Kenngo1969 Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Just saw something about the press conference. I guess when Pres. Nelson was answering Peggy Strack, Elder Oak's lips were saying the same thing at the beginning as if there were a teleprompter. Could that be possible? If you want to go back to watch you'll see it. Not saying it's bad to have them reading some prompts. I couldn't do what they have to do. But curious what anyone on here might think. ETA: Watch about 19:00 minutes in. Critics, skeptics, the disaffected, [pick your word] can't have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, say that the press conference proves that the members of the new First Presidency are doddering old fools who are incapable of thinking on their feet in the way that such an impromptu setting demands, yet, on the other hand, say, "Aha! I believe I saw a Teleprompter!" 3
stemelbow Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 14 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Critics, skeptics, the disaffected, [pick your word] can't have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, say that the press conference proves that the members of the new First Presidency are doddering old fools who are incapable of thinking on their feet in the way that such an impromptu setting demands, yet, on the other hand, say, "Aha! I believe I saw a Teleprompter!" It doesn't matter if there was a teleprompter. Seems pretty clear, Oaks mouthed the words that President Nelson was supposed to say. It seems like a teleprompter is a possibility. But I suppose they were asked to memorize certain lines about the reporters to make them sound like they cared. Kinda sad/disappointing.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 5 hours ago, stemelbow said: It doesn't matter if there was a teleprompter. Seems pretty clear, Oaks mouthed the words that President Nelson was supposed to say. It seems like a teleprompter is a possibility. But I suppose they were asked to memorize certain lines about the reporters to make them sound like they cared. Kinda sad/disappointing. Kenngo1969: "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence." His Honor: "Sustained!" I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you, that you're a member of the They're Just Doddering Old Fools crowd. I'm shocked ... ... shocked, I tell you! I'm sure you'll be equally shocked to learn that I'm not a member of the They're Just Doddering Old Fools crowd. To each, his own. Your compatriots on the other forum send their regards, "Stem." Thread banned for cross posting ~Mods 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It doesn't matter if there was a teleprompter. ... Mmm-kay. Don't tell me. I'm not the one who brought it up. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Critics, skeptics, the disaffected, [pick your word] can't have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, say that the press conference proves that the members of the new First Presidency are doddering old fools who are incapable of thinking on their feet in the way that such an impromptu setting demands, yet, on the other hand, say, "Aha! I believe I saw a Teleprompter!" If there were a teleprompter, are you suggesting the questions were submitted in advance and the responses scripted? If that were the case, one might wonder why President Nelson momentarily forgot the question after he made his comments about Peggy Stack and her family. And why he forgot the portion of her question dealing with women and why she had to shout it out from her seat. Edited January 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It doesn't matter if there was a teleprompter. Seems pretty clear, Oaks mouthed the words that President Nelson was supposed to say. It seems like a teleprompter is a possibility. But I suppose they were asked to memorize certain lines about the reporters to make them sound like they cared. Kinda sad/disappointing. Why are you so scandalized about the possibility that here might have been some advance preparation prior to the news conference? What if they did memorize certain statements in advance? Why jump to the conclusion that the thoughts would not be nonetheless heartfelt?
USU78 Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 Nobody ever helpfully suggested the answer when your buddy was asked a question. Sheesh
stemelbow Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Kenngo1969: "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence." His Honor: "Sustained!" I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you, that you're a member of the They're Just Doddering Old Fools crowd. I'm shocked ... ... shocked, I tell you! I'm sure you'll be equally shocked to learn that I'm not a member of the They're Just Doddering Old Fools crowd. To each, his own. Your compatriots on the other forum send their regards, "Stem." http://mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48264&p=1106777 huh? What's the issue here?
stemelbow Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Why are you so scandalized about the possibility that here might have been some advance preparation prior to the news conference? What if they did memorize certain statements in advance? Why jump to the conclusion that the thoughts would not be nonetheless heartfelt? It comes off as less heartfelt. They certainly could be heartfelt nonetheless. If I were Peggy I might not have felt anything genuine in the expression considering how it came off and that it appears Oaks was mouthing the words President Nelson was saying. But I'm not her, nor do I feel all that concerned about it. It is surprising to learn that they were trying to come off as off the cuff if indeed they prepared certain lines to say to the reporters.
