"illimiati?
On Dec 26, 2012, at 1:07 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > Lomax is lying again. I'm not surprised. It is OK for him to lie as long as > his goal are "honorable" and good for islam and muhammed. > > OK, let me ask anybody here. Who has actually seen Obama's Birth Certificate > in actuality? Not the scanned and altered copy posted on the Internet. Not > snopes which is a political hack job. If Obama supposedly was issued an > official Birth Certificate by the State of Hawaii as Lomax claims, that > originally issued BC should be in the possesion of Obama, right? OK, if > Obama wants to kill the Birther movement, just show it to one, only one, > highly respected individual. Let's say, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin > or the like. Just one well respected Tea Party member or a well respected > Republican congressman or senator. Let him handle that original BC, feel > the official seal, look at the folds, and make an official scan open to the > public and call an open honest press conference. Not a white house press > conference which is questionable to begin with. This is very simple and the > Birther movement will die an untimely death and I will apologize and tuck my > tail between my legs in shame and go away. Lomax lies when he says we have > seen the official BC. We have not; no one has. What we've seen which Lomax > claims is the official BC is a scanned photoshop file. No one except Obama > and alledgedly snopes have seen it. Why? Is anybody buying Lomax's > argument? It's very simple my friends, if there is an officially issued BC, > complete with seal, and signature of the official representative of the State > of Hawaii, just show it. No amount of spin or eloquence or tiresome lengthy > essay will overcome this very strong argument. Just show it. Period. > > Funny thing is, the new governor of Hawaii Ambercrombie - a democrat, strong > supporter of Obama, wanted to silence the birther movement once and for all. > So, he sought to dig into Obama's vault BC. Guess what? Even he can't > penetrate the veil of corruption Obama has put up to block access to his > vault records. Why is there an executive order to block access to Obama's > vault BC. This is the first time it has ever happened to a sitting > president. What the heck is wrong with seeing the original vault copy BC? If > he has alledgedly issued an official copy, what's wrong with verifying it > with the vault copy? Why does Obama feel the need to go out of his way to > issue an executive order to block access? > > You know, only corrupt and lying leaders find the need to hide their history. > Obama is a corrupt lying usurper. > > > And Lomax's is really naive to think that only Republicans are concerned with > this issue. Over 60% of Americans feel Obama should come clean on this > issue. But of course, the illiminati finds it convenient to forcibly > reintall their puppet president. And they have found willing sheeple in > Lomax. LOL...... > > > > Jojo > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11:41 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age > > >> At 11:15 AM 12/25/2012, David Roberson wrote: >>> The recent intense concentration upon religious issues is not very useful >>> for several reasons. It is apparent that you have a strong Christian faith >>> and that others within this group favor the Muslim faith to an equally >>> strong degree. >> >> David is addressing this to Jojo. However, there is a difference here. I'm >> the only Muslim on this list, as far as I know. And I have not used the list >> to propagandize Islam. But Jojo has used the list to propagandize a whole >> series of issues that are not actually Christian, per se, but specifically >> Evangelical Christian tropes, intensely anti-Muslim, in ways that have >> offended other list members, apparently non-Muslim. These are not necessirly >> "favoring the Muslim faith," rather, they are, first, noting the >> inappropriateness of such highly sectarian and abusive expressions here, >> and, secondly, supporting a list member who is a relatively long-time >> participant here, who has never used the list to promote Islam. >> >> The anti-Muslim material was completely off-topic, not necessary for any >> discussion here, on-topic or off-topic, except to establish Jojo Jaro's >> thesis, that I'm a liar, and to him, "Muslim" means "liar." The real thing >> that is happening is that he argued other topics, like the whole birther >> myth, kept up an anti-Obama drumbeat, and on the birther issue, >> specifically, I researched his claims and reported them as being utterly >> bogus. Not as a prejudgment, but as the result of research. And he could not >> tolerate that, and, I believe, that's where his attack came from. >> >> Essentially, I disagreed with him and provided evidence. That's intolerable >> to him, so he then attacked with everything he could muster. >> >>> This in itself is a good thing and I say nothing against the religious >>> beliefs of you or anyone else. The world has enough conflict over religion >>> already and it is of little practical use for us to continue that tradition >>> here. >> >> I"d agree, which is why I'd never have brought any of these issues here. >> There is nothing wrong with Christian faith, per