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 <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > How do you know that? Mary's Age? > > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* leaking pen <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[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! >>> >>> >>> >> >
