http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en
Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Moderation in AvC - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/673043bbcc4e3339?hl=en
* Who's for banning LedZepp? - 10 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e62147ab0129248c?hl=en
* Another Theist bites the dust. - 6 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e4d18055d0abcf63?hl=en
* Mark Shea: Padding the Case for the New Atheism - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/7086bf6a6cf6d81e?hl=en
* Faux Pas Tolerance: New Atheism Fosters Misunderstanding - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0a1034895f75bc9a?hl=en
* Christians get the message. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/11511ccd36fe0d4c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Moderation in AvC
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/673043bbcc4e3339?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:26 am
From: Woodbridge
On Dec 3, 8:36 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:35 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
>
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
>
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
>
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
>
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
>
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
>
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
>
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
>
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
>
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
>
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
>
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
>
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
>
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
>
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
>
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
>
> > Hi Checkers,
>
> > My kudos to you for taking the time to document these issues in depth
> > and detail and in a balanced fashion, and I am interested to see how
> > the moderators respond. My hope is that they would see merit in your
> > analyses and act responsibly.
>
> chx
> they say christians lack morals and ethics,
Many Christians are lacking morals and ethics and violate code of
conduct
i see different here
> today. what they accuse you christians of are just words. their action
> proves different. this action is the evidence i was looking for in my
> journey to wherever i am going. the evidence is adding up daily.
>
> it's like this. i ask, what are you? i don't care what you answer. i
> stand back and watch your actions for a while and then i know what you
> are. by the actions of stalin, mao, hitler and mugabe i can tell they
> are atheists. why? their action is the same i see here. cheating and
> knifing with lack of morals and ethics.
>
> not a single atheist had the guts to stand up for what they claim to
> believe in. it proves they never had those beliefs to start with, just
> empty words i read.
> they were all quick to jump on the band wagon to ban a theist. when
> their own are guilty, they all hide in the DARK...all of them! this is
> true saying they don't like the light - no place to hide.
>
> could i be wrong generalising? somehow i don't think so.
>
You are wrong generalising BECAUSE you somehow don't think
>
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Brock- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:28 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 9:05 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 2:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> >
> > > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> >
> > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have
> produced
> > > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why
> Dev
> > > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > > Now that's logical faith!
> >
> > > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> >
> > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak
> about
> > > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> >
> > > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > > Use
> >
> > > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> author
> > > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> >
> > > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as
> Dev
> > > > even joked about the one.
> >
> > > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> >
> > > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of
> the
> > > > same infringement?
> >
> > > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > > infringements recently.
> > > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > > illegal.
> > > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > > he did the same.
> >
> > > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple
> threads
> > > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> >
> > > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> >
> > > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> >
> > > Hey. Genius. There's a big difference between impersonating someone
> > > and doing impressions of someone. Your false indignation is pathetic.
> >
> > I bet he wants to have everyone who ever played a cop in a movie or TV
> show
> > to be arrested for impersonating a police officer.
>
> Yeah! What about the checkers himself? He's impersonating a human.
That's true! Finally we can ban him, as we've been desperately looking for a
reason to do! Mwahahaha!
>
>
> > Oh no, wait, this is checkers, he's not remotely consistent about
> anything.
> > Nevermind.
>
> chx:
>
> I are too reglar. [squat] ar ar ar ar. See? [chuckle]
checkers, that doesn't prove you're regular at all, you piece of shit.
>
> >
>
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:35 am
From: checkers
sorry to dissapoint you Rap. firstly, your link refers to emails and
as you say, spoofing. however google clearly says impersonating
someone. now i will remind you that the same point was brought up in
the other instance of impersonating Keith. what you claim is not true.
here is the full post of the case;
***
theultimatetruth;
Are you kidding me!
On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
- Show quoted text -
> I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like that.
> I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that nothing
> can go wrong inside his colon:
> On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > murdering bitches
> --
> Ambassador From Hell
> Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> copyright
***
here is the Google rule again. i higlight the part applicable.
6. Appropriate Conduct
*_impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
author
attributions_, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
material contained in a file that is Posted;*
as you can see he changed nothing at all. all he did was type a
message so as to look as if it was keith that wrote it. he did not
even use keith's name. even so, it is impersonating keith.
the members impersonating me did more, they inserted my name at the
biginning of the message implicating me writing those words. they are
quilty as one can get. this is illegal in most countries and in Google
Groups TOS. they are breaking a law.
there is now three of them and this writing serves as a report to the
moderators to do what is expected of them.
On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is how it all materialized by date.
>
> > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
>
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
>
> > > chx
> > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > Now that's logical faith!
>
> > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
>
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
>
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
>
> > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > Use
>
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
>
> > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > even joked about the one.
>
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
>
> > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > same infringement?
>
> > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > infringements recently.
> > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > illegal.
> > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > he did the same.
>
> > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
>
> > All the above are undeniable facts.
>
> > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
>
> The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_spoofing
>
> "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> source."
>
> theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> reason.
>
> Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> violating the TOS.
>
> There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> away that I'll never get back.
>
> So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> to ban only theists?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:40 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> sorry to dissapoint you Rap. firstly, your link refers to emails and
> as you say, spoofing. however google clearly says impersonating
> someone. now i will remind you that the same point was brought up in
> the other instance of impersonating Keith. what you claim is not true.
> here is the full post of the case;
>
> ***
> theultimatetruth;
>
> Are you kidding me!
>
> On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like
> that.
> > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that
> nothing
> > can go wrong inside his colon:
>
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > murdering bitches
>
> > --
> > Ambassador From Hell
> > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > copyright
>
> ***
>
> here is the Google rule again. i higlight the part applicable.
