tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger40735125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-69093804000179575402022-09-21T21:08:24.333-05:002022-09-21T21:08:24.333-05:00Thanks for the great input, Zosimus! Thanks for the great input, Zosimus! Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77494608430162285632022-06-26T00:11:03.392-05:002022-06-26T00:11:03.392-05:00No, I believe you intentionally disregard the low ...No, I believe you intentionally disregard the low probability of the NHM occurrence fitting the likely path of Lehi, because obviously you cannot begin to account for how a largely uneducated farmhand got such an obscure fact correct. You can play dismissive game all you like but it doesn't change probability. Try harder. Maybe dig out and dust off the Spaulding theory again. I hear that gets some traction now and again. Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1750772347611361242022-06-08T05:02:59.217-05:002022-06-08T05:02:59.217-05:00What "Leo" is ignoring here is the same ...What "Leo" is ignoring here is the same likely occurrence makes anywhere in Southern Arabia and the eastern coastline align with the appropiate location and time period.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70879172239809228202022-06-07T14:07:13.495-05:002022-06-07T14:07:13.495-05:00Leo - Asked and answered several times over. Try t...Leo - Asked and answered several times over. Try to keep up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-7307306015694830412022-05-28T17:53:45.923-05:002022-05-28T17:53:45.923-05:00It seems what "anonymous" is ignoring he...It seems what "anonymous" is ignoring here is the unlikely occurrence of the Book of Mormon accuracy hit with NHM fitting the appropriate location and time period, aligning also with the possible nearby location of Bountiful being the lush garden coastal area in Southern Oman, with a harbor fitting ship building requirements. I'm often skeptical for fun, but tell me how did Joseph Smith accidentally get these on target?Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58604562337174832632022-05-27T06:43:13.893-05:002022-05-27T06:43:13.893-05:00ebridge is one of the top rated Digital Agency in ...ebridge is one of the top rated Digital Agency in Pakistan<a href="https://www.ebridge.tech/" rel="nofollow"> Digital Agency in Pakistan </a>. They provide complete web design, development, SEO, and social media marketing services.Alihttps://www.ebridge.tech/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1012011230958023042022-05-26T23:56:08.403-05:002022-05-26T23:56:08.403-05:00If you want to rank at the top of search engines, ...If you want to rank at the top of search engines, you need enhance your <a href="https://www.lineheights.co.uk/blog/seo-basics-to-improve-your-websites-ranking" rel="nofollow"> Website SEO Basics </a>, which include specific content for your website, faster loading times, and quality backlinks, among other things. These tips can help you take your business to the next level and generate more money.Alexhttps://www.lineheights.co.uk/blog/seo-basics-to-improve-your-websites-rankingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46621459446417795942022-05-24T22:01:28.622-05:002022-05-24T22:01:28.622-05:00OK, I am guessing that you haven't spent much ...OK, I am guessing that you haven't spent much time in Beijing, Shanghai, Moscow, or Washington DC, so it may come as a surprise to you that companies that are close to government officials and do their bidding tend to have a cozy relationship that brings benefits to them in return. Shocking, I know, but it's actually the way the world has worked for centuries. Those close to and favored by royalty or big government tend to reap benefits that the rest of us don't get, and also may avoid problems that the rest of us face. It's usually good to be a favored buddy of the king. <br /><br />The consequences of non-compliance are probably primarily losing out on the benefits that come to those in the favored inside circle. Those benefits are often not visible, but not hard to figure out. They can range from an opportunity to influence policies, to have an inside track on upcoming changes that might affect one's business, added publicity and favor in the media, access to elite gatherings, sweet positions on boards or government councils, and a host of intangibles and some tangibles as well. Surprised? Of course, when a company irritates instead of ingratiates, more can happen than just missing out. One can suddenly face audits, regulatory pressures, bad publicity, pressure on business partners to turn away from you, increased taxes, and a host of other subtle or not-so-subtle punishments. But the fear of missing out on benefits is more than enough to motivate compliance. <br /><br />Google and other Silicon Valley companies like Apple have received massive aid just in the intellectual property area with the changes in our IP system over the past decade, including putting a Google attorney over the USPTO in the Obama era and PTAB judges from Apple that helped influence decisions that, surprisingly, favored Apple and others in Silicon Valley. <a href="https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2021/08/nsa-awards-secret-10-billion-contract-amazon/184390/" rel="nofollow">Amazon just got a $10 billion contract</a> from the government. <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/microsoft-cloud-revenue-boost-from-pentagon-5210670" rel="nofollow">Microsoft is gaining big bucks from the Pentagon now</a>. <br /><br />So when <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/07/15/the-white-house-is-working-with-facebook-to-take-down-problematic-posts-on-wuhan-coronavirus-n2592596" rel="nofollow">Facebook acts as a government censorship tool, as Jen Psaki admitted</a>, and when Facebook partnered with Fauci to protect Fauci's interests by censoring reports on the lab-leak theory, or when Facebook partnered with the establishment-infused Atlantic Council to advance their goals, was it just because Facebook was doing its best to make America better, or is there the possibility of benefit for Facebook or its leaders? Benefit for being a loyal supporter of the powerful -- how could it be any other way?