Pastor J

Christian Leader/Mentor - Entrepreneur - IT/Technology Pro (27+ years) - Artist

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

When definitions are rewritten to accommodate flawed products, it's no longer science—it’s propaganda. We saw it during the pandemic with the redefinition of "vaccine." Now we're seeing it again with the word "intelligence"—redefined to legitimize so-called "Artificial Intelligence."

With 27+ years in IT and tech, I’ve seen my share of marketing hype (anyone remember the Y2K bug?)—but this goes beyond exaggeration. The tech being sold today as “intelligent” has no comprehension, no agency, and no understanding. It’s statistical prediction dressed up in the language of cognition.

This isn’t intelligence. It’s pattern extrapolation at scale. And yet, companies are branding it as if it were autonomous, creative—even sentient.

Where are the regulators?

The FTC has intervened in industries where inflated claims misled the public—supplements, crypto, even automotive features. But this—the largest semantic bait-and-switch in tech history—is happening in plain sight, unchecked.

What prevents oversight when the deception is this obvious?

Who benefits from keeping the public confused?

If you work in law, policy, ethics, or tech—I want to hear your view. Is this regulatory capture? Institutional cowardice? Or something more deliberate?

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

Have you been on the fence lately about switching away from T-Mobile? 🤔 If you’re looking for some meaningful factors that can help you decide, consider these facts—verify them yourself:

FACT: There are only 3 mobile carriers in the USA that truly own and operate their own nationwide wireless networks—AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. Every other company (Patriot Mobile, US Cellular remnants, etc.) is paying one or more of these three to use their networks. Completely avoiding the big three is practically impossible.

FACT: Of the big 3, only 2 are truly American companies—AT&T and Verizon. T-Mobile USA, Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG, a partially state-owned German company. Yes, the German government holds a significant ownership stake.

FACT: Both Deutsche Telekom AG and the German government have long records of supporting ideologies, programs, and organizations that many Americans regard as ethically and morally objectionable. Deutsche Telekom publicly emphasizes DEI, LGBTQ+ inclusion, anti-“hate” initiatives, climate neutrality goals aligned with EU Green Deal policies, and digital “dignity”/inclusion efforts. The German government funds and promotes progressive social, migration, and climate policies that diverge sharply from traditional American conservative or classical-liberal priorities.

FACT: There are no perfect wireless carriers. All of them are optimized to serve investors and maximize profit. All of them do things that will annoy someone.

FACT: Nationwide performance differences among the three major networks are often only marginal. Local edge cases matter far more. Signal reliability can shift with terrain, construction, foliage, and even season. Check coverage critically for the specific places you live, work, and travel.

Subjective truth from my own experience: After roughly 30 years in computer and electronics technology, I have had more than enough dealings with AT&T. Their customer support has consistently been the worst of the three, and their networks have delivered the poorest reliability and security in the environments I have tested. It has been standard practice for me, when doing performance and budget analyses for clients, to recommend ditching AT&T services. Time after time that has improved both performance and cost.

That leaves Verizon as the remaining choice among the three. Are they always the cheapest? No. Will you always get the absolute highest speeds on every block in America? No—the same is true of all 3 nationwide US carriers. But for the difference of several dollars a month, I would rather my money stay with a wholly American company rather than flow to a German corporation that is partially owned by a foreign government whose priorities and values frequently run counter to those of many Americans. Verify coverage in your own area, then decide accordingly.

As for me, I decided to part ways with T-Mobile after ~13 years and switched to Verizon.

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

Being aware of the present "moratorium on new data centers" trend that seems to be sweeping the nation, I wanted to inject my two cents into it all—though admittedly it's all stuff I've been stating on repeat for a long time now, so some of you will have seen it before.

As a computer/electronics technology professional of nearly 30 years, I’ve been watching this “AI” circus for a long time—we're talking decades—and I grew bored with it quite some time ago, because it never really positively changes in any genuinely meaningful way, and the computer/electronics technology sector has long established a practice of using the general public's lack of technological knowledge to fraudulently sell hype and empty promises, rather than genuine innovation. Not always, but often enough to establish a pattern more people should be familiar with and weary of—yet here we are.

