Clarification so as to be clear.

[Limnor]

Please stop rehashing this topic MG 2.0

I almost hope to make the ignore list but then would miss the opportunities to expand the humor.

[Whiskey]

Please stop rehashing this topic MG 2.0

IHAQ. What is going on? What is that you want to achieve with posts and positions like this?

Would you like to make a list for us of what topics can be rehashed and what topics may not be rehashed?

So as to not be like the folks that MG is talking about. I will also answer the questions I am posing.

You seem to want to shut down MG, not address his content. You want him to stop pointing out the posting habits and features of some posters, because it feels icky to you. You would never ever ever make a list of topics that can be discussed ad nauseum and a list of topics that have a finite limit of mentions.

I think all topics should have an infinite allowance of mentions. I think that posters who post to needle and get reactions, rather than provide original content, can and should be told to f off. I mean, that is what they want, correct? A reaction? And anyone that posts about Daniel C. Peterson should be allowed to get fatter and dumber and post about him again. Their choice. Same for another post steeped in TDS. Free speech and a free market of speech.

[Limnor]

You seem to want to shut down MG, not address his content.

Whiskey brother I love you and think you are hilarious but MG does sometimes post things with no context and then claim the context was provided prior so he shouldn’t have to provide it again.

[Whiskey]

You seem to want to shut down MG, not address his content.

Whiskey brother I love you and think you are hilarious but MG does sometimes post things with no context and then claim the context was provided prior so he shouldn’t have to provide it again.

Yep. He does.

Look. I read about 1/3,891th of what that dude posts. Maybe less. And yes, it is painful content and context. I get it. But damn, in this case, this is what he reposted. He quoted himself.

I've already been fairly clear about this in the recent past, but I will state again so as to be clear.

There are some posters who over time I have come to the realization are not serious posters. They will mock, deride, and cherry pick and/or create straw men arguments and fail to answer questions pointed towards them with any clarity and/or completeness. I have found that it is not worth the time and effort to respond to those particular posters. There are four or five of them.

I also realize that these posters will most likely continue to post in the same manner distorting my posts and get away with it since I will not regularly check their responses and will not respond to them. Their twisted and pretzel like logic which circumvents and actually changes the narrative of my posts in order to get their own agenda across as the dominant narrative will continue, I'm sure.

Apparently, it already has.

I have recently posted in regard to what I see as "religious racism". There are those here that exemplify that to the extent that I am not willing to contend with them. For me, it has saved a LOT of time going around in circles with certain folks without accomplishing anything besides wasting the time of other posters who would just as well read something interesting without having to wade through personal attacks and religious racism.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
MG

MG ain't wrong. He damn sure ain't wrong. He sure as hell ain't wrong.

What MG is calling out is a familiar fallacy here: accusations are framed as assumptions, assumptions are treated as facts, and silence or refusal to rehash becomes so-called evidence. That’s not missing context. That’s a rigged setup where guilt is presumed and innocence must be proven. MG may be a believer and he may be a this or that and a kook or whatever. But he damn sure ain't wrong about that.

[Whiskey]

You seem to want to shut down MG, not address his content.

Whiskey brother I love you and think you are hilarious but MG does sometimes post things with no context and then claim the context was provided prior so he shouldn’t have to provide it again.

Side note. This reminds me of past conversations about context and proof. I wished we could put Physics Guy, Res Ipsa and Gad on a stage. Physics guy calling for proofs in the form of science and math, Res pretending to hold the standard for acceptable evidence, and Gad looking like stooge Teller but just declaring with conviction what he thinks people think as if it was evidence and proof. To me, it would be the perfect spectacle of religion and politics.

[Limnor]

Whiskey brother I love you and think you are hilarious but MG does sometimes post things with no context and then claim the context was provided prior so he shouldn’t have to provide it again.

Yep. He does.

Look. I read about 1/3,891th of what that dude posts. Maybe less. And yes, it is painful content and context. I get it. But damn, in this case, this is what he reposted. He quoted himself.

I've already been fairly clear about this in the recent past, but I will state again so as to be clear.

There are some posters who over time I have come to the realization are not serious posters. They will mock, deride, and cherry pick and/or create straw men arguments and fail to answer questions pointed towards them with any clarity and/or completeness. I have found that it is not worth the time and effort to respond to those particular posters. There are four or five of them.

I also realize that these posters will most likely continue to post in the same manner distorting my posts and get away with it since I will not regularly check their responses and will not respond to them. Their twisted and pretzel like logic which circumvents and actually changes the narrative of my posts in order to get their own agenda across as the dominant narrative will continue, I'm sure.

Apparently, it already has.

I have recently posted in regard to what I see as "religious racism". There are those here that exemplify that to the extent that I am not willing to contend with them. For me, it has saved a LOT of time going around in circles with certain folks without accomplishing anything besides wasting the time of other posters who would just as well read something interesting without having to wade through personal attacks and religious racism.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
MG

MG ain't wrong. He damn sure ain't wrong. He sure as hell ain't wrong.

What MG is calling out is a familiar fallacy here: accusations are framed as assumptions, assumptions are treated as facts, and silence or refusal to rehash becomes so-called evidence. That’s not missing context. That’s a rigged setup where guilt is presumed and innocence must be proven. MG may be a believer and he may be a this or that and a kook or whatever. But he damn sure ain't wrong about that.

I think you are correct about the procedural point, and I’m not trying to take sides—I think IHQ was using a rhetorical device to reveal back to MG that he himself rehashes things as well.

[Limnor]

Whiskey brother I love you and think you are hilarious but MG does sometimes post things with no context and then claim the context was provided prior so he shouldn’t have to provide it again.

Side note. This reminds me of past conversations about context and proof. I wished we could put Physics Guy, Res Ipsa and Gad on a stage. Physics guy calling for proofs in the form of science and math, Res pretending to hold the standard for acceptable evidence, and Gad looking like stooge Teller but just declaring with conviction what he thinks people think as if it was evidence and proof. To me, it would be the perfect spectacle of religion and politics.

I’ve thought about a parody of DiscussMormonism myself, and even have my own character parody worked out lol

[Whiskey]

I think you are correct about the procedural point, and I’m not trying to take sides—I think IHQ was using a rhetorical device to reveal back to MG that he himself rehashes things as well.

Fair. A point I could have acknowledged.

[malkie]

Whiskey brother I love you and think you are hilarious but MG does sometimes post things with no context and then claim the context was provided prior so he shouldn’t have to provide it again.

Side note. This reminds me of past conversations about context and proof. I wished we could put Physics Guy, Res Ipsa and Gad on a stage. Physics guy calling for proofs in the form of science and math, Res pretending to hold the standard for acceptable evidence, and Gad looking like stooge Teller but just declaring with conviction what he thinks people think as if it was evidence and proof. To me, it would be the perfect spectacle of religion and politics.

I would dearly love to have the cognitive and discoursive talents of any of these gentlemen. Others as well, of course , but these are the ones you mentioned.

[Morley]

Side note. This reminds me of past conversations about context and proof. I wished we could put Physics Guy, Res Ipsa and Gad on a stage. Physics guy calling for proofs in the form of science and math, Res pretending to hold the standard for acceptable evidence, and Gad looking like stooge Teller but just declaring with conviction what he thinks people think as if it was evidence and proof. To me, it would be the perfect spectacle of religion and politics.

I would dearly love to have the cognitive and discoursive talents of any of these gentlemen. Others as well, of course , but these are the ones you mentioned.

Indeed.