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]:List integrity
So, muslims do not approve of what muhammed did? Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity At 02:33 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, muslims approve of marriage with sexual relations to a 9 year old menstruating little girl?''' There are only 2 possible answers: Yes or No. But let's see how Lomax will spin this. The general answer is No. But it is also possible to find a situation where the answer would be Yes. I haven't asked muslims, and it's clear that some Muslims would just answer No, and those that would answer Yes would not answer so unconditionally. A great deal would depend, as with all polls, on how the question is asked. Remember, the general answer is No. So how could it be Yes? 1. The society recognizes her as married and that she has reached the conditions of consent. 2. The parents have approved of the marriage. 3. The marriage is not otherwise illegal. and all of this probably requires 4. She does not resemble what comes to *our* mind when we say 9 year old menstruating little girl. She just happens to be, we know because it was assumed in the question, nine years old. Jojo PS. Note that 2 respected and venerated muslim sources (Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari) have indicated that A'isha was indeed 9 years old when muhammed started having intercourse with her; yet you find Lomax still attempting to throw confusion as to Aisha age. Yet he does not say exactly what age he believes A'isha was when muhammed consumated the marriage. Jojo keeps repeating Muslim and Bukhari like a mantra. We have reviewed what they said. They don't mention intercourse, per se. There is a much weaker tradition from Abu Dawud, cited on the Christian polemic site, translated there, that purports to say that they had intercourse when she was nine. But translators often substitute whatever meaning they think is going to explain the situation. So what we know from the *translation* of Abu Dawud is that the translator believed it was about consummation. Was an actual word for intercourse used? I don't know. I didn't see a reliable source on this, and I don't have Abu Dawud. I have consistently written that *it is possible* that Ayesha was nine. Which could mean almost ten and birthdays were not celebrated. A statement of age like this, perhaps made eighty years later (!) can only be taken as something approximate. She was young! She was his youngest wife, and the only virgin wife. As has been pointed out, one of the problems with hadith about Ayesha is that Sunnis were anxious to establish her as the most favored wife, for political reasons, and her youth was emphasized to make the virgin point. She had been betrothed before. (Don't these guys notice that?) (Don't these guys notice that, had Muhammad been dominated by his sexuality, he could have had whatever he wanted?) So Lomax, based on your considerable research into this topic, what was A'isha age when muhammed started having intercourse with her? It's not found in the sources, most of them. The considerable research I have done consists of a few days reading sources on the internet, checking what books I have, and that's it. What's clear -- it's easy to find -- is that many sources do say nine. However, when we look more closely at that, they are assuming that being taken to his house means they were having intercourse. Maybe. Maybe not. Again, it is very clear that many Muslim sources do consider that a girl at nine *might* be able to give consent. What the critics don't realize is that age is not a condition, maturity is, and there are other conditions. There is *no* opinion that a nine-year old girl is marriageable unless a set of conditions have been met. We found, from the Christian web page, only Maududi saying something like that, and Maududi is basically, to be blunt, an idiot. (Even Maududi, though, would agree about the additional conditions, he was just being incautious.) There would obviously be exceptions, but I learned early on not to rely on Pakistanis for the religion. I actually accepted Islam at the suggestion of a Pakistani professor of Farsi, and for years I assumed that he knew Arabic. No. When a real question came up, all he could do was repeat what he'd been told, and when I tried to point to the Qur'anic verses on it, he was helpless and hopeless, and the opinion he'd given me, about divorce, was dead wrong. And he'd followed the defective advice himself! What he was claiming was the *only* way to divorce was actually, from authoritative sources, merely allowed, far from the best. (The best is simple, not abusive, and does not involve anger or preventing reconciliation even after divorce. His way, I later came to understand, actually violates the law of divorce, but he's not the only
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
My friend, you can not debate with someone by putting- the words in his mouth and proceed to demolish it. That a strawman argument. I never believed in geocentrism and I have not met anyone of my church friends who does. But, we do believe in a different kind of geocentrism, that with all of God's creation, the Earth is the center of his attention. Where in the Bible does it say 6000 years is the Earth's age. Again, you can not put beliefs into someone and proceed to demolish it. Faulty logic. I have never claimed the Earth is 6000 years old. Some of my friends do, and we sometimes argue (discuss) it. But, really, even if I do, what scientific fact - I mean real scientific fact, not conclusions and conjectures and speculations, do you have to say that this is wrong. Yeah yeah, I know about your shellfish study and your ice core data. At best they are not settled science, just the opinion of some researcher. So regarding your supposed contradictions, you acknowledge that it is difficult to draw out and yet you proclaim it as a contradiction. Something is wrong with that thinking my friend. Yeah, just go ahead and weasle away. Most people do that when they been found to be either lying or wrong. NEXT Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution On 2/01/2013 4:59 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: First, you came up with the opinion of a man and proceeded to demolish it. If this is not a clear example of a Strawman argument, I don't know what is. I won't even bother to rebute this argument as it is clearly fallacious. I said provide a statement FROM THE BIBLE, not some person. This is not the opinion of one man, but was the strongly held opinion of the whole of Christendom from the least to the greatest, and a matter for which great scientists were threatened with torture and burnt at the stake. Within that discussion are many statements *from the Bible* that support a geocentric worldview. But like I said, this is one that we can likely agree on because the scientific evidence has now persuaded modern biblical scholars (yourself included) that they need to interpret those passages differently. I brought up this point to illustrate that Bible interpretation is an evolutionary process which we are in the middle of (and some of us are considerably more evolved than others!) Second, you question the integrity of the Bible by saying that it claimed that the Earth is ~6000 years old. Please point to me where it says in the Bible that the Earth is 6000 years old. This age is a conjecture by scholars when they attempt to trace back the genealogy of people mentioned in the Bible. This figure is by no means an agreed figure. This figure is by no means an agreed figure for the simple reason that it is no longer tenable (except by the most determined literalists), so of course scholars have to come up with a different interpretation than the obvious straightforward meaning of the text. The geocentrism argument has been considered lost by almost everyone except the gentleman I pointed to. The group you belong to has accepted that the 6000 year old earth is untenable but doesn't yet know what figure to retreat to. Whether Noah's flood was local or global seems to be an argument that your group has not yet considered very seriously. I know a Christian denomination that holds the entire Bible in the highest regard, and yet happily teaches that all of Genesis before Abraham is not to be taken literally but rather has deeper spiritual meanings (much as Jesus' parables are not historical events but have spiritual meanings). So you see that there is almost *no* point at which believers will be unable to change their interpretation in order to keep their Bible as without error. For myself I can't see why the book needs to have no errors. We don't demand it of any other book so why this one. ... You also mentioned Noah's flood and you provided Ice core evidence, sea shell evidnece etc. Show me the data for these? I thought I did (see link preserved at end) - was the plotted data not data for some reason? All you have provided are conclusions of people. This is by no means settled science. These are just conjectures and conclusions. Regarding your statement the all the ice is assumed to have melted in Noah's flood. Why would you assume that? What evidence do you have that that indeed happened. Other researchers say the opposite of what you are assuming. A global deluge would cool the Earth and form ice, not melt it. Regardless of what happened (cooling or melting), one would expect a glitch or discontinuity in the climate data don't you think? If all the ice didn't melt then since it floats, there should have been plenty of
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
My friend, you are missing the point of my legal arguments of Preponderance of Evidence. For instance, when a witness appears in court to testify about something he saw, the opposing counsel has his chance to impeach the credibility of that witness. After he has done so, and the witness has passed certain legal standards of reliability, his testimony is considered reliable and true. Obviously, you can not examine and verify what he has actually seen cause he was the only one who has seen it. But we have a process, rules to qualify a witness to see if he can be accepted as a realible witness. For instance, the opposing counsel might attempt to question him about something in his life to see if he would lie or not. If found to have lied, his credibility is diminished and he is not considered a reliable witness for the things he saw. But if he told the truth and the opposing counsel can not impeach his honesty, the judge will accept his testimony as reliable. In our justice system, we call that a reliable witness. This my friend is the standard I want you to apply when evaluating the Bible. See, if you can impeach the Bible's honesty on some other thing. If you can, then the Bible's credibility is diminished. If you can't, then the Bible should be considered reliable. How can you say for sure that Ezekiel did not actually see a wheel in the sky, after all, no one else was there. And how can you go about evaluating his honesty? and his reliability as a witness, cause after all, that's what he was - a witness to the wheels in the sky. You say Exekiel must have been lying or hallucinating. What is your baiss for that? You baiss is simply that there were no flying machines at that time; whcih is an extension of your initial assumption that there is NO God. You see, you assumed there is No God, then reason from that that there are no flying machines, and then reason from that that Exekiel must have been lying or hallucinating. If you use a chain of logic like this in court, the judge will throw you out. You can not use an assumption to be the basis of your argument. If however, you look at other parts of Exekiel's life and found him to be a liar, then you have impeached his honesty and has a legal basis to throw his testimony out. There's a big difference in the 2 approachs my friend. So, I am saying, evaluate the Bible and see if it has been lying about other things. If it has, its other statements may be dismissed. If not, then by our legal standard, we should accept it as reliable. Jojo - Original Message - From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age On 01/01/2013 05:59 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: No, I am suggesting that you count the facts written in the Bible that have found to be true. Then count the facts found to be false and then count the facts that have not be found true or found false yet. If the number of facts that have found to be true is 51% or greater, then the Bible has satisfied the principle of preponderance of evidence and should be treated as a verified document, and a reliable witness. Shall we do this? To be fair, I will count the facts found to be true, you count the facts that have been found to false and the facts found to be neither true nor false. Jojo But no, that's not the way to ascertain truth. Each assertion has to be evaluated on its own merits. You can have a book that contains many truths, along with many un-proven assertions. This is why books, per-se, cannot be used to ascertain truth. They can only add to available evidence. But notice, that when an assertion is made, that the truth of the assertion has to be evaluated within the context of existing, known, truths. So when we hear of stories that a wheel came down from the sky, as in Ezekiel, we have to immediately dismiss it as hearsay, unless there is other evidence that such a thing occurred. If it turns out that numerous other sources confirmed the event, then we have to interpret the event in the context of known truths. So the immediate explanation would be that it's an illusion. If there was enough evidence that such a thing was NOT an illusion, then the best interpretation is that the event was conducted by an alien species with superior technology. What you cannot do is manufacture an explanation which defies metaphysics and epistemology. You cannot say that such an event was the act of a God -- because the concept of God cannot be defined and does not exist within the Universe, as I've mentioned before. So when you allude to the idea that we have to interpret words, written in a book, in such a way that the explanation defies metaphysics and epistemology, then you are on very thin ice. If such a thing could be absolutely ascertained to have occurred, (such as a wheel coming down from the sky in an era
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
That is where you are wrong my friend. A TRUE Christian will not find a call to Idolatry beautiful. A muslim call to prayer is a call to pray to a false god (allah the moon god) in front of an idol (kabah - a meteroite stone.) Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Jojo, you do not speak for true Christians. I know many Christians and others who find the Muslim call to prayer beautiful. On Jan 1, 2013, at 12:44 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Other than what he wrote in his autobiography, no. But his autobiography is a revealing work into his psyche. He mentioned that the muslim call to prayer was the most beautiful sound he has heard. High praise from a supposed Christian. Beautiful in that the music or melody is beautiful, but beautiful in the sense of worship it inspires. I can tell you now that a true Christian will NOT find a call to prayer to a moon god beaustiful and inspiring. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies This is incorrect, Jojo. Do you have any evidence for your assertion that President Obama is a Muslim? On Dec 30, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia. You can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies On what evidence do you base your assertion that President Obama is a Muslim? On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: No, I am not stating that the President is a muslim. I am stating that the Usurper is a muslim. We currently don't have a legitimate president; we have a usurper sitting on the throne. Why doesn't he just come clean? He could do this with a single 2 minute phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC. He can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill the Birther movement and start the healing of the nation. He can do all that in 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to block access to this vault BC. Why block access to such an innocuous document? WHY indeed? He won't because he can't. This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Are you stating that the President is Muslim? On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related to previous and current presidents. Anything about this current president is covered by this order. IF anyone wants to release information about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) or thru the Presidential counsel; for approval. This is the veil of corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are gving him a pass. I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim president. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after he took power. The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order 13233. But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require his approval before release of any information, obstensively because of Executive Privelege. Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly. Release of any information. Sure. Any information of what type, where located, and by whom? Now, Lomax, who is lying now. Do I get my apology now? What exactly have you debunked? you blatant liar. No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Order does what you claimed. I not only never claimed that this *particular* Exectuive Order did not exist, I linked to it and discussed it specifically. [...] Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot. Let's see what spin and lies you'll come up next. You've acknowledged all along that what you are doing is spinning. You have acknowledged that you say things that aren't true to create a dramatic image. That's spin. But I'll give you a fair chance here. You claimed that this document is an Executive Order which blocks access to
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
