This this Compassionate?

[Jocko]

You are an intellectual fraud, a liar, and a stalker.

Cease and desist.

Again, blow me.

Show me a real incident of "hate speech" manifesting "harm" (your words, JJ, so stop wriggling like a worm on a hook) against athietsts. Your only example involved a jew, so needless to say, it's not much of an example.

I'm aching to hear what lurks behind your paranoia, JJ. No one else seems so convinced, either, so how about substantiating your own indignations?

P.S. Please ignore that windowless van with all the antennas parked across the street. It's nothing to worry about.

 

[jj]

P.S. Please ignore that windowless van with all the antennas parked across the street. It's nothing to worry about.

You, yourself, know that any number of people circulate hateful stereotypes of atheists. You, in this case, are circulating the hateful stereotype that at least one of them is "paranoid" (your choice if inane diagnoses) because one of them knows that.

You're a lame troll, a stalker, and a fraud. You can't do anything more than make things up, and then after you completely misrepresent what somebody said to you over and over again, you demand that they give YOU more "information".

***PLONK***

 

[T'ai Chi]

I addressed your false claim regarding what I said (said includes context, which you have willfully removed from the discussion) once, in the thread that you originally dishonestly removed my comments from context. You misrepresented it there, and ignore that statement here. Your continued stalking is evidence of nothing but your own willful attack on my reputation.

Cease your stalking.

As I said, and he demonstrated my point beautifully, he'll do anything to avoid directly answering and explaining what he said, which was "the religious don't use logic". Including your previous sentence or the following sentence don't change the meaning of what you said at all. As I said, you are welcome to explain what you meant, but you have refused to do so.

He'll call people stalkers, defamers, etc., all the while yelling at people who call him on his methods, and all the while defaming entire groups of people.

So he calls me dishonest... yet he says the religous don't use logic. So, did Boole use logic? YES or NO... and be honest.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The comment that the religious don't use logic was in a discussion of LOGIC IN RELIGION, not in mathematics, not for anything else THAN RELIGION.

Here's a newsflash: you should have said that to begin with, because when you make a blanket statement, without any qualifier (and no, jj, your other sentences did not add the qualifier), you WILL get called on it for being dishonest, becuse there are plenty of counterexamples.

Moreover, what would you say about those who classifies mathematics, etc., as the way god operates? That is, when they did mathematics they thought they were studying god's methods.

Your pathetic attempts to call "stalker!!", when you could have been explaining yourself all along, are simply juvenile. But you know that!

 

[T'ai Chi]

You're a lame troll, a stalker, and a fraud. You can't do anything more than make things up, and then after you completely misrepresent what somebody said to you over and over again, you demand that they give YOU more "information".

***PLONK***

You already said "PLONK" to him before. You are aware of that, aren'tcha?

 

[Jocko]

You, yourself, know that any number of people circulate hateful stereotypes of atheists. You, in this case, are circulating the hateful stereotype that at least one of them is "paranoid" (your choice if inane diagnoses) because one of them knows that.

So, I'm the one stereotyping because I joke that a single individual is obviously paranoid? Are you even aware that "stereotyping" is, by definition, a collective term?

You're a lame troll, a stalker, and a fraud. You can't do anything more than make things up, and then after you completely misrepresent what somebody said to you over and over again, you demand that they give YOU more "information".

At least I'm not a paranoid pyschopath.

***PLONK***

...and my catchphrases aren't hopelessly inane, either.

 

[jj]

Here's a newsflash: you should have said that to begin with, because when you make a blanket statement, without any qualifier (and no, jj, your other sentences did not add the qualifier), you WILL get called on it for being dishonest, becuse there are plenty of counterexamples.
[/B]

Again, sir, you are a liar, a plain and simple liar. There were no "other sentences" of mine in this strict context, the context of my remark was established by the quote I replied to. You are well aware of that, having pointed this out yourself sometime previously, ergo your mistatement is unlikely to be pure error.

Again, you are shwon to be a fraudulent stalker.

 

[jj]

So, I'm the one stereotyping because I joke that a single individual is obviously paranoid? Are you even aware that "stereotyping" is, by definition, a collective term?



At least I'm not a paranoid pyschopath.




...and my catchphrases aren't hopelessly inane, either.

Cease your stalking, intellectual fraud.

 

[jj]

It is telling who is doing the stalking here.

Jocko, who deliberately attempts to force his opponents off the board, is engaging in the same dishonest behavior, wherein he completely makes up his own version of what was said, and then sticks to it through thick and thin, despite the truth. It is clear that Jocko is absoutely dishonest, has no honor, values no truth, and is nothing but a would-be bully.

JZS, on the other hand, has been totally, absolutely, and devastatingly handed his head over the PEAR data. It is telling that just after that started to happen, he came into this thread, deliberately and dishonestly lying about what I've said by selective quoting, and by removing context. (And is not even capable of keeping his own story straight, ironically, but that's not surprising, it's much harder to lie than tell the truth.) In fact, he's conciously, willfully, dishonestly, and deliberately taken comments out of context and misrepresented them as meaning something entirely different than what they meant, and then cried "but he always says that" when the truth is pointed out. Yes, it's true, I usually wind up saying that to his dishonest sophistries. That seems to be the only trick he knows.

It is clear that JZS is engaging in deliberate disparagement as retaliation for his being shown the door in the PEAR experiments.

I submit that both JOCKO and JZS are anti-skeptical bullies whose most important purpose is harrassment and disparagement.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Again, sir, you are a liar, a plain and simple liar....
Again, you are shwon to be a fraudulent stalker.

Aww. You must have high blood pressure.

Your context was established by the quote you replied to? Let's examine that claim

You said,

"Note, I surely don't think you can apply logic to religion, because it simply disintegrates when you try."

then upchurch said

"The logic or the religion?"

then you said

"Well, the religious don't use logic, and logic doesn't support the religious."

Note that your "context" doesn't negate the fact you made a universal statement without any qualifier.

And AGAIN, you could have explained your version of events, when asked about them, earlier, instead of raising your blood pressure by bickering and calling 'fraud', 'liar', 'stalker', etc.

Most of all, your statement

"Note, I surely don't think you can apply logic to religion, because it simply disintegrates when you try."

is ABSURD, because we can certainly apply logic to religion when we critique religion.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It is telling who is doing the stalking here.

Yes, you be emotional and exxagerating and repeat that all you want; it still won't make it true. Replying to posts is stalking Replying to your questions and barbs is stalking? That's new!

You, on the other hand, started this thread directly about Rouser! That's NOT stalking? At least be consistent here with your own actions. You're not really fooling anybody but yourself.

JZS, on the other hand, has been totally, absolutely, and devastatingly handed his head over the PEAR data.

Which has abolsutely nothing to do with anything in this thread! Way to demonstrate that you are only interested in personal soap operas, despite moaning for others to not do that!

I submit that both JOCKO and JZS are anti-skeptical bullies whose most important purpose is harrassment and disparagement.

Lower blood pressure is good. High blood pressure is bad.

jj, bottom line: you are free to ignore, free to report me to the board moderators, the internet police, your mommy, whoever, free to form a coherent rebuttal, whatever.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How did you respond?

I would ask them to focus their attention on child molesting catholic priests.

 

[jj]

Lower blood pressure is good. High blood pressure is bad.

jj, bottom line: you are free to ignore, free to report me to the board moderators, the internet police, your mommy, whoever, free to form a coherent rebuttal, whatever.

Whine all you want, your PEAR is rotten.

 

[Brahe]

Yes, you be emotional and exxagerating and repeat that all you want; it still won't make it true. Replying to posts is stalking Replying to your questions and barbs is stalking? That's new!

You, on the other hand, started this thread directly about Rouser! That's NOT stalking? At least be consistent here with your own actions. You're not really fooling anybody but yourself.

jzs, I asked you for your evidence and you seem to have ignored that request. From what I can gather, you seem to be making a big stink over what is, at worst, a sloppy generalization along the lines of "mathemeticians don't use experiments, but proofs." This might have been acceptable had jj never clarified himself, but he has--several times. Unless you've taken up 1inch's banner, I can't imagine any way in which your posts here serve your purposes, let alone constructive dialogue.

Regarding the second paragraph I've quoted, I can only suggest you ponder what it might take to "stalk" someone on a message board. I have no doubt that you, an upstanding member of this board who is not at all a troll, will do the right thing in this matter.

 

[T'ai Chi]

jzs, I asked you for your evidence and you seem to have ignored that request. From what I can gather, you seem to be making a big stink over what is, at worst, a sloppy generalization along the lines of "mathemeticians don't use experiments, but proofs." This might have been acceptable had jj never clarified himself, but he has--several times. Unless you've taken up 1inch's banner, I can't imagine any way in which your posts here serve your purposes, let alone constructive dialogue.

