Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Jones and Robin are acceptable to me, though Terry seems to involve himself in too much off-topic noise. If we can get an agreement from Jed and SVJ to honor the decision of Mark, Jones and Robin, that would be acceptable to me. Their job would be to monitor and moderate all off-topic posts as well as insults. This will use their own judgement to decide what constitutes excessive off-topic posts. They will decide which opinion is insulting to another. Is this acceptable to Jed, SVJ, Lomax, Rocha and others? Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:06 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. What may be best is for several of us to discuss/decide off-list and present our recommendation to Bill; perhaps myself, Terry, Jones and Robin. I would include Horace as well, but he has more serious challenges in his life at the moment. or we can ask Bill to give us that authority should he not be able to respond within a reasonable time. That said, let me make a few comments that are directed to BOTH sides of the issue: We really shouldn't need any such moderation. What really irks me is that seeming adults still haven't learned that one should respect another person's religious beliefs; and that ALL major religions have their tarnished 'history' that the vast majority of followers would prefer didn't happen. but history is history and no arguing will change that. Learn from the stories of human failings that are in all decent religious texts and move on. In addition, ALL major religions have their share of 'fanatics and radical elements' that do NOT represent the majority. This has been the case for thousands of years, and so long as there are humans involved, this is NOT going to change any time soon - endless debate is a waste of time and disrespectful to the rest of the Collective. Same goes for politics as well. Why do you think this forum has lasted for over 15 years??? Why do the same people stick with it for that long??? It should be a lesson to all those who have only been here for a few years, that most of the long-time regulars have *NOT* engaged in the recent useless waste of bandwidth. get the hint??? And some *minor* amount of [OT] postings are not bad. the usual crowd tends to use them sparingly for a bit of humor and diversion when technical events are in a lull. All work and no play makes for a less enjoyable read and that too can lead to some good people leaving the Collective. -Mark Iverson From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Mark, would you be willing to act as an impartial moderator of this forum. I have found your objectivity and integrity to be acceptable and I'm sure others do so as well. Can we all agree to abide by Mark's ruling if he accepts the position? You would have to moderate all posts including all off-topic posts, that in your judgement is excessive and clearly off-topic. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Jones and Robin are acceptable to me, though Terry seems to involve himself in too much off-topic noise. If we can get an agreement from Jed and SVJ to honor the decision of Mark, Jones and Robin, that would be acceptable to me. Their job would be to monitor and moderate all off-topic posts as well as insults. They will use their own judgement to decide what constitutes excessive off-topic posts. They will decide which opinion is insulting to another. I will abide by all their decisions. Is this acceptable to Jed, SVJ, Lomax, Rocha and others? If this arrangement is acceptable, I will start it off with a good faith offer. I will apologize to Lomax, though I have nothing to apologize for. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:06 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. What may be best is for several of us to discuss/decide off-list and present our recommendation to Bill; perhaps myself, Terry, Jones and Robin. I would include Horace as well, but he has more serious challenges in his life at the moment. or we can ask Bill to give us that authority should he not be able to respond within a reasonable time. That said, let me make a few comments that are directed to BOTH sides of the issue: We really shouldn't need any such moderation. What really irks me is that seeming adults still haven't learned that one should respect another person's religious beliefs; and that ALL major religions have their tarnished 'history' that the vast majority of followers would prefer didn't happen. but history is history and no arguing will change that. Learn from the stories of human failings that are in all decent religious texts and move on. In addition, ALL major religions have their share of 'fanatics and radical elements' that do NOT represent the majority. This has been the case for thousands of years, and so long as there are humans involved, this is NOT going to change any time soon - endless debate is a waste of time and disrespectful to the rest of the Collective. Same goes for politics as well. Why do you think this forum has lasted for over 15 years??? Why do the same people stick with it for that long??? It should be a lesson to all those who have only been here for a few years, that most of the long-time regulars have *NOT* engaged in the recent useless waste of bandwidth. get the hint??? And some *minor* amount of [OT] postings are not bad. the usual crowd tends to use them sparingly for a bit of humor and diversion when technical events are in a lull. All work and no play makes for a less enjoyable read and that too can lead to some good people leaving the Collective. -Mark Iverson From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Mark, would you be willing to act as an impartial moderator of this forum. I have found your objectivity and integrity to be acceptable and I'm sure others do so as well. Can we all agree to abide by Mark's ruling if he accepts the position? You would have to moderate all posts including all off-topic posts, that in your judgement is excessive and clearly off-topic. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Fair enough. I will abide by your suggestion. In return, I want 2 things from you. 1. I need you to call for the termination of excessive off-topic posts. I will leave it to your judgement what constitutes excessive off-topic posts. 2. I need you to call for the termination of insults and insulting words. Once again, I will leave it to your judgement what constitutes an insult. These two things are easy to discern. If you agree to do these, I will agree to do what you ask. Remember, my agreemnt to do this is contigent upon your agreement and good faith promise to do these 2 things I ask. My agreement starts the momemt you respond and agree to my proposal. That would be the time I do as you ask. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Jojo, I do not have control of the postings that these guys produce. Most of the time they submit excellent subject manner and on occasions it gets off topic as you say. Recently, most of their postings seem to be acceptable and pretty much on subject or related to LENR in some fashion. You have hit a raw nerve with Abd and it is clear that he feels that every post against his religion must be countered. It seems odd to me that he seems so inclined, but maybe that is part of his belief and he is performing an important duty in his mind. You should let him off the hook to be fair. I know some disgusting things have been stated about your beliefs as well. Those guilty of this type of attack should realize that they are not doing anyone a service this way and the behavior should stop immediately. I find that some off topic posts are educational and I would not be aware of the subject unless someone like the two vortex members you list were to toss them our way. On occasion I have felt that too much bandwidth was being spent in this manner, but it usually clears up fairly soon. I recall seeking termination of a couple of far off discussions in the past. I think your best plan of action would be to leave Abd alone for a while and cease posting the terribly offensive statements about his religion. If he brings up these issues again without provocation then someone needs to go to his location and pull the power plug of his computer. Either that or arrange for him to seek professional care. So once that goes away, then why not monitor the vortex for long lasting off topic postings that you find offensive and let whoever posts them know about your dissatisfaction. There was a time not long ago when the vortex was running smoothly and I think that can be achieved again soon. We all need to have folks of the various backgrounds and talents to consider our ideas. I recall you making important contributions and hope to see more of the same after things settle back to normal. I assume that Jed and SVJ will not see this posting since they have blocked anything that has your name within according to what they have written. They are good guys and I value what they are contributing to the group. Please give the vortex some time to clean itself up before you continue with the offensive tittles and content. We might loose the reason that we subscribe if many valued members flee. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 2:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. David, can you call for a moderation of the off-topic posts from others. If the most blatant off-topic offenders would simply make a small promise to moderate their incessant noise, that would be enough to satisfy the main reason why I am posting off-topic posts here. Note, I am not referring to off-topic posts that may be slightly relevant, I am talking about off-topic posts that are clearly irrelevant. I am doing this to give Jed a dose of his own medicine. I am just gabbing with friends here and making up the rules as I go. How about it? This solution is certainly simpler and more straitforward than starting another list or filtering everybody who responds to me. I believe this proposal of mine is fair and equitable and good for the community. How about it Jed and SVJ? Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
He he he Sorry my friend, you do involve yourself with a lot of off-topic noise. But I still owe you lunch if you are still interested when I get back there. Jojo - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones and Robin are acceptable to me, though Terry seems to involve himself in too much off-topic noise. Black!
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
become filled with spam. I don't know if subscription services are still working for this list. Has anyone subscribed in the last few weeks? Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 2:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. David, can you call for a moderation of the off-topic posts from others. If the most blatant off-topic offenders would simply make a small promise to moderate their incessant noise, that would be enough to satisfy the main reason why I am posting off-topic posts here. Note, I am not referring to off-topic posts that may be slightly relevant, I am talking about off-topic posts that are clearly irrelevant. I am doing this to give Jed a dose of his own medicine. I am just gabbing with friends here and making up the rules as I go. How about it? This solution is certainly simpler and more straitforward than starting another list or filtering everybody who responds to me. I believe this proposal of mine is fair and equitable and good for the community. How about it Jed and SVJ? Jojo - Original Message - From: mailto:dlrober...@aol.comDavid Roberson To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-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 mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:something to consider
Because you have shown your disdain for me and my views, I will now treat your views with equal disdain. Insults to my faith started from multiple members of this group long long long before I started insulting Lomax by telling the truth about his religion. You might say there is nothing that leaking pen has posted in this post that would constitute an insult but you need to take his whole post history to properly evaluate his intent with this post. Based on his hostile history to me, I have perceived this post to be an insult. In fact, this is the 4th insult he has directed to me and this is the first time I am responding to him with an insult. Jojo PS, I have agreed to Mark's and David's reasonable proposal to stop the cycle of insults, and I have not insulted anyone, in fact, I have not posted for over 12 hours now, and yet fresh insults continue to head my way. My friends, I am not the problem here. - Original Message - From: leaking pen To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:something to consider there's a big difference between disdain for having a view, and suggesting that because you belong to a group, you must be a murdering pedophile bent on the destruction of other groups. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Eric, I forgot to mention. What would you do if you are the subject of constant insults and ridicule for your views? Would you not lash out in retaliation? Your bias is why I grow more instransigent each day. You express grave concern that islam may be assaulted but express no equal concern that I have been insulted time and time again here for my beliefs in the Bible. Well you ask what you would do if you were in Abd's situation. Why don't you ask another equally valid question. What would you do if you were in Jojo's position. This problem has a very very very simple solution you know. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:02 PM Subject: [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 anti-Islamic propaganda
Why would muslims consider the truth about their prophet to be an insult. Muslim scholars acknowledge this truth and yet somehow, I am considered a liar with disinformation because I mention these things. How can truth be considered propaganda? By definition, propaganda is a lie. The truth may be insulting to muslims but it is hardly propaganda. Now calling the Bible a made up fiction - that's a lie, an insult, and propaganda. And I have suffered insults like that long long long before I even started mentioning these things about islam. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and anti-Islamic propaganda Hi, Dave, Yes, this is the problem that plagues those harmed by mis- or disinformation. If one ignores it, there will be a substantial number of people who believe it on the grounds that it was not refuted. If one does not ignore the disinformation and instead refutes it, by, of necessity, repeating the misinformation along with its counter, then the misinformation is more widely propagated. It is an age-old conundrum and one that has not been resolved yet by humankind. Balance is always nice, except when it is a compromise between truth and deception. There are ill-intentioned people out there who will deliberately use disinformation to harm others. Remember Neville Chamberlain? He naively sought compromise where none was desirable. So the conundrum continues. Maybe someday we'll figure out a way to solve it. Until then, those who propagate disinformation will always gain some advantage in conning people, whether refuted or not. Generally -- and I've been studying patterns of propaganda for several decades -- I find that refutation is best, with the intention of damaging the credibility of the source of disinformation. Of course, in this digital age, the source when discredited simply creates a new avatar is is again off to the races. Do you remember the boardwalk game whack-a-mole or somesuch? It seems o me an apt metaphor grin. Cheers, Lawry On Jan 3, 2013, at 11:49 AM, David Roberson wrote: Perhaps there is a problem with the spread of disinformation that you speak of, but did you consider that every time a response is generated, it just gives the subject more publicity? I have come to the conclusion that this is one of the problems within the US that leads to more violence being propagated. One awful act is repeated within the news for far too long which tends to make individuals that are seeking fame to act irrationally. It would have been better for nothing to have been said at any time about the event on public news. Unfortunately, politics usually becomes involved in such manners where there is a tendency to keep the issue alive far beyond reason. Those that continue the process should be held accountable for further problems akin to yelling fire in a crowded environment. Someone looking for an issue to set off their passions is not going to worry about any counters. They most likely will not balance what they read, but instead concentrate upon a narrow range of inputs that they find particularly offensive. This seems to be the nature of the beast, so it is in the best interest of all concerned to terminate the discussion at once and not keep repeating and consequently spreading the issue. For balance, you should also be concerned about the extreme negativity given to one of the Christian positions during the exchanges. I know that there are people reading the list that hold these types of views in serious contempt. This group in not the proper forum from which to conduct these types of activities and I plead that they be terminated. Dave -Original Message- From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 10:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Hi, Eric, My motive for posting in Jojo's trolling is not quite the same as Abd ul-Rahman's. I worry about the campaign of disinformation that Islamo-phobes are spreading as widely as they can. It affects the ability of the American people and Europeans to understand issues pertaining to the Middle East, and so degrades the quality of our foreign policy. I know, not the concern of LENR list. But people on this list nonetheless and fortunately form opinions on other matters, and so the disinformation must (I say as a political scientist involved in US foreign policy issues, as well as an engaged LENR observer) be countered. And yes, I know that the disinformation is unfair to list members and the countering of it tedious, repetitious, and, to many, legitimately unwelcome. Hidden Islamophobic agendas and methods have spilled into our list. The matter
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
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
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
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 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]:[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
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.
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.
