One of my countdown timers will soon expire

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

You must, of course, make your own choices. 

At this point, I really am curious about what you find so egregious about noting down someone's prediction and then tracking it, but I won't insist that you explain.

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Maybe you have some thoughts on the question I just posed to Gray, ttribe.

It's easy to make drive-by jabs or, in your case, copy and paste taunting memes from Google. It's more challenging to give reasoned verbal explanations for one's emotions.

But, as with Gray, I won't insist that you do so. Maybe you're not up to it.

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If he meant that it might only fall by 500 (which would put it at an impressive 80,000), why was he suggesting that the Church would have to redefine what it means to be a missionary in order to sustain the growth in the missionary force that has come in the wake of the 2012 announcement? 80,000 missionaries would be an astounding increase.

 

Because he thought it would.  It seems he was correct about that too seeing as those didn't change and the number has continued to fall rather than grow. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Because he thought it would.  It seems he was correct about that too seeing as those didn't change and the number has continued to fall rather than grow. 

It was always anticipated that after the surge it would fall back down to a sustainable level. The only question was what that level would eventually be. As it happened, the level is thousands more than what it was when the age changes were announced in 2012.

But you're now saying that Mike thought if the number had surged to 89,000 and then leveled out at a a very impressive 80,000, the Church would not have been pleased with that but instead would have been alarmed enough to redefine missionary service so as to inflate the number? That doesn't make sense to me.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe you have some thoughts on the question I just posed to Gray, ttribe.

It's easy to make drive-by jabs or, in your case, cut and paste images from Google. It's more challenging to give reasoned explanation for one's emotion.

But, as with Gray, i won't insist that you do so. Maybe you're not up to it.

 

Way back in the day, when I was actively engaging in the defense of the Church on this board and elsewhere, I was accused of being "grimly humorless."  That accusation was correct.

I was using some mild satire to show the silliness of your argument(s) and conduct.  You are under no obligation to take things so seriously.

As to your "Maybe you're not up to it" comment, I'm just not interested.  As I've evaluated the situation, and choosing between "giv[ing] reasoned explanation for one's emotion" and posting memes designed to provide both laughter and contemplative thought, I've decided (at least in this case) that one is way more fun than the other.

Edited January 10, 2017 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Way back in the day, when I was actively engaging in the defense of the Church on this board and elsewhere, I was accused of being "grimly humorless."  That accusation was correct.

I was using some mild satire to show the silliness of your argument(s) and conduct.  You are under no obligation to take things so seriously.

As to your "Maybe you're not up to it" comment, I'm just not interested.  As I've evaluated the situation, and choosing between "giv[ing] reasoned explanation for one's emotion" and posting memes designed to provide both laughter and contemplative thought, I've decided (at least in this case) that one is way more fun than the other.

So you're not interested enough to engage in reasoned discussion, but you can't leave it alone, so you get your kicks doing taunting and ridicule instead.

Well, that's productive.

I have to say I liked you better when you were "grimly humorless."

Though, I have to say that I never found you so. What a sad thing if you have let detractors of the Church change you.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This thread has been spectacularly awesome. Let me see if I got this right. Back in January 2015 Scott Lloyd posted a thread titled "Surge Has Subsided But Missionary Work Continues Apace." So just from reading the title of the post, one might reasonably conclude that Scott was asserting the surge had already subsided (i.e. bottomed out) since the past tense was used. In the OP, Scott said:

 

Quote

It was foregone that there would be a surge in the missionary force following the announcement two years ago of the lowering in the ages of eligibility and that the number would drop somewhat in the wake of the surge.

 

What is remarkable, according to what Elder Evans told me, is that the number has not lessened nearly as much as was anticipated.

Again from the tone of the post and the title (not saying this was Scott's intent) it sounds like it is being claimed that the surge had already subsided. Half way down the first page, Mike states that he "suspects" (merely suspects) that we had not yet seen the end of the surge (as of Jan 2015). He "suspects" (unless a change is announced - like say for internet missions) that the number of missionaries will drop further over the next 2-3 years. When asked how far he answers that he doesn't know. 

It turns out that he was correct. The surge had not finished subsiding, the church did not announce a major change in how we did missionary work and the number of missionaries continued to drop. 

And from this we get a countdown timer and post after post about how wrong Mike Reed was? Obsessive much?

Edited January 10, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At this point, I really am curious about what you find so egregious about noting down someone's prediction and then tracking it, but I won't insist that you explain.

