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 <[email protected]> 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" < > [email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > 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/** >> [email protected]/msg66036.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/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 to >>> involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people >>> would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude >>> other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing >>> wrt to Hot fusion. >>> >> >> However, he then proceeded to "challenge" Jed Rothwell, who had responded >> civilly to Jojo. However, Jed noted that Jojo was "ignorant." That kind of >> comment is typically taken by Jojo as an "insult." Rothwell promised to let >> Jojo have the last word. He kept that promise for that thread. The >> discusion of evolution continued a little, but other readers started to >> complain about off-topic. >> >> A thread on a cold fusion topic had been hijacked by the insertion of a >> discussion of "Darwinian Evolution," based not, as Jojo has often claimed, >> on "propaganda," but a mere reference to Darwin as a man with ideas that >> were not popular in his time, dicta. In the process, Jojo set up a >> *political argument.* Read the post! >> >> Then Jojo started a new thread, specifically on Darwinian Evolution, >> resent Sat, 26 May 2012 02:22:30 -0700. >> http://www.mail-archive.com/**[email protected]/msg66051.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg66051.html> >> >> He did not keep to his intention. He continued to poke at Jed. Jed had >> answered, and indicated intention not to respond further, and had not >> responded further. Others had made small comments. Yet Jojo's post >> mentioned Jed five times, in addition to continuing to quote Jed's original >> response. The mentions were not complimentary. >> >> Jed Rothwell did not bite. However, James Bowery did, becoming incensed >> that Jojo apparently would not consider an experiment to distinguish >> between Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution. The interchange >> revealed clearly that this was a *religious* argument. >> http://www.mail-archive.com/**[email protected]/msg66108.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg66108.html>and >> the incivility was quite what can be expected when people argue >> religion *without listening.* So now there was a reader who had "insulted" >> Jojo, though this was still somewhat within normal forum behavior. The >> topic, though, generated a lot of posts, and this was now heavily >> off-topic. Vortex-l allows limited off-topic discussion, and this was >> straying outside that. >> >> Dave Roberson, who is perhaps sympathetic to Jojo's view on Darwinian >> Evolution, objected to the uncivil comment, but also suggested that Jojo >> move the discussion elsewhere. >> >> In a post resent Sun, 27 May 2012 10:10:57 -0700, Jojo wrote: >> >> This will be my last response to you. You're welcome to have the last >>> word. >>> >> >> Jojo, however, continued to respond in the thread. I jumped in with >> http://www.mail-archive.com/**[email protected]/msg66144.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg66144.html> >> >> Ah, I do write lengthy posts! However, this did not insult Jojo, unless >> my pointing to his self-revelation in his post would be an insult. It >> wasn't. I took Jojo literally and looked at what his posts implied about >> him, and described it. >> >> Just be aware, Jojo, that you are describing yourself, better and more >>> accurately than you are describing Jed, whom you do not really know. >>> >> >> Jojo responded to me, resent Mon, 28 May 2012 02:47:05 -0700. He sought >> to move the discussion with me off list. He responded again, Tue, 29 May >> 2012 04:39:16 +0800 >> >> First you criticize me for "hijacking" this thread (which was not a >>> hijack because I was trying to draw a parallel and I renamed the thread.), >>> then you continue to criticize me for hijacking even though I have stopped >>> responding, then you continue to keep this topic alive even though I and >>> others have given it a rest. >>> >> >> Here we can start to see a pattern. I had not "criticized" Jojo for >> hijacking the thread. The thread, regarding which I'd mentioned hijacking, >> was the *prior* thread. Jojo had renamed it (which was proper, but he left >> out the OT tag.) What I had done was to respond to a series of Jojo posts, >> not yet to the latest one. Now that I'd seen that, I responded Mon, 28 May >> 2012 21:16:16 -0400 >> >> Jojo, you make up fantasies about what shows in this record. Why would >>> I expect you'd have anything of substance to discuss elsewhere? >>> >>> I did not criticize you for hijacking the thread. This is a great >>> example of meaning created in the mind of the reader. >>> >> >> We were now discussing what happened on-list. Not Darwinian Evolution, >> about which we could argue forever. I declined Jojo's invitation to take it >> elsewhere. I indicated that I thought the dicussion was not likely to have >> value for me. >> >> (By the way, that could be considered my Favorite Debate Tactic, for >> on-line discussion, where there is a *complete and accurate record* of the >> discussion. It could be considered a test. If someone is going to firmly >> insist on allegations regarding the record, and neither verify them by >> reference to the record, nor acknowledge error -- or show alternative >> interpretation *that respects the record,* it's hopeless to imagine that we >> might come to agreement on difficult and abstract topics. As a "debate >> tactic," it establishes the lack of credibility of the other writer. I'd >> prefer they not do this. I don't like to "win debates" through the >> stupidity of the other. And this tactic can backfire in some contexts where >> people simply assume that anyone asserting a strong position will post >> false evidence. They take compilations of evidence as proof of obsession. >> That happens on Wikipedia.) >> >> Jojo replied, resent Mon, 28 May 2012 20:04:11 -0700 >> >> OK Whatever. This will be my last response to you ever. You are >>> welcome to have the last word and deliver some parting insult or snide >>> remark. >>> >>> No sense in arguing with Darwinian Evolution fanatics; who's only >>> interested in blaberring about things he does not know. It's akin to >>> arguing with Parks regarding cold fusion. >>> >> >> It's quite visible here how Jojo created a highly contentious discussion, >> then took offense when it was described dispassionately. He completely >> ignores what he did: perceive a criticism where there was only a >> description, and then solidify that perception as if it were a fact, which >> he will remember, as people often do when they do this, as a "fact." To be >> repeated and relied upon. It's a variation on what James Bowery saw and >> responded to. Not interested in *evidence*. I know what's true, and even if >> I can look at the evidence by just looking at my own email, I won't. Not >> needed. I already know the Truth (TM). This was guaranteed to end badly, >> unless Jojo wakes up, which doesn't happen very often. >> >> I did not respond again in that thread. Jojo did twice, tossing in claims >> likely to set off anyone with strong opinions about Bible archeology (what >> does this have to do with Darwinian Evolution, the subject?), Gnostic >> Christians, and just about anyone with knowledge or established opinion on >> a wide variety of topics, that happen to be topics that *often* lead to >> useless flame wars in internet fora. What's amazing is that relatively few >> readers took the bait. Jojo had the last word in the topic for over two >> months, when it was reawakened by Axil Axil. >> >> The last word in this topic was http://www.mail-archive.com/** >> [email protected]/msg68373.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg68373.html>Jojo >> would doubtlessly not like that post, but it probably represents a >> very common view among Vorticians. He did not respond. >> >> But he continues to argue Darwinian Evolution, with claims that anyone >> who accepts it is naive, ignorant, and hoodwinked. Which is the large >> majority of us on this list. Yet he thinks he isn't insulting people! >> >> >> >
