Complex?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Trying to throw me under the bus, eh, MG? If I remember right, RFM was directly addressing the topic in an informational manner. I doubt that most people click on links anyway.

MG, I wanted to compliment you. Most people I've interacted with on the LDS defender side have seemed real patoots. You are winsome and friendly. I want to like LDS defenders, and you make that easy. Of course, I also like Dr. Peterson.

I suspect that if you tell the truth to the best of your ability, people will accept your right to sell toothpaste, despite it turning their teeth purple. Best wishes.

I should say, Moksha, that no, I'm not trying to throw you under the bus. I see you as a relatively humane and civil...and yet at the same time funnily snarky...member of the board. I would not want you to think otherwise. It is simply that your post was right there, I saw it. It seems to be in the same category of posts that some here are complaining so much about.

I see some hypocrisy in there somewhere. Not on your part, however.

I think things ought to be 'equal opportunity' and 'equal treatment'. I'm sure you would agree.

Regards,
MG

Senator MG, I served with Moksha. I know Moksha. Moksha is a friend of mine. Senator MG, you're no Moksha.

[MG 2.0]

I should say, Moksha, that no, I'm not trying to throw you under the bus. I see you as a relatively humane and civil...and yet at the same time funnily snarky...member of the board. I would not want you to think otherwise. It is simply that your post was right there, I saw it. It seems to be in the same category of posts that some here are complaining so much about.

I see some hypocrisy in there somewhere. Not on your part, however.

I think things ought to be 'equal opportunity' and 'equal treatment'. I'm sure you would agree.

Regards,
MG

Senator MG, I served with Moksha. I know Moksha. Moksha is a friend of mine. Senator MG, you're no Moksha.

Nor would I claim to be. And I'm sure he's a good guy. He comes across as such.

However, do you think he did a 'link and run'?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Senator MG, I served with Moksha. I know Moksha. Moksha is a friend of mine. Senator MG, you're no Moksha.

Nor would I claim to be. And I'm sure he's a good guy. He comes across as such.

However, do you think he did a 'link and run'?

Regards,
MG

MG, of course Moksha didn't link and run. What have you been smoking? Obviously Moksha's humor went right over your greasy head.

Now please stop trying to be a board nanny and get back to being the curmudgeonly, dishonest and angry little man we've all grown to love and admire.

[MG 2.0]

Nor would I claim to be. And I'm sure he's a good guy. He comes across as such.

However, do you think he did a 'link and run'?

Regards,
MG

MG, of course Moksha didn't link and run. What have you been smoking? Obviously Moksha's humor went right over your greasy head.

Now please stop trying to be a board nanny and get back to being the curmudgeonly, dishonest and angry little man we've all grown to love and admire.

I think I would leave it to someone else that I trust more to make this pronouncement. I'm wondering, actually, what Moksha thinks?

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

I think I would leave it to someone else that I trust more to make this pronouncement. I'm wondering, actually, what Moksha thinks?

Regards,
MG

I think we could all agree that Everbody Wang Chung makes the most side-splittingly funny graphics ever. I feel uncomfortable in any situation with too much rancor, but Everybody Wang Chung is soothing. Best to shake hands and pull up a lawn chair.

Shades wants you to assure readers that you are not Rick Rolling them with links. Do you remember when posters used to cut and paste a wall of scriptures, such as Lembeck 4:13, Roth 3:4, or Hogwarts 9.75?

Speaking of numbers, I hope High Spy is doing well.

[Dr. Shades]

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 exact criteria for what constitutes a link and run, but then you introduce some new criteria, made up on the hoof, to justify walking back from imposing the consequence on MG that you said you would administer for such a circumstance. So now I call on you to change the board rule to reflect this new, significantly diluted, set of criteria for what a link and run is or isn’t.

Okay.

I repeat, it is now beholden on you to rewrite the link and run board rule to reflect the new, diluted criteria that you have used to avoid honouring your commitment to the existing board rule wording. Or is it one rule for MG, and another for everyone else?

