The use of words (was MHA survey)

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Toby Joe, Mar 26, 2004.

  1. Toby Joe

    Toby Joe Guest

    From: "Jan" <[email protected]>
    Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:53 PM
    Subject: Re: MHA Survey: Please complete

    > >From: Toby Joe [email protected] Date: 3/23/2004
    > >2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
    > ><[email protected]>
    > >
    > >[email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    > >> >From: Toby Joe [email protected]
    > >> >[email protected] (MHA Needs More Skeptics)
    > >> >wrote:
    > >>> >> Mark, I think that is the lamest attempt at an
    > >>> >> answer to a serious
    > >> >> question here. If you truly believe that calling
    > >> >> someone an

    > >> >> religious bigotry, you need your head examined.
    > >> >
    > >> >I agree, in particular when it goes so far as to find
    > >> >expression in posting lists of names of posters
    > >> >according to their perceived ethnic background or
    > >> >religious beliefs, together with the statement that
    > >> >they are "liars" and are led by $#T#n, and also when
    > >> >there have been actions taken which have impact in the
    > >> >offline lives of some of those people (eg contacting
    > >> >employers).
    > >> >
    > >> >The result has been to create an environment in which
    > >> >it is very difficult to even begin a discussion, as
    > >> >the context is always one of suspicion, hostility,
    > >> >defensiveness, divisiveness, misinterpretations, and
    > >> >categorisation due to religious beliefs.
    > >> >
    > >> >Anything posted to MHA is screened and categorised
    > >> >according to perceived "wrong" religious beliefs, and
    > >> >those who hold such wrong beliefs are subjected to
    > >> >harrassment, such as having their names posted on the
    > >> >"List of Liars, Jews and Atheists". When prejudice and
    > >> >intolerance permeate a discussion group to that
    > >> >extent, sane, objective discussion is near-impossible.
    > >>
    > >> Being truthful means speaking the truth and also saying
    > >> things that reflect reality. Being truthful is one of
    > >> the necessities of a human society, one of the virtues
    > >> of human behaviour, and brings great benefits, whilst
    > >> lying is one of the major elements of corruption in
    > >> human society, and the cause of the destruction of
    > >> social structure and ties, one of the most evil
    > >> features of bad conduct, and causes widespread harm.
    > >
    > >The poster is presenting
    >
    > You were replying the biggest liar on MHA

    If you say so. I was replying to a post by
    [email protected], and here is what you snipped:

    > The poster is presenting those words as if they are her
    > own, as if she herself has thought things through, arrived
    > at that conclusion, and formed and expressed those
    > thoughts in that exact way. If that is so, and if what she
    > has posted is truly her own unique wording, then the post
    > is worthy of consideration.

    My words were for all readers. When you take the words of
    others and present them as your own, that is dishonest. It
    also derails discussions while people try to sort out who
    wrote what.

    It is also a legal issue:

    www.rmit.edu.au/browse?SIMID=y3h8ez6xsu7s&STATUS=A Right
    Against False Attribution: "As the title suggests this right
    covers an author against false _or no attribution_. This
    right can be aligned to passing off a work as ones own."
    (emphasis added)

    > who has a filthy mouth and it a trouble maker.

    Attempt to divert from topic by attacking another
    poster is noted.

    When you generalise from one or two to an entire group, I
    may well speak out and call it as I see it.

    > Lies are rampant here.

    Then stop. Stop misrepresenting others.

    > >The result has been to create an environment in which it
    > >is very
    > >> >difficult to even begin a discussion, as the context
    > >> >is always one of suspicion, hostility, defensiveness,
    > >> >divisiveness, misinterpretations,
    >
    > Coming from the *gang*

    Here are the paragraphs again, as the meaning was altered in
    snipping: "The result has been to create an environment in
    which it is very difficult to even begin a discussion, as
    the context is always one of suspicion, hostility,
    defensiveness, divisiveness, misinterpretations, and
    categorisation due to religious beliefs."

    "...categorisation due to religious beliefs" was essential
    to the intended meaning of that paragraph.