>
> 6. Appropriate Conduct
> *_impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> author
> attributions_, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> material contained in a file that is Posted;*
>
>
> as you can see he changed nothing at all. all he did was type a
> message so as to look as if it was keith that wrote it. he did not
> even use keith's name. even so, it is impersonating keith.
>
> the members impersonating me did more, they inserted my name at the
> biginning of the message implicating me writing those words. they are
> quilty as one can get.
I admit it! I'm quilty! Quilty as the day is long!
> this is illegal in most countries and in Google
> Groups TOS. they are breaking a law.
>
> there is now three of them and this writing serves as a report to the
> moderators to do what is expected of them.
>
>
>
> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> >
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> >
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> >
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
> >
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> >
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> >
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak
> about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> >
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
> >
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> >
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
> >
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> >
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
> >
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
> >
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> >
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> >
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> >
> > The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_spoofing
> >
> > "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> > in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> > altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> > source."
> >
> > theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> > reason.
> >
> > Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> > violating the TOS.
> >
> > There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> > have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> > pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> > did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> > different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> > all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> > away that I'll never get back.
> >
> > So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> > to ban only theists?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:49 am
From: checkers
i did not forget about you. look at this. it apears as though i posted
it. it maches with my style of posting. YOU are impersonating me and
this is ilegal.
***
On Dec 3, 6:13 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 10:59 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
(this you wrote)
> > chx
> > see i knew you had something against me.
> > nobody likes me, it must be because they are jealous of my intelligents. har
> > [chuckle]
(here A42 replies to _me_)
> Come on checkers, nobody dislikes you.
> Thinking you are a piece of shit (because you like to make fun of
> people who share their experiences with mental illnesses) is not the
> same as disliking you.
(here is my reply)
chx
i did not post that! this person impersonated me. i will report him
to
the moderators and then report it to google as it is an infringement
of Google Groups TOS and it is illegal in SA to impersonate someone
and in most countries.
***
you guys have free reign to do this in all topics without me knowing
and this is ilegal. poeple like you should be banned to protect the
others from this dangerous act as per Google Groups TOS. this is why
Google deems this illegal conduct.
On Dec 3, 6:03 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:10 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > This is how it all materialized by date.
>
> > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
>
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > Now that's logical faith!
>
> > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
>
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
>
> And don't forget me, on December 3rd!
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > Use
>
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
>
> > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > even joked about the one.
>
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
>
> > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > same infringement?
>
> > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > infringements recently.
> > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > illegal.
> > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > he did the same.
>
> > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
>
> > All the above are undeniable facts.
>
> > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:53 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:49 PM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> i did not forget about you.
Oh good. I just wanted to make sure you wouldn't.
> look at this. it apears as though i posted
> it. it maches with my style of posting. YOU are impersonating me and
> this is ilegal.
>
> ***
> On Dec 3, 6:13 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 10:59 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (this you wrote)
> > > chx
> > > see i knew you had something against me.
> > > nobody likes me, it must be because they are jealous of my
> intelligents. har
> > > [chuckle]
>
> (here A42 replies to _me_)
> > Come on checkers, nobody dislikes you.
> > Thinking you are a piece of shit (because you like to make fun of
> > people who share their experiences with mental illnesses) is not the
> > same as disliking you.
>
> (here is my reply)
> chx
> i did not post that! this person impersonated me. i will report him
> to
> the moderators and then report it to google as it is an infringement
> of Google Groups TOS and it is illegal in SA to impersonate someone
> and in most countries.
>
> ***
> you guys have free reign to do this in all topics without me knowing
> and this is ilegal. poeple like you should be banned to protect the
> others from this dangerous act as per Google Groups TOS. this is why
> Google deems this illegal conduct.
>
>
>
> On Dec 3, 6:03 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:10 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> >
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> >
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
> >
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> >
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak
> about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> >
> > And don't forget me, on December 3rd!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
> >
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> >
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
> >
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> >
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
> >
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
> >
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> >
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> >
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?- Hide
> quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Who's for banning LedZepp?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e62147ab0129248c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:28 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:12 AM, LedZepp <FledZeppelin@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:29 AM, LedZepp <FledZeppelin@yahoo.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Nov 27, 7:50 pm, Ward Yung <wardeny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it
> works? I
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer
> might
> > > work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, what is an anonymizer and why would people use that in a
> > > > > > > newsgroup? It sounds like one needs to spend money just to
> post.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Without divulging the name and thereby giving some dishonest
> thetards
> > > > > more
> > > > > > opportunity for mischief, there is a completely free anonymizer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you saying the Christian LiamToo is capable of doing just that.
> I
> > > > > don't hink so. He is savvy in computers, there's no question about
> it.
> > > > > He was a Systems Analyst of the US Department of Justice, then a
> > > > > Professional Printing business, before retiring at an Insurance and
> > > > > Investment business. To post here and be dishonest is not his
> > > > > character. He was educated in one of those high end universities in
> > > > > the Boston area.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not to toot your own horn, right Liam?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, Wanderer is another. He might have posted a complete name of a
> > > > > CEO, but still, that is not considered personal since the other
> poster
> > > > > is anonymous.
> > > > >
> > > > > They are both theists and intelligent
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > HAHAHAHAHAHA
> > > >
> > > > You have some low standards for intelligence, buddy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > and that's the real reason why
> > > > > they were banned.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now I'm fully convinced that you are Liam. Before I was just almost
> > > > convinced you were him.
> > >
> > > Well I can say the same about LiamToo, not as detailed though but you
> > > are not close to being certain. Unless you are buddies with LiamToo
> > > and that should be a ground to be banned yourself, then you don't know
> > > for sure.
> >
> >
> > What's the matter, Liam, creating just one fake friend wasn't enough?
>
> I rest my case, we're going nowhere.
