Complex?

[Marcus]

Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.

https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Sci ... 1416542744

I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.

And no, I will not respond to your next question having to do with, "Well, give us the top five reasons Collins gives for his belief in God and in Jesus Christ and the Christian story."

Read the book.

Regards,
Mg

Here one finds the criminal post creating all consternation.

Well it is not an answer to the question. It suggest somebody thought something. That is not much. In truth this is a lame post, a flop.

MG should be sentenced to thirty lashes with six wet strings of spaghetti.

You're lucky you haven't started a thread sufficiently 'anti-Mormon' enough to gain mg's attention and have him decide to disrupt it, thereby up-ending any attempt at a good discussion. Nor have you experienced him posting sexist comments about you, I would assume, as I have many times. Have you had him speculate on whether you are 'christian' or not? (He says it's important to know that about those he disagrees with, for....reasons.) And he's cleaned up his language quite a bit, but it's still fresh in many people's minds that he said, among many other awful examples, that he assumes Mormons are honest and non-Mormons are more likely to lie, and that people who have left the Mormon church are "purveyors of sin and sodomy."

He also speculated once that he wouldn't want to have lunch with me because he didn't think he could stop himself from throwing food at me, but that's his sexism showing once again, so you probably haven't experienced that either.

Seriously, though, in the research I've done on trolling, the main piece of advice given is to look at patterns of engagement, not just individual posts. MG has a pattern of engagement that is disruptive and he routinely causes derailing of topics. There's not much we can do, but clearly recognizing his behavior for what it is helps a little.

[MG 2.0]

Here one finds the criminal post creating all consternation.

Well it is not an answer to the question. It suggest somebody thought something. That is not much. In truth this is a lame post, a flop.

MG should be sentenced to thirty lashes with six wet strings of spaghetti.

You're lucky you haven't started a thread sufficiently 'anti-Mormon' enough to gain mg's attention and have him decide to disrupt it, thereby up-ending any attempt at a good discussion. Nor have you experienced him posting sexist comments about you, I would assume, as I have many times. Have you had him speculate on whether you are 'christian' or not? (He says it's important to know that about those he disagrees with, for....reasons.) And he's cleaned up his language quite a bit, but it's still fresh in many people's minds that he said, among many other awful examples, that he assumes Mormons are honest and non-Mormons are more likely to lie, and that people who have left the Mormon church are "purveyors of sin and sodomy."

He also speculated once that he wouldn't want to have lunch with me because he didn't think he could stop himself from throwing food at me, but that's his sexism showing once again, so you probably haven't experienced that either.

Seriously, though, in the research I've done on trolling, the main piece of advice given is to look at patterns of engagement, not just individual posts. MG has a pattern of engagement that is disruptive and he routinely causes derailing of topics. There's not much we can do, but clearly recognizing his behavior for what it is helps a little.

Let me suggest some word descriptors that may help flesh out some of the possible underlying issues that are manifest in this response:

Hypervigilance/Paranoia.

Sensitivity to perceived injustice.

Persistent grievance focused thinking and ruminative tendencies.

Dichotomous thinking.

Perceived victimization.

Excessive moralizing.

Tendency to overgeneralize.

I think that these modes/patterns of repetitive reinforcement in a person's mind can result in behavior that becomes rather fixated and potentially harmful to the psyche of a person who becomes consumed in this sort of hypervigilant behavior. My suggestion would be to chill out a bit and not take yourself or others too seriously.

Sheesh, this is a message board. Lighten up.

You've gone down this road a number of times now. Cool your jets!

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG should be sentenced to thirty lashes with six wet strings of spaghetti.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

And mg is back to posting A.I. generated content without crediting the A.I. or showing his prompt. But he skirts the rules by pretending he wrote that list when it's completely obvious he didn't, just so he can break Shades' rule about posting A.I. where it's not allowed. He has no intention of following the rules. Smh.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

And mg is back to posting A.I. generated content without crediting the A.I. or showing his prompt. But he skirts the rules by pretending he wrote that list when it's completely obvious he didn't, just so he can break Shades' rule about posting A.I. where it's not allowed. He has no intention of following the rules. Smh.

This is the third time MG broke his promise to not use A.I. Is MG even capable of being honest?

Sexism, dishonesty, derails and personal attacks. That's some great missionary work, MG!

