RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
What may be best is for several of us to discuss/decide off-list and present our recommendation to Bill; perhaps myself, Terry, Jones and Robin. I would include Horace as well, but he has more serious challenges in his life at the moment. or we can ask Bill to give us that authority should he not be able to respond within a reasonable time. That said, let me make a few comments that are directed to BOTH sides of the issue: We really shouldn't need any such moderation. What really irks me is that seeming adults still haven't learned that one should respect another person's religious beliefs; and that ALL major religions have their tarnished 'history' that the vast majority of followers would prefer didn't happen. but history is history and no arguing will change that. Learn from the stories of human failings that are in all decent religious texts and move on. In addition, ALL major religions have their share of 'fanatics and radical elements' that do NOT represent the majority. This has been the case for thousands of years, and so long as there are humans involved, this is NOT going to change any time soon - endless debate is a waste of time and disrespectful to the rest of the Collective. Same goes for politics as well. Why do you think this forum has lasted for over 15 years??? Why do the same people stick with it for that long??? It should be a lesson to all those who have only been here for a few years, that most of the long-time regulars have *NOT* engaged in the recent useless waste of bandwidth. get the hint??? And some *minor* amount of [OT] postings are not bad. the usual crowd tends to use them sparingly for a bit of humor and diversion when technical events are in a lull. All work and no play makes for a less enjoyable read and that too can lead to some good people leaving the Collective. -Mark Iverson From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Mark, would you be willing to act as an impartial moderator of this forum. I have found your objectivity and integrity to be acceptable and I'm sure others do so as well. Can we all agree to abide by Mark's ruling if he accepts the position? You would have to moderate all posts including all off-topic posts, that in your judgement is excessive and clearly off-topic. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Jones and Robin are acceptable to me, though Terry seems to involve himself in too much off-topic noise. If we can get an agreement from Jed and SVJ to honor the decision of Mark, Jones and Robin, that would be acceptable to me. Their job would be to monitor and moderate all off-topic posts as well as insults. This will use their own judgement to decide what constitutes excessive off-topic posts. They will decide which opinion is insulting to another. Is this acceptable to Jed, SVJ, Lomax, Rocha and others? Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:06 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. What may be best is for several of us to discuss/decide off-list and present our recommendation to Bill; perhaps myself, Terry, Jones and Robin. I would include Horace as well, but he has more serious challenges in his life at the moment. or we can ask Bill to give us that authority should he not be able to respond within a reasonable time. That said, let me make a few comments that are directed to BOTH sides of the issue: We really shouldn't need any such moderation. What really irks me is that seeming adults still haven't learned that one should respect another person's religious beliefs; and that ALL major religions have their tarnished 'history' that the vast majority of followers would prefer didn't happen. but history is history and no arguing will change that. Learn from the stories of human failings that are in all decent religious texts and move on. In addition, ALL major religions have their share of 'fanatics and radical elements' that do NOT represent the majority. This has been the case for thousands of years, and so long as there are humans involved, this is NOT going to change any time soon - endless debate is a waste of time and disrespectful to the rest of the Collective. Same goes for politics as well. Why do you think this forum has lasted for over 15 years??? Why do the same people stick with it for that long??? It should be a lesson to all those who have only been here for a few years, that most of the long-time regulars have *NOT* engaged in the recent useless waste of bandwidth. get the hint??? And some *minor* amount of [OT] postings are not bad. the usual crowd tends to use them sparingly for a bit of humor and diversion when technical events are in a lull. All work and no play makes for a less enjoyable read and that too can lead to some good people leaving the Collective. -Mark Iverson From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Mark, would you be willing to act as an impartial moderator of this forum. I have found your objectivity and integrity to be acceptable and I'm sure others do so as well. Can we all agree to abide by Mark's ruling if he accepts the position? You would have to moderate all posts including all off-topic posts, that in your judgement is excessive and clearly off-topic. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Jones and Robin are acceptable to me, though Terry seems to involve himself in too much off-topic noise. If we can get an agreement from Jed and SVJ to honor the decision of Mark, Jones and Robin, that would be acceptable to me. Their job would be to monitor and moderate all off-topic posts as well as insults. They will use their own judgement to decide what constitutes excessive off-topic posts. They will decide which opinion is insulting to another. I will abide by all their decisions. Is this acceptable to Jed, SVJ, Lomax, Rocha and others? If this arrangement is acceptable, I will start it off with a good faith offer. I will apologize to Lomax, though I have nothing to apologize for. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:06 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. What may be best is for several of us to discuss/decide off-list and present our recommendation to Bill; perhaps myself, Terry, Jones and Robin. I would include Horace as well, but he has more serious challenges in his life at the moment. or we can ask Bill to give us that authority should he not be able to respond within a reasonable time. That said, let me make a few comments that are directed to BOTH sides of the issue: We really shouldn't need any such moderation. What really irks me is that seeming adults still haven't learned that one should respect another person's religious beliefs; and that ALL major religions have their tarnished 'history' that the vast majority of followers would prefer didn't happen. but history is history and no arguing will change that. Learn from the stories of human failings that are in all decent religious texts and move on. In addition, ALL major religions have their share of 'fanatics and radical elements' that do NOT represent the majority. This has been the case for thousands of years, and so long as there are humans involved, this is NOT going to change any time soon - endless debate is a waste of time and disrespectful to the rest of the Collective. Same goes for politics as well. Why do you think this forum has lasted for over 15 years??? Why do the same people stick with it for that long??? It should be a lesson to all those who have only been here for a few years, that most of the long-time regulars have *NOT* engaged in the recent useless waste of bandwidth. get the hint??? And some *minor* amount of [OT] postings are not bad. the usual crowd tends to use them sparingly for a bit of humor and diversion when technical events are in a lull. All work and no play makes for a less enjoyable read and that too can lead to some good people leaving the Collective. -Mark Iverson From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Mark, would you be willing to act as an impartial moderator of this forum. I have found your objectivity and integrity to be acceptable and I'm sure others do so as well. Can we all agree to abide by Mark's ruling if he accepts the position? You would have to moderate all posts including all off-topic posts, that in your judgement is excessive and clearly off-topic. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Dave: Thanks for your rational comments on the issue. One other thing. this forum is NOT only for discussions about LENR, although for obvious reasons it has, up until a few weeks ago, been the main topic of discussion. As explained in the forum's website, it's main purpose is for discussing technical/scientific topics that are outside the mainstream. some might feel that anything other than LENR and power-related topics are [OT], but that would not be the case. Gotta git some shut-eye. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:09 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Jojo, I do not have control of the postings that these guys produce. Most of the time they submit excellent subject manner and on occasions it gets off topic as you say. Recently, most of their postings seem to be acceptable and pretty much on subject or related to LENR in some fashion. You have hit a raw nerve with Abd and it is clear that he feels that every post against his religion must be countered. It seems odd to me that he seems so inclined, but maybe that is part of his belief and he is performing an important duty in his mind. You should let him off the hook to be fair. I know some disgusting things have been stated about your beliefs as well. Those guilty of this type of attack should realize that they are not doing anyone a service this way and the behavior should stop immediately. I find that some off topic posts are educational and I would not be aware of the subject unless someone like the two vortex members you list were to toss them our way. On occasion I have felt that too much bandwidth was being spent in this manner, but it usually clears up fairly soon. I recall seeking termination of a couple of far off discussions in the past. I think your best plan of action would be to leave Abd alone for a while and cease posting the terribly offensive statements about his religion. If he brings up these issues again without provocation then someone needs to go to his location and pull the power plug of his computer. Either that or arrange for him to seek professional care. So once that goes away, then why not monitor the vortex for long lasting off topic postings that you find offensive and let whoever posts them know about your dissatisfaction. There was a time not long ago when the vortex was running smoothly and I think that can be achieved again soon. We all need to have folks of the various backgrounds and talents to consider our ideas. I recall you making important contributions and hope to see more of the same after things settle back to normal. I assume that Jed and SVJ will not see this posting since they have blocked anything that has your name within according to what they have written. They are good guys and I value what they are contributing to the group. Please give the vortex some time to clean itself up before you continue with the offensive tittles and content. We might loose the reason that we subscribe if many valued members flee. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 2:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. David, can you call for a moderation of the off-topic posts from others. If the most blatant off-topic offenders would simply make a small promise to moderate their incessant noise, that would be enough to satisfy the main reason why I am posting off-topic posts here. Note, I am not referring to off-topic posts that may be slightly relevant, I am talking about off-topic posts that are clearly irrelevant. I am doing this to give Jed a dose of his own medicine. I am just gabbing with friends here and making up the rules as I go. How about it? This solution is certainly simpler and more straitforward than starting another list or filtering everybody who responds to me. I believe this proposal of mine is fair and equitable and good for the community. How about it Jed and SVJ? Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Fair enough. I will abide by your suggestion. In return, I want 2 things from you. 1. I need you to call for the termination of excessive off-topic posts. I will leave it to your judgement what constitutes excessive off-topic posts. 2. I need you to call for the termination of insults and insulting words. Once again, I will leave it to your judgement what constitutes an insult. These two things are easy to discern. If you agree to do these, I will agree to do what you ask. Remember, my agreemnt to do this is contigent upon your agreement and good faith promise to do these 2 things I ask. My agreement starts the momemt you respond and agree to my proposal. That would be the time I do as you ask. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Jojo, I do not have control of the postings that these guys produce. Most of the time they submit excellent subject manner and on occasions it gets off topic as you say. Recently, most of their postings seem to be acceptable and pretty much on subject or related to LENR in some fashion. You have hit a raw nerve with Abd and it is clear that he feels that every post against his religion must be countered. It seems odd to me that he seems so inclined, but maybe that is part of his belief and he is performing an important duty in his mind. You should let him off the hook to be fair. I know some disgusting things have been stated about your beliefs as well. Those guilty of this type of attack should realize that they are not doing anyone a service this way and the behavior should stop immediately. I find that some off topic posts are educational and I would not be aware of the subject unless someone like the two vortex members you list were to toss them our way. On occasion I have felt that too much bandwidth was being spent in this manner, but it usually clears up fairly soon. I recall seeking termination of a couple of far off discussions in the past. I think your best plan of action would be to leave Abd alone for a while and cease posting the terribly offensive statements about his religion. If he brings up these issues again without provocation then someone needs to go to his location and pull the power plug of his computer. Either that or arrange for him to seek professional care. So once that goes away, then why not monitor the vortex for long lasting off topic postings that you find offensive and let whoever posts them know about your dissatisfaction. There was a time not long ago when the vortex was running smoothly and I think that can be achieved again soon. We all need to have folks of the various backgrounds and talents to consider our ideas. I recall you making important contributions and hope to see more of the same after things settle back to normal. I assume that Jed and SVJ will not see this posting since they have blocked anything that has your name within according to what they have written. They are good guys and I value what they are contributing to the group. Please give the vortex some time to clean itself up before you continue with the offensive tittles and content. We might loose the reason that we subscribe if many valued members flee. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 2:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. David, can you call for a moderation of the off-topic posts from others. If the most blatant off-topic offenders would simply make a small promise to moderate their incessant noise, that would be enough to satisfy the main reason why I am posting off-topic posts here. Note, I am not referring to off-topic posts that may be slightly relevant, I am talking about off-topic posts that are clearly irrelevant. I am doing this to give Jed a dose of his own medicine. I am just gabbing with friends here and making up the rules as I go. How about it? This solution is certainly simpler and more straitforward than starting another list or filtering everybody who responds to me. I believe this proposal of mine is fair and equitable and good for the community. How about it Jed and SVJ? Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
I find that if I ignore my kids when they act up, it usually goes away. It is usually them looking for attention. I was taught that from a PhD family psychologist and it works. You might try the same. It has a lot to do with maturity. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Jones and Robin are acceptable to me, though Terry seems to involve himself in too much off-topic noise. Black!
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
He he he Sorry my friend, you do involve yourself with a lot of off-topic noise. But I still owe you lunch if you are still interested when I get back there. Jojo - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones and Robin are acceptable to me, though Terry seems to involve himself in too much off-topic noise. Black!