You had a case?
>
> >
>
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:29 am
From: Tertullian
Turner Hayes wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Ward Yung <wardenyung@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it works? I know
> > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer might work.
>
>
> Basically, a destination computer (e.g., a website, such as
> groups.google.com) only knows the IP address of the computer directly
> contacting it. It has no care or knowledge of what happened before that
> computer makes the request. So when you use an anonymizer, whenever you make
> a request (visit a website), the anonymizer actually sends your request to
> another computer, with instructions to send off the request to the
> destination and send back the results. That way, the IP that the destination
> computer sees is not your IP address but the IP of whatever machine actually
> directly made the request for you. This makes it impossible for the
> destination machine to know the REAL IP of the person making the request
> (or, in this case, posting to the group).
>
> Or so I understand from my admittedly somewhat basic understanding of
> networking.
Basically yes. Consider this. LiamToo was posting from a local ISP in
Kansas and Wanderer was posting in an AOL ISP. Nobody can anonymize
legitimate ISPs. If the IP is from a local ISP, that's real. AOL is
real as well because it's protected from any anonymizer codes.
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:31 am
From: Tertullian
Turner Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:12 AM, LedZepp <FledZeppelin@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:29 AM, LedZepp <FledZeppelin@yahoo.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 7:50 pm, Ward Yung <wardeny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it
> > works? I
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer
> > might
> > > > work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, what is an anonymizer and why would people use that in a
> > > > > > > > newsgroup? It sounds like one needs to spend money just to
> > post.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Without divulging the name and thereby giving some dishonest
> > thetards
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > opportunity for mischief, there is a completely free anonymizer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you saying the Christian LiamToo is capable of doing just that.
> > I
> > > > > > don't hink so. He is savvy in computers, there's no question about
> > it.
> > > > > > He was a Systems Analyst of the US Department of Justice, then a
> > > > > > Professional Printing business, before retiring at an Insurance and
> > > > > > Investment business. To post here and be dishonest is not his
> > > > > > character. He was educated in one of those high end universities in
> > > > > > the Boston area.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not to toot your own horn, right Liam?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, Wanderer is another. He might have posted a complete name of a
> > > > > > CEO, but still, that is not considered personal since the other
> > poster
> > > > > > is anonymous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They are both theists and intelligent
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > HAHAHAHAHAHA
> > > > >
> > > > > You have some low standards for intelligence, buddy.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and that's the real reason why
> > > > > > they were banned.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I'm fully convinced that you are Liam. Before I was just almost
> > > > > convinced you were him.
> > > >
> > > > Well I can say the same about LiamToo, not as detailed though but you
> > > > are not close to being certain. Unless you are buddies with LiamToo
> > > > and that should be a ground to be banned yourself, then you don't know
> > > > for sure.
> > >
> > >
> > > What's the matter, Liam, creating just one fake friend wasn't enough?
> >
> > I rest my case, we're going nowhere.
>
>
> You had a case?
Definitely. You understand computers, read my response at the thread
below.
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:31 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Ward Yung <wardenyung@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it works? I know
> > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer might work.
> >
> >
> > Basically, a destination computer (e.g., a website, such as
> > groups.google.com) only knows the IP address of the computer directly
> > contacting it. It has no care or knowledge of what happened before that
> > computer makes the request. So when you use an anonymizer, whenever you
> make
> > a request (visit a website), the anonymizer actually sends your request
> to
> > another computer, with instructions to send off the request to the
> > destination and send back the results. That way, the IP that the
> destination
> > computer sees is not your IP address but the IP of whatever machine
> actually
> > directly made the request for you. This makes it impossible for the
> > destination machine to know the REAL IP of the person making the request
> > (or, in this case, posting to the group).
> >
> > Or so I understand from my admittedly somewhat basic understanding of
> > networking.
>
> Basically yes. Consider this. LiamToo was posting from a local ISP in
> Kansas and Wanderer was posting in an AOL ISP. Nobody can anonymize
> legitimate ISPs.
What's a "legitimate ISP"? And what makes you think no one can anonymize
them?
> If the IP is from a local ISP, that's real. AOL is
> real as well because it's protected from any anonymizer codes.
> >
>
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:32 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Tertullian <
> RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:12 AM, LedZepp <FledZeppelin@yahoo.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:29 AM, LedZepp <
> FledZeppelin@yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 7:50 pm, Ward Yung <wardeny...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it
> > > works? I
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer
> > > might
> > > > > work.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yeah, what is an anonymizer and why would people use that
> in a
> > > > > > > > > newsgroup? It sounds like one needs to spend money just to
> > > post.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Without divulging the name and thereby giving some dishonest
> > > thetards
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > opportunity for mischief, there is a completely free
> anonymizer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you saying the Christian LiamToo is capable of doing just
> that.
> > > I
> > > > > > > don't hink so. He is savvy in computers, there's no question
> about
> > > it.
> > > > > > > He was a Systems Analyst of the US Department of Justice, then
> a
> > > > > > > Professional Printing business, before retiring at an Insurance
> and
> > > > > > > Investment business. To post here and be dishonest is not his
> > > > > > > character. He was educated in one of those high end
> universities in
> > > > > > > the Boston area.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not to toot your own horn, right Liam?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, Wanderer is another. He might have posted a complete name
> of a
> > > > > > > CEO, but still, that is not considered personal since the other
> > > poster
> > > > > > > is anonymous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They are both theists and intelligent
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HAHAHAHAHAHA
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have some low standards for intelligence, buddy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and that's the real reason why
> > > > > > > they were banned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now I'm fully convinced that you are Liam. Before I was just
> almost
> > > > > > convinced you were him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well I can say the same about LiamToo, not as detailed though but
> you
> > > > > are not close to being certain. Unless you are buddies with LiamToo
> > > > > and that should be a ground to be banned yourself, then you don't
> know
> > > > > for sure.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What's the matter, Liam, creating just one fake friend wasn't enough?
