Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 15 minutes ago, ALarson said: She probably surmises it's the truth because she trusts the source. People do that all the time. Then you’re saying she/he does have a source? If so, she/he is obliged to identify it or withdraw the claim.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: So it was not merely your “surmise,” then. I’ll give you the rest of the day to either identify the source or withdraw the claim before I make my report. Nice intimidation tactic. Threatening a report. Nice. Quote sur·mise [surmise] VERB surmises (third person present) · surmised (past tense) · surmised (past participle) · surmising (present participle) suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it. "he surmised that something must be wrong" · [more] "“I don't think they're locals,” she surmised" synonyms: guess · conjecture · suspect · deduce · infer · come I wonder if hearing something, a statement, a rumor, whatever from a third party qualifies as "evidence". You seem to be suggesting that Albufia can't surmise something because of hearsay. It seems to me that someone could hear something and surmise it to be true without having any solid evidence. Scott, are you suggesting that someone who is not in possession of hard evidence cannot surmise the truth of a claim? She "surmised", meaning she has no evidence. Why are you still hitting her over the head with it. You may have noticed I am no longer requesting SMAC CFR his surmisings. He made a statement of fact, then when challenged admitted it was an opinion just as Albufia is doing.
ALarson Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: I guess that depends on one's point of view on the issue at hand. Exactly. The name may have been highly significant to whoever chose it. Or not.... 1
bluebell Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Ignoring the issue of who secretly recorded the council, has anyone listened to it? Anything of interest? 1
Abulafia Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Not a compliment. When someone asks you to reveal your source you are supposed to chuckle and then throw them into a tank of sharks or something. You are just being lazy. I didn't take it as a compliment Nehor. But I am finding your insults tiring. Do You have anything nice to say.
bluebell Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Just now, ALarson said: Exactly. The name may have been highly significant to whoever chose it. Or not.... It definitely could be. Or could have been chosen specifically because it can easily appear to be significant. If it was a member of the HC, then he's essentially comparing his stake president to King Noah, a very very wicked man.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Just now, HappyJackWagon said: Nice intimidation tactic. Threatening a report. Nice. I wonder if hearing something, a statement, a rumor, whatever from a third party qualifies as "evidence". You seem to be suggesting that Albufia can't surmise something because of hearsay. It seems to me that someone could hear something and surmise it to be true without having any solid evidence. Scott, are you suggesting that someone who is not in possession of hard evidence cannot surmise the truth of a claim? She "surmised", meaning she has no evidence. Why are you still hitting her over the head with it. You may have noticed I am no longer requesting SMAC CFR his surmisings. He made a statement of fact, then when challenged admitted it was an opinion just as Albufia is doing. If it’s merely hearsay she should say so. And she’s no longer characterizing it as just surmising. She has doubled down on her refusal to identify the source. I am entitled, as a board participant, to call for references and to report any refusal to comply.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I have no idea if the SP is an inept person. It's out there in the realm of possibilities, I surmise, but in my experience, SPs are usually quite effective leaders. I'm sure there are exceptions. But since you weren't there you can't really say. Yep. Removes the ineptitude proposition vis-a-vis the SP quite nicely. Unless one expects that it should become a standard practice to sweep for bugs. It's true. I don't know the SP is inept but I surmise he might be since he failed to stop a recording he seemed intent on stopping. Not really. I wonder if the SP had anyone look for devices in the room. If he's that concerned about recording, then maybe that should be done. It's on his turf so he's responsible for ensuring confidentiality. Allowing for a listening device to remain in the room doesn't prove he is not inept. But I agree, this whole thing is getting silly. I don't expect SP to do a bug sweep, but I do expect him to hold all participants to the same expectations.
The Nehor Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Abulafia said: I didn't take it as a compliment Nehor. But I am finding your insults tiring. Do You have anything nice to say. Nope. And if you are tired I recommend a nap.
Abulafia Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Just now, bluebell said: Ignoring the issue of who secretly recorded the council, has anyone listened to it? Anything of interest? I did, BlueBell. There was nothing unusual about it. I was interested in the factors the SP highlighted which he felt showed Sam was in apostasy. 1
ALarson Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Then you’re saying she/he does have a source? If so, she/he is obliged to identify it or withdraw the claim. Well, she stated that she trusts her source. So, I'd imagine she has one. Either way, she's stated that she chooses not to name them and simply believes their word. She's clarified just as smac clarified after he stated something as a fact.
