Ask Boylan Anything

[Moksha]

Having to lay out that ONE FACT I didn't feel was necessary. But alas, yes it was.
Regards,
MG

Non-Mormons lack that burning in the bosom instinct regarding links with no description. They cannot intuit a lack of information and get all tingly with truth.

[MG 2.0]

He can't remember to not break the rules, but he always remembers to stereotype our forum and post passive aggressive attempts at condescension.

I’m sure all of us are very preoccupied with shutting down faithful information. He caught us.

Finally, an honest soul around here!!

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

MG on the deck of the titanic…

https://youtu.be/JTZYqODo7o0

[I Have Questions]

Again, my goal, when posting the link, was simply to provide what I thought to be a wide ranging source of video production/topics that some might find enlightening and worthwhile. Granted, others would just as well not have folks click on the link and go to that particular website for one reason or another. Understood.

Regards,
MG

Is the deceitfulness wired in via genetics? Or have you learned it over time? You know full well not to post a link and run. You’ve been told not to multiple times by multiple people. The owner of the board himself has told you not multiple times. Yet still you do it and still you want to portray the issue as somebody else’s fault for somebody else’s hinted-at neferious reasons. You just don’t seem to be able to help yourself.

[Dr. Shades]

MG. 2.0, Universal Rule #10 reads:

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.

In regards to the link I posted:

https://m.youtube.com/@churchhistorymat ... ast/videos

I thought it rather obvious as to why it was "worth bookmarking".

NO. It has to be obvious BEFORE one clicks on it, not after.

If you go to the link there are over 300 videos, each one of some length with various presenters, dealing with many different and interesting topics having to do with Mormonism.

Great! Then type all that BEFORE you post your link. Why is that so difficult?

Having to lay out that ONE FACT I didn't feel was necessary. But alas, yes it was.

YES, IT WAS. Why? Because here at discussmormonism.com, the POSTER does ALL the "heavy lifting," NOT the reader. The onus is NOT on the reader to click on a naked link, peruse a random sampling of all the videos at the other end, weigh the pros and cons, and then decide whether it's worth bookmarking. YOU, THE POSTER, must facilitate the reader being able to easily decide that the link is worth bookmarking (or not, as the case may be) THANKS TO YOUR DESCRIPTION, not thanks to the reader's investigative research.

Is that because readers are stupid? ABSOLUTELY **NOT**. It's because TIME IS PRECIOUS, and it's the poster's job to save the readers as much time as humanly possible. And perusing the other end of naked links long enough to make the poster's desired decision (or not) takes WAY more time than it does for the poster to simply type a description.

I posted the link from having come across it while digging a bit into another poster's comments. I hadn't even had time to actually WATCH any of the videos.

Then you don't know whether it was worth bookmarking, either.

It was the FACT that there were so many that I thought was worth posting the link so that others could see the same.

Then freakin' say as much!!

Sheesh.

Sheesh indeed, MG 2.0! Again, here at discussmormonism.com, THE POSTERS MUST DO **ALL** THE "HEAVY LIFTING," **NOT** THE READERS!!

[I Have Questions]

I posted the link from having come across it while digging a bit into another poster's comments. I hadn't even had time to actually WATCH any of the videos.

Then you don't know whether it was worth bookmarking, either.

So he admits, up front, that he knew he was linking and running despite being reprimanded about doing that multiple times, by multiple people.

At some point Shades you’re going to have to acknowledge that he simply can’t or won’t learn in response to just being told about it repeatedly. What’s this, the fifth or sixth time recently? Your reprimands are now sounding as hollow as a parent repeatedly threatening a child with losing their gaming station for a period, but never following through on that threat despite repeated offending. At some point observers are forced to recognise that it’s the child that is in control, not the parent…

[Chap]

... here at discussmormonism.com, the POSTER does ALL the "heavy lifting," NOT the reader. The onus is NOT on the reader to click on a naked link, peruse a random sampling of all the videos at the other end, weigh the pros and cons, and then decide whether it's worth bookmarking. YOU, THE POSTER, must facilitate the reader being able to easily decide that the link is worth bookmarking (or not, as the case may be) THANKS TO YOUR DESCRIPTION, not thanks to the reader's investigative research.

Is that because readers are stupid? ABSOLUTELY **NOT**. It's because TIME IS PRECIOUS, and it's the poster's job to save the readers as much time as humanly possible. And perusing the other end of naked links long enough to make the poster's desired decision (or not) takes WAY more time than it does for the poster to simply type a description.

Absolutely right, Shades!

However ...

At some point Shades you’re going to have to acknowledge that he simply can’t or won’t learn in response to just being told about it repeatedly. What’s this, the fifth or sixth time recently? Your reprimands are now sounding as hollow as a parent repeatedly threatening a child with losing their gaming station for a period, but never following through on that threat despite repeated offending. At some point observers are forced to recognise that it’s the child that is in control, not the parent…

That hits it. This time, something has to happen that will make it clear to MG that there are some basic rules that he cannot (habitually) break without consequences. I suggest that he should be put on the queue for a while, until he mends his manners.

[Dr. Shades]

At some point Shades you’re going to have to acknowledge that he simply can’t or won’t learn in response to just being told about it repeatedly. What’s this, the fifth or sixth time recently? Your reprimands are now sounding as hollow as a parent repeatedly threatening a child with losing their gaming station for a period, but never following through on that threat despite repeated offending. At some point observers are forced to recognise that it’s the child that is in control, not the parent…

That hits it. This time, something has to happen that will make it clear to MG that there are some basic rules that he cannot (habitually) break without consequences. I suggest that he should be put on the queue for a while, until he mends his manners.

What do you think, MG 2.0? Will this be the point at which you actually follow the rules, or will it not be?

[I Have Questions]

That hits it. This time, something has to happen that will make it clear to MG that there are some basic rules that he cannot (habitually) break without consequences. I suggest that he should be put on the queue for a while, until he mends his manners.

What do you think, MG 2.0? Will this be the point at which you actually follow the rules, or will it not be?

So MG says fine, I’ll abide by the rules. Something he has said and promised multiple times before. Why will this time be the charm? Once again this is the parent giving all the control to the child, who has already demonstrated countless times that his word is not his bond, that he cannot be entrusted with managing himself. Time for you to suggest a real consequence, and actually mean it. Or just remove the board rule about linking and running and allow everyone to do it, not just the person you appear to treat like your favourite child.

FTR I don’t want MG to stop posting (he’s a great advert for all that’s bad with Mormon apologetics, and Mormon arguments), I just want YOU Shades to out a stop to this constant rule breaking. Everybody else manages themselves, he is incapable of doing that (how many examples would you need before agreeing I’m right about that?), so time for you to step up and show it’s not MG managing the board.

[Dr. Shades]

What do you think, MG 2.0? Will this be the point at which you actually follow the rules, or will it not be?

So MG says fine, I’ll abide by the rules. Something he has said and promised multiple times before. Why will this time be the charm? Once again this is the parent giving all the control to the child, who has already demonstrated countless times that his word is not his bond, that he cannot be entrusted with managing himself. Time for you to suggest a real consequence, and actually mean it. Or just remove the board rule about linking and running and allow everyone to do it, not just the person you appear to treat like your favourite child.

FTR I don’t want MG to stop posting (he’s a great advert for all that’s bad with Mormon apologetics, and Mormon arguments), I just want YOU Shades to put a stop to this constant rule breaking. Everybody else manages themselves, he is incapable of doing that (how many examples would you need before agreeing I’m right about that?), so time for you to step up and show it’s not MG managing the board.

Okay, next time there will be a brief suspension.