Rocky

Okay, you don't like me. I accept that. Why, again, would you EXPECT (even if not demanding) me to do anything other than decline to respond to your questions? How does your insulting commenting pose anything that a reasonable person would expect me to respond to? Put another way, why do you think it is acceptable for you to hijack my thread?

Gosh, who would guess that wishing someone well could warrant such a response?

Gosh, I hope you're mood lifts soon.

Did YOU initiate this thread?

Again, who died and made you god? Put another way, what makes you think I am required to comply with your demands?

Your private interpretation of what I wrote about the cult facts website. When you write "where you like to label..." what Chockfull claims are, without making clear how/why s/he characterizes said claims as facts...," action(s) are most probably projection. I acknowledge that by directly pointing out what you said is dubious, I am inviting you, unfortunately not to a discussion of disagreement but to most likely inviting you to defend your claims. That's, to me, unfortunate. What I'm NOT doing, is characterizing YOU. And I'm NOT prescribing what I believe you SHOULD do... about anything. You are who and what you are and what you want to be. IF I were to invite you to discuss particular disagreement about it, I would ask you to define the parameters of this phenomenon you claim is FACT. Is it solely that some entity (could be human intelligence or artificial intelligence) has a source outside of itself to point to as a source? Or is it important for the source to be determined as authoritative?

Wow. "Sounds like you have some issues to sort through." How is that NOT a demonstration of projection? "I’m not arguing with you about your delusions." Oh, really? MY delusions? "Cult facts is a site about cults that contains footnotes, bibliographical info, and links to sources" Have you ever taken any courses or done any reading on the subject of logic, logical fallacies, or critical thinking/analysis? This might be a good time to start doing so. So, any presentation of claims, as long as neatly formatted and accompanied by "any ol' someone's written statement (footnotes, bibliography, etc.) attesting to the veracity of those claims" automatically qualifies that presentation as factual? Methinks thou doth protest too much.

And speaking of "Compared to What?" News today that Les McCann, jazz musician whose sole hit was thus titled, passed today at age 88.

As compared to what? The landscape on both sides of the road seems lush with mature trees.

Facts according to whom? Just because YOU claim something is a fact? As the saying goes, who died and made you God?

I would hope that freedom you enjoy and for which you are thankful extends to having no care for whether such people agree or disagree with you or see things the same way you do. THAT would be a freedom worth rejoicing about.

Not only that but also Harumph!

I find it interesting you would characterize the AI claim that way. It didn't claim "50 of the Way's past leaders coerced people..." that's what not it claimed. It claimed conspiracy. Conspiracy is a very specific word, the meaning of which is NOT encompassed by how you apparently paraphrased it. Therefore, I AM saying, your paraphrase thereof, or characterization is NOT what the AI alleged. As far as "sex outside of marriage..." consider there are approx 8 BILLION people alive on Earth at this time. Sex is universal. Pretty much everybody does it. As to your effort to pigeon-hole me into "debating" or even answering the question the way you phrased it, I am not interested and will not do so. As to the old Wierwille tactic of answering a question with a question, in this case, I explained to you why I will not "debate" the question as you asked it. Have a nice day, and a Happy New Year.

What makes you think I need to convince you on whether or not to take my words seriously or literally? I write what I write. You read what you read. You're not in my head, you're in YOUR head. I'm not concerned with whether you believe me or not; whether you agree with me or not. I'm not interested in controlling you or your perceptions. Take what I write and either accept it or not. I don't care what you decide about it. If you disregard my words, you will neither be the first nor the last person on Earth to do so.

Are you asking me to justify to you how I view that site? Why would you need me to do that? Fine, you believe/view it differently than me. I don't see that as a problem to be overcome. I don't need you to agree with me.

Why would it bother me? AI wouldn't be familiar with how wayfers talk. My favorites? What on Earth are you talking about. I am convinced the website was built by an AI. There was far more work that went into the site than any person or small group could have done. And a large group would not have been able to do it either. I also have no problem with you viewing the website differently than I do.

You and me (and many others who have survived to become "seniors") both. we[b] boast in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we[c] also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. From Romans 5, NIV.

