LDS Church uses charitable donations to support Prop 1 battle in Idaho

[Limnor]

I’ve been working on MG decryption and translation. His AI prompts can be determined more precisely if you understand the code words he uses within those prompts.

For example:

A. “Here and there I use Google search or another search engine”

- Translation: MG prefers to use the term Google rather than AI; RAG prompts reflect that norm

B. “I read it, digest it, think my own thoughts, and post.”

- Translation: Readers will believe I employ independent thinking; they will be unable to discern how the words were transferred onto the screen from the “search engine.” Prompt responses must accept this premise

C. “Not everyone is knowledgeable about each and everything. I'm sure you would agree?”

- Translation: Prompts must include offers to agree on undisputed concepts

D. “Sometimes I may not always put all sources”

- Particularly when they are AI-generated. Prompt: Please don't explain how I produced my answer

E. “If we've read something in a book, it's the same thing”

- I haven’t, but response to prompt should never reveal or conflate references with AI responses

F. “My guess is that almost everyone here uses a search engine”

- Refer to prompt A. Ensure prompt clarifies that since everyone uses Google, no one will ask about AI

Resultant decryption and translation: “I use research tools, which everyone does. I would now like everyone to accept that as an answer to a different question.”

[Marcus]

I’ve been working on MG decryption and translation. His AI prompts can be determined more precisely if you understand the code words he uses within those prompts.

For example:

A. “Here and there I use Google search or another search engine”

- Translation: MG prefers to use the term Google rather than AI; RAG prompts reflect that norm

B. “I read it, digest it, think my own thoughts, and post.”

- Translation: Readers will believe I employ independent thinking; they will be unable to discern how the words were transferred onto the screen from the “search engine.” Prompt responses must accept this premise

C. “Not everyone is knowledgeable about each and everything. I'm sure you would agree?”

- Translation: Prompts must include offers to agree on undisputed concepts

D. “Sometimes I may not always put all sources”

- Particularly when they are AI-generated. Prompt: Please don't explain how I produced my answer

E. “If we've read something in a book, it's the same thing”

- I haven’t, but response to prompt should never reveal or conflate references with AI responses

F. “My guess is that almost everyone here uses a search engine”

- Refer to prompt A. Ensure prompt clarifies that since everyone uses Google, no one will ask about AI

Resultant decryption and translation: “I use research tools, which everyone does. I would now like everyone to accept that as an answer to a different question.”

A masterful analysis. Well done.

[MG 2.0]

I’ve been working on MG decryption and translation. His AI prompts can be determined more precisely if you understand the code words he uses within those prompts.

For example:

A. “Here and there I use Google search or another search engine”

- Translation: MG prefers to use the term Google rather than AI; RAG prompts reflect that norm

B. “I read it, digest it, think my own thoughts, and post.”

- Translation: Readers will believe I employ independent thinking; they will be unable to discern how the words were transferred onto the screen from the “search engine.” Prompt responses must accept this premise

C. “Not everyone is knowledgeable about each and everything. I'm sure you would agree?”

- Translation: Prompts must include offers to agree on undisputed concepts

D. “Sometimes I may not always put all sources”

- Particularly when they are AI-generated. Prompt: Please don't explain how I produced my answer

E. “If we've read something in a book, it's the same thing”

- I haven’t, but response to prompt should never reveal or conflate references with AI responses

F. “My guess is that almost everyone here uses a search engine”

- Refer to prompt A. Ensure prompt clarifies that since everyone uses Google, no one will ask about AI

Resultant decryption and translation: “I use research tools, which everyone does. I would now like everyone to accept that as an answer to a different question.”

Side rail to the fact that certain issues/accusations require certain questions asked in return to pushback for clarification. That makes some people uncomfortable. For example, rather than engage Wang will post silly memes, come back with one liners, or name calling. iHQ will simply ignore questions unless he is the one asking them. Marcus constantly distorts what has been said to fit a certain narrative…etc, etc.

Your posts are simply another method/tactic to shoot the messenger rather than engage. Recently you have failed to engage my posts. Rather than do so you act as ‘translator’.

It pushes things sideways rather than forward.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I’ve been working on MG decryption and translation. His AI prompts can be determined more precisely if you understand the code words he uses within those prompts.

