Judicial Proceedings from SeN

[malkie]

..,Happily, there was an uptick in attendance at screenings of Six Days in August yesterday (Tuesday). I was pleased to see that, and rather caught off guard by it. A fair number of people have reported to me that they were surprised by the film, that it was better than they had anticipated, that it had exceeded their expectations. I like to think that Tuesday’s small but distinct rise in ticket sales over Monday (Family Night!) means that word-of-mouth is getting out. That would be the key to greater success. Whether that’s really what’s happening, though, and whether Tuesday’s numbers represent something significant, though, I cannot tell.

An "uptick in attendance"? or, as this quote refers to the situation a sentence or so later, a "distinct rise in ticket sales"?

not exactly the same thing.

An "uptick in attendance" and a "distinct rise in ticket sales" are not necessarily contradictory, if you consider that each ticket sold may not mean one person in attendance. The movie has not been released in a convenient location in Canada, so I'm unable to buy a complete row of seats for my wife and me, but someone in several states in the US could surely do so.

[Marcus]

An "uptick in attendance"? or, as this quote refers to the situation a sentence or so later, a "distinct rise in ticket sales"?

not exactly the same thing.

An "uptick in attendance" and a "distinct rise in ticket sales" are not necessarily contradictory, if you consider that each ticket sold may not mean one person in attendance. The movie has not been released in a convenient location in Canada, so I'm unable to buy a complete row of seats for my wife and me, but someone in several states in the US could surely do so.

now that's how to go to a movie. Best case scenario, I might buy a few more in front for vision purposes, and maybe even a few behind my row just for fun.

[Dr Exiled]

Yeah, sorry Dr. P, the theatrical film just doesn't please the community at large. They are so dumb!! Perhaps making fun of your religious hubris is the key to monetary success??? I know that is hard to fathom. Think the Book of Mormon musical. Anyway, the church leaders attended and so mission accomplished.

[Moksha]

Billy Shears: "Furthermore, God did not allow Joseph Smith to subject the plates to careful examination by somebody who could be considered a dispassionate expert on such things, and caused the plates to disappear into thin air. If God wanted us to believe that the golden plates were authentic, why did he go to literally miraculous lengths to wipe out the existence of convincing evidence?"

I don't get the impression that God cares about giving you the kind of quantifiable scientific certainty that you can get in a laboratory under controlled conditions. He's quirky that way. One might say, in fact, that he's not a tame lion.

Incidentally, I notice that my Malevolent Stalker is once again spinning one of his dark fantasies about the queue here, and that even you, rather to my disappointment, have offered a speculation or two.

Permit me to shed some light on the time that your other post spent in the queue:

I don't put things in the queue. They go there for various reasons, some of them opaque to me. Sometimes it's because of a restricted word, or because somebody has complained. Sometimes, I have no idea why a post has gone into the queue. Not a few of my own have gone there.

When I see them there, unless they're marred by foul language or something of that sort, I approve them for release. I don't always get to them immediately. Sometimes I'm traveling or otherwise occupied. Like many other people, though perhaps not to the same extent, I have something of a life.

Don't feel singled out, and don't give any credence to the Stalker's ever-ramifying demonology. He's been inventing this nonsense for the better part of two decades. I don't understand the gratification that he plainly gets from it, but I guess I'm happy to make him so very happy. Still, it remains baseless nonsense.

Dr. Peterson did not mention that God snatching this priceless Nephite artifact from the earth was to avoid a bidding war between the British Museum and the Louvre. Also, God wanted this item for the Interplanetary Museum of Klifloeses Travel.

Dr. Peterson was probably cutting his explanation short to make his appointment for the international screenings of Six Days in August.

[Doctor Scratch]

I noticed that Dr. Peterson has apparently censored an absolutely devastating piece of criticism—I.e., Just Asking’s point that he (Dr. Peterson) claimed to have actually seen and held the 2nd Watson Letter, which, of course, turned out to be totally bogus. He and Bill Hamblin claimed to have “seen” and “handled” the 2nd Watson letter. Is that supposed to be “impressive” in the same way as the Book of Mormon witnesses?

In any case, his censorship of JA’s comment is a remarkable act of cowardice and it shows just how weak his argument is.

[Moksha]

I noticed that Dr. Peterson has apparently censored an absolutely devastating piece of criticism—I.e., Just Asking’s point that he (Dr. Peterson) claimed to have actually seen and held the 2nd Watson Letter, which, of course, turned out to be totally bogus. He and Bill Hamblin claimed to have “seen” and “handled” the 2nd Watson letter. Is that supposed to be “impressive” in the same way as the Book of Mormon witnesses?

In any case, his censorship of JA’s comment is a remarkable act of cowardice and it shows just how weak his argument is.