It largely goes like this—especially where so-called "AI" is concerned: take a pile of existing technologies. Duct tape them together. Fluff the pile with smuggled terminology and fraudulent marketing narratives to make it appear bigger than it really is. Give it a shiny new name—usually something correlating with the aforementioned fraudulent marketing narrative. Demonstrate something genuinely impressive but substantially narrower—and usually not genuinely groundbreaking—than the claims being made about it. Blame any shortcomings on a lack of funding and resources, insisting that more of these would surely result on the product finally converging on what the fraudulent marketing narrative claimed in the first place.

Since the concept of Artificial Intelligence moved from the academic realm to the commercial realm, it has always been about the sales pitch. The current hype cycle has particularly run wild with that fact. It's wash. Rinse. Repeat. It was once about machines someday becoming intelligent. However, the current cycle insists the machine is intelligent. Is.

Skeptical consumer: How do you know that's truth? That the machine is intelligent?

"AI" snake-oil salesman: Well, just look at it. It "talks." It "writes." It arguably "solves" some problems—maybe. Sometimes it produces results astonishing to the senses. Therefore: intelligence.

Of course, this is the good ol' “duck” argument, and it is about as rigorous as it sounds. Applying sound logic and actual science, if something produces outputs that even remotely resemble the products of intelligence, that only establishes that it produces those outputs. It does not establish that the mechanism itself possesses the property we've decided to call intelligence in order to produce those outputs.

However, once enough people have declared the machine intelligent, the rest of the racket becomes wonderfully self-reinforcing—it's exactly why people are still referring to it as "AI," even though they've come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, not genuine machine intelligence. 🤦‍♂️

It goes something like this: The system is intelligent. Scaling improves the system. Therefore scaling makes the system more intelligent. And just to be on the safe side, if the promised capabilities don't materialize, it's because we haven't scaled enough yet.

So scale it more.

Still not there?

Scale it harder.

Still not there?

Supposedly, the solution is another few hundred billion dollars worth of supercomputers, consuming massive quantities of natural and manufactured resources—just to be able to do things Siri was already doing years and years ago, albeit in an unnecessarily complex and confounded manner. Yet increasing scale demonstrates only that increasing scale changes the system’s performance. It does not demonstrate that the trajectory leads to intelligence. In other words, a road does not arrive at a desired destination merely because someone, driven by that desire, has drawn the destination at its far end on their map.

That's the gist of it all. Everything else is extrapolation. However, it just so happens that extrapolation is where this industry has been having its greatest successes.

Yes, as I've previously noted, we've been through this sort of thing before. Repeatedly. Grand claims, enormous expectations, money pouring in, reality catching up—notably less impressed, disappointment, retreat, renamed technology, renewed enthusiasm. It's wash. Rinse. Repeat.

The marketing narratives change. The basic sales pitch behind them doesn't.

Yet, we're apparently supposed to believe—vis-a-vis gaslighting—that the historical pattern no longer applies because this particular hodgepodge of old ingredients has been duct taped and fluffed up into a sufficiently large enough, and sense-astonishing enough pile.

However, that's not how science nor logic work. There is no known law of nature stating that enough computation eventually turns statistics-crunching machinery into an intelligent mind. There is also no scientific principle of "Keep making it bigger until the ontology changes." If there is a mechanism, genuinely demonstrate it. If there is evidence, truthfully show it. If there is a threshold, clearly specify it.

If the hypothesis can never be falsified because we can always respond to failure with “more scale,” then it isn't much of a hypothesis in the first place. It's a customer retention plan.

And if such blatant absurdity isn't funny enough on its own, the present "experiment" is consuming an absurd quantity of physical resources while we're all being encouraged to believe that the next increment will finally reveal the magic hiding in the previous one.

It shouldn't be enough to simply tell people that the machines are intelligent because they appear intelligent. That's the very claim under examination, and sound logic insists that you don't get to use the thing you're trying to prove as the evidence for proving it.