Very well, end of the debate, unless you have something else. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I'm afraid that I am unable to educate you. On Jan 2, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: I am aware of the excesses of the catholic papa, but what did John Calvin do? Please educate me. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. ! Study the history of Christianity, Jojo, before making such nonsensical statements. You could start with the inquisition, for example, and progress through Jean Calvin, for starters. On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Peter, do they have a name for this war so that I can research it more thoroughly. Which protestant denomination was involved? And you do realize that I do not consider Catholic as Christian. Jojo - Original Message - From: P.J van Noorden To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 3:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Between protestants and catholics in the Netherlands. It looks a bit as the war between Sunnis and Shiites, but then 350 y earllier. Were I live villages were terrorised and people were beheaded. Peter - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Can you elaborate? Which war is this? Which Christian denominations or groups? Jojo - Original Message - From: P.J van Noorden To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Jojo, Here in the Netherlands they(christians) were cutting throats in the 80 y war between 1568 and 1648. Peter - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the Sunnis and the Shiites. Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to Christianity, since it is a bigger group. 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent religion; now, I know that I was wrong. It is a non-unified violent religion. A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog with multiple heads is even more dangerous. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
But then, the longer you post, the more vague your answer is. And you never answer directly. You love to beat around the bush and answer obliquely to avoid being painted into a corner. A corner that you are embarassed to be in. For instance. You said you do not believe the accounts in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari that A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed had intercourse with her. But yet, you do not provide an answer as to what age you believe she was. This is the kind of beating around the bush that confuses people. You may think that that makes you look erudite, but in fact, people simply do not read your post and you lose the opportunity to convince them. Got to hand it to you, your debating skills are excellent, you slip and slime away from your answer as expertly as a snake slimes away from a grip. But debating skills won't help you. When you have to defend a retrograde and abhorernt act, no amount of debating skill will make it look acceptable. What muhammed did in having sexual relations with a 9 year old is abhorrent. I did not expect you to defend it, but for some inexplicable reason, you decided to defend it. Do you consider muhammed to be an infallible person? Is muhammed considered perfect and sinless by muslims like how Jesus Christ is consider perfect and sinless by Christians? If muhammed is not considered sinless, you should have just disavowed that act and be done with it. Take a cue from Christians, we disavow the retrograde acts of Solomon's polygamy. We do not insist and try to justify it. Keep to the point my friend. Maybe you'll even convince me. Jojo PS. How can you call yourself an electronics engineer when you haven't graduated from engineering school? So, you have no college degree at all? - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 3:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. In his post, at the end, Jojo complains about the length of my response. It's long because Jojo raises, in a single post, many issues. If he raised one only, the response would be much briefer. A very brief response may necessarily, to be honest, uncivil. I call an argument, below, pigshit. That was brief. I could respond to the entire post with that word, but ... how useful would this be? Jojo raises some real issues, exposing the foundations, to some extent, of his misunderstanding. If he actually wants to understand, he will probably have to do some work, to read what bores him. When I write polemic, it's designed to punch through noise and disinterest. These discussions have not been, for me, polemic. They are explorations of evidence and argument, and often I don't take a strong position, at least not at first. Jojo, below, attributes this to a debate tactic, to an unwillingness to be clear about what I believe. But, actually, I don't believe anything except in a pragmatic way. I have my memory, my own experience. I don't believe that it is truth. It is just my memory. Yes, I might even insist on aspects of it, but that's not belief, it is just actual practice. In any case, what Jojo is talking about is how I explore a topic; I attempt to begin with an open mind, as empty as possible. I may then disclose assumptions, but I may avoid applying those assumptions until I've reviewed evidence. To do this in writing takes a lot of words. Later, when someone asks me a question, though, I may be able to answer briefly, *because I went through this process.* Depends on context. I am disclosing here how I learn. I learned about cold fusion this way, as an example, but many other subjects as well. I developed my own career in a similar way, by exposing myself to material, and setting aside the normal reactions of I don't understand this. I just kept reading, and, when possible, working and testing and trying things out, and that's how I became an electronics engineer. No formal training. At 03:23 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Hadiths are one of the sources of muslim teachings, and Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are some of the most respected and venerated, but you still consider them unrealizable and corrupted. The term is unreliable. Further, to be clear, what is accurate about my consideration is that they are not *completely reliable* and they are *sometimes* corrupt -- in a technical sensee, as a message or fact can be distorted when transmitted through a chain of informants, as in the telephone game. As anyone who actually studies Islamic scholarship will realize, scholars debate the authenticity of hadith, including those in Buhkari and Muslim. There are Muslims who seem to venerate certain sources, but that, itself, could be regarded as a corruption. Only the Qur'an has that central place in Islam. Acceptance of the Qur'an is central to the *legal* identification
Re: [Vo]: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
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]: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]: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]:[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]: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
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]: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: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
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Mark, that is why I have growing respect for you. You are objective in condemning both sides and rightfully so. Both sides of this fiasco are in error. I thank you for your objectivity. What do you propose we should do with this problem? Are you willing to call for the moderation of all other off-topic posts here. Consider that to some people like myself who do not have a big Internet pipe, off-topic emails from Vortex make our lives very difficult. That is all I am asking. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:something to consider
Eric, I forgot to mention. What would you do if you are the subject of constant insults and ridicule for your views? Would you not lash out in retaliation? Your bias is why I grow more instransigent each day. You express grave concern that islam may be assaulted but express no equal concern that I have been insulted time and time again here for my beliefs in the Bible. Well you ask what you would do if you were in Abd's situation. Why don't you ask another equally valid question. What would you do if you were in Jojo's position. This problem has a very very very simple solution you know. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:02 PM Subject: [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.
Mark, would you be willing to act as an impartial moderator of this forum. I have found your objectivity and integrity to be acceptable and I'm sure others do so as well. Can we all agree to abide by Mark's ruling if he accepts the position? You would have to moderate all posts including all off-topic posts, that in your judgement is excessive and clearly off-topic. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd. Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I've also noticed that most of the ol' timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. NONE of either JJ's or Abd's postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone else's either in any significant way. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just can't help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else. which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
[Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so. This is just too important to leave unresolved. On further googling the terms bestiality and islam, I found this page which has NOTHING to do with bestiality, but does document islam's practice with regards to prepubescent little girls. Read it and decide for yourself, whether I or Lomax is lying. The references are well documented medical and muslims sources, so Lomax can not say they are biased. A couple of points to highlight. 1. A'isha's age at the time of consummation is not in dispute among muslim scholars. It is well documented and well accepted. She was 9 years old. 2. There is evidence A'isha was prepubescent when muhammed had intercourse with her. 3. This practice remains a significant practice in muslim countries to this day. Read about the muslim cleric in Indonesia. 4. A little girl's body is in fact not ready for sexual intercourse and pregnancy at the age of 9. Regular ovulation does not start until a significant amount of time after menses (regularly up to 2 years from the first menses.) Mammary gland start of development does not start until the first menses. Check out the medical references. This is what I said with my pig breeding posts that many found to be too offensive. Now, decide for yourself which of us both is lying. http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4 Please read the link before you call for my banning and decide for yourself if this practice is acceptable to you. Decide if you will allow this practice to your 9 year old daughter. Decide which of us both is lying. I am not claiming the site is unbiased, I am claiming that the references in the site is unbiased. Muslim sources should be acceptable to muslims. Instead of saying Lomax has excellent research skills, why not just research the links and references of this site. Decide for yourself which of us both is lying. Research for yourself before you are enthralled by Lomax's lengthy essays and assume that it is a well-researched response. Jojo PS. Note that I have not insulted Lomax in this posts at all. But if he finds the truth offensive, there is nothing I can do about that.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
OK, who in this forum doubts the existence of Julius Ceasar, the Roman Emperor. No one in his right mind would. But, people call the existence of Jesus Christ a myth. When in fact, the existence of Jesus Christ is supported by a hundred times more literary, archeological and historical evidence compared to Julius Ceasar. My friends, it is not about facts, why people don't believe. It's about choice. People reject what they don't want to believe. That is why no matter how the Bible is verified, how many facts I present, it would still be fiction to some people. Acknowledging otherwise would upset their belief system so much as to be untenable for them. If Jesus Christ were to physically show up in front of Daniel Rocha, he would still find a way to rationalize it. Heck, maybe it was just that heavy bologna sandwich he had for dinner. That was nothing more than indigestion. It's sad but true. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Works of fiction can blend reality and the craziest of fictions, to make it look plausible. Take as an example zombie stories: they are thrilling to many people precisely because the authors makes the dead raising plausible by setting it in the real world, with common people, not heroes or kings. -- Forwarded message -- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com Date: 2013/1/1 Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Now, we are getting into Philosophy. OK, I'll bite since I am not too busy yet. As to the issue of unverfiiable source. You need to define what you mean by unverifiable. How does one go about verifying a history book like the Bible? You call it unverifiable because you choose to not believe it despite evidence as to its integrity. Archeologists have verified many of the statements in the Bible. Long lost cities, locations, practices and cultures have been verified to have existed according to what is written in the Bible. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Tell me your background Chan. What degrees do you have? Jojo - Original Message - From: leaking pen To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so And everything you might have to say from this point doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with the list , or modern muslims. You are a bigot, stretching to find reasons to have your bigotry. We are SCIENTISTS. We should be above and beyond this kind of behavior. Go Away.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
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. I issued a challenge to anyone reading to do this. I think this might be a worthwhile little project for you, instead of just complaining all day long. If you want to prove that the Bible is an unverfiable source, find one fact that has been proven to be wrong. It's very simple; very straitforward and very effective at shutting those people who believe in the Bible. Find something and If I do not have an answer, I'll research it. Doing this is the only way one can verify for himself that the Bible is indeed an accurate book when it comes to science. Jojo - Original Message - From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age On 01/01/2013 01:38 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: As to the issue of unverfiiable source. You need to define what you mean by unverifiable. How does one go about verifying a history book like the Bible? You can't... and that's the point. Craig
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Do you have evidence that all this things you mentioned are fiction? I don't believe you have. You just decided not to believe it so in your eyes it is fiction. As a matter of fact, there is evidence of these things you call fiction. There is scientific evidence for a young Earth consistent with the creation story. There is evidence for the existence of Eden (Paradise). There is evidence for the tower of babel. In fact, archeologists are excavating this site as we speak. There is surely evidence for the flood. The grand canyon is a gorge created by the great flood. Fossil Graveyards are accumulation of fossils from different animals swept by the flood into a single location. My friend, there is evidence. The Bible is not fiction. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age You assume I was talking about Jesus and that is not rational. I mentioned an example of how a genere iction can be blend with real facts to make it look more real. For example, the whole creation business, paradise story, tower of babel, flood, are all fiction, but as story progresses it starts to blend with reality or (pseudo) historical record. 2013/1/1 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com If Jesus Christ were to physically show up in front of Daniel Rocha, he would still find a way to rationalize it. Heck, maybe it was just that heavy bologna sandwich he had for dinner. That was nothing more than indigestion. It's sad but true. Jojo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
My friend, read the link first and then come and and we'll discuss. Stop the uninformed speculations. All the things you've said is addressed by the link. Evidence from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari is presented. Study it first lest you look ignorant. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so. This is just too important to leave unresolved. It's always too important to keep the promise. The whole farrago of topics are too important not to dwell on. Jojo has called himself a turd, i.e, worthless and despicable. That's his own image of himself. It's a pathology that afflicts many of us, whether we talk about it or not, it's essentially Satanic, if you know the story of Satan. Satan speaks to us from where we do not recognize him (Qur'an). I.e., we think it's us, and, of course, we don't lie to ourselves, do we? Yes, we do. With training, the lies can be recognized. They will not stop, apparently, that's just the way it is. But we don't have to *believe* them. The ancient solution to this dilemma is to trust in reality, to keep identifying the voice of Satan and trust in reality *in spite of it.* Just keep trusting. Trust is not a belief, it's an action that is taken, an action to *stop* believing all the stories that Satan tells. I.e., that *our brain tells.* Keeping his word is not important to Jojo because he actually believes he's a turd. Who cares about the word of a turd, it's absurd? There is a function to our brain, it's there, and it's necessary, for survival. Temporary survival. We will not find what endures, only through listening to and believing that the patterns of neuronal activity that we experience are true. They are just patterns, and patterns of patterns. They can be *useful,* but as soon as we believe they are truth, we are radically stuck. They just are what they are. Now, to the point here. On further googling the terms bestiality and islam, I found this page which has NOTHING to do with bestiality, but does document islam's practice with regards to prepubescent little girls. Getting in trouble again? Looking for stuff to toss, try all kinds of outrageous search terms. Just to do some research here, I think I'll Google Christian bestiality. Wonder what I'll find? This research stuff is tough work but someone has to do it. Actually, no. I haven't entered that search and won't. Someone else can waste their time. Read it and decide for yourself, whether I or Lomax is lying. The references are well documented medical and muslims sources, so Lomax can not say they are biased. I very much doubt that the pages mention me. I haven't looked yet, but I can already tell that there is bias present. This may come as a shock to Jojo, but Muslims are not of one mind on things. Just as Jojo argues, but not all Christians would believe his arguments, there are strong arguments made that are *made up* by some Muslims. A scholar wants to prove something, so he searches through the body of tradition, and it's huge, and highly variable in reliability, and finds something that seems to support his conclusion. He cares not at all for *other conclusions* that might be drawn from it. He's a bulldog, out to prove *one thing.* And so you can find all kinds of crap out there, if you search for it. A couple of points to highlight. 1. A'isha's age at the time of consummation is not in dispute among muslim scholars. It is well documented and well accepted. She was 9 years old. That's arguable. I've never denied it is false, except for the not in dispute claim. I've pointed to argument by knowledgeable Muslims that differ on this. However, I have also, then, considered the case if the reports are true. The reports do not actually prove consummation. I consider it likely, however, that they are about consummation, but the reports do not establish how the persons -- including Ayesha herself -- knew how old she was. This is the problem with hearsay evidence, the witness cannot be queried. *Her age in years was not considered important.* That seems incredible in today's world, but this wasn't today's world. This was a mostly non-literate society, with no birth records. Age was not a standard for *anything,* the present physical and mental condition of a boy or girl were *everything.* The consent of the wali (a girl's father, in this case), was *essential*. The wali determines readiness for all aspects except one, actual sexual maturity. It has been so in *every culture* when it was pre-literate, and age-based standards only arose in rule-of-law societies. So when Ayesha is *reported
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
John, You seem to have attempted to answer my challenge on 2 fronts. First, the geocentricity of the Earth and the Second, the age of the Earth. OK, Let's examine the evidence you've provided. 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. 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 is just the opinion of some scholars. But I do believe in a young Earth, how young exactly, I do not know. The Bible does not say. You also mentioned Noah's flood and you provided Ice core evidence, sea shell evidnece etc. Show me the data for these? 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. Come on, this is your best scientific evidence? You can do better and it does not help that you cap out immediately by saying that I will not look at your evidence. I am currently in an offline discussion with a respected member of Vortex and he can attest that I am looking at the data he presents. Regarding you claims of contradictions, please elaborate. What contradictions? Jojo PS. As I said in my original challenge. It would help if you can post one objection at a time. If you overwhelm me with a bunch of issues to address and respond to, I will not be able to answer it in a meaningful way. That of course is counterproductive, unless that is what you want to begin with. - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution On 1/01/2013 2:47 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: ... I have still to encounter a statement in the Bible that science has found to be categorically false. I challenge you or anyone to prove me wrong on this. But do it one at a time so that I can respond properly to it. Do not cut and paste a blog from an Atheist web site. I won't have time or the capability to respond to that in a meaningful way. Let's start with one that we can probably all agree on: I was rather amazed to find recently that there was a Professor Philip Stott arguing on an international website of a doctoral degree granting theological seminary, that the earth really was fixed and that the sun etc revolved around it! (I don't blame the seminary - I am impressed that they allow such freedom of expression! and he is not a Professor of the seminary) Here is a link to some of his writing regarding geocentricity: http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/geo/pages/01-thinking-reasoning-geocentrically.htm Quoting a snippet: To the Bible-believers of Copernicus's day there was simply no doubt about the Bible's geocentricity. Copernicus said surely it is more reasonable to assume that the earth rotates once each day than that the entire universe rotates around it. Calvin countered with The heavens revolve daily; immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions [commentary to Psalm 93:1] in deliberate scripture-based contradiction. Luther, speaking of Copernicus's idea said Even in these things which are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures. Galileo was so confident that the Bible puts the earth stationary at the centre of the universe that to disregard it he had to say In matters concerning the natural sciences Holy Writ must occupy the last place. Why were they so certain of the Bible's stand? Well for one thing Genesis 1 tells us that God created the unformed watery waste of the earth on the first day. On day two He separated the waters above from the waters below by an expanse called the firmament, and on the fourth day He set the sun moon and stars in this firmament. Where is the possibility for the day-one-created earth to be circling around the day-four-created sun? And so he goes on, completely convinced that the Bible states that the earth is fixed in space and accepting this fact by faith in the testimony of the One who can [stand outside the universe and look in]. As scientific support for a fixed earth he mentions
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Have you read the link? It provides muslim sources that categorically say the things I am saying. How can one who claims to be objective say that Lomax is right about this. You fancy yourself as being objective right? If not, I have nothing else to discuss with you. I will only discuss with people who want the truth, not win with propaganda and lies. What evidence has Lomax actually provided? And how good is that evidence? My evidence is Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. Two of the most respected and venerated mulsim scholarly works. He's is wikipedia and Internet opinion blogs and his evidence is better than mine? Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Are you actually claiming that Lomax is fluent in Arabic? Please if you are, point to me where he said that. I don't read his lengthy tiresome essays completely so I may have missed that. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. The problem it is not that he is informed. Not only vastly more than you, since he can actually not only read the canon in Arabic but also criticisms and counter criticisms, discussion, of the highest authorities, all in Arabic. Although we should all question whatever people tells us, he provided enough evidence that you be just either a troll or fanatical to not accept as true, or much more probable as true than what you can find, whatever Abd says. 2013/1/1 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com My friend, read the link first and then come and and we'll discuss. Stop the uninformed speculations. All the things you've said is addressed by the link. Evidence from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari is presented. Study it first lest you look ignorant. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so. This is just too important to leave unresolved. It's always too important to keep the promise. The whole farrago of topics are too important not to dwell on. Jojo has called himself a turd, i.e, worthless and despicable. That's his own image of himself. It's a pathology that afflicts many of us, whether we talk about it or not, it's essentially Satanic, if you know the story of Satan. Satan speaks to us from where we do not recognize him (Qur'an). I.e., we think it's us, and, of course, we don't lie to ourselves, do we? Yes, we do. With training, the lies can be recognized. They will not stop, apparently, that's just the way it is. But we don't have to *believe* them. The ancient solution to this dilemma is to trust in reality, to keep identifying the voice of Satan and trust in reality *in spite of it.* Just keep trusting. Trust is not a belief, it's an action that is taken, an action to *stop* believing all the stories that Satan tells. I.e., that *our brain tells.* Keeping his word is not important to Jojo because he actually believes he's a turd. Who cares about the word of a turd, it's absurd? There is a function to our brain, it's there, and it's necessary, for survival. Temporary survival. We will not find what endures, only through listening to and believing that the patterns of neuronal activity that we experience are true. They are just patterns, and patterns of patterns. They can be *useful,* but as soon as we believe they are truth, we are radically stuck. They just are what they are. Now, to the point here. On further googling the terms bestiality and islam, I found this page which has NOTHING to do with bestiality, but does document islam's practice with regards to prepubescent little girls. Getting in trouble again? Looking for stuff to toss, try all kinds of outrageous search terms. Just to do some research here, I think I'll Google Christian bestiality. Wonder what I'll find? This research stuff is tough work but someone has to do it. Actually, no. I haven't entered that search and won't. Someone else can waste their time. Read it and decide for yourself, whether I or Lomax is lying. The references are well documented medical and muslims sources, so Lomax can not say they are biased. I very much doubt that the pages mention me. I haven't looked yet, but I can already tell that there is bias present. This may come as a shock to Jojo, but Muslims are not of one mind on things. Just as Jojo argues, but not all Christians would believe his arguments, there are strong arguments made that are *made up* by some Muslims. A scholar wants to prove something, so he
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
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]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Lomax, have you actually read the link? It seems to me that you are still asserting a lot of things contrary to Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.. Are you saying you reject the accuracy of the accounts written in these 2 works. If you do, how can one have a meaningful debate with you. You say that only evangelical sources support what I am saying. Now, it is clear that 2 respected and venerated muslim scholarly sources support what I am saying and you still will not accept it? The Sahih Muslim and the Sahih Bukhari are corrupt in your opinion? because they clearly say that A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed consumated the marriage. There is even evidence he did that prior to A'isha's first menses contrary to your assertions. Are you actually saying that we take your word over that of Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari? By what authority or scholarship can you make such audacious claims? Are you still contending that a 9 year old girl who may or who may not have had her first menses is a sexually mature young woman. You realize that if you are contending this, you are arguing against many medical sources which says sexual maturity occurs about 2 years after the first menses, as I have been contending all along. The evidence is in from reliable sources. A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed first had intercourse with her. She may or may not have had her first menses. Either way, she was still not sexually mature according to the medical sources. And clearly, A'isha was not mature enough to have given consent to the marriage proposal. For creeps sake, she was still playing with dolls, which according to islam law, she is allowed to do because she was not considered an adult yet. She was still considered a child. The evidence is clear and reliable and yet we find Lomax still clinging to his beloved prophet instead of denouncing his actions, he still tries to justify it, and continues the same lies. I'm not surprised. He can lie to protect the honor of muhammed. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:41 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4 This post is a response to that web page. For this post Jojo Jaro is irrelevant. I will thank him, however, for pointing me to this page, because it is an opportunity for me to become clear about an issue that comes up in religious apologetics. To the page quotations, unless otherwise specified, are of Silas, the anonymous author of the page. Silas presents many facts, off-hand, that are not accurate. I'll note them, but will not debate them, other than to make counter-assertions along the way. I believed what many Muslims asserted: Muhammad sexually consummated his marriage to the nine year old Aisha following her first menstruation. Many Muslims assert this, though the actual sources do not indicate sexual consummation as such, nor do they indicate the numbers of menses past. The practice of Islamic law, as far as I've been able to determine, is united on one point: if *no menses* have occurred, and if a woman is not obviously otherwise mature, and is apparently a child, to consummate the marriage is rape. What Silas does here is to overstate the case, based on what many Muslims assert, which can then be a total minority position. I realized that the Quran, the Hadith, and Muslim scholar's writings state that a Muslim husband can engage in sex with a child-bride before she has her first menses Remarkable. He's concluded from sources what has apparently escaped the notice of most Muslim scholars. Is there *one* who would agree with him? Many Muslims don't know this and by their own standards Muhammad did the wrong thing in having sex with a child. I'll say this right now, before reading Silas's sources. If the sources actually show this, *they are corrupt.* However, I already know some of the elements that Silas probably puts together. Yes. By our standards -- and this includes, as far as I know, so far -- even the most befogged Muslim scholars -- having sex with a child (defined in this case as a female who has not reached sexual maturity, and with no accessory condition that would allow marriageability, such as being, say, old but non-menstruating, never having menstruated) -- is an enormity. A 49 year old man asks his best friend if he could have his permission to marry his 6 year old daughter. That may not have been the sequence; the stories I recall do not initiate the conversation with Muhammad, but with a relative. But never mind. It doesn't matter. Just so it's clear that marriage, here, means betrothal. Some 2 to 3 years later, just after he had fled to Medina, he consummated
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about Nothing relevant here : PLEASE GO AWAY
Alan, you are trying to be funny right? Episcopalian Atheist? What is that? Did you start out as an Episopalian and ended up as an Atheist? What field is your PhD. You worked in the semiconductor industry, I presume, designing chips? If so, you are worth your weight in gold. I always get calls from headhunters to ask if I know of any ASIC engineers and they always say they were willing to pay whatever the guy was asking. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about Nothing relevant here : PLEASE GO AWAY Tell me your background Chan. What degrees do you have? From: leaking pen And everything you might have to say from this point doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with the list , or modern muslims. You are a bigot, stretching to find reasons to have your bigotry. We are SCIENTISTS. We should be above and beyond this kind of behavior. Go Away. Ditto and likewise. And before you ask, Episcopalian Atheist, B.Sc, B.Sc(Hons), M.Sc., Ph.D : 50 years computer experience, 40 Years in the semiconductor industry.
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
OK , Lomax, you are an expert in deception and twist and spin. I bow to your skill and go away. The entire list can document this time that I am letting Lomax have the last word. I will no longer post unless asked a specific question or insulted whether directly or in reference. Please let this escalating round of insults end. I'm tired. One of my new year's resolution is not to engage with Lomax anymore. Can't win with liars? (I know I know, but you may insult me back one more time and I will not respond. But I will respond to further insults beyond one.) Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity At 12:45 AM 12/31/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Herein is the fallacy of your comments. You claim that the insults are mild, and that I do not have the right to respond to mild insults. Beautiful. My post is quoted below. I did not claim that Jojo did not have the right to respond. I don't see that I called the insults mild. Some comments that Jojo responded to were mild, one was essentially Fuck you. This is the lie you keep on propagating. Whether the insult in mild or grave is not for you to decide. I didn't say mild. But I do have the right to my opinions. Opinions like mild or grave are not fact. The person that the insult is directed at is the person that has the right to decide whether the insult was mild or grave. You have no right to claim that I should not be offended because in your eyes, the insult is mild. That's bullcrap. I did not say that Jojo should not be offended. Heck, in my eyes, calling allah a moon god and calling muhammed a sex pervert is a mild insult; yet I do not go around and lie that your response to me was improper because I only mildly insulted you. The graveness of the insult is the gravenes of how the recipient have percieved it. The recipient's perception is the only valid basis for deciding whether an insult is mild or grave. By this standard, then, given that many *would* respond to those statements as highly offensive, and given that one list member was obviously so highly insulted by Jojo's comments that he responded with fuck you, Jojo has just condemned himself as having issued grave insults without grave provocation. Jojo's comment in that case was actually mild -- my opinion --, by comparison with others, but it had an effect that could have been predicted. All my insults have always been a response to an insult, whether personal, as in F*** yourself or general as in the Bible is a fairy tale or The Bible is written by illiterate goat herders. Both statements are false, and insulting whether they are personal or general. For the same reason why you feel that I have insulted you by calling muhammed a sex pervert. No, you did not insult me by saying that. You insulted friends of mine, and you insulted me by calling me a liar when I described what you had done *accurately,* often with links, and by dismissing the product of my sincere research as lies, without actually pointing out *one lie,* and totally disregarding evidence. You seem to think that my vigorous response to an insult is unwarranted because the initial insults are mild. Seem is the operative word here. It seems so to Jojo. I don't think Jojo's response was unwarranted, but I'll say right now that it was insane, it was excessive for Vortex, which is a *social judgment.* That is not for you to decide my friend. You have no right to dictate the level of response I give out. That's correct. Jojo decides, and Jojo is responsible for what Jojo does, and cannot shift responsibility to others because he perceives them as insulting him. But I can assure you, I take great pains in deciding the level of nastiness I give back. I take considerable consideration that it is always calibrated to the level of nastiness directed my way. Jojo From this mail, as is common here, the judgment is deranged. Insults have been perceived when there was none. Jojo fantastizes about what has been said about him. When the truth is written, he *reads contempt into it.* That reveals how he actually thinks about himself. A turd, he called himself in several posts. It's all made up. He is not a turd. Satan tells him he is, and he fights with Satan, something that Jesus advised against. He projects this war all over us. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a problem appeared. Ultimately, this study leads
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
LOL LOL LOL At least one person is seeing thru the fog of spin and deception put up by Lomax. My job is done and is an unqualified success. Jojo PS. I have proven both statements to be true. A'isha was indeed a little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS as evidenced by her preoccupation with dolls. Which adult woman who is emotionally mature would bring dolls to her wedding. Of course, Lomax spins this saying that this is just like a Doll collector bringing dolls to her new home. But, honest and objective people know that that is not the case. She brought her dolls because she was still playing with it. Second, Lomax have proven it to everybody that muslims do indeed approve of sexual relations with a 9 year old. This is shocking to me cause I truly expected Lomax (being a moderate westernized muslim), to oppose and condemn muhammed's retrograde action. Yet, to my shock and amazement, he actually defended and tried to justify it. - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 6:31 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity 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 On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM, de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com wrote: That a statement is endlessly repeated does not make it true. I posted at length on the family practices of the Arabian peninsula, as they pertained to Christian, Jewish, and pantheistic communities, and to the pre-revelatory emergence of Islam, which limited some of the practices that many people today criticize. But Jojo seems not to have seen this posting, though he did say he would respond to it (and this I hope from his own knowledge rather than assertian-based pseudo-sources), for he repeats assertions that are shown in the posting to be flat-out incorrect. On Dec 31, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone. The same corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it. No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. What is obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and over. Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued to emphasize it. Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole Harry