Mike Reed was simply correctly noting that as of January 2015, the surge had not yet fully subsided and the number of missionaries would drop over the next couple of years unless the church changed how missionaries were called... All of this has been completely fulfilled. 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This thread has been spectacularly awesome. Let me see if I got this right. Back in January 2015 Scott Lloyd posted a thread titled "Surge Has Subsided But Missionary Work Continues Apace." So just from reading the title of the post, one might reasonably conclude that Scott was asserting the surge had already subsided (i.e. bottomed out) since the past tense was used. In the OP, Scott said:

 

Again from the tone of the post and the title (not saying this was Scott's intent) it sounds like it is being claimed that the surge had already subsided. Half way down the first page, Mike states that he "suspects" (merely suspects) that we had not yet seen the end of the surge (as of Jan 2015). He "suspects" (unless a change is announced - like say for internet missions) that the number of missionaries will drop further over the next 2-3 years. When asked how far he answers that he doesn't know. 

It turns out that he was correct. The surge had not finished subsiding, the church did not announce a major change in how we did missionary work and the number of missionaries continued to drop. 

 

You make a valid point. It may have been easy to get that erroneous impression.

That still doesn't explain why Mike blew off my request for clarification, though.

Quote

And from this we get a countdown timer and pages on pages of threads about how wrong Mike Reed was? Obsessive much?

After reporting that my timer had run out, all I have done since then is fend off attacks. Once the attacks cease, the thread will die a natural death, because I will have no more to say. In fact, it was already headed that way before the attack squad showed up.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Mike Reed was simply correctly noting that as of January 2015, the surge had not yet fully subsided and the number of missionaries would drop over the next couple of years unless the church changed how missionaries were called... All of this has been completely fulfilled. 

I disagree with that interpretation, because he talked about the number continuing to fall so drastically that the Church would feel compelled to do other things, like redefine missionary work. It was obvious that the Church leaders were not at all displeased with how things had turned out and not alarmed about what might happen in the future. Why would he expect they would be redefining missionary work, even if the number fell somewhat further?

And furthermore, if all he was doing is making the painfully obvious statement that the number would be falling somewhat further, why did he put the lengthy time frame on it (two or three years)?

And I did explicitly ask Mike whether he meant that he thought, within that time frame, the gains would be altogether erased; all I got was a vague reply.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I disagree with that interpretation, because he talked about the number continuing to fall so drastically that the Church would feel compelled to do other things, like redefine missionary work. It was obvious that the Church leaders were not at all displeased with how things had turned out and not alarmed about what might happen in the future. Why would he expect they would be redefining missionary work, even if the number fell somewhat further?

And I did explicitly ask Mike whether he meant that he thought the gains would be altogether erased; all I got was a vague reply.

He did no such thing (at least that I have seen linked to in this thread). When stating his opinion that the surge had not yet finished subsiding in January of 2015, he qualified his statement that the number of missionaries would continue to fall over the next couple of years. He stated that if the church did not announce major changes (like the start of internet missions) the number of missionaries would continue to drop from its January 2015 level. If the church made such changes of course that would impact the number of missionaries serving in a major way.

Where did he say he expected that the Church would be redefining missionary work?

ETA: Could it be that after all this time you simply misread what he plainly stated? And after chastising several posters here for not carefully reading your posts, that sure would be ironic.

Edited January 10, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He did no such thing (at least that I have seen linked to in this thread). When stating his opinion that the surge had not yet finished subsiding in January of 2015, he qualified his statement that the number of missionaries would continue to fall over the next couple of years. He stated that if the church did not announce major changes (like the start of internet missions) the number of missionaries would continue to drop from its January 2015 level. If the church made such changes of course that would impact the number of missionaries serving in a major way.

But why would he think the Church would feel compelled to do that unless he expected that all the gains that came about from the announced age changes would be erased?

Quote

Where did he say he expected that the Church would be redefining missionary work?

That's my term. Instituting "internet missions" and expanding non-proselyting missions so as to inflate the numbers is what I would consider redefining missionary work
 

Quote

ETA: Could it be that after all this time you simply misread what he plainly stated? And after chastising several posters here for not carefully reading your posts, that sure would be ironic.

 

As I've already said, that fact that he would not explain himself when I explicitly asked if he meant that the number would fall back down to the October 2012 level is a thing I find telling. Refusing to provide requested clarification is not what I would consider plainly stating something.