I've already said, you can not enroll into this muslim school that Obama enrolled in if you were not registered as a muslim. And any adoption of a child by an Indonesian muslim man automatically makes the child a muslim. That was the law. Research it my friend. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Your statements about nationality and about adoption and nationality are incorrect. What is your evidence for Obama being registered as a Muslim? On Jan 1, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: While what you are saying about Indonesian schools may be true today - I am not knowledgeable about the current school system in Indonesia, so I will not debate that. While that may be true, it surely wasn't true in the 70's when Obama went there. Records show he was registered in that school as a muslim. One more thing, he was adopted by an Indonesian muslim. If he was adopted to be an Indonesian, he would have automatically lost his U.S. citizenship and gained Indonesian citizenship and automatically became a muslim. In Indonesia, you gain the religion of your adoptive father. Indonesia does not have and never had a Dual Citizenship program with the US. Which means that he would have had to reacquire his US citizenship when he reached 18. He had to do something to gain back his US citizenship. Which automatically made him a naturalized US citizen, not a Natural-Born US citizen required by our constitution. One of my cousins was in the same boat and he was born about the same time as Obama. He was born in U.S. soil (New York) but his parents brought him back to the Philippines. By US law, as a minor, he has no official citizenship status if there is a question as to his citizenship. In my cousin's case, he was born on US soil to Filipino parents. Hence, his citizenship status was in limbo, until he can make a decision when he turns 18. He can choose to be Filipino or US citizen.When my cousin turned 18, he had to go to the US Embassy to choose US citizen and get his papers (passport). He is considered a Naturalized US citizen. A person that has to take action to gain US citizenship is not a Natural Born US citizen. This is the status of Obama even if he was indeed born in Hawaii. He would still be a Naturalized US citizen and hence unqualified. So, as you can see, Obama is unqualified to be POTUS on many fronts. The argument about whether he was born in Hawaii or not is just one aspect of his qualification (non-qualification) to be POTUS. In a free society like America, such questions about his qualifications should have been vetted openly. If there was even a hint as to his qualifications, it should have been settled publicly and openly. Why don't people take this issue seriously. Even if people think that his BC was original and valid, people should still be calling for it to be settled once and for all. Open up the vault copy. No other steps or half measures will do. Great controversies require great measures to settle. Let the Birthers see it and it they are wrong, you get the chance to humiliate them to your heart's content. If I am wrong about this, I'm sure I will have great shame and tuck my tail between my legs and go away quietly. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies The earlier posting on muslim schools is confused. Some Muslim schools have a curriculum that is based solely on the Qur'an. This kind of school would only attract non-Muslim students interested in the Qur'an, or in the culture of Islam. Some Muslim schools have a standard secular curriculum, and are attended mostly by Muslims, thus confusing some into calling them Muslim schools. Some Muslim schools are merely called such because they operate in a Muslim country, like Indonesia. This is like calling US public schools Christian because they operate in a predominantly Christian country. To suggest that President Obama must be a Muslim because he went to a Muslim school in Indonesia is a statement that at best is meaningless. On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: Indeed. There is a Catholic school in Birmingham, UK, where the majority of pupils are Muslim http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birminghams-catholic-school-where-90-of-the-pupils-231115 Nigel On 31/12/2012 04:40, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, Christian catholic schools are more tolerant of other faiths, but not muslims. You can not go to a muslim school like the one Obama went to unless you are a muslim. Before
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Chuck, if you believe that Obama is a Natural-Born US citizen, then why not just open up access to a innocuous piece of document. Why not show all brithers the vault BC. It's simple my friend. It will end the controversy. Instead of doing that, you resort to accusations about treason because I will not swallow the bambi propaganda. You know, that's what they did in Naxi Germany. Anyone who would not swallow the propaganda was a traitor. I am loyal to my country, my Constitution. I have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. The illuminati and their puppet bambi, are DOMESTIC enemies of our Constitution. They treat that sacred law as a piece of toilet paper but continuing to ignore its clear specific requirement. The POTUS MUST be a natural-born US citizen. Jojo PS. I see you have employed a tactic that many have employed. Instead of saying natural-born US citizen, you say Native born citizen. There is no such thing as a Native Born citizen. That is not a legal classification. The proper classification is a Natural-Born US citizen. I believe you do this intentionally to add confusion to the issue. NO one reads my posts. Really? LOL. Do you want me to tell you how many private emails I get about my posts? Do you want me to tell you how many offline discussions I am having with some vortex members? - Original Message - From: Chuck Sites To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies I'm sorry to break from scientific debates on Cold Fusion, but to be honest, JoJo has dominated this mailing list for several weeks now with very little response and light response from the Vortex-L mail list. If I may, I would like to suspend the rules and use 4 letter words If that is OK with you all, good old JoJo will get an insult so low, his shins might hurt from all of the fish bites. so Jojol You know, all I can say is your beliefs are treasonous. You say Obama is unqualified to be POTUS on many fronts. President Obama is certainly qualified to be POTUS on all levels. In fact he has been one of the best POTUS's since Clinton. You might as well say, I hate the USA. You obviously a birther, since you seem to believe the notion that Obama is not a native born citizen. That is just goofy thinking. Only a dingbat righty would take that as fact. You have been attacking Lomax for his religion. Why don't you tell us right here and right now what your religion is if you have one. We can then pick on every odd thing that your religion believes. Based on everything you have said, it probably involves eating little babies (sarcasm). Bottom line Jojo, is no one on this email lists likes your posts or even reads them. You message is irrelevant and always Off Topic! Go away an hassle some body on huffington post, On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Obama is unqualified to be POTUS on many fronts.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
On 2/01/2013 4:44 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, you can not debate with someone by putting- the words in his mouth and proceed to demolish it. That a strawman argument. I never believed in geocentrism We were not supposed to be discussing what you *believed*. We were supposed to be discussing what your Bible *says*. Where in the Bible does it say 6000 years is the Earth's age. It can be derived from Bible genealogies using rather simple arithmetic as I am sure you know. You must have adopted some way to weasel around the obvious meaning of words like morning and evening and ... lived xxx years and begat Again, you can not put beliefs into someone and proceed to demolish it. Faulty logic. I have never claimed the Earth is 6000 years old. Some of my friends do, and we sometimes argue (discuss) it. But, really, even if I do, what scientific fact - I mean real scientific fact, not conclusions and conjectures and speculations, do you have to say that this is wrong. Yeah yeah, I know about your shellfish study and your ice core data. At best they are not settled science, just the opinion of some researcher. It becomes obvious that any science that disagrees with your prejudice will simply be called unsettled and just someones opinion. But it also becomes very obvious that the meaning of most of the statements in your Bible regarding scientific issues is also unsettled and just someones opinion! So why would anyone care any more for what your Bible says, than what science says? - since what your Bible says is also just unsettled conjectures and speculations that can be argued about ad-nauseum. So regarding your supposed contradictions, you acknowledge that it is difficult to draw out and yet you proclaim it as a contradiction. Something is wrong with that thinking my friend. This is hardly the forum for discussing Hebrew letters getting dropped from names - particularly when you will only ignore any effort I put into it in much the same way as you ignore anything else that you disagree with. Did you decide who wrote on Moses' second set of tablets? Or where Aaron died? Yeah, just go ahead and weasle away. Most people do that when they been found to be either lying or wrong.
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 Bible and the Copernican Revolution
Yes, we are discussing what the Bible says. Where in the Bible does it say the sun revolves around the Earth? Where does it say the Earth is 6000 years old? That is all I'm asking. IF you want to accept my challenge, show me where the Bible says something that is categorically wrong. So, you have a problem because it says in one place that Moses wrote the tablets and then it says in another place that God wrote the tablets. Is this the crux of your objection? It's funny cause if you are quibbling about the exact person who had the pen in his hand (or chisel), you could have used a better example from the Bible. When someone helps me with my autobiography, someone like my secretary. Do we say she wrote the autobiography because she was holding the actual pen (or computer in our case)? Or do we say I wrote my autobiography? Both statements are of course True. She wrote my autobiography because she was the one who physically wrote (or typed), at the same time, I can say that I wrote my autobiography because I provided the contents. My friend, you are quibbling over a minor figure of speech issue. The Bible does use figures of speech you know. Jesus Christ is not a chicken because he said he wanted to gather Jerusalem under his wings. Seems to me that this is a very weak objection. You can do better. Visit some atheist web site and get some ideas from them. But please, do it one at a time so that I can address it properly. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution On 2/01/2013 4:44 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, you can not debate with someone by putting- the words in his mouth and proceed to demolish it. That a strawman argument. I never believed in geocentrism We were not supposed to be discussing what you *believed*. We were supposed to be discussing what your Bible *says*. Where in the Bible does it say 6000 years is the Earth's age. It can be derived from Bible genealogies using rather simple arithmetic as I am sure you know. You must have adopted some way to weasel around the obvious meaning of words like morning and evening and ... lived xxx years and begat Again, you can not put beliefs into someone and proceed to demolish it. Faulty logic. I have never claimed the Earth is 6000 years old. Some of my friends do, and we sometimes argue (discuss) it. But, really, even if I do, what scientific fact - I mean real scientific fact, not conclusions and conjectures and speculations, do you have to say that this is wrong. Yeah yeah, I know about your shellfish study and your ice core data. At best they are not settled science, just the opinion of some researcher. It becomes obvious that any science that disagrees with your prejudice will simply be called unsettled and just someones opinion. But it also becomes very obvious that the meaning of most of the statements in your Bible regarding scientific issues is also unsettled and just someones opinion! So why would anyone care any more for what your Bible says, than what science says? - since what your Bible says is also just unsettled conjectures and speculations that can be argued about ad-nauseum. So regarding your supposed contradictions, you acknowledge that it is difficult to draw out and yet you proclaim it as a contradiction. Something is wrong with that thinking my friend. This is hardly the forum for discussing Hebrew letters getting dropped from names - particularly when you will only ignore any effort I put into it in much the same way as you ignore anything else that you disagree with. Did you decide who wrote on Moses' second set of tablets? Or where Aaron died? Yeah, just go ahead and weasle away. Most people do that when they been found to be either lying or wrong.
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] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Tell me Chan or Ny Min, what degrees do you have? Jojo - Original Message - From: leaking pen To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age if at least half the facts are true, its a reliable witness and we can treat them all as true? Please, take a logic course at your local community college. From the sounds of things, its the most true education you would ever have had in your life. On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: No, I am suggesting that you count the facts written in the Bible that have found to be true. Then count the facts found to be false and then count the facts that have not be found true or found false yet. If the number of facts that have found to be true is 51% or greater, then the Bible has satisfied the principle of preponderance of evidence and should be treated as a verified document, and a reliable witness. Shall we do this? To be fair, I will count the facts found to be true, you count the facts that have been found to false and the facts found to be neither true nor false. Jojo - Original Message - From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Jaro, are you suggesting that we meet here, in this forum, and vote as to whether you have presented a 'preponderance of evidence' that your assertions are true? And if we vote 'no', will you then agree that the Bible has not been proven to be true, and is considered, therefore, to be false? Craig On 01/01/2013 02:58 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Aha, but there is this concept of Preponderance of Evidence. While this is a legal concept, we can nevertheless apply its principles in our discussion. Basically, what Preponderance of Evidence says is that if one side can present a preponderance of evidence to support his side, what he is saying may be considered true. If one side can present 51% evidence, his argument may be construed as true. This is the standard of Preponderance of Evidence. While absolute 100% certainty may not be reached, it is acceptable to acknowledge its truth based on the amount of evidence one has supplied. Preponderance of Evidence is a legal standard that a Judge in a civil case may use to decide a case. If it is acceptable in our legal system, I submit to you that it should be acceptable in our discussion. We can apply the standard of Preponderance of Evidence when we evaluate the integrity of the Bible. Has the Bible stated facts that can be proven and does that constitute 51%. If so, the Bible may be considered a verified and reliable source in our legal system. In other words, it is considered a reliable witness. Has the Bible satisfied the Preponderance of Evidence criteria. I submit to you that it has. There are thousands of scientific, historical, archeological, literary, etc facts that can be and has been verified. Based on that, we can not legally say that the Bible is an unverified source. By law, it is considered a verified source by virtue of Preponderance of Evidence. Jojo - Original Message - From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age On 01/01/2013 11:59 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: But this is exactly where you're wrong. You can in fact verify the Bible. It's very simple. find one, just one fact that has been categorically found to be false. This one erroneous fact alone would sink the entire credibility of the Bible. With regard to epistemology, it's not up to anyone to disprove a source. Rather, it's up to the proponent of an idea to PROVE his assertions. There is nothing to disprove here. You can't take a source and claim that all the wild assertions in it are true, just because you can't find anything wrong with it. I can write a book about life on Pluto, and you won't be able to prove it wrong. Craig
RE: [Vo]:Papp and Water
Exactly! This effect has been discovered and forgotten and discovered again. From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water I looked at the Papp cannon video again. At 3:00 in, Papp is filling the cannon from one of the flasks. It has a sizable amount of clear liquid at the bottom of that flask. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tuk31pS2Mfeature=player_embedded Is that liquid clorinated water is see? Happy New Year: Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.commailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: Hasn't Prof. Graneau identified arc explosions in water as overunity? That a turbine should be engineered to take advantage of the effect as free energy? Papp did mention water vapor in his engine patent, if I recall correctly. The Russians did a lot of work on the Electrohydraulic effect back in the '70's that was utterly ignored, as well.
RE: [Vo]:OT: Call For Death Of Climate Deniers
Just exploring? Would you like more of these sort of comments from Hansen, perhaps? Or maybe people with some authority trying to compare climate deniers to pedophiles, as recently reported on Drudge?
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I was astounded to see that painting, I thought perhaps it had been hacked. But it appears to not be an anachronism, though the glasses certainly look modern. Live and learn. Serious comment: People in the past often had better technology and more knowledge than we give them credit for. For example, from ancient times most educated people knew that the world is round. Greek astronomers estimated the size of the world with pretty good accuracy. It is myth that sailors or the nobility opposed Columbus because they thought he might sail off the edge of the world. This myth was invented out of whole cloth in the 19th century. They opposed Columbus because they had better knowledge of size of the earth and of the Eurasian continent, and they knew that Asia was too far away to reach with his ships sailing west. If he had not bumped into the Americas he would have starved long before he reached Asia. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
Axil, I agree with your thinking, I will also mention that I believe these plasmoids or energetic particles love mass-energy dense matter like WATER. It gives them something to shred at their surface and spit out their tail, leaving ionized, charged particles. As I have been modelling what I believe are more massive energetic particle tracks in our atmosphere they appear to be FOLLOWING CONDENSED WATER VAPOR trails in the atmosphere. Water may have been Papps Nuclear Fuel. This was also probably the fuel for Nanospire's energetic particles. Once the particles/plasmoids are created, the more mass-energy dense material(water) at their surface makes them more energetic. Just the way I see it. Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Exactly! This effect has been discovered and forgotten and discovered again. -- *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, December 31, 2012 10:07 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water I looked at the Papp cannon video again. At 3:00 in, Papp is filling the cannon from one of the flasks. It has a sizable amount of clear liquid at the bottom of that flask. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tuk31pS2Mfeature=player_embedded Is that liquid clorinated water is see? Happy New Year: Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Hasn't Prof. Graneau identified arc explosions in water as overunity? That a turbine should be engineered to take advantage of the effect as free energy? Papp did mention water vapor in his engine patent, if I recall correctly. The Russians did a lot of work on the Electrohydraulic effect back in the '70's that was utterly ignored, as well.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??)
It is Beta Decay and Ionizing radiation triggered at the surface of that plasmoid/dark matter particle. It is also probably the reason Papp died of Colon cancer, which is known to be caused from ionizing radiation. http://www.clarku.edu/mtafund/prodlib/jsi/Colorectal_Cancer_and_Exposure_to_Ionizing_Radiation.pdf and probably the reason Tom Rohner died of pancreatic cancer http://www.hendersonbarkerfuneralhome.com/sitemaker/sites/hender0/obit.cgi?user=333640Rohner and possibly why Richard Feynmam died of Abdominal Cancer. bad, bad, bad, bad , bad stuff in concentrated doses. Need to protect and shield from that. Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: here is also a change of catalytic voltages. Change in catalytic voltages (very local) causes currents and therefore EMF.
