Will September Dawn drive chapel Mormons to research more?

[_Daniel Peterson]

And that's just one little blog. Or are you calling Runtu a liar?

Suggesting that people are liars, while it seems to be quite popular here, is not something I do casually, and I have no reason to believe that Runtu is lying.

I also, by the way, have no idea what "frequent hits" means. Five hundred a day? Four or five a week?

The "More Good Foundation" is a private foundation, privately funded, that was set up to counter anti-Mormonism on the web. I'm not surprised that people from that foundation might have looked in on Runtu's site. But, even if true, that would demonstrate absolutely nothing about whether the Church itself tracks websites or not.

That people might have looked in from BYU is entirely possible. I don't think I ever looked at Runtu's site -- I don't even know what it is (or was) -- but I look in on various sites from time to time (including this one), and I have a number of friends who do the same. They do it simply because they're interested. They're not ordered to do it, they're not paid to do it, they don't report to anybody about it, and their doing so says absolutely nothing about whether the Church itself tracks websites or not.

The same thing may well be true with regard to the Church Office Building, which has lots and lots of employees.

I can't really say for sure, except that, in speaking with people in Salt Lake who I would have hoped knew something about anti-Mormon activities on the web, I have never encountered one who knew nearly as much as I do. If there are people up there who are monitoring anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon sites, I haven't met them. Yet I think I've met the people who would be doing it, were somebody doing it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

A while ago, on FAIR, someone linked to a site of an organization (I think BYU related) where there was an article, written by someone involved stating that the church did indeed monitor sites. In the article, they mentioned a specific number (which in my mind was quite high), but after a day or two the article was removed. (I do not remember the details but I clearly remember that it specifically stated the church was monitoring sites).

Does anyone remember this? I'm guessing it was about a year and a half ago?

I remember it. And the number was, indeed, very high.

I remember thinking at the time that I didn't believe it. I still don't.

[_Runtu]

I also, by the way, have no idea what "frequent hits" means. Five hundred a day? Four or five a week?

I'd have been happy with 500 total hits a day. Out of about 80-100 hits a day, I was probably getting 5-10 hits a day from the COB, BYU, and More Good. It always made me smile when I would see that the COB was the top IP address quite frequently.

The "More Good Foundation" is a private foundation, privately funded, that was set up to counter anti-Mormonism on the web. I'm not surprised that people from that foundation might have looked in on Runtu's site. But, even if true, that would demonstrate absolutely nothing about whether the Church itself tracks websites or not.

I didn't suggest that it did.

That people might have looked in from BYU is entirely possible. I don't think I ever looked at Runtu's site -- I don't even know what it is (or was) -- but I look in on various sites from time to time (including this one), and I have a number of friends who do the same. They do it simply because they're interested. They're not ordered to do it, they're not paid to do it, they don't report to anybody about it, and their doing so says absolutely nothing about whether the Church itself tracks websites or not.

I always figured that the BYU hits were from unsuspecting students who stumbled across my little corner of Satan's domain.

The same thing may well be true with regard to the Church Office Building, which has lots and lots of employees.

This was a little more interesting. The COB hits seemed to be coming from one or two specific computers, and my friend who works in IT up there told me that the computers' characteristics meant they weren't in his department or anything related to computing. I always figured there must be a couple of closet apostates up there who liked my writing, or else maybe someone was keeping an eye on me. Who knows?

I can't really say for sure, except that, in speaking with people in Salt Lake who I would have hoped knew something about anti-Mormon activities on the web, I have never encountered one who knew nearly as much as I do. If there are people up there who are monitoring anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon sites, I haven't met them. Yet I think I've met the people who would be doing it, were somebody doing it.

For the record, although my blog was not exactly "faith-promoting," I would strenuously object to its being called "anti-Mormon." It was always dedicated to helping people find peace after losing their faith in Mormonism. It was never about trying to tear down the church or its teachings. Rather, I wanted to help people avoid some of the problems I had encountered in my exit. In short, leaving the church is painful, and I wanted to help people experience (and cause) less pain.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'd have been happy with 500 total hits a day. Out of about 80-100 hits a day, I was probably getting 5-10 hits a day from the COB, BYU, and More Good.

Between them, that's not very much. Candidly, I thought you were talking about more than that.

A "hit" is a very easy thing to do, and doesn't take much time.