> > >
> > > I rest my case, we're going nowhere.
> >
> >
> > You had a case?
>
> Definitely. You understand computers, read my response at the thread
> below.
I don't believe you had a case, enjoy your delusion.
>
> >
>
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:36 am
From: Tertullian
Turner Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Ward Yung <wardenyung@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it works? I know
> > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer might work.
> > >
> > >
> > > Basically, a destination computer (e.g., a website, such as
> > > groups.google.com) only knows the IP address of the computer directly
> > > contacting it. It has no care or knowledge of what happened before that
> > > computer makes the request. So when you use an anonymizer, whenever you
> > make
> > > a request (visit a website), the anonymizer actually sends your request
> > to
> > > another computer, with instructions to send off the request to the
> > > destination and send back the results. That way, the IP that the
> > destination
> > > computer sees is not your IP address but the IP of whatever machine
> > actually
> > > directly made the request for you. This makes it impossible for the
> > > destination machine to know the REAL IP of the person making the request
> > > (or, in this case, posting to the group).
> > >
> > > Or so I understand from my admittedly somewhat basic understanding of
> > > networking.
> >
> > Basically yes. Consider this. LiamToo was posting from a local ISP in
> > Kansas and Wanderer was posting in an AOL ISP. Nobody can anonymize
> > legitimate ISPs.
>
>
> What's a "legitimate ISP"? And what makes you think no one can anonymize
> them?
Time Warner's Road Runner, AOL, Verizon, SureWest, Everest, Server
companies like I have now, Bell South, any Bell, etc. If you trace the
IP and end up with a legitimate ISP company, then you're seeing real
IPs and not a product of any anonymizer.
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:43 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Ward Yung <wardenyung@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it works? I
> know
> > > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer might
> work.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Basically, a destination computer (e.g., a website, such as
> > > > groups.google.com) only knows the IP address of the computer
> directly
> > > > contacting it. It has no care or knowledge of what happened before
> that
> > > > computer makes the request. So when you use an anonymizer, whenever
> you
> > > make
> > > > a request (visit a website), the anonymizer actually sends your
> request
> > > to
> > > > another computer, with instructions to send off the request to the
> > > > destination and send back the results. That way, the IP that the
> > > destination
> > > > computer sees is not your IP address but the IP of whatever machine
> > > actually
> > > > directly made the request for you. This makes it impossible for the
> > > > destination machine to know the REAL IP of the person making the
> request
> > > > (or, in this case, posting to the group).
> > > >
> > > > Or so I understand from my admittedly somewhat basic understanding of
> > > > networking.
> > >
> > > Basically yes. Consider this. LiamToo was posting from a local ISP in
> > > Kansas and Wanderer was posting in an AOL ISP. Nobody can anonymize
> > > legitimate ISPs.
> >
> >
> > What's a "legitimate ISP"? And what makes you think no one can anonymize
> > them?
>
> Time Warner's Road Runner, AOL, Verizon, SureWest, Everest, Server
> companies like I have now, Bell South, any Bell, etc. If you trace the
> IP and end up with a legitimate ISP company
Again, what is a "legitimate ISP company", Liam?
> , then you're seeing real
> IPs and not a product of any anonymizer.
The Google servers only would see the end node of the chain of
anonymization. They don't "trace" the IP.
>
>
> >
>
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:46 am
From: Tertullian
Turner Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Ward Yung <wardenyung@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it works? I
> > know
> > > > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer might
> > work.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically, a destination computer (e.g., a website, such as
> > > > > groups.google.com) only knows the IP address of the computer
> > directly
> > > > > contacting it. It has no care or knowledge of what happened before
> > that
> > > > > computer makes the request. So when you use an anonymizer, whenever
> > you
> > > > make
> > > > > a request (visit a website), the anonymizer actually sends your
> > request
> > > > to
> > > > > another computer, with instructions to send off the request to the
> > > > > destination and send back the results. That way, the IP that the
> > > > destination
> > > > > computer sees is not your IP address but the IP of whatever machine
> > > > actually
> > > > > directly made the request for you. This makes it impossible for the
> > > > > destination machine to know the REAL IP of the person making the
> > request
> > > > > (or, in this case, posting to the group).
> > > > >
> > > > > Or so I understand from my admittedly somewhat basic understanding of
> > > > > networking.
> > > >
> > > > Basically yes. Consider this. LiamToo was posting from a local ISP in
> > > > Kansas and Wanderer was posting in an AOL ISP. Nobody can anonymize
> > > > legitimate ISPs.
> > >
> > >
> > > What's a "legitimate ISP"? And what makes you think no one can anonymize
> > > them?
> >
> > Time Warner's Road Runner, AOL, Verizon, SureWest, Everest, Server
> > companies like I have now, Bell South, any Bell, etc. If you trace the
> > IP and end up with a legitimate ISP company
>
>
> Again, what is a "legitimate ISP company", Liam?
>
>
> > , then you're seeing real
> > IPs and not a product of any anonymizer.
>
>
> The Google servers only would see the end node of the chain of
> anonymization. They don't "trace" the IP.
I'm actually referring to you as a computer savvy. But still the end
result of what shows in the Google servers are the real IPs, if
they're coming from the the legit ISP companies.
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:53 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Tertullian <
> RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Ward Yung <
> wardenyung@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it works?