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
On 3 January 2013 08:16, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. Exactly. My lockscreen and gmail screens are just screaming leave vortex-list at me. and it's sad, because i joined here to read up on vortices, free energy and cold fusion / LENR / canr and any kind of alternative energy sources or debate.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell* might filter me out. Okay, out you go. I'll check back in a few months to see if you have stopped posting this garbage. I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long. YOU are the one polluting it! Go away! For the record, I have no objection to Islam but no interest either. As several people have pointed out, the thread titles alone are offensive and way off topic. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Hi, Eric, My motive for posting in Jojo's trolling is not quite the same as Abd ul-Rahman's. I worry about the campaign of disinformation that Islamo-phobes are spreading as widely as they can. It affects the ability of the American people and Europeans to understand issues pertaining to the Middle East, and so degrades the quality of our foreign policy. I know, not the concern of LENR list. But people on this list nonetheless and fortunately form opinions on other matters, and so the disinformation must (I say as a political scientist involved in US foreign policy issues, as well as an engaged LENR observer) be countered. And yes, I know that the disinformation is unfair to list members and the countering of it tedious, repetitious, and, to many, legitimately unwelcome. Hidden Islamophobic agendas and methods have spilled into our list. The matter that Abd ul-Rahman raises of the troll's posting being archived is a real one, even if we have had to waste time countering it. Short of stopping the Islamophobic trolling at its source, I don't know what else to do. Islamophobia is akin to anti-Semitism in its despicability, and one can make the argument easily that the former is a variant of the latter. We should accept neither. Lawry On Jan 2, 2013, at 11:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell* might filter me out. I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long. Hate to say it, but the troll is starting to win. People are starting to lose patience with one another. I think Steve Johnson has been on this list since early days. Any word on Bill? Is he ok? How long do we suffer the present situation until we reconstitute under something like Google Groups, with Terry or another longtimer as mod? Or should everyone who can't stand the situation add he who shall not be named to a killfile? If that's the best we can do for now, how to address Abd's pressing concern about having his background and religion subject to constant assault on this list? Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
I appreciate your decision Jojo. I look forward to a return to the good science related discussions that we once shared. May I make a couple of requests to the Vortex members that are totally reasonable: Lets all terminate any off topic posting that gets to be too long as it may not be of much general interest to the group. I have been corrected to now understand that this group is not concentrated upon LENR as such, but to unusual scientific discoveries, topics, etc. I hope that politics in general becomes far less dominate. The same can be said with respect to religious postings that generate controversy. As always, insults and personal attacks are not worthy of our discussion in this quality group. Little can be gained by such behavior and I find it offensive. We as a group have many shared talents and need to work together in a fashion that enhances the whole. I realize that some positions held by members tend to be considered too emotional and can generate heated exchanges on occasions. This might happen, and when it does, please make a strong effort to cool down before posting personal attacks upon those with which we disagree. I do not wish to make any effort to censure free science related discussions so please do not consider this letter to be of that nature. I merely wish to see the Vortex return to its glory days(or what can be considered as such) and to enjoy the benefits that come with sharing of knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 3:54 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Fair enough. I will abide by your suggestion. In return, I want 2 things from you. 1. I need you to call for the termination of excessive off-topic posts. I will leave it to your judgement what constitutes excessive off-topic posts. 2. I need you to call for the termination of insults and insulting words. Once again, I will leave it to your judgement what constitutes an insult. These two things are easy to discern. If you agree to do these, I will agree to do what you ask. Remember, my agreemnt to do this is contigent upon your agreement and good faith promise to do these 2 things I ask. My agreement starts the momemt you respond and agree to my proposal. That would be the time I do as you ask. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Jojo, I do not have control of the postings that these guys produce. Most of the time they submit excellent subject manner and on occasions it gets off topic as you say.Recently, most of their postings seem to be acceptable and pretty much on subject or related to LENR in some fashion. You have hit a raw nerve with Abd and it is clear that he feels that every post against his religion must be countered. It seems odd to me that he seems so inclined, but maybe that is part of his belief and he is performing an important duty in his mind. You should let him off the hook to be fair. I know some disgusting things have been stated about your beliefs as well. Those guilty of this type of attack should realize that they are not doing anyone a service this way and the behavior should stop immediately. I find that some off topic posts are educational and I would not be aware of the subject unless someone like the two vortex members you list were to toss them our way. On occasion I have felt that too much bandwidth was being spent in this manner, but it usually clears up fairly soon. I recall seeking termination of a couple of far off discussions in the past. I think your best plan of action would be to leave Abd alone for a while and cease posting the terribly offensive statements about his religion.If he brings up these issues again without provocation then someone needs to go to his location and pull the power plug of his computer.Either that or arrange for him to seek professional care. So once that goes away, then why not monitor the vortex for long lasting off topic postings that you find offensive and let whoever posts them know about your dissatisfaction. There was a time not long ago when the vortex was running smoothly and I think that can be achieved again soon. We all need to have folks of the various backgrounds and talents to consider our ideas. I recall you making important contributions and hope to see more of the same after things settle back to normal. I assume that Jed and SVJ will not see this posting since they have blocked anything that has your name within according to what they have written. They are good guys and I value what they are contributing
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 02:43 PM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Do you consider muhammed to be an infallible person? No, explicitly not. Is muhammed considered perfect and sinless by muslims like how Jesus Christ is consider perfect and sinless by Christians? Definitely not, by the majority of Muslims. There are Muslims who fall into this error -- and I consider the denial of Jesus' humanity to also be an error, the whole point of the incarnation (to put on my Christian hat) was that God became man, and to become man is to become flawed, limited, powerless, and fallible. Eli Eli, lamma sabachthani? So, when the chips were down, what name did Jesus call God? Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew, and not Greek. That fragment is the only snippet of his actual words that has been preserved. The Aramaic gospels were back-translated from the Greek. It's a question, not an argument, and this is only a reply on the issue of sinlessness, not a challenge to Christians. It's a *Christian question*, for Christians to address. The Qur'an is clear on Jesus, he was human, *and* he was effectively unique, the Word of God is the *Qur'anic term.* If muhammed is not considered sinless, you should have just disavowed that act and be done with it. I'd have to know the act to disavow. Child molestation is highly reprehensible, *by definition*. I did disavow child molestation, very early on. I pointed to the enforcement of the prohibition in Islam, as to the recent adjudicated case of a 10 year old girl, betrothed, who was raped by her husband. If Muhammad consummated a marriage with a prepubescent or early-pubescent Ayesha, it would be *rape*, as that case shows, and the only Muslim I found who considered that this would be lawful was Maududi, about whom my opinion is very low. Remarkably, he based his opinion not on hadith, but on a verse on divorce which he interprets in the same corrupt way as the Christian critics, showing how fundamentalists think alike. The only on-line argument I could find that considered the Muslim and Bukhari reports of Ayesha's age -- which is a *separate issue,* because of the range of age of maturation -- was a fundamentalist site that treated hadith as infallible sources of law, which is a minority position in Islam. For most of 1400 years the age issue was not considered important, because what was important was maturity, which is only correlated with age, not dependent on it (by 9 years old). So some recent scholarship has examined the issue, and found the hadith to be unreliable. And the fundamentalists are horrified, and that is what was really the point of the fundamentalist site. Look at this horrible innovation, substituting the judgment of historians for our beloved hadith! I've said I'm Maliki, and that school de-emphasizes hadith. However, I'm also Mu'tazili, a school that was dominant for a time, very early on, and the Mu'tazili influence remained in Muslim science. Long story, but the word is sometimes translated as rationalist. The literal meaning is postponers. That is, when even a Qur'anic verse seems difficult to interpret, when it seems to lead to irrationality, we postpone judgment. We look to life itself, to test and result, for understanding of the revelation. And I've found that this works. My undertanding is practical, not that of one who adopts a belief-system consisting of rigid ideas and conclusions. Take a cue from Christians, we disavow the retrograde acts of Solomon's polygamy. We do not insist and try to justify it. I'm not going to dive into judgment of Solomon, nor polygamy, nor polyandry, for that matter. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Keep to the point my friend. Maybe you'll even convince me. If one is transformed, it will be through his surrender to God, to Reality, not by me. Jojo PS. How can you call yourself an electronics engineer when you haven't graduated from engineering school? So, you have no college degree at all? Two questions, last first. No. No degree at all. About three years, over two of which were at the California Insitute of Technology. Though I thought I'd be a nuclear physicist, by the third year I was shifting my interests massively and declared a biochemistry major, but never pursued it. I left in good standing, eligible to return, but I never went back. I call myself an electronics engineer because electronics design was my longest-running self-employment; that business still continues, but the design is now all being done in Brazil. I was totally self-taught in that field, and, in certain narrow areas, became internationally known. That, in fact, is how I ended up having an engineer working for me in Brazil. Jojo was responding to this post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75036.html
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Perhaps there is a problem with the spread of disinformation that you speak of, but did you consider that every time a response is generated, it just gives the subject more publicity? I have come to the conclusion that this is one of the problems within the US that leads to more violence being propagated. One awful act is repeated within the news for far too long which tends to make individuals that are seeking fame to act irrationally. It would have been better for nothing to have been said at any time about the event on public news. Unfortunately, politics usually becomes involved in such manners where there is a tendency to keep the issue alive far beyond reason. Those that continue the process should be held accountable for further problems akin to yelling fire in a crowded environment. Someone looking for an issue to set off their passions is not going to worry about any counters. They most likely will not balance what they read, but instead concentrate upon a narrow range of inputs that they find particularly offensive. This seems to be the nature of the beast, so it is in the best interest of all concerned to terminate the discussion at once and not keep repeating and consequently spreading the issue. For balance, you should also be concerned about the extreme negativity given to one of the Christian positions during the exchanges. I know that there are people reading the list that hold these types of views in serious contempt. This group in not the proper forum from which to conduct these types of activities and I plead that they be terminated. Dave -Original Message- From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 10:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Hi, Eric, My motive for posting in Jojo's trolling is not quite the same as Abd ul-Rahman's. I worry about the campaign of disinformation that Islamo-phobes are spreading as widely as they can. It affects the ability of the American people and Europeans to understand issues pertaining to the Middle East, and so degrades the quality of our foreign policy. I know, not the concern of LENR list. But people on this list nonetheless and fortunately form opinions on other matters, and so the disinformation must (I say as a political scientist involved in US foreign policy issues, as well as an engaged LENR observer) be countered. And yes, I know that the disinformation is unfair to list members and the countering of it tedious, repetitious, and, to many, legitimately unwelcome. Hidden Islamophobic agendas and methods have spilled into our list. The matter that Abd ul-Rahman raises of the troll's posting being archived is a real one, even if we have had to waste time countering it. Short of stopping the Islamophobic trolling at its source, I don't know what else to do. Islamophobia is akin to anti-Semitism in its despicability, and one can make the argument easily that the former is a variant of the latter. We should accept neither. Lawry On Jan 2, 2013, at 11:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell* might filter me out. I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long. Hate to say it, but the troll is starting to win. People are starting to lose patience with one another. I think Steve Johnson has been on this list since early days. Any word on Bill? Is he ok? How long do we suffer the present situation until we reconstitute under something like Google Groups, with Terry or another longtimer as mod? Or should everyone who can't stand the situation add he who shall not be named to a killfile? If that's the best we can do for now, how to address Abd's pressing concern about having his background and religion subject to constant assault on this list? Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 02:06 AM 1/3/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: I believe this proposal of mine is fair and equitable and good for the community. How about it Jed and SVJ? Jed won't see this because he's filtering out Jojo -- and me, now, because of my responses to Jojo. SVJ won't see this unless someone forwards it to him personally, because he unsubscribed.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 01:16 AM 1/3/2013, David Roberson wrote: Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? No. Why? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. Indeed. They are. That's the point, in fact. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? Sure, that occurred to me. However, my responses are only to a fraction of what Jojo is posting. I tested this before, explicitly giving Jojo the last word, after he'd violated his promise to give it to me, and I honored that, until his battles with *others* made it clear that disruptive off-topic flame wars would continue. I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. It's already happening. However, take a look at my rate, and compare it with others. I am *not* causing the problem here. I write lengthy posts in response to others, researching issues that have been brought here by others. I don't bring irrelevant issues here, except as everyone does, as dicta, small comments that we routinely make in chit-chat. I ignore *most* of what is being sent. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. Advise your friend. Is he your friend? At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. I did not support the banning of Mary Yugo, necessarily. I have created a nVo list, and they are welcome to subscribe to it. New subscribers are on moderation, but will be taken off on a showing of relevance, and will not be added to moderation unless they violate warnings, and they will only be banned if they flood moderators with irrelevant posts. The list archive will be accessible publically, and complaints about offensive posts may result in deletion of posts from the archive; however, these posts may be copied to a flame pit that may not be googleable. How to resolve the problem here is pretty simple, we have decades of experience at it. The problem is the absence of the list moderator. That would come up as an issue sooner or later. Mailing lists with only one owner are *unstable*, long term. I've seen many go south when the owner disappeared, and we all disappear, eventually. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. Indeed. So what will you do about it? no more new content below. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 01:41 AM 1/3/2013, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I have not lost sight of the main purpose of this forum. I've been dealing with an extended abuse of the forum, going back six months. Mark is certainly welcome to email Bill, but many of us have already done that. I've telephoned him. His voicemail was still operating, a few days ago, but I got no response from him. Nobody else has reported any recent communication from him. I have handled issues like this since the 1980s. Ive also noticed that most of the ol timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. And they don't care. NONE of either JJs or Abds postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone elses either in any significant way None of my posts were aimed at changing Mark's mind about anything, at least not on the issues JJ raised. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; I have seen this kind of response since the 1980s. What Mark seems to be unwilling to do is look at the actual balance, and I don't blame him. It's work! The history of this has been documented, several times, but, my guess, Mark hasn't read any of it. All he knows is that he is irritated by the flood of posts, and, dammit! someone must be to blame. So he picks the obvious targets. Ban them all! Bill, had he been present, would have handled this long ago, at least by a few weeks ago. He's stated his policy, clearly. He's acted before with far less cause. I doubt that he would have banned me, similar issues came up before, but I don't care if I'm banned. I don't *need* Vortex. I respond as I respond because I'm a member of this community, and consider that there is such a thing as community responsibility. Because Bill founded this list, his policies are to be respected, but they were not *fully adequate* to deal with the problem of stinking messes in the list archive. He used to maintain the archive himself, and he would therefore be responsible for what he maintains, in theory. But the archive is now on an archive site, and, my guess, he cannot delete posts there. That is ultimately a security issue. We'd have to face this sooner or later. I've created a new list, and if Bill shows up and wants to, he can be an owner. If he wants it, I'd resign as an owner. I am *not* making a power grab, here. The name Abd means servant, and I take that seriously. and a few others that just cant help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. Apply it to yourself, Mark, that's where the insight can be useful. Now, you just responded to a post with a subject header about Islam and little girls, thus expanding content in *that thread* and drawing attention to it. There are other threads where the issue you are concerned about has been raised, not so contaminated. But you still lashed out. So, Mark, may I return the favor and ask you to Grow up!? That is, instead of complaining about the behavior of others, *do something* to improve the situation. Your choice, eh? no more new content below. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 03:06 AM 1/3/2013, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: What may be best is for several of us to discuss/decide off-list and present our recommendation to Bill; perhaps myself, Terry, Jones and Robin. If you find out that he's okay, how about telling us. Do you realize that others, long-time members of this list, have attempted to contact him? I would include Horace as well, but he has more serious challenges in his life at the moment or we can ask Bill to give us that authority should he not be able to respond within a reasonable time. He could name additional moderators. That's the easy fix if he can't attend to it all the time. But, long term, unless this community is to die if Bill becomes unavailable, we need additional owners. That said, let me make a few comments that are directed to BOTH sides of the issue: We really shouldnt need any such moderation. How many sides are there? What really irks me is that seeming adults still havent learned that one should respect another persons religious beliefs; Who doesn't respect the beliefs of others? Who attacks them? Yes. There are some who have expressed skepticism about religion here, and that can be provocative. But it need not lead to flame wars, unless someone truly goes on the attack. Now, broken record here, read the subject header. and that ALL major religions have their tarnished history that the vast majority of followers would prefer didnt happen but history is history and no arguing will change that. Yes. Learn from the stories of human failings that are in all decent religious texts and move on. Sure. Agreed as advisable. In addition, ALL major religions have their share of fanatics and radical elements that do NOT represent the majority This has been the case for thousands of years, and so long as there are humans involved, this is NOT going to change any time soon endless debate is a waste of time and disrespectful to the rest of the Collective. Same goes for politics as well. Yes, I've made the same point. Why do you think this forum has lasted for over 15 years??? Why do the same people stick with it for that long??? It should be a lesson to all those who have only been here for a few years, that most of the long-time regulars have *NOT* engaged in the recent useless waste of bandwidth get the hint??? I've only been here for 3.5 years. I write long posts. I don't flood the list with off-topic posts, on my own initiative, and I don't increase the volume of such posts, I readily drop those subjects, and often allow others the last word. And some *minor* amount of [OT] postings are not bad My opinion. I've been attacked for expressing it. the usual crowd tends to use them sparingly for a bit of humor and diversion when technical events are in a lull. All work and no play makes for a less enjoyable read and that too can lead to some good people leaving the Collective Agreed. Mark, I don't think you realize that I've expressed this view many times, and have been *attacked* for it. You are assuming a community of reasonable adults. You have no clue how a community can respond when someone is throoughly unreasonable, unstable, unable to keep promises, and angry. Really, you just wish the problem would go away, and if everyone would stop responding to insults and provocations, why, everything would quiet down and we can all go back to being a happy family. It works, sometimes. Usually, in real families, *it doesn't.* Not if there are deep problems with individuals. Long story. -Mark Iverson From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Mark, would you be willing to act as an impartial moderator of this forum. I have found your objectivity and integrity to be acceptable and I'm sure others do so as well. Can we all agree to abide by Mark's ruling if he accepts the position? You would have to moderate all posts including all off-topic posts, that in your judgement is excessive and clearly off-topic. Jojo - Original Message - From: mailto:zeropo...@charter.netMarkI-ZeroPoint To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! Ive also noticed that most of the ol timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJs or Abds postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Red. Blue. YELLOW! Chartruese. That has been your color commentary, we now return you to the action. Alex Hollins On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Jones and Robin are acceptable to me, though Terry seems to involve himself in too much off-topic noise. Black!
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 07:07 AM 1/3/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I find that if I ignore my kids when they act up, it usually goes away. It is usually them looking for attention. I was taught that from a PhD family psychologist and it works. You might try the same. It has a lot to do with maturity. Stewart, you were given some advice that may have been practically effective in a certain situation and with certain children. It can work at a certain age, and with certain problems. I have seven children and six grandchildren. The first five children were biological children, the last two were adopted, and they are young, currently aged 9 and 11. I don't want to reveal too much about my children, so I'll now write in the abstract, but I want to establish that what I write is not merely theoretical, and I've been *intensely* involved with many psychologists and therapists for many years. Some of them are hopelessly incompetent at dealing with certain relatively unusual problems, others are highly skilled. The advice you got was generic, and, as I say, could work. But what about when it doesn't? Now, consider an attachment-disordered child. They have been through some disruptive trauma. Place this child in an environment where the child is loved, and gets plenty of healthy attention. Great! Now, complicate the situation with a sibling, and siblings, it appears, very naturally compete for attention. One of the children feels that the other is being favored. So they make a fuss. Suppose a parent, following the advice, ignores them. *They will experience this as abandonment,* so, now, their upset increases. Mommy favors Sister, and now, I have proof! She is ignoring me and that means she doesn't care about me! So she escalates. Will more ignoring resolve this issue? Sometimes it goes away for a while, but once that response is established, it's always there, waiting to be retriggered. It will not be resolved until it is *resolved.* Ignoring never does that. From what I've seen, sometimes it is *never* resolved, and the child becomes an adult, still carrying all those expectations and developed responses, which then repeat, as relationship issues, for a lifetime. No. My conclusion, years ago, was that when a child wants attention, *they need it.* Give them attention. Don't wait for them to act out, but don't withdraw attention as an attempt to manipulate their behavior. And that's what the professionals I trust confirm. Classic behaviorism, which can inclde the ignore them advice, does not work with children who actually need attention! It works with relatively well-adjusted children who will work out their own problems without assistance. But a great deal depends on the kind of attention given. With my children, my approach is always to train them to resolve their own problems. And then I step back and let them do that. They will fail, possibly many times, and our hope is always that not too much damage is done! But they also succeed, and success breeds success. My children are a challenge, but they are also a deep source of joy and satisfaction, as I watch them develop and mature. My 11-year-old, who has been, perhaps, the most challenged, is now doing things that the professionals said were impossible for a girl of her age. You can't expect her to do that! I was told. But ... she does it. Therapists are trained, and the training includes models of childhood that are correct as to the norm, but not necessarily as to the range. If I expected my daughter to succeed beyond her age, and blamed her when she doesn't, that would be, in fact, abusive (and that's what the therapists want to prevent). But I don't blame her, I just encourage her to recognize what she did -- and didn't do -- and I praise her for every honesty and action toward her goals. *She sets her goals.* And then she fails. *That's normal.* Then what? Learning to deal with failure without descending into guilt and depression is a crucial life lesson. I'm a *trained* father. I've made many of the possible mistakes. But I try not to repeat them.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
You can see Mark, this is the kind of abuse that Lomax likes to throw at people. You made a perfectly valid criticism of both parties and I accept my part in the mess; but Lomax grows defensive and hostile. I have not responded to him, by my estimate close to 12 hours now. I said I was going to stop posting and I've honored that promise. Yet, he continues the thread and continues to swipe oblique insults at me. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 3:26 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 01:41 AM 1/3/2013, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I have not lost sight of the main purpose of this forum. I've been dealing with an extended abuse of the forum, going back six months. Mark is certainly welcome to email Bill, but many of us have already done that. I've telephoned him. His voicemail was still operating, a few days ago, but I got no response from him. Nobody else has reported any recent communication from him. I have handled issues like this since the 1980s. I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. And they don't care. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. None of my posts were aimed at changing Mark's mind about anything, at least not on the issues JJ raised. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; I have seen this kind of response since the 1980s. What Mark seems to be unwilling to do is look at the actual balance, and I don't blame him. It's work! The history of this has been documented, several times, but, my guess, Mark hasn't read any of it. All he knows is that he is irritated by the flood of posts, and, dammit! someone must be to blame. So he picks the obvious targets. Ban them all! Bill, had he been present, would have handled this long ago, at least by a few weeks ago. He's stated his policy, clearly. He's acted before with far less cause. I doubt that he would have banned me, similar issues came up before, but I don't care if I'm banned. I don't *need* Vortex. I respond as I respond because I'm a member of this community, and consider that there is such a thing as community responsibility. Because Bill founded this list, his policies are to be respected, but they were not *fully adequate* to deal with the problem of stinking messes in the list archive. He used to maintain the archive himself, and he would therefore be responsible for what he maintains, in theory. But the archive is now on an archive site, and, my guess, he cannot delete posts there. That is ultimately a security issue. We'd have to face this sooner or later. I've created a new list, and if Bill shows up and wants to, he can be an owner. If he wants it, I'd resign as an owner. I am *not* making a power grab, here. The name Abd means servant, and I take that seriously. and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. Apply it to yourself, Mark, that's where the insight can be useful. Now, you just responded to a post with a subject header about Islam and little girls, thus expanding content in *that thread* and drawing attention to it. There are other threads where the issue you are concerned about has been raised, not so contaminated. But you still lashed out. So, Mark, may I return the favor and ask you to Grow up!? That is, instead of complaining about the behavior of others, *do something* to improve the situation. Your choice, eh? no more new content below. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Actually, the PhD's next advice if ignoring did not work, is to leave the room, which is what you guys are driving many to do... On Thursday, January 3, 2013, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 07:07 AM 1/3/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I find that if I ignore my kids when they act up, it usually goes away. It is usually them looking for attention. I was taught that from a PhD family psychologist and it works. You might try the same. It has a lot to do with maturity. Stewart, you were given some advice that may have been practically effective in a certain situation and with certain children. It can work at a certain age, and with certain problems. I have seven children and six grandchildren. The first five children were biological children, the last two were adopted, and they are young, currently aged 9 and 11. I don't want to reveal too much about my children, so I'll now write in the abstract, but I want to establish that what I write is not merely theoretical, and I've been *intensely* involved with many psychologists and therapists for many years. Some of them are hopelessly incompetent at dealing with certain relatively unusual problems, others are highly skilled. The advice you got was generic, and, as I say, could work. But what about when it doesn't? Now, consider an attachment-disordered child. They have been through some disruptive trauma. Place this child in an environment where the child is loved, and gets plenty of healthy attention. Great! Now, complicate the situation with a sibling, and siblings, it appears, very naturally compete for attention. One of the children feels that the other is being favored. So they make a fuss. Suppose a parent, following the advice, ignores them. *They will experience this as abandonment,* so, now, their upset increases. Mommy favors Sister, and now, I have proof! She is ignoring me and that means she doesn't care about me! So she escalates. Will more ignoring resolve this issue? Sometimes it goes away for a while, but once that response is established, it's always there, waiting to be retriggered. It will not be resolved until it is *resolved.* Ignoring never does that. From what I've seen, sometimes it is *never* resolved, and the child becomes an adult, still carrying all those expectations and developed responses, which then repeat, as relationship issues, for a lifetime. No. My conclusion, years ago, was that when a child wants attention, *they need it.* Give them attention. Don't wait for them to act out, but don't withdraw attention as an attempt to manipulate their behavior. And that's what the professionals I trust confirm. Classic behaviorism, which can inclde the ignore them advice, does not work with children who actually need attention! It works with relatively well-adjusted children who will work out their own problems without assistance. But a great deal depends on the kind of attention given. With my children, my approach is always to train them to resolve their own problems. And then I step back and let them do that. They will fail, possibly many times, and our hope is always that not too much damage is done! But they also succeed, and success breeds success. My children are a challenge, but they are also a deep source of joy and satisfaction, as I watch them develop and mature. My 11-year-old, who has been, perhaps, the most challenged, is now doing things that the professionals said were impossible for a girl of her age. You can't expect her to do that! I was told. But ... she does it. Therapists are trained, and the training includes models of childhood that are correct as to the norm, but not necessarily as to the range. If I expected my daughter to succeed beyond her age, and blamed her when she doesn't, that would be, in fact, abusive (and that's what the therapists want to prevent). But I don't blame her, I just encourage her to recognize what she did -- and didn't do -- and I praise her for every honesty and action toward her goals. *She sets her goals.* And then she fails. *That's normal.* Then what? Learning to deal with failure without descending into guilt and depression is a crucial life lesson. I'm a *trained* father. I've made many of the possible mistakes. But I try not to repeat them.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
