Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creationist Site Says: "Mac Users, You Are Godless Communists!"
TheMacObserver ^ | 4/23/02 | Raena Armitage

Posted on 04/23/2002 7:45:18 PM PDT by ppaul

Repent, sinners. Your Macintosh is a tool to promote Godless Communism and anti-Creationist "propaganda", according to an article at OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries. Dr. Richard Paley, apparently "a teacher of Divinity and Theobiology at Fellowship University," starts out with discussions of the PBS series Evolution and Pokemon, and goes on to say:

However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

Later additions to this article say:

It has been brought to my attention that the Darwin OS mentioned above now has a cartoon mascot (no doubt to influence children) named Hexley (pictured above) -- a platypus dressed as a devil who performs occult magic, i.e. hexes. They're not doing a very good job keeping their ties to the forces of darkness a secret, are they? (snip)

More clues have come in showing the dark nature of Apple Computers. According to one of our readers, the new MacOS X contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?

Check out the full article for yourself.

[Editor's Note: The article and the Web site hosting the article were both inaccessible as of 12:46 PM CST to TMO staff (Observer Whit noted that the site was down as of 12:30 PM CST). Other Observers report being able to pull up the site, but that it is very slow.]

:


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: applesoftware; communism; computers; crevolist; cults; darwin; demons; devil; evolution; hardware; ibm; internet; it; mac; macintosh; macos; os; pc; pokemon; religion; technology; televangelist; trashcan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: mass55th

"The PowerPC G4 Velocity Engine processes information in 128-bit chunks, compared to the 32 — or 64-bit chunks in traditional chips." (apple.com)

You know you want one. Survival of the fittest indeed.


21 posted on 04/23/2002 8:32:47 PM PDT by Semper911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
For the real story on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time and his BS theory, and on the continuing efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the sham alive for another generation:

For the real story about Apple Computers...

I sort of thought everybody knew the story about Apple. Starting from about 1978 Intel came out with the first 16-bit microprocessor and it was so pathetic that the entire American OEM microcomputer world took one look at it and at the specs for the 68000 and told Intel "Thanks but no thanks, we'd rather wait the extra year and a half or so". By rights, Intel should have died a natural death right there but IBM stepped in and reversed the entire direction of the market with the PC, largely because Apple had its hands too much into the production runs for the 68000 and IBM could not be assured of having enough of them.

The one company in a position to challenge IBM by producing any kind of a mass-market machine using 68000 chips was Apple, and what did they do? Basically, they built two computers which were so pitiful (Lisa and toaster mac) that they convinced most of the world that the 68000 itself was a bad idea.

And then when Atari came out in 85 with a machine (520 ST) which was everything the PC should have been from day 1, Apple, knowing it would be two years before they'd have anything competitive, forced Atari to make a list of crippling changes to the OS and graphical interface to the ST under threat of tying the thing up in courts for ten years.

This is the so-called counter-culture computer company. Far as I'm concerned, they're a bunch of losers and yuppy nerds who got lucky once and that's every bit of it. I'd sell used cars for a living before I'd have anything to do with an Apple computer.

22 posted on 04/23/2002 8:46:58 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
The first part of the descriptor is more characteristic of PC users who can't conceive of any other operating system.

I don't think so. I think most PC users are like me, they opt for the more popular format that has more software available etc. That's the killer reason, not because one is better than the other. We have one of each - PC and an iMac. I've used my wife's iMac quite a few times but have never felt comfortable with it. The kids can use either machine. They opt for the PC.

I'm a amateur musician. Pro Tools is a professional music recording program studios use which was written for the Mac. Supposedly runs on PC also but runs best on Mac. Even with that incentive I'll probably get another PC when my son steals mine to take to college this fall. Macs are just not worth the trouble.
23 posted on 04/23/2002 8:56:26 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
You should have at least posted the followup:

The Mac Observer Spin: Ruh-oh, Shaggy! Some fundamentalist Christian somewhere would have us believe that Godless commies with a 5% market share are obviously eeeeevil, and Steve Jobs is a cult leader bent on destroying good Christian values in Mac users!! Those idiots! Right? Right?

Er, wrong. While many people over the Web who have linked to this 'article' seem convinced that there's a genuine motive behind this, it looks like a hoax. Despite the convincing use of a real Christian free Web hosting service and genuine Christian popup ads, the giveaways are to be found elsewhere on the site:

* There are some poorly Photoshopped images of rallies,
* No such Baptist church as "Mt. Fellowship" appears to exist,
* The fact that many members have e-mail addresses with nonexistent domain names,
* Also, all the "Dr. Richard Paleys" of the world appear to be in fields other than divinity and 'theobiology'.

Sorry, guys; put away the flamethrowers. It's an amusing parody, though, and well worth a read.

From: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/04/22.4.shtml
24 posted on 04/23/2002 8:57:23 PM PDT by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
I've actually written a "daemon". Most Unix machines have them. Will the horrors never cease? :-) Of course I'm replying on a Mac running OS X.

Trivial information alert. For those curious about "chmod 666", the Unix command "chmod" stands for "change mode" which changes the way a file can be read. Each file has 4 octal (base 8) number associated with it. Each octal number represents 3 binary bits such that 000 is 0, 001 is 1, 010 is 2, 011 is 3, 100 is 4, 101 is 5, 110 is 6, and 111 is 7. The first of the three bits is for "read", the second bit is for "write", and the third bit is for "execute" meaning that it is a program that can be run. If the bit is on or "1", then you can do the thing that it represents. There are 3 octal numbers representing the rights that the owner of the file has, the rights that the files group has, and the rights that everyone else has. A 4th octal number can specify some other information about the file that is much more complicated but most people just deal with the 3 octal numbers. Got it? So if you want to set a file so that the owner, the group, and others can read or write the file, you use the octal number for 110 which is 6 three times. You see the number isn't six hundred and sixty six but (6 * 64) + (6 * 8) + 6 = 438, hardly a demonic number.

