Here one finds the criminal post creating all consternation.
Well it is not an answer to the question. It suggest somebody thought something. That is not much. In truth this is a lame post, a flop.
MG should be sentenced to thirty lashes with six wet strings of spaghetti.
You're lucky you haven't started a thread sufficiently 'anti-Mormon' enough to gain mg's attention and have him decide to disrupt it, thereby up-ending any attempt at a good ...........
..........
Seriously, though, in the research I've done on trolling, the main piece of advice given is to look at patterns of engagement, not just individual posts. MG has a pattern of engagement that is disruptive and he routinely causes derailing of topics. There's not much we can do, but clearly recognizing his behavior for what it is helps a little.
Well I am the one who started this thread.i thought it decidedly critical of the Book of Mormon.I
Perhaps we could study as to how to not all go rushing off after every MG emotional diversions and non response.
You're lucky you haven't started a thread sufficiently 'anti-Mormon' enough to gain mg's attention and have him decide to disrupt it, thereby up-ending any attempt at a good ...........
..........
Seriously, though, in the research I've done on trolling, the main piece of advice given is to look at patterns of engagement, not just individual posts. MG has a pattern of engagement that is disruptive and he routinely causes derailing of topics. There's not much we can do, but clearly recognizing his behavior for what it is helps a little.
Well I am the one who started this thread.i thought it decidedly critical of the Book of Mormon.I
Perhaps we could study as to how to not all go rushing off after every MG emotional diversions and non response.
I thought it was a pretty interesting thread from around pg. 3 through 15 or so. IHQ seemed to want to make an issue out of my posting style, etc., Shades chimed in...we got back on track...and IHQ couldn't get enough and things went south.
You're lucky you haven't started a thread sufficiently 'anti-Mormon' enough to gain mg's attention and have him decide to disrupt it, thereby up-ending any attempt at a good ...........
..........
Seriously, though, in the research I've done on trolling, the main piece of advice given is to look at patterns of engagement, not just individual posts. MG has a pattern of engagement that is disruptive and he routinely causes derailing of topics. There's not much we can do, but clearly recognizing his behavior for what it is helps a little.
Well I am the one who started this thread.i thought it decidedly critical of the Book of Mormon.I
Perhaps we could study as to how to not all go rushing off after every MG emotional diversions and non response.
I see. Well, in your thread, THIS thread, he's already had content removed from multiple posts and had posts moved due to rule-breaking, so I don't see a problem with people pointing that out when it happens again, and again, and asking for it to be dealt with. Also, what mg does is not just being emotional and non-responsive. He has, in just the last few days, made sexist statements and has rudely stereotyped nonbelievers.
Specifically, in reference to the sexism, I've learned that just minimizing that by pretending it's not really an issue, or ignoring it and just 'being a good sport' about it means it will continue to happen.
You're lucky you haven't started a thread sufficiently 'anti-Mormon' enough to gain mg's attention and have him decide to disrupt it, thereby up-ending any attempt at a good discussion. Nor have you experienced him posting sexist comments about you, I would assume, as I have many times. Have you had him speculate on whether you are 'christian' or not? (He says it's important to know that about those he disagrees with, for....reasons.) And he's cleaned up his language quite a bit, but it's still fresh in many people's minds that he said, among many other awful examples, that he assumes Mormons are honest and non-Mormons are more likely to lie, and that people who have left the Mormon church are "purveyors of sin and sodomy."
He also speculated once that he wouldn't want to have lunch with me because he didn't think he could stop himself from throwing food at me, but that's his sexism showing once again, so you probably haven't experienced that either.
Seriously, though, in the research I've done on trolling, the main piece of advice given is to look at patterns of engagement, not just individual posts. MG has a pattern of engagement that is disruptive and he routinely causes derailing of topics. There's not much we can do, but clearly recognizing his behavior for what it is helps a little.
Let me suggest some word descriptors that may help flesh out some of the possible underlying issues that are manifest in this response:
Hypervigilance/Paranoia.
Sensitivity to perceived injustice.
Persistent grievance focused thinking and ruminative tendencies.
Dichotomous thinking.
Perceived victimization.
Excessive moralizing.
Tendency to overgeneralize.
I think that these modes/patterns of repetitive reinforcement in a person's mind can result in behavior that becomes rather fixated and potentially harmful to the psyche of a person who becomes consumed in this sort of hypervigilant behavior. My suggestion would be to chill out a bit and not take yourself or others too seriously.
Sheesh, this is a message board. Lighten up.
You've gone down this road a number of times now. Cool your jets!
Regards,
MG
If an A.I. generated list is considered a wall of A.I. generated "text" by the moderators I will discontinue that practice. As it is, a list is a list. It is either valid or invalid. I see it as being directly applicable to the post you made. For me to go through and do the 'armchair psychoanalysis ' thing would be time consuming and very possibly not near as accurate and concise as the list I used, admittedly with some help, and wholeheartedly approve of.
As we fine tune A.I. use, I will abide by any forthcoming tweaks.
If an A.I. generated list is considered a wall of A.I. generated "text" by the moderators I will discontinue that practice. As it is, a list is a list. It is either valid or invalid. I see it as being directly applicable to the post you made. For me to go through and do the 'armchair psychoanalysis ' thing would be time consuming and very possibly not near as accurate and concise as the list I used, admittedly with some help, and wholeheartedly approve of.
As we fine tune A.I. use, I will abide by any forthcoming tweaks.
Regards,
MG
I see you as being an avant-garde model for all future conference talks. As the LDS apologists age out, advanced A.I. modeling will take its place in both excuses and publishing.
And MG has posted, again, his A.I.-generated text, in full defiance of Shades' very clear rules.
Mods, is there any way to stop this? It's clear he won't voluntarily follow this rule himself, as he has clearly and openly broken it at least half a dozen times since Shades put it in place, plus at least three more times in this thread alone. Every time he is told the rule, he says OK never again, and then he does it again.
And MG has posted, again, his A.I.-generated text, in full defiance of Shades' very clear rules.
Mods, is there any way to stop this? It's clear he won't voluntarily follow this rule himself, as he has clearly and openly broken it at least half a dozen times since Shades put it in place, plus at least three more times in this thread alone. Every time he is told the rule, he says OK never again, and then he does it again.
MG isn’t the problem.
If a parent never follows through on a threatened consequence for a child’s bad behaviour, the child comes to realise that the parent’s words a hollow and meaningless and so they can continue behaving howsoever they wish.
The child is now openly taunting the other kids (and the inert parent) to show that he can do whatever he wants. And I agree with him. You’ll notice that once Shades spectacularly chickened out of following through on a consequence for breaking the link and run rule (a short ban was threatened) MG then starts back up on openly posting A.I. content.
The problem now is one of bad parenting.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