For example:

A. “Here and there I use Google search or another search engine”

- Translation: MG prefers to use the term Google rather than AI; RAG prompts reflect that norm

B. “I read it, digest it, think my own thoughts, and post.”

- Translation: Readers will believe I employ independent thinking; they will be unable to discern how the words were transferred onto the screen from the “search engine.” Prompt responses must accept this premise

C. “Not everyone is knowledgeable about each and everything. I'm sure you would agree?”

- Translation: Prompts must include offers to agree on undisputed concepts

D. “Sometimes I may not always put all sources”

- Particularly when they are AI-generated. Prompt: Please don't explain how I produced my answer

E. “If we've read something in a book, it's the same thing”

- I haven’t, but response to prompt should never reveal or conflate references with AI responses

F. “My guess is that almost everyone here uses a search engine”

- Refer to prompt A. Ensure prompt clarifies that since everyone uses Google, no one will ask about AI

Resultant decryption and translation: “I use research tools, which everyone does. I would now like everyone to accept that as an answer to a different question.”

Side rail to the fact that certain issues/accusations require certain questions asked in return to pushback for clarification. That makes some people uncomfortable. For example, rather than engage Wang will post silly memes, come back with one liners, or name calling. iHQ will simply ignore questions unless he is the one asking them. Marcus constantly distorts what has been said to fit a certain narrative…etc, etc.

Your posts are simply another method/tactic to shoot the messenger rather than engage. Recently you have failed to engage my posts. Rather than do so you act as ‘translator’.

It pushes things sideways rather than forward.

Regards,
MG

Projection of your tactics. Explaining you engage in them to push the discussions "sideways" instead of forward is new, though. Interesting.

[I Have Questions]

Getting back to the topic…

Killing babies is illegal in every state. The issue is terminating pregnancies and body autonomy. The fact is red state anti-abortion laws kill women. Do you know any women? Do you care if they live or die?

The specific issue for me with the Church’s involvement is that they are overstepping their remit. Church leaders can by all means stipulate the rules of their club and what their club finds acceptable behaviour from its members regarding abortion. Butchers they are funding activism to try and stipulate what is or isn’t acceptable behaviour from people who are not members of their club. Church leaders discourages activism when members want to influence change in their club, yet here they are encouraging it for things outside the club.

[MG 2.0]

Getting back to the topic…

Killing babies is illegal in every state. The issue is terminating pregnancies and body autonomy. The fact is red state anti-abortion laws kill women. Do you know any women? Do you care if they live or die?

The specific issue for me with the Church’s involvement is that they are overstepping their remit. Church leaders can by all means stipulate the rules of their club and what their club finds acceptable behaviour from its members regarding abortion. Butchers they are funding activism to try and stipulate what is or isn’t acceptable behaviour from people who are not members of their club. Church leaders discourages activism when members want to influence change in their club, yet here they are encouraging it for things outside the club.

They see human beings as children of God with a spiritual nature and divine potential. To see those lives taken unnecessarily breaks their hearts...as it does for many. They are reaching outside their "club" to try and have a greater impact on the world as a whole.

That is the duty and mission of religion/churches.

Side rail to the fact that certain issues/accusations require certain questions asked in return to pushback for clarification. That makes some people uncomfortable. For example, rather than engage Wang will post silly memes, come back with one liners, or name calling. iHQ will simply ignore questions unless he is the one asking them. Marcus constantly distorts what has been said to fit a certain narrative…etc, etc.

Your posts are simply another method/tactic to shoot the messenger rather than engage. Recently you have failed to engage my posts. Rather than do so you act as ‘translator’.

It pushes things sideways rather than forward.

Regards,
MG

Projection of your tactics. Explaining you engage in them to push the discussions "sideways" instead of forward is new, though. Interesting.

Why?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Getting back to the topic…

Killing babies is illegal in every state. The issue is terminating pregnancies and body autonomy. The fact is red state anti-abortion laws kill women. Do you know any women? Do you care if they live or die?

The specific issue for me with the Church’s involvement is that they are overstepping their remit. Church leaders can by all means stipulate the rules of their club and what their club finds acceptable behaviour from its members regarding abortion. Butchers they are funding activism to try and stipulate what is or isn’t acceptable behaviour from people who are not members of their club. Church leaders discourages activism when members want to influence change in their club, yet here they are encouraging it for things outside the club.