David, in this response you can clearly see who the unreasonable party is. You made a reasonable suggestion and I honored it because you showed objectivity. I have stopped posting, but the cycle of insults directed my way continues, with this fresh post with fresh insults. My friend, I am not the problem here. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 3:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 03:09 AM 1/3/2013, David Roberson wrote: Jojo, I do not have control of the postings that these guys produce. Most of the time they submit excellent subject manner and on occasions it gets off topic as you say. Recently, most of their postings seem to be acceptable and pretty much on subject or related to LENR in some fashion. You have hit a raw nerve with Abd and it is clear that he feels that every post against his religion must be countered. If that were so, my posting volume would be much greater than it is. It seems odd to me that he seems so inclined, but maybe that is part of his belief and he is performing an important duty in his mind. You should let him off the hook to be fair. I know some disgusting things have been stated about your beliefs as well. Those guilty of this type of attack should realize that they are not doing anyone a service this way and the behavior should stop immediately. I do not find it odd that Jojo responds to what he sees as insult to himself or his beliefs. What is much more of a problem is that he is so sensitive to insult that he perceives it when it's not there. And, then, he *retailiates.* He's been explicit about this. He's said that he'll keep it up until others stop insulting him. And then, when others stop -- and they often have -- *he continues the response.* I find that some off topic posts are educational and I would not be aware of the subject unless someone like the two vortex members you list were to toss them our way. On occasion I have felt that too much bandwidth was being spent in this manner, but it usually clears up fairly soon. I recall seeking termination of a couple of far off discussions in the past. I've noted at least one of those, in my coverage of the history of this affair. I think your best plan of action would be to leave Abd alone for a while and cease posting the terribly offensive statements about his religion. If he brings up these issues again without provocation then someone needs to go to his location and pull the power plug of his computer. Please! If I do that, I'd be sick and would need help. Either that or arrange for him to seek professional care. So once that goes away, then why not monitor the vortex for long lasting off topic postings that you find offensive and let whoever posts them know about your dissatisfaction. The fellow has said again and again that he wants the cycle of insult to stop, and he's promised to end it. He just promised that again. As I recall, it was *within minutes* that he started this thread. There was a time not long ago when the vortex was running smoothly and I think that can be achieved again soon. We all need to have folks of the various backgrounds and talents to consider our ideas. I recall you making important contributions and hope to see more of the same after things settle back to normal. Jojo's subscription account may have been shared. There are two different personalities shown. The account (jth...@hotmail.com) is in the name of Joseph Hao, but Jojo claims not to be Joseph. Definitely, the *account* made reasonable and on-topic contributions. But *some of the posts* -- even the very first one, showed a certain combativeness that was missing from the truly substantial on-topic posts. One time the jthao1 account posted here with the name being Joseph Hao. It doesn't necessarily matter, but Bill's policy here discouraged anonymous accounts, so I'd suggest, in fact, that Jojo subscribe under a *real name.* Bill also recognizes that sometimes this is not possible. (However, Jojo could be identified, real-world, if someone had a legal reason. His IP has been published. What he's doing may be illegal where he lives, in the Philippines.) I assume that Jed and SVJ will not see this posting since they have blocked anything that has your name within according to what they have written. I don't know that SVJ did this, but he *unsubscribed.* They are good guys and I value what they are contributing to the group. Please give the vortex some time to clean itself up before you continue with the offensive tittles and content. We might loose the reason that we subscribe if many valued members flee. If the issue is not resolved, this list is toast. I've seen what happens to vibrant lists when an owner disappears. They die, sometimes slowly, and they often
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Please have a little more patience Jojo. The way these posts are coming now reminds me of a signal being filtered by a multi pole system with lots of delay. You have been true to your word and I thank you for that. Some folks have a difficult time realizing that it is time to calm down and relax. If Abd keeps responding for no provocation on your part, I will understand who really is the source of the problem. Abd, this is meant for you: Please find strength to hold back your words that appear insulting to Jojo and others. Perhaps it is a cultural issue, but there is no need for any further comments to posts that have such offensive titles as this one. Jojo has promised to go back to the traditions of past with a vortex that we can be proud of. I expect you to do the same unless it is your intent to destroy the list. It gives me pause to even return a post with a heading that is as repulsive as this one. It might sound innocent, but we all know what underlies the topic. Thanks to all, Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 3:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. David, in this response you can clearly see who the unreasonable party is. You made a reasonable suggestion and I honored it because you showed objectivity. I have stopped posting, but the cycle of insults directed my way continues, with this fresh post with fresh insults. My friend, I am not the problem here. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 3:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 03:09 AM 1/3/2013, David Roberson wrote: Jojo, I do not have control of the postings that these guys produce. Most of the time they submit excellent subject manner and on occasions it gets off topic as you say. Recently, most of their postings seem to be acceptable and pretty much on subject or related to LENR in some fashion. You have hit a raw nerve with Abd and it is clear that he feels that every post against his religion must be countered. If that were so, my posting volume would be much greater than it is. It seems odd to me that he seems so inclined, but maybe that is part of his belief and he is performing an important duty in his mind. You should let him off the hook to be fair. I know some disgusting things have been stated about your beliefs as well. Those guilty of this type of attack should realize that they are not doing anyone a service this way and the behavior should stop immediately. I do not find it odd that Jojo responds to what he sees as insult to himself or his beliefs. What is much more of a problem is that he is so sensitive to insult that he perceives it when it's not there. And, then, he *retailiates.* He's been explicit about this. He's said that he'll keep it up until others stop insulting him. And then, when others stop -- and they often have -- *he continues the response.* I find that some off topic posts are educational and I would not be aware of the subject unless someone like the two vortex members you list were to toss them our way. On occasion I have felt that too much bandwidth was being spent in this manner, but it usually clears up fairly soon. I recall seeking termination of a couple of far off discussions in the past. I've noted at least one of those, in my coverage of the history of this affair. I think your best plan of action would be to leave Abd alone for a while and cease posting the terribly offensive statements about his religion. If he brings up these issues again without provocation then someone needs to go to his location and pull the power plug of his computer. Please! If I do that, I'd be sick and would need help. Either that or arrange for him to seek professional care. So once that goes away, then why not monitor the vortex for long lasting off topic postings that you find offensive and let whoever posts them know about your dissatisfaction. The fellow has said again and again that he wants the cycle of insult to stop, and he's promised to end it. He just promised that again. As I recall, it was *within minutes* that he started this thread. There was a time not long ago when the vortex was running smoothly and I think that can be achieved again soon. We all need to have folks of the various backgrounds and talents to consider our ideas. I recall you making important contributions and hope to see more of the same after things settle back to normal. Jojo's subscription account may have been shared. There are two different personalities shown. The account (jth...@hotmail.com) is in the name of Joseph Hao, but Jojo claims not to be Joseph. Definitely, the *account* made reasonable and on-topic contributions. But *some
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:04 AM 1/3/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell* might filter me out. Okay, out you go. I'll check back in a few months to see if you have stopped posting this garbage. I don't know what Jed did, specifically. I assume I'll find out, if I have a need to contact him, which comes up from time to time. I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long. YOU are the one polluting it! Go away! I considered that. I probably will, but there is a little work left to do. Someone let Jed know there is a new list that won't have the obnoxious crap on it. If that's what he actually wants. For the record, I have no objection to Islam but no interest either. As several people have pointed out, the thread titles alone are offensive and way off topic. Right. Two issues: 1. Offensive thread titles. Not okay! How to stop this from happening? 2. Off topic. That has not been considered a problem, if the OT tag is used. However, there is a problem with the tag added later: the topic no longer threads completely. The real problem: no moderation. Moderation can indeed be light, but when it's *absent*, problems can become intractable. Do realize that the main offender here -- and there clearly is a main offender, just look at the numbers of posts and who starts offensive subjects -- claims to be doing this because of off topic posts here, and specifically refers to ... Jed Rothwell. So Jed fixed the problem for himself by filtering out the fellow. It might be noted, that didn't work. The fellow kept referring to Jed as being the problem here. And many kept responding to him, not just me. How many people is Jed going to filter out? Jed's perfectly free to filter me out, as I wrote. So he did. So what? Why did he waste everyone's time by posting his own response here? His response is off-topic in this thread (as are many posts here). Basically, lack of discipline is *common*. Hence normal. Hence discipline cannot be the solution to the flooding of the list by offensive and off-topic posts. There is a long-time solution, moderation. It's easily implemented, *if there is at least one active moderator.* And it can actually be done with no censorship, with full tranparency, and without a moderator acting like a dictator. If this community wants a solution, all it needs to do is to take a *little* action that is not risky. Subscribe to the new mailing list, and use it, or this list. There is no need to abandon this list. I hope that Bill is just busy, away, and unable to respond. But we can handle this without him, if we want to. We can actually bring back *modest participation* from Mary Yugo, Cude, etc., while preventing what has been a problem. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/join By the way, anyone else could do this. But why would it be necessary? I will *not* be a heavy hand on that list, my training has been to function as a neutral meeting chair, under the rules of deliberative process. I've offered to turn the new list over to Bill if he wants to be an owner. I've solicited moderator volunteers, and a number of users have been suggested here who would be fine with me if they volunteer. Long-term, if Bill does not show up, I will apppoint at least one other owner, from among those widely trusted. We can have *many* moderators. If I were to abuse my position, note: anyone could start a new list if necessary, at any time. It is possible to directly contact everyone who has ever posted to the list, because we all get email addresses with list mail. The list is a moderated list, but the norm will be that when a member shows *any* relevant posting, they will be unmoderated, trusted to moderate themselves. Only if a problem arises will a member be put back on moderation. And, from there, there are many options.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:41 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: and a few others that just can’t help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else… which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. ** I guess I have two main points here, and with that I will have said my peace. First, this list is valuable and is suffering from a lack of moderation, no doubt because Bill is detained in other important things. I hope the oldtimers will consult off-list and brainstorm some possible remedies; perhaps there are none. Second, we seem to have a big blind spot when it comes to distinguishing attacks made in bad faith and defenses made in good faith; we want to put the all of the ruckus in the same basket. And there's no denying it's a big ruckus. As a newcomer, I am not in a position to go further than this and defer to you guys. I will try to stay well away from these threads from here on out. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:53 AM 1/3/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Hi, Eric, My motive for posting in Jojo's trolling is not quite the same as Abd ul-Rahman's. My motive has been, actually, quite the same as Lawrence's. I worry about the campaign of disinformation that Islamo-phobes are spreading as widely as they can. Likewise birthers/Obama-haters. There are other issues that can be and have been raised disruptively. [...] Hidden Islamophobic agendas and methods have spilled into our list. The matter that Abd ul-Rahman raises of the troll's posting being archived is a real one, even if we have had to waste time countering it. We can actually improve the list function while addressing the archive problem. This could have been handled in a single day, with a few keystrokes, and without censorship or dictatorial moderation. So let's make it so. Short of stopping the Islamophobic trolling at its source, I don't know what else to do. Islamophobia is akin to anti-Semitism in its despicability, and one can make the argument easily that the former is a variant of the latter. We should accept neither. Agreed. Nor, for that matter, uncivil attacks on Christianity, atheism, or the John Birch Society, whatever. I do know what to do. The question is always, will we do it? I'm announcing a solution elsewhere, and I won't keep repeating it. If nobody else takes this up, it's dead, and if Bill does not show up and handle the situation, I'll be out of here, in fairly short order.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 03:58 PM 1/3/2013, David Roberson wrote: Please have a little more patience Jojo. The way these posts are coming now reminds me of a signal being filtered by a multi pole system with lots of delay. You have been true to your word and I thank you for that. Some folks have a difficult time realizing that it is time to calm down and relax. If Abd keeps responding for no provocation on your part, I will understand who really is the source of the problem. You will. Abd, this is meant for you: Please find strength to hold back your words that appear insulting to Jojo and others. Perhaps it is a cultural issue, but there is no need for any further comments to posts that have such offensive titles as this one. Jojo has promised to go back to the traditions of past with a vortex that we can be proud of. I expect you to do the same unless it is your intent to destroy the list. I'm responding now. Is this provocative? David, it is if you say so. It is not of you say it is not. You actually choose! It gives me pause to even return a post with a heading that is as repulsive as this one. It might sound innocent, but we all know what underlies the topic. Indeed. Is it an insult to count the posts to this list? I did not bias this collection, but, of course, if it happens to present a misleading impression, anyone can correct that. (I actually was surprised to see how often I'd responded. I made much shorter responses today, so they can be quicker. This is *not* an analysis by insult. That would be much more work.) So far: Today (my time), total posts from Jojo, as received by me: 22. Posts from Jojo under this subject header: 16. (does not include spin-off headers) My total posts today: 17. Posts from me under this subject header: 11. Total posts under this subject header today, by all users: 48 New subject headers posted by Jojo today: [Vo]:OT: The truth about who's continuing the cycle of insults here New subject headers posted by me today: [Vo]:Yak, yak. Do Something! NewVortex mailing list I have not analysed the content of the posts. I could go further, but won't. You pointed out a problem, David. People read the list one message at a time. I certainly do. They may not look at later messages before responding to earlier ones. So if someone posts a pile of messages (Jojo posted 28 messages yesterday), and then says I'm stopping if everyone else stops, first of all, people may not even see this until they have already replied. And then, there is the issue of a right of response. If I'm saying I'll stop, I stop and I wait. I waited for a *long time* when I said I'd do this. Jojo many times wrote, I'll let you have the last word. Great! However, he didn't. And some people may never have seen his promise before responding to him. Some people may read the list next week and respond to a post. One more statistic: I have directly responded to three posts from Jojo today, out of his total of 22. Jojo has directly responded to seven out of my 16 total posts. Jojo has now made a further promise: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 13:16:34 -0800 (vortex time) I responded to David, that I will honor his request to stop the cycle of insults and I have. My last post on this issue was 4:37PM (my time). It is now 5:07 AM (my time). Since my last post at 4:37PM, I have not posted a single post. That was over 12 hours ago. Since that time, I have counted over a dozen fresh insults, whether direct or oblique, thrown my way. This was done by various members of vortex. It has now become apparent to me that these people will not allow the cycle of insults to stop. I have now responded to some insults in a calibrated way. I will now stop my responses again for another 12 hours to give this cycle of insults a chance to die down. I am not sure what else to do. I can not allow fresh insults from a gang of bullies to continue. Responses to Jojo from *prior posts* are not fresh insults. If there is a cycle of insults involved -- that may not always be accurate -- then substantial time must be allowed for people to complete their process. People sometimes see a post here *months later* and respond. So, David, I'm counting on you to explain this to Jojo, if indeed he does not understand. As I write this, Jojo has not sent any additional posts to the list after the above. The time is now 15:24 -0800, as I write this, if I'm correct. As to the new list, the announcement of newVortex does not mention Jojo, nor is it about him. Nobody will be discriminated against with respect to the new list, based on prior behavior. It's a fresh slate, an opportunity. On the other hand, I expect there to be multiple moderators, who may deal swiftly with list abuse, but not necessarily by banning; rather through moderation and other devices. What I called above the right of response will be, if it's up to me, protected. But, if abused, moderated, so that escalation is