RE: [Vo]:Papp and Water
http://www.oocities.org/waterfuel111/water_explosion_menu.html The above isn't exactly Acta Physica but it has some interesting links and claims From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water Axil, I agree with your thinking, I will also mention that I believe these plasmoids or energetic particles love mass-energy dense matter like WATER. It gives them something to shred at their surface and spit out their tail, leaving ionized, charged particles. As I have been modelling what I believe are more massive energetic particle tracks in our atmosphere they appear to be FOLLOWING CONDENSED WATER VAPOR trails in the atmosphere. Water may have been Papps Nuclear Fuel. This was also probably the fuel for Nanospire's energetic particles. Once the particles/plasmoids are created, the more mass-energy dense material(water) at their surface makes them more energetic. Just the way I see it. Stewart darkmattersalot.comhttp://darkmattersalot.com
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, it's entirely up to you the credibility you assign to those reports. The people seem credible but you never know. As I said, I am not the police. I have not run background checks. It does not matter how credible these reports are if Rossi never gets around to selling anything. He seems to be stuck in a classic development loop where the next version is so wonderful no version ever makes it to the market. In software this would be the Duke Nuke'em trap. The Doble steam-powered automobile and many other brilliant innovations failed because of this. My grandfather Sundel Doniger was an inventor. He never would have made a dime if his brother-in-law Uncle Danny had not periodically told him: Stop developing it. Stop improving it! Ship the product!!! I advised him and the people financing him to concentrate on developing IP instead of building megawatt reactors. They ignored me. The story told here by Jed is plausible. In a way, though, it's a variation on the he's crazy story. I.e., he's not crazy as he appears, he's pretending to be crazy. But, Jed, that's actually a form of crazy. I don't think so. Patterson had the same strategy but he wasn't crazy. Ed Storms thinks that Rossi is incapable of developing good IP so he has no choice but to pursue the go-for-broke development strategy. Ed suspects Rossi does not understand the reaction well enough to write a valid patent. I wouldn't know. If a bad business strategy is a sign of insanity, everyone in the dot-com boom and most of Wall Street would crazy. Come to think of it . . . maybe they are. Credit swaps, derivatives and other fiscal weapons of mass destruction as Warren Buffett calls them are crazy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? On Jan 2, 2013, at 3:23 AM, 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. 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
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Again, Jojo, you are neither representative of Christianity, nor able to speak for Christians. It is arrogant -- and revealing -- for you to suggest that you do. On Jan 2, 2013, at 4:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: That is where you are wrong my friend. A TRUE Christian will not find a call to Idolatry beautiful. A muslim call to prayer is a call to pray to a false god (allah the moon god) in front of an idol (kabah - a meteroite stone.) Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Jojo, you do not speak for true Christians. I know many Christians and others who find the Muslim call to prayer beautiful. On Jan 1, 2013, at 12:44 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Other than what he wrote in his autobiography, no. But his autobiography is a revealing work into his psyche. He mentioned that the muslim call to prayer was the most beautiful sound he has heard. High praise from a supposed Christian. Beautiful in that the music or melody is beautiful, but beautiful in the sense of worship it inspires. I can tell you now that a true Christian will NOT find a call to prayer to a moon god beaustiful and inspiring. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies This is incorrect, Jojo. Do you have any evidence for your assertion that President Obama is a Muslim? On Dec 30, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia. You can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies On what evidence do you base your assertion that President Obama is a Muslim? On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: No, I am not stating that the President is a muslim. I am stating that the Usurper is a muslim. We currently don't have a legitimate president; we have a usurper sitting on the throne. Why doesn't he just come clean? He could do this with a single 2 minute phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC. He can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill the Birther movement and start the healing of the nation. He can do all that in 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to block access to this vault BC. Why block access to such an innocuous document? WHY indeed? He won't because he can't. This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Are you stating that the President is Muslim? On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related to previous and current presidents. Anything about this current president is covered by this order. IF anyone wants to release information about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) or thru the Presidential counsel; for approval. This is the veil of corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are gving him a pass. I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim president. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after he took power. The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order 13233. But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require his approval before release of any information, obstensively because of Executive Privelege. Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly. Release of any information. Sure. Any information of what type, where located, and by whom? Now, Lomax, who is lying now. Do I get my apology now? What exactly have you debunked? you blatant liar. No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Order does what you claimed. I not only never claimed that this *particular* Exectuive Order did not exist, I linked to it and discussed it specifically. [...] Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot.
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
I repeat, what is your evidence for these bizarre statements, Jojo? On Jan 2, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: I've already said, you can not enroll into this muslim school that Obama enrolled in if you were not registered as a muslim. And any adoption of a child by an Indonesian muslim man automatically makes the child a muslim. That was the law. Research it my friend. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Your statements about nationality and about adoption and nationality are incorrect. What is your evidence for Obama being registered as a Muslim? On Jan 1, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: While what you are saying about Indonesian schools may be true today - I am not knowledgeable about the current school system in Indonesia, so I will not debate that. While that may be true, it surely wasn't true in the 70's when Obama went there. Records show he was registered in that school as a muslim. One more thing, he was adopted by an Indonesian muslim. If he was adopted to be an Indonesian, he would have automatically lost his U.S. citizenship and gained Indonesian citizenship and automatically became a muslim. In Indonesia, you gain the religion of your adoptive father. Indonesia does not have and never had a Dual Citizenship program with the US. Which means that he would have had to reacquire his US citizenship when he reached 18. He had to do something to gain back his US citizenship. Which automatically made him a naturalized US citizen, not a Natural-Born US citizen required by our constitution. One of my cousins was in the same boat and he was born about the same time as Obama. He was born in U.S. soil (New York) but his parents brought him back to the Philippines. By US law, as a minor, he has no official citizenship status if there is a question as to his citizenship. In my cousin's case, he was born on US soil to Filipino parents. Hence, his citizenship status was in limbo, until he can make a decision when he turns 18. He can choose to be Filipino or US citizen.When my cousin turned 18, he had to go to the US Embassy to choose US citizen and get his papers (passport). He is considered a Naturalized US citizen. A person that has to take action to gain US citizenship is not a Natural Born US citizen. This is the status of Obama even if he was indeed born in Hawaii. He would still be a Naturalized US citizen and hence unqualified. So, as you can see, Obama is unqualified to be POTUS on many fronts. The argument about whether he was born in Hawaii or not is just one aspect of his qualification (non-qualification) to be POTUS. In a free society like America, such questions about his qualifications should have been vetted openly. If there was even a hint as to his qualifications, it should have been settled publicly and openly. Why don't people take this issue seriously. Even if people think that his BC was original and valid, people should still be calling for it to be settled once and for all. Open up the vault copy. No other steps or half measures will do. Great controversies require great measures to settle. Let the Birthers see it and it they are wrong, you get the chance to humiliate them to your heart's content. If I am wrong about this, I'm sure I will have great shame and tuck my tail between my legs and go away quietly. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies The earlier posting on muslim schools is confused. Some Muslim schools have a curriculum that is based solely on the Qur'an. This kind of school would only attract non-Muslim students interested in the Qur'an, or in the culture of Islam. Some Muslim schools have a standard secular curriculum, and are attended mostly by Muslims, thus confusing some into calling them Muslim schools. Some Muslim schools are merely called such because they operate in a Muslim country, like Indonesia. This is like calling US public schools Christian because they operate in a predominantly Christian country. To suggest that President Obama must be a Muslim because he went to a Muslim school in Indonesia is a statement that at best is meaningless. On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: Indeed. There is a Catholic school in Birmingham, UK, where the majority of pupils are Muslim http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birminghams-catholic-school-where-90-of-the-pupils-231115 Nigel On 31/12/2012 04:40, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, Christian catholic schools are more tolerant of other faiths, but not muslims. You can not go to a muslim school
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] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Tell me Chan or Ny Min, what degrees do you have? leaky pen is not Chan. AAMoF he has been around a lot longer than you have.
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]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??)
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: and possibly why Richard Feynman died of Abdominal Cancer. Are you suggesting Feynman got cancer because he was exposed to the Papp device? I know that he was exposed to it, but only for a short time before it exploded. If that was long enough to give him cancer then surely Papp himself must have been exposed to massive amounts of radiation over many years. He would have died after a few months I suppose. (Incidentally, Mallove and others think that Feynman caused the explosion, by unplugging the device.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??)
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:50:05 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: and possibly why Richard Feynman died of Abdominal Cancer. Are you suggesting Feynman got cancer because he was exposed to the Papp device? I know that he was exposed to it, but only for a short time before it exploded. If that was long enough to give him cancer then surely Papp himself must have been exposed to massive amounts of radiation over many years. He would have died after a few months I suppose. I thought Feynman died of cancer because he was exposed to radiation during his work on the Manhattan project.
RE: [Vo]:Papp and Water
Caveat- please be aware that two of the four original authors of the 1998 water arc paper have later distanced themselves from the conclusions of a bona fide energy anomaly. George Hathaway, who had the best scientific credentials and reputation of the four, was vocal for several years in being not in agreement that there was proved gain in the water arc. He published a rebuttal in Infinite Energy in 2007. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26685.html George used to post here before the list became corrupted with religion and politics debates before the 2008 election. We need some kind of moderation on this list. Who needs this kind of inane diversion? Too bad, it used to be a thoughtful group. BTW - there have been many replication attempts of Graneau's water arc - and none that I recall was positive. Jones From: Zell, Chris http://www.oocities.org/waterfuel111/water_explosion_menu.html The above isn't exactly Acta Physica but it has some interesting links and claims attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Who is leaky pen? Do you mean leaking pen? Who is leaking pen? Jojo - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Tell me Chan or Ny Min, what degrees do you have? leaky pen is not Chan. AAMoF he has been around a lot longer than you have.
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:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
My sources are Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. If you do not want to accept these, then say so. Do not pretend that I have not provided muslim sources. At least Lomax has confessed that he thinks Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are corrupt. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls. Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? On Jan 2, 2013, at 3:23 AM, 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. 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
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Fine, if you do not want to accept it, then don't. I've already said it. Do your own research. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies I repeat, what is your evidence for these bizarre statements, Jojo? On Jan 2, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: I've already said, you can not enroll into this muslim school that Obama enrolled in if you were not registered as a muslim. And any adoption of a child by an Indonesian muslim man automatically makes the child a muslim. That was the law. Research it my friend. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Your statements about nationality and about adoption and nationality are incorrect. What is your evidence for Obama being registered as a Muslim? On Jan 1, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: While what you are saying about Indonesian schools may be true today - I am not knowledgeable about the current school system in Indonesia, so I will not debate that. While that may be true, it surely wasn't true in the 70's when Obama went there. Records show he was registered in that school as a muslim. One more thing, he was adopted by an Indonesian muslim. If he was adopted to be an Indonesian, he would have automatically lost his U.S. citizenship and gained Indonesian citizenship and automatically became a muslim. In Indonesia, you gain the religion of your adoptive father. Indonesia does not have and never had a Dual Citizenship program with the US. Which means that he would have had to reacquire his US citizenship when he reached 18. He had to do something to gain back his US citizenship. Which automatically made him a naturalized US citizen, not a Natural-Born US citizen required by our constitution. One of my cousins was in the same boat and he was born about the same time as Obama. He was born in U.S. soil (New York) but his parents brought him back to the Philippines. By US law, as a minor, he has no official citizenship status if there is a question as to his citizenship. In my cousin's case, he was born on US soil to Filipino parents. Hence, his citizenship status was in limbo, until he can make a decision when he turns 18. He can choose to be Filipino or US citizen.When my cousin turned 18, he had to go to the US Embassy to choose US citizen and get his papers (passport). He is considered a Naturalized US citizen. A person that has to take action to gain US citizenship is not a Natural Born US citizen. This is the status of Obama even if he was indeed born in Hawaii. He would still be a Naturalized US citizen and hence unqualified. So, as you can see, Obama is unqualified to be POTUS on many fronts. The argument about whether he was born in Hawaii or not is just one aspect of his qualification (non-qualification) to be POTUS. In a free society like America, such questions about his qualifications should have been vetted openly. If there was even a hint as to his qualifications, it should have been settled publicly and openly. Why don't people take this issue seriously. Even if people think that his BC was original and valid, people should still be calling for it to be settled once and for all. Open up the vault copy. No other steps or half measures will do. Great controversies require great measures to settle. Let the Birthers see it and it they are wrong, you get the chance to humiliate them to your heart's content. If I am wrong about this, I'm sure I will have great shame and tuck my tail between my legs and go away quietly. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies The earlier posting on muslim schools is confused. Some Muslim schools have a curriculum that is based solely on the Qur'an. This kind of school would only attract non-Muslim students interested in the Qur'an, or in the culture of Islam. Some Muslim schools have a standard secular curriculum, and are attended mostly by Muslims, thus confusing some into calling them Muslim schools. Some Muslim schools are merely called such because they operate in a Muslim country, like Indonesia. This is like calling US public schools Christian because they operate in a predominantly Christian country. To suggest that President Obama must be a Muslim because he went to a Muslim school in Indonesia is a statement that at best is meaningless. On Dec 31,
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 Bible and the Copernican Revolution
With regardd to the place of death of Aaron. This is what the Bible has to say about it. 20:27 And Moses did as the LORD commanded: and they went up into mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation. 20:28 And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount. 20:29 And when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they mourned for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel. (Numbers 20:22-29 KJV) 33:37 And they removed from Kadesh, and pitched in mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom. 33:38 And Aaron the priest went up into mount Hor at the commandment of the LORD, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the first day of the fifth month. 33:39 And Aaron was an hundred and twenty and three years old when he died in mount Hor. (Numbers 33:37-39 KJV) 10:6 And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead. 10:7 From thence they journeyed unto Gudgodah; and from Gudgodah to Jotbath, a land of rivers of waters. 10:8 At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day. 10:9 Wherefore Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren; the LORD is his inheritance, according as the LORD thy God promised him. (Deuteronomy 10:6-9 KJV) So, John is complaining that the Bible says two different locations for the place of death of Aaron. In fact that would be true at first glance, until you realize that Mosera (or Moseroth) is in the general area of Mount Hor. Just like when we say Yellowstone, it is a big place with many places. When you read the verses carefully, you will realize that Aaron died on the top of Mount Hor, he was brought down from the top and people mourned him for 30 days and he was buried in Mosera, which was within the vicinity of the base of Mount Hor. So, in fact, there is no contradiction. NEXT! Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution Yes, we are discussing what the Bible says. Where in the Bible does it say the sun revolves around the Earth? Where does it say the Earth is 6000 years old? That is all I'm asking. IF you want to accept my challenge, show me where the Bible says something that is categorically wrong. So, you have a problem because it says in one place that Moses wrote the tablets and then it says in another place that God wrote the tablets. Is this the crux of your objection? It's funny cause if you are quibbling about the exact person who had the pen in his hand (or chisel), you could have used a better example from the Bible. When someone helps me with my autobiography, someone like my secretary. Do we say she wrote the autobiography because she was holding the actual pen (or computer in our case)? Or do we say I wrote my autobiography? Both statements are of course True. She wrote my autobiography because she was the one who physically wrote (or typed), at the same time, I can say that I wrote my autobiography because I provided the contents. My friend, you are quibbling over a minor figure of speech issue. The Bible does use figures of speech you know. Jesus Christ is not a chicken because he said he wanted to gather Jerusalem under his wings. Seems to me that this is a very weak objection. You can do better. Visit some atheist web site and get some ideas from them. But please, do it one at a time so that I can address it properly. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution On 2/01/2013 4:44 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, you can not debate with someone by putting- the words in his mouth and proceed to demolish it. That a strawman argument. I never believed in geocentrism We were not supposed to be discussing what you *believed*. We were supposed to be discussing what your Bible *says*. Where in the Bible does it say 6000 years is the Earth's age. It can be derived from Bible genealogies using rather simple arithmetic as I am sure you know. You must have adopted some way to weasel around the obvious meaning of words like morning and evening and ... lived xxx years and begat Again, you can not put beliefs into someone and proceed to demolish it. Faulty logic. I have never claimed the Earth is 6000 years old. Some
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]:Papp and Water
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/waterarc/waterarcexplosion.html Try the above as to success. _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject:RE: [Vo]:Papp and Water Caveat- please be aware that two of the four original authors of the 1998 water arc paper have later distanced themselves from the conclusions of a bona fide energy anomaly. George Hathaway, who had the best scientific credentials and reputation of the four, was vocal for several years in being not in agreement that there was proved gain in the water arc. He published a rebuttal in Infinite Energy in 2007. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26685.html George used to post here before the list became corrupted with religion and politics debates before the 2008 election. We need some kind of moderation on this list. Who needs this kind of inane diversion? Too bad, it used to be a thoughtful group. BTW - there have been many replication attempts of Graneau's water arc - and none that I recall was positive. Jones From: Zell, Chris http://www.oocities.org/waterfuel111/water_explosion_menu.html The above isn't exactly Acta Physica but it has some interesting links and claims inline: Picture (Metafile) 1.jpg
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]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??)