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
I believe I've responded to it my friend, just not directly to you. My response to you was the same response to Lomax. My response is repeated below: Just because the practice of sexual relations with 9 year old little girls was common, widespread and accepted in the Arabian peninsula during the time of muhammed does not mean that the practice is not CREEPY. Hindus have corrected this same practice and stopped having sexual relations with little girls several hundred years prior to muhammed's time. The Hindus did it, and yet a progressive prophet like muhammed did not stop this retrograde practice. My friend, just because your neighbors do it, does not mean you have to do it. Nor that it justify your actions. Molesting 9 year old little girls is just CREEPY, abhorrent and wrong, whatever the time period, or whatever everyone else is doing. Jojo PS. Note that this response is not a violation of my promise to stop insulting. Note that this is not an insult, just true facts. And this is also a post directed to me. I said I promised to stop posting unless there are insults or question directed to me. This is a question directed to me. - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity That a statement is endlessly repeated does not make it true. I posted at length on the family practices of the Arabian peninsula, as they pertained to Christian, Jewish, and pantheistic communities, and to the pre-revelatory emergence of Islam, which limited some of the practices that many people today criticize. But Jojo seems not to have seen this posting, though he did say he would respond to it (and this I hope from his own knowledge rather than assertian-based pseudo-sources), for he repeats assertions that are shown in the posting to be flat-out incorrect. On Dec 31, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone. The same corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it. No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. What is obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and over. Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued to emphasize it. Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole Harry
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
No my friend, no family members or caregivers were alcoholics. 10 for fishing effort though. No, I did not drink alcohol when I was younger because I was allergic to it. Since, I never acquired this bad habit when I was younger, I never thought of acquiring it now. Besides, after my conversion, I now find no redeeming value or pleasure in drinking beer. I hate the taste and it's deleterious effects on the body and my health. Drunkeness is a cause of many sins and problems in one's life. I have even limitted alcohol consumption of those people who work for me in my farm. They don't know it yet, but I have just done them a great favor that will benefit them for the rest of their lives. Jojo PS. I consider this insult to be your last word that I said I would allow. Please refrain from further insults. Note, that I have not insulted you in this response, so you do indeed have the last insult. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:36 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:List integrity I went digging through my Junk eMail folder to find what I was sure would be a response from Mr.Jaro. Mr. Jaro replied: And the provocations and insults continue. Since you are clearly incapable of conprehending simple English prose. I will spell it out for you. I drank a total of about 5 bottles of beer and I drank all of it before I was 20 years old. I haven't touched alcohol since then to the present. Jeepers, I thought I was clear. No wonder, we have a lot of conflict here. People's comprehension skills are just lacking. Indeed, I'm a flawed individual, Jojo. Nobodies' perfect... certainly not me. Thank god for that. So, you don't drink. Rigidly so. It strikes me that something very powerful about the effects of alcohol. more precisely the effects of alcoholism, must have made a huge impression on you. Why have you deliberately chosen not to touch a drop of alcohol since you were 20 years old? Did you personally witness the destructive power of alcoholism in some of the immediate care givers who were supposed to have been raising you? What happened? What did you do? More to the point, what did they do to you? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
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 Obama's vault BC. Below, I quote a bit of what I wrote, to which you are responding. I wrote, in more than one way, If he fails to apologize, or point to an actual order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a liar. Okay, how does this Order do that? What would cause this document to apply to birth records held by Hawaiian state officials? It's all here right in front of us, no more research should be necessary. But, also for the record, I'll say it again: There is no Executive Order that blocks public access to the vault birth certificate. That access is blocked by Hawaiian law
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
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 Lomax spins this again; may I simply ask readers to research this on their own to see which of us both is lying. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Are you saying your wife knows the exact school Obama went to? What's the name of the schoold and its address please? Can she descirbe what it looks like? When was the last time you wife has physically seen that school? Jojo Careful now, your next answer will reveal if you are lying about this or telling the truth as an actual witness of the school. Note, this is not an insult. I am forewarning you that I am attempting to set up a bait trap for you. - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies my wife know that school. it is a Jakarta dowtown secular state school... the country is muslim, yet there is 6 religion allowed, yet mandatory (you have to believe in one single god, with a paradise... that is the rule... whichever it is is your choice, even if like US there are political group using religion to reach power, and some increasing discrimination against minorities, nationally or locally) until recently when liberalisation inspired by humanrightists develop, the hijab (woman head scarf, which is much more sexy in indonesia than in saudi arabia) was forbidden in state school... and whatever you can say, it is clear Obama speak more like an evangelist priest... A bit shocking for a secular French, but if american love that style, it is their own freedom... Our choices since 10 years are criticized by more than 50% of the population, so we cannot give lessons... ah ah ;-) note also that what is evident from France is that US president is very weak because of the constitution, by design ... parliament rules and is republican... It is clear that US fear their government... whether it is good or not is not to be discussed... I just remind facts. 2012/12/31 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com 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
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Now, we are getting into Philosophy. OK, I'll bite since I am not too busy yet. As to the issue of unverfiiable source. You need to define what you mean by unverifiable. How does one go about verifying a history book like the Bible? You call it unverifiable because you choose to not believe it despite evidence as to its integrity. Archeologists have verified many of the statements in the Bible. Long lost cities, locations, practices and cultures have been verified to have existed according to what is written in the Bible. Most notably, the existence of theAssyrian Kingdom have recently been verified. For decades, nobody can find proof of the existence of the Assyrian Empire and its capital Nineveh. The Bible stood alone in its defense for the existence of the Assyrian Empire and its capital Nineveh. People scoofed at the Bible because it was wrong. Well, lo and behold, Nineveh has been found and replete with amazing cultural and archeological finds that establishes once and for all that it existed at the time period and location that the Bible said it was. But, did that increase you belief in the integrity of the Bible? I do not believe so. You still call it a fairy tale and unverifiable. Despite this kinds of discovery occuring hundreds and thousands of time, in all fields of science, you still call the Bible unverifiable. The Bible has verifed that the Earth was round in 3 different locations in the Bible. Yet, that is not enough to verfiy it. There are literally hundreds of statements about scientific facts we did not discover until recently, that is in the Bible. Yet, that is not enough to verify it. What will it take to verify the Bible for you my friend? You will finally believe that the Bible is true when you see Demons and fallen Angels descend down on you. But by then, it would be too late for you. You see my friend, you do not believe the Bible because you chose not to believe it; not because you CAN NOT believe it. Facts are there if you choose to believe it. Jojo - Original Message - From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age On 12/30/2012 11:09 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK, since you asked, do not call me a troll by answering this. Genesis chapter 6 is the source of this. This passage is the reason why God destroyed the Earth I think this is the source of the conflict: Epistemology dictates that all knowledge comes from observation. When we converse with each other in an attempt to exchange knowledge, we use the Universe around us as a reference point in the exchange of truth. There is no such thing as communication without this common reference point. Words refer to existents and communication is act of exchanging observations about the Universe. There is no other source for knowledge since the Universe is all that exists, by definition. This epistemology is at the foundation of science. Using a book, such as Genesis, as a source of information is not valid. It is heresay from an unverifiable source. Likewise, faith is not a means of cognition, since there is no independent way of ascertaining which faith is correct -- and what correct even means without a reference to the Universe. So Jaro, what you're seeing as insults, are challenges to your epistemology. They are not insults, but you may interpret them as such since such challenges rip at core beliefs. I also see a problem with definitions you use. You use terms like 'God' and 'Angels' without defining these terms. When I've spoken with Christians before on such terms, they have never provided a definition. With 'God', they will typically say that he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present, but such descriptions defy definition. To define something is to delimit it from other existents. Without a way to delimit its characteristics, it simply cannot exist. There is no difference between something that is 'everything' and something that is 'nothing'. Which characteristics would be different? There can't be a difference when there are no identifiable characteristics. Craig
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Yes, I believe Genesis and the Bible to be literraly true. (Not that I believe Jesus was a chicken because he said he would like to gather Jerusalem under his wings.) I believe it is true because I have verified it to be true. Beleive it or not, I was and am an engineer. I studied science. And I have found that the Bible is a science book. Not that it is exclusiviely a book about science, but it does contain enough science for one to verify. If the Bible had said that the Earth was a big plate standing on the backs of 4 elephants, then you would have a valid reason to call it a fairy tale. But every statement made by the Bible about science has been found to be true. After having read it over 29 times, I have still to encounter a statement in the Bible that science has found to be categorically false. I challenge you or anyone to prove me wrong on this. But do it one at a time so that I can respond properly to it. Do not cut and paste a blog from an Atheist web site. I won't have time or the capability to respond to that in a meaningful way. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Thanks, Jojo, I appreciate your response to my query. It seems to me that you have faith that Genesis is literally accurate. How did you find your way to this faith? Was it difficult? Easy? How unshakeable is your faith? Again,thank you for your response. On Dec 30, 2012, at 11:09 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK, since you asked, do not call me a troll by answering this. Genesis chapter 6 is the source of this. This passage is the reason why God destroyed the Earth with the flood. 6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. The Hebrew word translated as Giants is Nephilim. The Hebrew words for Sons of God literally means sons of Elohim. In the Old Testament, only direct creations of God are referred to as Sons of God. Only Adam, Eve and Angels are direct creations of God; but Eve is not a son, so that leaves Adam and Angels. So, clearly this passage refers to fallen angels mating with human females producing giants and mighty men of renown. Men of renown means these men are known by the various histories of the region. Throughout history and in every culture - Romans, Greeks, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Sumerian, etc, there is mythology relating to gods mating with human women producing extraordinary hybrids. The Sumerians have their Annunaki. The Greeks with their pantheon of gods which the Romans adopted wholesale more or less. In these mythology, there is Hercules, half god half man with great size and strength. There is Perseus, half god son of Zeus. There is Atlas, half god, big and strong depicted as carrying the Earth on his back. These are the men that are renown. Google the video Return of the Nephilim by Chuck Missler. Chuck used be in the Defense Industry. He was an insider. In his videos, he tries to document the link between Nephilims and modern UFOs. Watch it and judge for yourself. Of course, there are also other videos when you google UFOs, Nephilim, Annunaki, NWO, illuminati, etc. Some good some crazy. Judge for yourself. There are books about this subject. I do not play video games so I do not know if there are. I'm pretty this is as this is a common theme the illuminati wants to desensitize people on. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Thanks. This is fascinating. What are the sources for this information? There is reason to believe that fallen angels are trying to breed with humans
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
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. 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. So Lomax, based on your considerable research into this topic, what was A'isha age when muhammed started having intercourse with her? - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity At 05:31 PM 12/31/2012, 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? Obviously a nine year old is not barely out of diapers. Muslims disapprove of sexual relations outside of marriage, so the issue is marriage (and specifically the consummation of marriage). Muslims disapprove of the consummation of a marraige with a girl who is not sexually mature, specifically mentstruating. It's considered rape, because mensturation is a condition for a woman having reached the age of consent. This is not the only condition; parents, generally, determine the right to consent as well, and girls are not automatically free to make their own choices until much later than nine. Marriage requires consent. Specifically, the woman must consent. Muslims disapprove of the marriage of minor children without parental consent. (This is the same as U.S. law, generally.) *Some* Muslims believe that the wife of the Prophet was nine when she was married, and assume that the marriage was consummated. But this is actually not solidly establshed. Nevertheless, *those Muslims* sometimes, from the example, allow 9 years old as a lower limit, but, in fact, the limit is sexual maturity -- or whatever standard is established by the society, *in addition to parental consent.* (Technically, the wali consents, who is usually the father, but it can be others. A free woman sometimes appoints a wali, I've served.) *Most* Muslims disapprove of marriage that is not recognised by the society in which the parties live. Because of law in the United States, then, and in that place, Muslims disapprove of sexual relations with a nine-year old, no matter what the state of sexual maturity or parental consent. Under other conditions, their opinion might differ. All these discussions were about the *limits*. U.S. law, in some states, if I'm correct, still sets no minimum age for marriage, but requires judicial consent below a certain age, sometimes 14.
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Yes, I stand corrected. If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama. If calling for the proper transparency and objectivity from Darwinian Evolutionist is an insult, then yes, I've insulted them (Notice how Lomax clouds the issue. My problem is with Darwinian Evolutionists, not Evolutionary Biogists. This is the crux of the issue. Everyone is lulled into the belief that evolution automatically mean Darwinian Evolution. It does not. I happen to believe in evolution also. I believe in microevolution because I can see it with my own eyes. I haven't seen a turtle turn into a bird. LOL...) If telling the truth about muhammed and his practice of dozens of wives and concubines is an insult, then yes, I've insulted him. (It's your problem if you find the truth about your prophet offensive.) Not sure how I could have insulted A'isha. I have not insulted Abraham and Sarah. I pointed out that what they did was wrong. Even the Angel that promised Sarah a son corrected Abraham in this matter saying that the son you born with Haggar (Sarah's maid) will not inherit Abraham's wealth. He put aside the illegitimate child (Ishmael) in favor for the promised child (Isaac). I understand muslims find this offensive because they (modern muslim arabs) predominantly descended from the lineage of Ishmael, so they like to claim first born preferencial kinship to Abraham, but that is in fact not what the Bible said. Isaac was to be the one in favor over Ishmael. Ishmael was to be sent away. If muslims find the truth about their god and prophet an insult, then yes, I have insulted muslims by saying their god is the moon god of muhammed's tribe and muhammed had dozens of wives and concubines and had a 9 year old sex toy. All of which is the truth. So, muslims find the truth offensive. Interesting. Which Hawaiian State Registrar are you referring to? Name please? Are you implying that he or she has seen the original Birth Certificate. If so, I'd be curious if he said that the scanned copy he saw on the Internet is the same as the vault copy. As far as I know, no state official has actually said that the BC on the Internet was accurate. All they said was that they have the oriignal copy of Obama's BC under vault. They never mentioned anything about what it contained. Everyone was too afraid to cross the Illuminati. But other than these people that I have insulted, have I actually insulted anyone in Vortex-l first without being insulted first? Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity At 09:29 PM 12/29/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: ... my caustic postings are exclusively directed at people who insult me; I challenged anyone to sieve thru the archives to see if I have insulted people who have not insulted me. Barack Obama. Evolutionary biologists. Muhammad. His wife, Ayesha. Abraham and his wife Sarah. Every Muslim on the planet. (That's, what, one out of four people?) I could add, for example, the Hawaiian State Registrar, who apparently does not exist in Jojo's eyes, or is lying. Qutie obviously, Bill has examined the situation in Vortex-L and has seen that what I am doing here does not deserve banning like many of these trolls would like to advocate. But if he does ban me due to mob pressure, I will still not change my response to obvious bullies. I doubt very much that Bill has looked at the situation. Bill will not respond to mob pressure, I'm sure. I have not advocated banning Jojo. I've advocated warning him.