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
The only one that is offending, at least it is offending my patience, is Jojo. I support Abd's enlightening posts since they are directed against someone that would love to see some genocide of muslims and catholics. You mention the list being destroyed? I'd be happy if that is the case if Jojo is not banned. This list MUST be destroyed if someone with this kind of hate speech is allowed to stayed. 2013/1/3 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Abd, this is meant for you: Please find strength to hold back your words that appear insulting to Jojo and others. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Hadiths are one of the sources of muslim teachings, and Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are some of the most respected and venerated, but you still consider them unrealizable and corrupted. And yet, you take wikipedia and Internet Blogs as more reliable than these venerated sources. My friend, something is wrong with that picture. It's like me saying wikipedia is more authoritative than the Bible. If all Hadiths are suspect and corrupted, what then is exactly the source of muslim history. Does every muslim then just take their own understanding and run with it. That's anarchy. No wonder muslims find it justified to do just about anything. Cause by the same standard Lomax is using, they just do what their own research says is OK. I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. If you are indeed this divided in your history and teachings (last count; there are 4 or 5 major islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence); and you belong to one which claim that it is not justified to kill infidels (as you claimed); what gives you the authority to represent other islamic schools of teaching (wahhabi). How can you say that islam is a religion of peace (ala CAIR propaganda), when in fact you can not agree with other islamic schools of thought. How can you say that islam is a religion of peace when you can't even get along with each other? Jojo PS. You are correct in that I do not generally read all your posts. I do not have the patience to read it all. It's tiresome and boring.However, I do scan most of it and generally responds to the first impressions I get. So, if you are using nuance and subtlety to bring home your point, it would be missed in my scanning. So, I suggest you learn how to write in a more direct and succinct way to be more effective in your debate. I'm not sure how much of the misunderstanding is due to your long winded essays. Keep is short, my friend, if you want people to not be confused; but then again, this confusion is probably what you're after to begin with. You do not want people to fully understand what it is exactly you're saying so that you can squirm out of a difficult position later on. A tactic I've seen you attempt to do. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 06:23 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax, have you actually read the link? Yes. The post that I made proves that, by quoting from it in detail. Has Jojo actually read my mail? It appears not, but then he responds to it. Obviously, if he has not read it, he has *made up* what I supposedly said. It seems to me that you are still asserting a lot of things contrary to Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.. The seeming is to one ignorant of the issues. I have *included* in my comments what is in Muslim and Bukhari. Are you saying you reject the accuracy of the accounts written in these 2 works. I generally consider *all hadith* except the best hadith, the Qur'an, as being suspect as to accuracy. And that is obvious to anyone who takes up the study of hadith. They very. Even with the strongest, we find variations. Then there are *translation* problems. The Christian critics seem to ascribe authority to translations, sometimes made by other than scholars, and sometimes made by scholars whose English is poor. If you do, how can one have a meaningful debate with you. You can't. You are utterly out of your element. You say that only evangelical sources support what I am saying. No, that's only true about *some* of what you say. Consistently, you interpret comments as extremes. It's part of how you think. Now, it is clear that 2 respected and venerated muslim scholarly sources support what I am saying and you still will not accept it? I accepted that they say what they say. It's not controversial that Bukhari and Mulsim say what they say, on the points relevant here. But the exact meanng of some of the words is in possible question. Without doing *much more research* -- that could take a long time -- I can't be certain about these things, but Christians who have certainly *not* done the necessary research are *quite* certain about what they say and what it means. The Sahih Muslim and the Sahih Bukhari are corrupt in your opinion? Corrupt as a technical term, yes. That means that it is a certainty that they contain errors. Jojo, you are trying to establish what the sources of Islam *mean*. Yet those sources don't really mean *anything* to you except as a means of trying to impeach the honor of the religion and those who accept
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
I sharpen my machete every time I hear that the WBC is in town. Oh, and look at how the mormons were treated. And since you seem so fond of using past behavior to villify a group today, hows about how the Catholic Church treated the protestants? On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Huh, the people who killed each other the most ever were those from Christian faith, that means nearly all wars in Europe for 1600 years. Towards non Christians, you can count genocides in the hundreds of millions through out the world as well as the largest slavery schemes of history. But I don't condemn Christianity because of that. They were the minority. The point it is the high number o Christians around, that's all. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
(I should have just mentioned this.) Remember, Catholic is NOT Christian. Catholicism is a pagan religion dressed in Christian clothes. The sins of the papa against everyone else is not the sins of a Christian. Real Chrisitans were also victims of the excesses of the papa. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Huh, the people who killed each other the most ever were those from Christian faith, that means nearly all wars in Europe for 1600 years. Towards non Christians, you can count genocides in the hundreds of millions through out the world as well as the largest slavery schemes of history. But I don't condemn Christianity because of that. They were the minority. The point it is the high number o Christians around, that's all. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
! Study the history of Christianity, Jojo, before making such nonsensical statements. You could start with the inquisition, for example, and progress through Jean Calvin, for starters. On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Catholics are obviously Christians, they just have different rites, even among themselves. If you cannot accept this fact about your own religion, no one will take you seriously about you talking about someone else's religions. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** (I should have just mentioned this.) Remember, Catholic is NOT Christian. Catholicism is a pagan religion dressed in Christian clothes. The sins of the papa against everyone else is not the sins of a Christian. Real Chrisitans were also victims of the excesses of the papa. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:24 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Huh, the people who killed each other the most ever were those from Christian faith, that means nearly all wars in Europe for 1600 years. Towards non Christians, you can count genocides in the hundreds of millions through out the world as well as the largest slavery schemes of history. But I don't condemn Christianity because of that. They were the minority. The point it is the high number o Christians around, that's all. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
A Christian is one who trust Jesus Christ alone as his saviour for his salvation. A Christian's final authority on all matters of faith and practice is the Bible. Catholics are not like that. They believe that you have to trust your good works, catholic traditions and catholic dogma for your salvation. The distinction is significant but not quite readily apparent. This is probably something you can not comprehend easily. Now Christians are Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalian and some other protestant group, not including Mormons, Moonies, Jehovah's witnesses and Worldwide Church of God; and definitely not Roman Catholic. If you want, I can start another thread about the Catholic Church. They are just as pagan as islam. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Catholics are obviously Christians, they just have different rites, even among themselves. If you cannot accept this fact about your own religion, no one will take you seriously about you talking about someone else's religions. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com (I should have just mentioned this.) Remember, Catholic is NOT Christian. Catholicism is a pagan religion dressed in Christian clothes. The sins of the papa against everyone else is not the sins of a Christian. Real Chrisitans were also victims of the excesses of the papa. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Huh, the people who killed each other the most ever were those from Christian faith, that means nearly all wars in Europe for 1600 years. Towards non Christians, you can count genocides in the hundreds of millions through out the world as well as the largest slavery schemes of history. But I don't condemn Christianity because of that. They were the minority. The point it is the high number o Christians around, that's all. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
I am aware of the excesses of the catholic papa, but what did John Calvin do? Please educate me. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. ! Study the history of Christianity, Jojo, before making such nonsensical statements. You could start with the inquisition, for example, and progress through Jean Calvin, for starters. On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Will you promise to moderate your incessant off-topic posts? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
I'm afraid that I am unable to educate you. On Jan 2, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: I am aware of the excesses of the catholic papa, but what did John Calvin do? Please educate me. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. ! Study the history of Christianity, Jojo, before making such nonsensical statements. You could start with the inquisition, for example, and progress through Jean Calvin, for starters. On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Jojo, Here in the Netherlands they(christians) were cutting throats in the 80 y war between 1568 and 1648. Peter - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Can you elaborate? Which war is this? Which Christian denominations or groups? Jojo - Original Message - From: P.J van Noorden To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Jojo, Here in the Netherlands they(christians) were cutting throats in the 80 y war between 1568 and 1648. Peter - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
In his post, at the end, Jojo complains about the length of my response. It's long because Jojo raises, in a single post, many issues. If he raised one only, the response would be much briefer. A very brief response may necessarily, to be honest, uncivil. I call an argument, below, pigshit. That was brief. I could respond to the entire post with that word, but ... how useful would this be? Jojo raises some real issues, exposing the foundations, to some extent, of his misunderstanding. If he actually wants to understand, he will probably have to do some work, to read what bores him. When I write polemic, it's designed to punch through noise and disinterest. These discussions have not been, for me, polemic. They are explorations of evidence and argument, and often I don't take a strong position, at least not at first. Jojo, below, attributes this to a debate tactic, to an unwillingness to be clear about what I believe. But, actually, I don't believe anything except in a pragmatic way. I have my memory, my own experience. I don't believe that it is truth. It is just my memory. Yes, I might even insist on aspects of it, but that's not belief, it is just actual practice. In any case, what Jojo is talking about is how I explore a topic; I attempt to begin with an open mind, as empty as possible. I may then disclose assumptions, but I may avoid applying those assumptions until I've reviewed evidence. To do this in writing takes a lot of words. Later, when someone asks me a question, though, I may be able to answer briefly, *because I went through this process.* Depends on context. I am disclosing here how I learn. I learned about cold fusion this way, as an example, but many other subjects as well. I developed my own career in a similar way, by exposing myself to material, and setting aside the normal reactions of I don't understand this. I just kept reading, and, when possible, working and testing and trying things out, and that's how I became an electronics engineer. No formal training. At 03:23 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Hadiths are one of the sources of muslim teachings, and Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are some of the most respected and venerated, but you still consider them unrealizable and corrupted. The term is unreliable. Further, to be clear, what is accurate about my consideration is that they are not *completely reliable* and they are *sometimes* corrupt -- in a technical sensee, as a message or fact can be distorted when transmitted through a chain of informants, as in the telephone game. As anyone who actually studies Islamic scholarship will realize, scholars debate the authenticity of hadith, including those in Buhkari and Muslim. There are Muslims who seem to venerate certain sources, but that, itself, could be regarded as a corruption. Only the Qur'an has that central place in Islam. Acceptance of the Qur'an is central to the *legal* identification of a person as Muslim. However, the Arabic word muslim has wider application. Some Muslims totally reject hadith, and they do not thereby leave Islam. And yet, you take wikipedia and Internet Blogs as more reliable than these venerated sources. That comment deserves no other reply than pigshit, if that. Wikipedia and blogs are far more corrupt, in the sense I used the term. My friend, something is wrong with that picture. It's like me saying wikipedia is more authoritative than the Bible. You said it, I didn't. Reliable *for what*? Everything in Wikipedia, in theory, is sourced. (If you see a questionable fact on Wikipedia that is not sourced, it's highly questionable, suspect a defect in Wikipedia process. Every edit on Wikipedia can be tracked to a specific editor -- or IP address. (Wikipedia's anonymity policy makes this far less useful than it might otherwise be, but one can still look for signs of bias.) If a Wikipedia article is sourced to a blog, usually that would also be a violation of Wikipedia policy. *However*, sometimes blogs or other sources can be External Links, or can be a source for notable opinion. If all Hadiths are suspect and corrupted, what then is exactly the source of muslim history. Good point. *History* is suspect and corrupted,* period. However, this is *relative.* Just remember this: Early Muslim history was written by the winners. You will find little in it from the losers' perspective, so to understand what *actually happened* can be difficult. The Qur'an makes a point about the crucifixion. Those who argue about it don't know. And what the Qur'an actually says about the crucifixion is ... interesting. It does not confict with Christian history, or any history, for that matter, as to what we have of *any history.* We have, at best, the testimony of witnesses. Often we don't have even that, we have unattributed fact, unverifiable. Who knows what *actually happened*? The Qur'an says that what (some) Jews said about the
