Haran" homoioteleuton that facilitated the dittograph. I already posted, (almost four years ago!) Royal Skousen's affirmation of my analysis. Since then it has been confirmed by others with extensive training and experience in textual criticism. Not that it's even susceptible to much dispute! It's one of the more obvious findings in the entire KEP manuscript collection.

Also, the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12: simply put, my analysis of the locus is 100% correct, and it has been confirmed by several others with the appropriate unassailable credentials--in both textual criticism and forensic document analysis.

You're really up against it on these things. And the ironic part is that these two little issues are absolutely minor in comparison to the other findings I have made about which very few people know a single thing! Although the dittograph and the Abr. 1:12 insertion are nice little findings, they absolutely pale in significance to the things I will talk about on August 6th. I've been working all day long trying to finish up the last bit of work on what has now become my third major methodological approach/study of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. It is, I believe, the most significant and illustrative of the three analytical/logical angles I have taken to date. All told, these three major studies have produced over 300 pages of carefully formatted research findings that will form part of the extensive appendices of my book. In addition, I have, to date, completed four other "minor" studies that deal with important KEP questions, like (for example) who was the driving force and primary innovator behind the whole project.

Not that you will ever acknowledge any of this, of course. LOL! You'll keep droning on about how you've "mopped the floors" with me on this, that, and the other ... but it doesn't matter, since (and I'm sorry to have to break the news to you) at this point in time, no one really gives a rat's ass what you think about any of this stuff. When it comes to the issues concerning the relationship of the KEP to the Book of Abraham, you are not a player in the discussion. You haven't been for a long, long time. You had the opportunity, way back when, to make the right decisions that could have potentially positioned you to do what I am now doing. But your pride and faithlessness destroyed you, and now you (along with the poor, pitiful Paul Osborne) have spiraled down to the sorry state in which we find you.

It's sad, but true.

_________________
... 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  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 3:25 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6168
Man you're a glutton for punishment, I tell ya.

You came here and said you never saw any responses. I showed them to you. I proved you lied, again. You participated in them but decided to respond to everyone and their dog, but not me. You even pretended recently, that you never knew about any such responses. But you were involved in these discussions! You attacked me instead of dealing with the criticisms, pointing out some perceived flaw in my psychology. Saying I'm all "upset" because I've realized how irrelevant I've become, bla bla bla. This isn't a response, this is projection. I calmly and crefully presented you with 7-8 solid arguments that conflict with your silly theory. In any other field of scholarship, evidence that undermines a thesis must be dealt with before a thesis is treated as a viable option. But you and Hauglid don't do that because you're not scholars, you're apologists.

You begin with the premise that the KEP has to be reduced in some way so Joseph Smith can't be held accountable. So you come up with alls orts of arguments designed to serve that purpose. But I presented numerous arguments that challenge those arguments and you never responded. By way of analogy, this is like a kid with a telescope trying to forward a theory that people live on the moon. He believes it because Brigham Young said so. Other scientists point to verifiable data that strongly undermines this thesis, such as the sun's radiation that whips the moon regularly, the lack of oxygen/water, weak gravity/atmosphere, no observable evidence of human colonization, etc. But none of this matters to the kid who has a testimony that Brigham Young was a true prophet. So he continues along the bunny trail, ignoring the world around him, along with the mountain of evidence leaning against him. This is essentially you.

You think you're more important than you are for apologetics, and this has always been so. You're not really good at much of anything except coming up with witty comments to divert. You come here to offer diversions, not responses to criticisms. This is what I was proving here. You don't debate. You can't debate. You're a small fry who hides under the wing of the MAD moderators. Every time you present yourself here, you get refuted with ease. If not by me, then by others. This isn't really something to brag about, for you or me.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 3:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6168
Quote:
In fact, I've recently reviewed the discussions he and I had on these two particular issues. Graham NEVER produces a single counter-argument except to suggest that I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. Absolutely hilarious!


Will always offes a quick reinvention of history to trick people into thinking he has a clue. But this is another lie. The fact is, Will, you came to this forum and opened up a thread and invited me to respond. I responded by offering you 7-8 solid arguments that are supported by a mountain of evidence and undermine your entire thesis. Instead of responding, you diverted.