> I
> > > know
> > > > > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer might
> > > work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Basically, a destination computer (e.g., a website, such as
> > > > > > groups.google.com) only knows the IP address of the computer
> > > directly
> > > > > > contacting it. It has no care or knowledge of what happened
> before
> > > that
> > > > > > computer makes the request. So when you use an anonymizer,
> whenever
> > > you
> > > > > make
> > > > > > a request (visit a website), the anonymizer actually sends your
> > > request
> > > > > to
> > > > > > another computer, with instructions to send off the request to
> the
> > > > > > destination and send back the results. That way, the IP that the
> > > > > destination
> > > > > > computer sees is not your IP address but the IP of whatever
> machine
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > directly made the request for you. This makes it impossible for
> the
> > > > > > destination machine to know the REAL IP of the person making the
> > > request
> > > > > > (or, in this case, posting to the group).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or so I understand from my admittedly somewhat basic
> understanding of
> > > > > > networking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically yes. Consider this. LiamToo was posting from a local ISP
> in
> > > > > Kansas and Wanderer was posting in an AOL ISP. Nobody can anonymize
> > > > > legitimate ISPs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What's a "legitimate ISP"? And what makes you think no one can
> anonymize
> > > > them?
> > >
> > > Time Warner's Road Runner, AOL, Verizon, SureWest, Everest, Server
> > > companies like I have now, Bell South, any Bell, etc. If you trace the
> > > IP and end up with a legitimate ISP company
> >
> >
> > Again, what is a "legitimate ISP company", Liam?
> >
> >
> > > , then you're seeing real
> > > IPs and not a product of any anonymizer.
> >
> >
> > The Google servers only would see the end node of the chain of
> > anonymization. They don't "trace" the IP.
>
> I'm actually referring to you as a computer savvy. But still the end
> result of what shows in the Google servers are the real IPs, if
> they're coming from the the legit ISP companies.
Yes, Liam, the real IPs of the actually requesting computer, not necessarily
of the original user.
>
> >
>
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:54 am
From: Tertullian
Turner Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Tertullian <
> > RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Ward Yung <
> > wardenyung@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it works?
> > I
> > > > know
> > > > > > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer might
> > > > work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Basically, a destination computer (e.g., a website, such as
> > > > > > > groups.google.com) only knows the IP address of the computer
> > > > directly
> > > > > > > contacting it. It has no care or knowledge of what happened
> > before
> > > > that
> > > > > > > computer makes the request. So when you use an anonymizer,
> > whenever
> > > > you
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > a request (visit a website), the anonymizer actually sends your
> > > > request
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > another computer, with instructions to send off the request to
> > the
> > > > > > > destination and send back the results. That way, the IP that the
> > > > > > destination
> > > > > > > computer sees is not your IP address but the IP of whatever
> > machine
> > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > directly made the request for you. This makes it impossible for
> > the
> > > > > > > destination machine to know the REAL IP of the person making the
> > > > request
> > > > > > > (or, in this case, posting to the group).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or so I understand from my admittedly somewhat basic
> > understanding of
> > > > > > > networking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Basically yes. Consider this. LiamToo was posting from a local ISP
> > in
> > > > > > Kansas and Wanderer was posting in an AOL ISP. Nobody can anonymize
> > > > > > legitimate ISPs.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What's a "legitimate ISP"? And what makes you think no one can
> > anonymize
> > > > > them?
> > > >
> > > > Time Warner's Road Runner, AOL, Verizon, SureWest, Everest, Server
> > > > companies like I have now, Bell South, any Bell, etc. If you trace the
> > > > IP and end up with a legitimate ISP company
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, what is a "legitimate ISP company", Liam?
> > >
> > >
> > > > , then you're seeing real
> > > > IPs and not a product of any anonymizer.
> > >
> > >
> > > The Google servers only would see the end node of the chain of
> > > anonymization. They don't "trace" the IP.
> >
> > I'm actually referring to you as a computer savvy. But still the end
> > result of what shows in the Google servers are the real IPs, if
> > they're coming from the the legit ISP companies.
>
>
> Yes, Liam, the real IPs of the actually requesting computer, not necessarily
> of the original user.
The original user as well if the ISP is real.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Theist bites the dust.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e4d18055d0abcf63?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:33 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tertullian <
> RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 2, 11:12 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 1:22 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > > > and i found proof it could not be him as they both posted
> on
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > threat within 4 minutes apart.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Easy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Two computers in the same house or office comes to mind, such as
> a PC
> > > > > > and a laptop...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or, you could use a virutal drive hosted on a primary drive...
> > > > > > Switching from one to the other takes less than a second.
> > > > > > Look up Virtual PC, you piece of shit who likes to mnake fun of
> > > people
> > > > > > sharing their issues with mental illness.
> > > > >
> > > > > How would you explain the difference in IP address? I was out in
> ACRD
> > > > > and find out that LiamToo was posting using a local ISP in Kansas,
> > > > > while Wanderer was posting with an AOL ISP.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the need to use two ISPs to just post here and other
> groups?
> > > > > That's expensive.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.torproject.org/
> > > >
> > > > I'm not an expert on Tor, but as far as I understand, the way it
> works is
> > > > that it routes each request you make through other computers using
> Tor
> > > > before sending it off to the final destination, so each link in the
> chain
> > > > only knows about the computer before it and the final destination
> only
> > > knows
> > > > about the end node (which may or may not change with each request,
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > sure). And that's not the only randomizer out there, I'm sure.
> > > >
> > > > He could also use a proxy; a computer through which you make a
> request,
> > > so
> > > > that the final destination (e.g., groups.google.com) only knows
> about
> > > the
> > > > proxy machine, not the original requester. He could have used a proxy
> for
> > > > one of his accounts and his real IP for another, or even two
> different
> > > > proxies. That could be done in FAR less than 4, or even 2,
> > > minutes--unless
> > > > he was really, really slow.