Steven Karels January 2nd, 2013 at 8:22 AM Dear Andrea Rossi, Your previous postings mentioned “direct EMF” coming from the reactor core. Could you please clarify? I have heard of possible direct conversion to electricity by coupling the energy from a charged moving particle into a “transformer”. In general, is this the approach by which you are able to extract “direct EMF”? Andrea Rossi January 2nd, 2013 at 9:01 AM Dear Steven Karels: Yes, that is exactly the path we are walking through. Too soon to give precise info, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
At 03:29 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, muslims do not approve of what muhammed did? My post was clear. Muslims vary in opinion, but, speaking generally: Muslims do not approve of what Jojo claims Muhammad did. Some Muslims approve of some aspects of what Jojo claims. No Muslims approve of what Jojo claims in toto. Some Muslims deny the foundations of Jojo's claim, i.e., the age reports, and often disapprove of the behavior that Jojo describes. I have yet to see a sober, clear, scholarly report on this issue by a mainstream Muslim scholar. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but that it could be hard to find amid the avalanche of Christian polemic on the issue. This was Jojo's full post, which included a copy of my post, to which he was responding: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74993.html Jojo's question was redundant and provocative.
Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine
While this is not cold fusion, I had an opportunity to video a new energy lab, and took it. I will continue to create portraits of new energy researchers, if it comes my way. I see cold fusion as the most probable breakthrough for the near future, but the Papp engine may not be far behind, and is a technology that could operate alongside it. This is the sixth movie I have made this year, all by my lonesome since my cameraman/editor left me to pursue more lucrative endeavors. I'm getting better with each edit, with the goal of entertaining and educating. As a Clean Energy Advocate, I do not grill or snake scientists. I am not a detective (not yet anyway). I ask, they answer. I am grateful for all the help I continue to get in learning to ask the right questions. Cold Fusion Now wants to remain positive, and rated G for the kids! I want to show the kids, the students, and those who are looking for inspiration: What does a new energy lab look like? How do researchers in this field operate? What kind of research is going on? What kind of energy solutions are being pursued and, what is the level of development? This video shows one team's engines in development, an explanation of its operational principles, however incomplete, in their own words, and what they plan to do next. It has a light-science background for the general public. While the video does not appear to show over-unity by examining the speed of the piston, I would not dismiss this whole technology through Youtube analysis. I am convinced by what I've read that Joseph Papp had something going on. Now, a handful of teams are trying to reproduce it. For all our sake, I only hope they succeed. Please direct your technical questions about the Pulser to Heinz Klostermann at heinri...@me.com. Pseudo-skeptics have held the power of position, but now they are irrelevant - irrelevant I say! Maybe I don't have the right to say that, but the fact is, the noisy din of useless information does not carry their protestations far, nor does their message have penetration or staying power, as they did pre-Internet. Yes, the after-image of their sad, destructive paradigm still prevents the MSM from reporting on the developments in cold fusion and new energy; legislators and policy-makers are woefully uninformed and do not fund this research; pseudo-skeptics have chosen to be die-hards, and they will, as all old paradigms do. We are building a new house, so when the old one collapses, it'll be ready to move in! After a short break over the next couple weeks, 2013 projects for Cold Fusion Now include: * more cold fusion video interviews as dictated by my geographic location on the west coast, * a possible mini-conference in Los Angeles, * activist visits to schools and colleges in the So Cal area (Caltech look out!), * attendance at ICCF-18 to conduct one-on-one interviews, * putting next year's 2014 History of Cold Fusion Calendar together with a an awesome new theme (not tellin yet!) but it's really cool. You can help support my efforts by purchasing a Calendar here: http://coldfusionnow.org/store/2013-history-of-cold-fusion-calendar/ Thank you for all the feedback. Your comments help to make my art more communicative. Happy New Year! Ruby On 1/1/13 7:20 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Interesting video, but frustrating. Klostermann seems like a sweet old guy who is having fun working with the Papp concept. He's done all kinds of things, but the type of cannon he has built, and that we saw firing so many times, could easily be arranged so that energy output is measured. He's planing on using a government design for an electric generator, and predicts power output, etc., yet he's not done the most basic measurement, and he acknowledges that, but he seems to imply that it would be expensive. No, it would be about as easy as what he's already done, in fact, easier. The output of his cannon is the kinetic energy of the projectile, and that is easily measured. If the kinetic energy of the projectile is as we would expect, less than the energy dumped into the cannon by the ionizatin sources, then neither would a generator work to generate excess power. Yes, it would generate power, but less than the electrical power used to operate it. Ruby asked him the question, he didn't answer it. She's very polite and did not push him. Looks like she's having fun. Marshall Plan to support this is not going to happen unless someone shows over unity, convincingly. I recommend that Cold Fusion Now stay away from these very shaky Alternative Energy claims, and stick to LENR. That's where political support could be useful and effective. Otherwise pseudoskeptics, faced with some actual possible breakthrough, politically, will use support for something ilke the Papp engine to attack the credibility of the organization. At 12:39 PM 12/31/2012, Ruby wrote: video:
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]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??)
So has Rossi also stumbled upon what caused BLP to change their course of development, i.e., direct conversion to electricity? This may serve as an independent replication of a discovery of a direct conversion phenomenon if both companies were going down one path (conversion-to-heat) and then discovered a more direct path to electricity. BLP seems to have abandoned the direct-to-heat (d2h) path in favor of direct-to-electricity (d2e), while Rossi is continuing the d2h path to get something to market and cash-flow as soon as possible... perhaps a better strategy than BLP. Only other question is what kind of electrical current (and thus, power) is being produced... -Mark Iverson -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??) Steven Karels January 2nd, 2013 at 8:22 AM Dear Andrea Rossi, Your previous postings mentioned “direct EMF” coming from the reactor core. Could you please clarify? I have heard of possible direct conversion to electricity by coupling the energy from a charged moving particle into a “transformer”. In general, is this the approach by which you are able to extract “direct EMF”? Andrea Rossi January 2nd, 2013 at 9:01 AM Dear Steven Karels: Yes, that is exactly the path we are walking through. Too soon to give precise info, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??)
Interesting, but we are going to have to wait and see if there is anything to this latest statement. Of course, electromagnetic transformers do not work with DC which is what I was expecting if the energy is due to radiation of some kind. Perhaps he leaves out the part about an external chopper generating AC from internal DC. Then he could speak of a transformer which is within the converter. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 2:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??) Steven Karels January 2nd, 2013 at 8:22 AM Dear Andrea Rossi, Your previous postings mentioned “direct EMF” coming from the reactor core. Could you please clarify? I have heard of possible direct conversion to electricity by coupling the energy from a charged moving particle into a “transformer”. In general, is this the approach by which you are able to extract “direct EMF”? Andrea Rossi January 2nd, 2013 at 9:01 AM Dear Steven Karels: Yes, that is exactly the path we are walking through. Too soon to give precise info, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
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. He had the scientist Michael Servetus (who contributed enormously to medicine and was the first European to describe pulmonary circulation) put to death for heresy. He was also a strong supporter of biblical geocentricity denouncing those who pervert the course of nature by saying that the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns. Quite small black marks on his reputation compared to the infamy of the popes of those days!
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
At 04:13 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: I've already said, you can not enroll into this muslim school that Obama enrolled in if you were not registered as a muslim. And any adoption of a child by an Indonesian muslim man automatically makes the child a muslim. That was the law. Research it my friend. Jojo has obviously not researched this, or he's lying. When the story came out, it was in a Moonie publication that attributed the claim to the Clinton campaign in 2008. Clinton denied it. So CNN and another major media source sent reporters to the school itself. It's a public school with students from every major religion present in Jakarta. There was a different school involved, a Catholic school, where Obama seems to have been registered as a Muslim. Jojo was actually asked for a source here, but he did not provide it, he simply repeated his claim, that's his normal practice. I recall seeing a story that Obama was indeed registered as a muslim student. Things like this happen. His mother's husband, the head of household, was Muslim, and he has a Muslim name, so the school may have merely assumed he was Muslim. It actually means very little about his actual religion, and he was a young child at the time. The adoption would make the child eligible to be treated as a muslim, I think that Jojo might be correct about that. So what? Jojo's claims about U.S. citizenship are idiosyncratic, common among birthers, and legally invalid. If someone is a U.S. citizen by right of birth, they are not a naturalized citizen. There is no case law on renounced citizenship on this, to my knowledge, but an automatic renouncement would clearly not apply. One can be a dual citizen, it does not negate natural born citizen. These are arguments that have been *demolished* elsewhere, being brought here. For coverage of birther issues, in general, I now refer to http://www.thefogbow.com/ On the adoption issue, see http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/three-theories/adopted-in-indonesia/ On the dual citizen issue, see http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/three-theories/two-citizen-parents/ Suppose, however, the one non-Catholic school at the time was only open to muslim students. Suppose that it was only opened to others later. This would have just about zero implication as to Obama's present religious affiliation. I forget how old he was, but it was certainly before the age at which people make informed decisions about religion. There is no sign that the school was a madrassa, a religious school. That was something simply alleged without evidence in the original story, apparently an assumption that a muslim school, in a majority muslim nation, would be religious. On the adoption claim, from Fogbow: Claim: There's evidence Obama was adopted in Indonesia. The only evidence is a http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100312/GAL-10Mar12-4044/media/PHO-10Mar12-211335.jpghandwritten school http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400371_pf.htmlregistration page from the Santo Fransiskus Assisi (Saint Francis of Assisi) Catholic School in Jakarta, Indonesia, that refers to Obama as Barack Soetoro. However, according to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vYfeature=player_embeddedschool officials at the Assisi School, it was customary for students to be enrolled with their father's last name and religion. (That would mean that a male head of household was considered the father, whether or not there was a formal adoption. This is routine here, by the way, if the actual parent informs the school that he's to be treated that way. It can be complicated.) None of this has any legal significance whatever. If the birth certificates and legally-binding statements of Hawai'ian state officials are fake, that would be a real issue. But this wouldn't make a difference. Natural born citizen, it is totally clear, refers to place of birth. Period. There are exceptions under some circumstances for people born outside the U.S. There is some issue about children who lived outside the U.S. up to the age of 25. That didn't apply to Obama. And *none of this belongs on this list.* It's here only because Jojo has continued to make his off-topic and highly disruptive claims. No more original text below. Jojo - Original Message - From: mailto:ldebiv...@gmail.comde Bivort Lawrence To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Your statements about nationality and about adoption and nationality are incorrect. What is your evidence for Obama being registered as a Muslim? On Jan 1, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: While what you are saying about Indonesian schools may be true today - I am not knowledgeable about the current school system in Indonesia, so I will not debate that. While that may
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??)