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
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 Obama's vault BC. Below, I quote a bit of what I wrote, to which you are responding. I wrote, in more than one way, If he fails to apologize, or point to an actual order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a liar. Okay, how does this Order do that? What would cause this document to apply to birth records held by Hawaiian state officials? It's all here right in front of us, no more research should be necessary. But, also for the record, I'll say it again: There is no Executive Order that blocks public access to the vault birth certificate. That access is blocked by Hawaiian law on the privacy of records (as is true, I think, in all states). Some access to records is blocked by HIPAA, a federal law relating to the privacy of medical records, and there are other laws protecting the privacy of certain records, but no relevant Executive Order that does what Jojo claims. He lied, and he is continuing to lie. But ... his turn. THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 21, 2009 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 - - - - - - - PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Clearly, everyone can see that I started my posting on Vortex-L with clearly high hopes. Then you mentioned that I started insulting. Did you bother to mention why I started insulting. Did you mention that I started insulting people who insulted me first? If I told you to F*** yourself, is that an imagined insult? You clearly take it as an insult when I call allah a moon good, and yet feel that when people call the Bible a fairy tale, that is not an insult? Lomax, my friend, that is why I call you a LIAR. You take parts of history and pick and choose what you want to support your fallacious history. Even now, when things are starting to calm down, you and SVJ continue the cycle of insults by continuing this. That's the reason why I despise you and who you are to the core. You take fallacy and lies to the next level without any qualms about it. You spin and lie and deceive people with your expert use of long wordy essays and you find no problem with that. Of course not, why should you; that is who you are. That is what you are expected to be. That is what you are taught to be. Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone. The same corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it. No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY. Jojo PS, But you win Lomax. My Christmas break is almost over. Come January, you will be left on your own to continue lying about me again. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a problem appeared. Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions. At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, I stand corrected. If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama. I will separately address this in another post. I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start insulting, but that others insult him, and he responds with insult. He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the Philippines, I think.) However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but nobody started debating evolution. But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was in response to a casual comment by James Bowery: I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class. This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this: that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, among most people interested in science. Were there some necessity to attack Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l -- okay. But there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected it with *everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! Jojo knew that he was changing the subject. He knew that it would be highly controversial. He anticipated shots. He implied that he'd not be responding. Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this: I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
OK, since you asked, do not call me a troll by answering this. Genesis chapter 6 is the source of this. This passage is the reason why God destroyed the Earth with the flood. 6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. The Hebrew word translated as Giants is Nephilim. The Hebrew words for Sons of God literally means sons of Elohim. In the Old Testament, only direct creations of God are referred to as Sons of God. Only Adam, Eve and Angels are direct creations of God; but Eve is not a son, so that leaves Adam and Angels. So, clearly this passage refers to fallen angels mating with human females producing giants and mighty men of renown. Men of renown means these men are known by the various histories of the region. Throughout history and in every culture - Romans, Greeks, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Sumerian, etc, there is mythology relating to gods mating with human women producing extraordinary hybrids. The Sumerians have their Annunaki. The Greeks with their pantheon of gods which the Romans adopted wholesale more or less. In these mythology, there is Hercules, half god half man with great size and strength. There is Perseus, half god son of Zeus. There is Atlas, half god, big and strong depicted as carrying the Earth on his back. These are the men that are renown. Google the video Return of the Nephilim by Chuck Missler. Chuck used be in the Defense Industry. He was an insider. In his videos, he tries to document the link between Nephilims and modern UFOs. Watch it and judge for yourself. Of course, there are also other videos when you google UFOs, Nephilim, Annunaki, NWO, illuminati, etc. Some good some crazy. Judge for yourself. There are books about this subject. I do not play video games so I do not know if there are. I'm pretty this is as this is a common theme the illuminati wants to desensitize people on. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Thanks. This is fascinating. What are the sources for this information? There is reason to believe that fallen angels are trying to breed with humans to create a hybrid race. The Bible called these hybrids Nephilims. They were universal during the days of Noah. They interbred with human women to give birth to giant hybrids - Hercules, Persues, Atlas etc. They interbreed with normal animal to give birth to hideous dinasaurs and loathsome creatures. What are the sources for this information, and for the rest of your statements in this email? Books? Are there any movies or video games that depict these themes? On Dec 27, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK, since you asked. Don't say I am trolling. There is reason to believe that fallen angels are trying to breed with humans to create a hybrid race. The Bible called these hybrids Nephilims. They were universal during the days of Noah. They interbred with human women to give birth to giant hybrids - Hercules, Persues, Atlas etc. They interbreed with normal animal to give birth to hideous dinasaurs and loathsome creatures. This was the primary reason why God had to wipe out the entire race of life on Earth with a global flood. Fallen angels and demons wanted to subvert the plan of God by corrupting man. If human DNA are all tainted with demonic DNA, the messiah, which has to come as a man (pure human) can not come. They would have effectively thwarted God's plan for redemption. The recent spate of UFO activity and the more blatant abduction of women seems to support this speculation. In almost all UFO abduction experience, what is the most common theme that these abductees are experiencing? It almost always has to do with the human reproductive system. Women's eggs
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
How do you know that? Mary's Age? Jojo - Original Message - From: leaking pen To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity You know that Mary was between probably 11 to 13 when she gave birth to Jesus, right? Menses was considered adulthood, and children were considered adults when they reached puberty, and treated that way, with all the rights and responsibilities. On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Clearly, everyone can see that I started my posting on Vortex-L with clearly high hopes. Then you mentioned that I started insulting. Did you bother to mention why I started insulting. Did you mention that I started insulting people who insulted me first? If I told you to F*** yourself, is that an imagined insult? You clearly take it as an insult when I call allah a moon good, and yet feel that when people call the Bible a fairy tale, that is not an insult? Lomax, my friend, that is why I call you a LIAR. You take parts of history and pick and choose what you want to support your fallacious history. Even now, when things are starting to calm down, you and SVJ continue the cycle of insults by continuing this. That's the reason why I despise you and who you are to the core. You take fallacy and lies to the next level without any qualms about it. You spin and lie and deceive people with your expert use of long wordy essays and you find no problem with that. Of course not, why should you; that is who you are. That is what you are expected to be. That is what you are taught to be. Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone. The same corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it. No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY. Jojo PS, But you win Lomax. My Christmas break is almost over. Come January, you will be left on your own to continue lying about me again. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a problem appeared. Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions. At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, I stand corrected. If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama. I will separately address this in another post. I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start insulting, but that others insult him, and he responds with insult. He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the Philippines, I think.) However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but nobody started debating evolution. But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was in response to a casual comment by James Bowery: I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class. This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this: that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, among most people interested in science. Were there some necessity to attack Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
And the provocations and insults continue. Since you are clearly incapable of conprehending simple English prose. I will spell it out for you. I drank a total of about 5 bottles of beer and I drank all of it before I was 20 years old. I haven't touched alcohol since then to the present. Jeepers, I thought I was clear. No wonder, we have a lot of conflict here. People's comprehension skills are just lacking. Jojo - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:49 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:List integrity Since I openly speculated about Mr. Jaro's habits I suspected he would respond. He did. I see that Jojo recently stated: For somebody who's worst drinking was less than 5 bottles of beer spread over the first 2 decades of his life; an insinuation that I am an alcoholic is a grave insult. Please refrain from insults. Jojo, I apologize to you personally (and as such to everyone on the vortex-l list within hearing range) if my speculations that you might be an alcoholic are baseless. You seem to be implying that you aren't. You specifically stated that you have had less than 5 bottles of beer spread over the first two decades of your life. First two decades of your life, you say? Are you really that young? If so, that would help explain a lot of your posting behavior. However... somehow I really don't think you're that young. Have you heard of the term: dry drunk? And then, there was something else you stated: I am NOT the problem. I am the solution to this madness. Really? That might also help explain your posting behavior... far more than baseless speculation on my part that you might be an alcoholic. Jeez! No wonder you 're so defensive and upset! Nothing seems to be going your way! I'd sure be upset too if I had gotten it into my head that I was the solution to this madness. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
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 Lomax spins this again; may I simply ask readers to research this on their own to see which of us both is lying. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 10:17 PM 12/30/2012, 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. Who says that? Muslims go to Christian schools all the time.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
I forgot movies. Yes, there are movies. And any movie of this genre always facinate me. It gives me a chance to peer into the minds of the illuminati. The themes they portray are the themes they would like to desensitize people on. Watch The Lightning Thief, where a kid, half son of Zeus is depicted as an ordinary boy. This is how the illuminati wants you to view hybrids. Watch The wrath of the Titans. where Zeus is depicted as a benevolent god with limited powers. Satan fancies himself as a god. And depicting Zeus as having limited powers is an attempt to insult God insinuating He has limited power. This is the work of the Illuminati. I find movies like Blade runner, The 4400, Limitless particularly instructing. It tells me the illuminati plans to enhance man with bioengineering and drugs. Then of course there are the Sexual Theme movies. I don't watch these as I already know what they are promoting. Remember, movies today are not just for entertainment anymore. They contain subliminal messages, themes, belief systems, trends and plans on what the illuminati is doing or plan to do. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Thanks. This is fascinating. What are the sources for this information? There is reason to believe that fallen angels are trying to breed with humans to create a hybrid race. The Bible called these hybrids Nephilims. They were universal during the days of Noah. They interbred with human women to give birth to giant hybrids - Hercules, Persues, Atlas etc. They interbreed with normal animal to give birth to hideous dinasaurs and loathsome creatures. What are the sources for this information, and for the rest of your statements in this email? Books? Are there any movies or video games that depict these themes? On Dec 27, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK, since you asked. Don't say I am trolling. There is reason to believe that fallen angels are trying to breed with humans to create a hybrid race. The Bible called these hybrids Nephilims. They were universal during the days of Noah. They interbred with human women to give birth to giant hybrids - Hercules, Persues, Atlas etc. They interbreed with normal animal to give birth to hideous dinasaurs and loathsome creatures. This was the primary reason why God had to wipe out the entire race of life on Earth with a global flood. Fallen angels and demons wanted to subvert the plan of God by corrupting man. If human DNA are all tainted with demonic DNA, the messiah, which has to come as a man (pure human) can not come. They would have effectively thwarted God's plan for redemption. The recent spate of UFO activity and the more blatant abduction of women seems to support this speculation. In almost all UFO abduction experience, what is the most common theme that these abductees are experiencing? It almost always has to do with the human reproductive system. Women's eggs are removed, men's sperms are collected, women are impregnated, etc. If these were truly biological beings - as in ET, why the preoccupation with the reproductive system . When we study lower lifeforms, are we preoccupied with how they reproduce? Yes, we study their reproduction but we also study their other systems. This is the normal behavior of a curious higher being studying a lower lifeform. But these UFO's are almost always studying human reproductive systems. Curious. There is reason to believe that these malevolent spiritual entities are trying to breed a super race of humans. Abduction have been going on for thousands of years and it is reasonable to speculate that they have successfully breed hybrids almost indistinguishable from normal humans. These hybrids have now risen to power worldwide and have infiltrated all of our institutions. These hybrids are the powers behind the Illuminati. So powerful and so entrenched are these hybrids that even presidents fear crossing them. They sent a clear lesson to all future presidents when they assasinated JFK. These illuminata satan worshippers and their hybrid handlers are the shadow government parasites bleeding our society dry. No one can oppose these hybrids. They can drive you mad with a thought - telepaths or they can squeeze your heart - Telekenetic. You can not oppose TEPs and TEKs. Only God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is holding them at bay. When the Holy Spirit is removed from this Earth at the Rapture of Christians, the floodgates of hell will literally open and these demonic hybrids will consume all life. This my friends is what you are looking forward to if you are not a saved believer. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Herein is the fallacy of your comments. You claim that the insults are mild, and that I do not have the right to respond to mild insults. This is the lie you keep on propagating. Whether the insult in mild or grave is not for you to decide. The person that the insult is directed at is the person that has the right to decide whether the insult was mild or grave. You have no right to claim that I should not be offended because in your eyes, the insult is mild. That's bullcrap. Heck, in my eyes, calling allah a moon god and calling muhammed a sex pervert is a mild insult; yet I do not go around and lie that your response to me was improper because I only mildly insulted you. The graveness of the insult is the gravenes of how the recipient have percieved it. The recipient's perception is the only valid basis for deciding whether an insult is mild or grave. All my insults have always been a response to an insult, whether personal, as in F*** yourself or general as in the Bible is a fairy tale or The Bible is written by illiterate goat herders. Both statements are false, and insulting whether they are personal or general. For the same reason why you feel that I have insulted you by calling muhammed a sex pervert. You seem to think that my vigorous response to an insult is unwarranted because the initial insults are mild. That is not for you to decide my friend. You have no right to dictate the level of response I give out. But I can assure you, I take great pains in deciding the level of nastiness I give back. I take considerable consideration that it is always calibrated to the level of nastiness directed my way. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a problem appeared. Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions. At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, I stand corrected. If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama. I will separately address this in another post. I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start insulting, but that others insult him, and he responds with insult. He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the Philippines, I think.) However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but nobody started debating evolution. But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was in response to a casual comment by James Bowery: I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class. This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this: that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, among most people interested in science. Were there some necessity to attack Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l -- okay. But there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected it with *everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! Jojo knew that he was changing the subject. He knew that it would be highly controversial. He anticipated shots. He implied that he'd not be responding. Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this: I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the reason why I
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
You can not use your own speculation to support your argument. You speculate that that was true and use that to support your assertion. Faulty logic. Find me evidence that that is true. It's common for Americans to imbibe Beer and Alcohol on a daily basis, but I don't and many people don't. That is the fallacy of your argument. Jojo - Original Message - From: leaking pen To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity because that was what was common at the time! Anything different would have been commented on as unusual. On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: How do you know that? Mary's Age? Jojo - Original Message - From: leaking pen To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity You know that Mary was between probably 11 to 13 when she gave birth to Jesus, right? Menses was considered adulthood, and children were considered adults when they reached puberty, and treated that way, with all the rights and responsibilities. On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Clearly, everyone can see that I started my posting on Vortex-L with clearly high hopes. Then you mentioned that I started insulting. Did you bother to mention why I started insulting. Did you mention that I started insulting people who insulted me first? If I told you to F*** yourself, is that an imagined insult? You clearly take it as an insult when I call allah a moon good, and yet feel that when people call the Bible a fairy tale, that is not an insult? Lomax, my friend, that is why I call you a LIAR. You take parts of history and pick and choose what you want to support your fallacious history. Even now, when things are starting to calm down, you and SVJ continue the cycle of insults by continuing this. That's the reason why I despise you and who you are to the core. You take fallacy and lies to the next level without any qualms about it. You spin and lie and deceive people with your expert use of long wordy essays and you find no problem with that. Of course not, why should you; that is who you are. That is what you are expected to be. That is what you are taught to be. Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone. The same corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it. No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY. Jojo PS, But you win Lomax. My Christmas break is almost over. Come January, you will be left on your own to continue lying about me again. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a problem appeared. Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions. At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, I stand corrected. If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama. I will separately address this in another post. I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start insulting, but that others insult him, and he responds with insult. He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the Philippines, I think.) However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but nobody started debating evolution. But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Axil, I think you mentioned this before. The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA By tinkering with this junk DNA, genetics experts have reawakened long suppressed dinosaur-like traits in a modified chicken. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: Genetics experts stopped calling the non-coding regions 'junk' some time ago. They might say something like 'what used to be called junk DNA'. I have been wondering whether certain aspects of the information that defines an organism is not contained in the DNA, but instead certain specific regions of the DNA are able to 'tune into' information from previous generations of the organism which have similar sequences. Nigel On 28/12/2012 01:38, David Roberson wrote: It is funny when I hear of junk DNA as described by the genetics experts. Why choose to call something unknown as junk instead of just admitting that it is not understood? Reminds me of the old theory about the amount of one's brain that is being used. I just wish people would lay out the facts that they know and not judge the unknowns. I guess some would call LENR junk physics! Dave