    I then wrote: "Anything posted to MHA is screened and
    categorised according to perceived "wrong" religious
    beliefs, and those who hold such wrong beliefs are subjected
    to harrassment, such as having their names posted on the
    "List of Liars, Jews and Atheists". When prejudice and
    intolerance permeate a discussion group to that extent,
    sane, objective discussion is near-impossible."

    All of the above still stands.

    > As proven.
    >
    > I call lies when I see them, just as you did with Peter
    > Bowditch, and rightfully so.

    I am calling you on both your misrepresentations and your
    attempts to vilify groups of people according to their
    religious beliefs or their ethnic backgrounds.

    > I will continue to call the lies that come from the
    > *gang*,

    And I will continue to call your use of words to enact
    prejudice.

    > you needn't go into a rant because I see fit to call them.

    I call it as I see it. You can call who you like, but you
    are not exempt.

    > The facts are that the majority of lies told here come
    > from the Jews and atheists.
    >
    > Filled with hate.

    Those are _your_ projections, your creations.

    You have played, and continue to play, an active role in
    creating mistrust, animosity and divisiveness according to
    religous beliefs or ethnic origin. You attempt to justify
    that according to your own personal vendettas, all the while
    denying your own role in all that has happened.

    > Jan
    >
    > I have come to the conclusion that lying is normal in
    > 1998. Because the majority finds it to some degree
    > acceptable, they will allow themselves to be persuaded by
    > liars. The catch is, you can lie, but if someone who is
    > opposed to your position, or with the power to broadcast
    > to the world, can find out you're lying you risk exposure
    > and humiliation.
    >
    > $#t#n causes people to lie whenever he can.

    "$$#T#n caused me do it" does not wash with me. Your
    misrepresentations are your own.

    --
    "I happen to think that the singular evil of our time is
    prejudice. It is from this evil that all other evils grow
    and multiply." R. Serling
     
    Tags:


  2. "Toby Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > From: "Jan" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March
    > 24, 2004 3:53 PM Subject: Re: MHA Survey: Please complete
    >
    > > >From: Toby Joe [email protected] Date: 3/23/2004
    > > >2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
    > > ><[email protected]>
    > > >
    > > >[email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    > > >> >From: Toby Joe [email protected]
    > > >> >[email protected] (MHA Needs More Skeptics)
    > > >> >wrote:
    > > >>> >> Mark, I think that is the lamest attempt at an
    > > >>> >> answer to a
    serious
    > > >> >> question here. If you truly believe that calling
    > > >> >> someone an

    > > >> >> religious bigotry, you need your head examined.
    > > >> >
    > > >> >I agree, in particular when it goes so far as to
    > > >> >find expression in posting lists of names of posters
    > > >> >according to their perceived
    ethnic
    > > >> >background or religious beliefs, together with the
    > > >> >statement that they are "liars" and are led by
    > > >> >$#T#n, and also when there have been actions taken
    > > >> >which have impact in the offline lives of some of
    those
    > > >> >people (eg contacting employers).
    > > >> >
    > > >> >The result has been to create an environment in
    > > >> >which it is very difficult to even begin a
    > > >> >discussion, as the context is always one of
    > > >> >suspicion, hostility, defensiveness, divisiveness,
    > > >> >misinterpretations, and categorisation due to
    > > >> >religious beliefs.
    > > >> >
    > > >> >Anything posted to MHA is screened and categorised
    > > >> >according to perceived "wrong" religious beliefs,
    > > >> >and those who hold such wrong beliefs are subjected
    > > >> >to harrassment, such as having their names posted on
    > > >> >the "List of Liars, Jews and Atheists". When
    > > >> >prejudice
    and
    > > >> >intolerance permeate a discussion group to that
    > > >> >extent, sane, objective discussion is near-
    > > >> >impossible.
    > > >>
    > > >> Being truthful means speaking the truth and also
    > > >> saying things that reflect reality. Being truthful is
    > > >> one of the necessities of a human society, one of the
    > > >> virtues of human behaviour, and brings great
    > > >> benefits, whilst lying is one of the major elements
    > > >> of corruption in human society, and the cause of the
    > > >> destruction of social structure and ties, one of the
    > > >> most evil features of bad conduct, and causes
    > > >> widespread harm.
    > > >
    > > >The poster is presenting
    > >
    > > You were replying the biggest liar on MHA
    >
    > If you say so. I was replying to a post by
    > [email protected], and here is what you snipped:
    >
    > > The poster is presenting those words as if they are her
    > > own, as if she herself has thought things through,
    > > arrived at that conclusion, and formed and expressed
    > > those thoughts in that exact way. If that is so,
    and
    > > if what she has posted is truly her own unique wording,
    > > then the post is worthy of consideration.
    >
    > My words were for all readers. When you take the words of
    > others and present them as your own, that is dishonest. It
    > also derails discussions while people try to sort out who
    > wrote what.
    >
    > It is also a legal issue:
    >
    > www.rmit.edu.au/browse?SIMID=y3h8ez6xsu7s&STATUS=A Right
    > Against False Attribution: "As the title suggests this
    > right covers an author against false _or no attribution_.
    > This right can be aligned to passing off a work as ones
    own."
    > (emphasis added)