I have rewritten the rule to better encapsulate the spirit of it as opposed to the strict letter of it. Here, per your request, is the rewritten Universal Rule #10, with new parts in red:

Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always describe its content with enough detail so readers can know, in advance, whether it's worth their time to click on it. (Ideally, explain what's at the other end of it, 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.

[I Have Questions]

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 exact criteria for what constitutes a link and run, but then you introduce some new criteria, made up on the hoof, to justify walking back from imposing the consequence on MG that you said you would administer for such a circumstance. So now I call on you to change the board rule to reflect this new, significantly diluted, set of criteria for what a link and run is or isn’t.

Okay.

I repeat, it is now beholden on you to rewrite the link and run board rule to reflect the new, diluted criteria that you have used to avoid honouring your commitment to the existing board rule wording. Or is it one rule for MG, and another for everyone else?

I have rewritten the rule to better encapsulate the spirit of it as opposed to the strict letter of it. Here, per your request, is the rewritten Universal Rule #10, with new parts in red:

Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always describe its content with enough detail so readers can know, in advance, whether it's worth their time to click on it. (Ideally, explain what's at the other end of it, 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.

Wow, that’s incredible.

So instead of managing MG’s poor behaviour to come into line with the board’s rules, you’ve rewritten the board’s rules to come into line with MG’s poor behaviour.

I’m dumbfounded.

This is the link and run that started it off

Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.

https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Sci ... 1416542744

I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.

That doesn’t meet even the new “MG Amendment” to the board rule.

He does not describe what is at the end of the link - a company selling a book. He does not describe in sufficient detail its content for readers to decide if it’s worth their while clicking on it, because he doesn’t explain that it’s not a link to the books content, it’s just a link to an online book seller. There’s no “content” at the end of the link. He doesn’t explain readers would have to buy it to access the content that’s supposedly relevant to the discussion.

It clearly, and obviously fails to meet even your newly diluted rule.

[MG 2.0]

Okay.


I have rewritten the rule to better encapsulate the spirit of it as opposed to the strict letter of it. Here, per your request, is the rewritten Universal Rule #10, with new parts in red:

Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always describe its content with enough detail so readers can know, in advance, whether it's worth their time to click on it. (Ideally, explain what's at the other end of it, 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.

Wow, that’s incredible.

So instead of managing MG’s poor behaviour to come into line with the board’s rules, you’ve rewritten the board’s rules to come into line with MG’s poor behaviour.

I’m dumbfounded.

This is the link and run that started it off

Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.

https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Sci ... 1416542744

I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.

That doesn’t meet even the new “MG Amendment” to the board rule.

He does not describe what is at the end of the link - a company selling a book. He does not describe in sufficient detail its content for readers to decide if it’s worth their while clicking on it, because he doesn’t explain that it’s not a link to the books content, it’s just a link to an online book seller. There’s no “content” at the end of the link. He doesn’t explain readers would have to buy it to access the content that’s supposedly relevant to the discussion.

It clearly, and obviously fails to meet even your newly diluted rule.

I think that Moksha, drumdude, sock puppet, myself, and possibly others, can all adapt and be more cognizant of giving more 'flesh' to the links that we provide.

Call it a day, IHQ

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...He does not describe what is at the end of the link - a company selling a book. He does not describe in sufficient detail its content for readers to decide if it’s worth their while clicking on it, because he doesn’t explain that it’s not a link to the books content, it’s just a link to an online book seller. There’s no “content” at the end of the link. He doesn’t explain readers would have to buy it to access the content that’s supposedly relevant to the discussion...

That's what makes it so obvious. He does a classic DCP, using a sales site with reviews to present the book instead of actual detail.

[huckelberry]

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

Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.

https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Sci ... 1416542744

I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.

And no, I will not respond to your next question having to do with, "Well, give us the top five reasons Collins gives for his belief in God and in Jesus Christ and the Christian story."

Read the book.

Regards,
Mg

Here one finds the criminal post creating all consternation.

Well it is not an answer to the question. It suggest somebody thought something. That is not much. In truth this is a lame post, a flop.

MG should be sentenced to thirty lashes with six wet strings of spaghetti.