se, and I certainly hope >> I've never attacked it. Evangelical Anti-Muslim diatribes are not "Christian >> faith," they are highly political and very modern interpretations, and often >> are highly offensive. (I do *not* want to impeach all "Evangelical >> Christians," only there are web sites that pander to the most ignorant of >> Christians, selling them books and materials that make these claims about >> Islam, claims that are highly ineffective in actual evangelical work, i.e., >> missionary work. Converts from Islam to Christianity are rare, but I knew >> one. He'd have laughed at the silliness of this stuff. He converted, more or >> less, as a reaction to a highly abusive father, and, when I had dinner with >> him at his house, and told him a bit of what I knew about Islam and the >> sources, he said, "If you'd have been my father, I'd never have converted." >> >> I.e., it was very personal. And the views of his father aren't that uncommon >> among Muslims. Which goes to show? >> >> It goes to show, in fact, what the Qur'an says, that people claim religion >> without having it. We, too often, too many of us, cling to our ignorance >> instead of to God. >> >>> As I said, neither side to this argument appears to be capable of giving an >>> inch toward a common resolution. For this reason, all I see within the >>> arguments presented is a repetition of the same disgusting issues. Why >>> waste so much energy toward this type of discussion when it is known ahead >>> of time that nothing will change? >> >> Actually, I see more. Researching these issues has clarified certain issues >> for me. It's like the birther thing. It seemed unlikely from the outset, >> after all, don't the Republicans have, ah, attornies and the like? A birth >> certificate conspiracy would require a series of state officials to perjure >> themselves, etc. But, hey, I accept that cold fusion is real, which >> indicates that sometimes pigs fly. I.e., something we expect is impossible >> turns out to be possible. But my acceptance of cold fusion is based on >> evidence, not on wishful thinking, and not on mere assertion, nor on >> interpretation of isolated, selected evidence. >> >> So I gave Jojo Jaro the benefit of the doubt, and looked up his claims. >> Quite simply, they were highly misleading. Jojo stil repeats the demand that >> Obama "show the archival certificate." He doesn't mention that Obama >> actually has done this. Hawaii does not issue the archival certificate >> routinely. What it issues is a birth certificate, created by computer, from >> files where the legal information is recorded. The signatures of the >> attending physician, and other legally inconsequential information, are not >> on it. Obama had previously requested a certificate from Hawaii, and had >> shown it, and that routine certificate is adequate for all legal purposes. >> It's the certification of the State of Hawaii that the birth took place as >> described, as shown by the archival certificate, which is kept guarded, >> that's why it is not routinely accessed. >> >> After birthers repeatedly demanded that the archival certificate be shown, >> Obama eventually requested, and got, a copy of the Archival certificate. I >> believe that this required the permission of the Secretary of State of >> Hawaii. You normally have to show cause for such. In any case, the State >> made a copy, and it was certified by an official as a true copy. Which is >> under penalty of perjury, by the way. That copy was sent to Obama, and it >> was released in a press conference. That is, the certified copy was shown to >> reporters, and images of it were provided, and an image was released on the >> internet. >> >> Things got really interesting, then, and for a moment, before I really >> grasped the whole history and the implications, it had me going. Because it >> looked like evidence existed that the copy released on the internet was >> *forged.* I mean, it *really looked like that.* But I kept reading, and I >> found the explanation, and I know enough about file structures and formats >> to know that the explanation was valid. And then we were back to the fact >> that if the archival copy were actually forged, we'd have to have not just >> one official, but a few, lying under penalty of perjury. And we'd also have >> the birth record information from Hawaaian newspapers and the rest, >> consistent with the released birth certificates. >> >> The birthers came up with all kinds of "how come" arguments. Supposed >> anachronisms, and all turned out to be highly misleading. >> >> And this is quite relevant to what happens with arguments over cold fusion >> or free energy research. People get into a fixed position and interpret >> evidence, selectively, according to what they believe. Certainly the >> mainstream physics community did this after 1989, with cold fusion. But it's >> done by many, on all sides. >> >> It's not true that "nothing will change." Because *I* change, and others can >> follow me if they want. I learned about the whole birther movement, I now >> understand it, what fueled it, what evidence kept them going, all that. And >> also precisely where they went astray. I didn't know any of this before. >> >> Now, with most of the issues Jojo raised about Islam -- and he raises them, >> I don't, for the most part -- I've discussed most of them before, because I >> was highly active in Usenet discussions, more than a decade ago. I don't >> recall the Moon God trope then, though. Certainly the claims about prophetic >> pedophilia are old, female circumcision has been a popular topic, and the >> accusation that cutting off the hands of thieves is "barbaric" is likewise >> old. I really don't have an axe to grind on any of these, because my God is >> Reality, not Muhammad. >> >> Indeed, if evidence were to surface that the Qur'an was written by a >> nine-year old girl (Ayesha?), a tad precious, but *the manuscript is found, >> it carbon dates properly, and it is signed, etc.