The "More Good Foundation" is a private foundation, privately funded, that was set up to counter anti-Mormonism on the web. I'm not surprised that people from that foundation might have looked in on Runtu's site. But, even if true, that would demonstrate absolutely nothing about whether the Church itself tracks websites or not.

I didn't suggest that it did.

I realize that you didn't. My impression of you is that you're a reasonably lucid thinker.

Harmony, however, seems to have imagined that hits from the More Good Foundation somehow contradict my impression that the Church doesn't monitor websites.

I always figured that the BYU hits were from unsuspecting students who stumbled across my little corner of Satan's domain.

I hadn't thought of that possibility. You're probably right.

If anything, that tends to strengthen my position.

I always figured there must be a couple of closet apostates up there who liked my writing, or else maybe someone was keeping an eye on me. Who knows?

Scratch knows. He'll tell us.

[_Runtu]

My impression of you is that you're a reasonably lucid thinker.

Heh. My wife tells me I'm a really level-headed person: I drool out of both sides of my mouth. ;-)

[_wenglund]

I'd have been happy with 500 total hits a day. Out of about 80-100 hits a day, I was probably getting 5-10 hits a day from the COB, BYU, and More Good.

Between them, that's not very much. Candidly, I thought you were talking about more than that.

A "hit" is a very easy thing to do, and doesn't take much time.

It is actually easier than some may think. A "hit" represents the number of calls made to the server for a given internet page (including content and imbedded graphics). If a page has, say, text and two graphics, a single "visit" to that page will generate three "hits".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I'd have been happy with 500 total hits a day. Out of about 80-100 hits a day, I was probably getting 5-10 hits a day from the COB, BYU, and More Good.

Between them, that's not very much. Candidly, I thought you were talking about more than that.

A "hit" is a very easy thing to do, and doesn't take much time.

It is actually easier than some may think. A "hit" represents the number of calls made to the server for a given internet page (including content and imbedded graphics). If a page has, say, text and two graphics, a single "visit" to that page will generate three "hits".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, that's not what I'm describing. A "hit" recorded by my blog was a single visit to the site, which could have multiple page views and multiple "hits" to content and imbedded graphics. So, to be more accurate, what I was seeing is what you describe as a "visit."

Clear enough?

[_Mister Scratch]

If they post anonymously the ex-Mormons should happily share their SCMC stories though. That was my point. I'm not sure why people who hate the Church want to retain their membership though.

How can the committee gather evidence against an anonymous person on the internet? They wouldn't have a SCMC story to share unless the committee gathered information on them, would they?

Some of them are ex-Mormons. Wouldn't they have stories of how they were excommunicated? Those anonymous people mask real people who presumably have lives outside the web. They had to have been excommunicated for something. Why no SCMC stories then? Did they all sin? Did they all voluntarily withdraw?

Nehor---

No problemo, man. I would just go on lovin' ya either way, mate!

[_wenglund]

I'd have been happy with 500 total hits a day. Out of about 80-100 hits a day, I was probably getting 5-10 hits a day from the COB, BYU, and More Good.

Between them, that's not very much. Candidly, I thought you were talking about more than that.

A "hit" is a very easy thing to do, and doesn't take much time.

It is actually easier than some may think. A "hit" represents the number of calls made to the server for a given internet page (including content and imbedded graphics). If a page has, say, text and two graphics, a single "visit" to that page will generate three "hits".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, that's not what I'm describing. A "hit" recorded by my blog was a single visit to the site, which could have multiple page views and multiple "hits" to content and imbedded graphics. So, to be more accurate, what I was seeing is what you describe as a "visit."

Clear enough?

Not that it is important (I am just curious), but did your blog record specifically refer to it as a "hit" or a "visit" or "page view"? (I ask because that term is pretty standardized to mean what I said--see: Understanding Web Traffic Reports)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

While driving to Albion Basin yesterday I just happened to catch Michael Medved's interview with Jon Voit regarding his thoughts and role in the movie "September Dawn". And, while I the interview didn't give me cause to see the movie or research more on MMM, it did give me a greater appreciation for Mr. Voit, personally. I wasn't aware of all the charitable work that he has done or his support of our soldiers. He seems to be a good and decent man. And, while I don't share his opinion about BY's involvement in MMM, nor do I think September Dawn to be the best fit in achieving the objectives VOIT deliniated for the movie, I respect him more nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-