Fiona givens leaves maxwell institute

[CV75]

Did Fiona Givens leave the Maxwell Institute for political reasons?

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

“If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.” John Kerry, COP21, Dec. 2019, Paris.
As far as I can determine, this speech has been scrubbed from the Internet.

Yes and so?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

“If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.” John Kerry, COP21, Dec. 2019, Paris.
As far as I can determine, this speech has been scrubbed from the Internet.

It's hard to admit defeat.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

You win Robert, I am bowing out of this one. I feel Nemisis peeking over my shoulder 😁. I still love you Nemisis.

 

Hubris is Nemesis. 

[cacheman]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

“If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.” John Kerry, COP21, Dec. 2019, Paris.
As far as I can determine, this speech has been scrubbed from the Internet.

It wasn't scrubbed from the internet.  The US Department of State websites for each administration are archived when a new administration begins.  You can find the full text here: https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/12/250502.htm

[Chum]

On 5/11/2021 at 11:59 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

From the POV of those rich corporations which own Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other social media platforms, even section 230 of the updated Telecommunications Act, and anti-trust law are too much governance, yet the coverage included in that Act is common carriers, radio, telephone, cable, broadband, etc., not limited at all in the way you suggest.  That is why the Federal Communications Commission rides herd on all those matters.  Instead of leaving everything to section 230 and anti-trust law, however, I am insisting that the inherent right of the American people under 1A is to have all social media platforms brought under Federal regulation -- instead of the chaos and subversion which you seem to prefer.  I want to see the FCC given broader authority to prevent systematic violations of 1A by social media platforms.  Otherwise 1A is a dead letter.  David L. Hudson, Jr., “In the Age of Social Media, Expand the Reach of the First Amendment,” Human Rights Magazine 43/4 (Oct 20, 2018), of the American Bar Association, online at  https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/ .

Senator Ellzabeth Warren prefers to break up the social media platforms or seek anti-trust legislation.  I do not believe that her proposals will be effective.  We are already well along the path to total domination by social media companies, if only due to the massive data they have acquired about all of us, and due to their clever use of algorithms.  They already own us, Chum.  And it sounds like your bleatings will only lead us directly into an ironclad "1984" scenario.

tl;dr: I encourage you to pick one law you feel is responsible and using the wording of that law, demonstrate how it is relevant to your concern.

Long version:

Okay so the good news is you aren't conflating public airwaves with internet transport. That feels like progress.

However, I'm fairly sure what you've done above is taken something you're unhappy about (some things you like aren't getting amplified the way you want) and you grabbed all kinds of different things that you feel (or were told) are somehow responsible - and you frankenstein'd it all together.  The bad news is this. What you have here doesn't reflect how laws work.

Let's take the First Amendment. On speech, it is just this.  Gov shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Likewise, Section 230 is what it is. It protects your ability to leave comments up on your site or take them down as you see fit. That's all.

Section 230 allowed the internet to free your voice and mine - from being trapped behind gatekeeping media - into an open space that we all can visit and put up sites where we can say what we want (or not say what we don't want). Section 230 allows us to live in what is arguably the least censorious period in human history.

So back to how this stuff does work. If we want some law to help us, we figure out which law is relevant and then study it to see if it's applicable to our situation. In the case of the 1A, we check to see if an actual US Government or actual State Government entity is abridging our speech.  If none are, then this would not be a 1A issue - in which case the 1A would not be relevant to our concern (and citing it can't be helpful to our cause).

Again, we understand the law in isolation to see if it is relevant to our concern. We discuss the law by itself to make our case.

The alternative, mashing laws and crap we don't like into an nonsensical word salad, that's just lashing out.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Chum

[MiserereNobis]

On 5/11/2021 at 10:18 AM, jkwilliams said:

Yup. Then-Senator Gore authored and introduced the bill in Congress that broadened ARPANET out of defense-specific use and into what became the Internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_Act_of_1991

I first got on the internet in 1989 as a 13 year old playing an LPMUD in my town's university computer labs. Ah, the good ol' days of text-based multi-user fantasy role playing games. It definitely was not defense-specific, ha.

Anyone play muds back in the day? As a junior in high school I started my own (called Styx) that had a nearly 20 year run before it shut down.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Chum said:

tl;dr: I encourage you to pick one law you feel is responsible and using the wording of that law, demonstrate how it is relevant to your concern.

Long version:

Okay so the good news is you aren't conflating public airwaves with internet transport. That feels like progress.

