Nofear Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 The term isn't his and is part of forum culture and mores that extends well past this forum. 2
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 The term isn't his and is part of forum culture and mores that extends well past this forum. Not possible. Mormon practices are never impacted by the surrounding culture. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I find it funny that you feel the need to "alert" people everytime an old post is commented on. Or is it just a compulsion not to let anyone else get the lat word?Just doing my bit to inform and clarify. Do you object to information and clarity? 1
JulieM Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I find it funny that you feel the need to "alert" people everytime an old post is commented on. Or is it just a compulsion not to let anyone else get the lat word?I think it's pretty hilarious when he does this. It's the all CAPITAL letters that crack me up! And the word "alert" like something is dangerous Reminds me of some of the "Fox news alerts"!(I'm sure he means well.)
Calm Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 All one has to do is go back and read zombified threads to realize a number of posters don't pay attention to the date and start having conversations with posters that haven't been around awhile. I think it is kind of Scott to help let people make an informed decision about putting effort into responding to an old thread or not though I personally would set the line more at 4 or 6 months instead of three.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) I always laugh at that too. It's like he thinks none of us can read dates or something. <It's not so much a matter of "can't" as "don't". > Anyway, this thread isn't even that old. And, what is wrong with adding new or more current information to a topic? <Not a thing. A contribution can be influenced, though, by a misunderstanding about whether or not the topic newly introduced.> Also, many times I've enjoyed reading back through older threads and I always do notice the date they were started. Maybe it's just a pet peeve of Scott's? <Peeved? Not I. > Edited June 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) If this one works, Scott should use it as his personal alert smilie: Edited June 5, 2015 by calmoriah
ALarson Posted June 5, 2015 Author Posted June 5, 2015 I always laugh at that too. It's like he thinks none of us can read dates or something.<It's not so much a matter of "can't" as "don't". >Anyway, this thread isn't even that old. And, what is wrong with adding new or more current information to a topic? <Not a thing. A contribution can be influenced, though, by a misunderstanding about whether or not the topic newly introduced.> Also, many times I've enjoyed reading back through older threads and I always do notice the date they were started. Maybe it's just a pet peeve of Scott's?<Peeved? Not I. > I get that. Thanks for the explanation (and yours too calmoriah). I just always look at when posts were posted, but I realize not everyone does.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I think it's pretty hilarious when he does this. It's the all CAPITAL letters that crack me up! And the word "alert" like something is dangerous Reminds me of some of the "Fox news alerts"! (I'm sure he means well.)I'm glad you're amused -- and that you recognize the tongue-in-cheek intent. Some here seem rather humor-challenged.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 All one has to do is go back and read zombified threads to realize a number of posters don't pay attention to the date and start having conversations with posters that haven't been around awhile. I think it is kind of Scott to help let people make an informed decision about putting effort into responding to an old thread or not though I personally would set the line more at 4 or 6 months instead of three.Yeah. I should ease up on the hair trigger.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I'm glad you're amused -- and that you recognize the tongue-in-cheek intent. Some here seem rather humor-challenged.So you are trying to amuse, not merely "inform and clarify"? That's good because I'm not sure what you're clarifying or informing about that isn't already available. But it is amusing. So, well done.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 If this one works, Scott should use it as his personal alert smilie:I like it!
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 So you are trying to amuse, not merely "inform and clarify"? That's good because I'm not sure what you're clarifying or informing about that isn't already available. But it is amusing. So, well done.Somrtimes I need alerts, even when the information is available. I assume others might as well. 1
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Somrtimes I need alerts, even when the information is available. I assume others might as well. It's cool. Somrtimes I need alerts too. Especially this one:
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) The term isn't his and is part of forum culture and mores that extends well past this forum.Yeah. I didn't invent the term (that may have been calmoriah). And I'm sure I'm not the first or only one to notice the phenomenon. Edited June 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Damien the Leper Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Ugh...This topic is as worthless as the claim that when BY was speaking that they heard JS voice.DN is like the NY Times or National Enquirer or Teen People.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 So, did the DN never correct their story? Scott?I doubt it. According to this FB page (History of the Saints) it looks like the VAST majority still take it at face value https://www.facebook.com/HistoryoftheSaints/photos/a.670867612925003.1073741826.171261542885615/1012324352112659/?type=1&comment_id=1012564528755308&ref=notif¬if_t=photo_reply
ALarson Posted June 5, 2015 Author Posted June 5, 2015 So, did the DN never correct their story?I don't think so, but I think they should have clarified that the sources for this incident were not very credible. Many in the comments asked for sources or for a correction. 1
Calm Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Perhaps those concern could write directly with documentation of the problems with the diary and ask for a clarification from the reporter instead of assuming she will read the comments and understand the need herself. Edited June 5, 2015 by calmoriah
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 So, did the DN never correct their story? Scott?My participation on this board is not as a Deseret News representative. The day it begins to be widely viewed as such is the day I cease my participation here. If you have a problem with content, best to take it up with management. And calmoriah's advice is good: Come with documentation and solid reasoning.
ttribe Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 My participation on this board is not as a Deseret News representative. The day it begins to be widely viewed as such is the day I cease my participation here.If you have a problem with content, best to take it up with management. And calmoriah's advice is good: Come with documentation and solid reasoning. Okay. Just asking.
Calm Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 A google search on "stoddard" and "william law" for the DN only brings up that one article, so it would appear that there was no correction since the problematic source is the stoddard diary.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Ugh...This topic is as worthless as the claim that when BY was speaking that they heard JS voice.DN is like the NY Times or National Enquirer or Teen People.While I agree that the tale about William Law is bogus, it is by no means an established truth that the accounts of the transfiguration of Brigham Young are false. There have been some good threads on that subject on this board. I'd link to one, but I can't do that very easily with an iPod (I'm sitting in an MHA session right now.) Maybe later.As for the sniping at the Deseret News, it's a bad rap. I say that as a lifelong reader, not an employee. Edited to add: Here's the most recent thread I remember about the Brigham Young transfiguration. It's from 2011. And here's the longer one from 2009. Edited June 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
ERayR Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 The story makes no sense. Law fired a total of 12 times and neither Joseph nor anyone else interveened? And if the pistol started working when fired at the post, why wouldn't he have turned back to firing on Joseph? Not that it's the most trustworthy source, but Wikipedia says the following about revolvers at the time of Joseph's and Law's interaction. Apparently, if even Law could have come by a revolver, it would have been of a type where he had to vertically recock after each firing. So again, how could he do this 12 times with no intervention? Only to answer your question: Drunks seldom make sense nor act rationally.
Recommended Posts