That's not a duck. That's a deceptive sales brochure wearing a duck costume. And another thing, since it is not truly a duck, STOP referring to it as a duck, because going along with the inaccurate duck label is only helping to keep the fraudulent narrative alive.

In closing, and to be completely blunt, we don't need moratoriums on the construction of new data centers because so-called “AI” is some genuine technology that poses science-fiction-rooted risks to the human race. We need moratoriums on the construction of new data centers because they are yet another line of cash flow feeding the fraudulent marketing narrative driving the current hype cycle around a technology that could scarcely be any less genuinely intelligent than it already is.

We don't need new laws to regulate that technology, either, because doing so only helps cement the false premise that the technology itself is genuine and therefore warrants special regulation. Regulate the actual negative consequences if and where regulation is warranted—unnecessarily excessive resource consumption, negative environmental impacts, overly burdensome infrastructure demands, deceptive commercial practices, whatever the demonstrable problem may be. Use existing laws to hold the creators accountable for the negative consequences of their creations. However, don't manufacture an entire regulatory regime around a fictional technological premise.

Unfortunately, we don't have many politicians—I don't know of any—with enough technological competence to distinguish the two. So they'll continue fighting the big, bad phantom, because doing battle with an imaginary existential threat makes for excellent political theatre: their constituents feel safer, the politicians look decisive, and everyone gets to avoid the considerably less glamorous task of identifying the technology for what it actually is.

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

I am going to be blunt, because this is not a harmless exercise in rhetoric, and the consequences of what you are doing can be far more serious than you apparently realize.

You have presented yourself as a “Faithful Messenger,” and you are presenting this content to people who may reasonably assume that what you are telling them is historically and biblically reliable. That gives you a responsibility that goes far beyond producing something rhetorically compelling for people who already agree with you. When you take substantial historical and textual complexities, reduce them to misleading slogans, present theological conclusions as though they logically follow from those “facts,” and then use that presentation to reinforce the authority of your own religious message, you aren't merely making an academic mistake. You are potentially teaching people falsehoods about the very Scriptures you claim to be faithfully communicating, and that matters.

It matters because people can build their understanding of Scripture, their understanding of God, and ultimately their faith upon what they are taught by people who present themselves as trustworthy messengers. A person who encounters this material and accepts your claims at face value may come away believing that the historical evidence establishes things it does not establish, that the biblical canon is something it is not, that the Scriptures possess a kind of textual unity that the historical record does not demonstrate, and that a particular doctrine of divine authorship has somehow been proven by the preceding facts.

NONE of those conclusions follows from your post. They are all non sequitur. And that is why I am not going to treat this all as a cute little apologetic meme that merely needs a few footnotes added to it. In reality, it all needs to be challenged at the level of its fundamental claims, its reasoning, and the authority you are implicitly asking your audience to grant you.

You don't get to call yourself a “Faithful Messenger” and then ask people to trust a presentation whose historical claims are repeatedly oversimplified, whose theological conclusions are repeatedly smuggled in as though they were established facts, and whose most consequential assertions are unsupported by the evidence you actually provide. That is far more than a trivial distinction.

If someone is going to teach others about Scripture, in the name of God, then intellectual and factual integrity are not optional embellishments. They are part of the responsibility that comes with claiming to speak faithfully. So let's actually examine what you've written, because this post is an extraordinary example of how a collection of partially accurate facts can be arranged to produce a conclusion that the facts themselves never establish.

You begin with observations about languages, geography, authorship, chronology, genres, and the diversity of the biblical writings. Then, without actually demonstrating the necessary intermediate premises, you leap from those observations to “One voice,” “One continuous story,” and finally “God wrote the story.”

That isn't a deduction from the evidence. It is a theological interpretation imposed upon the evidence. You are interpreting into the evidence, not out from it. And what's more, several of your supposedly impressive “facts” are themselves grossly oversimplified.

“66 books” isn't some divinely objective property of the Bible; it's the Protestant canon. Other Christian traditions have different canons of different lengths. “Over 40 different men” is likewise presented with far more certainty than the historical evidence permits, given anonymous works, disputed authorship, and complex compositional histories. “One continuous story” similarly confuses a later canonical/theological reading with the historical circumstances in which these separate writings were actually produced.

Then there is, “Men held the pens. But God wrote the story.”

No. Even if one grants the doctrine of divine inspiration, that is still an extraordinarily simplistic model of authorship. The biblical writers weren't merely transcription devices. They wrote in different genres, from different circumstances, for different audiences, using different sources and traditions, and frequently exhibit their own literary styles, emphases, perspectives, and purposes.

And “pens” is itself a ridiculous reduction of the physical and textual history involved. Biblical writing encompasses traditions involving inscriptions, both sand and stone tablets, scrolls, manuscripts, oral transmission, copying, compilation, editing, translation, and canon formation. Reducing that enormously complicated history to “men held the pens” can't simply be chalked up to poetic shorthand when you're using it as an argument about how recorded Scripture came to exist; it materially misrepresents the process.

More importantly, your conclusion creates a theological problem that your post simply ignores:

If by “God wrote the story” you mean that God actually determined the words while human beings faithfully executed His instructions, then you have effectively turned the human authors into puppet-like instruments rather than authors. It's like saying the typewriter wrote the novel. That's a very different proposition from the picture provided within the Bible—human beings being instructed, guided, and commanded by God, but disobeying, making mistakes, suffering negative consequences, repenting, and making their own decisions.

Ironically, the Bible is absolutely filled with people who were told what to do and then chose whether or not to do it, and even how to do it—from the beginning of it all. Adam and Eve ate the fruit anyway. Moses receives instructions and nevertheless disobeys in the episode at Meribah—consequently never setting foot in the promised land. David receives divine commandments and then commits adultery with Bathsheba and arranges Uriah's murder. Saul is commanded to do something and does something else. Jonah receives a command regarding Nineveh and literally goes in the opposite direction. The prophets repeatedly condemned people precisely because they failed to faithfully follow God's instructions, or to follow them at all, even though God was working through them.

Yet suddenly, when discussing the composition of Scripture, your model somehow becomes “God wrote it; humans held the pens.”

Where, exactly, is the evidence for that mechanism? You haven't provided any. And that's the fundamental problem with this entire post, you repeatedly substitute assertion—and unsafe assertion at that—for demonstration.

The Bible can certainly be interpreted by Christians as a unified theological corpus. I generally have no objection whatsoever to that belief. However, that is not the same proposition as saying that 66 books, produced across many centuries by people who did not constitute a single writing committee, constitute a historically demonstrable single continuous narrative deliberately authored by one supernatural author. Those are radically different claims. In fact, what the Bible is, is a library or collection of different books; different writings. That's literally what bible, or biblia, ultimately means: books.

And the “Tree of Life” observation doesn't rescue your argument, because it's just another oversimplification. Genesis begins with creation and subsequently introduces the garden and Tree of Life; Revelation concludes with the New Jerusalem, in which the Tree of Life appears. Calling both settings “a garden” is itself a theological-literary characterization. It isn't evidence that the people responsible for authoring Genesis and Revelation were independently collaborating on a 1,500-year literary master plan.

What's particularly dumbfounding, the actual history is considerably more complicated—and considerably more interesting—than the tidy story you're pushing here: traditions were transmitted, texts were composed, copied, edited, collected, translated, debated, and canonized. Different communities developed different canonical collections. Even the ordering of the books reflects human canonical traditions rather than some divinely revealed table of contents.

And do note: NONE of that prevents a Christian from believing that God worked in and through the process.🤯

However, that is a statement of faith—a cornerstone of Christianity. It is not something you have demonstrated from the premises of your post. And though it might seem trivial at first, that distinction matters considerably when you have chosen to identify yourself as a “Faithful Messenger”—a person claiming to faithfully communicate truth—because it means you have an obligation to truthfully distinguish between:

- What the historical evidence establishes
- What the textual evidence suggests
- What is disputed
- What is theological interpretation

Your post repeatedly and wantonly collapses those categories together. And that would already be a serious problem if this were simply just an uninformed devotional reflection, but then immediately beneath it you invite people to join your community, subscribe to your paid content, and financially support your “mission.”

That changes the context considerably, because you are not merely expressing a private belief. You are presenting yourself as an authoritative messenger, presenting grossly simplified apologetic rhetoric as historical fact, and then immediately monetizing the audience that has been encouraged to regard your content as spiritually and intellectually authoritative.

Whether you sincerely believe every word you've written is something only you—and God—can know. However, the product being offered here is not careful historical or textual scholarship. It is fallacious certainty.

And certainty packaged for a receptive ideological audience, followed immediately by subscription and donation appeals, looks considerably more like religious content marketing than faithful teaching.

If you want to share your Christian beliefs, share them, but also be prepared to give an account for why you believe what you believe—that actually IS in the Bible.

If you want to argue for divine inspiration, make the theological argument and back it up with sound logic—and no, faith and logic are not mutually exclusive. They can and do work together.

If you want to teach biblical history, then teach the history accurately—including its uncertainties, complexities, contradictions, textual development, and canon formation.

However, don't take a series of selectively presented facts, remove all of their historical complexity, insert your half-baked theological conclusion between the premises and the reader's eyes, and then call the resulting conclusion “the facts.”

That's not faithful messaging. It's just heavily ideological rhetoric geared for monetization.

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

"If the Bible was man-made, then it wouldn't go against all of man's desires."

🤨This isn't an argument—it's an unsupported assumption. It's one of those statements that sounds profound until you examine the logic for about 10 seconds.

First, the Bible doesn't go against ALL human desires. It encourages many of them: justice, mercy, wisdom, friendship, purpose, and compassion, to name a few. It condemns SOME desires while affirming others.

Second, the statement assumes that if humans create something, it must cater to human desires. That's demonstrably false. Humans create laws, constitutions, military codes, workplace policies, athletic training regimens, and moral philosophies that require sacrifice, discipline, and self-denial all the time.

Third, whose desires are we talking about? Humanity doesn't have one unified set of desires. People have contradictory desires: freedom and security, revenge and forgiveness, pleasure and self-control, wealth and fairness. A rule that satisfies one desire may frustrate another.

So, the argument boils down to this:

If humans wrote the Bible from their own desires, it would indulge those human desires.
The Bible doesn't indulge those human desires.
Therefore, humans didn't write it from their own desires, but purely from the inspiration of God.

It all falls apart at premise #1 because it's false. Once the first premise fails, the conclusion doesn't follow. That's a non sequitur—a logical fallacy.

Whether the Bible is divinely inspired—wholly or in part—is a separate question, and one worth having an honest, logical discussion about. This particular argument, however, doesn't advance that discussion in a meaningful and logically-faithful way. And I, for one, won't applaud a logically defective argument simply because it happens to defend a faith that I wholeheartedly follow and defend.

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

If you’re a T-Mobile customer on the fence about joining the growing number of longtime customers walking away from the company’s greed and endless shortcomings (myself included, after ~14 years), keep this in mind:

Of the only three true nationwide cellular providers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon—everyone else is just reselling capacity on one or more of their networks), @TMobile isn’t even an American company. It’s the U.S. arm of a German-owned corporation (Deutsche Telekom).

Furthermore, for the most part, the “benefits” of one carrier over another are negligible. They all have varying degrees of poor customer service. They all bury so-called perks in the overall cost of service. They all have modern networks in most places. It’s largely an apples-to-apples situation.

AT&T is the clear exception—and not in a good way. They are the textbook definition of a horrible business that has reached critical mass and become too big to fail. Customer service is consistently atrocious. Network security is a joke. Network performance is inconsistent at best. As an IT professional (~30 years), one of my longstanding practices when helping clients improve performance and cut overhead is to eliminate AT&T services as step one. Every time.

On the other hand, Verizon at least appears to be trying harder on transparency. Their new Simplicity Plan takes a more à la carte approach, letting customers pay primarily for what they actually need and want instead of forcing a bunch of bundled fluff into the bill.

Bottom line: All of the big wireless carriers are crooked and/or terrible in one way or another. I simply decided I’d rather my headaches come from an American company rather than a foreign-owned one.

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

Today, LinkedIn surprisingly suggested a post to me whose content I can largely agree with—regarding "AI." While I appreciate the post for how it strips away much of the sensationalism and describes the technology in practical terms rather than science fiction and fraudulent marketing narratives—more conversations like this are desperately needed—I believe there's still one fundamental contradiction that keeps most people confused.

If one is to accurately describe these systems as sophisticated pattern-matching engines that predict likely outputs from enormous amounts of data—absent of understanding, reasoning, awareness, intent, or independent thought—then such systems don't qualify as "AI," ergo one ought to stop referring to them as "AI." 🤔 (Read through that one again if you need to, because it's the core of this entire post.)

The label itself implies capabilities the technology clearly does not possess. It blurs the distinction between statistical computation and intelligence, and it is that very ambiguity that has become one of the primary drivers of the current hype cycle.

When someone accurately explains what the technology does but subsequently continues inaccurately calling it "AI," they're inadvertently reinforcing the very misconception they're trying to dispel. After all, the terminology lends credibility to marketing narratives that wouldn't survive a plain-language technical description.

And no, this isn't just semantics. Precise language matters here because it shapes public expectations, business decisions, policy discussions, and investment. If people are to have sound understanding and realistic expectations of the technology, then it must faithfully be described as it actually is—not by what decades of science fiction and fraudulent marketing have conditioned people to imagine.

Honest conversations about technology ought to begin (and end) with accurate terminology.

If you're interested, the LinkedIn post I referred to can be found here: https://t.co/FCgcFWFqJc

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

READER BEWARE!

While the New Testament does explicitly command believers to assemble together, it does not explicitly define that assembly as attendance at a formal institutional church service. Therefore, this meme assumes a particular ecclesiological interpretation and treats it as if it were an explicit biblical statement.

It then doubles down on its fallacious logic by dismissing anyone who reaches a different conclusion by claiming they have not actually studied the Bible, which is neither a logical argument nor a demonstration from what the text does state.

Does this meme and its author, then, bear false witness? 🤔

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

Today I deleted the @Amazon shopping app after using it for many years.

Amazon has been progressively doubling down on buzzwords and nonsensical trends. For a long time, I simply looked past such things and used the app the way I wanted. That changed with more recent updates. They are now forcing users to interact with their digital assistant (Alexa) just to perform routine product searches. However, I am not going to interact with a fraudulent “AI” technology to do something as basic as searching for a product. Since the app offers no clean way to bypass that functionality, I removed it from my device.

Yet, this is only the latest example. Amazon’s operational shortcomings have become more and more pronounced in recent years while the company remains busy chasing every available buzzword and riding fraudulent marketing narratives. I’ve already reduced my Amazon purchasing to roughly once every 3–4 months. @Target consistently has better pricing and more actual deals on the self-hygiene and cleaning products I regularly use. I’m actively working to drive my Amazon usage the rest of the way to zero.

If you’re also tired of Amazon’s persistent decline and of having fraudulent “AI” technology forced onto you, the only real pressure that will ever force a company of that size to reevaluate how much its customer base actually matters is customers walking away—I also recently walked away from @TMobile after ~15 years for similar reasons. That is the only language a corporation of this size ultimately understands.

Food for thought: Alexa was introduced in the mid-2010s as a digital assistant. It was never referred to as “AI.” Shortly after the current hype cycle took hold, Amazon didn’t hesitate to slap a new coat of paint on the same category of tool and begin marketing it as "artificial intelligence." They may have changed HOW the system works under the hood, but that did not change what the tool actually is. It remains a statistics-driven chatbot capable of running various automation workflows. It possesses no genuine ability to think or understand. Therefore, the “intelligence” label it now carries is fraudulent. 🤔

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

As someone who is usually decrying dishonesty in technology, I want to take a moment to decry the dishonesty and hypocrisy of @HobbyLobby—a company who regularly and loudly claims to operate according to Biblical principles. In fact, their first operational value is: "Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." As a Christian servant-leader (known to some as Pastor J), I feel obligated to speak out on this with the same fervency I use against tech industry practices.