However, I'm fairly sure what you've done above is taken something you're unhappy about (some things you like aren't getting amplified the way you want) and you grabbed all kinds of different things that you feel (or were told) are somehow responsible - and you frankenstein'd it all together.  The bad news is this. What you have here doesn't reflect how laws work.

Let's take the First Amendment. On speech, it is just this.  Gov shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Likewise, Section 230 is what it is. It protects your ability to leave comments up on your site or take them down as you see fit. That's all.

Section 230 allowed the internet to free your voice and mine - from being trapped behind gatekeeping media - into an open space that we all can visit and put up sites where we can say what we want (or not say what we don't want). Section 230 allows us to live in what is arguably the least censorious period in human history.

So back to how this stuff does work. If we want some law to help us, we figure out which law is relevant and then study it to see if it's applicable to our situation. In the case of the 1A, we check to see if an actual US Government or actual State Government entity is abridging our speech.  If none are, then this would not be a 1A issue - in which case the 1A would not be relevant to our concern (and citing it can't be helpful to our cause).

Again, we understand the law in isolation to see if it is relevant to our concern. We discuss the law by itself to make our case.

The alternative, mashing laws and crap we don't like into an nonsensical word salad, that's just lashing out.

That is the standard argument of the corporatist elite who run the USA and want to rule the world.  For them it is all about control and special privilege, never acknowledging the rights of the people.  The oligarchs or plutocrats want to have no barriers to their freewheeling use of their technologies, not here, and not in Russia.  They censor whomever they want and there is no appeal.  Welcome to your pure Orwellian nightmare.  1A?  Cute, but old fashioned. 

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

Did Fiona Givens leave the Maxwell Institute for political reasons?

Her stated reason was to "focus on my own study, writing and other personal endeavors."   My own theory is that she wants to do more research on the history of the internet and the impact of Al Gore on environmental issues.    

Edit:  Added the smiley face, just in case someone thinks I'm serious.  

Edited May 12, 2021 by InCognitus

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is the standard argument of the corporatist elite who run the USA and want to rule the world.  For them it is all about control and special privilege, never acknowledging the rights of the people. 

The oligarchs or plutocrats want to have no barriers to their freewheeling use of their technologies, not here, and not in Russia.  They censor whomever they want and there is no appeal. 

Welcome to your pure Orwellian nightmare.  1A?  Cute, but old fashioned

This doesn't really respond to anything I said. And like previous posts, it's kind of hard to know what to do with it.

Is there one specific concern you want to address? We could dig into one thing that's distressing you, consider what might be potential solutions to that thing.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Chum
paid better attention this time

[Islander]

On 5/9/2021 at 12:07 PM, smac97 said:

But a Church meeting nonetheless.

My recollection is that Sis. Givens does not live in New York.  If so, she was an out-of-stake person invited to address members of the Church in Harlem during a church meeting, something that typically requires approval from the stake president.  From Section 38.8.20 of the Handbook:

So it seems like firesides involving out-of-stake speakers need to be approved by the local leader, who "carefully screens" the guest speaker to ensure that, inter alia, "{t]he presentation in in harmony with Church doctrine."

Using a church meeting to teach other members of the Church that Heavenly Mother was the "pillar of light" during the First Vision, and that She is the Holy Spirit seems to be a bit problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate your temperance in your assessment. When it comes to the things of God I do not mince words. Just this past Sunday I got an earful of "heavenly mother' heretical speculation by two speakers during Sacrament with not one peep from the Bishopric. It has come to be rather normal, appalling if you ask me, that people stand on the pulpit and spew with abandon all kinds of falsehoods without correction. Only in one occasion, some 20 years ago, in my former ward in CA a member of the Bishopric addressed a theologically erroneous statement by a Sacrament speaker. That took courage, it was difficult but necessary.

I suggest that under the guise of "scholarship" and shielded by tenure and political considerations, certain people push the theological envelop beyond what has been sanctioned by the Lord in the scriptures or has been revealed in this dispensation which is the doctrinal foundation in which we stand.

All those heretical musings are just an expression of our fallenness. For some is the lust of the flesh, for others the lust of the eyes and yet, for others, the pride of life. Self-agrandizing and notoriety are deadly poisons, in my opinion.

 

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Islander said:

I appreciate your temperance in your assessment. When it comes to the things of God I do not mince words. Just this past Sunday I got an earful of "heavenly mother' heretical speculation by two speakers during Sacrament with not one peep from the Bishopric. It has come to be rather normal, appalling if you ask me, that people stand on the pulpit and spew with abandon all kinds of falsehoods without correction. Only in one occasion, some 20 years ago, in my former ward in CA a member of the Bishopric addressed a theologically erroneous statement by a Sacrament speaker. That took courage, it was difficult but necessary.

