Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Dr. Shades]

Still crickets from Dan, Louis and Kiwi57/Pahoran regarding my offer to donate $1,000 to a charity in exchange for each of them apologizing for falsely accusing me of lying about my view that the Prying article was primarily “counterproductive and harmful” hit piece.

The reason for the crickets is simple: You made the mistake of offering to donate the $1,000 to charity.

[_Dr Moore]

Why is that a problem Shades?

Interpreter is a 501(c)(3) is it not?

As just one example.

[_Dr. Shades]

Why is that a problem Shades?

Interpreter is a 501(c)(3) is it not?

As just one example.

Let me clarify:

You need to offer to give them the $1,000 directly, as in, into their own pockets.

Then your chances of obtaining an apology will increase by half a percent.

[_Gadianton]

Dr. Moore,

I do have to say that while it's not enough to claim the grand prize, Kiwi57 did show some marked improvement in that post where he told you that he didn't hold you in contempt, and he even referred to you as Dr. Moore, not "fake Dr. Moore" and he didn't put your name in scare quotes as DCP did when accepting your apology.

In relative terms, he's being very nice to you right now and I do think we have to count that for something.

[_Philo Sofee]

cwald: totally. Not going to happen this year!

I told ya bro. They do NOT apologize for one simple reason. The Holy Ghost does not allow them to ever be wrong on anything having to do with Mormonism. They are always correct, always. In their minds, they are perfect. It's fruit of the Gospel, it makes some men and women utterly totally arrogant and boorish when they let it go to their heads that they'll be Elohims. Why wait? Be that here, now. They have testimonies, which in their minds is THE final truth and say so, and thus, they can do no wrong, they can say no wrong.

The flip side is obvious as well. No one who is not Mormon can ever be correct if what they think and say goes against what Mormons think they know is true. Therefore, we shall always be wrong (the cesspool is a bonus love chip from them), and they always correct. Ain't it grand? Ain't it wonderful, to see Gods already here on the earth in our day?

[_Philo Sofee]

Dr. Moore,

I do have to say that while it's not enough to claim the grand prize, Kiwi57 did show some marked improvement in that post where he told you that he didn't hold you in contempt, and he even referred to you as Dr. Moore, not "fake Dr. Moore" and he didn't put your name in scare quotes as DCP did when accepting your apology.

In relative terms, he's being very nice to you right now and I do think we have to count that for something.

We could give him a consolation prize of an "I'm Elohim" T-Shirt that's fully red, while the letters are blazened on the front in bold white. After all, white is the sacred color.

[_Philo Sofee]

Dr. Shades
Let me clarify:

You need to offer to give them the $1,000 directly, as in, into their own pockets.

Then your chances of obtaining an apology will increase by half a percent.

Bayes Theorem with all the evidences shows your percentage is at minimum about 1000 times too high. You need to account for ALL the evidence, which demonstrates his chances are around 0.00000000000000011

[_Dr Moore]

I recall a very entertaining thread on Bayesian analytics here. The article it discussed was quite entertaining!

Re Kiwi toning it down, yes absolutely. Credit where it’s due. *peace nod*

[_Philo Sofee]

I recall a very entertaining thread on Bayesian analytics here. The article it discussed was quite entertaining!

Re Kiwi toning it down, yes absolutely. Credit where it’s due. *peace nod*

Yes, that is what I was alluding to. I was the culprit who started the whole thing, but the contributions came from the incredible brains around here of which I am unworthy to even almost talk to. Man what a fantastically GREAT group of people this is. They got the real poop. Get it? We are known as the "cesspool"? Poop... cesspool.....?

[_Dr Moore]

LOL Philo.

I sense that you will identify with this ambition.

A project aspiration of mine is to locate a well trained algorithm, like the one Google or Facebook uses to identify and score hate sites. I have some friends at both Google and Facebook, so it might be possible.

Wouldn’t it be fun to turn such an algorithm onto MD to see what score comes out? If the best “hate site” algorithm gives MD a clean bill of health, would the provocative labels die? And if the algorithm flashes red, would the indicated offending behavior change?

Call me silly, but these types of questions make my gears hum.

In a few years, the simple word print analyses that folks have attempted in identifying links between Mormon scripture and contemporary text sources will pale in comparison to what advanced language algorithms will accomplish.

Dan Vogel has indicated that he believes the word print searches are wasting their time, because he believes the true genius of the man was his ability to synthesize and incorporate ideas and themes which cannot be decoded by hunting for simple plagiarism.

I think Dan is right about that. Richard Bushman notes that the question is not IF 19th century material is in the Book of Mormon, but how much and how it got there. Soon, very soon, APIs will make incredibly powerful A.I. algorithms available to college researchers, and I have no doubt that this will lead to new insights to Bushman’s and Vogel’s hypotheses.

The church, as a result, will need to evolve its narrative (and its apologetics) at an even faster pace than it is already doing.

That may come as an uncomfortable notion, as we’ve already experienced dizzying change in just the past 5 years.

But the inconvenient truth is that software driven change is not only not slowing, it is not even a constant slope change, it is actually accelerating. And this is causing real trauma for every business on the planet.

The church as an institution looks a lot like a business - it has many of the same operational and governance issues for instance - and it will have no choice but to adapt likewise.