I have a question wrote:If he was intending protecting 'ponderize' domain names for some future purpose, or to stop them being misused, logically he would have bought all of them at the same time. He didn't. He left one available. He left one open and unprotected. The one his son bought.
Oh, there are numerous other potential URLs. Those aren't the only three possibilities, and .us isn't a phenomenally common extension. Why not a .net domain that redirects to .com or .org? If he had known about his son's plans when he registered his URLs, why not just give his son one of the ones with the far more common extensions? Since they were all in it together to make a buck, that would have saved them money and would have made more traffic likely on their website.
C'mon, if we're going to assume our way through the construction of an entire conspiracy theory, let's at least be informed about how these things work.
They make absolutely perfect sense as long as you're not diametrically opposed to letting him be an honest human being. People snatch up domain names all the time just to keep others from getting to them and taking advantage of them. You can find all kinds of websites on how and why to protect domain names online. All you have to do is allow for the possibility that Elder Durrant is telling the truth.
sock puppet wrote:He needed to take steps to protect urls? No, he was protecting his precious little, coined (or co-opted) word. So no, I don't take Durrant at his word, because on the face of it, it makes no sense.
I honestly don't understand how you can not make sense of his words. I sincerely don't believe you're that stupid, so you're either lying or you have some hardcore blinders on.
They make absolutely perfect sense as long as you're not diametrically opposed to letting him be an honest human being. People snatch up domain names all the time just to keep others from getting to them and taking advantage of them. You can find all kinds of websites on how and why to protect domain names online. All you have to do is allow for the possibility that Elder Durrant is telling the truth.
sock puppet wrote:He needed to take steps to protect urls? No, he was protecting his precious little, coined (or co-opted) word. So no, I don't take Durrant at his word, because on the face of it, it makes no sense.
I honestly don't understand how you can not make sense of his words. I sincerely don't believe you're that stupid, so you're either lying or you have some hardcore blinders on.
But for the word, "ponderize" in this case, what advantage can someone take from the url "ponderize.net" or "ponderize.org"?
sock puppet wrote:But for the word, "ponderize" in this case, what advantage can someone take from the url "ponderize.net" or "ponderize.org"?
(1) Just general irritating by squatting on the name. (2) Providing anti-Mormon links or redirects for LDS readers looking for information on Elder Durrant's talk. (3) Providing a site that appears to promote LDS ideals, but subverts those ideals or links to critical material. (4) Posting pornography for LDS readers looking for information on Elder Durrant's talk. (5) Selling one's own merchandise related to the word. (6) Spam. (7) Whatever else people with bad intentions can come up with.
4mormon.org and mormonbeliefs.org are examples of fundamentalist Christian websites intentionally designed to appear like LDS-owned URLs.
This is the most favourable conclusion I can muster about Ponderizegate.
Durrant Snr is obsessed with the term 'ponderize' that he thinks he's invented. He thinks it's an inspired way of getting members to read and retain scriptural messages. He decided to dedicate his rare chance of speaking at General Conference to intensively marketing the phrase to everyone who would listen. He discussed his plans to go global with it amongst his close family. They liked the idea so much Junior saw an opportunity to support his Dad and make money for himself. "Hey dad, I'll set up a website and sell #ponderize merchandise, that members can buy to help them remember to #ponderize, whilst your words are still ringing round the Conference Centre. It will really support you and I can make money from it." "Good idea son."
So carried away by Senior's excitement that he has devised a game changing terminology in terms of faith promotion, so clouded by the greatness of the intention by Junior to support his Dad and simultaneously make money, were they both that they didn't stop to think about what they were doing. They didn't have anyone in their circle raise a cautionary voice. They didn't think to run it past Church PR. They didn't run it past a senior Church leader. They didn't pray about it, or if they did, they didn't listen to what they were being told (I'm making an assumption here that the Holy Ghost would not have thought the plan a good one). They were caught up in their own brilliantly best of intentions and didn't stop to think.
The day comes, the brilliantly best of intended plans goes like clockwork. Dad works the mike, Son drives the keyboard. The talk finishes, the website launches and the money comes rolling in....*screech* Oh dear, this isn't going the way we'd hoped. we're getting slaughtered. What do we do? I know Dad, I'll make it better by dropping the prices. Good idea son. *screech* That didn't work Dad, it only made it worse. Son, tell them you're donating the proceeds to the missionary fund. Okay Dad. Dad, they saw right through that...ABORT, ABORT, ABORT.
