DiscussMormonism.com

I'm not sure if this topic belongs in the group of "Mormon Discussions", or in the group of "Non-Mormon Discussions", so I'm reporting it to invite the mods to move it if necessary.

It's a bit self indulgent supposed to be self reflective - be the change you want to see, and all that good stuff. I am neither encouraging nor discouraging other posters from participating in my experiment.

Derails
I realize that, more often than I prefer, contribute to a specific kind of off-topic/derail activity that I dislike, and based on the idea that one cannot alter another's actions, but only one's own, I'm attempting to moderate myself more strictly that the mods do for the specific kind of off-topic/derail activity - especially that which tends to make a poster the topic of conversation in place of the OP and relevant comments thereon.

malkie's attempted fix for malkie's off-topic comments
My intent is to collect here my replies others' comments, mostly in the Terrestrial Forum, if my replies would be off-topic or derails in that forum. This will reduce the amount dreck on the screen in the original thread, and make it easier for people to avoid.

[Aside: the moderation practices in Terrestrial give wide latitude to off-topic/derail comments, and very largely I'm OK with that. Sometimes it's productive, but what I'm trying to tackle here is not.]

How it should work
So here's my plan - no palindrome involved - for times when I wish to make remarks about something other than the topic of the of the OP and relevant comments thereon, including about a board member's behaviour. I'll:

1. split my comment into on- and off-topic parts;
2. post the off-topic part in this thread, with a link back to the original topic;
3. post the on-topic part in the original thread, along with:
   • short quote of what I'm replying to - one-liner if I can
   • "This is a link to my off-topic reply to [poster name]"

As I'm typing this out, I've concluded that this effort may become seriously disinhibiting, and reduce my overall participation; that may not be altogether a bad thing.

I'm working on a project with a short deadline, so over the next few days I'll have time to add only a couple of items.

Comments welcome - but, please, stay on topic - no derails

From topic Blake Ostlerism - my off-topic reply to MG's off-topic comment.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 10, 2026 4:58 am

malkie wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 10, 2026 2:15 am

Once again MG exemplifies the behaviour he has been complaining about.

My evidence-based assumptions from this - implied "and/or" for each assumption:

• MG is whining again
• MG does not understand that he is (and has been) guilty of behaviour he dislikes when (he claims) others do it
• MG has no idea what ellipses are used for
• MG is determined not to use ellipses when they are appropriate
• MG doesn't understand that my comment was a reply to his complaint
• MG is simply trolling - there, the first time I've said that

OK then. Settled case. Judge, jury, and executioner. That's got to be a relief, malkie, to get everything off your chest.

Regards,
MG

Whiny and sarcastic deflection.

Why not make the case for why my observations are incorrect?

From topic Blake Ostlerism - my off-topic reply to MG's comment.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2026 11:04 pm

Paragraphs should not be isolated. They ought to be looked at within the context of everything else that is being said.

That is a constant problem here. Especially with one poster that clips, pastes, and uses ellipses. On top of that, then reinterpreting most of what I said into something that sounds almost the opposite of what I said.

Crazy.

Look at things that EVERYONE says in context of the surrounding paragraphs. Especially if there is more than one paragraph. (I know this sounds contradictory, but gosh, a reader actually did just that.

I'll bow out to let other make comment on my paragraph...but please don't leave out, as was done, the rest of what I said.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MG

I expect that I'm the poster you refer to that "clips, pastes, and uses ellipses".

Copying, pasting, and (especially) using ellipses is a time-honoured way of capturing someone's statement, and stripping out the parts you are not responding to, but indicating - via the ellipses - that something has been removed. Without the ellipses, the reader may get the impression that the pasted text is the entirety of statement being replied to. I thought you were aware of this.
==========
The part I bolded describes something known as contradiction, and, as Limnor points out, using the technique of mirroring the form of the comment I'm replying to. Rather than being crazy, it's a method that makes it easy for the reader to follow the correspondence between an original statement and its refutation. I'm pretty sure you've used it in the past.

The person I'm referring to that has constantly cut, pasted, and reconstituted my words...including NOT including my words (through using ellipses)...is the one and only Marcus.

I'm really not seeing that as much of a problem with others. She has cut it out/down somewhat over the last while since I hammered her on it so many times.

But it's still there to some extent.

Regards,
MG

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 10, 2026 3:29 pm

The person I'm referring to that has constantly cut, pasted, and reconstituted my words...including NOT including my words (through using ellipses)...is the one and only Marcus.

MG, do you realise that you’ve used ellipses incorrectly in the above sentence?

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 10, 2026 3:29 pm

The person I'm referring to that has constantly cut, pasted, and reconstituted my words...including NOT including my words (through using ellipses)...is the one and only Marcus.

I'm really not seeing that as much of a problem with others. She has cut it out/down somewhat over the last while since I hammered her on it so many times.

But it's still there to some extent.

Regards,
MG

That's pretty funny, given that everyone here can read and knows what a grasping projection this is. I'd ask for proof but mentalgymnast would be completely unable to provide any, which would start another round of him crying about being picked on, ganged up on, and victimized.

I will note that a common/frequent tactic of the poster that hacks up and chops my posts to the point of not being recognizable is the same person that throws out the word "projection" consistently and without fail when she doesn't have anything else in her tool belt.

Except LOL's.

What a troll. Following me around being simply obnoxious. Carrying out her everlasting/eternal vendetta.

Sad.

Regards,
MG

malkie wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 10, 2026 12:22 pm

From topic Blake Ostlerism - my off-topic reply to MG's off-topic comment.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 10, 2026 4:58 am

OK then. Settled case. Judge, jury, and executioner. That's got to be a relief, malkie, to get everything off your chest.

Regards,
MG

Whiny and sarcastic deflection.

Why not make the case for why my observations are incorrect?

You seem to be still waiting for a response.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 10, 2026 6:44 pm

I will note that a common/frequent tactic of the poster that hacks up and chops my posts to the point of not being recognizable...

Lol. I would ask mentalgymnast to prove this but he can't, because it doesn't happen.

...is the same person that throws out the word "projection" consistently and without fail when she doesn't have anything else in her tool belt...

lol is right. Mentalgymnasts shouldn't project if they don't want people to point out their projections.

...Except LOL's.

What a troll. Following me around being simply obnoxious. Carrying out her everlasting/eternal vendetta...

Lols to the troll, projecting again.

...Sad...

Lol again. Anyway, as is always the case, I will note, laugh at while using ellipses correctly, and then move on from the trolling. Back to the topics.