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Between protestants and catholics in the Netherlands. It looks a bit as the war between Sunnis and Shiites, but then 350 y earllier. Were I live villages were terrorised and people were beheaded. Peter - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Can you elaborate? Which war is this? Which Christian denominations or groups? Jojo - Original Message - From: P.J van Noorden To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Jojo, Here in the Netherlands they(christians) were cutting throats in the 80 y war between 1568 and 1648. Peter - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Please move this discussion to VortexB-L.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Very well, end of the debate, unless you have something else. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I'm afraid that I am unable to educate you. On Jan 2, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: I am aware of the excesses of the catholic papa, but what did John Calvin do? Please educate me. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. ! Study the history of Christianity, Jojo, before making such nonsensical statements. You could start with the inquisition, for example, and progress through Jean Calvin, for starters. On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Peter, do they have a name for this war so that I can research it more thoroughly. Which protestant denomination was involved? And you do realize that I do not consider Catholic as Christian. Jojo - Original Message - From: P.J van Noorden To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 3:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Between protestants and catholics in the Netherlands. It looks a bit as the war between Sunnis and Shiites, but then 350 y earllier. Were I live villages were terrorised and people were beheaded. Peter - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Can you elaborate? Which war is this? Which Christian denominations or groups? Jojo - Original Message - From: P.J van Noorden To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Jojo, Here in the Netherlands they(christians) were cutting throats in the 80 y war between 1568 and 1648. Peter - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
But then, the longer you post, the more vague your answer is. And you never answer directly. You love to beat around the bush and answer obliquely to avoid being painted into a corner. A corner that you are embarassed to be in. For instance. You said you do not believe the accounts in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari that A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed had intercourse with her. But yet, you do not provide an answer as to what age you believe she was. This is the kind of beating around the bush that confuses people. You may think that that makes you look erudite, but in fact, people simply do not read your post and you lose the opportunity to convince them. Got to hand it to you, your debating skills are excellent, you slip and slime away from your answer as expertly as a snake slimes away from a grip. But debating skills won't help you. When you have to defend a retrograde and abhorernt act, no amount of debating skill will make it look acceptable. What muhammed did in having sexual relations with a 9 year old is abhorrent. I did not expect you to defend it, but for some inexplicable reason, you decided to defend it. Do you consider muhammed to be an infallible person? Is muhammed considered perfect and sinless by muslims like how Jesus Christ is consider perfect and sinless by Christians? If muhammed is not considered sinless, you should have just disavowed that act and be done with it. Take a cue from Christians, we disavow the retrograde acts of Solomon's polygamy. We do not insist and try to justify it. Keep to the point my friend. Maybe you'll even convince me. Jojo PS. How can you call yourself an electronics engineer when you haven't graduated from engineering school? So, you have no college degree at all? - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 3:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. In his post, at the end, Jojo complains about the length of my response. It's long because Jojo raises, in a single post, many issues. If he raised one only, the response would be much briefer. A very brief response may necessarily, to be honest, uncivil. I call an argument, below, pigshit. That was brief. I could respond to the entire post with that word, but ... how useful would this be? Jojo raises some real issues, exposing the foundations, to some extent, of his misunderstanding. If he actually wants to understand, he will probably have to do some work, to read what bores him. When I write polemic, it's designed to punch through noise and disinterest. These discussions have not been, for me, polemic. They are explorations of evidence and argument, and often I don't take a strong position, at least not at first. Jojo, below, attributes this to a debate tactic, to an unwillingness to be clear about what I believe. But, actually, I don't believe anything except in a pragmatic way. I have my memory, my own experience. I don't believe that it is truth. It is just my memory. Yes, I might even insist on aspects of it, but that's not belief, it is just actual practice. In any case, what Jojo is talking about is how I explore a topic; I attempt to begin with an open mind, as empty as possible. I may then disclose assumptions, but I may avoid applying those assumptions until I've reviewed evidence. To do this in writing takes a lot of words. Later, when someone asks me a question, though, I may be able to answer briefly, *because I went through this process.* Depends on context. I am disclosing here how I learn. I learned about cold fusion this way, as an example, but many other subjects as well. I developed my own career in a similar way, by exposing myself to material, and setting aside the normal reactions of I don't understand this. I just kept reading, and, when possible, working and testing and trying things out, and that's how I became an electronics engineer. No formal training. At 03:23 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Hadiths are one of the sources of muslim teachings, and Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are some of the most respected and venerated, but you still consider them unrealizable and corrupted. The term is unreliable. Further, to be clear, what is accurate about my consideration is that they are not *completely reliable* and they are *sometimes* corrupt -- in a technical sensee, as a message or fact can be distorted when transmitted through a chain of informants, as in the telephone game. As anyone who actually studies Islamic scholarship will realize, scholars debate the authenticity of hadith, including those in Buhkari and Muslim. There are Muslims who seem to venerate certain sources, but that, itself, could be regarded as a corruption. Only the Qur'an has that central place in Islam. Acceptance of the Qur'an is central to the *legal* identification
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At first, Jojo, when you posted your nonsensical assertions about Islam, I thought I could help you learn about Islam. Then I realized as you posted further, that you were intent on attacking Islam and that learning was not what you wanted to do. I then did two things: continue to post about Islam lest other readers were being misled by you, and inquire into your source and method of knowledge, because I am interested in cognition, and cognitive abberrations. You satisfied me on the latter, and I thanked you for your candor. You then asked me to educate you, but I declined for what should be self-evident reasons. On Jan 2, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Very well, end of the debate, unless you have something else. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I'm afraid that I am unable to educate you. On Jan 2, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: I am aware of the excesses of the catholic papa, but what did John Calvin do? Please educate me. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. ! Study the history of Christianity, Jojo, before making such nonsensical statements. You could start with the inquisition, for example, and progress through Jean Calvin, for starters. On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
I agree 100%
On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'a...@lomaxdesign.com'); wrote:
Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L.
I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So
from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless.
I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to
VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too.
Enough is enough.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 08:50 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell* might filter me out. I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long. My alternative, Jed, is to unsubscribe, not to move to an unmoderated list. Steve Johnson already did unsubscribe, though how much it has to do with Jojo, I'm not clear. If you are going to filter me out, you might want to set up filter conditions that are for [Vo] and my name. Unless you want to avoid seeing direct personal email. Up to you.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell* might filter me out. I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long. Hate to say it, but the troll is starting to win. People are starting to lose patience with one another. I think Steve Johnson has been on this list since early days. Any word on Bill? Is he ok? How long do we suffer the present situation until we reconstitute under something like Google Groups, with Terry or another longtimer as mod? Or should everyone who can't stand the situation add he who shall not be named to a killfile? If that's the best we can do for now, how to address Abd's pressing concern about having his background and religion subject to constant assault on this list? Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
My friend, there is no need to worry that I am winning or not. That is not my goal. I have said, this will end when people make a committment to moderate their off-topic posts. If I get a commitment from a couple of individuals that they will moderate the noise, I will stop altogether. Please try me on this promise. Don't just assume I won't do it. History will show that I have gone months without posting here, so it is not a question of self control. I am doing this for one purpose and if that problem is solved, I will not post anymore. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell* might filter me out. I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long. Hate to say it, but the troll is starting to win. People are starting to lose patience with one another. I think Steve Johnson has been on this list since early days. Any word on Bill? Is he ok? How long do we suffer the present situation until we reconstitute under something like Google Groups, with Terry or another longtimer as mod? Or should everyone who can't stand the situation add he who shall not be named to a killfile? If that's the best we can do for now, how to address Abd's pressing concern about having his background and religion subject to constant assault on this list? Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Instead of filtering each other out, why not just make a commitment to moderate the off-topic posts. That is all I want. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Yes, the implications of the truth would be devatating indeed. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
I have no desire to be googleable. My desire is to highlight the noise problem in vortex so that Jed and other off-topic violators see the impact of their noise on others. If we can solve this issue, I will go away. You expressed concern that people will see my threads are true if it is not answered by you. Yes, of course, they will see that it is true, a simple google search will reveal the source of this information. What would be more damaging to muslims is for people to see your constant and continuous attempts at spin and lies to cover up the hideous and abhorent acts of your prophet. I have cited reliable muslim sources. Unlike you, other people reading this are more objective, they will see that Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are indeed more reliable than Lomax's research, wikipedia or your other imam experts. My friend, no matter what you do, how many lies you put out, how much spin you attempt, how many westernized Imams expert's opinion you profer, the truth, ugliness, abhorence and stink of what you prophet did is clear and obvious. It is a well documented fact by your own scholars. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 10:52 AM 1/2/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have no intention of wasting time debating Jojo Jaro on a backwater mailing list. I'm not interested in debating him here, either, but he puts material on this list, which *is* archived and googleable, and which asserts certain wide-believed memes that people *will* search for, and leaving stuff like that unanswered is a collective damage. It injures the reputation of vortex, and it can harm the public in other ways. Jojo just implied that he'd stop if Jed would agree to stop off topic posts. Basically, Jed has mentioned certain opinions that Joho disagrees with, and he appears to want to stop people here from expressing such opinions. So he turns discussions, often going entirely off topic, into massive flame wars. Expressing opinion as dicta is routine on a mailing list like this. However, starting up major contentious off-topic controversies is something quite different. The subject header here was created by Jojo. It's trolling for outraged response. Or alternatively, if nobody responds, it can make it look like this topic is acceptable here. There goes a billion people. No, someone will need to contact Bill, or this list is toast, sooner or later. The problem here points out the vulnerability of a community depending on a single person for a critical -- if rarely needed -- function.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
David, can you call for a moderation of the off-topic posts from others. If the most blatant off-topic offenders would simply make a small promise to moderate their incessant noise, that would be enough to satisfy the main reason why I am posting off-topic posts here. Note, I am not referring to off-topic posts that may be slightly relevant, I am talking about off-topic posts that are clearly irrelevant. I am doing this to give Jed a dose of his own medicine. I am just gabbing with friends here and making up the rules as I go. How about it? This solution is certainly simpler and more straitforward than starting another list or filtering everybody who responds to me. I believe this proposal of mine is fair and equitable and good for the community. How about it Jed and SVJ? Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Mark, that is why I have growing respect for you. You are objective in condemning both sides and rightfully so. Both sides of this fiasco are in error. I thank you for your objectivity. What do you propose we should do with this problem? Are you willing to call for the moderation of all other off-topic posts here. Consider that to some people like myself who do not have a big Internet pipe, off-topic emails from Vortex make our lives very difficult. That is all I am asking. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Mark, would you be willing to act as an impartial moderator of this forum. I have found your objectivity and integrity to be acceptable and I'm sure others do so as well. Can we all agree to abide by Mark's ruling if he accepts the position? You would have to moderate all posts including all off-topic posts, that in your judgement is excessive and clearly off-topic. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so And everything you might have to say from this point doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with the list , or modern muslims. You are a bigot, stretching to find reasons to have your bigotry. We are SCIENTISTS. We should be above and beyond this kind of behavior. Go Away.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Tell me your background Chan. What degrees do you have? Jojo - Original Message - From: leaking pen To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so And everything you might have to say from this point doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with the list , or modern muslims. You are a bigot, stretching to find reasons to have your bigotry. We are SCIENTISTS. We should be above and beyond this kind of behavior. Go Away.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so. This is just too important to leave unresolved. It's always too important to keep the promise. The whole farrago of topics are too important not to dwell on. Jojo has called himself a turd, i.e, worthless and despicable. That's his own image of himself. It's a pathology that afflicts many of us, whether we talk about it or not, it's essentially Satanic, if you know the story of Satan. Satan speaks to us from where we do not recognize him (Qur'an). I.e., we think it's us, and, of course, we don't lie to ourselves, do we? Yes, we do. With training, the lies can be recognized. They will not stop, apparently, that's just the way it is. But we don't have to *believe* them. The ancient solution to this dilemma is to trust in reality, to keep identifying the voice of Satan and trust in reality *in spite of it.* Just keep trusting. Trust is not a belief, it's an action that is taken, an action to *stop* believing all the stories that Satan tells. I.e., that *our brain tells.