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
I couldn't agree more. I even tried to call myself a turd to try to bring home the point that it is not worth the effort to insult me. But still, Lomax and others see it fit to play with the turd. LOL Heck, I want nothing more than for people to ignore me if they disagree, but I have as much right to express an opinion without insults. And as a matter of fact, I was discussing calmly with civility before Lomax started insulting again. That is a fact that you can verify. As for Joseph Hao, he is a good friend. We used to work together on some free energy projects most notably on some HHO and Veg Oil/ Biodiesel projects and we were co-workers for a while. We went to graduate school together in San Diego State (MS Computer Science) a long time ago. This was a common email we used on all our free energy projects correspondence. He was the one who first subscribed this account to Vortex-LI have been exclusively using this email since I left the country. Yes, he is in Atlanta and he is in fact a CCIE RS and is studying for his CCIE Voice. Jojo . - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should be banned also. Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll? Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up. This is a weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages behavior unbecoming a scientific list. There are many services that will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is ultimately an ineffective ruse. Sometimes merely googleing an email address will yield the identity. For example, google (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124 http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in Atlanta. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To visit this topic, use this URL: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000124 Posted by Joseph Hao (Member # 3289) on June 14, 2004, 02:42 PM: Any folks out there studying for CCIE Voice Lab in Atlanta? [snip] Joseph CCIE #9273 jth...@hotmail.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw, and warn off victims. To bullies the response should be to do what you want and ignore the bully. The response to truly disruptive and egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by ISPs. The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^) That's my 2 cents worth, from a member of the list for over 15 years. Resuming lurk mode. Best Regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Nigel, I would love to discuss DNA sequences with you. Honestly, I would like to really understand why people say that Darwinian Evolution is true. For example, I would like to know which basic tenet of Darwinian Evolution you're referring to. But, before we begin, I need a promise that no matter how heated our disagreement becomes, that no insults be thrown. If you are capable of doing that, I would love to discuss this with you. Are you a Microbiologist? If so, I am looking forward to asking a bunch of questions. What is your field of training if you don't mind me asking. As for me, I have degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Recently, I've dabbled in Agriculture and Animal Science. Jojo - Original Message - From: Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens. This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture. Ditto Darwinian evolution. Nigel On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: Axil, I think you mentioned this before. The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment.And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life. My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a species can evolve into another species. It's this whole nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a problem with. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say what God’s plan of creation is? Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect life from the whims of the universe. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens. This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture. Ditto Darwinian evolution. Nigel On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: Axil, I think you mentioned this before. The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
I haven't insulted anyone for over 24 hours now and I thought that things would start to simmer down as people stopped insulting me; and yet out of the blue, a fresh insult pops up to stoke new heat on the dying embers of the conflict. SVJ has admitted openly that he does this intentionally to provoke a strong reaction from me. This is the pattern of behavior that is the problem here in Vortex-L. Not me. For somebody who's worst drinking was less than 5 bottles of beer spread over the first 2 decades of his life; an insinuation that I am an alcoholic is a grave insult. Please refrain from insults. Instead of acknowledging that my caustic postings are exclusively directed at people who insult me; SVJ comes up with an insult veiled as a crackpot theory of my alcoholism. This is the integrity of this list that has gone downhill. And contrary to some people's assertion, I am NOT the problem. I am the solution to this madness. I challenged anyone to sieve thru the archives to see if I have insulted people who have not insulted me. A few folks immediately come to mind. Have I insulted Axil, David Roberson, Fran Roarty, Jones Beene, Terry Blanton, Nigel Dyer, Mark Iverson, etc. These are some of the most intelligent scientific minds in this forum and they know how to behave like adults, unlike some self appointed experts and off-topic trolls here. So Lomax, SVJ, Rocha, Peter Gluck, Jouni and some thers don't like my opinions; as I don't like theirs. But I never start insulting them. They always start it. If I have a problem with them, I always direct it to personal email as I have done with Peter. That is the proper way for civilized individuals to act. Qutie obviously, Bill has examined the situation in Vortex-L and has seen that what I am doing here does not deserve banning like many of these trolls would like to advocate. But if he does ban me due to mob pressure, I will still not change my response to obvious bullies. Jojo - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 6:13 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:List integrity From Mr. Lomax: ... But Jojo's writings here also vary in quality. Sometimes his spelling is atrocious, sometimes accurate. I have been wondering if Mr. Jaro drinks. In fact, for some time now I have wondered if Mr. Jaro drinks a lot. It might help explain some of his occasionally caustic posting behaviors. Alcoholism, among other issues. It's possible that if one were to sift through the history of Mr. Jaro's postings one might begin to discern a distinct 24 hour pattern as to when his spelling tends to be accurate and when it becomes less so. Quite frankly, it's beyond my desire to care to find out. However there might be others on this list that might consider it an interesting challenge. I'm wondering if Jojo needs an intervention. (Not my department.) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
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 Obama's vault BC. Below, I quote a bit of what I wrote, to which you are responding. I wrote, in more than one way, If he fails to apologize, or point to an actual order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a liar. Okay, how does this Order do that? What would cause this document to apply to birth records held by Hawaiian state officials? It's all here right in front of us, no more research should be necessary. But, also for the record, I'll say it again: There is no Executive Order that blocks public access to the vault birth certificate. That access is blocked by Hawaiian law on the privacy of records (as is true, I think, in all states). Some access to records is blocked by HIPAA, a federal law relating to the privacy of medical records, and there are other laws protecting the privacy of certain records, but no relevant Executive Order that does what Jojo claims. He lied, and he is continuing to lie. But ... his turn. THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 21, 2009 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 - - - - - - - PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) Archivist refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee. (b) NARA refers to the National Archives and Records Administration. (c) Presidential Records Act refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207. (d) NARA regulations refers to the NARA
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Fair enough. Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you are confusing this with how islam treats women. You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who justify it. Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by faith for now. Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical statement that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as fact in science. The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific facts like the Earth is round. One only needs to study it with objectivity to see it. The Bible is not the work of mere men. The Bible is written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible could proclaim that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such facts. The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written over a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the Earth was round. The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global Internet. In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion. Time will tell that the Bible is correct again and again. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually true and must be believed as written. You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as property. Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future. Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment.And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life. My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a species can evolve into another species. It's this whole nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a problem with. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say what God’s plan of creation is? Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect life from the whims of the universe. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Yes, Axil, I am honest enough to acknowledge that I have been wrong about GW Bush. I was a strong supporter of G.W. Bush at that time but have since changed my view. His membership in the Skull and Bones secret society should have tipped me off sooner, but I was preoccupied with partisanship at that time. Though I still think that he won Florida. But how about Obama? Do you think that his Birth Certificate have been vetted properly and openly? Do you think Obama is a legitimately qualified president? Can you conclude that he is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen based on the scanned BC he has put up of the Internet? Cause other than this scanned BC, there is no other proof he was born in Hawaii. I take that back, there could possibly be proof he was born in Hawaii that is in his vault BC. But alas, for some unknown inexplicable reason, he has blocked access to that. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies “This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.” This accusation is categorically true for G. W. Bush. His election was notorious for a controversy over the awarding of Florida's 25 electoral votes, and the subsequent recount process in that state, fourth election in U.S. history in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. Later studies have reached conflicting opinions on who would have won the recount if it had been allowed to proceed. On December 12, the partisan Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could not be completed before a December 12 safe harbor deadline, and should therefore cease and the previously certified total should hold. It is my belief that G. W. Bush was not validly elected president of the U.S. in contravention of the will of the majority. Fortunately, all such injustices are remedied by the passage of time and a beneficent providence. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com 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
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Excellent analysis Lomax. You sure pinned it down. Just like the excellent Jojo is an Alcoholic bullcrap and the Jojo has had a rough childhood fairy tale. LOL Keep up the good work guys. Bullies will always be bullies. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:24 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity At 05:06 AM 12/29/2012, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill, but mostly the former. My two cents worth: The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls. The positions are that of moderator and owner. Moderators and owners have different reponsibilities from list members, and one of the duties of a moderator is to *act* with respect to trolls. For a moderator to engage a troll in debate is a Bad Idea. Rather, a moderator will do one of several things: warn the troll, on or off-list, put the troll on moderation, or ban the troll. If others complain about an alleged troll, a responsible moderator will accept or reject the complaints, not just ignore them. This list apparently has an owner/moderator whe is absent for extended periods, and who has then, seeing a problem, acted without warning. I don't think that is best practice, but *it's his list.* I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should be banned also. This is a common opinion among kibbitzers. Just ignore it. I remember such opinions about spam. What's the harm, just delete it! It's naive. There is harm from trolling. Trolls become expert at angering and enraging. People who do not care to engage with trolls may well use killfiles, or just ignore messages. But that does nothing to stop the trolling, and sometimes a troll will continue even if nobody responds, and, sooner or later, someone bites. Someone new thinks there is a real question or issue to be addressed. The list archive is public and googleable. A user may have no intention and not care what people on the list think, and may be playing to Google. Lists *do* lose members because of trolls. Blaming those who respond is short-sighted. It really is up to the list moderator, and, supposedly, this is a moderated list. If responding to a troll is considered the problem, the moderator can warn. Though it would be a bit weird. Trollface can post, but you may not respond. Think it through, Horace. Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll? Neither one is necessarily a fool. Horace, your thinking *sucks.* Trolls have a purpose (or it wouldn't be trolling). If the troll gets people upset, whether they are upset directly or from others responding, *that's the purpose.* [...] Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up. This is a weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages behavior unbecoming a scientific list. There are many services that will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is ultimately an ineffective ruse. Sometimes merely googleing an email address will yield the identity. For example, google (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124 http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in Atlanta. [...] In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw, and warn off victims. Wait! Is Jojo a troll or a fraud? If he's a troll, you just violated your own should. If he's a fraud -- and he does promote fraudulent memes -- your suggestion does require response. To bullies the response should be to do what you want and ignore the bully. The response to truly disruptive and egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by ISPs. The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^) Is it a fake identity? Jojo responded to this mail. As for Joseph Hao, he is a good friend. We used to work together on some free energy projects most notably on some HHO and Veg Oil/ Biodiesel projects and we were co-workers for a while. We went to graduate school together in San Diego State (MS Computer Science) a long time ago. This was a common email we used on all our free energy projects correspondence. He was the one who first subscribed this account to Vortex-LI have been exclusively using this email since I left
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Mark, insults from me will stop the moment insults to me stops. It's that simple. And it's not about turning the other cheek and forgive, cause I have done that. This is now way beyond forgiveness of an occasional insult. This is now about fighting back against systemic and organized attacks from a gang of mob bullies. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:25 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:List integrity Good to see you're on-line, Horace... even if 'cloaked'. Just wanted to support your wise words about why the recent exchange got out of control... some people just can't keep their fingers off the keyboard. To all Vorts, Personal attacks are specifically forbidden on this forum, and I would hope that one has the conscious self-awareness and restraint to reread your posting before hitting 'Send', and *PURGE* it of all forms of name-calling and veiled derogatory implications... especially when it comes to belief systems. That's not too much to ask of rational human beings, is it? -Mark Iverson -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:06 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill, but mostly the former. My two cents worth: The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls. I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should be banned also. Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll? It is clearly an option to automatically trash emails from pesky people, or, if you are afraid you'll miss something to simply read you want, but - to respond to a troll shows an obvious lack of integrity, a lack of an appropriate level concern for what you are doing to other members of the list. One of the greatest things about this list, and the internet in general, is the freedom of speech. List moderation should only be used in extreme circumstances. A little self control by list members is often enough to discourage trolls. I think Bill Beaty's laissez faire attitude with regard to moderation is a good and even necessary approach for this list, which encourages free discussion of science anomalies. If a roll tries to bully, control what you post, the best response is to simply go ahead and post what you want, and ignore any responses from the troll or bully. If numerous members of the list object, then that is another matter. If you feel action is warranted by an ISP, such as Microsoft, Google, etc. then a few simple googles will show you sites to directly report abuse to ISPs. Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up. This is a weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages behavior unbecoming a scientific list. There are many services that will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is ultimately an ineffective ruse. Sometimes merely googleing an email address will yield the identity. For example, google (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124 http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in Atlanta. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To visit this topic, use this URL: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000124 Posted by Joseph Hao (Member # 3289) on June 14, 2004, 02:42 PM: Any folks out there studying for CCIE Voice Lab in Atlanta? [snip] Joseph CCIE #9273 jth...@hotmail.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw, and warn off victims. To bullies the response should be to do what you want and ignore the bully. The response to truly disruptive and egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by ISPs. The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^) That's my 2 cents worth, from a member of the list for over 15 years. Resuming lurk mode. Best Regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Axil, court battles have been inititated to force the revelation of Obama's vault BC, but it has always been dismissed on technicality. Supposedly, no American citizen can bring a charge against Obma because he has not been specifically aggrieved or hurt by the elevation of an unqualified POTUS. In other words, unless you can prove that you have been hurt more than the rest of the people, you have no specific standing to bring a court case. This is how Obama has been able to escape from justice. It does not hurt that the shadow government demons are also threatening all those you would try. It seems to me that if he is legit and has nothing to hide, he would simply allow the openning of his vault BC and not spend over 4 million tax payer dollars to defend it. What is the rational of defending a vault BC? Why spend all the attorney's efforts and all the money that does not even belong to him? Don't you find that unusual? I have said before. The Birther movement will die a quick death and I will apologize in shame and go away if Obama can do this. Fact is, he won't because he can't. He either does not have a vault BC or his vault BC must indicate he was not born in Hawaii. During that time, parents and grandparents can register a birth by writing to the authorities. But the BC thus created would not contain hospital or doctor's information, or midwife information. That is likely what Obama's BC is missing. But we will never find out because of the veil of corruption. Axil, I don't care if Obama was releceted with 99% of the popular vote. The Constitution ought be be stronger that mere popularity. We must be a nation of laws if we are to survive as a nation. Bullying, ingnoring the law, and/or making up the rules as we go will not cut it. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies “But how about Obama? Do you think that his Birth Certificate have been vetted properly and openly? Do you think Obama is a legitimately qualified president? Can you conclude that he is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen based on the scanned BC he has put up of the Internet? Cause other than this scanned BC, there is no other proof he was born in Hawaii.” The supporters of G. W, Bush took their case to court and won. The same should be done for the supporters of the Birther theory. First find the convincing evidence, the smoking gun, that supports their case, and then take it to the courts. It is not productive to appeal to the court of public opinion to advance their case. I suspect an ulterior motive; that efforts in this regard are directed to fill talk show air time and raise revenue from higher viewer ratings. Obama was recently reelected with a majority of 53% of the vote, so it is an uphill fight to change all those minds and if accomplished…so what. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Yes, Axil, I am honest enough to acknowledge that I have been wrong about GW Bush. I was a strong supporter of G.W. Bush at that time but have since changed my view. His membership in the Skull and Bones secret society should have tipped me off sooner, but I was preoccupied with partisanship at that time. Though I still think that he won Florida. But how about Obama? Do you think that his Birth Certificate have been vetted properly and openly? Do you think Obama is a legitimately qualified president? Can you conclude that he is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen based on the scanned BC he has put up of the Internet? Cause other than this scanned BC, there is no other proof he was born in Hawaii. I take that back, there could possibly be proof he was born in Hawaii that is in his vault BC. But alas, for some unknown inexplicable reason, he has blocked access to that. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies “This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.” This accusation is categorically true for G. W. Bush. His election was notorious for a controversy over the awarding of Florida's 25 electoral votes, and the subsequent recount process in that state, fourth election in U.S. history in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. Later studies have reached conflicting opinions on who would have won the recount if it had been allowed to proceed. On December 12, the partisan Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the Old Testament, only controlled and condoned. Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant, the real Old Covenant with God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it has become by the time he entered the scene. One famous scholar once said. The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed. There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments. The New is the completion of the Old. But we must make a distinction between what is really the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from Pagan Babylon. Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's teachings. Far from it. Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old Testament and said it was true. You will not find Christ or any of the New Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament. They took it as literal truth. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in the Old Testament. From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those flaws. The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Fair enough. Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you are confusing this with how islam treats women. You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who justify it. Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by faith for now. Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical statement that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as fact in science. The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific facts like the Earth is round. One only needs to study it with objectivity to see it. The Bible is not the work of mere men. The Bible is written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible could proclaim that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such facts. The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written over a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the Earth was round. The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global Internet. In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion. Time will tell that the Bible is correct again and again. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually true and must be believed as written. You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as property. Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future. Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
That is in error, my friend. The Old Testament was completed several hundreds years before Christ. In fact, the entire Old Testament was translated to Greek about 323 BC. That version of the Old Testatment is known as the Septuagint. The New Testament books were compiled and assembled by a man named Erasmus. He took the commonly accepted letters and compiled it specifically ignoring gnostic works and pseudogospels. It is a misunderstanding that Constantine assembled the Bible in the Coucil of Nicaea. He did not. He merely sanctioned and promoted its widespread acceptance. Frankly, I do not considered the Catholic church as Christian. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian cult. It is so far out in its teachings and they do not even claim Biblical authority anymore. To them, traditions, commentary, and papal pronouncements are the true and only doctrines of the church. If there is a conflict between papal pronouncements vs Biblical teachings, the papal pronouncements are infallible. That to me is a mark of a cult. Heck, not even Peter the Apostle or Paul the apostle claimed infallibility. Peter was dinged by Paul when he was in error. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA The info in the bible was not edited and sanctioned as sacred until the First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the heretics were identified and the bible was purified. Therefore, how could Christ accept a book that had not yet been written? The Old Testament contains 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) or more (Orthodox and other) books, divided, very broadly. There are many versions of the bible accepted by the various sects of Christian belief. How can one determine which version of the Bible that Christ favored? He died before the fact. axil On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the Old Testament, only controlled and condoned. Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant, the real Old Covenant with God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it has become by the time he entered the scene. One famous scholar once said. The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed. There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments. The New is the completion of the Old. But we must make a distinction between what is really the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from Pagan Babylon. Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's teachings. Far from it. Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old Testament and said it was true. You will not find Christ or any of the New Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament. They took it as literal truth. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in the Old Testament. From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those flaws. The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Fair enough. Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you are confusing this with how islam treats women. You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who justify it. Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by faith for now. Yet, despite all that, I have
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Just to correct Lomax's lies from actual experience. I raise sows in my farm. When the piglets grow up to become gilts (teenage female pigs that are virgins are called gilts.), they exhibit the equivalent of what we would call menstrual cycle. They show their first estrus. If you mate a gilt on her first estrus, the pregnancy will normally not take hold and the gilts will exhibit another estrus on their next cycle about 21 days later. The gilts are not sexually mature despite the obvious occurence of the estrus cycle. On occasions where a pregnancy takes hold, you will end up with radically fewer piglets born and smaller piglets born. A normal sow pregnancy is about 10-12 piglets and about 1-2 kgs of piglet weight. If you mate a gilt on her first estrus, on average you will get less than 3 piglets with about 1/3 lbs. piglets (notice 1-2 kg is 2-5 lbs for a normal pregnancy. A first cycle pregnancy is 1/3 lbs piglet.) Very very small piglets that will not normally survive to weaning age. What I am saying is documented by pig breeders everywhere so no one who is honest will claim I am lying about this. In fact, if you read pig breeding books, they would recommend that you wait until the second estrus to mate that gilt. This my friends are facts. In fact, in fact, in fact. The older the gilt is when you first mate her, the more and bigger your piglets. This is easy to understand. An older gilt's body is more mature and will support more piglets compared to a young gilt on her first cycle. The same is true with human girls. Everyone agrees that exhibiting menstrual cycle at 9 years of age is unusually early for a little girl. Normal menstrual age is about 11-12, most even don't cycle until they are 14. Ask any doctor. Now here comes Lomax and argues that a 9 year old little girl is sexually mature because she has had her first cycle. Apparently, she was not because we have no documented pregnancy of A'isha when she was 9. Her body was simply not mature enough to carry a full term baby to delivery, much like a young gilt. My friends, despite what Lomax would like you to believe, nature and experience tells us an early menstruating girl of 9 is clearly not sexually mature. BTW, Lomax claims that a little girl's mammary glands would develop if she has a baby. Apparently, Lomax has not seen mammary glands of first cycle gilts who became pregnant. They are not developed despite having piglets. It contains little milk. Piglets of young gilts need to have supplemental milk. This my friends is the truth of the normal order of things. But Lomax, twist it, to justify the actions of his retrograde HOLEY prophet. (Lomax still has not caught on why I spell Holy - HOLEY. Contrary to what Lomax would like to believe, I do know how to spell Holy. LOL ...) 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 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age At 10:01 PM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: What are you suggesting lomax? That age is uncertain whether she was 9 or 10. Either way, what muhammed practiced was abhorrent and retrograde. No, *Jojo* is abhorrent and retrograde. That's because he's now. What Muhammad did wasn't abhorrent, because nobody hated it. Then. It wasn't retrograde, either, it was not odd or strange or unusual. If A'isha has had her first menstrual cycle, does that mean she is a sexually mature woman. Yes. That's what the word means. It does not mean that no further maturation can occur. It means that she is capable of becoming a mother. Lomax seems to believe this and asking vorticians to swallow this. No, I don't care what Vorticians think, but I'm not seeing any support, here, for Jojo's viciousness. OK, show of hands, which of us with daughters 9 or 10 years old, that have had their first mentrual cycle that we would consider to be sexually mature. Hand up. That is, if I knew that my daugher had her first period, I'd know that she was sexually mature. That has consequences. For pete's sake. These little girls do not have fully developed mammary glands yet, and Lomax thinks they are sexually mature. This is the corruption of islam for all to see. The glands will work if she gets pregnant. Jojo is making silly arguments. The issue is not today's girls, and the conditions girls face today. The issue is Jojo's claim that was was done *then* was abhorrent and retrograde *then*. And we don't now the age. Some sources conclude that Ayesha was much older. OK, show of hands, which of the following sources does one consider more reliable. Reliable for what? Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari vs. wikipedia and Internet blogs. For hadith, Muslim and Bukhari. For general information on Islam, hands down, Wikipedia. Muslim and Bukhari are not manuals
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
As a matter of fact my friend, the practice of Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and other old testament Jews are in fact Abhorrent and retrograde. And you will never hear a Christian justifying these acts. Jesus corrected these retrograde acts. In the New Testament, you will never hear of a Christian having multiple wives ever again. That is the act of a real God and teacher. He corrects and ends retrograde practices. Now, what did muhammed do? Instead of ending it, he embraced it and justified it. His propaganda book the koran, teaches that a man must only have 4 wives. He had 12 according to Lomax. History tells us that he had dozens of wives and concubines and sex toys. But instead of condemning this erroneous act of his HOLEY prophet, he justifies it and try to spin it away. How enlightened and progressive of you Lomax. This is the corruption of islam for all to see. Once again, Just because it was done by all peoples, does not mean it is right. God's intention has always been 1 man to 1 wife. It's as simple as that. I promise you, you will never find me justifying the actions of David by saying that it is OK, because that was the culture at that time. Both David and Solomon are some of the most admired teachers of Christians. But we do not justify their wrong actions. We do not justify their sins. We tell it as it is. That my friends, is the action of honest men. Contrast that to the acts of Lomax. He comes up with various spins, irrelenvancies and lies, to confuse the issue. He then justifies the retrograde acts by claiming that that is the normal cultural thing that people do. I'm not surprised. Lomax feels he is justified in doing this because what he is doing is for the good of islam and muhammed. One prominent Christian once said: (and I quote to the best of my recollection.) A muslim will lie if he feels his lie will serve islam. Remember this fact when you are debating with a muslim. And now, the truth of this statement is evident for all to see. 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 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age At 02:43 AM 12/28/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK Lomax, let's agree to disagree. No, because Jojo lies about what we supposedly disagree about. In this agree to disagree post, he again lies, after having been corrected many times, about what I say. I haven't said what he opposes to his positino. In one case, in this series, he says for himself, what he has not prevously said. He says that polygamy is abhorrent and retrograde. Retrograde it might be, that's arguable, but abhorrent, not. Here is a Christian effectively claiming that what Abraham did, with the support of his first wife, Sarah, is abhorrent. Yet it was within the customs of the time. Nobody telling the story, which is how we know it, thought it was abhorrent. The analogy with what Muhammad did and Jojo's claims about it is clear. In another thread, Re: [Vo]:[OT]Birther Myth? or Lomax lies , Jojo lies about what he, himself, quoted, included in the mail, the Executive Order from President Obama, and continues to lie about it. This is perfect, because he lies about what is in his own mail. When he lies about the truth, and doesn't provide sources -- the norm for him -- it's possible to imagine he is merely mistaken, or, for some, that he's telling the truth, *unless one investigates.* But where the subject he's lying about is right in front of us, that's no longer possible -- unless, of course, what he's claimng is there is actually there. There are only a few possibilities remaining here. 1. Jojo is high-functioning, in certain ways, but insane. Hallucinating. 2. Jojo is a troll, and lies because it continues the trolling. I had an excuse for responding to some of his posts. Most of what he's written consists of things that are believed by a substantial number of people, or at least many think that what he's saying is possible. He's asserting common ignorant tropes. So responding to them places information about these subjects in a public record, apposite to the claims. It's been suggested by someone I respect that the job is done. Jojo has revealed his complete insanity, and that takes us to a possible understanding of the second possibility above. Jojo's mission has been to discredit all the positions he takes. It's called a straw puppet, a combination of straw man and sock puppet. It's rare, but I've seen it. In the thread on FGM, I came upon and acknoweldged a tragedy, that Muslim scholars had inadequately educated the Muslim public about the true meaning of female circumcision as found in the classical sources for Islam, but have allowed ignorance and fundamentalist populism to hold sway. There is a parallel tragedy here, that sane Christian
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Peter, I consider this an insult. To the best of my recollection this is your 4th insult to me. In all that time, I have not retaliated. Please refrain from this behavior; unless you want me to retaliate. And please, do not use you response to me as an excuse to promote your site again. It's bad taste. One does not go to other people's site to promote and recruit members. There is no insult intended with this. But if you feel that this is an attack, I will now apologize in advance. Jojo PS. Peter seems to be offended that I used a real life example to illustrate the fallacies of Lomax. I don't believe I have written anything particularly nasty with my real life example. - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Dear Jojo, Even in my weirdest dreams I have not imagined that one day I will read about the sexual reproductive life of Sus scrofa domestica on Vortex a site dedicated to new energy. Pigs have not much to do with Vortex see the first proverb here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/two-proverbs-trying-to-support-what-i.html I thought you are a spammer prozelytizing, attacking your re-elected President, trying to demonstrate that Darwin was a poor stupid individual, you don't care for religious freedom and for respect for the other 11,499 religions except yours and so on but all these are only illusions and errors. Practice shows you are like Jack London's inevitable white man:unstoppable and it is useless to ban you or to boycott you, you are the fatum of Vortex. I have serious doubts Vortex will survive intellectually and will not be converted in an anything goes Forum. Be happy, I am accepting your presence and all I wish is that some people will not forget LENR completely. It would e reasonable if you do not comment to this message. Peter On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Just to correct Lomax's lies from actual experience. I raise sows in my farm. When the piglets grow up to become gilts (teenage female pigs that are virgins are called gilts.), they exhibit the equivalent of what we would call menstrual cycle. They show their first estrus. If you mate a gilt on her first estrus, the pregnancy will normally not take hold and the gilts will exhibit another estrus on their next cycle about 21 days later. The gilts are not sexually mature despite the obvious occurence of the estrus cycle. On occasions where a pregnancy takes hold, you will end up with radically fewer piglets born and smaller piglets born. A normal sow pregnancy is about 10-12 piglets and about 1-2 kgs of piglet weight. If you mate a gilt on her first estrus, on average you will get less than 3 piglets with about 1/3 lbs. piglets (notice 1-2 kg is 2-5 lbs for a normal pregnancy. A first cycle pregnancy is 1/3 lbs piglet.) Very very small piglets that will not normally survive to weaning age. What I am saying is documented by pig breeders everywhere so no one who is honest will claim I am lying about this. In fact, if you read pig breeding books, they would recommend that you wait until the second estrus to mate that gilt. This my friends are facts. In fact, in fact, in fact. The older the gilt is when you first mate her, the more and bigger your piglets. This is easy to understand. An older gilt's body is more mature and will support more piglets compared to a young gilt on her first cycle. The same is true with human girls. Everyone agrees that exhibiting menstrual cycle at 9 years of age is unusually early for a little girl. Normal menstrual age is about 11-12, most even don't cycle until they are 14. Ask any doctor. Now here comes Lomax and argues that a 9 year old little girl is sexually mature because she has had her first cycle. Apparently, she was not because we have no documented pregnancy of A'isha when she was 9. Her body was simply not mature enough to carry a full term baby to delivery, much like a young gilt. My friends, despite what Lomax would like you to believe, nature and experience tells us an early menstruating girl of 9 is clearly not sexually mature. BTW, Lomax claims that a little girl's mammary glands would develop if she has a baby. Apparently, Lomax has not seen mammary glands of first cycle gilts who became pregnant. They are not developed despite having piglets. It contains little milk. Piglets of young gilts need to have supplemental milk. This my friends is the truth of the normal order of things. But Lomax, twist it, to justify the actions of his retrograde HOLEY prophet. (Lomax still has not caught on why I spell Holy - HOLEY. Contrary to what Lomax would like to believe, I do know how to spell Holy. LOL ...) Jojo - Original
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
2 questions. First' Which statement specifically do you think I am just making up? Second, Are you serious in wanting to know, or are you just intending to insult me? If you are serious, I will answer you and explain to you where I get these. Jojo - Original Message - From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age On 12/27/2012 11:12 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK, since you asked. Don't say I am trolling. There is reason to believe that fallen angels are trying to breed with humans to create a hybrid race. The Bible called these hybrids Nephilims. They were universal during the days of Noah. They interbred with human women to give birth to giant hybrids - Hercules, Persues, Atlas etc. They interbreed with normal animal to give birth to hideous dinasaurs and loathsome creatures. This was the primary reason why God had to wipe out the entire race of life on Earth with a global flood. Fallen angels and demons wanted to subvert the plan of God by corrupting man. If human DNA are all tainted with demonic DNA, the messiah, which has to come as a man (pure human) can not come. They would have effectively thwarted God's plan for redemption. You know you're just making this stuff up, right?