I'm thankful for the POV you share on your blog, that being, for the most part, you share YOUR experience and YOUR observations on TWI.

Yet cultfacts website notably differs from GSC. The cultfacts AI generated website doesn't have ANY first person accounts of the things it claims, does it? We tell the truth here? For the most part, hopefully, YES. Most significantly, when a person tells her or his first person account, they aren't slandering twi, per se. They are telling THEIR OWN truth.

I see them as exaggeration. Your dichotomy, IMO, doesn't represent the entire universe of possibilities. That a "footnoted" source isn't a bona fide truth, in some cases (e.g. making a claim it says is fact, but not necessarily from a credible source. If a footnoted source references an actual legal/judicial ruling, it can reasonably be inferred to be factual) If a claim is just "my AI found it in writing on line somewhere" it's not nearly as credible. That's how I, after mulling it over for a month or so, can reasonably infer some of the claims are exaggerations, some of them more exaggerated than others. The first claim on the cultfacts site, regarding TWI, is "up to 50 high-ranking members conspired to coerce..." Cannot be found to be credible on its face. "Up to..." is a rhetorical expression (often used in marketing contexts) reasonably understood to be vague enough to dismiss on its face (prima facie). 50-high ranking members? Legally speaking, there are no where near 50 "members" of TWI. In this context, one might reasonably expect the so-called members are voting members of the legal body known as TWI. Even IF there were 50 "high ranking" members, what's the likelihood of getting those 50 "members" to likemindedly conspire anything? "A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between people (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder, treason, or corruption, especially with political motivation,[1] while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it." IOW, twi will likely bristle a LOT over this, but eventually will get over it without these claims having any legal impact. You may (reasonably) not be convinced the site was built by an AI, but I am convinced. Actually, it's not a bad first effort to do so. I appreciate your probing reflection on the situation.

Example of AI inaccuracies.

Thanks for bumping the thread. I just viewed this YT video from 60 MInutes coverage of AI, several segments, one of which is from 2109. One of the important points 60 Minutes made, is that AI is NOT always correct. When an AI makes mistakes and says things that are NOT true, the industry calls those instances "hallucinations." IIRC, when I first (or shortly thereafter) saw the cultfacts website entry for TWI, my impression was 1) it was built by AI, and 2) it was not 100 percent correct, even though it had notes/citations for the claims it made. Now, I am not as concerned about whether TWI will challenge the factual basis or legality of the claims. However, I still wonder how they've responded/reacted to it.

Selected resources Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey The Obstacle is the Way by Ryan Holiday Stillness is the Key by Ryan Holiday Ego is the Enemy by Ryan Holiday Discipline is Destiny by Ryan Holiday The Road Less Traveled by M Scott Peck People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil by M Scott Peck And because Two are better than One, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace by M Scott Peck And there are MANY more. My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, 2 turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding— 3 indeed, if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, 4 and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, 5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God

Again, the question becomes who is WE. News enterprises, IMO, are not the readers thereof. When it comes to choice and choosing, I believe it's most important for US (us) to be mindful of that which we have within our control and choose wisely. When we try to choose for someone or something of which we have NO control or direct influence, we choose endless frustration and promote helplessness. Becoming mindful of what others (i.e. a news enterprise) choose that I/WE cannot control or influence, the inability to control or influence also breeds apathy. WE do need to choose wisely. But worrying about the euphemistic reporting about rape and other sexual offenses isn't necessarily productive... unless, you have a strong voice in the world/community and can make cogent arguments that convince your readers. Or any other human expression (ART) that moves the emotions of members of that community. I encourage your thoughts and actions along those lines.

Which choices are you suggesting WE (including you) have the right to change? Lawmaking bodies made specific verbal choices in writing laws. The journalistic style issues have to do, as I understand it, with news gathering/writing enterprises choosing purposely vague wording, perhaps to sound euphemistic, so they can continue to sell newspapers without offending tender sensibilities. When a news enterprise dares use more abrupt terminology and/or rhetoric, it probably runs increasing risk of sounding like a publication with an ax to grind. Not that doing so would necessarily be a bad thing. What other choices might be involved that I haven't understood thus far?