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: My first thought was thermo-electric (in which Rossi has some .. history), but that counter-indicated by his low temperature comments. How about gammavoltaics? I mentioned this from of energy conversion to Rossi on his blog about a year and half ago. Harry New thermophotovoltaic materials could replace alternators in cars and save fuel. By Kevin Bullis on June 1, 2006 Researchers at MIT are developing new technology for converting heat into light and then into electricity that could eventually save fuel in vehicles by replacing less-efficient alternators and allowing electrical systems to run without the engine idling. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/405894/an-alternative-to-your-alternator/ harry
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]:Papp and Water
Quote from test results: The average kinetic energy of the water projectile, based on its ability to lift objects, was around 0.1% to 0.3% of the input energy. ... extraordinarily poor results ... Now you understand why Hathaway backed away from Graneau. Unfortunately, this will not help Papp proponents. It is clear to me that if the Papp engine every worked for gain - the gain was a function of its radium content - pretty much as the patent states, and pretty much as was demonstrated in the Hubbard coil 90 years ago. There is no independent evidence that any engine without radium ever worked. There is plenty of evidence that many devices with radium worked much better than expected. Consequently, the decay energy is somehow magnified and usually this involves a high turn coil. Recently a new theory and patent has emerged to explain why the gain in some isotope decays can be vastly greater than expected. http://levitronicsenergy.com/index.htm http://www.rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm ... the light (or low mass) electron LME sounds a bit like Ken Shoulders EVO ideas From: Zell, Chris http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/waterarc/waterarcexplosion.html Try the above as to success. _ From: , 2013 Subject:RE: [Vo]:Papp and Water Caveat- please be aware that two of the four original authors of the 1998 water arc paper have later distanced themselves from the conclusions of a bona fide energy anomaly. George Hathaway, who had the best scientific credentials and reputation of the four, was vocal for several years in being not in agreement that there was proved gain in the water arc. He published a rebuttal in Infinite Energy in 2007. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26685.html George used to post here before the list became corrupted with religion and politics debates before the 2008 election. We need some kind of moderation on this list. Who needs this kind of inane diversion? Too bad, it used to be a thoughtful group. BTW - there have been many replication attempts of Graneau's water arc - and none that I recall was positive. Jones From: Zell, Chris http://www.oocities.org/waterfuel111/water_explosion_menu.html The above isn't exactly Acta Physica but it has some interesting links and claims attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Ok, and this ends my participation in this exchange. Harry On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:16 PM, de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com wrote: Both are false. On Dec 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Sorry I am confused. What is considered false here? A nine year old is barely out diapers or that muslims do not disapprove of sexual relations with a nine year old? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Is there any beauty in your life? Harry On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: That is where you are wrong my friend. A TRUE Christian will not find a call to Idolatry beautiful. A muslim call to prayer is a call to pray to a false god (allah the moon god) in front of an idol (kabah - a meteroite stone.) Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Jojo, you do not speak for true Christians. I know many Christians and others who find the Muslim call to prayer beautiful.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 12:13 AM 1/2/2013, Craig wrote: You can have a book that contains many truths, along with many un-proven assertions. This is why books, per-se, cannot be used to ascertain truth. They can only add to available evidence. As a general principle, one of the known techniques of deception is to put together a series of statments that will be accepted as true, and only introduce the desired deceptive statement after the habit of agreement is established. Basically, no statement can be assumed to be true merely because it was preceded by true statements. Legal principles were asserted, but out of context. The common-law principle is that testimony is presumed true unless controverted. But there are basic principles involved. They are: 1. Legal accountability for perjury. 2. An ability to cross-examine a witness, to determine *how the witness knows* what the witness claims to know. 3. The lack of contrary evidence (as implied by controverted) God is not an explanation for anything, except within certain narrow parameters. To say that God did something is no more explanatory than to say that something is real. When we want explanations, and we think of God as Reality, we are seeking to know *how* God did or does something. That may or may not be accessible to us, it depends on the something. Generally, I assume that if a thing happens in the observable world, it has observable causes. That doesn't negate that God did it, because God can act through observable causes. God is not limited by time, which is an illusion that appears to limited consciousness. (To light, there is no time, it all happens at once. That's how Einstein reasoned, in fact.) no more original text below. But notice, that when an assertion is made, that the truth of the assertion has to be evaluated within the context of existing, known, truths. So when we hear of stories that a wheel came down from the sky, as in Ezekiel, we have to immediately dismiss it as hearsay, unless there is other evidence that such a thing occurred. If it turns out that numerous other sources confirmed the event, then we have to interpret the event in the context of known truths. So the immediate explanation would be that it's an illusion. If there was enough evidence that such a thing was NOT an illusion, then the best interpretation is that the event was conducted by an alien species with superior technology. What you cannot do is manufacture an explanation which defies metaphysics and epistemology. You cannot say that such an event was the act of a God -- because the concept of God cannot be defined and does not exist within the Universe, as I've mentioned before. So when you allude to the idea that we have to interpret words, written in a book, in such a way that the explanation defies metaphysics and epistemology, then you are on very thin ice. If such a thing could be absolutely ascertained to have occurred, (such as a wheel coming down from the sky in an era when there was no flight), and it could be absolutely ascertained that it was not an illusion, and was not the product of alien manufacture... Then if all this could be ascertained, then we would simply be stumped as to the explanation. It still could not be the produce of a God because 'God' cannot be defined, as I've mentioned in a previous post. Without an explanation which exists in this Universe, you simply have no reference by which you could tie such an event to another Universe. Craig
RE: [Vo]:Papp and Water
I am confused as to what they are claiming. They seem to be saying that they reproduced 'Graneau's efficiency', as reported. Perhaps this involves the transmission of thrust to lifting objects rather than the full amount of energy within the explosion. Graneau said this was a problem. He suggested a turbine. _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject:RE: [Vo]:Papp and Water Quote from test results: The average kinetic energy of the water projectile, based on its ability to lift objects, was around 0.1% to 0.3% of the input energy. ... extraordinarily poor results ... Now you understand why Hathaway backed away from Graneau. Unfortunately, this will not help Papp proponents. It is clear to me that if the Papp engine every worked for gain - the gain was a function of its radium content - pretty much as the patent states, and pretty much as was demonstrated in the Hubbard coil 90 years ago. There is no independent evidence that any engine without radium ever worked. There is plenty of evidence that many devices with radium worked much better than expected. Consequently, the decay energy is somehow magnified and usually this involves a high turn coil. Recently a new theory and patent has emerged to explain why the gain in some isotope decays can be vastly greater than expected. http://levitronicsenergy.com/index.htm http://www.rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm ... the light (or low mass) electron LME sounds a bit like Ken Shoulders EVO ideas From: Zell, Chris http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/waterarc/waterarcexplosion.html Try the above as to success. _ From: , 2013 Subject:RE: [Vo]:Papp and Water Caveat- please be aware that two of the four original authors of the 1998 water arc paper have later distanced themselves from the conclusions of a bona fide energy anomaly. George Hathaway, who had the best scientific credentials and reputation of the four, was vocal for several years in being not in agreement that there was proved gain in the water arc. He published a rebuttal in Infinite Energy in 2007. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26685.html George used to post here before the list became corrupted with religion and politics debates before the 2008 election. We need some kind of moderation on this list. Who needs this kind of inane diversion? Too bad, it used to be a thoughtful group. BTW - there have been many replication attempts of Graneau's water arc - and none that I recall was positive. Jones From: Zell, Chris http://www.oocities.org/waterfuel111/water_explosion_menu.html The above isn't exactly Acta Physica but it has some interesting links and claims OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??)
In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:45:37 -0800: Hi, [snip] So has Rossi also stumbled upon what caused BLP to change their course of development, i.e., direct conversion to electricity? This may serve as an independent replication of a discovery of a direct conversion phenomenon if both companies were going down one path (conversion-to-heat) and then discovered a more direct path to electricity. BLP seems to have abandoned the direct-to-heat (d2h) path in favor of direct-to-electricity (d2e), while Rossi is continuing the d2h path to get something to market and cash-flow as soon as possible... perhaps a better strategy than BLP. Only other question is what kind of electrical current (and thus, power) is being produced... -Mark Iverson I don't think the two processes are similar. Mills is using a chemical approach AFAIK, i.e. his device is similar to a fuel cell wherein however the energy comes from Hydrino production. What Rossi appears to be talking about is direct conversion of particle energy to EMF (cyclotron frequency?) in a magnetic field. Presumably he would then allow the EMF to resonate in a chamber/antenna converting it to a high frequency AC current which could then be rectified to DC. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??)
Jed, if you put enough steel, lead, earth or concrete between you and
ionizing radiation you can be protected. I think Joseph Papp died at age
56...not exactly old age...
On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:
and possibly why Richard Feynman died of Abdominal Cancer.
Are you suggesting Feynman got cancer because he was exposed to the Papp
device? I know that he was exposed to it, but only for a short time before
it exploded. If that was long enough to give him cancer then surely Papp
himself must have been exposed to massive amounts of radiation over many
years. He would have died after a few months I suppose.
(Incidentally, Mallove and others think that Feynman caused the explosion,
by unplugging the device.)
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Lomax, please read up on the case of the Nordyke twins. They were born within a few days of Obama and they were able to obtain a long form copy of their BC. You lie once again by claiming that there is no legal way. Quite obviously there is, cause the Nordyke twins were able to do it. Please my friend, stop the lies. Where is Obama's long form BC. Not computer generated scans which are obviously fake. 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 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 04:28 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Chuck, if you believe that Obama is a Natural-Born US citizen, then why not just open up access to a innocuous piece of document. Why not show all brithers the vault BC. It's simple my friend. It will end the controversy. It's been shown to anyone who wants to see it, in the only legal way possible. By making copies available. What Jojo demands, with other birthers who have remained True to the Cause, is legally *impossible.* It would require removing an archive document from the archive. Not just one document, the entire book. Instead of doing that, you resort to accusations about treason because I will not swallow the bambi propaganda. Since Jojo goes into Bambi, I'll go into Idiot! Jojo claimed to want to end the cycle of insults. If that were true, it would be his obligation to end his own insulting, and Bambi is an insult, in context. You know, that's what they did in Naxi Germany. Anyone who would not swallow the propaganda was a traitor. The comment was unfortunate. However, there have been military personnel who, taken in by birther claims, refused lawful orders and who were court-martialed for that. That's military justice and only applies to those under a legal obligation to obey the President. That is an example of real damage done by birther claims. Naxi -- Nazi -- is totally irrelevant. One is free, in the U.S., to be a total idiot. It's not a crime, in itself. It may, sometimes, lead to criminal activity, that's another issue. Treason requires more than Bad Thinking. I am loyal to my country, my Constitution. I have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. When did you do this, Jojo? I'm a natural-born citizen, I've never taken that oath. We know that you reside in the Philippines. Where were you born? Why do you call the U.S. my country? You don't live here, and, I assume, you don't pay taxes here. The illuminati and their puppet bambi, are DOMESTIC enemies of our Constitution. They treat that sacred law as a piece of toilet paper but continuing to ignore its clear specific requirement. The POTUS MUST be a natural-born US citizen. And all evidence points to the fact that he is. The birther claims have been totally trashed, and what is left is mere suspicion and innuendo. Few reputable birthers are left, it's only nuts and fruitcakes still beating the drum. In a few days, it is *totally over* as a legal issue. After the U.S. Congress certifies the election, even if it developed that Obama was actually smuggled into Hawaii as a baby, and had no right of citizenship by birth (there are details to be addressed there), it's *over.* The legal doctrine is *res judicata.* I somewhat doubt that Jojo understands the term, but he could resolve that doubt. At that point, to raise a successful challenge would require a showing that Obama committed a crime. Not merely a technical violation of a regulation, even if it is a constitutional one. The *only* institution with the power to consider such a claim is Congress, through impeachment, once the President is accepted by certification of the election. It's end-game time. A claim that no one reads Jojo's posts was naive polemic. So what? No more original text below. Jojo PS. I see you have employed a tactic that many have employed. Instead of saying natural-born US citizen, you say Native born citizen. There is no such thing as a Native Born citizen. That is not a legal classification. The proper classification is a Natural-Born US citizen. I believe you do this intentionally to add confusion to the issue. NO one reads my posts. Really? LOL. Do you want me to tell you how many private emails I get about my posts? Do you want me to tell you how many offline discussions I am having with some vortex members? - Original Message - From: mailto:cbsit...@gmail.comChuck Sites To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies I'm sorry to break from scientific debates on Cold Fusion, but to be honest, JoJo has dominated this mailing list for several weeks now with very little response and light response from the Vortex-L mail list. If I may, I would like to
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
A Hillary Clinton insider has claimed that Chelsea was threatened if Hillary made it public that he believed Obama was not Natural-Born US Citizen. Bill Clinton was prepared to cross the illuminati but he decided that Chelsea's life was more important than Hillary's presidency. Tell me, who was the first person to file a court case against Obama's ineligibility? Hint: http://obamacrimes.com/ The first person was a Hillary supporter. Not a Republican or a Birther. There was no Birther movement yet. He started the Birther movement and he was a Democrat supporter of Hillary. For sure, Hillary knew of Obama's ineligibility. But the illuminati promised her the Sec. of State post with the option to be World Bank President if she ceded POTUS to Obama; plus Chelsea's life. 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 4:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 04:13 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: I've already said, you can not enroll into this muslim school that Obama enrolled in if you were not registered as a muslim. And any adoption of a child by an Indonesian muslim man automatically makes the child a muslim. That was the law. Research it my friend. Jojo has obviously not researched this, or he's lying. When the story came out, it was in a Moonie publication that attributed the claim to the Clinton campaign in 2008. Clinton denied it. So CNN and another major media source sent reporters to the school itself. It's a public school with students from every major religion present in Jakarta. There was a different school involved, a Catholic school, where Obama seems to have been registered as a Muslim. Jojo was actually asked for a source here, but he did not provide it, he simply repeated his claim, that's his normal practice. I recall seeing a story that Obama was indeed registered as a muslim student. Things like this happen. His mother's husband, the head of household, was Muslim, and he has a Muslim name, so the school may have merely assumed he was Muslim. It actually means very little about his actual religion, and he was a young child at the time. The adoption would make the child eligible to be treated as a muslim, I think that Jojo might be correct about that. So what? Jojo's claims about U.S. citizenship are idiosyncratic, common among birthers, and legally invalid. If someone is a U.S. citizen by right of birth, they are not a naturalized citizen. There is no case law on renounced citizenship on this, to my knowledge, but an automatic renouncement would clearly not apply. One can be a dual citizen, it does not negate natural born citizen. These are arguments that have been *demolished* elsewhere, being brought here. For coverage of birther issues, in general, I now refer to http://www.thefogbow.com/ On the adoption issue, see http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/three-theories/adopted-in-indonesia/ On the dual citizen issue, see http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/three-theories/two-citizen-parents/ Suppose, however, the one non-Catholic school at the time was only open to muslim students. Suppose that it was only opened to others later. This would have just about zero implication as to Obama's present religious affiliation. I forget how old he was, but it was certainly before the age at which people make informed decisions about religion. There is no sign that the school was a madrassa, a religious school. That was something simply alleged without evidence in the original story, apparently an assumption that a muslim school, in a majority muslim nation, would be religious. On the adoption claim, from Fogbow: Claim: There's evidence Obama was adopted in Indonesia. The only evidence is a http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100312/GAL-10Mar12-4044/media/PHO-10Mar12-211335.jpghandwritten school http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400371_pf.htmlregistration page from the Santo Fransiskus Assisi (Saint Francis of Assisi) Catholic School in Jakarta, Indonesia, that refers to Obama as Barack Soetoro. However, according to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vYfeature=player_embeddedschool officials at the Assisi School, it was customary for students to be enrolled with their father's last name and religion. (That would mean that a male head of household was considered the father, whether or not there was a formal adoption. This is routine here, by the way, if the actual parent informs the school that he's to be treated that way. It can be complicated.) None of this has any legal significance whatever. If the birth certificates and legally-binding statements of Hawai'ian state officials are fake, that would be a real issue. But this wouldn't make a difference. Natural born citizen, it is totally
RE: [Vo]:Rossi Says .. EMF Directly from the Reactor Core!! (??)
