Excellent takedown of Mopologist DNA misinformation

[MG 2.0]

More of the same. From the person that doesn't answer ANY questions. And you didn't even respond to the 'meat' of my post having to do with A.I. and expedited responses to your prolific and frequent posts.

Yep, I've spent WAY to much time and too many posts responding to your rather jaundiced and biased posts. And you're asking me to spend MORE time to act as a buffer between your falsehoods and something more closely approximating the truth?

As I mentioned, you will have your way on this board. I can't keep up with your volume unless I have additional resources and help. A.I. provided an excellent means/way to do that. You apparently want me to actually spend MORE time counteracting the critics such as yourself. I can't do that.

In regards to what I had gathered in regards to counteracting your 'glowing' remarks in regards to Simon Southerton, this is just one of many examples in which I could have actually posted information which directly counters your false or partially untrue comments. And save so much time in doing so. But you won't have anything of it.

You simply call out "lazy!" BS.

That says something more about you, not me. Anyway, I've said what I said and stick to it...as if it really matters around here. Keep on truckin' IHQ. I think I've figured out why you post so much on this board.

It's a free for all with no guardrails. And now you've pushed for and succeeded in doing away with one of the more potentially useful and important guardrails.

Information. More, rather than less. You now have free reign. I can't spend the necessary time that you are asking me to in order to counteract your frequent bombardment of one sided and biased contributions to the board. In suppose that in this sense, you win.

Congratulations. You've gotten what you want. I just hope you can sleep at night. And again, you don't have to answer any questions yourself!

What a gig.

Regards,
MG

All those words yet not a single, researched quote from the geneticists you put forward. Just lots of words that contribute nothing. Not only are you a laser poster, but you’re vacuous too.

TTOC

[I Have Questions]

All those words yet not a single, researched quote from the geneticists you put forward. Just lots of words that contribute nothing. Not only are you a laser poster, but you’re vacuous too.

TTOC

More “nothing.”

[MG 2.0]

TTOC

More “nothing.”

Subject to the rules of the board (unfortunately) and the parameters of participation that I've laid out for myself. That's why I encouraged others to go out and spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing their own research rather than basing their worldview on restricted/ limited information.

I'm perfectly comfortable in asking/recommending that people not listen to you (or the writer of a book) as the final authority.

I don't. And I didn't. That's why we are at different places in regards to testimony/faith/hope and belief in the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

More “nothing.”

Subject to the rules of the board (unfortunately) and the parameters of participation that I've laid out for myself. That's why I encouraged others to go out and spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing their own research rather than basing their worldview on restricted/ limited information.

I'm perfectly comfortable in asking/recommendimg that people not listen to you(or the writer of a book) as the final authority.

I don't. And I didn't. That's why we are at different places in regards to testimony/faith/hope and belief in the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.

Regards,
MG

TTOC

[MG 2.0]

Subject to the rules of the board (unfortunately) and the parameters of participation that I've laid out for myself. That's why I encouraged others to go out and spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing their own research rather than basing their worldview on restricted/ limited information.

I'm perfectly comfortable in asking/recommendimg that people not listen to you(or the writer of a book) as the final authority.

I don't. And I didn't. That's why we are at different places in regards to testimony/faith/hope and belief in the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.

Regards,
MG

TTOC

Now that's a first. Someone turning the other cheek for someone else? Are you two in cahoots? Not that I already don't know the answer to that question.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

TTOC

[Marcus]

Subject to the rules of the board (unfortunately) and the parameters of participation that I've laid out for myself. That's why I encouraged others to go out and spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing their own research rather than basing their worldview on restricted/ limited information.

I'm perfectly comfortable in asking/recommending that people not listen to you (or the writer of a book) as the final authority.

I don't. And I didn't. That's why we are at different places in regards to testimony/faith/hope and belief in the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.

Regards,
MG

TTOC

Lol, perfect answer for someone who projects his own approach onto others.

It does surprise me though, to see a trolling mentalgymnast so obviously slip up and outline how he approaches reading and learning, while trying to accuse others of his techniques. It's quite clear from the few comments he does make about content, when he's not cheating and plagiarizing his badly prompted AI, that he is the one who bases his "worldview on restricted/ limited information."

And this is just nonsensical: He protests that he is "perfectly comfortable in asking/recommending that people not listen to you (or the writer of a book) as the final authority." Good grief. This comment could only come from someone who actually does that. It certainly doesn't describe the commenters in the vast numbers of discussions here, who put considerable effort into expressing themselves on an extraordinarily wide range of topics.

Combine that with his supplication that people "spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing their own research" and you have to really wonder if he ever actually reads the threads he comments on. Virtually everyone here writes quite a bit off and on, usually in their own areas of interest (which are rich and varied on this board!) and most are very clear about the ways they look at a topic, about the methods they use to evaluate authors, ideas, and circumstances, and about what they know and have learned about other points of view. I have greatly appreciated this sharing of knowledge, and have been introduced to many new and fascinating topics. It's a good place to be.

in my opinion, there is really no regular poster who participates in good faith here who is as simple-minded and simplistic as the gymnast seems to think. His projection looms large in this very revealing post. All he has done is further delineate how little he thinks of people outside his religion, and how superior he thinks he is in this forum. It's quite sad.

[MG 2.0]

TTOC

Lol, perfect answer for someone who projects his own approach onto others.

It does surprise me though, to see a trolling mentalgymnast so obviously slip up and outline how he approaches reading and learning, while trying to accuse others of his techniques. It's quite clear from the few comments he does make about content, when he's not cheating and plagiarizing his badly prompted AI, that he is the one who bases his "worldview on restricted/ limited information."

And this is just nonsensical: He protests that he is "perfectly comfortable in asking/recommending that people not listen to you (or the writer of a book) as the final authority." Good grief. This comment could only come from someone who actually does that. It certainly doesn't describe the commenters in the vast numbers of discussions here, who put considerable effort into expressing themselves on an extraordinarily wide range of topics.

Combine that with his supplication that people "spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing their own research" and you have to really wonder if he ever actually reads the threads he comments on. Virtually everyone here writes quite a bit off and on, usually in their own areas of interest (which are rich and varied on this board!) and most are very clear about the ways they look at a topic, about the methods they use to evaluate authors, ideas, and circumstances, and about what they know and have learned about other points of view. I have greatly appreciated this sharing of knowledge, and have been introduced to many new and fascinating topics. It's a good place to be.

in my opinion, there is really no regular poster who participates in good faith here who is as simple-minded and simplistic as the gymnast seems to think. His projection looms large in this very revealing post. All he has done is further delineate how little he thinks of people outside his religion, and how superior he thinks he is in this forum. It's quite sad.

Gee whiz, talk about living in a silo and reverse engineering.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I hate to say it, MG, but you're sounding even more like a little whiner, between your faux-TTOC, and your constant complaining about how life - at least here, where you choose to be - is so unfair on you.

To repeat something I said a while ago about Prof Peterson:

It's not very pretty,
In pitiful fashion,
To angle for pity -
It merits compassion.

[MG 2.0]

I hate to say it, MG, but you're sounding even more like a little whiner, between your faux-TTOC, and your constant complaining about how life - at least here, where you choose to be - is so unfair on you.

To repeat something I said a while ago about Prof Peterson:

It's not very pretty,
In pitiful fashion,
To angle for pity -
It merits compassion.

Thanks malkie.

Regards,
MG