I'm not responding to Jojo except where I see a benefit to him, to
myself, or to the list community from a response. When Jojo makes a
claim, my long habit is to investigate it. And I don't just keep what
I find to myself, I share it, in situ. The situation has some to an
end game, for the *most* part, I'm confining myself to documentable
list behavior. But Jojo made some claims, that if true, would excuse,
to some degree, his behavior here. So I investigate it, and report.
Some of this has never been explicitly stated.
If it's boring or repetitive, anyone is free to disregard it. I
rarely instigate threads that might attract Jojo. This one is one of
the few exceptions. (I've also taken threads where discussion was
off-topic to the thread subject, and moved discussion to an OT
thread. This one thread is an exception, because "List integrity" is
not actually off-topic. The problem here is delayed response from the
list moderator. I will fully respect *whatever* decision the list
moderator makes -- and, note, my recommendation for him to handle
list misbehavior is for him to warn and only ban for ignored warnings.
As to the past, he banned quickly, but only where it had become
obvious that persons were here to violate list rules. I don't think
that is true for Jojo, not after a recent review of his postings
here. He was here for the list purpose, it is only that he became
easily distracted from that, to a set of highly contentious topics,
involving politics and religion, and that he then became highly combative.
Now, to the point of this reply.
It is a classic form of insult, fighting words, to insult someone the
target loves or cares about.
"Your mother is a ..." is a serious form of fighting words. To call
someone a "Son of a ..." is similar, when the alleged trait of the
mother is an insult to the mother. To call someone a "bastard" is a
major insult. Even if their parents were not married! It is not about
"truth." It is quite possible to insult with truth, the issue is
*intention* and context.
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.
Jojo has said far more than that. He calls Obama the "usurper." He
claims that Obama is "muslim," as if this would be a bad thing if
true, so he is insulting not only Obama, and Muslims, but the huge
number of Americans who supported Obama, and the huge *additional
number* who preferred another president, but who would not support
the racist or religious attacks on Obama. The entire discussion of
Obama is clearly off-topic for this list, and, as an extended
discussion, violates list rules.
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.
Okay, Darwinian Evolutionists, then. Is that a lot of people, or some
isolated fanatic? Is Darwinian Evolution taught to and by
"Evoluntionary Biologists" in general? If so, the distinction here is pedantic.
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...)
I'm not tempted to debate Darwinian Evolution, I"m just making the
point about inflammatory posts.
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.
You insulted her *husband*. You took the relationship that was
apparently, from all accounts, the light of her life, and you drag it
through the mud. There happen to be a few people in the world who
care about Muhammad and Ayesha. (Like, what, a billion?) So you are
insulting people dear to them, based on what necessity? If you want
to argue that such a relationship (if at 9) would be inappropriate
today, fine. Lots of people, incuding many Muslims, would agree with
you. But calling Ayesha's husband a "child molester," and Ayesha a
"sex toy" is beyond the pale.
I have not insulted Abraham and Sarah. I pointed out that what they
did was wrong.
Those who respect Abrahan, Sarah, Hagar, and Ishmael might think
differently, Jojo. That is, first, the Jews, then there are
Christians and Muslims. Abraham did wrong? What wrong? Yeah, we can
find fault in the people of old. But we were not there, walking in their shoes.
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.
Right. But there was also a promise regarding that other son. And
this is a *religious issue*, Jojo. Arguments about these things are
famous for going nowhere but disruption and waste of time. This
particular argument, I found, is a common trope on certain Christian web sites.
He put aside the illegitimate child (Ishmael) in favor for the
promised child (Isaac).
Calling someone an illegitimate child under those conditions is very
much an insult. "You bastard!" <-- example. I just read the Bible on
this. the Bible clearly uses the term "wife," for Hagar. How *dare
you* contradict what the Bible says about this, merely to make a
point in some minor discussion on the internet?
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.