*, *it would not change my >> faith at all.* So what? If she wrote it, she did a damn good job! >> >> The Qur'an describes itself as a "story," and then "the best of stories." >> What's a story? >> >>> Most of the off topic subjects do not result in the amount of conflict that >>> is seen within the religious type. As you have noted, there has been awful >>> and unwarranted name calling engaged in and insults which I find offensive. >>> I would not object if you or anyone else suggests an off topic subject >>> that encourages discussions as long as they do not result in that sort of >>> behavior and they were at least related to science. You will find me >>> objecting if these unrelated threads begin to become too long or cause >>> serious personal attacks. The recent discussions concerning global warming >>> came close to that threshold due to the sometimes heated exchanges that >>> resulted from what some perceive as a world endangering situation. I can >>> understand the passion since there are some convinced that the fate of the >>> world is in the balance unless something is done quickly. Of course you >>> and I fall on the same side of this issue where we seek reasonable, >>> cautious, and thoughtful preparation. >> >> That's not Jojo's position. That's what I suspect you *want* to be Jojo's >> position. >> >> In fact, we could probably find a general consensus here on this >> proposition: evidence for anthropogenic global warming is widely accepted, >> but may not be conclusive. Nevertheless, the possibility of massive harm may >> exist, and therefore public policy should >> >> 1. Encourage and support research to verify and more accurately predict the >> effect of human activity on global climate. >> 2. Consider measures to reduce the impact of such activity, considering the >> possible negative impact of such measures, and attempting to balance benefit >> and risk. >> >> But we don't need to debate this here. It is generally off-topic, though not >> *entirely* so. The relevance is that cold fusion, in partcular, has promise >> as a non-polluting technology that could, by replacing the use of fossil >> fuels and dangerous fission power, address and ameliorate global warming. >> Much of the mention of global warming here is in that context. >> >> And then Jojo pops in, calling the discussion "global warmimg propaganda," >> calling the scientists who express concern "liars," and calling list >> participants, on very thin evidence, "fanatics." >> >> His behavior is the same, regardless of topic, unless it's one he really >> doesn't care about at all. I makes rare comments on such things, and I >> suspect that he does such only to attempt to defuse the other-wise >> completely true claim that trolling is all he does here. >> >>> I am attempting to understand the nature of the religious issues that keep >>> this and other threads like it alive and so passionate. Do both sides of >>> the argument believe that they must prevail and have the last word? >> >> Jojo has declared that he'll keep it up, period, until everyone on the list >> stops the "off-topic" posting. I was quite willing to leave the last word to >> Jojo, and said so, and completely stopped responding to him. Flat out, it >> did not work. I forget how long I waited, but it was enough to see that he'd >> been lying. He had no intention of stopping, and he would -- and will, if >> permitted -- continue to monitor the list for any off-topic (Or on-topic) >> post that he thinks offends his sensibilities. And then he'll turn that >> thread into a flame war. >> >> Sure, if everyone ignores him, that won't happen. There will just be an odd >> post from him. But I've watched this kind of phenomenon since the 1980s, on >> the internet. Trolls become expert at attracting comment. Eventually, they >> figure out what buttons to push. And the list will always have newcomers, >> who don't realize the situation, and they will dive in, with exactly what >> the troll wants. >> >>> Is God watching the debate and pushing each side forward in a manner that >>> seems a little less than brotherly? For some reason I do not believe so. >>> Why don't both parties to this discussion realize that they will never make >>> headway in convincing the other side and just stop the insanity? I find >>> both sides equally guilty and plead for each to abandon the discussion. >> >> Good luck. David, you are expressing, here, a Very Bad Habit. You judge >> guilt. And you do so with shallow knowledge, I suspect. I've written a >> number of posts here with a detailed history of the Jojo Affair. Were those >> posts