WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[Marcus]

I am sure that Morley will agree with me that reading this from someone who posts the way you do is a tremendous compliment to both of us.

Your adding that you have formed this opinion 1) without knowing anything about us, 2) without knowing whether you are being fair, and 3) without 'wasting any time' on research and instead just trusting your gut is just icing on the cake. Chef's kiss to you, you amusing little fool.

(Apropos of nothing at all whatsoever, have you seen the movie "Idiocracy"?)

To be fair, I think Markk was trying to show how ridiculous it would be if he made this kind of a judgement about you without knowing you. But, of course, I could be misreading his intent.

You may be right, I don't read Markk that closely anymore. His grammar and composition are so atrocious he could be saying anything!

[Markk]

After reading through this whole 50 + page thread I can't say I learned any truly relevant and verifiable facts about WW2 that that I did not know before reading this. I already knew that both Hitler and Stalin were evil, murderous men. I knew that the Nazis wanted to exterminate all Jews they could; whether that was their intent from the beginning or whether they thought it was somehow more compassionate to gas them than shoot them is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. I already knew that Franklin Roosevelt's sympathy was with the allies from the beginning, but I am far from convinced that he knew or hoped that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor (though I don't entirely discount that possibility).

I know that allying with Russia, as distasteful as that was, was probably essential to defeating the axis powers and was the lesser evil of the options available to us. I don't think the reality of the winter war between Finland and Russia was as obscure and little known as Markk seems to think. I was familiar with the history of that before Markk was born, unless he is a lot older than I think he is. I would hope that we all agree, including Markk and Cooper, that WW2 was an abominable part of human history and that defeating the Nazis and their allies was a necessary and good thing. That is by far the most important takeaway of this discussion. By comparison, much of the arguing over the differences of opinion over the actions and motivations of the heroes and villains participating in that abominable episode in our history seems largely irrelevant to me.

Lol, how old are you, you must have fought in the war if you knew about the war as you claim before I was born. Hitler had only been dead a dozen years when I was born.

Aside from that, when we started this conversation it was about the Battle of Britain, which you seemed to be a bit hazy about just how vulnerable Britain was, and the roll that the US played in the their survival and regrouping before, during, and after the Battle. Are you saying you did not learn anything in that regard, and things like the lend lease act?

If you did not gather any new knowledge from this conversation you must be a true expert of the history of the war, I personally learned much here from my prompted studies and reading.

Like I wrote early on, a lot has been written on the subject, and there is just so much to learn.

What I have gathered from this thread is just how much people can be polarized by tribal and political bias, and that they are unwilling to take a step out of that prison, and enter into an objective uncomfortable conversation. So much so they "criticize without knowing."

The main thing I like about Cooper's approach to history is his boldness and unfear to untie that knot that mainstream historians have tied up for us. He goes deep into some very uncomfortable facts that we often do not want to enter into or explore, and understandably so. He challenges disagreement, and promotes and demands critical thought. Cooper has a true heart for the innocent people of war, and true detest of those that cause it.

Listen to the first 25 minutes or so of this podcast, if you can't, just the first ten minutes, as a short example of his style....I started it at the time that is relevant to my intended point.

https://youtu.be/k-tAltAGMIg?list=PLKv2 ... J-ScT&t=97

[Markk]

To be fair, I think Markk was trying to show how ridiculous it would be if he made this kind of a judgement about you without knowing you. But, of course, I could be misreading his intent.

You may be right, I don't read Markk that closely anymore. His grammar and composition are so atrocious he could be saying anything!

[Gadianton]

To be fair, I think Markk was trying to show how ridiculous it would be if he made this kind of a judgement about you without knowing you.

That was likely his intent but it's not even close to the same situation. In fact, he's walked into his own trap, to be brutally honest.

Since Markk opened the can of worms and is off "lol"ing about it, Ill go ahead and say it. The very LAST option Markk has to form a judgement about Marcus's work is to actually read what Marcus has written professionally. There's no chance. If he were to begin today and study the topic the rest of his life, he would not be able to learn enough about Marcus's profession to even make it through a single paragraph Marcus has ever written professionally, let alone form an opinion.

Notice that Markk has gone full Mopologist. The Mopologists are the ones who tell you that you can't form a judgment about the Book of Mormon without reading it yourself and making a huge life study of it. The truth is, you can often say more about a book you've never read by relying on other experts in the field who have read it than reading it yourself.

The link I provided is an exhaustive criticism of Cooper's work that aligns well with the NYT and other criticisms, and it's from one of his fellow podcasters who has worked with him on podcasts and admires his podcast productions. I think I've learned enough to form the opinion that Cooper might be an engaging narrator and have a competent understanding of history as a layman, but his failures are significant enough that I'll choose other sources if I need to learn about a topic that Cooper covers.

[Markk]

To be fair, I think Markk was trying to show how ridiculous it would be if he made this kind of a judgement about you without knowing you.

That was likely his intent but it's not even close to the same situation. In fact, he's walked into his own trap, to be brutally honest.

Since Markk opened the can of worms and is off "lol"ing about it, Ill go ahead and say it. The very LAST option Markk has to form a judgement about Marcus's work is to actually read what Marcus has written professionally. There's no chance. If he were to begin today and study the topic the rest of his life, he would not be able to learn enough about Marcus's profession to even make it through a single paragraph Marcus has ever written professionally, let alone form an opinion.