> > >
> > > Really slow? Oh no, how can anybody wait for minutes to just post here?
> >
> >
> > You tell me, Liam.
>
> And another.
What the hell are you talking about, Liam?
>
>
> >
>
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:40 am
From: Tertullian
Turner Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tertullian <
> > RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 11:12 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 1:22 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > > > > and i found proof it could not be him as they both posted
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > threat within 4 minutes apart.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Easy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Two computers in the same house or office comes to mind, such as
> > a PC
> > > > > > > and a laptop...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or, you could use a virutal drive hosted on a primary drive...
> > > > > > > Switching from one to the other takes less than a second.
> > > > > > > Look up Virtual PC, you piece of shit who likes to mnake fun of
> > > > people
> > > > > > > sharing their issues with mental illness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How would you explain the difference in IP address? I was out in
> > ACRD
> > > > > > and find out that LiamToo was posting using a local ISP in Kansas,
> > > > > > while Wanderer was posting with an AOL ISP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the need to use two ISPs to just post here and other
> > groups?
> > > > > > That's expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.torproject.org/
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not an expert on Tor, but as far as I understand, the way it
> > works is
> > > > > that it routes each request you make through other computers using
> > Tor
> > > > > before sending it off to the final destination, so each link in the
> > chain
> > > > > only knows about the computer before it and the final destination
> > only
> > > > knows
> > > > > about the end node (which may or may not change with each request,
> > I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > sure). And that's not the only randomizer out there, I'm sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > He could also use a proxy; a computer through which you make a
> > request,
> > > > so
> > > > > that the final destination (e.g., groups.google.com) only knows
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > > proxy machine, not the original requester. He could have used a proxy
> > for
> > > > > one of his accounts and his real IP for another, or even two
> > different
> > > > > proxies. That could be done in FAR less than 4, or even 2,
> > > > minutes--unless
> > > > > he was really, really slow.
> > > >
> > > > Really slow? Oh no, how can anybody wait for minutes to just post here?
> > >
> > >
> > > You tell me, Liam.
> >
> > And another.
>
>
> What the hell are you talking about, Liam?
That a real anonymizer program takes minutes to load. Posting takes
minutes to hit the newsgroup. A real ISP takes seconds as I did.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:41 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Tertullian <
> RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tertullian <
> > > RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 11:12 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 1:22 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > > > > > and i found proof it could not be him as they both
> posted
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > threat within 4 minutes apart.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Easy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Two computers in the same house or office comes to mind, such
> as
> > > a PC
> > > > > > > > and a laptop...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Or, you could use a virutal drive hosted on a primary
> drive...
> > > > > > > > Switching from one to the other takes less than a second.
> > > > > > > > Look up Virtual PC, you piece of shit who likes to mnake fun
> of
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > > sharing their issues with mental illness.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How would you explain the difference in IP address? I was out
> in
> > > ACRD
> > > > > > > and find out that LiamToo was posting using a local ISP in
> Kansas,
> > > > > > > while Wanderer was posting with an AOL ISP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is the need to use two ISPs to just post here and other
> > > groups?
> > > > > > > That's expensive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.torproject.org/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not an expert on Tor, but as far as I understand, the way it
> > > works is
> > > > > > that it routes each request you make through other computers
> using
> > > Tor
> > > > > > before sending it off to the final destination, so each link in
> the
> > > chain
> > > > > > only knows about the computer before it and the final destination
> > > only
> > > > > knows
> > > > > > about the end node (which may or may not change with each
> request,
> > > I'm
> > > > > not
> > > > > > sure). And that's not the only randomizer out there, I'm sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He could also use a proxy; a computer through which you make a
> > > request,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > that the final destination (e.g., groups.google.com) only knows
> > > about
> > > > > the
> > > > > > proxy machine, not the original requester. He could have used a
> proxy
> > > for
> > > > > > one of his accounts and his real IP for another, or even two
> > > different
> > > > > > proxies. That could be done in FAR less than 4, or even 2,
> > > > > minutes--unless
> > > > > > he was really, really slow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really slow? Oh no, how can anybody wait for minutes to just post
> here?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You tell me, Liam.
> > >
> > > And another.
> >
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about, Liam?
>
> That a real anonymizer program takes minutes to load. Posting takes
> minutes to hit the newsgroup. A real ISP takes seconds as I did.
And how did posting two posts prove that, Liam?
>
> >
>
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:43 am
From: Tertullian
Turner Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Tertullian <
> > RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tertullian <
> > > > RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 11:12 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 1:22 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > > > > > > and i found proof it could not be him as they both
> > posted
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > threat within 4 minutes apart.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Easy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Two computers in the same house or office comes to mind, such
> > as
> > > > a PC
> > > > > > > > > and a laptop...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Or, you could use a virutal drive hosted on a primary
> > drive...
> > > > > > > > > Switching from one to the other takes less than a second.
> > > > > > > > > Look up Virtual PC, you piece of shit who likes to mnake fun
> > of
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > sharing their issues with mental illness.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How would you explain the difference in IP address? I was out
> > in
> > > > ACRD
> > > > > > > > and find out that LiamToo was posting using a local ISP in
> > Kansas,
> > > > > > > > while Wanderer was posting with an AOL ISP.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is the need to use two ISPs to just post here and other
> > > > groups?