ALarson Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 42 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Your compatriots on the other forum send their regards, "Stem." http://mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48264&p=1106777 That's crummy of you to do, IMO. I think you're better than this. I don't agree with all of stemelbow's posts, but really? 1
ALarson Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, USU78 said: Nobody ever helpfully suggested the answer when your buddy was asked a question. He was mouthing his answer right along exactly as Pres. Nelson was giving his answer....using the exact words. I think it looks like there may have been a teleprompter as that makes the most sense to me. (And, I don't think there's anything wrong if there was one there for them to help respond and answer questions....) Was anyone there who could say if one was present? (Maybe they can conceal them now....I'm not up on all the new technology). Edited January 23, 2018 by ALarson
Calm Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 54 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Kenngo1969: "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence." His Honor: "Sustained!" I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you, that you're a member of the They're Just Doddering Old Fools crowd. I'm shocked ... ... shocked, I tell you! I'm sure you'll be equally shocked to learn that I'm not a member of the They're Just Doddering Old Fools crowd. To each, his own. You might want to edit your post, Ken, according to the guidelines "Engaging in board wars by bringing other boards content here or vice versa" 2
Calm Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ALarson said: He was mouthing his answer right along exactly as Pres. Nelson was giving his answer....using the exact words. I think it looks like there may have been a teleprompter as that makes the most sense to me. (And, I don't think there's anything wrong if there was one there for them to help respond and answer questions....) Was anyone there who could say if one was present? (Maybe they can conceal them now....I'm not up on all the new technology). Earlier someone said Peggy Stack said there wasn't any. They knew who the reporters were going to be, given how easy so many take offense, hardly surprising they would help each other practice. Edited January 23, 2018 by Calm 1
ALarson Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Calm said: Earlier someone said Peggy Stack said there wasn't any. Ok, thanks! Then they obviously had memorized some information or responses to the reporters who they knew would be there (and who most likely would be answering questions). I find nothing wrong with them preparing and not coming in cold for the press conference. It does look a bit odd while it's happening, but I think there's a good explanation for it. (Just saw your edit above....I agree.) Edited January 23, 2018 by ALarson 1
rongo Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 If there wasn't a teleprompter (and it doesn't look like there was), then they apparently had pre-memorized info about the invited reporters and had prepared canned responses. That's disappointing, but it is par for the course with these canned "face to face" events. 1
stemelbow Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 37 minutes ago, rongo said: If there wasn't a teleprompter (and it doesn't look like there was), then they apparently had pre-memorized info about the invited reporters and had prepared canned responses. That's disappointing, but it is par for the course with these canned "face to face" events. Thank you, Rongo. that was the point I was hoping to get out of this in discussing it.
stemelbow Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, ALarson said: That's crummy of you to do, IMO. I think you're better than this. I don't agree with all of stemelbow's posts, but really? I have no secrets regarding my posting over there as stem. Everyone over there knows I post on both, if they care to know. People here could too, if I was able to talk about it here, post links and all of that. I'd be creating board wars and I have no such interest. I don't know why he offered a post acting as if he's uncovering me for posting on both boards. I was like, "huh? what's the point of this? Does anyone really care?" On the topic though, I'm quite surprised to learn of the scripted efforts, particularly on this supposed heartfelt personal part.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Earlier someone said Peggy Stack said there wasn't any. They knew who the reporters were going to be, given how easy so many take offense, hardly surprising they would help each other practice. Oh, what does Peggy Stack know, just because she was there! (And by the way, if there had been a Teleprompter at what was supposed to be, but for introductory remarks, perhaps, an unscripted event, why are journalists, of all people ... and especially journalists who work for The Salt Lake Tribune, which is certainly no ally of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... helpfully remaining silent about it to such a degree that it's left to inhabitants of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park, of all people, to spill the beans?) P.S.: And by the way, why can't critics/skeptics/the disaffected/pick-your-adjective pick a horse and ride it? "There was a Teleprompter"; "There wasn't a Teleprompter"; "What does anybody need a Teleprompter for, since President Oaks was there to feed President Nelson his lines" ... Ad infinitum, ad nauseam. I'm dizzy. Edited January 23, 2018 by Kenngo1969 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: huh? What's the issue here? Absolutely nothing.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, ALarson said: That's crummy of you to do, IMO. I think you're better than this. I don't agree with all of stemelbow's posts, but really?