[ttribe]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you're not interested enough to engage in reasoned discussion, but you can't leave it alone, so you get your kicks doing taunting and ridicule instead.

Well, that's productive.

I have to say I liked you better when you were "grimly humorless."

Though, I have to say that I never found you so. What a sad thing if you have let detractors of the Church change you.

As they say - Your mileage may vary.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But why would he think the Church would feel compelled to do that unless he expected that all the gains that came about from the announced age changes would be erased?

That's my term. Instituting "internet missions" and expanding non-proselyting missions so as to inflate the numbers is what I would consider redefining missionary work
 

As I've already said, that fact that he would not explain himself when I explicitly asked if he meant that the number would fall back down to the October 2012 level is a thing I find telling. Refusing to provide requested clarification is not what I would consider plainly stating something.

He never said he thought the church would feel compelled to redefine missionary work! If you are going to continue to make this claim, I will issue a formal CFR. Read his post. Put another way here is what he said: "I don't think the surge has subsided yet. The number of missionaries will continue to fall over the next 2-3 years. If the church changes the way they do missionary work (internet missions etc), all bets are off... (i.e. the number of missionaries might actually go up)" It's all very clear once you come at the post without any preconceived notions of what he is saying.

 

As for not clarifying, if 5 pages of posters pointing out the obvious doesn't do it for you, I'm not sure what Mike could say to convince you...

Edited January 10, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He never said he thought the church would feel compelled to redefine missionary work! If you are going to continue to make this claim, I will issue a formal CFR. Read his post. Put another way here is what he said: "I don't think the surge has subsided yet. The number of missionaries will continue to fall over the next 2-3 years. If the church changes the way they do missionary work (internet missions etc), all bets are off... (i.e. the number of missionaries might actually go up)" It's all very clear once you come at the post without any preconceived notions of what he is saying.

 

He could have phrased it that way, especially when i asked for clarification, but he didn't. How do we know you're not the one with the preconceived notions? But even now, if he were to return and say that's what he meant, I would cheerfully accept it. I'm not so ready to do that, though, with self-appointed spokesmen.

Quote

As for not clarifying, if 5 pages of posters pointing out the obvious doesn't do it for you, I'm not sure what Mike could say to convince you...

Obvious to whom? Are you saying I should not defend my position, then? You and the other attackers won't let up until I roll over and play dead? And you say I'm the one who is obsessed?

 

Edited to add:

Here is my post from that thread two years ago wherein I asked Mike for clarification:
 

Quote

 

 

On 1/9/2015 at 10:15 PM, Mike Reed said:

I dont know how far it will fall.

It is already down from the peak of the surge. As indicated in my article, that was expected and foregone. The remarkable thing is that the decrease is not nearly to the extent that was anticipated for this point in time.

 

For a prognostication like this to be meaningful, there must be some indication of how substantial the drop will be. Will the number diminish to pre-2012 levels, as though there had been no change made? Will it be just under what it is now? Somewhere in between? What?

 

From context, it can be seen that I was not claiming the surge had finished subsiding or that there would be no more decrease in the numbers. Note the use of the phrase "for this point in time." So I doubt this is what Mike thought.

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He could have phrased it that way, especially when i asked for clarification, but he didn't. How do we know you're not the one with the preconceived notions? But even now, if he were to return and say that's what he meant, I would cheerfully accept it. I'm not so ready to do that, though, with self-appointed spokesmen.

Obvious to whom? Are you saying I should not defend my position, then? You and the other attackers won't let up until I roll over and play dead? And you say I'm the one who is obsessed?

 

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He could have phrased it that way, especially when i asked for clarification, but he didn't. How do we know you're not the one with the preconceived notions? But even now, if he were to return and say that's what he meant, I would cheerfully accept it. I'm not so ready to do that, though, with self-appointed spokesmen.

Obvious to whom? Are you saying I should not defend my position, then? You and the other attackers won't let up until I roll over and play dead? And you say I'm the one who is obsessed?

Okay official CFR for where Mike said he thought the church would would "feel compelled" to overhaul the missionary program. Emphasis on the "feel compelled" aspect. 

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Okay official CFR for where Mike said he thought the church would would "feel compelled" to overhaul the missionary program. Emphasis on the "feel compelled" aspect. 