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71930240510683952682022-05-20T10:19:56.109-05:002022-05-20T10:19:56.109-05:00https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Enterprise_Def...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Enterprise_Defense_InfrastructureAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29629551201312543872022-05-20T03:25:29.500-05:002022-05-20T03:25:29.500-05:00https://abcnews.go.com/Business/amazon-lost-10b-pe...https://abcnews.go.com/Business/amazon-lost-10b-pentagon-contract-trumps-personal-vendetta/story?id=67606505<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75236465727299728922022-05-18T01:28:28.182-05:002022-05-18T01:28:28.182-05:00Anon @2:24, do you have sources for the nonsense y...Anon @2:24, do you have sources for the nonsense you're spewing? I'm not attempting to censor, mind you, just curious where you hear such trash and why you believe it. Pony up with proof or delete your foolishness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22425823772643907812022-05-17T02:24:08.426-05:002022-05-17T02:24:08.426-05:00OK - Jeff Bezo's Amazon literally had is 10 Bi...OK - Jeff Bezo's Amazon literally had is 10 Billion dollar Pentagon contract take away from it and given to Microsoft because Trump did not what like Bezo's Washington Post was saying about Trump.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67787315412588708772022-05-16T17:35:27.823-05:002022-05-16T17:35:27.823-05:00Jeff, it would help if you would answer a couple o...Jeff, it would help if you would answer a couple of obvious questions raised by your statement that--<br /><br /><i>Technically, the censorship [in China] is not done personally by a government official tapping a delete key all day long, but could be described as the government "requesting" censorship by private companies who then politely choose to comply to receive the benefits of compliance and avoid the consequences of non-compliance.</i><br /><br />Can you enlighten us about just what <i>are</i> the "consequences of noncompliance" that Facebook and Twitter will suffer <i>here in the United States</i> if they don't censor what the government wishes it to censor? And can you explain why Gab and Parler <i>aren't</i> suffering those consequences for their noncompliance?<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12363775850972223522022-05-16T13:30:40.541-05:002022-05-16T13:30:40.541-05:00It is absoluting amazing to witness the human need...It is absoluting amazing to witness the human need to create bogeymen. We live in a time of unprecedented ability for the most common citizen to download a mass of information literally at their finger tips and even a random blogger can post their rants to anyone who will listen, even if the rant is about some imaginary bogeyman who is running around shutting everyone up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38715329263055822642022-05-16T06:58:24.872-05:002022-05-16T06:58:24.872-05:00OK, have you been to China by any chance? Do you a...OK, have you been to China by any chance? Do you also feel that they are free of government censorship? Nearly all educated Chinese people understand that censorship is pervasive and that it comes from the government. The know that if they say the wrong things online, their account might be frozen or their post deleted, or worse. They know that search results are censored and some topics blocked due to government censorship. They would laugh at you if you tried to tell them that the government's control of information is not censorship because the censored social media platforms like WeChat happen to be owned by private companies like Tencent (private as in not government owned, but also often "public" in the sense of being listed on a publicly traded stock market). Technically, the censorship is not done personally by a government official tapping a delete key all day long, but could be described as the government "requesting" censorship by private companies who then politely choose to comply to receive the benefits of compliance and avoid the consequences of non-compliance. But whatever the details of the mechanisms, it is government influence creating censorship of the major sources of information available to the people, which is predominantly via social media through Big Tech working hand-in-glove with government groups charged with eliminating "disinformation."<br /><br />I am genuinely puzzled by your claim that the censorship of the Hunter Biden stories, of people sharing adverse effect data about vaccines or other information that doesn't fit the government's narrative, and the deplatforming of unliked people and institutions posing political threats to the government is all "just private companies exercising their First Amendment right to choose for themselves what they will and will not publish." You seem to miss the fact that social media have become much like common carriers and aren't just choosing what content to publish, but are dominant platforms for communication. Working with the government to control what can and can't be said to advance the government's political agenda goes way beyond the first amendment rights of the companies. It's not as simple as you state. For some of the nuance and the role of Section 230, see <a href="https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/big-tech-and-the-whole-first-amendment" rel="nofollow">this article by the Federalist Society</a>.