> > > > > > > > That's expensive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.torproject.org/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not an expert on Tor, but as far as I understand, the way it
> > > > works is
> > > > > > > that it routes each request you make through other computers
> > using
> > > > Tor
> > > > > > > before sending it off to the final destination, so each link in
> > the
> > > > chain
> > > > > > > only knows about the computer before it and the final destination
> > > > only
> > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > about the end node (which may or may not change with each
> > request,
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > sure). And that's not the only randomizer out there, I'm sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He could also use a proxy; a computer through which you make a
> > > > request,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > that the final destination (e.g., groups.google.com) only knows
> > > > about
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > proxy machine, not the original requester. He could have used a
> > proxy
> > > > for
> > > > > > > one of his accounts and his real IP for another, or even two
> > > > different
> > > > > > > proxies. That could be done in FAR less than 4, or even 2,
> > > > > > minutes--unless
> > > > > > > he was really, really slow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really slow? Oh no, how can anybody wait for minutes to just post
> > here?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You tell me, Liam.
> > > >
> > > > And another.
> > >
> > >
> > > What the hell are you talking about, Liam?
> >
> > That a real anonymizer program takes minutes to load. Posting takes
> > minutes to hit the newsgroup. A real ISP takes seconds as I did.
>
>
> And how did posting two posts prove that, Liam?
LOL, you're still calling me Liam. Look at the time stamp of my posts,
it showed a difference of seconds.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:51 am
From: "Turner Hayes"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Tertullian <
> RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Tertullian <
> > > RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tertullian <
> > > > > RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 11:12 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 1:22 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and i found proof it could not be him as they both
> > > posted
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > threat within 4 minutes apart.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Easy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Two computers in the same house or office comes to mind,
> such
> > > as
> > > > > a PC
> > > > > > > > > > and a laptop...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Or, you could use a virutal drive hosted on a primary
> > > drive...
> > > > > > > > > > Switching from one to the other takes less than a second.
> > > > > > > > > > Look up Virtual PC, you piece of shit who likes to mnake
> fun
> > > of
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > sharing their issues with mental illness.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How would you explain the difference in IP address? I was
> out
> > > in
> > > > > ACRD
> > > > > > > > > and find out that LiamToo was posting using a local ISP in
> > > Kansas,
> > > > > > > > > while Wanderer was posting with an AOL ISP.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What is the need to use two ISPs to just post here and
> other
> > > > > groups?
> > > > > > > > > That's expensive.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.torproject.org/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not an expert on Tor, but as far as I understand, the way
> it
> > > > > works is
> > > > > > > > that it routes each request you make through other computers
> > > using
> > > > > Tor
> > > > > > > > before sending it off to the final destination, so each link
> in
> > > the
> > > > > chain
> > > > > > > > only knows about the computer before it and the final
> destination
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > about the end node (which may or may not change with each
> > > request,
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > sure). And that's not the only randomizer out there, I'm
> sure.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He could also use a proxy; a computer through which you make
> a
> > > > > request,
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > that the final destination (e.g., groups.google.com) only
> knows
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > proxy machine, not the original requester. He could have used
> a
> > > proxy
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > one of his accounts and his real IP for another, or even two
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > proxies. That could be done in FAR less than 4, or even 2,
> > > > > > > minutes--unless
> > > > > > > > he was really, really slow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really slow? Oh no, how can anybody wait for minutes to just
> post
> > > here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You tell me, Liam.
> > > > >
> > > > > And another.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What the hell are you talking about, Liam?
> > >
> > > That a real anonymizer program takes minutes to load. Posting takes
> > > minutes to hit the newsgroup. A real ISP takes seconds as I did.
> >
> >
> > And how did posting two posts prove that, Liam?
>
> LOL, you're still calling me Liam. Look at the time stamp of my posts,
> it showed a difference of seconds.
Proving what, exactly, Liam?
>
> >
>
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:56 am
From: Tertullian
Drafterman wrote:
> On Dec 3, 10:43�am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Answer_42 wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 10:29 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I know. He must be somebody really good. Too bad he's gone, I was
> > > > looking forward to debating with him and obtaining more information on
> > > > religious antiquity.
> >
> > > Strange how these "new" members like LedZep and Tertullian are signing
> > > the praises of LiamToo, while the rest of us know he is just an
> > > ignorant little liar!
> >
> > > I wonder why that would be?
> > > I am sure there is no bias at work here!
> >
> > I have read his numerous posts and they are intelligent and full of
> > insights. How can I not praise him?
>
> Easy! Shut the fuck up, that's how!
LOL, if you shut the fuck up too.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mark Shea: Padding the Case for the New Atheism
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/7086bf6a6cf6d81e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:34 am
From: Brock
from:
http://www.mark-shea.com/pad.html
Against an untenable claim of "neutrality" of beliefs, the article
notes:
"For the New Atheist is full of moral prescriptions and proscriptions:
We should be teaching children about Darwin. We should not be teaching
children religion. We should have greater tolerance for sexual
diversity. We should not be subjecting infants to circumcision. We
ought to be doing X, we ought not to be doing Y, etc."
Against materialist claims he notes:
"The problem is this: Trying to derive a moral universe -- any moral
universe at all -- of Should from a purely materialistic universe of
Is turns out to be impossible. The perfectly just outrage of a
Hitchens at some crime by a theist turns out -- if you grant the New
Atheists' materialism -- to be just one more biochemical reaction. And
privileging a biochemical reaction merely because it is a lot more
complex than, say, combustion is as crude a mystification as bowing
down to a rock because it's really really big."
and in identifying the specific nature of blind faith frequently
employed in atheism:
"What is marvelous is how nakedly Hitchens reveals his own atheist
convictions to be entirely faith-based and -- what is more -- based on
faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy. All the massive
artillery of his adult wit and eloquence is, in the final analysis,
ranked and ranged to protect that boy and his emotional epiphany."
A very thoughtful piece that clearly illustrates many inadequacies
associated with the new atheism.
