Oh, and, when you do that... make sure you don't just jump in out of context. Read the whole thread. I know that is hard for you, but you have "made your bed so it's time to sleep in it. " I doubt you will do the honorable thing.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > Have I insulted Peter Gluck on this thread? Nope. So what's yer > problem? Log onto the threads where I have insulted these people and see > for yourself their own attitudes. > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Life is too short and I have other things more important than dealing >> with your "chip on your shoulder" childish attitude. The record shows that >> you have insulted and have been childish to many people here before I >> showed up. Here are just a sample of people you picked fights with. >> >> 1. Peter Gluck >> 2. Lennart Thornros >> 3. Mark at Zeropoint >> 4. Blaze Spinnaker >> 5. Dave Roberson >> 6. Me. >> >> >> Should I go on? >> >> You can hve the last insult my friend, Have at it. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >> *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:34 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Everyone knows that I meant to not comment on religious stuff >>> anymore. If you are too dumb to realize that, well my friend, that is your >>> problem. >>> >> ***bullshit. Your point number 5 had nothing to do with "religious >> stuff". And you've continued to comment on religious stuff. And you've >> continued to respond to me, after you said you wouldn't. >> >> Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> >> Aug 15 (1 day ago) >> >> >> to vortex-l >> >> JOJO: >> This will be my last response on this subject lest I get too hyped up and >> bring the quick judgement of the mob here again. But let me just point out >> a few things. >> ........ >> 5. I don't understand Axil's audacity to challenge Ed and come away >> claiming that he is more right than Ed. I'll take Ed's worst speculation >> over Axil's best everytime. >> >> ***You ain't true to your word. Your last set of speculations has the >> audacity to "challenge Ed", and you are a hypocrite to boot. You deserve >> to be keyed up on. I would not characterize it as bullying. I would >> characterize your crappy attitude towards Axil and trying to remove him >> from this discussion group as bullying, "as if you are the boss here. Grow >> Up". Why should anyone listen to you? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> I am sick of your bullying and attitude as if you are the boss here. >>> GROW UP. >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >>> *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL >>> >>> But this might be the right venue for Axil's latest theory because the >>> one guy who introduced bibilical stuff has said he wouldn't comment on this >>> subject any longer. Well, other than the fact that he hasn't kept his >>> word, it would be a good plan to have the discussion on this thread. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The Biblical stuff has other venues. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating >>>>> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout >>>>> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting >>>>> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the >>>>> learned >>>>> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion >>>>> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a >>>>> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic >>>>> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that >>>>> turn into muons that go on to promote proton-proton interactions. I am >>>>> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or >>>>> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal >>>>> with the dreaded gamma ray? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We are talking rational history here, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Google hits for >>>>>> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita" : 3 >>>>>> >>>>>> "historicity of Jesus" : about 214,000 >>>>>> >>>>>> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad >>>>>> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"? Their >>>>>> answer >>>>>> is basically no, it's just something they believe in. They were raised >>>>>> believing it, so they don't rock that boat. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, >>>>>>> in his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. >>>>>>> Or do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to >>>>>>>> me. Are these passages from the Mahabharata? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jojo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
