In response to the observer’s prior satirical analysis, the specimen has now entered what we classify as the Visionary Self-Mythologizing Phase, a behavioral pattern in which the subject reimagines himself as an underappreciated artist whose works can only be discerned by initiates possessing sufficient spiritual squinting power.
The subject relocates the interpretive burden onto the audience, who are recast as “literalists” incapable of perceiving the hidden Magic Eye revelation embedded in his prose.
The effect is to transform ordinary forum dialogue into a kind of mystical Rorschach exercise. Researchers should note that this stage, while charming, typically precedes a tactical withdrawal.
As I said, simply repeating things you posted before I posted is non responsive. And I shouldn't have to point you to my posts where I responded to the claims in your quoted post. Scroll up.
Apparently, you don't know when you have been misrepresented or ignored. You haven't shown an example of either. You do know how to play the martyr.
OK. I think I understand better the dynamics of conversing with critics.
I won't press my point/argument. There are certain demarcation lines which shall not be crossed. Conjecture and hypotheticals being two of them.
The unwritten order of things.
Martyr. Sheesh.
Regards,
MG
Oh, please. Spare me the passive-aggressive hand wringing. You know very well that I have no categorical objection to either hypotheticals or conjecture. I do have a problem with posting a response to something you posted, only to have you repost the original as if I hadn’t responded. The fact that you don’t understand or can’t deal with my response doesn’t mean I haven’t responded.
And, yes, playing the martyr is your typical exit strategy when you can’t respond to someone who expresses disagreement. You just did it again.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
In response to the observer’s prior satirical analysis, the specimen has now entered what we classify as the Visionary Self-Mythologizing Phase, a behavioral pattern in which the subject reimagines himself as an underappreciated artist whose works can only be discerned by initiates possessing sufficient spiritual squinting power.
The subject relocates the interpretive burden onto the audience, who are recast as “literalists” incapable of perceiving the hidden Magic Eye revelation embedded in his prose.
The effect is to transform ordinary forum dialogue into a kind of mystical Rorschach exercise. Researchers should note that this stage, while charming, typically precedes a tactical withdrawal.
- WML
A.I. ? See other thread.
Regards,
MG
It’s satire, dude. And a very clever example. A tip of the cap to Limnor.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
I’m seeing a lot of selective reading here, and frankly it feels like folks are interpreting MG’s comments the way someone squints at a Monet, blurry, impressionistic, and mostly projecting whatever they’re predisposed to see. MG has been clear, consistent, and patient, yet somehow that gets twisted into “sidestepping.”
If people had been following his posts over the years, I mean really following them, they’d understand that he’s not the one sidestepping. He’s been remarkably consistent. But when consistency gets reframed as evasiveness, what can you do? It’s almost as if certain posters are committed to misunderstanding him.
And, look, the idea that he’s inventing some kind of “anti-MG” sentiment is interesting. He’s not saying that, he’s just pointing out patterns that have been obvious to anyone paying attention. Whether folks want to admit that or not is their choice.
If people actually engaged with what MG means, and not what they’ve decided he must mean, this wouldn’t be such a recurring issue. But maybe clarity just isn’t appealing when the critic narrative is already painted in broad strokes.
Anyway, I’m sure MG doesn’t expect agreement, but he probably does expect a little more balance and a little less presumption. If that’s unreasonable, then so be it. I’ll leave it there for now.
- A satirical field note submitted by Limnor, First-year Adjunct Fellow, Cassius University Department of Applied Mopologetic Studies.
Touché.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
Been a few days. Limnor and others doing a good job with MG's nonsense.
MG's view of 3 Nephi 11:40 says it all. How anyone can look at that text and resort to the loony apologetic spin adopted from the mopologists is, well, quite frankly, fascinating. (Yes, I mean that pejoratively.)
If the Book of Mormon "Jesus" meant what he said, then that constitutes a hard limit on religious doctrine.
Otherwise, what's the point of the statement?
"Jesus" didn't say, "if anyone adds or subtracts from my doctrine except for some guy who claims to receive revelations and wants to add them to my doctrine."
Hard limit. Else pointless.
(There are a few "restorationist" groups (Bicketonites, Temple Lot, etc) that do accept the Book of Mormon as scripture and do not add extra doctrines to it.)
Edited: removed irrelevancies.
Last edited by bill4long on Sun Dec 07, 2025 11:37 am, edited 6 times in total.
I’m seeing a lot of selective reading here, and frankly it feels like folks are interpreting MG’s comments the way someone squints at a Monet, blurry, impressionistic, and mostly projecting whatever they’re predisposed to see. MG has been clear, consistent, and patient, yet somehow that gets twisted into “sidestepping.”
