mordorbund
-
Posts
6430 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by mordorbund
-
-
-
-
4 hours ago, Carborendum said:
I've formally made a declaration in my house. Strider is officially an outdoor cat. He has chewed through several pieces of electronics. I had no idea until this morning that the damage was perpetrated by the feline. I thought it got caught in the vacuum cleaner or something.
Rumor has it @Carborendumswitched to a wireless mouse after he absentmindedly chewed through the old mouse’s cord.
- zil2 and askandanswer
-
2
-
12 hours ago, mirkwood said:
No live stream. Subject to GRAMA etc.
@Backroads @Vort Would that alleviate your concerns if it wasn't a live feed? The video could be deleted after 4 years (not kept "forever" but long enough to see if there was a past history) and perhaps stored on local servers. It sounds like you've got a system for the hall cameras, would that be sufficient here too? Or are there problems with that system too?
This should also work for the parents requesting a live feed. The advantage of a live feed is that the teacher will know that at any time a parent can suddenly pop online and see what is being taught and how the class is disciplined. If there is a concern then they can request the recorded day or week and the district will have the chance to scrub the kid's faces first (or whatever else needs to happen to grant child anonymity -- but they cannot allow for clipping out segments of the video because that would just feed into the concerns).
-
4 hours ago, mirkwood said:
It is activated during any public contact. I turn it off the rest of the time.
Is it livestreamed for any curious looky-loo or crusader? Or is the data only retrieved for certain requests? (narrow FOIA, prosecuting/defense attorneys, professional audits/reviews)?
-
13 hours ago, Carborendum said:On 7/9/2023 at 12:32 PM, Aquatic Contraption said:
HOWEVER, I am technically a member of the LGBTQIA+ cohort.
I'm not sure what you mean by "technically" and "member". Please expound.
13 hours ago, Vort said:So, apparently, is literally everyone else, given the ever-increasing number of letters and the convenient plus sign.
I have to admit, I struggle to understand where AC is coming from because the acronym is too inclusive. Stake leadership could be RS, so maybe L or G (or even B -- no offense if L or G). Or maybe even T if not transitioned. Or one of the 2 Q's (have we settled on whether that's "Queer" or "Questioning"? I've seen it both ways). AC didn't choose this life, so maybe AC was forced into A-ship when a child came out as LGBTI? Probably not I though since it hasn't come up in the thread yet (but here we are threadjacking on the length of the acronym so AC could be thread-jacking to focus on I).
AC, are you comfortable being more specific, or would you prefer that we place all the letters in Schroedinger's box, give it a firm shake, and pull out letters as you post in the forums?
- Carborendum and Vort
-
1
-
1
-
12 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Result after two weeks:
1) He claws at the post only when I scratch it. As soon as I remove my hand from the post, he stops scratching.
2) He continues to claw people, furniture, and he took down the family room curtain. I have to re-mount the rod supports.Maybe you should stop clawing people, furniture and curtains and he’ll stop there too.
- zil2 and Carborendum
-
2
-
14 hours ago, Carborendum said:
What outrage/facts specifically?
- Climate change will cause us all to be 6 ft below water by 2017? Oh, then 2020, then 2023, then 2035... That fact?
- The United States can handle the millions of illegal immigrants coming across the border, and then trying to get rid of them from sanctuary states and cities? That fact?
- That AK-47s are freely available to anyone who goes into a gun shop? That fact?
- That racism is so prevalent that people have to fabricate race-based attacks to keep the fear alive? That fact?
- More guns = more gun crime? That fact?
- That men can menstruate and even have children?
- That we can no longer have any legal definitions of men and women? That fact?
- That there is no big push to trans our children? (Here is the recent NEA Summer reading list - It includes Gender Queer, and it references another book: All Boys Aren't Blue). Yup, absolutely true. No agenda there. I mean, it's not like the NEA has much pull in public schools or anything.
-
7 hours ago, zil2 said:
And perhaps it is that this (Spirit-led discussion) is more likely to encourage the home-centered, Church-supported learning and worship we're supposed to be engaging in.
Release the Sunday School teachers and appoint a different teacher every week. On the spot. Oh they’ll study at home all right.
….
Attendance might drop a bit
-
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:
The funny thing about the "star" system is that we never know what the top is anymore.
Old-timers like me remember when four stars was the top.
Then at some point five stars were introduced while four stars never really disappeared.
Now IMDB has a 10 star system.
-
Omni 1:12-13
QuoteBehold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning aMosiah, who was made king over the bland of Zarahemla; for behold, he being cwarned of the Lord that he should dflee out of the eland of fNephi, and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also gdepart out of the land with him, into the wilderness—
13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord;
And then later Zeniff returns (Mosiah 9) "having had a knowledge of the land of Nephi, or of the land of our fathers’ first inheritance". He was familiar with the land of Nephi because he was "sent as a spy among the Lamanites". Eventually he and his people settled in the city of Lehi-Nephi. The Nephite people that Mosiah (1) fled seem to have disappeared completely from the land.
- askandanswer, zil2, Carborendum and 1 other
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, LDSGator said:
It’s no crime to be ignorant of what’s going on in the world, but oh my.