Only after you fled the scene to tell your cohorts about your tales of victory in the discussion, did I decide to take off the gloves. Only after that time, when you first attacked me saying I'm upset because I mean nothing to the debate anymore, bla bla bla. The usual psycho-babble Bokovoy once tried to pull. The record is there for everyone to see, so who the hell do you think you're fooling besides yourself?

You have never responded to the arguments. Calling them non-arguments might seem more credible if you didn't have a history of running away every time they were presented. Why run from non arguments?

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 4:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6168
Quick history lesson:
November 2007, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3836&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
William:
Quote:
I’ve started this thread for the express purpose of inviting people like Kevin Graham, Chris Smith, Brackite – and anyone else who is so inclined – to delineate to the best of their ability the arguments that they believe support the premise that the KEPA Mss. #2 and #3 (Metcalfe’s 1a/1b) are the simultaneously-produced transcripts of Joseph Smith’s original dictation of the first chapter and a half of the Book of Abraham.

Now I assumed Will was sincere in his request, and I thought it was the opportune moment to present him with 7 arguments Brian Hauglid refused to respond to before and after his FAIR presentation. I mean if Will is sincere, then he'd really want to know what the best arguments were for a dictated scenario, right? So I responded:
Kevin:
Quote:
Will here is something I posted on the Book of Abraham forum, last year in October: (arguments 1-7)

Will responded:
Quote:
Thanks for your efforts to compile these arguments together in one place...I appreciate what you have done so far. I look forward to your future posts.

Now instead of responding to these arguments, Will and Brian's modus operandi has been to figure out ways to dismiss them by focusing on newer proposals that are more apologetically promising. Once they manage to stretch the bounds of reason and conclude one is "plausible," they forward it as "cutting edge." Well, this is only "new" and "on the edge" in apologetic circles, because that is why they are designed in the first place. Will is still trying to explain how it is "plausible" people live on the moon, but the rest of us are content with the obviouss, most probable explanations that don't require the mental gymnastics of flubber.

In any event, Will continued to respond by trying to steer the discussion onto his assertions about Abr 1:12. He wanted us to "explain" numerous things for his benefit - apparently he wanted to use us to knock off the shaarp edges before he presents his smooth, shiny new present to Haugee.

Will:
Quote:
how do you explain the strange discrepancy between the two manuscripts at Abraham 1:12 within the context of a dictation session? You talked about it briefly above. I understand your simple answer is that Parrish was writing faster than Williams. But how does that answer address the fact that the Williams document apparently shows an interlinear insertion of the words "I will refer you to the representation that is at the (commencement of this record." I have argued that this insertion was made after the subsequent paragraph had been written; that the parenthesis preceding "commencement" overlays the word "the" in the first sentence of the following paragraph: "It was made after the form ..."

Suffice it to say, Will didn't touch the seven counterarguments with a ten foot pole. It was almost as if he never even acknolwedged their existence. So the thread continued along the lines Will had planned. He came to the forum claiming he wanted us to present our best arguments for X, but he never intended to address them.

So shooting forward to the present, Will now asserts with emphasis, "Graham NEVER produces a single counter-argument." This, in stark contrast to Will of 2007 who thanked me for providing them.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 5:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9713
Location: Kershaw, SC
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Hello Mr. Droopy,

Oh my, I had to set my leather-bound copy of Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life down, and implore you to cease with your drunken shennanigans, Sir. I myself take up residence on occasion in a sort of "monastic" trailer situated in Paradise Cove of Malibu. I can certainly attest to the fact that although a trailer park it may be, by no means is it filled with the riffle of human slag you are so fond of denigrating.

Once again, I beg you good Sir to attend your Alcoholic Anonymous meetings again, repent to your god via your goodly Bishop, and post another public atonement on this board in order to repair the damage you have sown.

Good day to your, Sir.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me



Dear Doctor:

My entire acquaintance with liquid substances destined for interior regions of my body now goes little beyond intemperate bouts of indulgence involving Barq's rootbeer, orange juice, filtered water, and Tampico.

May the Bluebird of Happiness barf on your bippy.

Your humble servant,

Droopy

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Last edited by Droopy on Fri May 28, 2010 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 5:25 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
Droopy wrote:

My entire acquaintance with liquid substances destined for interior regions of by body now goes little beyond intemperate bouts of indulgence involving Barq's rootbeer, orange juice, filtered water, and Tampico.


.......interior regions of my body......