[MG 2.0]

You're lucky you haven't started a thread sufficiently 'anti-Mormon' enough to gain mg's attention and have him decide to disrupt it, thereby up-ending any attempt at a good discussion. Nor have you experienced him posting sexist comments about you, I would assume, as I have many times. Have you had him speculate on whether you are 'christian' or not? (He says it's important to know that about those he disagrees with, for....reasons.) And he's cleaned up his language quite a bit, but it's still fresh in many people's minds that he said, among many other awful examples, that he assumes Mormons are honest and non-Mormons are more likely to lie, and that people who have left the Mormon church are "purveyors of sin and sodomy."

He also speculated once that he wouldn't want to have lunch with me because he didn't think he could stop himself from throwing food at me, but that's his sexism showing once again, so you probably haven't experienced that either.

Seriously, though, in the research I've done on trolling, the main piece of advice given is to look at patterns of engagement, not just individual posts. MG has a pattern of engagement that is disruptive and he routinely causes derailing of topics. There's not much we can do, but clearly recognizing his behavior for what it is helps a little.

Let me suggest some word descriptors that may help flesh out some of the possible underlying issues that are manifest in this response:

Hypervigilance/Paranoia.

Sensitivity to perceived injustice.

Persistent grievance focused thinking and ruminative tendencies.

Dichotomous thinking.

Perceived victimization.

Excessive moralizing.

Tendency to overgeneralize.

I think that these modes/patterns of repetitive reinforcement in a person's mind can result in behavior that becomes rather fixated and potentially harmful to the psyche of a person who becomes consumed in this sort of hypervigilant behavior. My suggestion would be to chill out a bit and not take yourself or others too seriously.

Sheesh, this is a message board. Lighten up.

You've gone down this road a number of times now. Cool your jets!

Regards,
MG

*bump

Do you dispute that this list presents an accurate assessment? By the way, I'm not aware of any rule that outlaws using the internet, including search, to find information, read it, digest it, and post the findings. I'm absolutely sure that others use the internet to locate and find information...read it, digest it, and post their findings.

I approve the list. I wouldn't post it, if I didn't. It's not just a random wall of text. It's a list. If it is inaccurate, say so.

I've posted this same response over on the A.I. Megathread if the moderators decide that this post crosses the line. I don't think it does as I am posting a list that I find agreement with and making comment on the list.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

So, mg admits he posted A.I. content-AGAIN. His new reason is since he 'approved' it, it's okay. That's not the rule. Shades was very specific about this.

[I Have Questions]

So, mg admits he posted A.I. content-AGAIN. His new reason is since he 'approved' it, it's okay. That's not the rule. Shades was very specific about this.

Sadly I’m now expecting Shades to rewrite the A.I. rule so that it complies with MG’s bad behaviour. The tail appears to be wagging the dog.

[Marcus]

So, mg admits he posted A.I. content-AGAIN. His new reason is since he 'approved' it, it's okay. That's not the rule. Shades was very specific about this.

Sadly I’m now expecting Shades to rewrite the A.I. rule so that it complies with MG’s bad behaviour. The tail appears to be wagging the dog.

Hopefully not. Mg literally admitted it was A.I., and in fact already posted a copy on the A.I. thread. Mg KNOWS he is breaking the rule by posting A.I. content in this thread, and he has done it anyway, multiple times. He's again giving an excuse, but how many times can he break the rule and try to excuse it? Hopefully there is a limit, and hopefully we have reached it.

[MG 2.0]

So, mg admits he posted A.I. content-AGAIN. His new reason is since he 'approved' it, it's okay. That's not the rule. Shades was very specific about this.

Sadly I’m now expecting Shades to rewrite the A.I. rule so that it complies with MG’s bad behaviour. The tail appears to be wagging the dog.

If my list and associated commentary cross the line as far as the way current A.I. rules are written I will delete the post myself if asked. My opinion is that the list stands independent and accurately lays out the concerns I have with Marcus's ongoing attacks.

As I told her, if there is something there that is inaccurate, point it out.

I can't count how many times I have simply, and as a matter of fact, told her that she was/is inaccurate in her assessments pointed my direction. She is more than welcome to do the same with a list I heatedly endorse. We have let her accusations, etc., stand without board discipline, even though I have continually called her out

I suppose we'll see where this goes.

It would be nice if certain folks, you included, would chill out a bit and not take things so gosh darn seriously.

Regards,
MG