-
1) I’m not a news junkie so I genuinely don’t know, has something happened recently to bring this back to the limelight? I thought the Uyghur issue cycled through 3 years ago. Was he also asked about his stance on Tibet?
2) When I first heard the term I was shocked that media so brazenly used the racist word. But then again I’m not running for public office.
3)
44 minutes ago, LDSGator said:He’s also a thorn in the side of DeSantis, especially on the recent “Don’t Say Gay” bill. So you are defending someone who you’d disagree with on 75% of the issues.
Give us the 75 instead of the 25 and we’ll roll our eyes and say, “what a maroon”.
-
On 6/23/2023 at 2:12 PM, Carborendum said:
The storyteller then decides to help. He goes up to a starfish with the intention of helping more starfish. As he goes to pick one up, the woman grabs it first and throws it in the ocean. This repeats a couple of times before the storyteller decides that he needs to cover a different area because he didn't want to get in the woman's way.
I think the lesson for the storyteller here folds right into the next part of the story. From a utilitarian perspective he should find a niche that is unfilled. He can move on to a different area, or he can try working parallel to the original starfisher, or perhaps try talking to the starfisher for direction.
On 6/23/2023 at 2:12 PM, Carborendum said:Then he does an experiment. He walks away from the sea. He watches the starfish. Each and every one of them gets taken out to the sea by some highly unusual way.
Was the woman at the beginning making a difference?
No, I guess she really wasn't making a difference. But if she's commanded to throw starfish in the sea then she better do it.
On 6/23/2023 at 2:12 PM, Carborendum said:2nd Variant:
As he watches from a distance he sees no more miraculous saves. So, he goes back to work trying to save the starfish. As he does so, more miraculous saves prevent him from actually being effective. But when he goes to sit on the sidelines again, the miracles cease yet again.
This continues for several cycles. Would it be fair to say that even when he, himself, does nothing to save the starfish directly, that by simply trying (and absolutely not succeeding) he is still making a difference?
Yes. I would also argue that he is succeeding with his primary goal of making a difference, even if he isn't the one getting the credit and it isn't playing out according to his plan. He did a test and saw that there is a measurable difference between when he tries and when he doesn't. Just because he doesn't know the causal mechanism doesn't mean it's not actually there and effective. The closest corollary I've found in my life is the value of "just being there". There is little foreseeable utility to it and yet it is tremendously needed.
- Carborendum, zil2 and Vort
-
3
-
-
On 6/18/2023 at 11:08 PM, Backroads said:
Today, one of my wigglier CTR 5-year-olds inexplicably untied his shoes to show his friend, started licking the shoelaces, and then asked me to tie them.
Children often want to do "big boy" things but are still developing the necessary skills to see it through. It's a balance for adults to let them struggle for the long-term success vs doing it for them and expediting the short-term. In this case I think I would have finished what he started and eaten the shoe strings.
-
My youngest woke me in the morning and handed me an Oreo cookie with a bite out of it… and the cream filling licked out.
-
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:
Morderbund quoted an item from Bishop Partridge, without highlighting the rest of the article, nor using the historical context of other areas which happened in relation to it, which I tried to show and address from the historical context but was ignored.
I would say that's an inaccurate summary of my posts in this thread. Perhaps I'm not communicating clearly enough.
@JohnsonJonesCould you summarize my main points without trying to rebut them. I want to make sure we understand each other. Once you do that I'll try to summarize your main points witout rebuttal.
-
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
Too late now. I don't think any deleted OP has ever garnered this much attention.
Plus I gave it a trophy. Can't go back now.
-
13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
There are other sources online that go into more detail on how the Church retained the land (that's why I originally posted the first article where you didn't see how it was granted out...it was to point out that the land the Church owned was NOT actually given, it was deeded for use, but it was CHURCH owned still. That did NOT mean it was left fallow and undeveloped though. It is why I highlighted that it was STILL ALL Church owned.
You've made the claim that the Church retained ownership of lands allotted through consecration and even reclaimed them after the nominal owner apostatized. I have a reliable document that says the actual deed was given and the Church would not be able to do that. Additionally, when I did research on this I saw real, legally-binding deeds signed over and given out. The evidence I've seen looks like what you're describing was not practiced. But you claim it again. So I'm thinking the claim must be coming from somewhere. Maybe Bishop Partridge didn't follow the revelations initially and this was done for a limited time. Or maybe the practice was more wide-spread in the pioneer era and I just haven't come across it yet. I've done some research on my own and I'm not seeing what you've claimed. I ask you for sources so I can learn more about this practice. So far, I'm not seeing what you are and I'm starting to think that you've read into the documents something that isn't there.
I've re-read the portion you quoted and I still don't see how the land was granted out but ownership retained by the Church. That first year the land wasn't granted out (except on a limited basis to Church leadership). The second year Brigham Young himself gave receipts along with land allotments and later signed into law that these surveyed lands could be bought, sold, exchanged and so on because the owners actually owned them. Can you show me in the paragraph you've quoted where it says the Church owned the land that it deeded out?