The Nehor Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Just now, HappyJackWagon said: It's true. I don't know the SP is inept but I surmise he might be since he failed to stop a recording he seemed intent on stopping. Not really. I wonder if the SP had anyone look for devices in the room. If he's that concerned about recording, then maybe that should be done. It's on his turf so he's responsible for ensuring confidentiality. Allowing for a listening device to remain in the room doesn't prove he is not inept. But I agree, this whole thing is getting silly. I don't expect SP to do a bug sweep, but I do expect him to hold all participants to the same expectations. Should they strip search all the participants?
bluebell Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Just now, Abulafia said: I did, BlueBell. There was nothing unusual about it. I was interested in the factors the SP highlighted which he felt showed Sam was in apostasy. So no new information can be gained by listening to the recording? It makes me wonder why someone would go through all the trouble of releasing a recording that serves no purpose.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: Ignoring the issue of who secretly recorded the council, has anyone listened to it? Anything of interest? I listened but there's not much to it. The SP lays out his case against Sam Young. That's all it is. He does a pretty good job. There is no rebuttal from Sam. So the whole recording is of the SP making a decent case against the accused, which is why I've been asking why Sam would record and release only that amount. IMO it does more harm than good for him. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Should they strip search all the participants? Just the high councilors. 2
Danzo Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Just now, bluebell said: So no new information can be gained by listening to the recording? It makes me wonder why someone would go through all the trouble of releasing a recording that serves no purpose. If the recording shuts ends when Sam leaves, it would seem more likely that Sam, or one of his party is recording. If the recording continues after he leaves it seems more likely that it was a member of the high council doing the recording. 1
ALarson Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: It definitely could be. Or could have been chosen specifically because it can easily appear to be significant. If it was a member of the HC, then he's essentially comparing his stake president to King Noah, a very very wicked man. Well anything is possible regarding why they chose that name. I doubt anyone believes the SP is a "very, very wicked man", but there may have been disagreement or at least maybe a symbolic gesture of support for Sam. Everything is just guessing or surmising right now regarding all of that. Edited September 17, 2018 by ALarson 3
bluebell Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I listened but there's not much to it. The SP lays out his case against Sam Young. That's all it is. He does a pretty good job. There is no rebuttal from Sam. So the whole recording is of the SP making a decent case against the accused, which is why I've been asking why Sam would record and release only that amount. IMO it does more harm than good for him. So I suppose it could have been a HC who believed that he was actually bolstering the church's case, and perhaps released it through Norton because that was the only way to do it. But, that seems like a lot of conspiracies. 1
JAHS Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I listened but there's not much to it. The SP lays out his case against Sam Young. That's all it is. He does a pretty good job. There is no rebuttal from Sam. So the whole recording is of the SP making a decent case against the accused, which is why I've been asking why Sam would record and release only that amount. IMO it does more harm than good for him. Batteries ran out?
lostindc Posted September 17, 2018 Author Posted September 17, 2018 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: Ignoring the issue of who secretly recorded the council, has anyone listened to it? Anything of interest? Maybe start a new thread regarding the recording of the interview. 1
Calm Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) off topic Edited September 17, 2018 by Calm
lostindc Posted September 17, 2018 Author Posted September 17, 2018 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I’ve pointed out, Smac’s usages are clear enough from context. I get the impression you’re fussing over this only because you’re pissed off at Smac. Scott, can you stick to subject instead of analyzing this poster’s feelings?
smac97 Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Seems like a solid, though circular, argument: If I have understood you correctly, anyone in that room who recorded the SP and then initiated a chain of custody that eventually led to NNN must be a supporter of Sam Young by virtue of having done such a thing. Yes. Quote Therefore, the recording was done by a supporter of Sam Young. Yes. Quote I'm okay with that. It was most likely recorded by Sam Young. That is my suspicion as well. So where's the circular argument? Quote Or just maybe... it was recorded by someone who opposes Sam Young but knew if he anonymously leaked it to NNN, it would get posted online and many would believe that Sam Young broke his promise to not record the DC. Yay for conspiracy theories! Too clever by half, methinks. Thanks, -Smac Edited September 17, 2018 by smac97 1
lostindc Posted September 17, 2018 Author Posted September 17, 2018 Has anyone else noticed that a lot of posts in this thread are focused on killing the messenger instead of the message? This includes an excessive focus on trying to read into Sam Young’s mind and analyze his actions in order critique his motives and methods. Why are we not focused on Sam’ message and then reducing his message to help us understand if his message is valid?
lostindc Posted September 17, 2018 Author Posted September 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes. Yes. That is my suspicious as well. So where's the circular argument? Too clever by half, methinks. Thanks, -Smac If Sam Young did record, does that change the message? Does it change your position that Church leaders could benefit from additional training?
Recommended Posts