inaccurate? They are not about religion, they are about the history >> here, and they generally provided links to posts. If they were unfairly >> chosen, perhaps cherry-picked, anyone could find that out by checking the >> history themselves. >> >> I've seen your kind of claim many, many times. I understand the sentiment, >> and I sympathize. However, you are judging from a position of ignorance, >> that's obvious. >> >>> Forgive me if I offended anyone as that was not my intent. >> >> I'm not offended. I mentioned that I've seen this again and again. You are >> simply human. I do not blame you, and do not consider you "guilty." I just >> described what I see and understand, and I could easily be wrong. >> >> Notice, below, that Jojo does not accept your position and demands that you >> call for the "termination of all off-topic threads." There is a reason why >> he demands this. Do you know what it is? >> >> The issue, for myself and others here, is not "off-topic threads." It is >> gross incivility, trolling for outraged response, a declared intention to >> retaliate until others shut up, and the abuse of the list for what is >> actually a corrupt form of religious and political propaganda. >> >> "Retaliate" here means, to him, and he's again been explicit about this, >> "escalate." He will say or do whatever he thinks will be as offensive as >> possible. It has nothing to do with what he claims he's doing, "answering >> off-topic propaganda" here. In a couple of occasions, some comment here, >> off-hand, could be interpreted that way, but the whole Moon God thing did >> not come from that. He brought the topic here, same with the wives of the >> prophet and the matter of the Prophet's youngest wife, Ayesha. Nobody was >> asserting that the Prophet was perfect, here. He bought it all here, and you >> really ought to consider, if you want to judge this matter, David, why he >> did this. It's quite clear, really, if you follow the history. >> >> But that's a lot of work. Most people won't do that. They just want the >> problem to Go Away. Can't people just be nice to each other? >> >> I get it. I've watched this for years. In person, people can be nice to each >> other. In a forum where anonymity is easy, *some people will not be nice.* >> It's just the way it is. I'm a real person, I use a real name, that is, I >> can very personally be identified, someone who wants to do the work can >> figure out where I live. Jojo Jaro is anonymous, and really doesn't care >> about his reputation, etc., and that's obvious. >> >> This is not an equal situation, David. I'm fully responsible for what I >> write. Jojo thinks he's not. He thinks he can hide. >> >> In fact, he is responsible, and he can't hide, but *that is a religious >> position.* Happens to be Qur'an. I know that if I were to lie, there would >> be no place I could hide from my own corruption. >> >> (no more original content below) >> >> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 4:04 am >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age >>> >>> Yes, you are right of course, but It would even be better if all off-topic >>> threads be terminated and brought to Vortex-B. >>> >>> I am doing this is highlight a problem. If you call for the termination of >>> this thread, you need to call for the termination of all off-topic threads. >>> I believe that is only fair. For why should the Vortex-L membership only >>> be subjected to off-topic threads you consider "interesting". In other >>> words, why are you the arbiter of what off-topic posts should be discuss or >>> not? They are all off-topic and should be banished from Vortex-L forever. >>> Isn't that what I've always asked for only to be insulted, ridiculed and >>> ignored? No offense intended, just asking your thinking process on this. >>> >>> I consider this discussion with Lomax interesting. So, on that aspect, >>> this thread has as much right to be discussed in Vortex as any other >>> off-topic thread you consider "interesting". Or are you saying that >>> because you are an longer time member of Vortex-L, that you opinion carries >>> more weight than mine? Isn't that what the chronic off-topic posters are >>> essentially saying? >>> >>> It's all or nothing my friend. No off-topic threads or ALL off-topic >>> threads allowed. Am I not being fair? Is what I'm saying unfair? >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> PS, Of course, I am ready and prepared to stop all off-topic threads that I >>> participate in, but only if there is a corresponding commitment from other >>> chronis off-topic posters to moderate incessant off-topic posts. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <mailto:[email protected]>David Roberson >>> To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:45 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age >>> >>> Guys, I would very much prefer it if this thread were to be terminated. It >>> is apparent that there will never be agreement between the parties involved >>> in the dispute and highly unlikely that one or the other will modify his >>> beliefs. Why not just shake hands (electronically of course) and change >>> the subject to LENR or something else more interesting. >>> >>> I suspect that I am not the only one with this opinion. >>> >>> Dave >> >