There is probably some embarrassment of both bearing witness to having read and touched a non-existent letter. They should have claimed that an Angel took it up to heaven and erased all knowledge of its existence from the Church HQ and that only the most righteous among them (Peterson and Hamblin) retained any memory of it.

[I Have Questions]

I noticed that Dr. Peterson has apparently censored an absolutely devastating piece of criticism—I.e., Just Asking’s point that he (Dr. Peterson) claimed to have actually seen and held the 2nd Watson Letter, which, of course, turned out to be totally bogus. He and Bill Hamblin claimed to have “seen” and “handled” the 2nd Watson letter. Is that supposed to be “impressive” in the same way as the Book of Mormon witnesses?

In any case, his censorship of JA’s comment is a remarkable act of cowardice and it shows just how weak his argument is.

It is further evidence, if any were needed, that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable (see my signature line).

[Marcus]

I noticed that Dr. Peterson has apparently censored an absolutely devastating piece of criticism—I.e., Just Asking’s point that he (Dr. Peterson) claimed to have actually seen and held the 2nd Watson Letter, which, of course, turned out to be totally bogus. He and Bill Hamblin claimed to have “seen” and “handled” the 2nd Watson letter. Is that supposed to be “impressive” in the same way as the Book of Mormon witnesses?

In any case, his censorship of JA’s comment is a remarkable act of cowardice and it shows just how weak his argument is.

It is further evidence, if any were needed, that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable (see my signature line).

Omg. Does that mean that THIS eye-witness testimony is... questionable???

<Ahem.> And where is the 2nd Michael Watson Letter?

I've explained, several times, that Bill says he misplaced it. I think that very unfortunate. I wish it hadn't happened. I was more than a bit unhappy when I heard about it. But I saw the letter, and so too (in the course of our normal source-checking) did Dr. Shirley Ricks, the production editor of the FARMS Review, and Alison Coutts, the FARMS publications director, and at least one source-checker -- and the quotation from it in the FARMS Review is, apart from its greeting and its signature, complete. If you want to accuse us of collaborating to forge a letter and attribute it in print to the First Presidency, you're entirely free to do so. Ideally, though, you will do so under your own name rather than anonymously, and you will bring your accusation to the attention of the Office of the First Presidency. If you're right, we will face serious Church discipline, and your accusation will be vindicated.

[bolding added, to emphasize the limitations of eye witness testimony, as provided by DCP, himself.]

[I Have Questions]

It is further evidence, if any were needed, that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable (see my signature line).

Omg. Does that mean that THIS eye-witness testimony is... questionable???

I've explained, several times, that Bill says he misplaced it. I think that very unfortunate. I wish it hadn't happened. I was more than a bit unhappy when I heard about it. But I saw the letter, and so too (in the course of our normal source-checking) did Dr. Shirley Ricks, the production editor of the FARMS Review, and Alison Coutts, the FARMS publications director, and at least one source-checker -- and the quotation from it in the FARMS Review is, apart from its greeting and its signature, complete. If you want to accuse us of collaborating to forge a letter and attribute it in print to the First Presidency, you're entirely free to do so. Ideally, though, you will do so under your own name rather than anonymously, and you will bring your accusation to the attention of the Office of the First Presidency. If you're right, we will face serious Church discipline, and your accusation will be vindicated.

[bolding added, to emphasize the limitations of eye witness testimony, as provided by DCP, himself.

One wonders if this shameful incident marked the beginning of the end for DCP at The Maxwell Institute…was his sacking the Church discipline he suggested the situation merited?

“Bill says he misplaced it…”
Perhaps an angel took it back, perhaps they saw it with their spiritual eyes, I mean, have Bill and Ted Dan ever recanted their testimony of the Second Watson letter?

Those two chumps are perfect examples of why my signature line is valid.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

It is further evidence, if any were needed, that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable (see my signature line).

Omg. Does that mean that THIS eye-witness testimony is... questionable???

I've explained, several times, that Bill says he misplaced it. I think that very unfortunate. I wish it hadn't happened. I was more than a bit unhappy when I heard about it. But I saw the letter, and so too (in the course of our normal source-checking) did Dr. Shirley Ricks, the production editor of the FARMS Review, and Alison Coutts, the FARMS publications director, and at least one source-checker -- and the quotation from it in the FARMS Review is, apart from its greeting and its signature, complete. If you want to accuse us of collaborating to forge a letter and attribute it in print to the First Presidency, you're entirely free to do so. Ideally, though, you will do so under your own name rather than anonymously, and you will bring your accusation to the attention of the Office of the First Presidency. If you're right, we will face serious Church discipline, and your accusation will be vindicated.

[bolding added, to emphasize the limitations of eye witness testimony, as provided by DCP, himself.]

Good Lord!! Has the Afore faced Church discipline yet?



The Afore is nothing more than a disingenuous charlatan.