* Keeping his word is not important to Jojo because he actually believes he's a turd. Who cares about the word of a turd, it's absurd? There is a function to our brain, it's there, and it's necessary, for survival. Temporary survival. We will not find what endures, only through listening to and believing that the patterns of neuronal activity that we experience are true. They are just patterns, and patterns of patterns. They can be *useful,* but as soon as we believe they are truth, we are radically stuck. They just are what they are. Now, to the point here. On further googling the terms bestiality and islam, I found this page which has NOTHING to do with bestiality, but does document islam's practice with regards to prepubescent little girls. Getting in trouble again? Looking for stuff to toss, try all kinds of outrageous search terms. Just to do some research here, I think I'll Google Christian bestiality. Wonder what I'll find? This research stuff is tough work but someone has to do it. Actually, no. I haven't entered that search and won't. Someone else can waste their time. Read it and decide for yourself, whether I or Lomax is lying. The references are well documented medical and muslims sources, so Lomax can not say they are biased. I very much doubt that the pages mention me. I haven't looked yet, but I can already tell that there is bias present. This may come as a shock to Jojo, but Muslims are not of one mind on things. Just as Jojo argues, but not all Christians would believe his arguments, there are strong arguments made that are *made up* by some Muslims. A scholar wants to prove something, so he searches through the body of tradition, and it's huge, and highly variable in reliability, and finds something that seems to support his conclusion. He cares not at all for *other conclusions* that might be drawn from it. He's a bulldog, out to prove *one thing.* And so you can find all kinds of crap out there, if you search for it. A couple of points to highlight. 1. A'isha's age at the time of consummation is not in dispute among muslim scholars. It is well documented and well accepted. She was 9 years old. That's arguable. I've never denied it is false, except for the not in dispute claim. I've pointed to argument by knowledgeable Muslims that differ on this. However, I have also, then, considered the case if the reports are true. The reports do not actually prove consummation. I consider it likely, however, that they are about consummation, but the reports do not establish how the persons -- including Ayesha herself -- knew how old she was. This is the problem with hearsay evidence, the witness cannot be queried. *Her age in years was not considered important.* That seems incredible in today's world, but this wasn't today's world. This was a mostly non-literate society, with no birth records. Age was not a standard for *anything,* the present physical and mental condition of a boy or girl were *everything.* The consent of the wali (a girl's father, in this case), was *essential*. The wali determines readiness for all aspects except one, actual sexual maturity. It has been so in *every culture* when it was pre-literate, and age-based standards only arose in rule-of-law societies. So when Ayesha is *reported* as having said (recorded many years later, after she was dead, by someone else) that she was nine when she went to the house of the Prophet, that is a *report*. Later, the age became important, as people created Islamic law. But what is clear from *all the sources* is that she was sexually mature, in a basic sense. They do not actually tell us that, but it is so obvious from context that it's essentially indisputable, and an example was given in what was uncovered in the discussions, of the adjudicated
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
My friend, read the link first and then come and and we'll discuss. Stop the uninformed speculations. All the things you've said is addressed by the link. Evidence from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari is presented. Study it first lest you look ignorant. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so. This is just too important to leave unresolved. It's always too important to keep the promise. The whole farrago of topics are too important not to dwell on. Jojo has called himself a turd, i.e, worthless and despicable. That's his own image of himself. It's a pathology that afflicts many of us, whether we talk about it or not, it's essentially Satanic, if you know the story of Satan. Satan speaks to us from where we do not recognize him (Qur'an). I.e., we think it's us, and, of course, we don't lie to ourselves, do we? Yes, we do. With training, the lies can be recognized. They will not stop, apparently, that's just the way it is. But we don't have to *believe* them. The ancient solution to this dilemma is to trust in reality, to keep identifying the voice of Satan and trust in reality *in spite of it.* Just keep trusting. Trust is not a belief, it's an action that is taken, an action to *stop* believing all the stories that Satan tells. I.e., that *our brain tells.* Keeping his word is not important to Jojo because he actually believes he's a turd. Who cares about the word of a turd, it's absurd? There is a function to our brain, it's there, and it's necessary, for survival. Temporary survival. We will not find what endures, only through listening to and believing that the patterns of neuronal activity that we experience are true. They are just patterns, and patterns of patterns. They can be *useful,* but as soon as we believe they are truth, we are radically stuck. They just are what they are. Now, to the point here. On further googling the terms bestiality and islam, I found this page which has NOTHING to do with bestiality, but does document islam's practice with regards to prepubescent little girls. Getting in trouble again? Looking for stuff to toss, try all kinds of outrageous search terms. Just to do some research here, I think I'll Google Christian bestiality. Wonder what I'll find? This research stuff is tough work but someone has to do it. Actually, no. I haven't entered that search and won't. Someone else can waste their time. Read it and decide for yourself, whether I or Lomax is lying. The references are well documented medical and muslims sources, so Lomax can not say they are biased. I very much doubt that the pages mention me. I haven't looked yet, but I can already tell that there is bias present. This may come as a shock to Jojo, but Muslims are not of one mind on things. Just as Jojo argues, but not all Christians would believe his arguments, there are strong arguments made that are *made up* by some Muslims. A scholar wants to prove something, so he searches through the body of tradition, and it's huge, and highly variable in reliability, and finds something that seems to support his conclusion. He cares not at all for *other conclusions* that might be drawn from it. He's a bulldog, out to prove *one thing.* And so you can find all kinds of crap out there, if you search for it. A couple of points to highlight. 1. A'isha's age at the time of consummation is not in dispute among muslim scholars. It is well documented and well accepted. She was 9 years old. That's arguable. I've never denied it is false, except for the not in dispute claim. I've pointed to argument by knowledgeable Muslims that differ on this. However, I have also, then, considered the case if the reports are true. The reports do not actually prove consummation. I consider it likely, however, that they are about consummation, but the reports do not establish how the persons -- including Ayesha herself -- knew how old she was. This is the problem with hearsay evidence, the witness cannot be queried. *Her age in years was not considered important.* That seems incredible in today's world, but this wasn't today's world. This was a mostly non-literate society, with no birth records. Age was not a standard for *anything,* the present physical and mental condition of a boy or girl were *everything.* The consent of the wali (a girl's father, in this case), was *essential*. The wali determines readiness for all aspects except one, actual sexual maturity. It has been so in *every culture* when it was pre-literate, and age-based standards only arose in rule-of-law societies. So when Ayesha is *reported
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
The problem it is not that he is informed. Not only vastly more than you, since he can actually not only read the canon in Arabic but also criticisms and counter criticisms, discussion, of the highest authorities, all in Arabic. Although we should all question whatever people tells us, he provided enough evidence that you be just either a troll or fanatical to not accept as true, or much more probable as true than what you can find, whatever Abd says. 2013/1/1 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com My friend, read the link first and then come and and we'll discuss. Stop the uninformed speculations. All the things you've said is addressed by the link. Evidence from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari is presented. Study it first lest you look ignorant. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so. This is just too important to leave unresolved. It's always too important to keep the promise. The whole farrago of topics are too important not to dwell on. Jojo has called himself a turd, i.e, worthless and despicable. That's his own image of himself. It's a pathology that afflicts many of us, whether we talk about it or not, it's essentially Satanic, if you know the story of Satan. Satan speaks to us from where we do not recognize him (Qur'an). I.e., we think it's us, and, of course, we don't lie to ourselves, do we? Yes, we do. With training, the lies can be recognized. They will not stop, apparently, that's just the way it is. But we don't have to *believe* them. The ancient solution to this dilemma is to trust in reality, to keep identifying the voice of Satan and trust in reality *in spite of it.* Just keep trusting. Trust is not a belief, it's an action that is taken, an action to *stop* believing all the stories that Satan tells. I.e., that *our brain tells.* Keeping his word is not important to Jojo because he actually believes he's a turd. Who cares about the word of a turd, it's absurd? There is a function to our brain, it's there, and it's necessary, for survival. Temporary survival. We will not find what endures, only through listening to and believing that the patterns of neuronal activity that we experience are true. They are just patterns, and patterns of patterns. They can be *useful,* but as soon as we believe they are truth, we are radically stuck. They just are what they are. Now, to the point here. On further googling the terms bestiality and islam, I found this page which has NOTHING to do with bestiality, but does document islam's practice with regards to prepubescent little girls. Getting in trouble again? Looking for stuff to toss, try all kinds of outrageous search terms. Just to do some research here, I think I'll Google Christian bestiality. Wonder what I'll find? This research stuff is tough work but someone has to do it. Actually, no. I haven't entered that search and won't. Someone else can waste their time. Read it and decide for yourself, whether I or Lomax is lying. The references are well documented medical and muslims sources, so Lomax can not say they are biased. I very much doubt that the pages mention me. I haven't looked yet, but I can already tell that there is bias present. This may come as a shock to Jojo, but Muslims are not of one mind on things. Just as Jojo argues, but not all Christians would believe his arguments, there are strong arguments made that are *made up* by some Muslims. A scholar wants to prove something, so he searches through the body of tradition, and it's huge, and highly variable in reliability, and finds something that seems to support his conclusion. He cares not at all for *other conclusions* that might be drawn from it. He's a bulldog, out to prove *one thing.* And so you can find all kinds of crap out there, if you search for it. A couple of points to highlight. 1. A'isha's age at the time of consummation is not in dispute among muslim scholars. It is well documented and well accepted. She was 9 years old. That's arguable. I've never denied it is false, except for the not in dispute claim. I've pointed to argument by knowledgeable Muslims that differ on this. However, I have also, then, considered the case if the reports are true. The reports do not actually prove consummation. I consider it likely, however, that they are about consummation, but the reports do not establish how the persons -- including Ayesha herself -- knew how old she was. This is the problem with hearsay evidence, the witness cannot be queried. *Her age in years was not considered important.* That seems incredible in today's world, but this wasn't
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Have you read the link? It provides muslim sources that categorically say the things I am saying. How can one who claims to be objective say that Lomax is right about this. You fancy yourself as being objective right? If not, I have nothing else to discuss with you. I will only discuss with people who want the truth, not win with propaganda and lies. What evidence has Lomax actually provided? And how good is that evidence? My evidence is Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. Two of the most respected and venerated mulsim scholarly works. He's is wikipedia and Internet opinion blogs and his evidence is better than mine? Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Are you actually claiming that Lomax is fluent in Arabic? Please if you are, point to me where he said that. I don't read his lengthy tiresome essays completely so I may have missed that. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. The problem it is not that he is informed. Not only vastly more than you, since he can actually not only read the canon in Arabic but also criticisms and counter criticisms, discussion, of the highest authorities, all in Arabic. Although we should all question whatever people tells us, he provided enough evidence that you be just either a troll or fanatical to not accept as true, or much more probable as true than what you can find, whatever Abd says. 2013/1/1 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com My friend, read the link first and then come and and we'll discuss. Stop the uninformed speculations. All the things you've said is addressed by the link. Evidence from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari is presented. Study it first lest you look ignorant. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so. This is just too important to leave unresolved. It's always too important to keep the promise. The whole farrago of topics are too important not to dwell on. Jojo has called himself a turd, i.e, worthless and despicable. That's his own image of himself. It's a pathology that afflicts many of us, whether we talk about it or not, it's essentially Satanic, if you know the story of Satan. Satan speaks to us from where we do not recognize him (Qur'an). I.e., we think it's us, and, of course, we don't lie to ourselves, do we? Yes, we do. With training, the lies can be recognized. They will not stop, apparently, that's just the way it is. But we don't have to *believe* them. The ancient solution to this dilemma is to trust in reality, to keep identifying the voice of Satan and trust in reality *in spite of it.* Just keep trusting. Trust is not a belief, it's an action that is taken, an action to *stop* believing all the stories that Satan tells. I.e., that *our brain tells.* Keeping his word is not important to Jojo because he actually believes he's a turd. Who cares about the word of a turd, it's absurd? There is a function to our brain, it's there, and it's necessary, for survival. Temporary survival. We will not find what endures, only through listening to and believing that the patterns of neuronal activity that we experience are true. They are just patterns, and patterns of patterns. They can be *useful,* but as soon as we believe they are truth, we are radically stuck. They just are what they are. Now, to the point here. On further googling the terms bestiality and islam, I found this page which has NOTHING to do with bestiality, but does document islam's practice with regards to prepubescent little girls. Getting in trouble again? Looking for stuff to toss, try all kinds of outrageous search terms. Just to do some research here, I think I'll Google Christian bestiality. Wonder what I'll find? This research stuff is tough work but someone has to do it. Actually, no. I haven't entered that search and won't. Someone else can waste their time. Read it and decide for yourself, whether I or Lomax is lying. The references are well documented medical and muslims sources, so Lomax can not say they are biased. I very much doubt that the pages mention me. I haven't looked yet, but I can already tell that there is bias present. This may come as a shock to Jojo, but Muslims are not of one mind on things. Just as Jojo argues, but not all Christians would believe his arguments, there are strong arguments made that are *made up* by some Muslims. A scholar wants to prove something, so he