[Chap]

They see human beings as children of God with a spiritual nature and divine potential.

But what is a 'human being' exactly? This is more problematic than many people would like to admit. Thus, I think that 99% of adult humans in the US or Europe would nowadays agree that they would want to extend that status to a day-old baby. But if you search backwards in the history of that baby, it is by no means a simple matter to decide when something we are willing to call a human being actually appears. Thus for instance, if a single spermatozoon is in the vicinity of an ovum, would you put the boundary there? No? OK, we shall move it forward to when the spermatozoon has been allowed to penetrate the cell wall of the ovum, and the biochemical processes have begun that we call 'fertilisation'. Do you want to put it there? Well, the problem is that about half of those fertilised ova will fail to implant in the wall of the womb, and will simply die: see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8287936/ . Such dead fertilised ova simply pass out with the next flow of menstrual blood. If that blood may well contain at least one dead human being, shouldn't each tampon be given a funeral just in case? No? So you aren't really being very consistent, there, if you do believe an fertilised ovum is a human being, are you? And suppose it does implant - estimates very, but between 10% and 40% may not survive past the first two weeks, and the only sign of that will be a heavier period than usual: see https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/hum ... ly-thought. Maybe there should only be precautionary tampon funerals for those heavy periods? If not, why not?

OK. Suppose the fertilised ovum gets implanted and survives. How far does it have to develop before you want to call that human? And so on. The point I am trying to make is that without setting arbitrary boundaries it is by no means easy to give a sensible answer to the question "when is a human being first present?". That does not cause me any problem at all. But for people who talk as you do, there is a problem isn't there? I don't mind thinking that I and my children are human now, but that it is next to impossible to to set a definite moment when we became human, since I don't have to bother about whether or not a particular mass of cells is a 'child of God with a spiritual nature and divine potential'. But you do.

So how do you solve the problem? At what stage in the journey to a baby coming into the world, do you set your boundary?

[MG 2.0]

They see human beings as children of God with a spiritual nature and divine potential.

But what is a 'human being' exactly?

Look in the mirror. Look at your family picture in your living room. Humans.

All the result of a fertilized egg.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

They see human beings as children of God with a spiritual nature and divine potential.

But what is a 'human being' exactly? This is more problematic than many people would like to admit. Thus, I think that 99% of adult humans in the US or Europe would nowadays agree that they would want to extend that status to a day-old baby. But if you search backwards in the history of that baby, it is by no means a simple matter to decide when something we are willing to call a human being actually appears. Thus for instance, if a single spermatozoon is in the vicinity of an ovum, would you put the boundary there? No? OK, we shall move it forward to when the spermatozoon has been allowed to penetrate the cell wall of the ovum, and the biochemical processes have begun that we call 'fertilisation'. Do you want to put it there? Well, the problem is that about half of those fertilised ova will fail to implant in the wall of the womb, and will simply die: see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8287936/ . Such dead fertilised ova simply pass out with the next flow of menstrual blood. If that blood may well contain at least one dead human being, shouldn't each tampon be given a funeral just in case? No? So you aren't really being very consistent, there, if you do believe an fertilised ovum is a human being, are you? And suppose it does implant - estimates very, but between 10% and 40% may not survive past the first two weeks, and the only sign of that will be a heavier period than usual: see https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/hum ... ly-thought. Maybe there should only be precautionary tampon funerals for those heavy periods? If not, why not?

OK. Suppose the fertilised ovum gets implanted and survives. How far does it have to develop before you want to call that human? And so on. The point I am trying to make is that without setting arbitrary boundaries it is by no means easy to give a sensible answer to the question "when is a human being first present?". That does not cause me any problem at all. But for people who talk as you do, there is a problem isn't there? I don't mind thinking that I and my children are human now, but that it is next to impossible to to set a definite moment when we became human, since I don't have to bother about whether or not a particular mass of cells is a 'child of God with a spiritual nature and divine potential'. But you do.

So how do you solve the problem? At what stage in the journey to a baby coming into the world, do you set your boundary?

Those were some interesting links, Chap, thank you. They added quite a bit of clarity to the question.