Kirk Magelby claims scholars are taking the Book of Mormon Seriously

[Rivendale]

That is why the church will never let any lawsuit get to discovery phase.

By the way Rivendale. Rivendale is one of my favorite places in Tolkien's legendarium. Just thought I'd let you know. I'm doing some scholarly work with Tolkien now, and it is beyond incredible for me and the discoveries I am making for myself. I am loving every minute of it.

For all the excuses TBM'S make about people unable to write a complicated book with multiple themes, different characters and inspiring messages , it tells me they haven't read Tolkien.

[MG 2.0]

A.I. cannot be used in this forum. As it is, there are valid points of rebuttal, in detail, to the author of the essay/article being referred to. I don't have the time or inclination to summarize the rebuttal Stubbs

It would be more accurate to say that AI can make points of rebuttal to any claim and in as large of a wall of text as you wish to generate without any need for the AI user to even comprehend the response or the material it's responding to. Valid? You're assuming the sale. It's highly unlikely that AI will be able to do much with pseudoscience and fringe theories. It's even more unlikely that you understand linguistics well enough to confirm that any AI response generated are valid.

This gets tiresome. Your arrogance is poking through again. The fact is, A.I. listed point by point rebuttals to the critic of Stubbs. I can't list them because they are A.I. generated. As a result, those points are not open to discussion. In past times I was using A.I. research to 'rebut' claims made by critics on this board. If any part or all of the A.I. was clearly deficient or in error, I'm sure someone would have pointed it out.

As it was, all we got was, "It's a wall of text!"

As a result, on this board...as I said weeks ago...critics have the advantage. Why? Multiple posters vs. one. Not only that but coming fast and furious. One poster cannot keep up. False or incomplete information can easily proliferate. Using A.I. as source material took away that advantage and the critics simple called "foul" because it put a crimp in their style.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

This gets tiresome. Your arrogance is poking through again. The fact is, A.I. listed point by point rebuttals to the critic of Stubbs. I can't list them because they are A.I. generated.

Well yes because you told it to list rebuttals to Stubbs and so it did as you said. I just asked AI to list 10 rebuttals to the claim that "2+2=4" and it listed exactly 10. How many days are you personally prepared to spend countering 10 points against the obvious, 2+2=4, that I generated in 2 seconds while I sit back ready to ask for 10 more should you get through the first list? And you won't get through the first list (without AI) because it requires higher math than you've been exposed to.

What you can do is read your Stubbs list, try to comprehend it, and pick the point that you think is the best, do some quick research on it, and then present it in your own words. If you can't do that, then I've got big grin and a middle finger as a response to you and your thwarted attempts to cheat. You can use AI all you want. You can use it to educated yourself so that you can make whatever points you think are worth your time in your own words. Any of us, at any time, can ask AI to rebut Stubbs or rebut any mathematical claim, or anything else without you pasting the wall of text for us.

If any part or all of the A.I. was clearly deficient or in error, I'm sure someone would have pointed it out.

Not true at all, nobody is going to spend the time showing the deficiency in your AI responses that you yourself haven't read and knowing that you're certainly not going to read the responses we give to your AI. We can all play your bone-headed, stupid game, MG. I can take your AI response, plug it into my AI, and tell my AI to respond to every point, and then post it on this thread. Do you think that is a sensible way for a message board to operate?

As a result, on this board...as I said weeks ago...critics have the advantage... Multiple posters vs. one.

Critics have an advantage on this board because your leaders are a bunch of frauds. Multiple posters hardly matter when the truth is easy to discern. I'll go to any board full of LDS apologists or religious believers and take on the entire board without being stressed out or feeling ganged up on at all. In fact, I will likely get banned because they will get stressed out knowing that they aren't able to respond to me. So if you can find an LDS board out there and convince the mods to let me post there without getting banned, I'll show you what it's like to be outnumbered and still have the advantage. This has nothing to do with me being that smart, it has everything to do with me conforming my interests in life to the truth. Much easier to defend the truth than it is obvious lies and junk science.

Anyway, happy holidays, MG.

[malkie]

...

