Excellent spin Lomax. Gotta admit, I did not forsee this spin. So, it's
about "Balance" now, right?
OK, if I am understanding you correctly, we should look at muhammed's life
in "Balance". On the one hand, he is a child molester who forced sex on a 9
year old little girl barely out of diapers; BUT BUT BUT .... on the other
hand, he is a such such such great leader and allah's apostle (the HOLEY
prophet) he is worth following and killing and going to jihad for. Is this
what you want people to swallow? OK whatever.
Goodness creepers, everyone who follow this child molester and fight for him
and commit murder for him should have their heads examined.
Have I not told that truth that muhammed had a 9 year old concubine that HE
HAD SEX WITH? If you consider it insulting when people tell the truth about
your religion islam, how do you think I would feel when people told lies
about the Bible? The Bible written by goat herders? Nothing could be more
moronic.
Well, I guess, a book written by honest hard working goat herders has got to
be infinitely better than a book written by a child molester. LOL....
Jojo
PS. So, how about apologizing for calling me a liar about A'isha. You said
that I was lying about muhammed's 9 year old concubine and that there were
only "evangelical" sources. I have provided sources from muslim scholars (2
of them.) Are you honest enough to acknowledge that I did not lie about
what I am saying. How about learning how to study and research correctly,
ha? My goodness, you were a muslim chaplain? No wonder muslims are
confused. They have you as the chaplain.
So, who's the liar now. I provided proof from muslim scholars. (Salih
Muslim and Salih Bukhari are 2 of the most respected and venerated muslim
works.) You provided proof from wikipedia. Yet I am the liar?
In case people don't see it. Here's the proof of A'isha (muhammed's 9 year
old sexual toy) again.
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace
be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to
his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and
when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed
there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of
six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.
Here is how the Prophet used to have fun and sex with his child bride.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub.
During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below
the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head
near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).
Sahih Muslim Book 3, Number 0629:
'A'isha reported: I and the Messenger (may peace be upon him) took a bath
from the same vessel and our hands alternated into it in the state that we
had had sexual intercourse.
Can we ever imagine how an over fifty years old man could fondle his
pre-teen wife during her menstrual cycle! By the way, the meaning of Junub
is sexual defilement, that is, the state after having sex.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Sent a message of query off to Mr. Beaty concerning
recent trolling activity
At 10:32 PM 12/22/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Then maybe, he can see that I was discussing with civility on a thread I
started before Lomax, SVJ and others started the insults. Yes, I am the
troll for responding appropriately to insults. Maybe, he'll notice that
my responses are with insults that are calibrated to the level of
nastiness thrown my way. Maybe. he'll notice which people really start
the insults around here.
He can see it by looking at the history of each thread. He can see that
Jojo initiated the uncivil exchanges, converting civil disagreement into
personal attacks. I've documented this in the past, and if Mr. Beatty
wants some support in finding the documentation, if he actually needs
that -- he may not --, I'll be happy to provide whatever he asks for,
either on or off-list.
He'll be able to tell that, in the most recent exchange, the discussion
had gone cold, with Jojo having made the last comment, and other people
just leaving it at that. He can then see that Jojo re-initiated it.
[...]
I am fighting to keep a little sanity in Vortex-L and keep people like you
from dragging down this fine fine forum with your incessant trolling of
off-topic posts. We have lost fine fine great men with great ideas
because of incessant off-topic posts and noise and you still maintain that
it is your right to do so. May I remind you that this problem preceeded
my joining Vortex-L, so I am not the problem. I am one fighting to
highlight this problem and people like Lomax and SVJ and others just
can't handle the fact that I am trying to fix this forum that has become
dysfunctional.
So, If Bill does what you want, I wouldn't care too much. After all, I am
not really interested in joining a mob group.
The list owner knows that some level of off-topic posting is useful
socially.
If it were true, however, that I were using this group for "Muslim
propaganda," to argue about Islam, that would be a problem, but Jojo
introduced the whole issue of Islam. It appears to have been done to troll
for my response. There was no relevance to ongoing discussions, which
weren't about Islam. This was entirely introduced here by Jojo. The same
is likely true about Jojo's attacks on President Obama. I first became
involved in discussion with Jojo, as I recall, over his "birther" claims.
I hadn't been familiar with the claims, generally trusting that if Obama
really were not born in Hawaii, the truth would out -- and there might
then be a constitutional problem, the resolution of which would be tough,
and probably the Supreme Court would punt, i.e., consider that it would
be an issue for Congress to resolve. But that's moot here.
Jojo attacked me precisely because I researched his claims, and found them
*preposterous*. And I reported that here.
It's quite like the Moon God claims. I.e., if you search, you can find
"evidence" for them. But we don't decide issues one-sidedly, only fanatics
do that. We look at the balance of evidence.
This is actually relevant to common Vortex discussions. For example, we
can find evidence that Rossi is a fraud. We can find evidence that he's
for real.
What's the balance? Someone who is a fanatic only looks at one side. To
actually come to sane conclusions -- or to recognize that no clear
conclusion is yet possible -- one must consider *all the evidence.*
Someone like Jojo, arguing about Vortex topics, will cloud the issues,
taking only one side. That happens all the time, we accept it here, *when
it's on topic.* We also allow people to express unpopular opinions about
other topics here. It is only when this totally dominates participation
that it starts to be a problem.
I'll repeat my position: the list owner should warn anyone the list owner
sees as having a problem with participation here, giving guidance on what
is acceptable and what is not, and if the person neglects the warning,
they should be banned. That's very simple, and the list owner is
completely free to, for example, warn me or Steve or anyone. I'm not going
to leave because of such a warning, if there is one. I'd respect it, to
the degree possible.
I survived on Wikipedia as long as I did because, until I concluded that
due process was a waste of time, there, and because Wikipedia has a stated
mission that causes a broader common law than "owner rules" to apply, I
followed community process and heeded administrative warnings. -- and what
ultimately happened was that I was pursued in spite of this, that bans
were re-interpreted to include what they clearly had not originally been
intended to include. The faction I'd confronted -- successfully! -- was
*going to retaliate* no matter what I did, and enough members of ArbComm,
from leaks from their private mailing list on Wikipediareview.com, were
complicit that compliance became useless. My purpose on Wikipedia was to
experiment with community process, and that mission had been accomplished,
completed when I also checked out community response to banned editors.
(Previously, I'd tested alternative responses, more likely to result in
the consensus that is essential to wiki theory, as a WikiMedia Foundation
sysop, on Wikiversity. Basically, we know what to do, but mostly we won't
do it. Too much trouble.)
(Participation in the vortex list was important to me at one time, it's
less important now, because I' m active on the CMNS list, the private list
for cold fusion researchers. But I still read this list and respond on
occasion, when I have time. When I have time, I might respond a lot. At
other times, I'm too busy and don't necessarily respond.)