I’m a repeat online customer with multiple disappointing experiences involving delays, damaged items, and unreliable fulfillment. My latest order, placed July 8, 2026, was marked “shipped” on the 9th. However, USPS tracking shows they didn’t actually receive the package until the 12th, and it remains in Memphis—origin point—as of July 15. I'm not blaming HL for USPS' shortcomings, just expecting them not to adhere to the same low standards. Then again, HL's “free shipping” policy is blatantly dishonest—costs are buried in product prices and hidden behind minimum-order thresholds. Furthermore, an “everyone does it” justification doesn’t excuse such a dishonest and unethical practice, especially for a company claiming to follow Biblical standards.

Today I tried escalating via 1-800-888-0321. After being transferred from one customer service agent—told me she was transferring me to corporate receptionist—to another (named Kiara), then wasting a bit more time repeating myself to her, I finally reached “operator” who refused to give her name (“We don’t give our names”), wouldn’t connect me to executive leadership, and insisted I email online customer service despite my clearly explaining why I did not want to. Justifiably frustrated, I called the situation “horse shit,” only to have "operator" dismiss my frustration and scold me for “using language.” Even after I noted the word "shit" appears in Scripture and is acceptable when used in proper context, her dismissive attitude persisted, insisting I not “tell her what is in the Bible” and continuing her lecture.

The obstructive, dishonest, and hypocritical handling of my call blatantly contradicts HL’s professed values. President Steve Green is publicly highlighted for his faith leadership, Museum of the Bible role, and books on Scripture—yet the gap between public commitments and actual company practices is glaring.

Scripture addresses this hypocrisy:

Matthew 23:3 — “They do not practice what they preach.”
James 1:22 — “Do not merely listen to the word… Do what it says.”
Colossians 3:23 — Work with excellence “as working for the Lord.”
Proverbs 11:1 & 12:22 — Honest scales and truthful speech.

HL's customers deserve service that actually reflects the values the company professes to champion. It's my hope that leadership acknowledges these shortcomings and promptly takes action to correct them.

#CustomerService #BusinessEthics #CorporateAccountability

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

I even offered to appear on their platform as a tech professional with nearly 30 yrs of hands-on experience to give the objective, fact-based side that's actively getting buried.

That offer still stands.

Address the actual tech—or stop presenting marketing speculation as truth.

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

On Thursday, April 9, I sent a detailed e-mail to @RSBNetwork calling out their lazy, unethical promotion of the fraudulent “AI” narrative.

Nearly 3 weeks later, still no response. Not even a cookie-cutter acknowledgment.

Here's the truly disappointing aspect of this issue...

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

If RSBN genuinely stands for truth, they don’t get to cherry-pick facts or parrot unverified hype as reality.

And here's the real kicker...

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

To all my fellow veterans, I extend my sincere respect and gratitude. Thank you.

In my latest Substack article, I address the common public misconception about what it really means to carry the title of military veteran:

https://t.co/qBWGjp0E18

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

Assuming X's algorithms don't bury this disagreeable post and you're actually seeing it, you should know the objective truth about algorithms— they're not as mysterious as you might think they are, and they're certainly not intelligent:

https://t.co/vKHLBJje1k

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

Goal: 100 honest sales by New Year’s 2026. Mirror (100% unburied): https://t.co/aKLTUpt7MS

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

Shadow-ban test: reply “TEST” and quote this exact tweet.

April 2025: I self-published a 180-page takedown of the "AI" con in paperback.

Platform: Draft2Digital + my own publishing company and imprint
Budget: $0
Sales-to-date: exactly 3 paperbacks

[Pastor J @JaredASnyder]

Comment TRUTH → I DM you a PDF of the entire 14-page introduction chapter