Regarding the second paragraph I've quoted, I can only suggest you ponder what it might take to "stalk" someone on a message board. I have no doubt that you, an upstanding member of this board who is not at all a troll, will do the right thing in this matter.

Yes, I will put you on ignore.

 

[Jocko]

It is telling who is doing the stalking here.

Jocko, who deliberately attempts to force his opponents off the board,

Oh, really? Care to back that up with an example? I know it's not really your thing, but give it a shot. You might enjoy it.

is engaging in the same dishonest behavior, wherein he completely makes up his own version of what was said,

Ah, so I made up all those times I quoted your posts in full. Gotcha.

and then sticks to it through thick and thin, despite the truth.

Hey, I'm a bit of a bulldog when I smell moron blood in the water. You might want to try that too, it's called discourse. It is the means by which arguments are dissected and their merit assessed. I know someone who throws around "truth" like an evangelist throws around "Jesus" might not cotton to that sort of thing, but I'm still holding out hope.

It is clear that Jocko is absoutely dishonest, has no honor, values no truth, and is nothing but a would-be bully.

Judging by your arguments to date, I would say your assessment is about as valid as the rest of your opinions. Take that as you will.

I submit that both JOCKO and JZS are anti-skeptical bullies whose most important purpose is harrassment and disparagement.

So when comes the part when you decide I'm throwing around "hate speech" with the intention of causing "harm" to you on the simple grounds you're an athiest? You know it's coming, don't you?

JJ, you think everyone who disagrees with you for more than one post is a stalker. No wonder your concept of harrassment is so completely out of whack. Like I said before, you're displaying classic symptoms of delusional paranoia and I urge you to seek help.

 

[jj]

Ah, so I made up all those times I quoted your posts in full. Gotcha.

Yep, you made up "what jj said". The quotes you show of mine are both quote-mined (out of context) and don't say, even in their dishonestly, unethically mined form, what you claim they do. Over and over again, you make up false positions and attribute them to others.

In other words, you take someone's words, and claim they mean something they don't. They you stick to your dishonest claim, and repeat it over and over again.

You've done it repeatedly to me in this thread. I've pointed it out several times. You use a whole variety of unjustified inferences, mining, etc, to attempt to place ridiculous positions in others mouths. You're way too good at it, in my estimation, for it to be even slightly accidental, too.

Judging by your arguments to date, I would say your assessment is about as valid as the rest of your opinions. Take that as you will.

Yes, I've exposed your fraudulent behavior rather nicely.

JJ, you think everyone who disagrees with you for more than one post is a stalker.

That's another lie on your part. You just can't stop it, can you?

 

[Jocko]

JJ, if I am indeed guilty of all these heinous behaviors, I must insist that you report me to the mods immediately and let them decide.

If you don't, I expect a full apology. Use short words you understand when you do it - I wouldn't want any more "miscommunications" from you.

Put up or shut up, JJ.

 

[jj]

JJ, if I am indeed guilty of all these heinous behaviors, I must insist that you report me to the mods immediately and let them decide.

If you don't, I expect a full apology. Use short words you understand when you do it - I wouldn't want any more "miscommunications" from you.

Put up or shut up, JJ.

Report yourself, stalker. Let's take your outright lie from the last propaganda you wrote:

Written by Jocko the stalker

JJ, you think everyone who disagrees with you for more than one post is a stalker.

and despite having made an extraordinary claim, for which a large number of counterexamples exist (although not you, because you are, after all, a trolling, dishonest, lying stalker), you offered no support, and simply engaged in malicious disparagement and trolling.

You are the one engaging in unsupported allegations and stalking, not I. Take some responsibility for yourself for once.

Best yet, grow up, apologize, retract your insane allegations (as well as allegations of insanity), and offer amends.

Will you? Time will tell.

 

[AWPrime]

Re: Well, actually...

I remember watching an episode of Jackass where the guy went around dressed in a devil suit carrying signs saying God was unfair (or something like that) and he was assaulted numerous times by believers.

[offtopic] Aaa.... it reminds me of an episode where that guy was in a dress (without underwear) in Amsterdam. He tried to get people angry at him, but nobody go angry.

He had a breakdown. The best episode ever. [/offtopic]