At that point Church PR/Kirton McKonkie take over the steering wheel.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:This is the most favourable conclusion I can muster about Ponderizegate.
Durrant Snr is obsessed with the term 'ponderize' that he thinks he's invented.
Already you're promoting assumptions that go directly against what he said. He explicitly said he knows he didn't invent it.
I have a question wrote:He thinks it's an inspired way of getting members to read and retain scriptural messages. He decided to dedicate his rare chance of speaking at General Conference to intensively marketing the phrase to everyone who would listen. He discussed his plans to go global with it amongst his close family. They liked the idea so much Junior saw an opportunity to support his Dad and make money for himself. "Hey dad, I'll set up a website and sell #ponderize merchandise, that members can buy to help them remember to #ponderize, whilst your words are still ringing round the Conference Centre. It will really support you and I can make money from it." "Good idea son."
So carried away by Senior's excitement that he has devised a game changing terminology in terms of faith promotion, so clouded by the greatness of the intention by Junior to support his Dad and simultaneously make money, were they both that they didn't stop to think about what they were doing. They didn't have anyone in their circle raise a cautionary voice. They didn't think to run it past Church PR. They didn't run it past a senior Church leader. They didn't pray about it, or if they did, they didn't listen to what they were being told (I'm making an assumption here that the Holy Ghost would not have thought the plan a good one). They were caught up in their own brilliantly best of intentions and didn't stop to think.
The day comes, the brilliantly best of intended plans goes like clockwork. Dad works the mike, Son drives the keyboard. The talk finishes, the website launches and the money comes rolling in....*screech* Oh dear, this isn't going the way we'd hoped. we're getting slaughtered. What do we do? I know Dad, I'll make it better by dropping the prices. Good idea son. *screech* That didn't work Dad, it only made it worse. Son, tell them you're donating the proceeds to the missionary fund. Okay Dad. Dad, they saw right through that...ABORT, ABORT, ABORT.
At that point Church PR/Kirton McKonkie take over the steering wheel.
It's PA, not PR, and while I would quibble with the way you characterize their motivations, sprinkle in rhetorically helpful bits of narrative, and attempt to tie Durrant more explicitly in with the development and execution of the plan, I think this is probably largely correct.
sock puppet wrote:But for the word, "ponderize" in this case, what advantage can someone take from the url "ponderize.net" or "ponderize.org"?
(1) Just general irritating by squatting on the name. (2) Providing anti-Mormon links or redirects for LDS readers looking for information on Elder Durrant's talk. (3) Providing a site that appears to promote LDS ideals, but subverts those ideals or links to critical material. (4) Posting pornography for LDS readers looking for information on Elder Durrant's talk. (5) Selling one's own merchandise related to the word. (6) Spam. (7) Whatever else people with bad intentions can come up with.
4mormon.org and mormonbeliefs.org are examples of fundamentalist Christian websites intentionally designed to appear like LDS-owned URLs.
But doesn't it all stem from the word and those that would be looking for the term's use on the net?
At the church's October 2015 general conference, Durrant gave a sermon introducing the word "ponderize." He described it as a combination of memorizing and pondering a verse of scripture. He invited listeners to take up the practice. The next day it was discovered that he and his son had recently registered several web site domains for the word. Within a few hours of the sermon, his son launched a web site selling "ponderize" merchandise. Some church members felt that this rendered Durrant's sermon to be nothing more than an infomercial. A backlash on social media led to the web site being removed. Durrant later issued an apology.
I think this will end his rise up the ranks of the Church hierarchy.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:Here's how Wiki summarise it:
At the church's October 2015 general conference, Durrant gave a sermon introducing the word "ponderize." He described it as a combination of memorizing and pondering a verse of scripture. He invited listeners to take up the practice. The next day it was discovered that he and his son had recently registered several web site domains for the word. Within a few hours of the sermon, his son launched a web site selling "ponderize" merchandise. Some church members felt that this rendered Durrant's sermon to be nothing more than an infomercial. A backlash on social media led to the web site being removed. Durrant later issued an apology.
I think this will end his rise up the ranks of the Church hierarchy.
An odd way to craft the narrative. His son's registering of the website on which he was selling the shirts was discovered before that Sunday session of Conference had even ended. It was not discovered "the next day." "Rendered . . . to be" is also terrible syntax. This is why I never read Wikipedia.