Complex?

[Moksha]

I would assume the MG meant God and Mrs. God created through the natural process of sexual intercourse. Hasn't that been the Mormon explanation for some time? Makes sense that MG would refer us to some non-descript hygiene film from the 1950s. Those films helped prepare generations of BYU students for Celestial Marriage. As Delbert Stapely would put it, give them a good education and they will multiply and pay tithing.

[I Have Questions]

I examined it very closely, and in my judgment he included enough information about it to figure out whether it was worth clicking on. To wit, he wrote:


So, he indicated it contained a response to the previous post that was something more than a quick TikTok or a snarky *gif...

Shades, come on. Here was the first exchange:

What do you mean, specifically, by the term “natural processes”?

In answer to that very specific question about a single phrase, mg linked to a book. A BOOK, for god's sake. And is the BOOK about what MENTALGYMNAST thinks the term “natural processes” means? NO IT IS NOT. It's part autobiography, part apologetics, part scientific memoir.

You'd have to comb through it long and hard to find anything related to the question.

Mg played you, Shades. He included just enough information to bedazzle your senses ("more than a quick TikTok or a snarky *gif") while glossing over the fact that he knows nothing about this book as it relates to the question, and could only post Amazon provided details.

...So yeah, he doesn't specifically state the name of the book, why the link is important, and what he hopes other readers / viewers learn from what's at the other end of the link...

which are all requirements of the rule, right?

...but he provides enough information so that the reader can make an informed decision as to whether it's worth his or her time to click on it, thus rendering it NOT a link-and-run...

That is absolutely incorrect. He did NOT provide information, within the context of the question asked, whether it was worth it to click the link. The information he provided was an Amazon author blurb, no title, some generic information unrelated to the question at hand, and he said it was a book.

It was a true link and run, and you fell for it.

That is absolutely correct Marcus. He does not explain why the link is important nor why it’s relevant to the question at hand, he does not explain why he hope readers will gain from following the link, relevant to the question at hand. Shades, in my opinion, has looked at all possible ways of avoiding following through on his promise to give MG consequences for further board rule breaches. I look forward to now being able to post links to things that aren't relevant to the question at hand so long as I state who wrote the content, and a few words of overview - that apparently meets the criteria for not being a "link & run". If MG can get away with it, so can everyone else. Shades has set a precedent with this one.

It's worth noting that MG's link is not to the content of a book. It's to Amazon where you can buy the book. And his comment is simply what can be found in the Amazon comments. There's no evidence MG has the book, no evidence he's read it. No evidence of it being relevant to the question at hand. So fine, if linking to a book seller for a book that isn't relevant and parroting a comment or two from others about that book, constitutes compliance with the board rule about linking and running, so be it.

[I Have Questions]

So yeah, he doesn't specifically state the name of the book, why the link is important, and what he hopes other readers / viewers learn from what's at the other end of the link...

For reference here's the board rule - "“Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, 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.”

So Shades you agree it meets your criteria for what constitutes a link and run, but then you justify walking back from imposing the consequence you said you would administer for such a circumstance. So, not a man of your word then.

MG has been doing this over and over and over again. And now you are facilitating it by failing to stick to your board rules, by failing to issue the consequence you'd threatened. It is clear that MG can continue to not comply with board rules and you will find ways to let him away with it. You've given him (and me, and everyone else) licence to continue to link and run as long as they meet the new, vastly diluted "MG 2.0 link and run criteria" - perhaps you should add this as an addendum to the existing board rule which has now been superseded by the MG Board Rule. Your credibility has taken a huge hit with this one as far as I'm concerned.