Complex?

[Marcus]

Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.

https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Sci ... 1416542744

I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.

And no, I will not respond to your next question having to do with, "Well, give us the top five reasons Collins gives for his belief in God and in Jesus Christ and the Christian story."

Read the book.

Regards,
Mg

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 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.

[MG 2.0]

MG should be sentenced to thirty lashes with six wet strings of spaghetti.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

Here one finds the criminal post creating all consternation.

Well, it is not an answer to the question. It suggests 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.

Perhaps we could study as to how to not all go rushing off after every MG emotional diversion and non-response.

[MG 2.0]

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.

Perhaps we could study as to how to not all go rushing off after every MG emotional diversion 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.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

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.

Perhaps we could study as to how to not all go rushing off after every MG emotional diversion 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.

[Dr. Shades]

Okay.

I have rewritten the rule to better encapsulate the spirit of it as opposed to the strict letter of it. Here, per your request, is the rewritten Universal Rule #10, with new parts in red:

Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always describe its content with enough detail so readers can know, in advance, whether it's worth their time to click on it. (Ideally, explain what's at the other end of it, why it's important, and what you hope other readers / viewers learn from it.) RULE OF THUMB: If it's not worth your time to describe it, then it's not worth our time to click on it.

Wow, that’s incredible.

So instead of managing MG’s poor behaviour to come into line with the board’s rules, you’ve rewritten the board’s rules to come into line with MG’s poor behaviour.

I’m dumbfounded.

This is the link and run that started it off

Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.

https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Sci ... 1416542744

I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.

That doesn’t meet even the new “MG Amendment” to the board rule.

He does not describe what is at the end of the link - a company selling a book. He does not describe in sufficient detail its content for readers to decide if it’s worth their while clicking on it, because he doesn’t explain that it’s not a link to the books content, it’s just a link to an online book seller. There’s no “content” at the end of the link. He doesn’t explain readers would have to buy it to access the content that’s supposedly relevant to the discussion.

It clearly, and obviously fails to meet even your newly diluted rule.

He says the other end contains a book, then he indicates the book is about a scientist who converted to Christianity, so I disagree with you about it failing to meet even my newly diluted rule.

Is it perfect? No. Does it contain enough information for us to make an informed decision whether it's worth our time to click on it? Yes.

[Marcus]

Wow, that’s incredible.

So instead of managing MG’s poor behaviour to come into line with the board’s rules, you’ve rewritten the board’s rules to come into line with MG’s poor behaviour.

I’m dumbfounded.

This is the link and run that started it off
That doesn’t meet even the new “MG Amendment” to the board rule.

He does not describe what is at the end of the link - a company selling a book. He does not describe in sufficient detail its content for readers to decide if it’s worth their while clicking on it, because he doesn’t explain that it’s not a link to the books content, it’s just a link to an online book seller. There’s no “content” at the end of the link. He doesn’t explain readers would have to buy it to access the content that’s supposedly relevant to the discussion.

It clearly, and obviously fails to meet even your newly diluted rule.

He says the other end contains a book, then he indicates the book is about a scientist who converted to Christianity, so I disagree with you about it failing to meet even my newly diluted rule.

Is it perfect? No. Does it contain enough information for us to make an informed decision whether it's worth our time to click on it? Yes.

I don't want to be clicking on links for shopping, which is what mg linked to, with no explanation that it was that kind of link. It happened to be a book, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a link to an advertisement for a product, which is one of the given reasons you can choose when reporting a post here. If we can report posts whose only purpose is to advertise a product, why is mg's post allowed to stand? He put no more effort into that post than a lone advertiser would.

[I Have Questions]

He says the other end contains a book, then he indicates the book is about a scientist who converted to Christianity, so I disagree with you about it failing to meet even my newly diluted rule.

Is it perfect? No. Does it contain enough information for us to make an informed decision whether it's worth our time to click on it? Yes.

He doesn’t link to a book. As Marcus points out, he links to a bookseller on an online shopping forum. You might think that constitutes a valid link to relevant “content”, I don’t.

His post does not contain enough information for us to make an informed decision whether it’s worth our time to click on it because he doesn’t state that it’s a link to a bookseller selling the book, he indicates it’s a link to a books contents, which it isn’t.

Can everyone now spam the board with links to product advertisements?

[Dr. Shades]

He doesn’t link to a book. As Marcus points out, he links to a bookseller on an online shopping forum. You might think that constitutes a valid link to relevant “content”, I don’t.

His post does not contain enough information for us to make an informed decision whether it’s worth our time to click on it because he doesn’t state that it’s a link to a bookseller selling the book, he indicates it’s a link to a book's contents, which it isn’t.

Can everyone now spam the board with links to product advertisements?

He didn't link to a random book; he linked to one that contained reasoning that would, in his view, better address what he was responding to. Plus, he told us he'd read it, so that was a plus.

Amazon.com pages that display books are quite helpful, in my opinion, because you can often read excerpts and can nearly always read what other readers have to say about it.

Yes, it would've been VASTLY superior for him to simply explain his point in his own words, but if he wanted to link to a book, which site would've been better than the one to which he actually linked?

[I Have Questions]

He doesn’t link to a book. As Marcus points out, he links to a bookseller on an online shopping forum. You might think that constitutes a valid link to relevant “content”, I don’t.

His post does not contain enough information for us to make an informed decision whether it’s worth our time to click on it because he doesn’t state that it’s a link to a bookseller selling the book, he indicates it’s a link to a book's contents, which it isn’t.

Can everyone now spam the board with links to product advertisements?

He didn't link to a random book; he linked to one that contained reasoning that would, in his view, better address what he was responding to. Plus, he told us he'd read it, so that was a plus.

Amazon.com pages that display books are quite helpful, in my opinion, because you can often read excerpts and can nearly always read what other readers have to say about it.

Yes, it would've been VASTLY superior for him to simply explain his point in his own words, but if he wanted to link to a book, which site would've been better than the one to which he actually linked?

This Wikipedia page specifically about the book containing a comprehensive summary of its contents and main themes. It also contains links to other resources about the book and its contents.

Obviously.

I ask again, is a link to a product advertisement on an online vendor’s website now to be considered a valid link?