DiscussMormonism.com

DarkHelmet wrote:Do you really believe he protected the urls because he thought that after his talk "ponderize" would become such a popular concept that cyber squatters would register those urls?

Of course. Do you actually believe it's unreasonable? It's by far the most parsimonious interpretation.

DarkHelmet wrote:That's what business people do to protect their intellectual property. That behavior supports the theory that he was marketing "ponderize" during GC.

And that assumption requires insisting he was lying about why he bought the domains. I don't think the evidence requires or supports that leap.

maklelan wrote:
Yeah, I'll admit I'm contributing, because I'm not going to be shouted down, but everyone here is and will continue to treat me as if I am exclusively responsible. That kind of belligerent group think ought to raise some red flags.

It must be a slow week at the COB.

mak wrote:Yes, and if not for people who squat on domain names to take advantage of popular concepts and people,

Mak has lost it, he just defined exactly what D. Durrant did in order to try to explain how D. Durant did not do what he did.

Red flag raised here, 'belligerent group think' recognized.

maklelan wrote:

Fence Sitter wrote:But by trying to respond to every single assertion, justifiable or not, you are also contributing to the very thing that is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Yeah, I'll admit I'm contributing, because I'm not going to be shouted down, but everyone here is and will continue to treat me as if I am exclusively responsible. That kind of belligerent group think ought to raise some red flags.

See this is part of what I am trying to point out.

Not everyone here is treating you as exclusively responsible and for that matter, I am not sure anyone is, though I confess to not having read most of this silly thread. And while others certainly are using inflammatory rhetoric, the best approach is to stop responding.

by the way, in you quest not to be shouted down I believe you are doing a disservice to Devin. You have more than adequately defended what you think here. Many pages ago it just got redundant, from both sides.

Lemmie wrote:Mak has lost it, he just defined exactly what D. Durrant did in order to try to explain how D. Durant did not do what he did.

Maybe you should go look up what the word "squatting" means in the context of web domains.

Lemmie wrote:Red flag raised here, 'belligerent group think' recognized.

Yup. Several of you lose all capacity for critical thought when someone else challenges your rhetorical puppet shows and just go into blind attack mode.

Quasimodo wrote:

maklelan wrote:
Yeah, I'll admit I'm contributing, because I'm not going to be shouted down, but everyone here is and will continue to treat me as if I am exclusively responsible. That kind of belligerent group think ought to raise some red flags.

It must be a slow week at the COB.

Or someone is ABD and is avoiding dissertation work. Procrastination can take bizarre forms.

Lemmie wrote:

mak wrote:Yes, and if not for people who squat on domain names to take advantage of popular concepts and people,

Mak has lost it, he just defined exactly what D. Durrant did in order to try to explain how D. Durant did not do what he did.

Red flag raised here, 'belligerent group think' recognized.

Yep, I don't get it. Why Maklelan is hell bent on dying on this hill by destroying his image in terms of his capacity/willingness to be objective is beyond me. I am sure he is a good person, obviously intelligent enough to formulate strong ideas, etc. This doesn't make sense. At times, in this thread, he expressed this whole Durrant situation as not good, but then he continues to muddy the waters with his doubt the doubts argumentation.

Fence Sitter wrote:See this is part of what I am trying to point out.

Not everyone here is treating you as exclusively responsible

No, not everyone, but everyone who is assigning responsibility is assigning it exclusively to me. Except for when people start threads exclusively to hurl insults at me, which happens quite frequently, I'm the only one ever specifically called out.

Fence Sitter wrote:and for that matter, I am not sure anyone is, though I confess to not having read most of this silly thread. And while others certainly are using inflammatory rhetoric, the best approach is to stop responding.

Why is it always my responsibility to back down? Why is it never the person repeatedly calling me an asswhipe or telling me their going to get "crappy" with their comments? How come if no one backs down, I'm the one criticized for it?

Fence Sitter wrote:by the way, in you quest not to be shouted down I believe you are doing a disservice to Devin. You have more than adequately defended what you think here. Many pages ago it just got redundant, from both sides.

So why am I the only one who gets to be specifically called out?

Lemmie wrote:Or someone is ABD and is avoiding dissertation work. Procrastination can take bizarre forms.

The silly assumptions continue to fly.

lostindc wrote:Yep, I don't get it. Why Maklelan is hell bent on dying on this hill by destroying his image in terms of his capacity/willingness to be objective is beyond me.

You cannot point to a single thing I've posted in this thread that is un-objective. Prove me wrong.

lostindc wrote:I am sure he is a good person, obviously intelligent enough to formulate strong ideas, etc. This doesn't make sense. At times, in this thread, he expressed this whole Durrant situation as not good, but then he continues to muddy the waters with his doubt the doubts argumentation.

More assumptive rhetoric to hurl around instead of being honest and objective.