Regards,
Brock
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:35 am
From: Woodbridge
Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4:
"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
On Dec 3, 9:34 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> from:
>
> http://www.mark-shea.com/pad.html
>
> Against an untenable claim of "neutrality" of beliefs, the article
> notes:
>
> "For the New Atheist is full of moral prescriptions and proscriptions:
> We should be teaching children about Darwin. We should not be teaching
> children religion. We should have greater tolerance for sexual
> diversity. We should not be subjecting infants to circumcision. We
> ought to be doing X, we ought not to be doing Y, etc."
>
> Against materialist claims he notes:
>
> "The problem is this: Trying to derive a moral universe -- any moral
> universe at all -- of Should from a purely materialistic universe of
> Is turns out to be impossible. The perfectly just outrage of a
> Hitchens at some crime by a theist turns out -- if you grant the New
> Atheists' materialism -- to be just one more biochemical reaction. And
> privileging a biochemical reaction merely because it is a lot more
> complex than, say, combustion is as crude a mystification as bowing
> down to a rock because it's really really big."
>
> and in identifying the specific nature of blind faith frequently
> employed in atheism:
>
> "What is marvelous is how nakedly Hitchens reveals his own atheist
> convictions to be entirely faith-based and -- what is more -- based on
> faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy. All the massive
> artillery of his adult wit and eloquence is, in the final analysis,
> ranked and ranged to protect that boy and his emotional epiphany."
>
> A very thoughtful piece that clearly illustrates many inadequacies
> associated with the new atheism.
>
It is not
> Regards,
>
> Brock
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faux Pas Tolerance: New Atheism Fosters Misunderstanding
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0a1034895f75bc9a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:40 am
From: Neil Kelsey
On Dec 3, 9:12 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Every time someone posts in a Brock Organ thread, a Catholic Priest
> molests a child.
> Won't somebody think of the children?
Brilliant! Expect that to be added to the Westminster Confession.
Has God tried hostage taking and blackmail? Maybe if he kidnapped our
leader, Richard Dawkins, he could force the New Atheists to shut up.
And probably run around aimlessly walking into fire hydrants and
lamposts, without anyone issuing orders.
You're welcome, Brock.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christians get the message.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/11511ccd36fe0d4c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:57 am
From: Treebeard
On Dec 2, 7:16 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This entire argument of yours is simply a typical theist dodge to avoid
> dealing with the issue of theist extremists and damage that they do.
> When you want to get around to dealing with the actual issue instead of
> evading it feel free to let me know and we can discuss it.
Sorry, the only one evading is you, as evidenced by the fact that I
answer your questions and you do not answer mine.
I'm sorry that you seem to feel that no one can get around to dealing
with the "actual issue" without completely and unequivocably agreeing
with you.
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 1:36 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Treebeard <
> > allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there can be a non-
> > > > > > extremist religion?
>
> > > > > I think there are extremists in all religions.
>
> > > > Do you think that there is any movement or philosophy of any
> > > > importance that does not have extremists?
>
> > > We are not talking about other movements or philosophies.
>
> > My point is that if all movements or philosophies may have extremists,
> > you didn't answer my question, which was if there can be a non-
> > extremist religion. Remember, your reply was that all religions have
> > extremists, and I was merely trying to ascertain if you thought that
> > made the religion itself extremist or not.
>
> > > We debate religion on this site and frankly it's a nonsensical and
> > childish
> > > argument to say "well everyone else does it."
>
> > It is a perfect argument if you want to assert that extremism is a
> > quality of religion itself, which is what I objected to. If that was
> > not your intent, then we don't have much to talk about.
>
> > > > > > Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd accept that
> > we
> > > > > > aren't extremists?
>
> > > > > I would expect all religious people who don't agree with Religious
> > > > Extremism
> > > > > to Acknowledge It and take a stand against it and stop trying to
> > justify
> > > > it.
>
> > > > Can you give a specific action that we could take to show you that we
> > > > are not trying to justify it?
>
> > > You could stop giving silly arguments like "everyone else does it" to
> > make
> > > it seem justifiable.
>
> > Again, I am merely claiming that religions are not inherently
> > extremist, and proving that by demonstrating other causes that are non-
> > religious but are or contain extremists. I replied to a comment you
> > made that, to me, stated precisely that. If that is not what you
> > meant, feel free to inform me of that.
>
> > > > Note that you can't say "Give up your religion" because we think
> > > > they're wrong about their interpretation of the religion.
>
> > > I've never once asked anyone to "give up their religion" on this site.
>
> > I never stated that you had; I am simply eliminating that as an option
> > because based on what I listed I cannot really see any other
> > alternative thing that is not already being done, but perhaps there
> > will be something in your list below.
>
> > > > And you can't say "Write books and papers and work to change the
> > > > religion from inside", because many do.
>
> > > > And you can't say "Be an activist" because most people aren't. I
> > > > myself am not an activist about anything; you cannot demand that I
> > > > change my personality over this.
>
> > > > So, other than that, what actions are you expecting us to take?
>
> > > You should acknowledge the reality of the consequences of your beliefs on
> > > others and the rest of the world and stop making excuses for what the
> > crimes
> > > religion has committed in the past.
>
> > I merely claim that religion is no worse than anything else. That's a
> > logical position that you can oppose if you'd like. I do indeed
> > acknowledge that people can do bad things in the name of religion, but
> > quite reasonably refuse to accept the claim that those things would
> > not occur without religion.
>
> > > You should object to those who commit crimes in your god's name.
>
> > I do.
>
> > > You should isolate the extremists and not go along with or accept what
> > they
> > > do in your gods name.
>
> > I do.
>
> > > And you should support the fight to maintain a secular society.
>
> > This depends on what you mean by "secular". If it includes the
> > elimination of religion or an insistence that even moderate religious
> > people cannot act on their religious beliefs, that is, obviously, a
> > step far too far.
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity"
group.
To post to this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
or visit http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment