Posted on 10/10/2003 2:23:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 10/10/2003 2:27:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Dear Free Republic Friends,
My old friend and brother-in-arms BADJOE has promised to warm the cockles of our hearts by publishing an expose (the truth about JimRob and Free Republic according to Joe) on the 18th of this month, which represents the one year anniversary of the date he last posted to FreeRepublic.com and started up with LibertyPost.org.
So, as I believe that only the truth can set you free, and based upon the stratergery of pre-emptive strike, I have a confession to make (before BADJOE makes it public):
I have poisoned the well.
By my sly innuendos behind the scenes.
By my intellectual ineptitude.
By not trusting those that brung me to the dance to bring me home.
By my biting every hand that fed me.
By my arrogance that causes me to think I did it all by myself.
By my stubborness not because of principle, but because of my lack of ability to see what is transpiring.
Evidenced by:
One would think that with half again as many Freepers. with a recovering economy, It would take a great deal less time to raise the necessary funds.
By this time in the June 2002 effort with a goal of $70,000 we had raised $73,000. Not because of who did the fundraising, but because the sense of purpose, of family, of comaraderie, was still present.
BADJOE rang the warning bell, but none heard.
Conclusion:
It is a sad day.
For what was once a great hope, a means of bringing together those who are willing to pay dearly in blood, sweat, and money to save this country, we all love, has been reduced to an asterisk.
So sayeth BADJOE as he promises to publish all this and much more on the 18th. He's been feverishly working on this "project" for one full year. In addition to the "truth about JimRob" BADJOE intends to further betray our trust placed in him by revealing the names of our moderators. And who knows what else?
I can hardly wait.
Is it the 18th yet? Tick, tock.
If that comes to pass, here's a serious question for the moderators: Would this mean I could go back to replying to A Certain Poster who has insisted that I never speak to him again because it upsets him to see me point out flaws in his arguments if his name is attached?
After all, He Who Must Not Be Mentioned could just put me on "ignore" if he's really that sensitive, and I could go back to refuting his posts in a way that again leaves the point-counterpoint connections intact.
And now I must bid you "Good Night". A few hours of sleep, then up for study.
I made fun of Lutefisk for years and years (who hasn't?). Then a Norwegian boyfriend of a friend made some for us. And I... I... I really liked it. Oh the shame.
"It still hasn't gotten weird enough for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
IOW: I, gore3000 can freely refer directly to my fellow freepers as "thugs," "Brown Shirts," "Clintonites," "Stupid," "liars," etc, etc, etc, and it's not a personal attack when I do it (but is if someone calls me on it) because it's "perfectly true" (when I say it) and after all they're all attacking me because my smears and vituperations are "perfectly true" and they can't stand that.
You've gone over the edge, gore -- I mean waaaaaay over the edge -- and you're plumeting like an anvil encumbered (but not so wiley) coyote. Seek help. Get your shi'ite together. Quit spitting venom at your fellow freepers (not to mention your fellow Christians). I'm not a moderator, but I'll just say what's perfectly obvious, probably to everyone except you: You aren't long for this forum if you continue as you have been.
I'll worry a lot more ... about eternity --- than this forum !
In the case of some posters, it takes an eternity to figure out what they are trying to say.
That's been your constant refrain, but let's not forget all the times I compared your accusations against the posts you were accusing, and found that you were being, to put it kindly, disingenuous.
There was, for one example of many, the time that you declared the following post by Right Wing Professor to be a sample of where you found an evolutionist's post to have "some condesending [sic] remark or ad hominem attack" and was therefore support for what you called your "sad conclusions" that 1) "Those supporting 'science' are the quickest to behave in an unscientific manner", 2) "Those most inclined to hit the abuse button are the abusers", and 3) "The food fights tend to start with the evolutionists":
Right Wing Professor's post #76, was (in its entirety):I said it then, and I'll repeat it now -- if this is your hand-picked example of an "unscientific", "abusive" post, then it seems that you'll consider anything an attack.The "Creation" model assumed the time was 6,000 years, with most of the helium produced in one or more bursts of accelerated nuclear decay near the beginning of that time.
This is the key piece of weaselry. Helium and uranium daughters should be produced a similar rates (related by some numerical factor which depends on the number of alpha decays over the whole chain). There is far too much of the uranium daughters to be formed in 6000 years. And by far too much, I mean about 250,000 times too much. That's obviously a big problem, so they propose 'accelerated nuclear decay', a completely ad-hoc hypothesis that contravenes everything we know about nuclear physics. If that decay were confined to, say, 1% of the 6000 years, it would put the natural level of radioactivity at 25 million times the current level. If we take a low average value for background radiaiton exposure at 100 mrem/yr, then the creationists' theory would have it at 2.5 million rems per year during the period of accelerated nuclear decay. 1000 rems over a period of a couple of days is enough to cause early death from acute radiation poisoning. Any living material would be fried.
Moreover, if they have made helium diffusion measurements in zircons, why aren't they published in a real journal? Those, if done correctly, are perfectly valid numbers, interesting to a number of people, and need not be referenced to creationism. That's assuming they did their measurements competently and didn't 'cook' the data. Given what I've written above, I'd give either plenty of credence.
As for your allegation that the "food fights tend to start with the evolutionists", you ironically made this charge on a thread where POST NUMBER ONE which created the thread was a post by a creationist which ended with a taunt at evolutionists (the thread was eventually pulled).
Don't forget that what honked people off wasn't your choosing to discuss whether such morality would be subjective, it was the fact that you chose as your subject matter the "implications of a worldview" of evolution which, you asserted, supported Nazism, Hitler, and genocide and that Hitler was inspired by evolution. Surely you must have known how inflamatory that would be. So don't act so surprised that some considered you to be trolling.
So, Dales, I wish it could work but I don't have any confidence that it would. I've thought about the suggestion, but will just post as I've always posted and hopefully will remain here.
I hope you do too. But I also wish that you (and many others) would stop playing Persecuted Christian so often. It's gotten so that the debate threads *start* with a list of prior grievances offered as an excuse for why y'all won't just discuss the topic, or as a game of "gotcha" to see who can first to leap upon a comment and use it to "prove" that evolutionists are as mean and cruel as our reputation, etc.
Lately (and not so lately), the creationists seem to be more interested in discussing their wounded pride (or "evening the score") than in discussing whatever scientific topic is actually at hand.
They're *debate* threads. They're going to be somewhat rough-and-tumble, by nature. It's true that it shouldn't go overboard and everyone should attempt to be well-mannered, but don't be shocked if/when things get heated. If someone's *too* out of line, feel free to use the "Abuse" button, that's what it's there for. But is there really anything to be gained by keeping a running mental total of how many times you've been offended by something someone said, or how often the moderators didn't rush to your rescue?
If I nursed a grudge over every time *I've* been insulted on a thread, I'd have to hire assistants to help carry the burden. Instead, I either laugh it off or ignore it or kick them in the pants as appropriate -- and then the next morning I start everyone with a clean slate.
Life's too short to indulge in vendettas or self-pity.
I'm not an abusive poster -
On the whole, I'd agree with that.
but I do stand up for what I feel is right. That gets me labeled "holier than thou", but so be it.
Standing up for what you feel is right is not what gets you labeled that way. It's more stuff like this:
"Actually sir, if god came down and told me that I should interpret Genesis allegorically I'd call him a liar and not the true God because God does not contradict Himself and JESUS took it literally."
No need, I gave the link to the post in question.
[PatrickHenry wrote:] Brings back memories of the thread about the professor who hurt the feelings of a creationist student by not giving him a letter of recommendation. [Gore3000 replied:] It was not about hurt feelings, it was about an atheist insisting that someone give up their religious beliefs for the sake of a recommendation. He was doing the devil's work so that is why you approve of his actions. 304 posted on 08/16/2003 5:43 AM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
Sound's like the "devils work" for me and if you approved of it the gore is right.
Misses the point. The point is not whether you or I or anyone thinks that Professor Dini was doing "the devil's work" for expecting students to not reject a scientific view in order to get a letter of recommendation for a career in *science* (and that topic was well beat to death on that thread, no need to repeat it here other than to say that Gore3000 is misrepresenting that situation).
Entirely apart from that, the fact remains that it was amazingly insulting and presumptuous of Gore3000 to claim that the *reason* PatrickHenry (allegedly) approved of Dini's actions precisely *BECAUSE* Dini was "doing the devil's work".
You must be skipping posts as you read this thread.
If you are always that fast to basically tell someone that they just lied, then it is no wonder you end up on the wrong side of so many flame wars.
Food for thought.
...because ALS had hatched it as a scheme to "sucker" the evolutionists into hamstringing themselves on the debate threads.
You have just put your foot in your mouth so deeply that I think you will need an operation to get it out.
Being civil is 'hamstringing' the evos. That says it all. Not bashing Christianity, is hamstringing the evos, that speaks completely about the evolutionist agenda on the threads also.
No such claim of any such "right" exists within The Agreement.
A lie. It is called the 'troll' provision, the right to call someone a troll and a disruptor at will. Patrick Henry held up the agreement for days to have it inserted - and thus destroy the agreement from within.
IOW: I, gore3000 can freely refer directly to my fellow freepers as "thugs," "Brown Shirts," "Clintonites," "Stupid," "liars," etc, etc,
That was not the quote referred to, proving that my statement was correct - again - that you insult me for telling the truth. As to the rest of your post, you are taking words out of context - as usual. Post the links to where they were said and I will show that they were ABSOLUTELY justified - this is unlike the examples I have given of evo behavior which were due only to someone saying something regarding the subject which evos disagreed with. Big difference.
It's from the editor of CreationSafaris.
Oh okay, so my tagline came from there by way of you. Thanks again!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.