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4 This post is a response to that web page. For this post Jojo Jaro is irrelevant. I will thank him, however, for pointing me to this page, because it is an opportunity for me to become clear about an issue that comes up in religious apologetics. To the page quotations, unless otherwise specified, are of Silas, the anonymous author of the page. Silas presents many facts, off-hand, that are not accurate. I'll note them, but will not debate them, other than to make counter-assertions along the way. I believed what many Muslims asserted: Muhammad sexually consummated his marriage to the nine year old Aisha following her first menstruation. Many Muslims assert this, though the actual sources do not indicate sexual consummation as such, nor do they indicate the numbers of menses past. The practice of Islamic law, as far as I've been able to determine, is united on one point: if *no menses* have occurred, and if a woman is not obviously otherwise mature, and is apparently a child, to consummate the marriage is rape. What Silas does here is to overstate the case, based on what many Muslims assert, which can then be a total minority position. I realized that the Quran, the Hadith, and Muslim scholars writings state that a Muslim husband can engage in sex with a child-bride before she has her first menses Remarkable. He's concluded from sources what has apparently escaped the notice of most Muslim scholars. Is there *one* who would agree with him? Many Muslims dont know this and by their own standards Muhammad did the wrong thing in having sex with a child. I'll say this right now, before reading Silas's sources. If the sources actually show this, *they are corrupt.* However, I already know some of the elements that Silas probably puts together. Yes. By our standards -- and this includes, as far as I know, so far -- even the most befogged Muslim scholars -- having sex with a child (defined in this case as a female who has not reached sexual maturity, and with no accessory condition that would allow marriageability, such as being, say, old but non-menstruating, never having menstruated) -- is an enormity. A 49 year old man asks his best friend if he could have his permission to marry his 6 year old daughter. That may not have been the sequence; the stories I recall do not initiate the conversation with Muhammad, but with a relative. But never mind. It doesn't matter. Just so it's clear that marriage, here, means betrothal. Some 2 to 3 years later, just after he had fled to Medina, he consummated his marriage with her. He was 52 and she was 9. This occurred prior to Aishas first menses and by Islams legal definition Aisha was still considered a child. Islam teaches that a child enters adulthood at the beginning of puberty. (This is scientifically inaccurate, the onset of puberty does not equal adulthood see Appendix 3). It's also religiously inaccurate. Advanced puberty is not the only condition for adulthood (and marriageability) in Islam. There are other conditions, as we would expect. It is merely *one* of the conditions. Silas is presenting a common Muslim opinion as to the age when Ayesha went to the Prophet's house. Those traditions do not actually establish the age at consummation. If that were legally important, in a modern case, we'd need additional evidence as to actual intercourse. Rather, going to the house would establish a condition where they could be alone together. It's very clear from real examples of Muslim law that if, under these conditions, she were not sexually mature, and he has intercourse with her, it is *rape.* If she is young, and has not mensturated, that establishes a presumption of legal incapacity to consent to sex. That makes the intercourse what we call statutory rape in the U.S. And that's how a Yemeni court recently decided. If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not menstruated. As for pregnant women, their term shall end with their confinement. God will ease the hardship of the man who fears him. 65:4, Dawood Yes. This is about divorce, and it assumes a consummated marriage. The concern is that the woman might be pregnant, that's obvious. If a marrage has not been consummated, there is no waiting period. This is really brilliant, I must say, the best deceptive argument I've found. Not menstruated here applies to all situations of a consummated marriage where the woman has *never* menstruated. That's a real possibility that has nothing exclusively to do with girls. There are other standards that allow marriage for women who do not menstruate. These women could be, for example,
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 03:08 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, read the link first and then come and and we'll discuss. Stop the uninformed speculations. All the things you've said is addressed by the link. Evidence from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari is presented. Study it first lest you look ignorant. Jojo continues to argue. I responded in detail to his source. What I'd written was partly already-confirmed fact -- about Jojo! -- who promised not to continue this, but started this thread -- and partly informed speculation as to what might be in the source. I was correct. The source misrepresents sources, as can be seen by reading it and what it cites, and Jojo misrepresents it. 'Nuff said.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Lomax, have you actually read the link? It seems to me that you are still asserting a lot of things contrary to Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.. Are you saying you reject the accuracy of the accounts written in these 2 works. If you do, how can one have a meaningful debate with you. You say that only evangelical sources support what I am saying. Now, it is clear that 2 respected and venerated muslim scholarly sources support what I am saying and you still will not accept it? The Sahih Muslim and the Sahih Bukhari are corrupt in your opinion? because they clearly say that A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed consumated the marriage. There is even evidence he did that prior to A'isha's first menses contrary to your assertions. Are you actually saying that we take your word over that of Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari? By what authority or scholarship can you make such audacious claims? Are you still contending that a 9 year old girl who may or who may not have had her first menses is a sexually mature young woman. You realize that if you are contending this, you are arguing against many medical sources which says sexual maturity occurs about 2 years after the first menses, as I have been contending all along. The evidence is in from reliable sources. A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed first had intercourse with her. She may or may not have had her first menses. Either way, she was still not sexually mature according to the medical sources. And clearly, A'isha was not mature enough to have given consent to the marriage proposal. For creeps sake, she was still playing with dolls, which according to islam law, she is allowed to do because she was not considered an adult yet. She was still considered a child. The evidence is clear and reliable and yet we find Lomax still clinging to his beloved prophet instead of denouncing his actions, he still tries to justify it, and continues the same lies. I'm not surprised. He can lie to protect the honor of muhammed. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:41 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4 This post is a response to that web page. For this post Jojo Jaro is irrelevant. I will thank him, however, for pointing me to this page, because it is an opportunity for me to become clear about an issue that comes up in religious apologetics. To the page quotations, unless otherwise specified, are of Silas, the anonymous author of the page. Silas presents many facts, off-hand, that are not accurate. I'll note them, but will not debate them, other than to make counter-assertions along the way. I believed what many Muslims asserted: Muhammad sexually consummated his marriage to the nine year old Aisha following her first menstruation. Many Muslims assert this, though the actual sources do not indicate sexual consummation as such, nor do they indicate the numbers of menses past. The practice of Islamic law, as far as I've been able to determine, is united on one point: if *no menses* have occurred, and if a woman is not obviously otherwise mature, and is apparently a child, to consummate the marriage is rape. What Silas does here is to overstate the case, based on what many Muslims assert, which can then be a total minority position. I realized that the Quran, the Hadith, and Muslim scholar's writings state that a Muslim husband can engage in sex with a child-bride before she has her first menses Remarkable. He's concluded from sources what has apparently escaped the notice of most Muslim scholars. Is there *one* who would agree with him? Many Muslims don't know this and by their own standards Muhammad did the wrong thing in having sex with a child. I'll say this right now, before reading Silas's sources. If the sources actually show this, *they are corrupt.* However, I already know some of the elements that Silas probably puts together. Yes. By our standards -- and this includes, as far as I know, so far -- even the most befogged Muslim scholars -- having sex with a child (defined in this case as a female who has not reached sexual maturity, and with no accessory condition that would allow marriageability, such as being, say, old but non-menstruating, never having menstruated) -- is an enormity. A 49 year old man asks his best friend if he could have his permission to marry his 6 year old daughter. That may not have been the sequence; the stories I recall do not initiate the conversation with Muhammad, but with a relative. But never mind. It doesn't matter. Just so it's clear that marriage, here, means betrothal. Some 2 to 3 years later, just after he had fled to Medina, he consummated
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Daniel was somewhat correct, but Jojo misreads him. I am not fluent in Arabic, but I can read it -- sometimes well, sometimes painfully -- and I can use dictionaries and grammars, and, in addition, *generally understand the material.* It's like trying to read a physics text in a foreign language without understanding physics. You'll come up with weird ideas if you don't understand. I have not read the canon in Arabic. That's what a Muslim scholar does. It takes many, many years of study to do that. I have friends who have done this, one was a beardless youth when I met him, and is now probably the most widely-known American Muslim scholar, and he paid his dues for that, many years of dedicated study. Yes, in Arabic. The sources are in Arabic, not modern Arabic, but classical Arabic. No, I'm just an American Muslim who is not afraid to make mistakes, so I write what I think, and report what I find. And, in fact, the scholars generally support me, and sometimes they correct me. It's quite the same with cold fusion. I don't have a degree, but open my mouth and make mistakes, and that's quite how I learn. The trick is to *pay attention to correction.* That is, *seek to understand it.* Jojo radically misrepresents what I've done. I sometimes cite Wikipedia for well-known, uncontroversial material. Blogs are rarely cited, and only to show opinion. Here, it was Jojo who cited an anti-Muslim source, no better than a blog. That source cited Muslim sources, of radically varying quality, and *interpreted them* in ways entirely contrary to normal, maintream Muslim interpretion, often directly contradicting, in conclusion from a source, what the source explicitly said. This is highly polarized polemic, not scholarship. And it's highly offensive, because it is attempting to tell Muslims that their religion tells them to do something horrific. What if they believe him? Below, explaining who I actually am, that is, what my actual qualifications are, I describe my relationship with Islam and what it means to me. If one reads this carefully, it will be seen that it is far from an attack on anyone's religion. At 04:08 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Have you read the link? It provides muslim sources that categorically say the things I am saying. How can one who claims to be objective say that Lomax is right about this. You fancy yourself as being objective right? If not, I have nothing else to discuss with you. I will only discuss with people who want the truth, not win with propaganda and lies. What evidence has Lomax actually provided? And how good is that evidence? My evidence is Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. Two of the most respected and venerated mulsim scholarly works. He's is wikipedia and Internet opinion blogs and his evidence is better than mine? Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Are you actually claiming that Lomax is fluent in Arabic? Please if you are, point to me where he said that. I don't read his lengthy tiresome essays completely so I may have missed that. Jojo - Original Message - From: mailto:danieldi...@gmail.comDaniel Rocha To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comJohn Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. The problem it is not that he is informed. Not only vastly more than you, since he can actually not only read the canon in Arabic but also criticisms and counter criticisms, discussion, of the highest authorities, all in Arabic. Although we should all question whatever people tells us, he provided enough evidence that you be just either a troll or fanatical to not accept as true, or much more probable as true than what you can find, whatever Abd says. Daniel was responding to: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74947.html He's not quite correct. I'm generally familiar with anti-Muslim polemic, and the issues raised. Here, I simply followed the sources cited by the Christian, and read them to the degree necessary to understand the context and what was being said. It should not be assumed that I already know the facts. I actually take testimony at face value and then verify it. Or falsify it. A point should be made clear. I'm a Muslim. That has a very specific and technical meaning, it means simply that I have, in the presence of witnesses, testified personally, in Arabic, as to what is called the declaration of faith in Islam. In fact, when I did that, I was young and did not really know what it meant! That is, I had an *erroneous understanding.* I wasn't lying, I was just saying what I thought was so. It means something quite distinct from that now. Here is what it means to me: I testify that there is no god but God. That is, there is a single reality. That is *all* that it means. Everything else is interpretation. I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God. Messenger is literal. Sometimes, when I want
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 06:23 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax, have you actually read the link? Yes. The post that I made proves that, by quoting from it in detail. Has Jojo actually read my mail? It appears not, but then he responds to it. Obviously, if he has not read it, he has *made up* what I supposedly said. It seems to me that you are still asserting a lot of things contrary to Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.. The seeming is to one ignorant of the issues. I have *included* in my comments what is in Muslim and Bukhari. Are you saying you reject the accuracy of the accounts written in these 2 works. I generally consider *all hadith* except the best hadith, the Qur'an, as being suspect as to accuracy. And that is obvious to anyone who takes up the study of hadith. They very. Even with the strongest, we find variations. Then there are *translation* problems. The Christian critics seem to ascribe authority to translations, sometimes made by other than scholars, and sometimes made by scholars whose English is poor. If you do, how can one have a meaningful debate with you. You can't. You are utterly out of your element. You say that only evangelical sources support what I am saying. No, that's only true about *some* of what you say. Consistently, you interpret comments as extremes. It's part of how you think. Now, it is clear that 2 respected and venerated muslim scholarly sources support what I am saying and you still will not accept it? I accepted that they say what they say. It's not controversial that Bukhari and Mulsim say what they say, on the points relevant here. But the exact meanng of some of the words is in possible question. Without doing *much more research* -- that could take a long time -- I can't be certain about these things, but Christians who have certainly *not* done the necessary research are *quite* certain about what they say and what it means. The Sahih Muslim and the Sahih Bukhari are corrupt in your opinion? Corrupt as a technical term, yes. That means that it is a certainty that they contain errors. Jojo, you are trying to establish what the sources of Islam *mean*. Yet those sources don't really mean *anything* to you except as a means of trying to impeach the honor of the religion and those who accept it. You are not willing and possibly not capable of understanding what has happened right here, on this list, in these emails, in a language you supposedly understand, how in the world could you expect to understand what happened 1400 years ago, with no immediate authoritative texts except the Qur'an, and hadith only collected a century later? You seem to think that Islam is like Christianity, that we have some canon of books that are accepted by Muslims, like the Christian canon. No, there is only the Qur'an in that position. One book. Bukhari and Muslim have respect, but I'm actually a Maliki, as to school of preference, for whatever that means, and what was important to Imam Malik was not the stories of the Prophet, so much as how people in Madina, the city of the prophet, *actually practiced.* That's frustrating to you because you imagine I should have some authoritative text that you could then scour for offensive material. The only truly authoritative text in Islam is the Qur'an. What we see in the hadith is largely the world-view (including politics) of the early Muslims, about a hundred years after the Prophet. How much this affected what was transmitted is debatable, and Muslims certainly debate it. because they clearly say that A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed consumated the marriage. As I've mentioned, translations differ and I don't have the Arabic on this. I could go to the trouble of getting it, but why? Muhammad Ali wrote about this that the age of Ayesha was what we would now call historical trivia. The collectors of hadith were very concerned abou the practice of Islam, not about historical trivia. *Later* scholars used these stories to develop law about age, but I consider that activity to be basically corrupt. The standard in the Qur'an and in the actual sunna of the people and the Prophet was about, not age, but maturity. That, in fact, matches what used to be the law in much of the U.S., not so long ago. It is about a judgment of the condition of the girl, not about her physical age, for maturity between girls can vary *greatly*. If there is a girl who is actually sexually mature, and she is *not* married, there is a risk of sex outside of marriage, a constant risk. Is she to be imprisoned, watched constantly? Look what has come from delay of marriage in the U.S.! While cause and effect are debatable, there is little doubt but that extramarital sex has increased, and it is also obvious that *all these women are sexually mature.* -- except for those who are actually abused, rather than merely technically abused. (And statutory rape does not cover the situation of girls
