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.
I don't think it's a giant leap in logic to assume a businessman, who come up with a term that he obviously thinks is awesome, who then purchased two domains to protect them and allowed his son to merchandise the term on a different site, would then use his general conference talk to get his new term out into the Mormon consciousness. And it's not a giant leap in logic to assume that he might think that using GC to immediately get his term into the Mormon lexicon would be a great marketing opportunity. I don't understand how that's a giant leap in logic.
And that assumption doesn't require that Durrant was lying. Was Joseph Smith lying when he publicly denied he was practicing polygamy? I'm sure you can read his statement in a way to show that he wasn't lying.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
CameronMO wrote:Right. So why didn't Durrant buy it from whoever owns it, if, in fact, the purpose is to prevent parking or squatting or whatever, and to keep the 'ponderize' word pure for innocent members?
Maybe Durrant is a cheap bastard.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
DarkHelmet wrote:I don't think it's a giant leap in logic to assume a businessman, who come up with a term that he obviously thinks is awesome, who then purchased two domains to protect them and allowed his son to merchandise the term on a different site, would then use his general conference talk to get his new term out into the Mormon consciousness. And it's not a giant leap in logic to assume that he might think that using GC to immediately get his term into the Mormon lexicon would be a great marketing opportunity. I don't understand how that's a giant leap in logic.
I never said that was a giant leap. I said the assumption that he was lying about why he purchased the domains was a giant leap.
DarkHelmet wrote:And that assumption doesn't require that Durrant was lying.
Yes, it does. I cannot conceive of a rational interpretation of his statement that he purchased "domains to protect them" that does not understand the domains to be the antecedent of "them." Since domain protection is a widely known phenomenon, I cannot fathom why we would need to search elsewhere for a different interpretation.
DarkHelmet wrote:Was Joseph Smith lying when he publicly denied he was practicing polygamy? I'm sure you can read his statement in a way to show that he wasn't lying.
For a portion of my career, I worked with insurance companies on investigation of claims that they suspected may be fraudulent. I learned several things.
1. Once someone (in my case, a claim representative, supervisor, law enforcement officer, fire marshal) concludes in her mind that there is something fishy about a claim, they will inevitably construe the facts in a manner that supports that conclusion. In training, I talked often about "the myth of the file" -- facts or conclusions that would be stated in the file that, in fact, did not have a solid basis in fact at all. Suspicion became assertion became fact. I think that's what Mak is pushing back on here, and I think his point is a good one. I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that, in the future on sites where former Mormons gather to talk, this incident will be referred to as the Church leader who attempted to make a buck off of his conference talk. And that is, in my opinion, one of the least likely conclusions one could reasonably draw from the facts at hand.
2. When someone is permitted to tell their own narrative about a situation that they think reflects poorly on himself or their his character, he will avoid telling outright lies for as long as he can. Most or even all of what he says will be literally true. The dishonesty, if any, is in the withholding of facts that he thinks make him look bad. Only when pressed (in my case, during cross examination of a witness) will people, in general, tell an outright lie. (Note: there are people that seem to lie as naturally as you and I breathe air -- in my experience they were fairly rare.) For this reason, I tend to trust the literal truthfulness of the apology. I am less sure of the tweet, as he omitted the information about the domain registrations from the apology and the tweet didn't convey much information.
For me, the apology doesn't answer the one question that would make a difference in how I view the incident: did the father know the son intended to make a profit off the website?
3. People's motives are complicated. Any simple characterization of "the motive" for doing anything is very likely to be wrong. People's characterization of their own motives is subject to rationalization and memory distortions. I learned never to take them seriously unless well supported by fact.
For me, the father's actions in this case fall somewhere between very naïve and unforgivably stupid. Anyone who takes a step back and thinks for two minutes should be able to see the obvious problem with a son making a buck off his father's general conference address. It's not a complex ethical question. So, for me, the interesting question is why no one who was aware of the plan seems to have seen the problem. Or if they did, why they went forward anyway. I'm tempted to think it has to do with the connection in Mormonism between doing good and doing well, as well as being in a culture where it is accepted that a church that promotes the teachings of Jesus also conducts very profitable business. To me, that's what the leadership should be thinking about -- why did these folks forget the dramatic story of Jesus and the moneychangers at the temple?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Can you simply state or point to how you think this whole ponderize venture went down? At this point, I am not sure what the hell your position is and I don't think you know either. Can you do all of this without name calling and declaring some sort of victory?
I've explained my position directly to you a few times, although I acknowledge that you appear to have entirely misunderstood it each time. In the absence of any evidence contradicting it, I accept his apology as an accurate description of the events. According to that text, his son set up the website that would sell t-shirts and wristbands in an effort to help spread the word about a term his family had long used to describe their approach to scripture study. Elder Durrant knew about it and didn't stop it. He himself had also purchased two domains to protect them. We all know how it went down after the site went live. I was online follow it live while talking with friends and colleagues about it.
What absolutely do not constitute facts are the assumptions that (1) that Elder Durrant orchestrated the entire t-shirt selling campaign (2) in order primarily to profit of his opportunity to speak at General Conference. Those are not facts, they are assumption, and as I stated yesterday, the MO here is to crystallize assumptions into facts to aid stereotype maintenance. I appealed to your post as evidence of precisely that process. Several others chimed in to provide further evidence.
For those that do not want to read through the entire thread to find Maklelan's position see above.
Maklelan allows that prior to the conference talk, Elder Durrant was fully aware that his son was setting up the website. Elder Durrant purchased domain names to protect ponderize. To Maklelan, nothing else can be assumed at this point.
lostindc wrote:right, so doubt your doubts. Carry on.
The new gen of Mormon Apologetics, same as the old.
I'm not an apologist. I've made that clear numerous times. I've invited you to prove me wrong, but you've ignored me each and every time. How is this a difficult concept for you?
lostindc wrote:by the way, it is "said" not "sad" since you're still focused on message board grammar.
I think I am beginning to understand, it seems there are two different discussions here, one where mak thinks posters think he is responsible:
mak wrote:No, not everyone, but everyone who is assigning responsibility is assigning it exclusively to me.
And then another thread where a topic is being discussed. Taking it personally is not necessary, but the thread seems stuck on that.
I'm with Ceeboo and others, since all questions have been asked and answered and opinions on both sides registered, it's my last post also, pending something new.
(although after writing this, I see mak's comment about looking up 'squatting' has led someone to investigate further, finding that ponderize.com belongs to someone else and therefore D. Durrant's later registering of domains is now looking even worse.
Also, thank you, Brad, that was a very thoughtful summing up, plus lostindc's last post, both good posts on which to leave.)
Brad Hudson wrote:For a portion of my career, I worked with insurance companies on investigation of claims that they suspected may be fraudulent. I learned several things.
1. Once someone (in my case, a claim representative, supervisor, law enforcement officer, fire marshal) concludes in her mind that there is something fishy about a claim, they will inevitably construe the facts in a manner that supports that conclusion. In training, I talked often about "the myth of the file" -- facts or conclusions that would be stated in the file that, in fact, did not have a solid basis in fact at all. Suspicion became assertion became fact. I think that's what Mak is pushing back on here, and I think his point is a good one. I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that, in the future on sites where former Mormons gather to talk, this incident will be referred to as the Church leader who attempted to make a buck off of his conference talk. And that is, in my opinion, one of the least likely conclusions one could reasonably draw from the facts at hand.
Thank you. That is precisely what I was trying to say, but my defensiveness seems to have clouded the issue.
Brad Hudson wrote:2. When someone is permitted to tell their own narrative about a situation that they think reflects poorly on himself or their his character, he will avoid telling outright lies for as long as he can. Most or even all of what he says will be literally true. The dishonesty, if any, is in the withholding of facts that he thinks make him look bad. Only when pressed (in my case, during cross examination of a witness) will people, in general, tell an outright lie. (Note: there are people that seem to lie as naturally as you and I breathe air -- in my experience they were fairly rare.) For this reason, I tend to trust the literal truthfulness of the apology. I am less sure of the tweet, as he omitted the information about the domain registrations from the apology and the tweet didn't convey much information.
For me, the apology doesn't answer the one question that would make a difference in how I view the incident: did the father know the son intended to make a profit off the website?
I think he probably knew there was going to be some incoming money, but he probably knew it would be minimal.
Brad Hudson wrote:3. People's motives are complicated. Any simple characterization of "the motive" for doing anything is very likely to be wrong. People's characterization of their own motives is subject to rationalization and memory distortions. I learned never to take them seriously unless well supported by fact.
For me, the father's actions in this case fall somewhere between very naïve and unforgivably stupid.
My sentiments exactly.
Brad Hudson wrote:Anyone who takes a step back and thinks for two minutes should be able to see the obvious problem with a son making a buck off his father's general conference address. It's not a complex ethical question. So, for me, the interesting question is why no one who was aware of the plan seems to have seen the problem. Or if they did, why they went forward anyway. I'm tempted to think it has to do with the connection in Mormonism between doing good and doing well, as well as being in a culture where it is accepted that a church that promotes the teachings of Jesus also conducts very profitable business. To me, that's what the leadership should be thinking about -- why did these folks forget the dramatic story of Jesus and the moneychangers at the temple?
lostindc wrote:Maklelan allows that prior to the conference talk, Elder Durrant was fully aware that his son was setting up the website.
Yes, that's been my position since Sunday night, and I've pointed as much out every single time that you or someone else on this thread has barked at me for believing otherwise.
lostindc wrote:Elder Durrant purchased domain names to protect ponderize.
Again, he said he was protecting the domains, not the concept. You're turning assumption into fact again.
lostindc wrote:To Maklelan, nothing else can be assumed at this point.
At least, not in a way that turns the assumption into a fact.
sock puppet wrote:Given how well-heeled the Brethren of the 21st Century are, do they fail to differentiate religion and business?
I do believe Mormons subscribe to a sort of Prosperity Theology when it comes to their Saintly-ness. You know... You'll be blessed and prosper if you're faithful and pay a full tithe. Anecdotally, I recall many of my parents' peers talking openly about material blessings follow to those who are spiritually adherent. I'm sure there are dozens of talks to be found on lds.org that underpin the idea of paying tithing and then being blessed materially as a result. I see no difference between what LDS leadership pushes and what televangelists promise other than the manner in which the message is conveyed.
- Doc
And it might the manner of the "ponderize" push--by Devin at the GC pulpit and then by his son activating the merchandising through ponderize.us within hours--that blurred the differences in those manners.