Notice that Markk has gone full Mopologist. The Mopologists are the ones who tell you that you can't form a judgment about the Book of Mormon without reading it yourself and making a huge life study of it. You can often say more about a book you've never read by relying on other experts in the field who have read it than reading it yourself.

The link I provided is an exhaustive criticism of Cooper's work that aligns well with the NYT and other criticisms, and it's from one of his fellow podcasters who has worked with him on podcasts and admires his podcast productions. I think I've learned enough to form the opinion that Cooper might be an engaging narrator and have a competent understanding of history as a layman, but his failures are significant enough that I'll choose other sources if I need to learn about a topic that Cooper covers.

Focus, you haven't even listened to a podcast of who you criticize. You found some criticism for people who probably like you have not listened to his podcasts direct. Your opinions and mind is made up by a huge game of the child's game of telephone.

And then you say I am falling into mopology? Lol....me getting you listen to Cooper is like me 30 years ago getting DCP to read a copy of Gospel Through the Ages and how the LDS teaching manual teaches how God became God.

And I would suggest, that if you want to learn and form a personal opinion about the Book of Mormon in full context, that one should, well, read it. I agree it does not need to be a life study. I would also recommend reading the original vs the edited current version. But that is me.

By your logic, why would I have to study Marcus' life work to criticize it, I could just go online and find a reddit and wiki post and know all I need to know....it works for you with Cooper's podcasts.

Like DCP, I believe you are afraid to find out your were wrong....prove me wrong....you can listen to it then give your critique.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=407acHQpzR4&t=384s

[Marcus]

...the so called educators here...

That's our Markk. But sure, let's go on youtube and watch podcasts of people he finds charismatic...

I'm wondering if that's why he thinks so highly of his construction skills. The many roof-building podcasts he has watched are just top-notch, I am sure!!

[Morley]

Since Markk opened the can of worms and is off "lol"ing about it, Ill go ahead and say it. The very LAST option Markk has to form a judgement about Marcus's work is to actually read what Marcus has written professionally. There's no chance. If he were to begin today and study the topic the rest of his life, he would not be able to learn enough about Marcus's profession to even make it through a single paragraph Marcus has ever written professionally, let alone form an opinion.

No kidding.

On the other hand, perhaps Markk is right. Maybe someone like Cooper will put together a podcast explaining how Marcus should really be approaching her profession. It could point out all the things that Marcus has missed, things that only a layman with an edgy outsider’s perspective would be willing to see. All of these professional, PhD-level mathematicians think they have at all figured out—but ha!—just wait until the podcast world starts zeroing in on all of their …umm… irrational numbers and stuff.

[Morley]

Markk, in spite of all the ribbing I give you, I acknowledge that Cooper may be a world-class level podcaster. My only brush with him was the Tucker interview that you recommended--and he didn't do himself any favors there.

I dunno that I'll listen to him, but I will put Cooper on my list of possibilities. I'm not a big podcast consumer, and I hardly ever venture into Youtube country. Both are too slow for me, and it's sometimes difficult to get transcripts of what they're saying. Neither format usually provides references, which irritates the hell out of me--because I like to check what I'm reading--or, I guess, hearing.

You can take it as a compliment that I sat still long enough to watch what I did. I often can't make it through a whole movie that I've been waiting to see.

I do think that non-experts can sometimes be better at explaining things than those who are working in their fields. The verbal presentation of ideas is a whole different bailiwick than the synthesis involved in generating and codifying those same ideas. (For instance, you wouldn't want to sit through any conference session where I was presenting.) Maybe Cooper is one of those proficient communicators. It'd be good if that's so. I agree that we need those people.

[Marcus]

Since Markk opened the can of worms and is off "lol"ing about it, Ill go ahead and say it. The very LAST option Markk has to form a judgement about Marcus's work is to actually read what Marcus has written professionally. There's no chance. If he were to begin today and study the topic the rest of his life, he would not be able to learn enough about Marcus's profession to even make it through a single paragraph Marcus has ever written professionally, let alone form an opinion.

No kidding.

On the other hand, perhaps Markk is right. Maybe someone like Cooper will put together a podcast explaining how Marcus should really be approaching her profession. It could point out all the things that Marcus has missed, things that only a layman with an edgy outsider’s perspective would be willing to see. All of these professional, PhD-level mathematicians think they have at all figured out—but ha!—just wait until the podcast world starts zeroing in on all of their …umm… irrational numbers and stuff.

"All your Bayes are belong to us..."

[Markk]

...the so called educators here...

That's our Markk. But sure, let's go on youtube and watch podcasts of people he finds charismatic...

I'm wondering if that's why he thinks so highly of his construction skills. The many roof-building podcasts he has watched are just top-notch, I am sure!!

The "so-called" comment in based on the simple premise that you support learning by ignorance. The "we don't have to read, listen or watch Cooper, to make critical judgement about his work. Reddit and a NYT article is sufficient."

If you want a few top notch wood working podcasts that I subscribe to, I recommend these two, I can give a list of others, but I learn the most from these two, and could never come close to their knowledge and skill level.

https://www.youtube.com/@Paul.Sellers

https://robcosman.com/?srsltid=AfmBOorA ... zctXzj3mo6

On a side note, the latter, Rob Cosman, is LDS, and he went to BYU and worked in the wood working department. He received a BA in I think Industrial science and furniture design, or something like that. If you want to know how to sharpen your woodworking tools he is the person to learn under.