Jump to content

Scott Lloyd

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17,752 Excellent

About Scott Lloyd

  • Rank
    Benevolent Internet Tyrant

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

19,849 profile views
  1. For what it's worth, I listened today to a podcast interview that Bill Reel did with Corbin Volluz on the Adam-God theory. The voice and delivery of Volluz and the voice and delivery of the host of Radio Free Mormon do match, quite convincingly. I do not consider it doxing to make that observation or to suggest that others are free to make the same comparison and to consider other factors, such as the fact that Reel features Radio Free Mormon on his (Reel's) podcast website. And I'm not convinced the identity is any great secret anyway.
  2. And why do they need such a compelling argument? To get past the group-think obstacle, of course.
  3. What raises red flags for me is dogmatic insistence about it being “settled science” or reflecting the “scientific consensus.” Those are claims made by Bill Nye, for one. I know he is not a scientist, but he does appear to purport to speak for the “scientific community.” Earlier in this thread, Valentinus said there is no debating it. He soon backed away from that as a poor choice of words. But it does seem to aptly summarize the attitude of many today, an attitude that strikes me as unscientific And going against the political winds can adversely affect objective science where such matters as the awarding and sustaining of academic grants are concerned.
  4. Then perhaps it would be best for you to forebear from making ignorant assertions about what “permeates” another’s thoughts. Or from making rash, and transparently false declarations about the content of another’s posts.
  5. So do you consider it a bad thing, and, if so, why?
  6. So have you found any posts yet where I uttered the "follow the Brethren mantra"? Remember, you said it was in "almost all" of my posts." The CFR is still on the table.
  7. What I've gathered as a casual observer of this topic and fairly avid reader and watcher of current political events in general is that there aren't very many (if any) outright "deniers" of climate change or even very many who deny that human activity contributes to it. Where I think those who promote an awareness of it do themselves and their cause a disservice is in hysterical alarmism, such as that exhibited by Al Gore and his now-largely-discredited "An Inconvenient Truth" movie of a couple of decades ago; and Ocasio-Cortez, who wrings her hands about the world ending in 12 years, then backs away from it, deriding those who took "literally" what she now calls "dry humor" and "sarcasm" as having the intelligence of "a sea sponge," this despite her having obviously been very much in earnest at the times she uttered the warning and her followers and fellow party members having jumped on the bandwagon with her; and faux-scientist popularizers such as Bill Nye, who hinted that "climate-change deniers" ought to be imprisoned like the Enron perpetrators, thus prompting the derisive nickname "Bill Nye the fascist guy." I have little doubt that two or three dedades ago or whatever the time frame, those who fashioned the signs and the broshures and the videos for Glacier National Park forecasting that the glaciers would have vanished by 2020 thought they were being very measured and rational. Yet we're almost there, and the glaciers are still with us. Perhaps the lesson to be learned from all this is to be very careful about declaring something as "settled science" or having gone beyond a fit topic for reasoned discussion and debate or being supported by "extremely overwhelming" evidence. Edited to add: I admit to knowing next to nothing about Glacier National Park, but I was interested in what it said in the article I linked to about how the accuracy of “before-and-after” pictures can be influenced by the fact that glacier size can fluctuate considerably in the course of a single season.
  8. Yes, isn't it touching how tenaciously they cling to their negative view of things? It's almost like religious devotion.
  9. At Glacier National Park, they were obliged to change the information panels this year. Seems they hadn't been updated in a while. The signs were still saying that the glaciers would be gone by 2020. That's next year. Oops. A new application to Al Gore's words "an inconvenient truth." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/07/glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs/
  10. Though I am adamant on this matter, it is not a thing that I would withhold friendship over. But use of “his or her” does not strike me as being any more awkward than using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular noun. That said, in many, if not most, instances, one who is writer enough to do so can find a way to word a sentence in a way that avoids the issue altogether.
  11. I did not mean my comment to imply any ulterior motive on your part. It was, rather, born of my pet peeve over what I see as the rampant and growing use of the singular “they” or “their.”
  12. I think there is every indication that by firing the pistol, Joseph was defending the unarmed occupants of the room — John Taylor And Willard Richards — who were not there as accused individuals but as supportive friends. Consider the fact that Joseph jumped from the window into the clutches of the bloodthirsty mob and the certain death that awaited him below. Was it not to divert the mobbers’ Attention away from Elder Taylor and Elder Richard, a heroic act in which he succeeded?
  13. Just wondering why, in an instance where the gender could never be indeterminate, you feel disposed to use the singular “their” (“if their father”) when the conventional grammar (if his father) would work perfectly well.
  14. Implicit in most any Church calling is an expression of confidence by presiding officers — and presumably the Lord — in one’s ability, talents, inherent gifts, and above all, faithfulness and dedication to the cause of Zion and to the Church and kingdom. Furthermore, many, if not most, Church callings carry the potential for growth and perhaps the prospect of cherished experiences. I see all that as reason enough for congratulation, and I don’t at all see such expression as inappropriate or problematic. Edited to add: And lest some view this comment as self-serving, let me hasten to add that I’ve never been in a bishopric or stake presidency or even on a high council, nor do I anticipate that I ever would.
  15. “Prenumbras”. What a crock of ... legalese.
  • Create New...