I suggest that under the guise of "scholarship" and shielded by tenure and political considerations, certain people push the theological envelop beyond what has been sanctioned by the Lord in the scriptures or has been revealed in this dispensation which is the doctrinal foundation in which we stand.

All those heretical musings are just an expression of our fallenness. For some is the lust of the flesh, for others the lust of the eyes and yet, for others, the pride of life. Self-agrandizing and notoriety are deadly poisons, in my opinion.

 

You must work for the military, that is clear, concise and makes zero sense whatsoever

[Islander]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

You must work for the military, that is clear, concise and makes zero sense whatsoever

I guess your handling of the English language is not up to par. You seem to struggle with simple sentence construction and the linguistic nuances of vernacular English evade you.

I have posted on the forum for a nearly a year now. Some agree, some disagree but no one, (until you came around and this is the second time) who claim that they did not understand what I say.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Islander said:

I guess your handling of the English language is not up to par. You seem to struggle with simple sentence construction and the linguistic nuances of vernacular English evade you.

I have posted on the forum for a nearly a year now. Some agree, some disagree but no one, (until you came around and this is the second time) who claim that they did not understand what I say.

even worse. I'll break it down for you

Why did you put quote signs around Heavenly Mother? does she not exist?

"I suggest that under the guise of "scholarship" and shielded by tenure and political considerations, certain people push the theological envelop beyond what has been sanctioned by the Lord in the scriptures or has been revealed in this dispensation which is the doctrinal foundation in which we stand."

Why do you put scholarship in quotations? Are you still talking about Heavenly Mother or is this your own nonsense? I have never heard Heavenly Mother turned into a political discussion. In normal society people stick to the topic at hand they don't talk about two entirely different subjects without some kind of a logical bridge. You didn't do that. The Lord has never said we shouldn't talk about Heavenly Mother, so why do you say that people push the envelope? it's impossible to cross the line if there are none. Please point out this sanctioning in the scriptures.

"All those heretical musings are just an expression of our fallenness. For some is the lust of the flesh, for others the lust of the eyes and yet, for others, the pride of life. Self-agrandizing and notoriety are deadly poisons, in my opinion."

So now it gets real weird. If these "heretical musings" are just "expressions of our fallenness, then why condemn it? if people can't help it then why fight that battle. I don't want to know what you mean by "lusts of the flesh" when talking about the Heavenly Mother. How on earth could lusts of the flesh even be remotely related to "heretical musings"? Bizarre. Your opinion is lame.

[Islander]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

even worse. I'll break it down for you

Why did you put quote signs around Heavenly Mother? does she not exist?

"I suggest that under the guise of "scholarship" and shielded by tenure and political considerations, certain people push the theological envelop beyond what has been sanctioned by the Lord in the scriptures or has been revealed in this dispensation which is the doctrinal foundation in which we stand."

Why do you put scholarship in quotations? Are you still talking about Heavenly Mother or is this your own nonsense? I have never heard Heavenly Mother turned into a political discussion. In normal society people stick to the topic at hand they don't talk about two entirely different subjects without some kind of a logical bridge. You didn't do that. The Lord has never said we shouldn't talk about Heavenly Mother, so why do you say that people push the envelope? it's impossible to cross the line if there are none. Please point out this sanctioning in the scriptures.

"All those heretical musings are just an expression of our fallenness. For some is the lust of the flesh, for others the lust of the eyes and yet, for others, the pride of life. Self-agrandizing and notoriety are deadly poisons, in my opinion."

So now it gets real weird. If these "heretical musings" are just "expressions of our fallenness, then why condemn it? if people can't help it then why fight that battle. I don't want to know what you mean by "lusts of the flesh" when talking about the Heavenly Mother. How on earth could lusts of the flesh even be remotely related to "heretical musings"? Bizarre. Your opinion is lame.

You should read the OP instead of trolling me and THEN you would be abreast of what this exchange is about. As far as your doctrinal illiteracy is concerned, there is nothing I can do about it. Sorry.

Poster removed for ongoing insults.

 

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, Islander said:

You should read the OP instead of trolling me and THEN you would be abreast of what this exchange is about. As far as your doctrinal illiteracy is concerned, there is nothing I can do about it. Sorry.

 

The OP talks about the Heavenly Mother and now you are accusing me of trolling you? maybe you should read the OP. You can't stand by any of your assertions, that's fine, bizarre, but it is what it is I guess. What were you saying about english? lame

Edited May 13, 2021 by Duncan