Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[MG 2.0]

That would be sad. I'm hoping to hear from either Gadianton or Limnor...or someone else that isn't hell bent on vendettas, etc.

Regards,
MG

Hear from us about what?

What I've already written today and yesterday. Easily accessible.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Hear from us about what?

What I've already written today and yesterday. Easily accessible.

Regards,
MG

lol ok

[Limnor]

By the way MG I don’t really appreciate being used as a comparison point against former members. People arrive at their beliefs and doubts in different ways, and I try to respect that.

[MG 2.0]

By the way MG I don’t really appreciate being used as a comparison point against former members. People arrive at their beliefs and doubts in different ways, and I try to respect that.

Quote me in context please. I also respect that "people arrive at their beliefs and doubts in different ways". If I said something offensive or untrue I need to know about it and correct it. There are some folks here I have called out for one thing or another. Fact is fact. For those times I do not apologize calling a spade a spade.

I'd like to know exactly what I said in complete context so I can evaluate whether or not I had good reason to say it.

Thanks,
MG

[MG 2.0]

What I've already written today and yesterday. Easily accessible.

Regards,
MG

lol ok

I see no need to repeat myself. I've been through too many 'rehash upon rehashes'. More than I can count figuratively speaking.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

By the way MG I don’t really appreciate being used as a comparison point against former members. People arrive at their beliefs and doubts in different ways, and I try to respect that.

Quote me in context please. I also respect that "people arrive at their beliefs and doubts in different ways". If I said something offensive or untrue I need to know about it and correct it. There are some folks here I have called out for one thing or another. Fact is fact. For those times I do not apologize calling a spade a spade.

I'd like to know exactly what I said in complete context so I can evaluate whether or not I had good reason to say it.

Thanks,
MG

“What [you’ve] already written today and yesterday. Easily accessible.”

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

lol ok

I see no need to repeat myself. I've been through too many 'rehash upon rehashes'. More than I can count figuratively speaking.

Regards,
MG

lol ok

[MG 2.0]

MOD NOTE: I’m just looking at this now because I have a moment’s window between some project tasks. I’d say to not be importing content from the AI thread, into other threads, especially whole unchanged paragraphs or complete posts. This violates both the spirit and letter of the rule given by Shades. A number of this afternoon’s posts may be sent back into the AI thread after I’ve had a chance to review.

Also, I’m not a fan of seeing anyone’s name or content being changed within quoted text. That’ll be noted and cleaned up later.

-c-

When you investigate you will see that both Gadianton and I were having a conversation without any AI inference at all. That conversation applied directly to the other thread (this one). I suppose I could have just said the same thing in this thread without ever saying the same thing over in the AI thread. I think we're getting a bit too Mosiac Law here. I'm following the rules and 'the spirit of the law'.

It is interesting to me, as I've said many times, the black and white thinking that occurs around here without any allowance for the spirit of the law. If it is the case that my conversation with Gadianton on one thread was inappropriately transferred/continued on another thread I will discontinue doing that also. I honestly don't see a problem, however, in what I did.

Critics are sure making it hard around here! Echo chamber come hell or high water. Restricted/curtailed thought whenever possible. Even when it is one's own and the person one is talking to. Sheesh.

Que sera, sera.

I expect you will do your duty.

Nothing against you, canpakes. You've been pretty decent in my estimation. But you are 'one of the crowd'.

Regards,
MG

‘Morning, MG - I’ve moved the three posts that were posted prior in the AI Megathread. The fact that those appeared there first is a factor but your posts had also already elicited a response (which you also copied over). It’s best to let that existing conversation progress there - in one location - as opposed to duplicating it elsewhere.

I’ve also made edits to responses to you from Everybody Wang Chung that had replaced your name with ‘Fibber’ within the quoted text, and have restored your initials. Quotes - by definition - should not be altered.
-c-

[Marcus]

MOD NOTE: I’m just looking at this now because I have a moment’s window between some project tasks. I’d say to not be importing content from the AI thread, into other threads, especially whole unchanged paragraphs or complete posts. This violates both the spirit and letter of the rule given by Shades. A number of this afternoon’s posts may be sent back into the AI thread after I’ve had a chance to review.

Also, I’m not a fan of seeing anyone’s name or content being changed within quoted text. That’ll be noted and cleaned up later.

-c-

When you investigate you will see that both Gadianton and I were having a conversation without any AI inference at all. That conversation applied directly to the other thread (this one). I suppose I could have just said the same thing in this thread without ever saying the same thing over in the AI thread. I think we're getting a bit too Mosiac Law here. I'm following the rules and 'the spirit of the law'.

It is interesting to me, as I've said many times, the black and white thinking that occurs around here without any allowance for the spirit of the law. If it is the case that my conversation with Gadianton on one thread was inappropriately transferred/continued on another thread I will discontinue doing that also. I honestly don't see a problem, however, in what I did.

Critics are sure making it hard around here! Echo chamber come hell or high water. Restricted/curtailed thought whenever possible. Even when it is one's own and the person one is talking to. Sheesh.

Que sera, sera.

I expect you will do your duty.

Nothing against you, canpakes. You've been pretty decent in my estimation. But you are 'one of the crowd'.

Regards,
MG

Mentalgymnast would like to be allowed to act above the rules that govern here.

[I Have Questions]

I'm following the rules and 'the spirit of the law'.

No you’re not. Your posts in question show that you haven’t followed the rules. And the fact that you deliberately chose to not use the quote function shows you were trying to hide where they had come from. So you neither followed the letter, nor the spirit, of the rule. You are demonstrating your willingness to not tell the truth. Again.

It is interesting to me, as I've said many times, the black and white thinking that occurs around here without any allowance for the spirit of the law. If it is the case that my conversation with Gadianton on one thread was inappropriately transferred/continued on another thread I will discontinue doing that also. I honestly don't see a problem, however, in what I did.

You've made and broken that same promise multiple times. Maybe four time now. You say you’re committed to following the rules and then immediately break them in an effort to find ways of circumventing the rules. I predicted that’s what you would do. I predict now that you’ll try again. You’ve rendered your word worthless. You are not a trustworthy person.

Critics are sure making it hard around here! Echo chamber come hell or high water. Restricted/curtailed thought whenever possible. Even when it is one's own and the person one is talking to. Sheesh.

Que sera, sera.

I expect you will do your duty.

Nothing against you, canpakes. You've been pretty decent in my estimation. But you are 'one of the crowd'.

Regards,
MG

And you end with your customary snark. Nice.

Malkie’s pattern analysis of MG is on full display. Deny, dismiss, deflect…