If people had been following his posts over the years, I mean really following them, they’d understand that he’s not the one sidestepping. He’s been remarkably consistent. But when consistency gets reframed as evasiveness, what can you do? It’s almost as if certain posters are committed to misunderstanding him.
And, look, the idea that he’s inventing some kind of “anti-MG” sentiment is interesting. He’s not saying that, he’s just pointing out patterns that have been obvious to anyone paying attention. Whether folks want to admit that or not is their choice.
If people actually engaged with what MG means, and not what they’ve decided he must mean, this wouldn’t be such a recurring issue. But maybe clarity just isn’t appealing when the critic narrative is already painted in broad strokes.
Anyway, I’m sure MG doesn’t expect agreement, but he probably does expect a little more balance and a little less presumption. If that’s unreasonable, then so be it. I’ll leave it there for now.
- A satirical field note submitted by Limnor, First-year Adjunct Fellow, Cassius University Department of Applied Mopologetic Studies.
Nice. What more can really be said?
Regards from a lone visionary whose brush strokes you dull literalists can’t appreciate. Creator of Magic Eye posters that none can decipher except for those that are willing to take the time and effort to see.
Satire, whooshing right over the head of the magic eye lone gymnast.
Field Note #147c Predictive Analysis on Defensive Configuration
Based on established posting patterns, MG’s next commentary are fairly predictable: 1) Shift the frame away from specific critique toward a conversation about assumptions, or methodology (“group dynamics,” “critics’ presuppositions,” “worldviews”); 2) Introduce a binary or false dilemma to narrow the permissible responses; 3) Redefine the conversation as a contrast between “reasoned faith” and “materialist mindsets,” which relocates the burden of proof; 4) Speculate about motives or process when the argument cannot be addressed directly; or 5) Present performed conciliatory-sounding verbiage (“In the end we all choose our relationship with God”) in an attempt to reset the exchange.
Analysis respectfully submitted by your most humble and ob’t servant,
Field Note #147c Predictive Analysis on Defensive Configuration
Based on established posting patterns, MG’s next commentary are fairly predictable: 1) Shift the frame away from specific critique toward a conversation about assumptions, or methodology (“group dynamics,” “critics’ presuppositions,” “worldviews”); 2) Introduce a binary or false dilemma to narrow the permissible responses; 3) Redefine the conversation as a contrast between “reasoned faith” and “materialist mindsets,” which relocates the burden of proof; 4) Speculate about motives or process when the argument cannot be addressed directly; or 5) Present performed conciliatory-sounding verbiage (“In the end we all choose our relationship with God”) in an attempt to reset the exchange.
Analysis respectfully submitted by your most humble and ob’t servant,
W. M. Limnor, First-Year Fellow
Nicely put. I'm my day, we'd call MG's tactics, "tap dancing and BS".
Field Note #147c Predictive Analysis on Defensive Configuration
Based on established posting patterns, MG’s next commentary are fairly predictable: 1) Shift the frame away from specific critique toward a conversation about assumptions, or methodology (“group dynamics,” “critics’ presuppositions,” “worldviews”); 2) Introduce a binary or false dilemma to narrow the permissible responses; 3) Redefine the conversation as a contrast between “reasoned faith” and “materialist mindsets,” which relocates the burden of proof; 4) Speculate about motives or process when the argument cannot be addressed directly; or 5) Present performed conciliatory-sounding verbiage (“In the end we all choose our relationship with God”) in an attempt to reset the exchange.
Analysis respectfully submitted by your most humble and ob’t servant,
W. M. Limnor, First-Year Fellow
Nicely put. I'm my day, we'd call MG's tactics, "tap dancing and BS".
The best way to deal with MG is to simply throw the Book of Abraham questions at him, repeatedly. Don't let up. I've been doing it for years and I know it's his Achilles heel in which he has no valid response or comeback. I know how to shut him down and kick his sorry ass out the door.
Posters have to learn this simple lesson in dealing with the troll.
Otherwise, you deserve what you get which is the constant runaround.
Nicely put. I'm my day, we'd call MG's tactics, "tap dancing and BS".
The best way to deal with MG is to simply throw the Book of Abraham questions at him, repeatedly. Don't let up. I've been doing it for years and I know it's his Achilles heel in which he has no valid response or comeback. I know how to shut him down and kick his sorry ass out the door.
Posters have to learn this simple lesson in dealing with the troll.
Otherwise, you deserve what you get which is the constant runaround.
That’s a fair point, Shulem. I’ve come to the point of realization that MG will not, cannot, and must not provide answers.
So I’ve moved to parody, Cassius U field notes and stuff. Not for persuasion, but in a meager attempt to reveal the pattern back to him.
I suppose at the end of the day I’d prefer MG simply “come clean” about how and why nothing problematic or clearly contradictory seems to matter. It’s likely aligned to familiarity, sunk cost, or whatever. I’d respect that more I think.