Glenn101 Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Gray said: You know that I like you Robert, and there's nothing personal in this, but this is a very strained and irrelevant comparison. There's a big difference between deciphering what someone is feeling in the moment vs using that to determine innocence or guilt of some crime committed in the past. It's one thing to notice that a defendant looks nervous, it's another thing to guess whether he's nervous because he's on trial or if he's nervous because he did it. It is actually the same type of thing. A juror reading body language that he or she thinks is nervous energy and inferring that the defendant is guilty vs reading an expression on a person's face or their body language and inferring that the person is feeling disappointed, depressed, unhappy, etc. about what some other people have termed a demotion. 3 hours ago, Gray said: That's several steps beyond reading body language to decipher emotion - (a basic skill we all rely on daily). Actually projection is the first step in interpreting body language. Glenn
ALarson Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I have no secrets regarding my posting over there as stem. Everyone over there knows I post on both, if they care to know. People here could too, if I was able to talk about it here, post links and all of that. I'd be creating board wars and I have no such interest. I don't know why he offered a post acting as if he's uncovering me for posting on both boards. I was like, "huh? what's the point of this? Does anyone really care?" Good for you (seriously). 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: On the topic though, I'm quite surprised to learn of the scripted efforts, particularly on this supposed heartfelt personal part. I can see your point. I think most probably were under the impression that Pres. Nelson's responses were impromptu or off the cuff. But to be honest, I don't really have a problem with him preparing some (and even memorizing some responses) in advance and actually find that to be quite normal. I do wonder why Pres. Oaks memorized the same responses, though. Maybe they weren't sure who the questions would be directed to each time? But, wouldn't they have each prepared with what their own response was? It does make it appear that this was scripted (or written by someone else). Even if that took place though, I'm not sure it's a big deal if another person did their research (regarding who Peggy Fletcher-Stack was related to , etc.) to help in the preparation of the answers. But when you learn about it, I do have to admit that it takes some of the warmth away from the response and is not as personal or endearing (that both Pres. Oaks and Pres. Nelson would have given the same memorized response.) Of course, that does not mean that either of them wouldn't have meant what they were stating. Edited January 23, 2018 by ALarson
Calm Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gray said: That's several steps beyond reading body language to decipher emotion - (a basic skill we all rely on daily). You keep making these claims, but unless I am really out of it...which is a high possibility....you have put up no documentation to demonstrate such, while I have put up some limited material demonstrating your claims of high accuracy in body language being a common attribute to be inaccurate and Robert has pointed out a real life case where those who depended on body language to make a judgement about how a defendant was feeling screwed up the finding. Even those trained in reading microexpressions and having a much higher success rate than usual (80% iirc been a few days since read article) still are incapable of knowing why the person feels that way. Edited January 23, 2018 by Calm 3
Kenngo1969 Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 6 hours ago, rongo said: It's simpler than that, even. Start looking at the default faces of your stake presidency, bishopric, etc. during sacrament meeting or stake conference. Watch all thirteen of the apostles at the announcement and press conference. Most men's default faces --- especially over 2+ hours --- is kind of grumpy or solemn or serious. Then, you throw in needing to keep your face composed in front of hundreds or thousands of people (or, in the case of this broadcast, knowing that potentially millions of people will be looking at you). You need to be careful to not pick your nose ... 5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: I just knew there was a reason I'll never be called into the upper echelons of church leadership! Thanks for giving me the key! ... One of these years, just for fun, I'm going to get a permit and go to General Conference so I can counter-protest the Conference protesters/street screechers. I'm going to sit opposite them with a sign that has a huge drawing of a nose and a strategically-placed finger. The caption's gonna be, "Anybody who has a nose can picket!"
Jeanne Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: I just knew there was a reason I'll never be called into the upper echelons of church leadership! Thanks for giving me the key! P.S.: My 1.2 seconds of fame occurs roughly between 0:00:45 and 0:00:55 here, with another 1.2 seconds of fame at roughly 0:02:58-0:03:00. Fortunately, I wasn't picking my nose. I am loving the rainbow colors here!! 1
Recommended Posts