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
If you don't want to read it, then do not mouth off and pretend to be a expert in this subject matter. You know what they say; ...the height of ignorance. At least I have read it, albeit a long time ago. 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 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA At 11:18 PM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Read Darwin's The origin of Species first before you mouth off with these ignorant rantings. Why should I read it? This is typical of you, you claim expertise I have not claimed expertise on this or any other topic. Sometimes I have unusual knowledge, but that's not expertise. Ah, I've claimed expertise on Wikipedia process. and cloud the debate with irrelevancy and write long boring, tiresome irrelevant essays hoping that people don't read it. It's working for me sometimes, I tire of your lengthy hot air. Can we hope that you will tire all the way?
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Excellent analysis of my motives there Lomax. Hmmm, could it be? might it be possible? that I just don't want people to be deceived by your propaganda - that's why I am responding so vigorously to your lies. KISS, my friend. Keep It Simple Stupid! 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 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age At 02:43 AM 12/28/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK Lomax, let's agree to disagree. No, because Jojo lies about what we supposedly disagree about. In this agree to disagree post, he again lies, after having been corrected many times, about what I say. I haven't said what he opposes to his positino. In one case, in this series, he says for himself, what he has not prevously said. He says that polygamy is abhorrent and retrograde. Retrograde it might be, that's arguable, but abhorrent, not. Here is a Christian effectively claiming that what Abraham did, with the support of his first wife, Sarah, is abhorrent. Yet it was within the customs of the time. Nobody telling the story, which is how we know it, thought it was abhorrent. The analogy with what Muhammad did and Jojo's claims about it is clear. In another thread, Re: [Vo]:[OT]Birther Myth? or Lomax lies , Jojo lies about what he, himself, quoted, included in the mail, the Executive Order from President Obama, and continues to lie about it. This is perfect, because he lies about what is in his own mail. When he lies about the truth, and doesn't provide sources -- the norm for him -- it's possible to imagine he is merely mistaken, or, for some, that he's telling the truth, *unless one investigates.* But where the subject he's lying about is right in front of us, that's no longer possible -- unless, of course, what he's claimng is there is actually there. There are only a few possibilities remaining here. 1. Jojo is high-functioning, in certain ways, but insane. Hallucinating. 2. Jojo is a troll, and lies because it continues the trolling. I had an excuse for responding to some of his posts. Most of what he's written consists of things that are believed by a substantial number of people, or at least many think that what he's saying is possible. He's asserting common ignorant tropes. So responding to them places information about these subjects in a public record, apposite to the claims. It's been suggested by someone I respect that the job is done. Jojo has revealed his complete insanity, and that takes us to a possible understanding of the second possibility above. Jojo's mission has been to discredit all the positions he takes. It's called a straw puppet, a combination of straw man and sock puppet. It's rare, but I've seen it. In the thread on FGM, I came upon and acknoweldged a tragedy, that Muslim scholars had inadequately educated the Muslim public about the true meaning of female circumcision as found in the classical sources for Islam, but have allowed ignorance and fundamentalist populism to hold sway. There is a parallel tragedy here, that sane Christian evangelists (I do not think that an oxymoron) have not spoken up to distance their faith from people like Jojo. The result is a discredit to the religion, as a social phenomenon. Islam has suffered from the same, to a degree, but that's ending. Scholars *are* speaking up against the often violent and brutal -- and ignorant -- fundamentalists. End of topic. Jojo has claimed that he'll let [me] have the last word on this topic. He has said the like of that before and was lying -- or if he wasn't lying, he did not honor his word. Let's see what he does this time. He can keep his word or not, I'm done here. I say intercourse between a 50 year old man and a 9 year old little girl is abhorrent and retrograde. You say it is justified because people around him were not offended. Let's allow the readers to decide if this is abhorrent. I say marrying multiple wives is abhorrent and retrograde, you say it is OK because other tribes do it. Let's allow the reader to decide if this is abhorrent. I say worshipping a 2nd rate moon god of muhammed's tribe is retarded, you say it is not, Let's allow the readers to decide if the mood god is their cup of tea over a the Universal God of Judaism and Christianity. I say a 9 year old little girl is not sexually mature to be a mother, you say she is because she has had her first menstrual cycle. Let's allow the readers to decide if this is abhorrent. I say the practice of FGM is abhorrent, since it does not have any redeeming or medical value, you say it is OK. Let's allow the readers to decide if this is abhorrent. I say the truth and cite quality evidence, you tell lies and cite wikipedia and Internet blogs as your evidence. Let's allow the readers to decide if this is abhorrent. I tell the truth
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Mark, how far back have you followed this exchange. Were you here 6 months ago? 1 year ago? Before you even start to insult me, please please please study up on the history of this. Abd responds politely Come on, either be objective or just go ahead and start insulting. Abd started this round of insults as he did a few months ago. Please refrain from making these hurtful comments until you've investigated the matter more closely. For crreps sake, you're supposed to be an investigative reporter. So investigate properly. Jojo - Original Message - From: Mark Gibbs To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Pig breeding, Birthers, attacks on Islam, attacks on each other ... what is the matter with you people? Jojo throws out blatant nonsense that isn't intended to achieve anything constructive and that only the most generous would treat as reasonable discussion and everyone rises to the bait. Abd, to his credit, (mostly) responds to Jojo politely, Jojo responds with more outrageous assertions and endless ad hominem attacks, and the circle of ridiculousness repeats. Now Peter has been sucked in ... It's one thing to have an off-topic discussion but quite another when a list is hijacked by little else besides off-topic posts. Really, the Vortex list-Mom needs to manage this list a whole lot better if it's to have any relevance to its original goal ... this is why lists die. [mg] On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Peter, I consider this an insult. To the best of my recollection this is your 4th insult to me. In all that time, I have not retaliated. Please refrain from this behavior; unless you want me to retaliate. And please, do not use you response to me as an excuse to promote your site again. It's bad taste. One does not go to other people's site to promote and recruit members. There is no insult intended with this. But if you feel that this is an attack, I will now apologize in advance. Jojo PS. Peter seems to be offended that I used a real life example to illustrate the fallacies of Lomax. I don't believe I have written anything particularly nasty with my real life example. - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Dear Jojo, Even in my weirdest dreams I have not imagined that one day I will read about the sexual reproductive life of Sus scrofa domestica on Vortex a site dedicated to new energy. Pigs have not much to do with Vortex see the first proverb here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/two-proverbs-trying-to-support-what-i.html I thought you are a spammer prozelytizing, attacking your re-elected President, trying to demonstrate that Darwin was a poor stupid individual, you don't care for religious freedom and for respect for the other 11,499 religions except yours and so on but all these are only illusions and errors. Practice shows you are like Jack London's inevitable white man:unstoppable and it is useless to ban you or to boycott you, you are the fatum of Vortex. I have serious doubts Vortex will survive intellectually and will not be converted in an anything goes Forum. Be happy, I am accepting your presence and all I wish is that some people will not forget LENR completely. It would e reasonable if you do not comment to this message. Peter On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Just to correct Lomax's lies from actual experience. I raise sows in my farm. When the piglets grow up to become gilts (teenage female pigs that are virgins are called gilts.), they exhibit the equivalent of what we would call menstrual cycle. They show their first estrus. If you mate a gilt on her first estrus, the pregnancy will normally not take hold and the gilts will exhibit another estrus on their next cycle about 21 days later. The gilts are not sexually mature despite the obvious occurence of the estrus cycle. On occasions where a pregnancy takes hold, you will end up with radically fewer piglets born and smaller piglets born. A normal sow pregnancy is about 10-12 piglets and about 1-2 kgs of piglet weight. If you mate a gilt on her first estrus, on average you will get less than 3 piglets with about 1/3 lbs. piglets (notice 1-2 kg is 2-5 lbs for a normal pregnancy. A first cycle pregnancy is 1/3 lbs piglet.) Very very small piglets that will not normally survive to weaning age. What I am saying is documented by pig breeders everywhere so no one who is honest will claim I am lying about this. In fact, if you read
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Mark, has it occured to you or to Peter or to others that it is precisely these kinds of biased hurtful insults that cause me to lash out at you, Peter and Lomax. I am capable of discussing rationally with civility as many in this list can attest. But I will not suffer insults like this. Please consider this as my final warning. If you have investigated this properly, you will conclude that I was discussing calmly and politely with some members here before Lomax, SVJ and others started their round of insults. Please be objective before you start mouthing off. Jojo - Original Message - From: Mark Gibbs To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Pig breeding, Birthers, attacks on Islam, attacks on each other ... what is the matter with you people? Jojo throws out blatant nonsense that isn't intended to achieve anything constructive and that only the most generous would treat as reasonable discussion and everyone rises to the bait. Abd, to his credit, (mostly) responds to Jojo politely, Jojo responds with more outrageous assertions and endless ad hominem attacks, and the circle of ridiculousness repeats. Now Peter has been sucked in ... It's one thing to have an off-topic discussion but quite another when a list is hijacked by little else besides off-topic posts. Really, the Vortex list-Mom needs to manage this list a whole lot better if it's to have any relevance to its original goal ... this is why lists die. [mg] On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Peter, I consider this an insult. To the best of my recollection this is your 4th insult to me. In all that time, I have not retaliated. Please refrain from this behavior; unless you want me to retaliate. And please, do not use you response to me as an excuse to promote your site again. It's bad taste. One does not go to other people's site to promote and recruit members. There is no insult intended with this. But if you feel that this is an attack, I will now apologize in advance. Jojo PS. Peter seems to be offended that I used a real life example to illustrate the fallacies of Lomax. I don't believe I have written anything particularly nasty with my real life example. - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Dear Jojo, Even in my weirdest dreams I have not imagined that one day I will read about the sexual reproductive life of Sus scrofa domestica on Vortex a site dedicated to new energy. Pigs have not much to do with Vortex see the first proverb here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/two-proverbs-trying-to-support-what-i.html I thought you are a spammer prozelytizing, attacking your re-elected President, trying to demonstrate that Darwin was a poor stupid individual, you don't care for religious freedom and for respect for the other 11,499 religions except yours and so on but all these are only illusions and errors. Practice shows you are like Jack London's inevitable white man:unstoppable and it is useless to ban you or to boycott you, you are the fatum of Vortex. I have serious doubts Vortex will survive intellectually and will not be converted in an anything goes Forum. Be happy, I am accepting your presence and all I wish is that some people will not forget LENR completely. It would e reasonable if you do not comment to this message. Peter On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Just to correct Lomax's lies from actual experience. I raise sows in my farm. When the piglets grow up to become gilts (teenage female pigs that are virgins are called gilts.), they exhibit the equivalent of what we would call menstrual cycle. They show their first estrus. If you mate a gilt on her first estrus, the pregnancy will normally not take hold and the gilts will exhibit another estrus on their next cycle about 21 days later. The gilts are not sexually mature despite the obvious occurence of the estrus cycle. On occasions where a pregnancy takes hold, you will end up with radically fewer piglets born and smaller piglets born. A normal sow pregnancy is about 10-12 piglets and about 1-2 kgs of piglet weight. If you mate a gilt on her first estrus, on average you will get less than 3 piglets with about 1/3 lbs. piglets (notice 1-2 kg is 2-5 lbs for a normal pregnancy. A first cycle pregnancy is 1/3 lbs piglet.) Very very small piglets that will not normally survive to weaning age. What I am saying is documented by pig breeders everywhere so no one who is honest will claim I am lying about
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Of course there's a lot of bad mojo. How would you feel if you are insulted at every turn? by people ignorant of the real situation. First Lomax, then SVJ, then Rocha, then Craig, then Walker then Jouni then Peter and now Mark. All openning their comments with insults. ( I have not included those people who made mild insults like you.) I am capable of discussing with civility as I have with David and a few others. If people want to insult, an insult is what they will receive back. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Unfortunately I sense lots of bad mojo behind many of the posts in this exchange On Friday, December 28, 2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: Pig breeding, Birthers, attacks on Islam, attacks on each other ... what is the matter with you people? Jojo throws out blatant nonsense that isn't intended to achieve anything constructive and that only the most generous would treat as reasonable discussion and everyone rises to the bait. Abd, to his credit, (mostly) responds to Jojo politely, Jojo responds with more outrageous assertions and endless ad hominem attacks, and the circle of ridiculousness repeats. Now Peter has been sucked in ... It's one thing to have an off-topic discussion but quite another when a list is hijacked by little else besides off-topic posts. Really, the Vortex list-Mom needs to manage this list a whole lot better if it's to have any relevance to its original goal ... this is why lists die. [mg] On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Peter, I consider this an insult. To the best of my recollection this is your 4th insult to me. In all that time, I have not retaliated. Please refrain from this behavior; unless you want me to retaliate. And please, do not use you response to me as an excuse to promote your site again. It's bad taste. One does not go to other people's site to promote and recruit members. There is no insult intended with this. But if you feel that this is an attack, I will now apologize in advance. Jojo PS. Peter seems to be offended that I used a real life example to illustrate the fallacies of Lomax. I don't believe I have written anything particularly nasty with my real life example. - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Dear Jojo, Even in my weirdest dreams I have not imagined that one day I will read about the sexual reproductive life of Sus scrofa domestica on Vortex a site dedicated to new energy. Pigs have not much to do with Vortex see the first proverb here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/two-proverbs-trying-to-support-what-i.html I thought you are a spammer prozelytizing, attacking your re-elected President, trying to demonstrate that Darwin was a poor stupid individual, you don't care for religious freedom and for respect for the other 11,499 religions except yours and so on but all these are only illusions and errors. Practice shows you are like Jack London's inevitable white man:unstoppable and it is useless to ban you or to boycott you, you are the fatum of Vortex. I have serious doubts Vortex will survive intellectually and will not be converted in an anything goes Forum. Be happy, I am accepting your presence and all I wish is that some people will not forget LENR completely. It would e reasonable if you do not comment to this message. Peter On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Just to correct Lomax's lies from actual experience. I raise sows in my farm. When the piglets grow up to become gilts (teenage female pigs that are virgins are called gilts.), they exhibit the equivalent of what we would call menstrual cycle. They show the