Not true at all, nobody is going to spend the time showing the deficiency in your AI responses that you yourself haven't read and knowing that you're certainly not going to read the responses we give to your AI. We can all play your bone-headed, stupid game, MG. I can take your AI response, plug it into my AI, and tell my AI to respond to every point, and then post it on this thread. Do you think that is a sensible way for a message board to operate?

As a result, on this board...as I said weeks ago...critics have the advantage... Multiple posters vs. one.

...

And if every other "critic" did the same as Gad suggests, then we would have MG + AI-generated responses on one side, and multiple posters + their individual AI-generated responses on the other. This idea confirms to me the wisdom of Shades' decision on AI use - though I wasn't entirely convinced at the time.

The only way I can see the potential for AI use to possibly even the odds for MG would be to allow him, and him alone to use AI. However, we have already seen, I believe, occasions when MG was likely the only poster on a thread making use of AI, and he still couldn't keep up. In fact it led to a situation in which MG simply could not explain what was going on. I thought at the time that it may have been a case of the AI failing to parse its input correctly, or perhaps being given an insufficient prompt, thus nullifying any advantage that the AI might possibly have conferred.

In any case, noted that, once again, MG is crying about how badly he is treated here. Boo hoo.

[MG 2.0]

...

Not true at all, nobody is going to spend the time showing the deficiency in your AI responses that you yourself haven't read and knowing that you're certainly not going to read the responses we give to your AI. We can all play your bone-headed, stupid game, MG. I can take your AI response, plug it into my AI, and tell my AI to respond to every point, and then post it on this thread. Do you think that is a sensible way for a message board to operate?



...

And if every other "critic" did the same as Gad suggests, then we would have MG + AI-generated responses on one side, and multiple posters + their individual AI-generated responses on the other. This idea confirms to me the wisdom of Shades' decision on AI use - though I wasn't entirely convinced at the time.

The only way I can see the potential for AI use to possibly even the odds for MG would be to allow him, and him alone to use AI. However, we have already seen, I believe, occasions when MG was likely the only poster on a thread making use of AI, and he still couldn't keep up. In fact it led to a situation in which MG simply could not explain what was going on. I thought at the time that it may have been a case of the AI failing to parse its input correctly, or perhaps being given an insufficient prompt, thus nullifying any advantage that the AI might possibly have conferred.

In any case, noted that, once again, MG is crying about how badly he is treated here. Boo hoo.

To be clear, I'm not crying about it as much as I'm just disappointed.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Critics have an advantage on this board because your leaders are a bunch of frauds.

Hard to move beyond that, isn't it?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

I threw that in for good measure, suspecting you wouldn't respond to the other points.

[malkie]

And if every other "critic" did the same as Gad suggests, then we would have MG + AI-generated responses on one side, and multiple posters + their individual AI-generated responses on the other. This idea confirms to me the wisdom of Shades' decision on AI use - though I wasn't entirely convinced at the time.

The only way I can see the potential for AI use to possibly even the odds for MG would be to allow him, and him alone to use AI. However, we have already seen, I believe, occasions when MG was likely the only poster on a thread making use of AI, and he still couldn't keep up. In fact it led to a situation in which MG simply could not explain what was going on. I thought at the time that it may have been a case of the AI failing to parse its input correctly, or perhaps being given an insufficient prompt, thus nullifying any advantage that the AI might possibly have conferred.

In any case, noted that, once again, MG is crying about how badly he is treated here. Boo hoo.

To be clear, I'm not crying about it as much as I'm just disappointed.

Regards,
MG

Ahhhh - OK
In any case, noted that, once again, MG is telling us that he's disappointed about how badly he is treated here. Boo hoo.

[Philo Sofee]

By the way Rivendale. Rivendale is one of my favorite places in Tolkien's legendarium. Just thought I'd let you know. I'm doing some scholarly work with Tolkien now, and it is beyond incredible for me and the discoveries I am making for myself. I am loving every minute of it.

For all the excuses TBM'S make about people unable to write a complicated book with multiple themes, different characters and inspiring messages , it tells me they haven't read Tolkien.

Very profoundly and beautifully said Mellon nin! (Sindarin Elvish for "my friend" if you were wondering)

[Philo Sofee]

I threw that in for good measure, suspecting you wouldn't respond to the other points.

And........... he didn't either...........