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 5:56 pm 
God

Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 11:00 am
Posts: 1047
Kevin Graham wrote:
The fact is, Will, you came to this forum and opened up a thread and invited me to respond. I responded by offering you 7-8 solid arguments that are supported by a mountain of evidence and undermine your entire thesis.

Will, please show us where you responded to the 7 arguments Kevin presented?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 3:49 am 
2nd Quorum of Seventy
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:41 am
Posts: 691
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Classic "Cracker" Graham. Lots of talk of "refutation," but absolutely nothing in the way of actual arguments. In fact, I've recently reviewed the discussions he and I had on these two particular issues. Graham NEVER produces a single counter-argument except to suggest that I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. Absolutely hilarious!

Well, Mr. Cracker, you can blather on all you want, but on these two particular points, the facts are clear, and I'm afraid they're not in your favor.


Well, we can now add the use of racist epithets to Will's long list of accomplishments in defense of his particular brand of Christian faith.

_________________
My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 11:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
sethpayne wrote:
Quote:
Classic "Cracker" Graham. Lots of talk of "refutation," but absolutely nothing in the way of actual arguments. In fact, I've recently reviewed the discussions he and I had on these two particular issues. Graham NEVER produces a single counter-argument except to suggest that I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. Absolutely hilarious!

Well, Mr. Cracker, you can blather on all you want, but on these two particular points, the facts are clear, and I'm afraid they're not in your favor.


Well, we can now add the use of racist epithets to Will's long list of accomplishments in defense of his particular brand of Christian faith.

lol!

Oh, Seth, please! I've vowed to refrain from excess laughter on the Sabbath.

Tell me, though, what is a "cracker?" Do you know?

_________________
... 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  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 11:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9713
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Well, we can now add the use of racist epithets to Will's long list of accomplishments in defense of his particular brand of Christian faith.


Is there a particular and virulent species of denseness that strikes liberals and apostate critics with particular acuity?

Kevin "Cracker" Graham...Graham Cracker.

Are you getting the drift yet Seth?

I think the imagery here of Kevin's intellect as dry, flaky and brittle works quite nicely.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 1:03 pm 
2nd Quorum of Seventy
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:41 am
Posts: 691
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Is there a particular and virulent species of denseness that strikes liberals and apostate critics with particular acuity?


Am I a liberal or an apostate?

BTW.... how did your home teaching go this month? My families are doing quite well. Church services today were quite uplifting.

Quote:
I think the imagery here of Kevin's intellect as dry, flaky and brittle works quite nicely.


Ah yes because your intellect is so clearly solid.

_________________
My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 1:05 pm 
2nd Quorum of Seventy
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:41 am
Posts: 691
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Tell me, though, what is a "cracker?" Do you know?


Indeed I do. It is a racial slur on par with the word n*****, often used to describe white people.

I can also be a crunchy snack.

Your insensitivity knows no bounds.

_________________
My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 1:05 pm 
2nd Quorum of Seventy
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:41 am
Posts: 691
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Tell me, though, what is a "cracker?" Do you know?


Indeed I do. It is a racial slur on par with the word n*****, often used to describe white people.

It can also be a crunchy snack.

Your insensitivity knows no bounds.

_________________
My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 1:34 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
"Cracker, sometimes white cracker, is a usually disparaging term for poor whites, mainly used in the Southern United States, but in recent decades in usage throughout North America."

...............

"Historically the word suggested poor, white rural Americans with little formal education."

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 1:49 pm 
2nd Quorum of Seventy
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:41 am
Posts: 691
Location: Seattle, WA
Darth J wrote:
"Cracker, sometimes white cracker, is a usually disparaging term for poor whites, mainly used in the Southern United States, but in recent decades in usage throughout North America."

...............

"Historically the word suggested poor, white rural Americans with little formal education."


Thanks Darth, for providing additional insight into Will's use of a racist slur. Note that he describes this place as a trailer park.... and one of its participants as a cracker.

I wonder what Jesus would post.

_________________
My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 3:03 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
sethpayne wrote:
Quote:
Tell me, though, what is a "cracker?" Do you know?


Indeed I do. It is a racial slur on par with the word n*****, often used to describe white people.