<br /><br /><br /> Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76699945228738770892022-05-15T23:35:43.283-05:002022-05-15T23:35:43.283-05:00I'm aware of all that stuff, Jeff. Why do you ...I'm aware of all that stuff, Jeff. Why do you keep bringing it up? None of it is government censorship. "Government censorship" is when the <i>government</i> censors something, or requires others to censor something. You still haven't given an example of that. You've given examples of private companies like Twitter using their First Amendment right to engage in censorship of their own platforms -- examples that are completely irrelevant to the question of <i>government</i> censorship.<br /><br />When the Nixon administration got a federal court to issue an injunction preventing the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, <i>that</i> was an example of government censorship.<br /><br />When the government <i>asks</i> Facebook to censor certain covid claims, and Facebook chooses to honor that request, it is <i>not<i> an example of government censorship. It's an example of a private company deciding that it considers a government request to be reasonable and worth honoring. As long as there's no coercion involved, it's not government censorship.<br /><br />This is not hard to understand.<br /><br />Wake me up when the Biden administration goes to court to get an injunction requiring Facebook to stop publishing something. <br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62405489842058760902022-05-15T22:46:03.920-05:002022-05-15T22:46:03.920-05:00What is disinformation? The standard seems to be i...What is disinformation? The standard seems to be information that the government doesn't like. Right before our recent presidential election, when the story about Hunter Biden's laptop came out, the media joined forces with intelligence agencies in the US government to declare that the account was "Russian disinformation" and then actively censored the story and anyone who tried to share it. A major US newspaper, the NY Post, was banned from Twitter and punished broadly on other social media, and many Americans were confident that the story was a nothing burger. Many months later, the New York Times quietly admitted that the story was real -- but without apologies. It was classic government censorship, working with the media to control what information we get, and you continue to excuse this abuse because the groups the government leans on for censorship in the end are corporations. But they are doing the government's bidding. Mark Zuckerberg, for example, said that Facebook censored the Hunter Biden story because of alerts from the intelligence community about the risk of a big Russian disinformation story that was about to interfere with the election. Social media colluding with the Deep State to withhold accurate information from the public. I'm sure you have an end-justifies-the-means explanation as to why that's a good thing, but it's still censorship and something we need to oppose.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42997552849296946312022-05-15T22:45:55.716-05:002022-05-15T22:45:55.716-05:00Sorry, OK, I've been away for a couple of week...Sorry, OK, I've been away for a couple of weeks without my computer and inadequate time or Internet access to do much with the portable device I brought. Just got yesterday. Since you are someone who I believe stays in touch with current events, you surprise me with your question. The calls for increased censorship are not coming from private companies acting on their own, but from the government in various ways. The most notable example in the past month may be the rather Orwellian creation of a Ministry of Truth, though branded as the "Disinformation Governing Board" created within the Department of Homeland Security. Did you not notice this? <br /><br />In the best Orwellian form possible, the board is being headed by a champion of censorship and pro-regime propaganda, Nina Jankowicz. Here is an excerpt from Lev Golinkin, "<a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/meet-the-head-of-bidens-new-disinformation-governing-board/" rel="nofollow">Meet the Head of Biden's New 'Disinformation Governing Board'</a>," <i>The Nation</i>, May 12, 2022:<br /><br /><i>Jankowicz’s experience as a disinformation warrior includes her work with StopFake, a US government-funded “anti-disinformation” organization founded in March 2014 and lauded as a model of how to combat Kremlin lies. Four years later, StopFake began aggressively whitewashing two Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups with a long track record of violence, including war crimes.