And the angel intervened. Jojo, you tell the story from a very warped
perspective. Ishmael *was* the first-born son of Abraham, there is no
doubt about that, not from the Bible, anyway. (Which leads to a
textual problem, we won't go into. Suffice it to say that people have
been arguing about this for well over a millenium.) Ishmael is, if we
accept the Bible, the progenitor of the Arabs. All of them, not just
"Muslim Arabs." So ... you just insulted the ancestor of all the
Arabs by calling him a bastard, and through him, all the Arabs
themselves. Way to go, Jojo. Not.
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.
Moon god claim: speculation about etymology, of *no relevance to
current usage.*
Dozens of wives: apparently exaggerated, he did not have even one
dozen at the peak. (Accumulated, including Khadijah, who was his only
wife until she died, it could be a dozen.)
Concubines: he had female servants, apparently, but a concubine
implies sex. Evidence? I've seen none, not even asserted, much less strong.
And 9-year-old sex toy: Ayesha might have been 9. Nobody who knows
the evidence considers this certain.
But "sex toy" is an insult. Of Ayesha. And of all Muslims who respect
her ("Mother of the Believers") and her husband. There is no story
that shows anything but normal sexual relations between Ayesha and
her husband, and those stories do not come with an age attached to
them. She might easily have been 18, for example. We have *no idea*
what happened between them early on. We have a story, considered
unreliable by some, and authoritative by others, that the marriage
was completed when she was 9, but that could be far from what we
would think of with "sex toy." Jojo makes up *insults*, and he's been
quite clear about that. He's saying this to outrage and enrage, if he
can get that response. He does it when he thinks he's been insulted.
There have been a whole series of discussions, with Jojo's position
being impervious to evidence. He basically ignores it, then, later
*brings up the same questions.* I answered the next question, was it yesterday?
Which Hawaiian State Registrar are you referring to? Name please?
I gave it, and I cited the authoritative Hawaiian government page.
It's like the birth certificate. Jojo demands that Obama order it
released. Besides the fact that *he can't do that,* Obama eventually
did *request* copies (two) of the "vault certificate," and in an
exception to Hawaiian procedure, they were prepared and provided.
It's all on this page, a post from this list.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg74631.html
The name is there. The page cited is
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
That's an official page, and the press release is from the governor of Hawai'i.
Are you implying that he or she has seen the original Birth Certificate.
I'm not implying that, I'm stating it directly, it's legally obvious
and would be accepted in a court of law unless contradicted. The
official press release states that, and Dr. Alvin Onaka certified it
on the copy. You cannot certify "true copy" except under certain
narrow circumstances. In this case, it's actually stated that Onaka
and Hawai'ian Health Director Loretta Fuddy saw the original and
witnessed the copying.
Jojo, if you were unaware of this document, which is central, you
really know very little about the controversy. Sheriff Arpaio
attempted to interview Onaka, and his investigators -- who were
misrepresenting themselves as "police" -- were tossed out.
And this is how "believers" function. Not the people of faith, that's
another matter. This is how people behave when they have fixed ideas
that they believe are truth, and they assume anyone who says what
seems different must be deluded or lying. They are incapable of
*noticing* and *remembering* contary evidence. I should say "we."
This is true for *all of us,* unless we are very careful. I go back
and check the archives, I do *not* depend on my memory, because
memory is malleable under the influence of belief.
But there is no sign that Jojo actually looks at evidence, and there
is strong evidence, over the last two days, that he does not.
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.
Of course not. You can ask Onaka, and Onaka is not going to answer,
unless compelled by a court, because it would be *releasing
information about a birth certificate other than as allowed by law.*
These are private records, maintained by a responsible public agency.
Obama can voluntarily show the copy to anyone, and he's done that, to
a press conference. If none of those people actually saw a
state-certified copy, we'd expect one of them to speak up. If the
printed copy they were given -- which would not be made from a
compressed scan unless the Obama officials were stupid -- were
different visibly from the on-line copy (made from a compressed
scan), surely one would speak up. Have any spoken up?