The Rossi claim may not be similar to the new Mills' CIHT device, but it is similar to an old Mills' device - the one known as the reverse gyrotron. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message: Hi, So has Rossi also stumbled upon what caused BLP to change their course of development, i.e., direct conversion to electricity? This may serve as an independent replication of a discovery of a direct conversion phenomenon if both companies were going down one path (conversion-to-heat) and then discovered a more direct path to electricity. BLP seems to have abandoned the direct-to-heat (d2h) path in favor of direct-to-electricity (d2e), while Rossi is continuing the d2h path to get something to market and cash-flow as soon as possible... perhaps a better strategy than BLP. Only other question is what kind of electrical current (and thus, power) is being produced... -Mark Iverson I don't think the two processes are similar. Mills is using a chemical approach AFAIK, i.e. his device is similar to a fuel cell wherein however the energy comes from Hydrino production. What Rossi appears to be talking about is direct conversion of particle energy to EMF (cyclotron frequency?) in a magnetic field. Presumably he would then allow the EMF to resonate in a chamber/antenna converting it to a high frequency AC current which could then be rectified to DC. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Excellent my friend. You skill at spin is commendable, were it not misguided. Heck, if you reject my claims, you would have to reject Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari; cause they were the muslims works that documented my claims. 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 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity At 03:29 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, muslims do not approve of what muhammed did? My post was clear. Muslims vary in opinion, but, speaking generally: Muslims do not approve of what Jojo claims Muhammad did. Some Muslims approve of some aspects of what Jojo claims. No Muslims approve of what Jojo claims in toto. Some Muslims deny the foundations of Jojo's claim, i.e., the age reports, and often disapprove of the behavior that Jojo describes. I have yet to see a sober, clear, scholarly report on this issue by a mainstream Muslim scholar. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but that it could be hard to find amid the avalanche of Christian polemic on the issue. This was Jojo's full post, which included a copy of my post, to which he was responding: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74993.html Jojo's question was redundant and provocative.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: 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. He had the scientist Michael Servetus (who contributed enormously to medicine and was the first European to describe pulmonary circulation) put to death for heresy. He was also a strong supporter of biblical geocentricity denouncing those who pervert the course of nature by saying that the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns. Quite small black marks on his reputation compared to the infamy of the popes of those days! Calvin's Geneva http://www.stephenhicks.org/2010/11/27/john-calvins-geneva/ Copernicus was branded a fraud, attendance at church and sermons was compulsory, and Calvin himself preached at great length three or four times a week. Refusal to take the Eucharist was a crime. The Consistory, which made no distinction between religion and morality, could summon anyone for questioning, investigate any charge of backsliding, and entered homes periodically to be sure no one was cheating Calvin’s God. Legislation specified the number of dishes to be served at each meal and the color of garments worn. What one was permitted to wear depended upon who one was, for never was a society more class–ridden. Believing that every child of God had been foreordained, Calvin was determined that each know his place; statutes specified the quality of dress and the activities allowed in each class. ‘But even the elite—the clergy, of course—were allowed few diversions. Calvinists worked hard because there wasn’t much else they were permitted to do. “Feasting” was proscribed; so were dancing, singing, pictures, statues, relics, church bells, organs, altar candles; “indecent or irreligious” songs, staging or attending theatrical plays; wearing rouge, jewelry, lace, or “immodest” dress; speaking disrespectfully of your betters; extravagant entertainment; swearing, gambling, playing cards, hunting, drunkenness; naming children after anyone but figures in the Old Testament; reading “immoral or irreligious” books; and sexual intercourse, except between partners of different genders who were married to one another.” Harry
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Lomax claims that it matters not what allah's origins were. OK. Because it is clear from archeological evidence that allah (al-ilah) was the pagan moon god of arabs. He had 3 daughters that the koran initially said should be worshipped. Later muhammed abrogated those verses saying that he was deceived by Satan. Funny, can't allah, the supposed almighty god, protect his prophet from deception. Can't allah keep his word (koran) pure from error? The kabah was where these pagans worshipped al-ilah. The pagans walked around kabah stone just like the muslim do today. My friends, if you are reading this, please research this yourself. Don't believe me, check it out yourself. 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 3:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 04:11 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: That is where you are wrong my friend. A TRUE Christian will not find a call to Idolatry beautiful. A muslim call to prayer is a call to pray to a false god (allah the moon god) in front of an idol (kabah - a meteroite stone.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Is the call to prayer a call to idolatry? This brings up the Moon God Allah argument, recognized immediately here, over six months ago, as bigotry. The claim is that Allah is a Moon God, allegedly because it was a name for a pre-Islamic god of the moon. That is arguing that the referent of a word is controlled by its etymology. So if someone says, Hey, Dennis is a great guy! they are praising Dionysius, the Greek God. Idolatry! No, Allah, *regardless of origin* -- and we don't care about origin, we care about *present meaning* -- is God, and that's not in controversy among Christians who speak Arabic, *except for those afflicted by the present claims.* Very modern. And we do not have an idol in mind when we face Mecca, and the verse that commands this only refers to the *direction*. It does not command worship of the Ancient House. It says to face the direction of the Sacred Masjid. (Mosque is not an Arabic word, Masjid means, place of prayer. I once had a prayer carpet, given to me by a Pakistani Muslim to whom it was a beloved object, and it had a picture of the House on it. I had this carpet for years, but it always, when I used it, didn't feel right. So, years later, because I knew it was important to him, he had prayed with it all over the world, I gave it back to him. He was insulted, it was part of an unfortunate sequence of events. This was over thirty years ago, by the way. We don't worship the House, we don't even worship the direction, we merely face it, as best we know. We seek direction from God, and we respond to what God has commanded. Ka'aba does not mean a stone. It means cube, and refers to the overall shape of the whole House. There is an ancient stone set in a corner of the Ka'aba. It performs no central role in Islam. Because there is a tradition that the stone was *reset* in the corner of the Cube by action of the Prophet -- he didn't actually do it himself, rather he arbitrated a dispute on who would be allowed to do it, *before his mission* -- there are those who touch this stone, to touch a place where Muhammad may have touched. That's a traditional practice, and could be considered a kind of worship, but they would never do this as part of the prayer, it would be forbidden. We don't worship the stone. I do not recall *ever* thinking of the stone while in prayer. So, again, Jojo is just tossing mud. He's actually claiming that many of my friends, people I've known well, who are Christian and who even disagree with me on theology, greatly, are actually *not Christians,* but only because they don't agree with Jojo. That is, in fact, such an un-Christian position that I'm going to assert: Jojo is not a TRUE Christian. And that's been totally obvious for a long time. Jojo is not following Jesus, he's not imitating Jesus, he's not teaching what Jesus taught, he's not demonstrating what Jesus demonstrated, he is, by pretending to be a Christian, *defaming* the Christian religion. That he may be pretending this even to himself would only demonstrate the depth of his denial. (As certain Muslims do with Islam through their own extremities.)
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 10:34 AM 1/2/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, it's entirely up to you the credibility you assign to those reports. The people seem credible but you never know. As I said, I am not the police. I have not run background checks. That does not inspire confidence. Not about background checks, but the implication about how well you know them. I'm not talking about proof. Only about something stronger than conjecture, or, on the other hand, believing that a person who has frequently made claims that turned out to be inaccurate or misleading, who does have a history of exaggerated claims (as with his thermoelectric generator), is telling the full truth. An entrepreneur actually has no legal obgliation to tell the truth, except under narrow conditions. A scientist has a *professional* obligation to tell the truth, but even that is fudged sometimes, sometimes results are not disclosed for a while, for various reasons. But part of being a scientist is participating in the human knowledge project, and that requires caution about what a scientist says, at least when on the record. When a scientist lies, falsifies data, or even fails to disclose material conditions, it is treated as a serious offense, and, if proven, that scientist's career is toast. And that's very proper. By the same token, to impugn a scientist as to their probity is a highly uncivil act, and properly requires proof. How Pons and Fleischmann -- and others -- were treated was atrocious. There is no oblitation to agree with the conclusions of a scientist, but to claim that their work is incompetent, again without proof, is outside of norms, by far. Errors may be criticized, that's expected and even obligatory. Yes, scientists deviate from this, and that's where science can get lost in the shuffle. However, with entrepreneurs, lying about results might be simply smart. Under some conditions, yes, lying to, say, investors, is illegal. But just lying to the public, no. So, legally, Rossi can say pretty much what he wants to say, deceptive or misleading or true. What he says to investors, particularly in writing, could be another matter. My guess, however, he's got himself very well protected. Unless the investors do due diligence, they might lose their shirts. After all, they might be trusting him just as you trust them, for to them, he seems credible. Kullander and Essen were taken in. Whether or not there was really generation of heat, in what they witnessed, is debatable. But the proof of it, that they accepted, was clearly defective. That shows that even people considered expert can be fooled. (This is a point that I recall making in early 2011.) But were they expert? Actually, on calorimetry, no. They acknowledged that. They were outside their expertise, but still issued statements and judgments. So suppose some businessmen, investors, saw that same demonstration as Kullander and Essen? Now, you've implied more than that, that they tested a device extensively in their own facility, independently. If that's so, the chance of error goes way down, but does not totally disappear. Nevertheless, Jed, I'm sure you understand why we cannot rely on this, nor should you. It would be wonderful if Rossi really does have something, and DGT and Brillouin. The basic error that many of us make, though, is that we want to know *now*, so we rush ahead to try to figure it all out, pouring over incomplete, fragmented, and sometimes even deceptive information. What do we actually gain by this, though? If we are inclined to test nickel hydrogen reactions, great! There are many hints that something is happening there, going way back. An *ounce* of actual investigation is worth many pounds of abstract speculation. It does not matter how credible these reports are if Rossi never gets around to selling anything. He seems to be stuck in a classic development loop where the next version is so wonderful no version ever makes it to the market. In software this would be the Duke Nuke'em trap. The Doble steam-powered automobile and many other brilliant innovations failed because of this. That could be lunacy or a brilliant excuse. My grandfather Sundel Doniger was an inventor. He never would have made a dime if his brother-in-law Uncle Danny had not periodically told him: Stop developing it. Stop improving it! Ship the product!!! Been there, done that. I advised him and the people financing him to concentrate on developing IP instead of building megawatt reactors. They ignored me. The story told here by Jed is plausible. In a way, though, it's a variation on the he's crazy story. I.e., he's not crazy as he appears, he's pretending to be crazy. But, Jed, that's actually a form of crazy. I don't think so. Patterson had the same strategy but he wasn't crazy. Well, you can make the semantic point that
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
I'll check this out. Though Calvinists teach the doctrine of TULIP, that many scholars say is a non-Christian doctrine, much like the Catholic's dogmas. But I will not go there. You will not find me justifying the sins of John Calvin. If he did this, it would be wrong. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution 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. He had the scientist Michael Servetus (who contributed enormously to medicine and was the first European to describe pulmonary circulation) put to death for heresy. He was also a strong supporter of biblical geocentricity denouncing those who pervert the course of nature by saying that the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns. Quite small black marks on his reputation compared to the infamy of the popes of those days!
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Kullander and Essen were taken in. Whether or not there was really generation of heat, in what they witnessed, is debatable. Nonsense. I am sure they were right. They checked carefully. Instruments of that nature, such as commercial flow meters, are highly reliable and there is no way Rossi could make a fake one. You have no evidence they were taken in. They are smart people and they have been doing experiments for decades. Many other people observed these tests and apart from Krivit not one has said there was anything fake about it. Several people, such as the NASA group, said the tests did not work the day they saw them. It was obvious the thing was not working. If Rossi was faking it, why would he make the machine look like it is not working on the day NASA showed up? Presumably a fake demonstration can be made to look like it is working at any time, since there is actually nothing difficult going on, but only an illusion. You keep claiming that scientists are easy to fool, but you have never said what specific, actual method might be used to fool them. Your assertion is not testable or falsifiable. But the proof of it, that they accepted, was clearly defective. Says who? Why was it defective? Because and invisible Leprechaun was changing the power meter reading when no one watched? That shows that even people considered expert can be fooled. No, it does not. You are making unfalsifiable assertions, like Mary Yugo's. You have demonstrate how they were fooled. It's pretty clear to me that Rossi should not have announced until he actually had a reliable device ready to sell. I disagree. The story is that Rossi announced at the wish of his friend Focardi. That's touching, but ... what if it cost him a billion dollars? No. Word was getting out anyway. He did not reveal anything that endangered his IP. I heard about him a year before the tests. He is no worse off now than he was before the tests. Not much better off either. - Jed
Fwd: [Vo]:List integrity
Ok, and this ends my participation in this exchange. Harry On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:16 PM, de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com wrote: Both are false. On Dec 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Sorry I am confused. What is considered false here? A nine year old is barely out diapers or that muslims do not disapprove of sexual relations with a nine year old? Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:40 AM 1/2/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. Bingo! What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? You can find all of this on anti-Islam web sites, often explicitly Evangelical Christian. Mostly, Jojo just claims stuff without citing sources, but there was an exception recently on the matter of Female Genital Mutilation. He gave his source, an Anti-Islam web site, that cited Muslim sources, and that directly challenged how Muslim scholars interpret the sources. Jojo actually dropped this one quickly. I have no idea if it's because I found an authoritative non-Muslim source (Lane's Lexicon), exactly on point and confirming the Muslim scholars, or just because there isn't enough time in the day. He's been churning this stuff out for quite a while, but he doesn't actually research it, he's just copying ideas and stating them as fact. On the birther thing, and all the claims about Obama, there is a very well elaborated and thorough anti-birther web site, http://thefogbow.com, but there is no single authoritative birther site. There are only masses of memes that are passed around, repeated, and apparently believed. It's very similar to his anti-Muslim stuff. There are only two other claims I recall that Jojo, beyond the FGM thing, backed up with a source. The first was his claim about the age of Ayesha at consummation, where he cited Muslim and Bukhari, seeming to believe that these, being so venerated, would seal the matter. The concept of context evades Jojo. He's actually been learning something here, shown in this last post, about Islam. He turns it into a Bad Thing, of course. Basically, realizing that all the Muslims are not following the Venerated Sources, by the letter, which kind of demolishes his Muslims are Evil ideas based on the Evil Sources, he then says that Muslims are Even More Evil, because they are ... brace yourself ... ... ANARCHISTS! The second was his claim that Obama had issued an Executive Order that prohibited release of his birth certificate, college records, etc. Jojo skims over my posts and responds with outrage at what he fantasizes, and he apparently thought I was denying that an Executive Order existed, so he posted the text of the whole thing. He neglected to read it, apparently, or if he did read it, his comprehension of a U.S. Presidential Executive Order is even worse than his comprehension of Islamic sources. The evidence, that he provided, conclusively trounced his own claim. When this was pointed out, his only recourse was to cry lies. He is what he claims others are. One might imagine that a real Christian would get this immediately! Even a real Evangelical Christian. Or does Evangelical mean You are all wrong! I don't think so. Isn't it about the Good News? Jojo's original post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74992.html
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
Thanks, Abd ar-Rahman. Some time ago I wrote a long post on Muslims, marriage, and pre-and post Quranic practices. Jojo said he would respond later, but never did. FYI, I subsequently read that post to a well-regarded Muslim scholar and he confirmed the accuracy of the post, so I'll let my post stand. I think memetics is the way to understand the birther/Muhammed/aliens/illuminati alternative reality. For reasons I think you and others here will appreciate, I'd prefer not to discuss this field further, here or in any other public venue. I admire your patience, and wish I had as much of it! On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 10:40 AM 1/2/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. Bingo! What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? You can find all of this on anti-Islam web sites, often explicitly Evangelical Christian. Mostly, Jojo just claims stuff without citing sources, but there was an exception recently on the matter of Female Genital Mutilation. He gave his source, an Anti-Islam web site, that cited Muslim sources, and that directly challenged how Muslim scholars interpret the sources. Jojo actually dropped this one quickly. I have no idea if it's because I found an authoritative non-Muslim source (Lane's Lexicon), exactly on point and confirming the Muslim scholars, or just because there isn't enough time in the day. He's been churning this stuff out for quite a while, but he doesn't actually research it, he's just copying ideas and stating them as fact. On the birther thing, and all the claims about Obama, there is a very well elaborated and thorough anti-birther web site, http://thefogbow.com, but there is no single authoritative birther site. There are only masses of memes that are passed around, repeated, and apparently believed. It's very similar to his anti-Muslim stuff. There are only two other claims I recall that Jojo, beyond the FGM thing, backed up with a source. The first was his claim about the age of Ayesha at consummation, where he cited Muslim and Bukhari, seeming to believe that these, being so venerated, would seal the matter. The concept of context evades Jojo. He's actually been learning something here, shown in this last post, about Islam. He turns it into a Bad Thing, of course. Basically, realizing that all the Muslims are not following the Venerated Sources, by the letter, which kind of demolishes his Muslims are Evil ideas based on the Evil Sources, he then says that Muslims are Even More Evil, because they are ... brace yourself ... ... ANARCHISTS! The second was his claim that Obama had issued an Executive Order that prohibited release of his birth certificate, college records, etc. Jojo skims over my posts and responds with outrage at what he fantasizes, and he apparently thought I was denying that an Executive Order existed, so he posted the text of the whole thing. He neglected to read it, apparently, or if he did read it, his comprehension of a U.S. Presidential Executive Order is even worse than his comprehension of Islamic sources. The evidence, that he provided, conclusively trounced his own claim. When this was pointed out, his only recourse was to cry lies. He is what he claims others are. One might imagine that a real Christian would get this immediately! Even a real Evangelical Christian. Or does Evangelical mean You are all wrong! I don't think so. Isn't it about the Good News? Jojo's original post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74992.html
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