    Toby, the points you have made in this thread are well
    taken. Sadly, the dishonest posters are within the AltHunta
    (hey, we have a gang, they can have a hunta). I do not
    recall any of "The Gang" ever altering quoting, or not
    attributing quotes to the original source.

    > > who has a filthy mouth and it a trouble maker.
    >
    > Attempt to divert from topic by attacking another poster
    > is noted.

    That is SOP for Ms. Drew.

    > When you generalise from one or two to an entire group, I
    > may well speak out and call it as I see it.
    >
    > > Lies are rampant here.
    >
    > Then stop. Stop misrepresenting others.

    Ms., Drew has been asked numerous times and, far more often
    than not, she denies her scurilous deeds and claims that
    she did not do whatever she had just done. It is like
    the 4 year old that says, "Mommy, that is not a cookie
    in my hand!"

    > > >The result has been to create an environment in which
    > > >it is very
    > > >> >difficult to even begin a discussion, as the context
    > > >> >is always one of suspicion, hostility,
    > > >> >defensiveness, divisiveness, misinterpretations,
    > >
    > > Coming from the *gang*
    >
    > Here are the paragraphs again, as the meaning was altered
    > in snipping: "The result has been to create an environment
    > in which it is very
    difficult
    > to even begin a discussion, as the context is always one
    > of suspicion, hostility, defensiveness, divisiveness,
    > misinterpretations, and categorisation due to religious
    > beliefs."

    Agreed.

    > "...categorisation due to religious beliefs" was essential
    > to the intended meaning of that paragraph.
    >
    > I then wrote: "Anything posted to MHA is screened and
    > categorised according to perceived "wrong" religious
    > beliefs, and those who hold such wrong beliefs are
    > subjected to harrassment, such as having their names
    > posted on the "List of Liars, Jews and Atheists". When
    > prejudice and intolerance permeate a discussion group to
    > that extent, sane, objective discussion is near-
    > impossible."

    Agreed, except I would not have said 'near.'

    > All of the above still stands.
    >
    > > As proven.
    > >
    > > I call lies when I see them, just as you did with Peter
    > > Bowditch, and rightfully so.
    >
    > I am calling you on both your misrepresentations and your
    > attempts to vilify groups of people according to their
    > religious beliefs or their ethnic backgrounds.

    Good for you. Note how Ms. Drew throws in a comment about
    peter, which I suspect is a subtle attempt to get you to
    identify with her POV. I strongly doubt that this will work.

    > > I will continue to call the lies that come from the
    > > *gang*,
    >
    > And I will continue to call your use of words to enact
    > prejudice.

    Good. You do not have "flexible standards" as to determining
    credibility as the AltClique does.

    > > you needn't go into a rant because I see fit to
    > > call them.
    >
    > I call it as I see it. You can call who you like, but you
    > are not exempt.

    Note that Ms. Drew calls what you pointed out a "rant", a
    word with negative connotations. AFAIAC, a thin attempt to
    diminish your POV.

    > > The facts are that the majority of lies told here come
    > > from the Jews and atheists.
    > >
    > > Filled with hate.
    >
    > Those are _your_ projections, your creations.
    >
    > You have played, and continue to play, an active role in
    > creating mistrust, animosity and divisiveness according to
    > religous beliefs or ethnic origin. You attempt to justify
    > that according to your own personal vendettas, all the
    > while denying your own role in all that has happened.

    Let's call that paragraph 20/20.

    > > Jan
    > >
    > > I have come to the conclusion that lying is normal in
    > > 1998. Because the majority finds it to some degree
    > > acceptable, they will allow themselves to be persuaded
    > > by liars. The catch is, you can lie, but if someone who
    > > is opposed to your position, or with the power to
    > > broadcast to the
    world,
    > > can find out you're lying you risk exposure and
    > > humiliation.
    > >
    > > $#t#n causes people to lie whenever he can.
    >
    > "$$#T#n caused me do it" does not wash with me. Your
    > misrepresentations are your own.
     
  3. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: The use of words (was MHA survey)
    >From: Toby Joe [email protected]
    >Date: 3/26/2004 10:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>

    Toby,

    I am not going to argue with you, I don't care who said the
    words, I don't know, but who ever it was, God Bless them,
    because they are 100% true. Neither do I think who ever
    wrote them cares if I post them without their name.

    <snip>

    >And I will continue to call your use of words to enact
    >prejudice.

    You have prejudice mixed up with truth. In fact it is the
    Jews, and atheists *here* who do most of the lying.

    <snip>

    > The facts are that the majority of lies told here come
    > from the Jews and
    >> atheists.
    >>
    >> Filled with hate.
    >
    >Those are _your_ projections, your creations.

    No, those are NOT my creations.

    The despicable websites I have posted, the despicable lies,
    I have posted.

    These are the FACTS.

    > I have come to the conclusion that lying is normal in
    > 1998. Because the
    >> majority finds it to some degree acceptable, they will
    >> allow themselves to be persuaded by liars. The catch is,
    >> you can lie, but if someone who is opposed to your
    >> position, or with the power to broadcast to the world,
    >> can find out you're lying you risk
    exposure and humiliation.

    > $#t#n causes people to lie whenever he can.

    Incorrect, Satan causes people to lie whenever he can.

    >"$$#T#n caused me do it" does not wash with me.

    That's YOUR problem. Satan is the root of ALL evil.

    Jan
     
  4. Toby Joe

    Toby Joe Guest

    "Mark Probert-March 26, 2004" wrote:
    > "Toby Joe" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    <big snips for brevity>
    >
    > Toby, the points you have made in this thread are well
    > taken. Sadly, the dishonest posters are within the
    > AltHunta (hey, we have a gang, they can have a hunta). I
    > do not recall any of "The Gang" ever altering quoting, or
    > not attributing quotes to the original source

    I don't either.

    > It is like the 4 year old that says, "Mommy, that is not a
    > cookie in my hand!"

    :)

    > > When prejudice and intolerance permeate a discussion
    > > group to that extent, sane, objective discussion is near-
    > > impossible."
    >
    > Agreed, except I would not have said 'near.'

    > > I am calling you on both your misrepresentations and
    > > your attempts to vilify groups of people according to
    > > their religious beliefs or their ethnic backgrounds.
    >
    > Good for you. Note how Ms. Drew throws in a comment
    > about peter, which I suspect is a subtle attempt to get
    > you to identify with her POV. I strongly doubt that this
    > will work.

    It takes me a while to recognise deflecting. I sort it
    out for myself finally, but .. seems to take me longer
    than some.

    > > And I will continue to call your use of words to enact
    > > prejudice.
    >
    > Good. You do not have "flexible standards" as to
    > determining credibility as the AltClique does.

    The prejudice thing - I find very difficult to take. Much as
    I'd sometimes like things "sweet and peaceful" around here,
    I can't just let it thrive in whatever enviro I'm in,
    without trying to do something.

    > > > you needn't go into a rant because I see fit to call
    > > > them.
    > >
    > > I call it as I see it. You can call who you like, but
    > > you are not exempt.
    >
    > Note that Ms. Drew calls what you pointed out a "rant", a
    > word with negative connotations. AFAIAC, a thin attempt to
    > diminish your POV.
    >
    > > > The facts are that the majority of lies told here come
    > > > from the Jews and atheists.
    > > >
    > > > Filled with hate.
    > >
    > > Those are _your_ projections, your creations.
    > >
    > > You have played, and continue to play, an active role in
    > > creating mistrust, animosity and divisiveness according
    > > to religous beliefs or ethnic origin. You attempt to
    > > justify that according to your own personal vendettas,
    > > all the while denying your own role in all that has
    > > happened.
    >
    > Let's call that paragraph 20/20.

    Comments very much appreciated. thank you.

    --
    "I happen to think that the singular evil of our time is
    prejudice. It is from this evil that all other evils grow
    and multiply." R. Serling
     
  5. Toby Joe:

    >>"$$#T#n caused me do it" does not wash with me.

    [email protected] :

    >That's YOUR problem. Satan is the root of ALL evil.

    Oh, Jan, you are far too modest!

    >Jan
     
  6. Rich.

    Rich. Guest

    On 27 Mar 2004 04:39:55 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>Subject: The use of words (was MHA survey) From: Toby Joe
    >>[email protected]

    >>And I will continue to call your use of words to enact
    >>prejudice.
    >
    >You have prejudice mixed up with truth. In fact it is the
    >Jews, and atheists *here* who do most of the lying.

    Oh the irony. Jan is confronted about using words to enact
    prejudice and her very response uses words to enact
    prejudice.

    The very fact that Jan Drew choose to connect lying with
    Jews and atheists says it all. Of course Jan is quite
    selective about who she calls liars and who she calls
    mistaken. If you are a Jew or an atheist and say something
    that Jan Drew disagrees with then you are a liar. If you are
    a Christian and Jan Drew and say something that Jan Drew
    disagrees with then you are just mistaken.

    So Jan Drew cleverly defines lying based upon the religion
    of the person making the statements. A perfect example is
    Jan Drew's choice of saying Hulda Clark is simply mistaken
    when she says that she has the cure for all diseases. But
    Jan Drew ALSO said that no alternative practitioner gives
    100% cures and if they did they indeed would be quacks.

    >> The facts are that the majority of lies told here come
    >> from the Jews and
    >>> atheists.
    >>>
    >>> Filled with hate.

    Yes, Jan is certainly filled with hate; hate toward Jews
    and atheists. Sad that. Jesus died on the cross for Jan's
    sins. Jesus was a Jew who while he was being crucified said
    "Father forgive them, they know not what they are doing".
    Jan has difficulty forgiving anyone with whom she
    disagrees. Sad that.
    >>
    >>Those are _your_ projections, your creations.
    >
    >No, those are NOT my creations.

    What are they?? Creations by Satan??

    >These are the FACTS.

    >That's YOUR problem. Satan is the root of ALL evil.

    If Jan thinks that Satan is the root of all evil why does
    she blame Jews and atheists for lying. If she was honest she
    would blame Satan. But her hatred of Jews and atheists is
    quite clear. She bashes these groups whenever she can. I am
    sure Jesus is quite proud of Jan for judging Jews and
    atheists. Jesus lived a Jew, died a Jew. Jesus will always
    be a Jew. Jan says lying comes second nature to Jews. I
    think Jesus may have a word or two with Jan on Judgment Day.

    May God have mercy on Jan's soul.

    Aloha,

    Rich

    PS Cue Jan to call me a stalker.
    >
    >Jan

    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance
     
Loading...