I never claimed he said that. I surmised from what he did say that he thought the Church might at some point feel the need to inflate flagging missionary numbers. Otherwise, why would he suggest "internet missions" and expansion of service missions (i.e. redefining missionary work) as a way the Church might do that? Why would he think the Church would even consider  such a thing unless he thought that some drastic drop in numbers was in the offing?

Edited January 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You make a valid point. It may have been easy to get that erroneous impression.

That still doesn't explain why Mike blew off my request for clarification, though.

After reporting that my timer had run out, all I have done since then is fend off attacks. Once the attacks cease, the thread will die a natural death, because I will have no more to say. In fact, it was already headed that way before the attack squad showed up.

Seriously Scott?  After 5 pages, you can't figure out why people are calling you on your little stunt you pulled? Why don't you take a wild guess why you are still fending off attacks?  

Because it seems pretty obvious to me.  You made a countdown clock on something that the person never said.  And then you start a thread boasting how the countdown you made erroneously is somehow a slam in the face for something someone never said.  If you want the attacks to stop, how about just admit that you were wrong to start a countdown clock over something that was never said?  Is that really that difficult to do?  Or are you going to wait until this thread is 10 pages long?

[Rich Hansen]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

Seriously Scott?  After 5 pages, you can't figure out why people are calling you on your little stunt you pulled? Why don't you take a wild guess why you are still fending off attacks?  

Because it seems pretty obvious to me.  You made a countdown clock on something that the person never said.  And then you start a thread boasting how the countdown you made erroneously is somehow a slam in the face for something someone never said.  If you want the attacks to stop, how about just admit that you were wrong to start a countdown clock over something that was never said?  Is that really that difficult to do?  Or are you going to wait until this thread is 10 pages long?

I see few people jumping in to help Scott because he is performing an on-line striptease. Every post he makes exposes a little more.  In a way,  Scott is vulnerable and being encouraged by others because they know his position is indefensible, but he can't resist  defending.  He is unaware of what is happening, while the rest of us are voyeuristically watching.

I hope Scott doesn't start tweeting at 3 o'clock in the morning.

 

 

[CA Steve]

It’s a small, dimly lit room, one like you might see connected to a old elementary school cafeteria or at a the back of a church that has seen better days. There is a short wooden podium at the front facing a dozen or so plastic folding chairs. On a small table in the back of the room is an empty coffee pot, a few doughnuts, a half-eaten bowl of chips and some bean dip that has seen better days.

The participants shamble in from the hallway. Some are first timers and some are regulars, like Dave a 68 year old retired civil service employee who used to work in a missile silo, or Jon, who is a disabled war vet who had a stint on the bomb squad. Then there is Ryan, a popular TV host who once hosted a weekly TV show. One volunteer stands up and welcomes everyone to the meeting and asks who would like to begin. A newcomer in the back, hesitantly raises his hand, stands up and approaches the podium.

 

“Hi my name is Scott and I am a countdownaholic”…..

[Peppermint Patty]

Scott, this might be helpful:

[Johnny Ghost]

Come on Scott, you were proven over, and over, and over again that your count-down fantasy was only that ... a fantasy.  So, what do you do now? Confess your wrong? Talk to the moderators and try and get them to erase this ill-conceived post?  Maybe you can do a mea culpa and get this erased fast????????

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When you said, "Good idea!" in the context of JulieM's post, I thought you meant starting a countdown clock for Elder Holland's prediction -- which I had already done, and said so in my response to cacheman. Am I not understanding you?

 

I didn't see that you had said that, I guess I haven't been paying attention like you said, haha. I did mean that a good idea would be to start a clock for that prediction or whatever you call it of Elder Holland's remark. 

Scott, have you had enough of this countdown business or this thread? Honestly though when you started this thread I was excited to see a countdown coming to fruition. 

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I didn't see that you had said that, I guess I haven't been paying attention like you said, haha. I did mean that a good idea would be to start a clock for that prediction or whatever you call it of Elder Holland's remark. 

Scott, have you had enough of this countdown business or this thread? Honestly though when you started this thread I was excited to see a countdown coming to fruition. 

Tacenda, you are truly such a good person.  I do agree and hope Scott has had enough and can see where he's been unfair here.  I also hope he knows that we'd stick up for him if anyone tried to do to him what he's attempting to do here to Mike Reid.  Wrong is wrong.  No one should be held accountable for something they did not say.

Edited January 11, 2017 by JulieM