This should have been tagged OT from the beginning. However, changing a subject header after it has started screws up threading, and the whole point of my responding at all to Jojo is to keep sane information in his threads, for future readers who find this through Google. I would never inititate this discussion here. At 05:21 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote: Lomax, please read up on the case of the Nordyke twins. They were born within a few days of Obama and they were able to obtain a long form copy of their BC. You lie once again by claiming that there is no legal way. I read all this months ago. Joho seems to not realize something. I actually research what I write, when it enters controversy. I check my facts. Quite obviously there is, cause the Nordyke twins were able to do it. Please my friend, stop the lies. Where is Obama's long form BC. Not computer generated scans which are obviously fake. Have you seen the Nordyke twin's long form BC? When was it issued? If you haven't seen it, look at: http://www.biasedmediaboycott.com/index.php?topic=80.0 Just the first I could find. The Nordyke certificate was issued in 1966, you can see the date. It's a negative copy, and I received copies like that of birth records -- my own, for example --, it's how it used to be done, the copying machines made a negative. So Ms. Nordyke requested a birth certificate copy in 1966, and that is what she got. A copy of the original, the long form. If you look carefully at the picture, you can see the lines starting to bend from where the original is bound in a volume, as you can see this same bending in the long form image that has been issued by Obama. (Looking at some of the birther pages, the arguments they come up with are a *scream!*) Referring to the Hawai'i later computerized their records, and started to issue short-form certificates, with only the legally important data. Apparently getting a long form requires special permission, and it's not clear that it's automatic that you can get one at all. And *who* can get one? Can I write to Hawai'i and get a copy of, say, that Nordyke BC? Or Obama's, and will they be treated *any differently*? (Answer: to do this I'd have to commit a crime, I'd have to impersonate them. Or be representing them, and be able to show that. However, people to obtain birth certificates under false pretenses. For a $10 fee, they obviously can't do a lot of investigation! On the other hand, if they get a letter from Barack Obama, P.O. Box blah blah, Philippines, do you think they'd fall for it? Now, what Jojo had actually demanded was to see the vault copy itself, not some copy on the internet. Well, did he see the Nordyke twins BC? Or just a copy on the internet? Now, some people may have visited Ms. Nordyke and may have seen the certified copy. And some people have seen certified copies of Obama's short form and the vault certificate, the long form. The page I pointed to made a big fuss about how different the long form was from Obama's short form. Much ado about *nothing*. They are quite distinct, obviously, but the short form includes all the legally important data, and is how Hawai'i stopped handling the vault copies. The entered the important data into a computer, and they print copies out by computer. My guess is that it's a secure computer system, not connected to a network, and that the clerk issuing a BC doesn't actually look at the vault copy. But that's a guess. It is difficult to believe that Jojo is unaware of these arguments, unless he's really new to the field and just has a habit of asserting what he *just learned* as certain fact. He *has* done that, at least once, because he acknowledged just having read it. So what is it that Jojo is demanding, he who does not even live in the U.S.? Does he want a courier to arrive with the bound volume? Does he want a copy mailed to him with the certification? He has to be eligible to recieve one, and there is a $10 fee if he's eligible. The State of Hawai'i does not issue the original to *anyone*. It's called a vault copy because that's where it's kept! And it doesn't issue certified copies except to eligible persons. Read the application information: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/elig_vrcc.html Jojo has demanded to know who has seen the original long form. I gave him a list by position or circumstance. He demanded the names. All of this could be found in a few minutes on the internet. I gave the names of two Hawai'ian officials who had certified that they had seen the original. Jojo then simply claims I'm lying. But all this can quickly and easily be verified. I found more, since I wrote that. It appears that state Secretaries of State, having a legal need for birth information, can request it from Hawai'i. Hawai'i does not send them the certificate, it sends, instead, a letter under official seal and signed as a testimony
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]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine
At 02:41 PM 1/2/2013, Ruby wrote: While this is not cold fusion, I had an opportunity to video a new energy lab, and took it. I will continue to create portraits of new energy researchers, if it comes my way. Sure. However, be careful. What is the purpose of Cold Fusion Now? Do you aim to be politically effective? I see cold fusion as the most probable breakthrough for the near future, but the Papp engine may not be far behind, and is a technology that could operate alongside it. There are quite a few people working on Papp devices. There is no sign of any confirmation coming soon. Sure, it could happen. However, Papp Engine and Cold Fusion should not be associated. Cold fusion is an established scientific phenomenon. Papp Engines are not. Papp was crazy, that's obvious. Crazy doesn't negate his having found something, but it does mean that what he showed can't be trusted, because *he did fake things*. Some have been pointing out that he set up red herrings, claims that this or that was necessary, that wasn't. Maybe. This is the sixth movie I have made this year, all by my lonesome since my cameraman/editor left me to pursue more lucrative endeavors. I'm getting better with each edit, with the goal of entertaining and educating. As a Clean Energy Advocate, I do not grill or snake scientists. Nobody is suggesting you become a Steve Krivit clone. However, you would not have to be Steve Krivit to be informed, in advance, of what questions to ask to get the actually important information. You did ask Kolstermann about energy production. He gave you an answer. The answer actually means, if true, that *he has nothing*, that his conclusions that the noble gases were not necessary are *speculation*, because he hasn't actually shown energy production, which Papp supposedly did. Papp actually ran engines with dynamometers and expert engineers, if certain documents are correct, and I've heard private testimony that I trust. It certainly *looked like* he was producing energy! Were there hidden wires or a fuel supply? Ruby, all these things have happened before. There *have* been frauds, sometimes very convincing. I am not a detective (not yet anyway). I ask, they answer. I am grateful for all the help I continue to get in learning to ask the right questions. The problem that I see is associating *highly speculative* technologies, that have a high probability of not being real, with cold fusion. Cold fusion is real, it's testable, and it's been tested, over and over, with results reported in scientific journals. It has problems with reliability, but that's an entirely different issue. If the reliability problem cannot be solved, it's possible that cold fusion will never be practical. But it's real, and the chances are quite good that, with better understanding, the reliability problem can be solved. Reliability cuts two ways. Pons and Fleischmann started with a cm. cube of palladium. The thing melted down in about 1984, destroying their apparatus, burning a hole in the lab bench, and down inches into the concrete floor. That was not chemistry. After that happened, they scaled down, and most cold fusion experiments deliberately work with low quantities of materials, because unreliable can mean that one unexpectedly gets *much more* heat than expected. What is needed is basic research. This is not going to come from entrepreneurs, people who keep their work secret. It's going to come from scientists, and that takes money that is not about profit, though some funding may come from corporations doing background investigation. I cannot categorically state that the Papp engine is impossible, but I will state is that we do not know if it's possible, and the Klostermann video takes us no closer to knowing. If you want to cover every possible alternative technology, there are many. I was the administrator of the L-5 Society, over thirty years ago, and we were working on, among other projects, satellite solar power. That is a whole approach to solving not only the energy problem, but ultimately the whole problem of polluting the earth. But I'd not expect Cold Fusion Now to get involved. Having a page that links to other clean energy projects, great. But the level of focus on Kostermann seems too much to me. Cold Fusion Now wants to remain positive, and rated G for the kids! I want to show the kids, the students, and those who are looking for inspiration: What does a new energy lab look like? How do researchers in this field operate? What kind of research is going on? What kind of energy solutions are being pursued and, what is the level of development? Klostermann's shop does not look like a lab to me, it looks like a nice workshop. It doesn't actually look like an energy solution. It looks like an electric cannon, that doesn't do anything more than convert stored power from a capacitor bank to kinetic energy of the
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You have no evidence they were taken in. They are smart people and they have been doing experiments for decades. Not of this type. Of this type exactly. No, *many people* have examined the results and came up with problems that were overlooked by Essen and Kullander. Who? Where did these people publish reports? I recall a lot of blather here but I have not seen any reports showing errors in the techniques. Yes, Krivit pulled all of this together, but he didn't invent it. Krivit measured nothing and found nothing. His report is hot air. This has been discussed to death on Vortex. That does not count. Where is there an authoritative report by someone who knows calorimetry showing errors in the calorimetry. Several people, such as the NASA group, said the tests did not work the day they saw them. It was obvious the thing was not working. Which, as you know, only means that the thing wasn't working. You are missing the point. If the thing is fake, why wouldn't it be a totally reliable fake? Who would make a fake system that often appears to do nothing? It often fails at critical times when a lot of money is at stake, as it was during the NASA visit. If this is fraud, it could not be conducted more ineptly. You've already come up with one reason. I have not. Rossi was counting NASA's evaluation. The failure was a disaster for him. Another would be very simple: it's not reliable and it wasn't working on the day they showed up. A fake system would be reliable! It is not difficult to make a fake system. It is impossible to make one that EK, Focardi or Levi would not instantly see is fake. The only person who could be fooled is Krivit, because he made no observations at all. But if you made a fake system it would work as reliably as any movie prop. Rossi developed a technique vulnerable to a certain illusion. You state that is if it were a fact. There is no evidence for that at all. There are no illusions at all. When the thing works, it is obvious, and when it failed -- on several occasions -- that was equally obvious to the observers. No one was fooled into thinking it was actually working. There is a reason why we want to see independent replications. They are *much* harder to fake, and it's also harder to make an innocent mistake, to be fooled by an artifact. The thing was independently tested for a week or two when Rossi was on another continent. That is as good a confirmation as an independent replication. Calorimetry is calorimetry; the same everywhere. The only reason I want to see independent replications is so that other people can manufacture it quickly. That is why Rossi does not want to see independent replications, and why he will do all that he can to prevent them. He has no IP. Okay, scientists could be fooled by the unexpected presence of overflow water. They could assume that a single look at the outlet hose would be adequate to show that there was no overflow water. This makes no sense. They independently measured the flow coming out of the machine. No, the hose would have to go into a bucket to show that, and the hose would have to be well-insulated and short. As you know, that was not the experimental setup. Overflow water, when quantity of water boiled is the measure of heat, is fatal to accuracy. I was talking about the flowing water tests. The steam tests are a little more complicate but not by much. The enthalpy of steam has been well known for over a century, despite comments posted here. Kullander and Essen also attempted to use a humidity meter to measure steam quality. That meter is intended to measure steam quality, according the specs. That was as much of a bonehead error as were Pons and Fleischmann's neutron results. No, it wasn't. Anyway, the enthalpy is pretty much the same even if you don't measure it at all. The blather here about wet steam was nonsense. But the proof of it, that they accepted, was clearly defective. Says who? I say so. I reviewed that evidence, and that's my conclusion. Where did you publish? Did EK review your work? Did they publish a rebuttal? Have you done calorimetry with a similar system, and did you demonstrate how an error might be made? Unpublished speculation from the peanut gallery is not science. You don't get a free pass. If you seriously think there might be an error, you need to write up your reasons and perform calorimetry with a similar, conventional system (an electric heater). Then you need to run your work by EK. - 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]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 10:06 PM 1/2/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You have no evidence they were taken in. They are smart people and they have been doing experiments for decades. Not of this type. Of this type exactly. Kullander and Essen? That's who were were talking about. Where did you get this? No, *many people* have examined the results and came up with problems that were overlooked by Essen and Kullander. Who? Where did these people publish reports? I recall a lot of blather here but I have not seen any reports showing errors in the techniques. Krivit published them. Yes, Krivit pulled all of this together, but he didn't invent it. Krivit measured nothing and found nothing. His report is hot air. Krivit collected and pubished the reports of others, who analyzed the available data. Krivit pointed to suspicious activity by Rossi from the Mats Lewan video. Yeah, Krivit is a muck-raker, but ... that doesn't mean he's always wrong. This has been discussed to death on Vortex. That does not count. Where is there an authoritative report by someone who knows calorimetry showing errors in the calorimetry. The error is obvious. Jed, I'm sorry. This is beyond the pale. Several people, such as the NASA group, said the tests did not work the day they saw them. It was obvious the thing was not working. Which, as you know, only means that the thing wasn't working. You are missing the point. If the thing is fake, why wouldn't it be a totally reliable fake? Who would make a fake system that often appears to do nothing? It often fails at critical times when a lot of money is at stake, as it was during the NASA visit. If this is fraud, it could not be conducted more ineptly. You've already come up with one reason. I have not. Rossi was counting NASA's evaluation. The failure was a disaster for him. He could have recovered. No, Jed, your analysis is corrupt. Another would be very simple: it's not reliable and it wasn't working on the day they showed up. A fake system would be reliable! It is not difficult to make a fake system. It is impossible to make one that EK, Focardi or Levi would not instantly see is fake. The only person who could be fooled is Krivit, because he made no observations at all. But if you made a fake system it would work as reliably as any movie prop. Depends on the nature of the fake. Rossi developed a technique vulnerable to a certain illusion. You state that is if it were a fact. It's a fact. You actually know the fact. You are arguing here, for what? There is no evidence for that at all. There are no illusions at all. When the thing works, it is obvious, and when it failed -- on several occasions -- that was equally obvious to the observers. No one was fooled into thinking it was actually working. There is a reason why we want to see independent replications. They are *much* harder to fake, and it's also harder to make an innocent mistake, to be fooled by an artifact. The thing was independently tested for a week or two when Rossi was on another continent. That is as good a confirmation as an independent replication. Calorimetry is calorimetry; the same everywhere. Great. You demanded reports above on calorimetry error. Where is the report on these tests, certified by a reliable witness, who can be questioned? The only reason I want to see independent replications is so that other people can manufacture it quickly. That's BS, Jed. There are types of replications. A fully-independent replication must disclose IP, fully, because every aspect must be independent. But there are replications that do not disclose IP. A device can be sealed, for example, so that the independent replicator only deals with input and output. That is why Rossi does not want to see independent replications, and why he will do all that he can to prevent them. He has no IP. In which case he's probably sunk. Okay, scientists could be fooled by the unexpected presence of overflow water. They could assume that a single look at the outlet hose would be adequate to show that there was no overflow water. This makes no sense. They independently measured the flow coming out of the machine. Who did? Kullander and Essen did *not* do this. No, the hose would have to go into a bucket to show that, and the hose would have to be well-insulated and short. As you know, that was not the experimental setup. Overflow water, when quantity of water boiled is the measure of heat, is fatal to accuracy. I was talking about the flowing water tests. The steam tests are a little more complicate but not by much. The enthalpy of steam has been well known for over a century, despite comments posted here. Yes. But how much steam was there? The assumption was that all the water coming into the device was converted to steam. That assumption, with Kullander
[Vo]:OT: Better communication through listening and reading
http://www.sklatch.net/thoughtlets/listen.html The closing remarks: Good listening is arguably one of the most important skills to have in today's complex world. Families need good listening to face complicated stresses together. Corporate employees need it to solve complex problems quickly and stay competitive. Students need it to understand complex issues in their fields. Much can be gained by improving listening skills. When the question of how to improve communication comes up, most attention is paid to making people better speakers or writers (the supply side of the communication chain) rather than on making them better listeners or readers (the demand side). More depends on listening than on speaking. An especially skillful listener will know how to overcome many of the deficiencies of a vague or disorganized speaker. On the other hand, it won't matter how eloquent or cogent a speaker is if the listener isn't paying attention. The listener arguably bears more responsibility than the speaker for the quality of communication. Harry
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]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
But El is not the name of the God of Israel. El is a generic word, not a proper name. The proper name of the God of Israel is Jehovah. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies The god El, has also very polytheistic origins. Not that its also related to the name Allah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity) There are plenty of bibliography in that page to corroborate with that information. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com Lomax claims that it matters not what allah's origins were. OK. Because it is clear from archeological evidence that allah (al-ilah) was the pagan moon god of arabs. He had 3 daughters that the koran initially said should be worshipped. Later muhammed abrogated those verses saying that he was deceived by Satan. Funny, can't allah, the supposed almighty god, protect his prophet from deception. Can't allah keep his word (koran) pure from error? The kabah was where these pagans worshipped al-ilah. The pagans walked around kabah stone just like the muslim do today. My friends, if you are reading this, please research this yourself. Don't believe me, check it out yourself. 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 3:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 04:11 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: That is where you are wrong my friend. A TRUE Christian will not find a call to Idolatry beautiful. A muslim call to prayer is a call to pray to a false god (allah the moon god) in front of an idol (kabah - a meteroite stone.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Is the call to prayer a call to idolatry? This brings up the Moon God Allah argument, recognized immediately here, over six months ago, as bigotry. The claim is that Allah is a Moon God, allegedly because it was a name for a pre-Islamic god of the moon. That is arguing that the referent of a word is controlled by its etymology. So if someone says, Hey, Dennis is a great guy! they are praising Dionysius, the Greek God. Idolatry! No, Allah, *regardless of origin* -- and we don't care about origin, we care about *present meaning* -- is God, and that's not in controversy among Christians who speak Arabic, *except for those afflicted by the present claims.* Very modern. And we do not have an idol in mind when we face Mecca, and the verse that commands this only refers to the *direction*. It does not command worship of the Ancient House. It says to face the direction of the Sacred Masjid. (Mosque is not an Arabic word, Masjid means, place of prayer. I once had a prayer carpet, given to me by a Pakistani Muslim to whom it was a beloved object, and it had a picture of the House on it. I had this carpet for years, but it always, when I used it, didn't feel right. So, years later, because I knew it was important to him, he had prayed with it all over the world, I gave it back to him. He was insulted, it was part of an unfortunate sequence of events. This was over thirty years ago, by the way. We don't worship the House, we don't even worship the direction, we merely face it, as best we know. We seek direction from God, and we respond to what God has commanded. Ka'aba does not mean a stone. It means cube, and refers to the overall shape of the whole House. There is an ancient stone set in a corner of the Ka'aba. It performs no central role in Islam. Because there is a tradition that the stone was *reset* in the corner of the Cube by action of the Prophet -- he didn't actually do it himself, rather he arbitrated a dispute on who would be allowed to do it, *before his mission* -- there are those who touch this stone, to touch a place where Muhammad may have touched. That's a traditional practice, and could be considered a kind of worship, but they would never do this as part of the prayer, it would be forbidden. We don't worship the stone. I do not recall *ever* thinking of the stone while in prayer. So, again, Jojo is just tossing mud. He's actually claiming that many of my friends, people I've known well, who are Christian and who even disagree with me on theology, greatly, are actually *not Christians,* but only because they don't agree with Jojo. That is, in fact, such an un-Christian position that I'm going to assert: Jojo is not a TRUE Christian. And that's been totally obvious for a long time. Jojo is not following Jesus, he's not imitating Jesus, he's not teaching what Jesus taught, he's not demonstrating what Jesus demonstrated, he is, by pretending to be a Christian, *defaming* the Christian religion. That he may be pretending this even to himself
[Vo]:something to consider
I am starting this as a new thread because many people are starting to skip entire threads. See my questions below. I wrote 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? But really this is a concern that pertains to all of us. We need a list that is hospitable to all people who can make a competent contribution. (I do not mean *everybody*. I do not mind in the slightest if list mods take action to make the list quite inhospitable to those who for whatever reason are too immature to contribute much of value.) Think about what you would do if you were in Abd's situation. Perhaps you would just abide the assault quietly. Perhaps you would leave the list. But that would not make the environment any more hospitable for others in shoes similar to yours. You may not respond in the way that Abd has. But we should appreciate that he's being put in a very awkward position and that he has broader interests in mind. Eric On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com 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.