"A racial slur on par with the word n*****?" LOL! (again)

I never cease to be amazed at how the criteria for vulgarity, racism, and all other manner of human despicability are customized to such a remarkable degree whenever apostates seek to characterize me. Oh, well, I have long since observed that the stature of a man can be very accurately assessed by the nature of his enemies.

Quote:
Your insensitivity knows no bounds.

It is very true that I have become utterly insensitive to the venom of a generation of spineless vipers.

_________________
... 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  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 3:10 pm 
2nd Quorum of Seventy
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:41 am
Posts: 691
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
I never cease to be amazed at how the criteria for vulgarity, racism, and all other manner of human despicability are customized to such a remarkable degree whenever apostates seek to characterize me. Oh, well, I have long since observed that the stature of a man can be very accurately assessed by the nature of his enemies.


I'm an apostate? Better call my Bishop, my EQP and my Home Teaching families. PM me and I will gladly supply you with the appropriate contact information.

I am not your enemy, Will. I have said many times how intelligent you are. I simply find your manner offensive and off putting. You remind me of how much I love my Bishop because he is absolutely nothing like you.


Quote:
It is very true that I have become utterly insensitive to the venom of a generation of spineless vipers.


The spineless man must resort to base language (circle jerk), sexism, sexual innuendo, and racial slurs in an attempt to make his point.

You have valid arguments. Do yourself the favor of shedding the nasty exterior.

_________________
My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 3:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
sethpayne wrote:
Quote:
I never cease to be amazed at how the criteria for vulgarity, racism, and all other manner of human despicability are customized to such a remarkable degree whenever apostates seek to characterize me. Oh, well, I have long since observed that the stature of a man can be very accurately assessed by the nature of his enemies.


I'm an apostate? Better call my Bishop, my EQP and my Home Teaching families. PM me and I will gladly supply you with the appropriate contact information.

I am not your enemy, Will. I have said many times how intelligent you are. I simply find your manner offensive and off putting. You remind me of how much I love my Bishop because he is absolutely nothing like you.


Quote:
It is very true that I have become utterly insensitive to the venom of a generation of spineless vipers.


The spineless man must resort to base language (circle jerk), sexism, sexual innuendo, and racial slurs in an attempt to make his point.

You have valid arguments. Do yourself the favor of shedding the nasty exterior.

Of course you're an apostate! The fact that you continue to consort with the Saints is utterly irrelevant to your faith status, which marks you as one who clearly "stands apart" from them ("standing apart" being the fundamental meaning of "apostasy.") A very large proportion of Mormon apostates continues in nominal activity, for a variety of reasons, but primarily (I am convinced) because of the facility it affords them to evangelize unfaith, which they do with patient subtilty.

As for my allegedly "nasty exterior," it is a characterization rising from a myth created and nurtured by apostates and their sympathizers, thereby clearly indicating that the assessment is much more revealing of them than it is of me. It is not believed by anyone outside of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©. Rather, the enmity and propaganda directed towards me by the denizens of this place is viewed, as well it should be, as my personal "badge of honor."

Again, the stature of a man can be very accurately assessed by the nature of his enemies, even those who insist "I am no enemy."

_________________
... 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  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 4:07 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
In summary:

If you think OCDroopy is an asshole: you are a leftist.

If you think Will is an asshole: you are apostate.

If you demonstrate that you know what you are talking about and OCDroppy does not: you are a poseur.

If you tell Will that he is being an asshole: you are vindicating his righteousness.

If Will says objectively offensive things, or says things that would make South Park embarrassed: he's defending the Church.

If you call Will names or say offensive things to him: you are persecuting him because he is righteous.

If you are an active, believing member of the LDS Church who thinks Will is a douchebag: you're apostate.

If you are an active, believing member of the Church who interprets the scriptures in a way that conflicts with OCDroopy's AM radio platitudes: you are apostate.

Don't worry, Will. When your own apostasy from the Church's teachings and conducting yourself in a way that is offensive to someone claiming to defend Jesus' true church reach their logical destination, we will forgive and forget. Unlike the judgmental, self-righteous TBM's whose side you still pretend to be on.

"The fact that you continue to consort with the Saints is utterly irrelevant to your faith status, which marks you as one who clearly "stands apart" from them ("standing apart" being the fundamental meaning of "apostasy.")"

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 300 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aoife, cognitiveharmony, Fence Sitter, Google [Bot], RockSlider, SteelHead and 27 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