Basically, the *whole birther theory* is wildly improbable, it flies
in the face of reason. If Obama wanted to fake the certificate, he'd
have sent agents to break into the vault, steal the bound volume, and
return it with a substituted forged copy, which could be done to be
practically undetectable. Highly illegal, of course, he could be
impeached for it, but he could be impeached for any willful deception
on this issue. He would not do it through an altered scan, it would
be far too easy for that to be discovered.
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.
No, that is *not* all they said. The document I pointed to shows that
the two officials actually saw the vault cetificate. Onaka certified
it under penalty of perjury. You know, what Jojo is saying might have
been true before the preparation of the two copies, about the *prior*
certificate, the "short form copy." Jojo appears to remember old
claims, as if they are still valid. His memory is more authoritative
to him than *actual documents," and that would be the same as with
the Executive Order issue. He made his claim about the Order again
and again, and when I found the actual Executive Order, and it didn't
match what he (and many birthers) had claimed, I speculated that some
other Order might be involved, and then I said that I doubted such
another Order existed. Jojo does not read carefully -- the record
shows that in many places --, he assumed I was denying the existence
of the original Order, and triumphantly posted the whole thing here.
That whole Order confirms what I'd written, but he continued to deny
that through a series of posts that actually quoted the Order. He's
never addressed the real issue, he just kept repeating his original,
now-discredited claim, *as if no evidence were present.*
They never mentioned anything about what it contained. Everyone
was too afraid to cross the Illuminati.
And that theory will persist forever. It is not falsifiable, it
merely becomes increasingly preposterous.
But other than these people that I have "insulted", have I actually
insulted anyone in Vortex-l first without being insulted first?
Yes. Me, for starters. But what Jojo has done is to perceive insult,
then respond with insult. He acknowledges that he insults, but he
doesn't apparently undertand that when he perceives insult, when
people are just responding normally, his is responding to his own
imagination. And that's the same with how he deals with any of the
evidence presented, and if someone points this out to him, he sees it
as an insult.
I gave him the names. Two of them, Onaka and Fuddy. Is Jojo *ever*
going to apologize?
I could go back and determine how the Moon God discussion was raised.
But it would take way too much time. Just tracking down and
documenting the history of the first major off-topic brouhaha (on
Darwinian Evolution) here took way too long. My *rough recollection*
is that I questioned Jojo's birther propaganda, having *actually
investigated his claims*, and he then attacked Muslims as liars. Etc.
One more point. Are birth certificates necessarily true information?
No. I have prepared and filed birth certificates. Nobody checks.
*Unless someone can prove otherwise,* the records on file with the
Health Department, in the U.S. states, *determine* who is a citizen
by right of birth. Period. And a certified copy of those records,
short form or long form, *is* legal proof. Like any legal proof, it's
rebuttable, but nobody has been getting anywhere with efforts to
challenge this, and it will be, in my opinion, totally moot if
Congress certifies the second election. Unlike what many seem to
think, if it *were* discovered that Obama were "ineligible," this
would, by itself, have zero effect on his first term as President,
because Congress had the responsibility and authority to certify --
or reject -- the election, and chose to certify it in 2009.
Congress could act now, by impeaching him, if they felt that
necessary (what a waste of time! because it would have practically no
legal effect, all of his actions as President would still stand). The
birthers will have their last chance, coming up in a few days. If
Congress ignores the birther claims, or rejects them, it's over. He's
then the continuing President, even if actual proof were to come out
that he was born in Kenya, even if his mother were merely a foster
mother. It's called "res judicata." There is a limit to controversy, legally.
On the other hand, if proof comes out that he *lied*, that he
committed perjury, on a matter like this, Congress could impeach him
on those grounds, and remove him from office if he is found guilty.
But he'd still be President until removed from office, and the
Vice-President would become President. Don't hold your breath!
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
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.