13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:I find it interesting though how far RIGHT much of the church membership n the United States (more of a US problem than what I see internationally, and even more so centered on the Arizona, Utah and Idaho areas, though there are plenty outside those states as well) has gotten to the point that they cannot actually believe what older Saints were taught or what the thought processes were relating to more socialistic policies in the early Church. If we want to have open minds in humility, I think many in the Church lack that and thus lack the ability to learn about some of these facets of the earlier church. They can't believe what actually happened!
I don't know how I'm supposed to assume this isn't about me since I'm the only one pushing back on your narrative right now (and I've admitted my relative youth). I have a difficult time believing what actually happened if what actually happened was never recorded and left no evidence behind. If you want to discuss the similarities and differences between the United Orders and Communism we can work our way to that. Right now I'm narrowly focused on the Church keeping land it deeded out.
-
9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
Have you seen the Dead Ale Wives video?
Not yet. I'll look it up later.
-
2 hours ago, Ironhold said:
Or we have the most recent Dungeons & Dragons movie -
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl1879410177/?ref_=bo_yld_table_12
I've seen a $150 million budget listed. So that leaves Entertainment One, Hasbro, and Paramount $143,884,853 in the hole. By all rights, this should put it on Wikipedia's list of biggest box office bombs, but it would appear that the list has not been updated since the end of last year.
Any DnD-based film faces an uphill battle so long as Dark Dungeons remains in the public conscience.
-
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
Of note, these parcels...they weren't sold off from the Church for many years. IT DID cause problems when Brigham Young died (which would make for an extremely LONG post). To organize these lands measured off for him, they were issued a deed. These lands did NOT lie fallow, they did NOT remain undeveloped. They WERE seen, eventually, as legal deeds for people, some of whom kept the lands and perhaps some of their ancestors actually OWN the land today. This, of course, after they were surveyed, and normally after Brighams Death.
The article doesn't say anything about Brigham's death and the challenges that ensued. It does say that these parcels were surveyed within a month of Young's quote about not buying land and only allotting what a person can reasonably farm. Only a year after that he seems to have changed his position because Brigham Young and Heber Kimball were meting out 1 1/4 acre lots by September of 1848, with larger allotments to follow (up to 10 acres). "Each man's receipt for his land became his deed for the purpose of maintaining his claim and conveyance of the land in the future." They didn't give out proper deeds because the Federal govenment's land system didn't include this new frontier. Brigham was installing a temporary system that could easily be grandfathered in when the Federal system caught up.
It looks more like the first year was a survival year where very little land was issued so there's little room for claiming that the land was deeded then taken back. In the years following, the allotment receipts were treated like deeds, and the Provisional government (and then the Territorial government) of 1850-onward allowed for the Surveyor General to issue "certificates ... considered proof of legal possession for 'the amount of land therein described.'" And these certificates could be sold or transferred. "[T]he inhabitants of said City, . . . shall have power ... in all actions whatsoever, to purchase, receive, and hold property, real and personal, in said City; ... to sell, lease, convey, or dispose of property, real and personal, for the benefit of said City; to improve and protect such property, and to do all other things in relation thereto, as natural persons."
The Church/government retained rights over the water and timber as a natural monopoly. Rather than conjure up a civics course I'll point out that even in this instance, these are not deeded over by the Church then reclaimed.
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:With short searches on it, here is an actual CHURCH source on this.
These are considered Religious Communism by many, though I know that term is probably not to many people's liking here.
This is shifting away from our core discussion of whether or not the Church retains ownership even when deeding property, but I want to point out that your link isn't the strong source you seem to think it is.
QuoteIn the vast majority of United Orders in Utah Territory, members contributed to a common fund, received capital stock and stock payouts, and limited their labor and commerce to the local order. Women generally shouldered the tasks of textile production, education, cooking, and medical and midwife care, while men labored on farming and infrastructure projects.4 But not all United Orders functioned the same way. In the “United Order of Enoch” in St. George, applicants signaled their covenant pledges by being rebaptized and pledging to abide by the order’s rules, and they elected a board of managers to direct the community’s various enterprises; in Brigham City, a board of managers largely extended the cooperative network to regular citizens. In Orderville and Price, members of the order aimed for complete communal living; the board of managers instituted a work schedule, assigned labor, and regulated meals and barter exchanges.5
Were all United Orders still Religious Communism when "not all ... functioned the same way"? Were these different Orders similar enough that they still qualified? Perhaps a better term may be Religious Co-op since "members contributed to a common fund [and] received capital stock". In some cases membership was "extended ... to regular citizens". I may have been too young during the cold war, but is that how Communism operated? My fellow factory workers could gather with our majority shares and say "We've produced a glut of shirt buttons, let's hold off until textiles have caught up. There is a need for belt buckles though. Let's retool for that." Is that how it operated? Even if they didn't have that much control, did they at least receive periodic stock payouts like in the United Order? Or was that yet another case of "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"?
- Carborendum, zil2, NeuroTypical and 1 other
-
4
Preparation in 2023
in Preparedness
Posted
Fixed that for you