Monetize ponderize

[_maklelan]

The facts show the primary purpose of his Conference address was to sell 'ponderize'.

Don't ever take a job that requires you deal with facts.

He bought the domains.

He bought domains unassociated with the website selling t-shirts, but apart from that specific point, this is the only fact on your list.

He designed the merchandise.

He did? Please demonstrate this.

He seeded the market via Twitter.

That's an assumption about motive, not a fact. It's quite a bit more likely that he just happened to be on Twitter.

Then he worked his whole Conference address around it.

That's a pretty damning assumption, but it's unquestionably not a fact.

His less-than-fully-honest apologies only add to the mess.

A more obvious attempt at money grubbing from the members via the pulpit would be hard to find. And, despite knowing he registered the domain names himself, knowing that he seeded the field via Twitter himself and knowing he worked the phrase into his talk fifty times, he didn't own the problem, preferring instead to shift the blame to his son. That is utterly digraceful and further poor judgement.

I'd be hard pressed to find a more laughable excuse for an analysis of facts on this website.

[_Maksutov]

Oaks must have heard that someone associated with the church was apologizing, and stomped down there to kick his ass.

On the other hand, is Durrant even Mormon? I just went to his Tweeter page, and his bio reads like this:

Devin Durrant

@DurrantDevin

Profession: Investor/Teacher. Faith: Disciple of Christ. Family: I Feel So Blessed! Invitation: Ponderize.

Joined August 2010

https://Twitter.com/DurrantDevin/with_replies

So weird. Even by Mormon standards.

Not at all. Mormon hustlers don't care about theology unless they can commodify it.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If I were a detective investigating whether or not Mr. Durrant had planned and executed a deliberate marketing campaign coupled with a deliberate business plan I would come to the conclusion that was the case.

It's a damn good thing you're not a detective.[/quote]

Pardon my candor, but your 'in-group binary rhetoric' is showing. Given the facts of the matter, how do you come to an alternate conclusion? And if you're going to bother to answer please provide a breakout with the givens rather than your typical vague garbage answers.

- Doc

[_maklelan]

Pardon my candor, but your 'in-group binary rhetoric' is showing.

No, it's not. If you're going to try to turn the tables on my arguments, understand what they mean first.

Given the facts of the matter, how do you come to an alternate conclusion?

There is no indication whatsoever that the idea at all originated with Elder Durrant. In fact, the evidence consistently places its genesis with his son and DIL. You need him to be responsible, though, because that fits the pieces more helpfully into the stereotypes that are so important to your value judgments. A GA trying to make money off of a GC talk is just so much juicier than the son of a GA.

And if you're going to bother to answer please provide a breakout with the givens rather than your typical vague garbage answers.

Why are your value judgments facts and mine garbage? Oh, right, you've got those rickety power structures that need tending.

[_I have a question]

"I should have stopped the process," Durrant said. "I did not. That was poor judgment on my part."

This is a very damning statement.

It's a confession that Durrant was aware of the scheme to merchandise his Conference talk at a stage early enough to quash it. That he knowingly allowed it to continue makes him fully complicit in it. When, knowing in advance about the plans to make money from the term "ponderize", he then went on to spend about twenty minutes at the pulpit ensuring the term was ingrained in the membership, his sons target audience, he became a full partner it in. Every time he used the word when stood at that pulpit he knew he was marketing his sons merchandise.

Grubby.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Pardon my candor, but your 'in-group binary rhetoric' is showing.

No, it's not. If you're going to try to turn the tables on my arguments, understand what they mean first.

Given the facts of the matter, how do you come to an alternate conclusion?

There is no indication whatsoever that the idea at all originated with Elder Durrant. In fact, the evidence consistently places its genesis with his son and DIL. You need him to be responsible, though, because that fits the pieces more helpfully into the stereotypes that are so important to your value judgments. A GA trying to make money off of a GC talk is just so much juicier than the son of a GA.

And if you're going to bother to answer please provide a breakout with the givens rather than your typical vague garbage answers.

Why are your value judgments facts and mine garbage? Oh, right, you've got those rickety power structures that need tending.

Gee. What a surprise. Pardon my candor, but this is just more rhetorical garbage posting by the fly-by in-group binarist Maklelan. Ugh. Talking to you is akin to talking to a parrot. Sure it can say a few phrases, but hearing the same things over and over again gets old quick. Good luck pulling that crap with your dissertation!

- Doc

[_maklelan]

This is a very damning statement.

Not really. It's an honest expression of regret.

It's a confession that Durrant was aware of the scheme to merchandise his Conference talk

That's a value judgment, not an unbiased statement of fact.

at a stage early enough to quash it. That he knowingly allowed it to continue makes him fully complicit in it.

Good grief, they didn't commit a crime. Yeah, he was "complicit" in it. That's a far cry from orchestrating it though.

When, knowing in advance about the plans to make money from the term "ponderize", he then went on to spend about twenty minutes at the pulpit ensuring the term was ingrained in the membership, his sons target audience, he became a full partner it in.

A laughable attempt to manipulate the facts. The talk was written before the son came up with the idea. Nothing in the talk changed after the fact.

Every time he used the word when stood at that pulpit he knew he was marketing his sons merchandise.

Grubby.

Good heavens, you are inescapably prejudiced and ignorant.

[_maklelan]

Gee. What a surprise.

Hey, you use the same childish rhetoric over and over again and I'm going to point it out over and over again.

Pardon my candor,

Yeah, you've been real reserved up until now.

but this is just more rhetorical garbage posting by the fly-by in-group binarist Maklelan. Ugh. Talking to you is akin to talking to a parrot. Sure it can say a few phrases, but hearing the same things over and over again gets old quick. Good luck pulling that crap with your dissertation!

- Doc

How do you think I feel with you guys barfing up the same rhetorical garbage over and over again? I get sick of having to repeat myself, too. Believe me, I wish you guys could change your tune more than you know.

[_Some Schmo]

"I should have stopped the process," Durrant said. "I did not. That was poor judgment on my part."

This is a very damning statement.

It's a confession that Durrant was aware of the scheme to merchandise his Conference talk at a stage early enough to quash it. That he knowingly allowed it to continue makes him fully complicit in it. When, knowing in advance about the plans to make money from the term "ponderize", he then went on to spend about twenty minutes at the pulpit ensuring the term was ingrained in the membership, his sons target audience, he became a full partner it in. Every time he used the word when stood at that pulpit he knew he was marketing his sons merchandise.

Grubby.

I wonder why god didn't intervene for one of his top guys; you know, protect him from himself.

I suppose it's hard to see god with dollar signs in your eyes.

[_I have a question]

I wonder why god didn't intervene for one of his top guys; you know, protect him from himself.

I suppose it's hard to see god with dollar signs in your eyes.

Conference talks are supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps the Church really needs ten percent of the merchandising?