Picture of the author
Topic :
Is this value in opposition to Canonizer values
Thread Created at Jul 8th 2022, 2:53:19 pm | Started by Brent_Allsop
Number of Post in this thread: 25
Please Sign In to comment on this Thread
RQ replied 2 years ago (Aug 10th 2022, 12:41:17 pm)

OMG!!  Mr. Allsop's preoccupation (see below) here is to question the validity of camp support, while openly admitting to the dishonesty and hypocrisy of his feigned support for this camp.... and while advocating reckless disregard for accuracy and fairness in camps?   Do these people honestly expect to be taken seriously?   Is there no limit to the duplicity they will engage in their hidden agenda?

Maria-Fischerly replied 2 years ago (Aug 10th 2022, 4:00:29 am)

Nonsense.  I can only speak for myself but more than one of us use a vpn network system that centralizes remote traffic through a remote device and then assigns a random vpn network ip from among various participating services, for security.  So, if on occasion different ones of us are on via an ip that is the same as someone else has been on, that is entirely possible, and won't be consistent.  

This security is being used because, given the overtly obvious unethical conduct we have seen people associated with the canonizer involved in, not the least of which, being you, Brent,.... we absolutely don't trust you.

You WISH we were all the same person!  I'm sure you'd sleep better at night NOT knowing how large the group that is watching the shameful display of shoddy ethics going on here actually is becoming.... and not all that are watching are posting or registering.  

From me, that would be a hard "no" to meeting you on skype or elsewhere due to the lack of trust your conduct and what you advocate gives rise to.  

Given your avoidance of fair concerns raised here, I think others would agree that you don't even deserve a response to such theories due to your own selective topical avoidance.   

Brent_Allsop replied 2 years ago (Aug 10th 2022, 2:51:41 am)

Hi contributors to this camp,

 

One of the problems of social sites like this is sock puppets.  It’d be nice to have some proof that you guys are all real people.  There seems to be ever more evidence building that one or more of you might be the same person, such as multiple identities posting from the same IP address, and a growing set of other evidence.  This evidence is sufficient for some people to conclude you are all the same person, or at best someone posting on behalf of one person.

 

Eventually, we want to provide the ability for people to create custom canonizer algorithms for anyone to use which will only count the first vote of any such sock puppet identities, and ignore the rest.  Or in some cases, never count the votes of any cheaters, ever.  But until we have that for people to use, I’m sure people will be thinking that there is likely only one cheating person supporting some of these views?  At least until there is falsifying evidence, otherwise.

 

I try to be more skeptical and try hard to trust people.  But it would be nice if we could verify this trust.  So, I’m wondering if you guys have any ideas of how you could falsify the belief that one or more of you are the same person.  For example, one way would be for us to all git on a video call, and we all introduce ourselves, and our verifiable histories to each other in that video call.  Are all you guys up for anything like that?

 

 

RQ replied 2 years ago (Aug 9th 2022, 9:52:22 pm)

Nobody appears to be "off track" except the guy (Brent) who seems to apply that spin to avoid responding to directly relevant questions and issues that have come up in the natural flow of this discussion.  

The discussion, below, is quite telling when read in its full context.

Be that as it may, here now, is a Communication Camp that addresses brainstorming.

All visitors are encouraged to read this discussion (below) entirely through with related links to get the full contextual appreciation of this very important and revealing discussion.  

Brent_Allsop replied 2 years ago (Aug 9th 2022, 7:50:50 pm)

Not sure how we get so far off track of the topic at hand, which is how best to represent what we all believe.  I’ve proposed one possible way to represent things, with one super camp named “communication”, described below, then have the two competing camps, also described below.  It is my current plan to push that forward.  Would any of you guys object to having your camp moved into a supporting sub camp position of such a communication super camp?  Or do you have a better proposal to better represent what we all believe?

Maria-Fischerly replied 2 years ago (Aug 9th 2022, 10:28:49 am)

We have very good reason to believe that what you (Brent) were railing on (see your spin below) most certainly involved an accusation that someone indicated support for a camp dishonestly. 

Yes, it is also true that you made a very big deal of your accusation that that person "frustrated" something you wanted posted by objecting to it.   However, even this accusation is patently dishonest in the sense that it came only after you had used the very same "objection" technique to block things you didn't like or approve of in multiple instances.  Your patterns of dishonesty and duplicity are clear from your own personal conduct and the conduct you are so often associated with and endorse by silent acquiescence

Now you suggest, in a forum that purports (by your own claims) to be a credible approach to the "more accurate" measurement of consensus that out of "charity" to "help out" a point of view that you don't agree with, you will, and according to you, "should" indicate dishonestly that you support a camp.   

This renders non-credible the tally of support, it renders completely dishonest this public affirmation of values that you don't have, and it clearly demonstrates your representations to be willfully inaccurate and untrustworthy.  Your purported justification for this as "charitable helpfulness" is disgustingly inappropriate and inconsistent with the published goals and claims of the Canonizer.

Just as "mercy cannot rob justice" according to your own former faith (Mormonism) and your partner's current professed faith (Jim Bennett), similarly charity should not be inappropriately used as a justification for blatant misrepresentations whose meaningfulness are known by you to be relied upon by others to be accurate.   

That is completely NON credible and most certainly unethical, albeit entirely consistent with the conduct of the leadership of the Mormon Church, which culture you continue to endorse as a "Mormon-Atheist" and your partner, Jim Bennett defends as an apologist.   

Ethics, in the credible systems of philosophy that do not entirely defeat themselves with inconsistencies and contradictions, do not ebb and flow with arbitrary and completely inconsistent and self-serving duplicitous whims of charitable concern disingenuously and self servingly claimed. 

The justification you have offered is appalling.   The reasoning it is based on is shameful.  God help a city who elects a Mayor who would stand silently by in acquiescence to such a display. We are very interested in learning of Jim Bennett's position on this, the conduct, advocacy, and overt behavior of the senior and controlling stock-holder of the Canonizer system.

Furthermore, the outspoken disrespect for the absolutely legitimate veto by objection rights of an honest camp supporter of an amendment to a subsequently edited camp are dishonest, and offensively hypocritical, given that you have used them yourself, prior to your condemnation of another when they were legitimately used.  

Your consistent association with deceit, the re-writing of history to support and avoid accountability for deceit, and collaborative participation and accommodation of deceit is utterly shameful and the silence of your partner Jim Bennett on the reality of this conduct of yours, while he himself has been observed to also engaged in false and disingenuous spinning of things (some of which published on this very site) in order to justify completely illegitimate criticisms, stands as an indication of what the public can actually expect from the Canonizer and the spirit that guides it, until such time as the two of you outgrow such appalling ethics and acknowledge the reality of your own trampling of credible ethics and publicly resolve to change your course.

As to your condescending and pandering offer to remove your dishonest support from this camp "if we ask after learning of your defense" .... we will make no such request.   Rather we suggest to you that you make your own choice, based on your own ethics, and let that choice continue to stand as a testimony to the world, (like the Mormon Church's deliberate alteration of the printing plate from which the Book of Abraham was published to conform to their misrepresentation as to the meaningfulness of the characters in the document they were misrepresenting), as to your demonstrated ethics, values, and an example of the ethics, values, and credibility that you advocate for the Canonizer.  

Let it be known to the world that you endorse and stand for the same basic patterns and justification of willful misrepresentation of facts, that you know others to be counting on, which appalling ethics, as a pattern, have most certainly contributed to the loss of faith and breakdown of trust as clearly documented in the "Faith Crisis Report" that now makes clear to the world the reality of the social damages including suicide and social breakdown resulting from wholesale abandon of the foundations of good faith and trust.  

 In our view, you and Jim Bennett have blood on your hands for the defense, advocacy, and personal employment of the type of ethics that has destroyed lives, families, and contributes to the social breakdown of the very fabric of society.

How dare you dodge responsibility and accountability for your own choice in leaving dishonest support for this camp up to our request, and how dare you claim "charity" amidst your willful disrespect and disregard for the meaningfulness of trust and confidence in the lives of those whose investment in a social system that requires trust and confidence is trampled on and unraveled by those who advocate wholesale abandon of integrity as an acceptable way of life.

Shame on you.   Shame on the Canonizer.

We suggest to you, sir, that you make your own choice and own it as your own choice..... and then count on the respect or lack of respect that follows as part of that choice.

Yes, we fully expect you and your partner, Jim Bennett will see this as a "petty rant" .... given that you have clearly demonstrated that you believe accuracy in representations known to be relied upon by others to be an inconsequential social value not worthy of your attention or support.

Brent_Allsop updated 2 years ago (Aug 8th 2022, 11:28:27 pm)

Maria made this inaccurate claim:

“You have railed on someone else for indicating a support for a camp that you accused them of actually not supporting."

 

This is not what I was railing on.  This is quite a common charitable practice in Canonizer, when there is a known competing camp, to your point of view, to also support it, possibly to get it started, doing the best you can to describe their competing view, in the hopes that someone who does support that view will step up and improve and support it.  It is also charitable to do this, even if only temporarily, as it increases the canonized score.

 

The win/win goal here, is always to find out what everyone wants to say, exactly as they may want to say it.  Everyone doing anything they can to push all of that forward for all sides, so we can know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone currently believes.

 

What I did rail on is when they used that support to try to hold the camp hostage, preventing any changes I wanted to make, until I allow changes to my camp which I didn’t want it to say.  Trying to frustrate what others want like that is what I see as the one true evil, deserving of railing.  It has always been my intention to, once we have all agreed on the best way to represent all of our views, I will only support my camp.  And if we can come up with a consensus description we all agree on, (as Maria seemed to suggest might be possible when she said: “I don't find anything in those statements that suggests a change to be warranted in this statement.”) then there will be no need for me to remove my support, right?

If, after knowing all this, you still want me to remove my probably temporary support now (which will decrease the amount of support for you camp), just let me know, and I will remove it.

Katrina replied 2 years ago (Aug 8th 2022, 11:39:32 am)

Can't say I disagree with Rodge and Maria on this.  This is more about honesty than communication.  Is Brent seriously advocating against honesty in brainstorming.  That is amazing!   And I agree with the other comment too.... it would be real interesting to see how Jim Bennett (who has made the Canonizer largely a vehicle for promoting and defending Mormonism) weighs in on Brent's overt display of dishonest support for this camp, while advocating dishonesty in brainstorming.  

Do these guys hope the Canonizer will be taken seriously?  Wouldn't that require credibility?  Or is some other Mormon agenda the real goal?

Rodge replied 2 years ago (Aug 8th 2022, 11:08:02 am)

Gonna have to agree with Maria on this one.  If Brent is sincere, he should hold himself to the standards he applies to others to show good faith.  Or at least explain why not.  Duplicity does not inspire confidence and trust.  It smacks of hidden agendas

Maria-Fischerly replied 2 years ago (Aug 7th 2022, 11:32:28 pm)

From my point of view, I think we should deal with first things first, in this communication effort and not skip steps.   Skipping steps seems manipulative and not good faith communication.   The fist step is Brent's "communication" that he indicated support for this camp, which he has later made very clear that he does not.   So, that should be cleared up before we move on to the other topics Brent has brought up.   Trust is best maintained without manipulative avoidance of what one wants to avoid, while pursuing communication about what they have a stake in.   That shows disrespect for other's "stake" in the conversation and the fairness and legitimacy of the communication effort.  It is topical avoidance, and contrary to acceptable standards of mutual respect, in our view, contrary to an important standard of mutual respect.   

So, first things first, Brent.   You have railed on someone else for indicating a support for a camp that you accused them of actually not supporting.  You made a huge deal out of it.   Now, you have indicated that you support this camp, and after that, have made it very clear that you do not.   So, you need to fix that.   We welcome you to a discussion of what you might support, but not before you address the dishonesty and hypocrisy of your indication of support for this camp.   Remove your disingenuous support for this camp to proceed in good faith with the communication process of what you do support.   That is my position, and I don't think others should allow you to skip the discipline of dealing in communication with everything that is important in the order that it arises, unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise.   Certainly, selective avoidance (topical shunning) should not be accommodated.

Show some respect, to get mutual respect, sir!