25 posted on 04/23/2002 9:02:44 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
Operating systems? The future of operating systems is LINUX. I was at a DC area LINUX users group meeting once at which RedHat reps were asked point blank if there would be linux ports for the Mac and they said, to the best of their knowledge, nobody in the LINUX world was interested in Macs.
26 posted on 04/23/2002 9:10:47 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
I owned a couple of Macs once. Ribbed plastic, clunky things with SCSI ports. Couldn't multitask their way out of a paper bag. Now they're prissy-looking things that only a limp-wristed panty-waist girly-man would own.
27 posted on 04/23/2002 9:11:08 PM PDT by AF68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
Macs are just not worth the trouble.

Funny, that's just how I feel aout PCs... Just too weird, awkward and time consuming even for routine file management activities. PCs are just do not handle tasks straightforwardly like a Mac does.

28 posted on 04/23/2002 9:11:52 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Well somebody besides IBM created my Mac and while I've married it with Linux on a 2nd Hard Drive, I don't think it will evolve much.
29 posted on 04/23/2002 9:18:28 PM PDT by G Larry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daviddennis
Apple has 3.5%...

But have you noticed they have 99.9% of the market in movie "computer cameos"? Even with Hollywood pitching their products in film after film, poor things still can't muster above a 3.5?

30 posted on 04/23/2002 9:25:17 PM PDT by avenir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: medved
...RedHat reps were asked point blank if there would be linux ports for the Mac and they said, to the best of their knowledge, nobody in the LINUX world was interested in Macs.

While "RedHat reps" may be disinterested, the O'Reilly Network has taken a keen interest in both the UNIX underpinnings and the Open Source portion, and has dedicated space on its site to that end.

See: http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/
31 posted on 04/23/2002 9:30:13 PM PDT by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Thanks she says typing on her iMac keyboard!:)
32 posted on 04/23/2002 9:33:01 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: avenir
Even with Hollywood pitching their products in film after film, poor things still can't muster above a 3.5?

Those are product placements. They're paid for by Apple. You may disparage Apple's marketing, but Hollywood don't do nothin' for free.
33 posted on 04/23/2002 9:33:44 PM PDT by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cheney Chick
I've been right all along about you.
34 posted on 04/23/2002 9:36:30 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Hey, I actually posted this web page, all of it, this morning. I've gotta admit, if it's a spoof, it a really good one. But it got shoved off to the religion forum, and I got busy before I could ping anyone. Anyway, if you want to read it, read it here.
35 posted on 04/23/2002 9:41:58 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
I said that we had to have something that would run Photoshop 7 the way it was supposed to be run...

Mac has long claimed to run Photoshop "faster" than the PC. Whether or not this adds up to any kind of real world advantage in the graphics world is debatable ('cause the fastest PC is no slouch with Photoshop!).

There is definitely a squatters mentality in the graphics world. You will hear the same old tired defenses of the Mac vs. the PC even though the times have changed and ANYTHING one could even wish to design can be done on the PC now. The old service bureau shut-outs are over. Adobe has obliterated any differences between the Mac and PC versions of their industry-standard design programs. Open type will further knock down barriers created by incompatible fonts between platforms. Etc., etc...

Since Mac has traditionally dominated the graphic design market, I would be very worried if I were them. Eventually, the fear of change they so heavily rely on will evaporate.

36 posted on 04/23/2002 9:43:35 PM PDT by avenir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
You are right about this. I didn't actually believe they were free, but I didn't communicate that.

Still wonder, though, why the ads don't produce a larger share of the market for them considering the massive audience for film. I have yet to see one of those attractive black Dell notebooks or desktops in a movie, but I hear the company is doing pretty well these days...

37 posted on 04/23/2002 9:47:31 PM PDT by avenir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
I'm not aware of ANY LINUX distribution group which is interested in the Mac; I mean, let me know if I'm missing something.
38 posted on 04/23/2002 9:51:54 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: avenir
Mac has long claimed to run Photoshop "faster" than the PC. Whether or not this adds up to any kind of real world advantage in the graphics world is debatable ('cause the fastest PC is no slouch with Photoshop!).

I'll say this real quiet, so as not to start a flame war, but Apple is wrong (or, if you're cynical, lying) about the speed of the G4. By almost any benchmark you like, the fastest PCs are between 25 and 50% faster than the fastest Macs. Including Photoshop benchmarks - if you look at an objective benchmark like PSBench, and ignore Apple's very carefully hand-picked filter "benchmark". Got it? ;)

39 posted on 04/23/2002 9:53:40 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: avenir; CheneyChick
I don't think most people base their purchasing decisions for computers on the type of systems they see in a movie.

Actually, the Macintosh has changed enormously since MacOS X, with a lot of Unix-loving geeks and nerds (including myself) considering it the ideal blend of commercial software availability, Unix power and slick user interface cool.

That being said, a computer is more than a box filled with performance numbers. People in the graphic arts field tend to appreciate appealing aesthetic design, something Microsoft has yet to master. And I join them in this; the Mac really has a stunningly beautiful interface, and when you look at something for as many hours a day as I do, it really helps a lot.

Visit an Apple store and take a look; you might find that Macs have an enormous appeal that really has to be seen to be appreciated. Apple users love their computers; if you just think your computer is a boring old tool, well, we pity you.

D

40 posted on 04/23/2002 10:03:19 PM PDT by daviddennis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson