> chx
> I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> would tell us to, if he were real.
> Now that's logical faith!
Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
This is what he posted as if it was me;
> chx
> Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> it, yuk yuk yuk
> Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
Use
6. Appropriate Conduct
*impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
material contained in a file that is Posted;*
I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
even joked about the one.
On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
same infringement?
We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
infringements recently.
Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
illegal.
Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
he did the same.
Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
All the above are undeniable facts.
Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > chx
> > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > Now that's logical faith!
> Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > chx
> > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> Use
> 6. Appropriate Conduct
> *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> even joked about the one.
> On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> same infringement?
> We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> infringements recently.
> Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> illegal.
> Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> he did the same.
> Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> All the above are undeniable facts.
> Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > chx
> > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > Now that's logical faith!
> Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > chx
> > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> Use
> 6. Appropriate Conduct
> *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> even joked about the one.
> On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> same infringement?
> We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> infringements recently.
> Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> illegal.
> Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> he did the same.
> Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> All the above are undeniable facts.
> Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
Hi Checkers,
My kudos to you for taking the time to document these issues in depth
and detail and in a balanced fashion, and I am interested to see how
the moderators respond. My hope is that they would see merit in your
analyses and act responsibly.
> > chx
> > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > Now that's logical faith!
> Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > chx
> > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> Use
> 6. Appropriate Conduct
> *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> even joked about the one.
> On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> same infringement?
> We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> infringements recently.
> Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> illegal.
> Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> he did the same.
> Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> All the above are undeniable facts.
> Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
"E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
source."
theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
reason.
Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
violating the TOS.
There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
away that I'll never get back.
So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
to ban only theists?
rappoccio wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > Now that's logical faith!
> > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > Use
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > even joked about the one.
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > same infringement?
> > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > infringements recently.
> > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > illegal.
> > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > he did the same.
> > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
> "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> source."
> theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> reason.
> Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> violating the TOS.
> There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> away that I'll never get back.
> So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> to ban only theists?
They banned Wanderer and then recently LiamToo. LiamToo, as I
gathered, did not post any personal information, but the mods thought
that he is the same as Wanderer.
How did they came up of this? Because they sounded the same.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:10 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> This is how it all materialized by date.
> Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > chx
> > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > Now that's logical faith!
> Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > chx
> > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> Use
> 6. Appropriate Conduct
> *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> even joked about the one.
> On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> same infringement?
> We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> infringements recently.
> Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> illegal.
> Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> he did the same.
> Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> All the above are undeniable facts.
> Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:10 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > Now that's logical faith!
> > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> And don't forget me, on December 3rd!
> > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > Use
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > even joked about the one.
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > same infringement?
> > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > infringements recently.
> > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > illegal.
> > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > he did the same.
> > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > Now that's logical faith!
> > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > Use
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > even joked about the one.
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > same infringement?
> > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > infringements recently.
> > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > illegal.
> > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > he did the same.
> > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> Hi Checkers,
> My kudos to you for taking the time to document these issues in depth
> and detail and in a balanced fashion, and I am interested to see how
> the moderators respond. My hope is that they would see merit in your
> analyses and act responsibly.
chx
they say christians lack morals and ethics, i see different here
today. what they accuse you christians of are just words. their action
proves different. this action is the evidence i was looking for in my
journey to wherever i am going. the evidence is adding up daily.
it's like this. i ask, what are you? i don't care what you answer. i
stand back and watch your actions for a while and then i know what you
are. by the actions of stalin, mao, hitler and mugabe i can tell they
are atheists. why? their action is the same i see here. cheating and
knifing with lack of morals and ethics.
not a single atheist had the guts to stand up for what they claim to
believe in. it proves they never had those beliefs to start with, just
empty words i read.
they were all quick to jump on the band wagon to ban a theist. when
their own are guilty, they all hide in the DARK...all of them! this is
true saying they don't like the light - no place to hide.
could i be wrong generalising? somehow i don't think so.
> On Dec 3, 9:03 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:10 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak
> about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > And don't forget me, on December 3rd!
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > chx
> > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > Now that's logical faith!
> Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > chx
> > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> Use
> 6. Appropriate Conduct
> *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> even joked about the one.
> On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> same infringement?
> We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> infringements recently.
> Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> illegal.
> Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> he did the same.
> Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> All the above are undeniable facts.
> Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
Hey. Genius. There's a big difference between impersonating someone
and doing impressions of someone. Your false indignation is pathetic.
> On Dec 3, 2:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > Now that's logical faith!
> > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > Use
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > even joked about the one.
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > same infringement?
> > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > infringements recently.
> > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > illegal.
> > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > he did the same.
> > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> Hey. Genius. There's a big difference between impersonating someone
> and doing impressions of someone. Your false indignation is pathetic.
I bet he wants to have everyone who ever played a cop in a movie or TV show
to be arrested for impersonating a police officer.
Oh no, wait, this is checkers, he's not remotely consistent about anything.
Nevermind.
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > Hey. Genius. There's a big difference between impersonating someone
> > and doing impressions of someone. Your false indignation is pathetic.
> I bet he wants to have everyone who ever played a cop in a movie or TV show
> to be arrested for impersonating a police officer.
Yeah! What about the checkers himself? He's impersonating a human.
> Oh no, wait, this is checkers, he's not remotely consistent about anything.
> Nevermind.
chx:
I are too reglar. [squat] ar ar ar ar. See? [chuckle]
"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."
> > chx
> > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > Now that's logical faith!
> Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > chx
> > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> Use
> 6. Appropriate Conduct
> *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> even joked about the one.
> On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> same infringement?
> We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> infringements recently.
> Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> illegal.
> Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> he did the same.
> Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."
> On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > Now that's logical faith!
> > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > Use
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > even joked about the one.
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > same infringement?
> > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > infringements recently.
> > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > illegal.
> > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > he did the same.
> > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> Hi Checkers,
> My kudos to you for taking the time to document these issues in depth
> and detail and in a balanced fashion, and I am interested to see how
> the moderators respond. My hope is that they would see merit in your
> analyses and act responsibly.
> On Dec 3, 5:35 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > Hi Checkers,
> > My kudos to you for taking the time to document these issues in depth
> > and detail and in a balanced fashion, and I am interested to see how
> > the moderators respond. My hope is that they would see merit in your
> > analyses and act responsibly.
> chx
> they say christians lack morals and ethics,
Many Christians are lacking morals and ethics and violate code of
conduct
> today. what they accuse you christians of are just words. their action
> proves different. this action is the evidence i was looking for in my
> journey to wherever i am going. the evidence is adding up daily.
> it's like this. i ask, what are you? i don't care what you answer. i
> stand back and watch your actions for a while and then i know what you
> are. by the actions of stalin, mao, hitler and mugabe i can tell they
> are atheists. why? their action is the same i see here. cheating and
> knifing with lack of morals and ethics.
> not a single atheist had the guts to stand up for what they claim to
> believe in. it proves they never had those beliefs to start with, just
> empty words i read.
> they were all quick to jump on the band wagon to ban a theist. when
> their own are guilty, they all hide in the DARK...all of them! this is
> true saying they don't like the light - no place to hide.
> could i be wrong generalising? somehow i don't think so.
You are wrong generalising BECAUSE you somehow don't think
> On Dec 3, 9:05 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 2:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > > chx
> > > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have
> produced
> > > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why
> Dev
> > > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > > chx
> > > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak
> about
> > > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > > Use
> > > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> author
> > > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as
> Dev
> > > > even joked about the one.
> > > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of
> the
> > > > same infringement?
> > > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > > infringements recently.
> > > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > > illegal.
> > > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > > he did the same.
> > > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple
> threads
> > > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > > Hey. Genius. There's a big difference between impersonating someone
> > > and doing impressions of someone. Your false indignation is pathetic.
> > I bet he wants to have everyone who ever played a cop in a movie or TV
> show
> > to be arrested for impersonating a police officer.
> Yeah! What about the checkers himself? He's impersonating a human.
That's true! Finally we can ban him, as we've been desperately looking for a
reason to do! Mwahahaha!
> > Oh no, wait, this is checkers, he's not remotely consistent about
> anything.
> > Nevermind.
> chx:
> I are too reglar. [squat] ar ar ar ar. See? [chuckle]
checkers, that doesn't prove you're regular at all, you piece of shit.
sorry to dissapoint you Rap. firstly, your link refers to emails and
as you say, spoofing. however google clearly says impersonating
someone. now i will remind you that the same point was brought up in
the other instance of impersonating Keith. what you claim is not true.
here is the full post of the case;
***
theultimatetruth;
Are you kidding me!
On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like that.
> I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that nothing
> can go wrong inside his colon:
> On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > murdering bitches
> --
> Ambassador From Hell
> Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> copyright
***
here is the Google rule again. i higlight the part applicable.
6. Appropriate Conduct
*_impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
author
attributions_, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
material contained in a file that is Posted;*
as you can see he changed nothing at all. all he did was type a
message so as to look as if it was keith that wrote it. he did not
even use keith's name. even so, it is impersonating keith.
the members impersonating me did more, they inserted my name at the
biginning of the message implicating me writing those words. they are
quilty as one can get. this is illegal in most countries and in Google
Groups TOS. they are breaking a law.
there is now three of them and this writing serves as a report to the
moderators to do what is expected of them.
On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > Now that's logical faith!
> > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > Use
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > even joked about the one.
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > same infringement?
> > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > infringements recently.
> > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > illegal.
> > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > he did the same.
> > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
> "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> source."
> theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> reason.
> Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> violating the TOS.
> There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> away that I'll never get back.
> So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> to ban only theists?- Hide quoted text -
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> sorry to dissapoint you Rap. firstly, your link refers to emails and
> as you say, spoofing. however google clearly says impersonating
> someone. now i will remind you that the same point was brought up in
> the other instance of impersonating Keith. what you claim is not true.
> here is the full post of the case;
> ***
> theultimatetruth;
> Are you kidding me!
> On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - Show quoted text -
> > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like
> that.
> > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that
> nothing
> > can go wrong inside his colon:
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > murdering bitches
> > --
> > Ambassador From Hell
> > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > copyright
> ***
> here is the Google rule again. i higlight the part applicable.
> 6. Appropriate Conduct
> *_impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> author
> attributions_, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> as you can see he changed nothing at all. all he did was type a
> message so as to look as if it was keith that wrote it. he did not
> even use keith's name. even so, it is impersonating keith.
> the members impersonating me did more, they inserted my name at the
> biginning of the message implicating me writing those words. they are
> quilty as one can get.
I admit it! I'm quilty! Quilty as the day is long!
> this is illegal in most countries and in Google
> Groups TOS. they are breaking a law.
> there is now three of them and this writing serves as a report to the
> moderators to do what is expected of them.
> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak
> about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
> > "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> > in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> > altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> > source."
> > theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> > reason.
> > Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> > violating the TOS.
> > There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> > have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> > pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> > did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> > different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> > all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> > away that I'll never get back.
> > So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> > to ban only theists?- Hide quoted text -
i did not forget about you. look at this. it apears as though i posted
it. it maches with my style of posting. YOU are impersonating me and
this is ilegal.
***
On Dec 3, 6:13 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 10:59 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
(this you wrote)
> > chx
> > see i knew you had something against me.
> > nobody likes me, it must be because they are jealous of my intelligents. har
> > [chuckle]
(here A42 replies to _me_)
> Come on checkers, nobody dislikes you.
> Thinking you are a piece of shit (because you like to make fun of
> people who share their experiences with mental illnesses) is not the
> same as disliking you.
(here is my reply)
chx
i did not post that! this person impersonated me. i will report him
to
the moderators and then report it to google as it is an infringement
of Google Groups TOS and it is illegal in SA to impersonate someone
and in most countries.
***
you guys have free reign to do this in all topics without me knowing
and this is ilegal. poeple like you should be banned to protect the
others from this dangerous act as per Google Groups TOS. this is why
Google deems this illegal conduct.
On Dec 3, 6:03 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:10 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > Now that's logical faith!
> > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> And don't forget me, on December 3rd!
> > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > Use
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > even joked about the one.
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > same infringement?
> > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > infringements recently.
> > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > illegal.
> > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > he did the same.
> > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?- Hide quoted text -
> look at this. it apears as though i posted
> it. it maches with my style of posting. YOU are impersonating me and
> this is ilegal.
> ***
> On Dec 3, 6:13 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 10:59 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (this you wrote)
> > > chx
> > > see i knew you had something against me.
> > > nobody likes me, it must be because they are jealous of my
> intelligents. har
> > > [chuckle]
> (here A42 replies to _me_)
> > Come on checkers, nobody dislikes you.
> > Thinking you are a piece of shit (because you like to make fun of
> > people who share their experiences with mental illnesses) is not the
> > same as disliking you.
> (here is my reply)
> chx
> i did not post that! this person impersonated me. i will report him
> to
> the moderators and then report it to google as it is an infringement
> of Google Groups TOS and it is illegal in SA to impersonate someone
> and in most countries.
> ***
> you guys have free reign to do this in all topics without me knowing
> and this is ilegal. poeple like you should be banned to protect the
> others from this dangerous act as per Google Groups TOS. this is why
> Google deems this illegal conduct.
> On Dec 3, 6:03 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:10 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak
> about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > And don't forget me, on December 3rd!
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?- Hide
> quoted text -
chx
no, the real guilty ones are the moderators for not stopping this. you
all see it as OK because the moderators are not moderating. they are
too busy being BIAS and are now loosing control over the members.
not long and everyone will be doing it. they are creating a precedent.
On Dec 3, 7:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > sorry to dissapoint you Rap. firstly, your link refers to emails and
> > as you say, spoofing. however google clearly says impersonating
> > someone. now i will remind you that the same point was brought up in
> > the other instance of impersonating Keith. what you claim is not true.
> > here is the full post of the case;
> > ***
> > theultimatetruth;
> > Are you kidding me!
> > On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > - Show quoted text -
> > > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like
> > that.
> > > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that
> > nothing
> > > can go wrong inside his colon:
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > > murdering bitches
> > > --
> > > Ambassador From Hell
> > > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > > copyright
> > ***
> > here is the Google rule again. i higlight the part applicable.
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *_impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> > author
> > attributions_, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > as you can see he changed nothing at all. all he did was type a
> > message so as to look as if it was keith that wrote it. he did not
> > even use keith's name. even so, it is impersonating keith.
> > the members impersonating me did more, they inserted my name at the
> > biginning of the message implicating me writing those words. they are
> > quilty as one can get.
> I admit it! I'm quilty! Quilty as the day is long!
> > this is illegal in most countries and in Google
> > Groups TOS. they are breaking a law.
> > there is now three of them and this writing serves as a report to the
> > moderators to do what is expected of them.
> > On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > > chx
> > > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > > chx
> > > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak
> > about
> > > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > > Use
> > > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > > even joked about the one.
> > > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > > same infringement?
> > > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > > infringements recently.
> > > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > > illegal.
> > > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > > he did the same.
> > > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > > The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
> > > "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> > > in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> > > altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> > > source."
> > > theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> > > reason.
> > > Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> > > violating the TOS.
> > > There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> > > have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> > > pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> > > did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> > > different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> > > all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> > > away that I'll never get back.
> > > So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> > > to ban only theists?- Hide quoted text -
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 9:05 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 2:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have
> > produced
> > > > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why
> > Dev
> > > > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak
> > about
> > > > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > > > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > > > Use
> > > > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> > author
> > > > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as
> > Dev
> > > > > even joked about the one.
> > > > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of
> > the
> > > > > same infringement?
> > > > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > > > infringements recently.
> > > > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > > > illegal.
> > > > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > > > he did the same.
> > > > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple
> > threads
> > > > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > > > Hey. Genius. There's a big difference between impersonating someone
> > > > and doing impressions of someone. Your false indignation is pathetic.
> > > I bet he wants to have everyone who ever played a cop in a movie or TV
> > show
> > > to be arrested for impersonating a police officer.
> > Yeah! What about the checkers himself? He's impersonating a human.
> That's true! Finally we can ban him, as we've been desperately looking for a
> reason to do! Mwahahaha!
> > > Oh no, wait, this is checkers, he's not remotely consistent about
> > anything.
> > > Nevermind.
> > chx:
> > I are too reglar. [squat] ar ar ar ar. See? [chuckle]
> checkers, that doesn't prove you're regular at all, you piece of shit.
Is he a piece of shit or is he impersonating a piece of shit?
> now i will remind you that the same point was brought up in
> the other instance of impersonating Keith. what you claim is not true.
> here is the full post of the case;
> ***
> theultimatetruth;
> Are you kidding me!
> On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - Show quoted text -
> > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like that.
> > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that nothing
> > can go wrong inside his colon:
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > murdering bitches
> > --
> > Ambassador From Hell
> > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > copyright
> ***
This was NOT the post that was spoofed. There was a post (hence
deleted) that was actually from theultimatetruth that looked like it
came from Keith MacNevins, i.e. he was spoofed. Hence theultimatetruth
was banned. I remember, because I did it myself.
> here is the Google rule again. i higlight the part applicable.
> 6. Appropriate Conduct
> *_impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> author
> attributions_,
Impersonation doesn't include changing a quote in your own response.
It clearly doesn't come from that person, and you can clearly look at
the "sorted by thread" option to see the post the person replied to,
and that they don't actually match. Ridiculing someone by mimicking
them is NOT impersonation in the legal sense of the word. Clearly the
intent of the statement is about actually impersonating the person
involved, not simply making fun of them by quoting something they
didn't actually say.
It's that simple. If you don't like it, either leave, or bring it up
with Google.
> legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> as you can see he changed nothing at all. all he did was type a
> message so as to look as if it was keith that wrote it. he did not
> even use keith's name. even so, it is impersonating keith.
And he also spoofed him. And that's why he was banned.
> the members impersonating me did more, they inserted my name at the
> biginning of the message implicating me writing those words. they are
> quilty as one can get. this is illegal in most countries and in Google
> Groups TOS. they are breaking a law.
What law, specifically?
> there is now three of them and this writing serves as a report to the
> moderators to do what is expected of them.
Bring it up with Google. No one is getting banned for making fun of
what you said. Sorry.
> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
> > "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> > in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> > altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> > source."
> > theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> > reason.
> > Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> > violating the TOS.
> > There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> > have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> > pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> > did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> > different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> > all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> > away that I'll never get back.
> > So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> > to ban only theists?- Hide quoted text -
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 9:28 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 9:05 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Neil Kelsey <
> neil_kel...@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 3, 2:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > > > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years
> of
> > > > > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have
> > > produced
> > > > > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know
> why
> > > Dev
> > > > > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS
> and
> > > > > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like
> Jesus
> > > > > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > > > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who
> speak
> > > about
> > > > > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > > > > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that
> they
> > > > > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups
> Terms Of
> > > > > > Use
> > > > > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > > > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> > > author
> > > > > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > > > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or
> other
> > > > > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > > > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it
> as
> > > Dev
> > > > > > even joked about the one.
> > > > > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned
> without
> > > > > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > > > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > > > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to
> ban
> > > > > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > same infringement?
> > > > > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > > > > infringements recently.
> > > > > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > > > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > > > > illegal.
> > > > > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily
> add
> > > > > > he did the same.
> > > > > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple
> > > threads
> > > > > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > > > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > > > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > > > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > > > > Hey. Genius. There's a big difference between impersonating someone
> > > > > and doing impressions of someone. Your false indignation is
> pathetic.
> > > > I bet he wants to have everyone who ever played a cop in a movie or
> TV
> > > show
> > > > to be arrested for impersonating a police officer.
> > > Yeah! What about the checkers himself? He's impersonating a human.
> > That's true! Finally we can ban him, as we've been desperately looking
> for a
> > reason to do! Mwahahaha!
> > > > Oh no, wait, this is checkers, he's not remotely consistent about
> > > anything.
> > > > Nevermind.
> > > chx:
> > > I are too reglar. [squat] ar ar ar ar. See? [chuckle]
> > checkers, that doesn't prove you're regular at all, you piece of shit.
> Is he a piece of shit or is he impersonating a piece of shit?
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he really, truly,
honestly IS a piece of shit.
Did you miss the part where I said that we've banned atheists for
doing the same thing, or are you deliberately ignoring that to feed
your own delusions of persecution?
On Dec 3, 1:00 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> chx
> no, the real guilty ones are the moderators for not stopping this. you
> all see it as OK because the moderators are not moderating. they are
> too busy being BIAS and are now loosing control over the members.
> not long and everyone will be doing it. they are creating a precedent.
> On Dec 3, 7:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > sorry to dissapoint you Rap. firstly, your link refers to emails and
> > > as you say, spoofing. however google clearly says impersonating
> > > someone. now i will remind you that the same point was brought up in
> > > the other instance of impersonating Keith. what you claim is not true.
> > > here is the full post of the case;
> > > ***
> > > theultimatetruth;
> > > Are you kidding me!
> > > On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > > > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like
> > > that.
> > > > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that
> > > nothing
> > > > can go wrong inside his colon:
> > > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > > > murdering bitches
> > > > --
> > > > Ambassador From Hell
> > > > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > > > copyright
> > > ***
> > > here is the Google rule again. i higlight the part applicable.
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *_impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> > > author
> > > attributions_, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > as you can see he changed nothing at all. all he did was type a
> > > message so as to look as if it was keith that wrote it. he did not
> > > even use keith's name. even so, it is impersonating keith.
> > > the members impersonating me did more, they inserted my name at the
> > > biginning of the message implicating me writing those words. they are
> > > quilty as one can get.
> > I admit it! I'm quilty! Quilty as the day is long!
> > > this is illegal in most countries and in Google
> > > Groups TOS. they are breaking a law.
> > > there is now three of them and this writing serves as a report to the
> > > moderators to do what is expected of them.
> > > On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > This is how it all materialized by date.
> > > > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
> > > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > > > Now that's logical faith!
> > > > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
> > > > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak
> > > about
> > > > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
> > > > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > > > Use
> > > > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
> > > > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > > > even joked about the one.
> > > > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
> > > > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > > > same infringement?
> > > > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > > > infringements recently.
> > > > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > > > illegal.
> > > > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > > > he did the same.
> > > > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
> > > > > All the above are undeniable facts.
> > > > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
> > > > The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
> > > > "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> > > > in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> > > > altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> > > > source."
> > > > theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> > > > reason.
> > > > Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> > > > violating the TOS.
> > > > There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> > > > have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> > > > pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> > > > did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> > > > different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> > > > all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> > > > away that I'll never get back.
> > > > So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> > > > to ban only theists?- Hide quoted text -
|
