DiscussMormonism.com

Will Schryver wrote:The excitement of the past week has been the best thing to happen in Shadesville in months. For the first time since its latest incarnation, there were more than a half-dozen users paying attention at a given moment in time.

Oh, I know that they’re claiming to have had 82! users looking in on June 4th, but I don’t believe it for a second! That stat has been doctored by the webmaster to artificially pump up their sagging self-image. I’ve checked things out there often enough to know that there are never more than a handful of spectators, and even fewer actual participants.

The sooner we stop talking about them, the sooner they’ll fade back into complete irrelevancy again.

The word is out Shades.....they know you "doctor" the numbers!! Shock and awe!!!

But why 82??? Why not 83....that's more right? Why not 666 or 523,400 or some other impressive number. Please tell me the method to your madness!!!

Oh man, thanks for bringing that to my attention, Bond!

Mercury, this is why we still "bother" with the Juliann boards. . . as they say, "the hits just keep on comin'!"

Will Schryver wrote:Oh, I know that they’re claiming to have had 82! users looking in on June 4th, but I don’t believe it for a second! That stat has been doctored by the webmaster to artificially pump up their sagging self-image.

Oh really, Mr. Schryver? Then please display your proof! (HINT: Your merely wanting it to be so does not constitute "proof.")

Bond...James Bond wrote:The word is out Shades.....they know you "doctor" the numbers!! Shock and awe!!!

He gives me way, way too much credit. I have no idea how to doctor (no pun intended) that number. It's all automated.

If I had that sort of technical knowledge, I wouldn't have had to team up with Keene. I could've established the website all on my own.

But why 82??? Why not 83....that's more right? Why not 666 or 523,400 or some other impressive number. Please tell me the method to your madness!!!

You're absolutely right--even if I did know how to doctor the numbers, I would put it way, way higher than 82, that's for sure.

Will Schryver wrote:The sooner we stop talking about them, the sooner they’ll fade back into complete irrelevancy again.

And Will Schryver is relevant because...?

I've done some digging and if you want to go on page views....the MAD thread (since 2003 or whenever their version goes back too) with the most views has somewhere around 12,500. The Vogel thread alone has 32,000+ views, but discounting it (since it's stuck to the top of the Celestial Kingdom and may get an unfair advantage) I've also counted at least 4 other threads that are higher than the highest MAD thread on Mormon Discussions (including masturbation threads and "Tanner is Burning in Hell" threads from the Telestial Kingdom). So I'm going to assume that we have readers.....but not as many posters as MAD.

Dr. Shades wrote:You're absolutely right--even if I did know how to doctor the numbers, I would put it way, way higher than 82, that's for sure.

If it were me, I would have put it at 42.

Either that or PI.

Or maybe the Avogadro number.

Or the number of pages Martin Harris lost.

Or the number of people slaughtered at the Hill Cumorah (both of 'em combined).

Will Schryver wrote:Oh, I know that they’re claiming to have had 82! users looking in on June 4th, but I don’t believe it for a second! That stat has been doctored by the webmaster to artificially pump up their sagging self-image. I’ve checked things out there often enough to know that there are never more than a handful of spectators, and even fewer actual participants.

This is really something I don't get about W. Schryver. Sometimes he appears interested in genuine dialog, and sometimes he makes universal statements like this ("That stat has been doctored..."), devoid of any substantiation re: the facts. How does one make a definite statement of fact like this when one does not have the foggiest whether or not his statement is true? One is apparently supposed to take his word for it, though he is manifestly not in a position to know the actual truth of the matter.

That's what bugs me:

"X is the case."

"How do you know?"

"I just do, based on personal experience. X is definitely the case."

"But, you really don't know that X is the case, you just believe X to be the case, right?"

"No, I do know. I just stated that I know X to be the case. The stats are doctored."

"But, how do you know this?"

"I know it to be the case, based on personal experience. The stats are doctored."

"But, how do you know?"

"I already said I know."

Wha?!

Perhaps Will can clarify his statement of apparent fact. I do believe he is intellectually capable of defending a thesis (he's a smart guy and I have seen many comments by him I thought worthy of sustained interaction), though perhaps not this one (and I could be wrong). I just don't see it, yet. Will? How do you really claim to know this? Doesn't the inherently speculative nature of your apparent belief (without any definitive justification that I can see) tend to preclude your opining on this matter? If not, why not? Are we to take your opinion (presented as fact) as fact? If so, why? Do you have access to the relevant statistics? If not, why would one accept your unsubstantiated opinion based on personal experience (but stated as unequivocal fact) as fact?

Best.

CKS

82 is probably the average IQ over there.

Stupid is as stupid does.

cksalmon wrote:This is really something I don't get about W. Schryver. Sometimes he appears interested in genuine dialog, and sometimes he makes universal statements like this ("That stat has been doctored..."), devoid of any substantiation re: the facts.

And sometimes he's just trying to be funny. That's how I took it, anyway.

The Dude wrote:

cksalmon wrote:This is really something I don't get about W. Schryver. Sometimes he appears interested in genuine dialog, and sometimes he makes universal statements like this ("That stat has been doctored..."), devoid of any substantiation re: the facts.

And sometimes he's just trying to be funny. That's how I took it, anyway.

Well, that's certainly a more generous way to take his statement here. Insofar as that is true, I tend to like it. Schryver is not typically so partisanly inapropos.

I do seriously wonder, however, whether or not the MADB audience to which the response was directed would have taken it that way. I don't think they would have. But, again, perhaps, Will can calrify...?

Best.

CKS

Bond...James Bond wrote:

Will Schryver wrote:The excitement of the past week has been the best thing to happen in Shadesville in months. For the first time since its latest incarnation, there were more than a half-dozen users paying attention at a given moment in time.

Oh, I know that they’re claiming to have had 82! users looking in on June 4th, but I don’t believe it for a second! That stat has been doctored by the webmaster to artificially pump up their sagging self-image. I’ve checked things out there often enough to know that there are never more than a handful of spectators, and even fewer actual participants.

The sooner we stop talking about them, the sooner they’ll fade back into complete irrelevancy again.

The word is out Shades.....they know you "doctor" the numbers!! Shock and awe!!!

But why 82??? Why not 83....that's more right? Why not 666 or 523,400 or some other impressive number. Please tell me the method to your madness!!!

I find it ironic that you guys often condemn the so-called "TBMs" for not knowing how to take a little joke, and then you immediately go all thin-skinned on us.

Even if I had been deadly serious (which I wasn't) I think it's interesting that you would jump all over a little smart-ass remark and make it into a capital offense. Do I need to put a little emoticon after every snide aside I make from now on? Or would you prefer being able to go into attack mode without any doubts at all?

I'll bet there aren't many of you that would be very much fun to drink with. A couple beers and you'd be itching for a fight with your best friend.