<br /><br />Today, StopFake is an official Facebook fact-checking partner, which gives it the power to censor news, while Jankowicz is America’s disinformation czar. </i> <br /><br />This followed President Obama's speech at Stanford calling for more control of social media in the name of fighting "disinformation" -- a vague term that is widely used to mean information that someone in power doesn't like. <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-disinformation-czar-calls-on-twitter-to-allow-verified-users-to-edit-other-users-tweets/" rel="nofollow">Jankowicz is calling for verified Twitter users to be able to edit the Tweets of others</a> when they are deemed "misleading." <br /><br />As an ardent pro-Biden advocate, you may not be willing to admit what is easy even for many living in other nations to see: the American media and Big Tech are working closely with the Biden administration to further government agendas and censor things they don't like. <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for-facebook-to-censor-due-to-covid-19-misinformation/" rel="nofollow">The CDC, for example, has admitted that it is working with media groups to flag information for censorship.</a> Many things that were branded "disinformation" about COVID have turned out to have merit. Letting information be controlled by government agencies in bed with big pharma and others with huge financial interests is a form of censorship that can have serious adverse effects on the "science" that we are supposedly following and on the quality of information we get regarding our health. Suppressing free discourse and inquiry is anti-science and anti-American. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23180935811988474892022-05-15T17:45:02.984-05:002022-05-15T17:45:02.984-05:00OK - the answer is a resounding "NO!" Je...OK - the answer is a resounding "NO!" Jeff just presents the issues, wrings his hands, and walks away. As usual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-91277521781953196022022-05-13T21:27:57.430-05:002022-05-13T21:27:57.430-05:00This is very helpful. I just figure it out, thank ...This is very helpful. I just figure it out, thank you so much. This adds fuel to keep my faith burning 🔥❤️❤️❤️Nataliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15004387691485926809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76270584389214130912022-05-12T16:39:38.234-05:002022-05-12T16:39:38.234-05:00Yes, Steve, I agree that the kind of censorship di...Yes, Steve, I agree that the kind of censorship discussed in Jeff's post is "governments' willful prevention of factual information from being disseminated."<br /><br />And I ask again: can anyone provide an example of our own government currently engaging in such censorship? I'm not seeing this happening, but I'm open to looking at any evidence.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59225556575470232762022-05-12T15:57:10.360-05:002022-05-12T15:57:10.360-05:00I'd guess that the kinds of censorship that is...I'd guess that the kinds of censorship that is being discussed here is governments' willful prevention of factual information from being disseminated and probably not fictional literature that might have questionable moral relevance for the local community. Just because it is in print doesn't mean that it is fit for consumption.<br /><br />Local school districts and community libraries engage in censorship. They decide what books are appropriate for the community that they serve and they stock their shelves with such books and don't stock their shelves with books that they feel are inappropriate for the community.<br /><br />Steve<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58122843192398244572022-05-12T14:03:06.424-05:002022-05-12T14:03:06.424-05:00Anon 9:02, thanks for an example of genuine govern...Anon 9:02, thanks for an example of genuine government censorship, or at least potential censorship. <br /><br />For those who want to know: Anon 9:02's example is a <a href="https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/589667-school-board-member-who-called-for-burning-of/" rel="nofollow">school board in Virginia</a> that is now chaired by a guy who previously advocated book burning. (I'm calling it an example of "potential censorship" because, while the censorship seems pretty likely to happen, it hasn't happened yet.)<br /><br />For what it's worth, the book that seems to have provoked the new chairman's zeal is the YA (young adult) novel <i>33 Snowfish</i>. I've read this book, and it's a well written but extremely graphic story about homeless teenagers. It contains lots of profanity and a fair amount of drug use and prostitution. I personally think it's appropriate for, say, ages 15 and up, but I can definitely understand why more conservative parents would want it off the library shelves.<br /><br />There's also a question of just how public school book choices fit into the larger censorship debate, but I don't have time to get into that right now. Some other time, perhaps.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80249110259334449992022-05-12T13:19:15.192-05:002022-05-12T13:19:15.192-05:00Anon 8:56, instead of just pasting in a link to a ...Anon 8:56, instead of just pasting in a link to a big, sprawling site with dozens of articles comprising thousands and thousands of words, perhaps you could do us the courtesy of citing the actual evidence you found on that site? <br /><br />Can you give us an actual quote, or some other evidence, from the State Department's "Disarming Disinformation" site that shows the government is engaging in censorship? <br /><br />What I see is the government putting out its version of events, which I suppose one could call <i>propaganda</i>, but of course propaganda is not the same thing as censorship.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18289996606743591732022-05-12T09:02:06.790-05:002022-05-12T09:02:06.790-05:00How about this one?
https://thehill.com/changing-...How about this one?<br /><br />https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/589667-school-board-member-who-called-for-burning-of/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com