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:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
Lomax and Bivort, why is it that you consider the work of scholars who lived 1600 years later better than the testimony of the person herself as recorded by your own muslim scholars. I find this attempt at deception instructive but puzzling. A'isha herself said, in 2 respected hadiths, that she was 9 years old when muhammed had his first intercourse with her. Now, here comes all these westernized scholars and experts, that claim otherwise and you take their work as more authoritative than Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. I really don't understand this. Islam is indeed a malady. 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 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls. At 07:29 PM 1/2/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Thanks, Abd ar-Rahman. Some time ago I wrote a long post on Muslims, marriage, and pre-and post Quranic practices. Jojo said he would respond later, but never did. FYI, I subsequently read that post to a well-regarded Muslim scholar and he confirmed the accuracy of the post, so I'll let my post stand. Do you have a link to it? Or the date and time? I do notice that you mispell my name correctly as a common variation. I think memetics is the way to understand the birther/Muhammed/aliens/illuminati alternative reality. For reasons I think you and others here will appreciate, I'd prefer not to discuss this field further, here or in any other public venue. You can write me privately. Anyone who subscribes to this list can, if you read the list as a subscriber. I admire your patience, and wish I had as much of it! Patience or foolishness, I can't tell. Thanks. On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75072.html On the subject of Ayesha's age at marriage i.e. when she began to live with the Prophet, I found some sources I'll share. I am *not* claiming to know the age of Ayesha, and my own opinion is that it's impossible to know for sure. But I'd still pay attention to authoritative analysis. Too much of what I've seen may have been contaminated by bias. http://dawn.com/2012/02/17/of-aishas-age-at-marriage/ This is a newspaper source and might be a cut above the average. The author is called a scholar of the Qur'an, which could make him outside his expertise. Some of the arguments I've seen elsewhere. The argument about the kunnat, the name Ayesha adopted, Umm Abdullah, is interesting. He concludes that she was 21 when she moved into the Prophet's House (I'll call that marriage). And God knows best. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-liepert/islamic-pedophelia_b_814332.html This is a reputable media site. The author has clearly done a lot of research. He's also not necessarily a muslim scholar, but has probaby collected materials and analysis from some. The above site and this one, I just found today, and I find, here, many of the facts and arguments I came up with myself. He comes up with a possible age of 20 at marriage. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth Article in the Guardian by a Muslim woman, studying for a DPhil at Oxford University, focusing on Islamic movements in Morocco. She comes up with my opinion, roughly, saying it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was, but estimates of her age range from nine to 19. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7ID=4604CATE=1 This is a reputable web site apparently affiliated with Nuh Keller, whom I know. The page is written by G.F. Haddad, whom I also know. Keller is definitely a Muslim scholar, and recognized as such. Haddad, as I recall, was studying, and that was more than ten years ago. The page is poorly formatted and the questions that he is answering are not set off from his answers, but he concludes that Ayesha could not have been less than 14. I looked for some time for some page that appeared to me to be authoritative. I did not select pages for skepticism on the age. But I didn't find one that actually argued for nine years old. Trying to find some other opinion, I cast a bit wider net. I found a page titled Authentic Tauheed, and mentioning the Salaff The could be a highly conservative site, but I didn't read widely enough to be sure. http://authentictauheed.blogspot.com/2011/07/age-of-hazrat-aisha-ra-when-she-married.html He comes up with age 9-18, and says that regardless, she had reached puberty and was very happy. (The site seems amateurish in ways, so I'm not confident in the authority of this site as to scholarship.) Okay, I found something. http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/local_links.php?action=jumpcatid=3id=879 has a PDF download, of a paper prepared that argues for an age of 9. The controversy is portrayed as between history and hadith. Basically, a fundamentalist
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: Better communication through listening and reading
dear Harry thanks for informing about this excellent article- on our overspammed Vortex! It inspires me to think about: Coulomb and other barriers in LENR Peter On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.sklatch.net/thoughtlets/listen.html The closing remarks: Good listening is arguably one of the most important skills to have in today's complex world. Families need good listening to face complicated stresses together. Corporate employees need it to solve complex problems quickly and stay competitive. Students need it to understand complex issues in their fields. Much can be gained by improving listening skills. When the question of how to improve communication comes up, most attention is paid to making people better speakers or writers (the supply side of the communication chain) rather than on making them better listeners or readers (the demand side). More depends on listening than on speaking. An especially skillful listener will know how to overcome many of the deficiencies of a vague or disorganized speaker. On the other hand, it won't matter how eloquent or cogent a speaker is if the listener isn't paying attention. The listener arguably bears more responsibility than the speaker for the quality of communication. Harry -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
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]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
OK, why can't the President of the United States make a special request to get his long form. You say there was no legal way, but in fact there is. Abercrombie has enough authority by himself as governor to do this. Obama could make a 2 minute phone call and the Bither issue would be resolved once and for all. Why not do this simple thing? Over 60% of America want it, why not do it. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies This should have been tagged OT from the beginning. However, changing a subject header after it has started screws up threading, and the whole point of my responding at all to Jojo is to keep sane information in his threads, for future readers who find this through Google. I would never inititate this discussion here. At 05:21 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote: Lomax, please read up on the case of the Nordyke twins. They were born within a few days of Obama and they were able to obtain a long form copy of their BC. You lie once again by claiming that there is no legal way. I read all this months ago. Joho seems to not realize something. I actually research what I write, when it enters controversy. I check my facts. Quite obviously there is, cause the Nordyke twins were able to do it. Please my friend, stop the lies. Where is Obama's long form BC. Not computer generated scans which are obviously fake. Have you seen the Nordyke twin's long form BC? When was it issued? If you haven't seen it, look at: http://www.biasedmediaboycott.com/index.php?topic=80.0 Just the first I could find. The Nordyke certificate was issued in 1966, you can see the date. It's a negative copy, and I received copies like that of birth records -- my own, for example --, it's how it used to be done, the copying machines made a negative. So Ms. Nordyke requested a birth certificate copy in 1966, and that is what she got. A copy of the original, the long form. If you look carefully at the picture, you can see the lines starting to bend from where the original is bound in a volume, as you can see this same bending in the long form image that has been issued by Obama. (Looking at some of the birther pages, the arguments they come up with are a *scream!*) Referring to the Hawai'i later computerized their records, and started to issue short-form certificates, with only the legally important data. Apparently getting a long form requires special permission, and it's not clear that it's automatic that you can get one at all. And *who* can get one? Can I write to Hawai'i and get a copy of, say, that Nordyke BC? Or Obama's, and will they be treated *any differently*? (Answer: to do this I'd have to commit a crime, I'd have to impersonate them. Or be representing them, and be able to show that. However, people to obtain birth certificates under false pretenses. For a $10 fee, they obviously can't do a lot of investigation! On the other hand, if they get a letter from Barack Obama, P.O. Box blah blah, Philippines, do you think they'd fall for it? Now, what Jojo had actually demanded was to see the vault copy itself, not some copy on the internet. Well, did he see the Nordyke twins BC? Or just a copy on the internet? Now, some people may have visited Ms. Nordyke and may have seen the certified copy. And some people have seen certified copies of Obama's short form and the vault certificate, the long form. The page I pointed to made a big fuss about how different the long form was from Obama's short form. Much ado about *nothing*. They are quite distinct, obviously, but the short form includes all the legally important data, and is how Hawai'i stopped handling the vault copies. The entered the important data into a computer, and they print copies out by computer. My guess is that it's a secure computer system, not connected to a network, and that the clerk issuing a BC doesn't actually look at the vault copy. But that's a guess. It is difficult to believe that Jojo is unaware of these arguments, unless he's really new to the field and just has a habit of asserting what he *just learned* as certain fact. He *has* done that, at least once, because he acknowledged just having read it. So what is it that Jojo is demanding, he who does not even live in the U.S.? Does he want a courier to arrive with the bound volume? Does he want a copy mailed to him with the certification? He has to be eligible to recieve one, and there is a $10 fee if he's eligible. The State of Hawai'i does not issue the original to *anyone*. It's called a vault copy because that's where it's kept! And it doesn't issue certified copies except to eligible persons. Read the application information: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/elig_vrcc.html Jojo has demanded to know who has seen the original long form. I
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:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
Alright. If you believe that your research is more authoritative than Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, so be it. People will see how desperate you are at tying to spin this away. I can understand what you are trying to do. The revelation that your beloved prophet was actually a child sex pervert molester is quite embarassing. But I wouldn't have engaged in my own set of lies just to protect him. Just say he was just a man and disavow it and be done with it. That would have been an effective answer to me and I wouldn't have been able to counter that effectively. 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 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls. At 10:40 AM 1/2/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. Bingo! What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? You can find all of this on anti-Islam web sites, often explicitly Evangelical Christian. Mostly, Jojo just claims stuff without citing sources, but there was an exception recently on the matter of Female Genital Mutilation. He gave his source, an Anti-Islam web site, that cited Muslim sources, and that directly challenged how Muslim scholars interpret the sources. Jojo actually dropped this one quickly. I have no idea if it's because I found an authoritative non-Muslim source (Lane's Lexicon), exactly on point and confirming the Muslim scholars, or just because there isn't enough time in the day. He's been churning this stuff out for quite a while, but he doesn't actually research it, he's just copying ideas and stating them as fact. On the birther thing, and all the claims about Obama, there is a very well elaborated and thorough anti-birther web site, http://thefogbow.com, but there is no single authoritative birther site. There are only masses of memes that are passed around, repeated, and apparently believed. It's very similar to his anti-Muslim stuff. There are only two other claims I recall that Jojo, beyond the FGM thing, backed up with a source. The first was his claim about the age of Ayesha at consummation, where he cited Muslim and Bukhari, seeming to believe that these, being so venerated, would seal the matter. The concept of context evades Jojo. He's actually been learning something here, shown in this last post, about Islam. He turns it into a Bad Thing, of course. Basically, realizing that all the Muslims are not following the Venerated Sources, by the letter, which kind of demolishes his Muslims are Evil ideas based on the Evil Sources, he then says that Muslims are Even More Evil, because they are ... brace yourself ... ... ANARCHISTS! The second was his claim that Obama had issued an Executive Order that prohibited release of his birth certificate, college records, etc. Jojo skims over my posts and responds with outrage at what he fantasizes, and he apparently thought I was denying that an Executive Order existed, so he posted the text of the whole thing. He neglected to read it, apparently, or if he did read it, his comprehension of a U.S. Presidential Executive Order is even worse than his comprehension of Islamic sources. The evidence, that he provided, conclusively trounced his own claim. When this was pointed out, his only recourse was to cry lies. He is what he claims others are. One might imagine that a real Christian would get this immediately! Even a real Evangelical Christian. Or does Evangelical mean You are all wrong! I don't think so. Isn't it about the Good News? Jojo's original post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74992.html
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
