Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

porposal for the staff @ T.O.

8 views
Skip to first unread message

All-Seeing-I

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 9:41:29 AM11/27/09
to
I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:

Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins

Effective January 1,. 2010

Ye Old One

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 9:48:32 AM11/27/09
to

Atheism is not a religion.

Religion has nothing to teach on origins that has not already been
thrown out.

You are just a stupid troll.

Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-

Science causes disease.

That 3.5% actually means 25%...

That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...

That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...

That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...

To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...

To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...

That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]

And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...

That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.

Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.

Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.


Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.

--
Bob.

Davej

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 9:51:09 AM11/27/09
to
On Nov 27, 8:41 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins


There is nothing incompatible about religion and evolution. You just
have to accept the fact that Genesis was a parable.

Caranx latus

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 9:48:28 AM11/27/09
to

Is this your subtle way of warning us that you will be doing some more
attention-whoring this weekend?

Mark Evans

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 10:15:29 AM11/27/09
to
On Nov 27, 9:41 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:

What staff? One man who monitors the server is not quite a staff. Or
did you assume that there are large masses of paid workers dedicated
to keeping the "truth" covered up.

I propose that the staff at your home monitor your meds better,
effective at once. But the, you can't really medicate stupid.

Mark Evans

VoiceOfReason

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 10:28:15 AM11/27/09
to
On Nov 27, 9:41 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:

As nonsensical and fact-challenged as anything you've written lately.
Yawn.

All-Seeing-I

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 10:30:53 AM11/27/09
to

Only for YOUR attention fish..

Only for yours.

Boikat

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 10:38:34 AM11/27/09
to

Why?

Or are you attempting to play the totally asinine, moronic, brain-
dead, stupid and ignorant game of "evolution is just another religious
belief"?

Sorry, you're stupidity and ignorance does not make the ToE a
religion.

Boikat

Caranx latus

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 11:16:52 AM11/27/09
to

Terrific! So what's on the agenda? More quoting from creationist web
sites with trivially false claims or badly mined quotes? More k00ky
and zzzzany beliefs that you haven't told us about yet?

raven1

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 11:53:55 AM11/27/09
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:41:29 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:

Wow, it's difficult to squeeze so much stupidity into one sentence.

Steven L.

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 12:36:37 PM11/27/09
to

Then there is something incompatible about evolution and *some* kinds of
religion. Because not all religious sects think Genesis was just a
parable.

Genesis doesn't just include a narrative of how God made the Earth. It
also includes the narrative of God calling the Hebrews His chosen
people, and His promising the Levant to Abraham, which Jews regard as
the justification for their claim to it today.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 12:38:26 PM11/27/09
to

No.
This NG is open to any and all discussion of life's origins.

But it is true that currently, metaphysical naturalism is the philosophy
held by most of the posters here.

Burkhard

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 12:52:05 PM11/27/09
to
Steven L. wrote:
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>>
>> Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>>
>> Effective January 1,. 2010
>
> No.
> This NG is open to any and all discussion of life's origins.
>
> But it is true that currently, metaphysical naturalism is the philosophy
> held by most of the posters here.
>
>
Don't think so, actually. When AS1 held his survey (which he promptly
erased from his memories when the results did not match his
preconceptions) it was roughly 50/50

Ernest Major

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 1:06:22 PM11/27/09
to
In message <z5ydnekck54Nk43W...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes

>All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>> Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>> Effective January 1,. 2010
>
>No.
>This NG is open to any and all discussion of life's origins.
>
>But it is true that currently, metaphysical naturalism is the
>philosophy held by most of the posters here.
>
>
I am sceptical of the truth of that claim.
--
alias Ernest Major

Will in New Haven

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 1:32:09 PM11/27/09
to

I propose you slit your fucking wrists before you start another
thread.

--
Will in New Haven

heekster

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 2:08:10 PM11/27/09
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:41:29 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:

That is a really pathetic plea for attention.

John McKendry

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 4:09:59 PM11/27/09
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:38:26 -0500, Steven L. wrote:

> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>>
>> Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>>
>> Effective January 1,. 2010
>
> No.
> This NG is open to any and all discussion of life's origins.
>
> But it is true that currently, metaphysical naturalism is the philosophy
> held by most of the posters here.

As we like to say here on t.o., do you have any evidence for that
assertion? If so, would you present it? If not, wouldn't it be more
accurate to say "it is my belief" or "it is my impression" than
"it is true"? It is my belief that you're wrong, but I would change
my mind if you showed me sufficient evidence.

John

Bob Casanova

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 5:10:57 PM11/27/09
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:48:28 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Caranx latus
<kar...@sympatico.ca>:

"Will be"?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

J.J. O'Shea

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 5:31:17 PM11/27/09
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:08:10 -0500, heekster wrote
(in article <vq80h5pvnasrvpbrj...@4ax.com>):

Well, he's a really pathetic loser.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Davej

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 5:41:18 PM11/27/09
to
On Nov 27, 11:36 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Davej wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 8:41 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >> I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> >> Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>
> > There is nothing incompatible about religion and evolution. You just
> > have to accept the fact that Genesis was a parable.
>
> Then there is something incompatible about evolution and *some* kinds of
> religion.  Because not all religious sects think Genesis was just a
> parable.
>
> Genesis doesn't just include a narrative of how God made the Earth.  It
> also includes the narrative of God calling the Hebrews His chosen
> people, and His promising the Levant to Abraham, which Jews regard as
> the justification for their claim to it today.


So do we want to say that evolution disproves the Jewish claim to
Israel?

chris thompson

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 5:42:34 PM11/27/09
to

If you are serious (which I doubt) the proper way of going about this
is to submit a Request for Discussion to news.announce.newgroups. You
must also submit your rfd to talk.origins, since that is the group you
are proposing to change. After a reasonable period of discussion, you
can submit your proposal (if it lives) for a vote. If the vote
carries, most major sites will change the name as you propose.

But let me warn you. You are proposing the creation of an entirely new
Big 7 hhierarchy- namely, talk.atheist.*

You know not what you do. But that's not unusual for you.

Good luck.

Chris

All-seeing-I

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 6:00:36 PM11/27/09
to
On Nov 27, 4:42 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You misunderstand.

I have read the TO archive going back 20 years. Yes. That is two -
zero.

TO has become Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins compared to what it use to
be back in the day.

Therefore I propose a name change, not the creation of a new NG.

Free Lunch

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 6:21:50 PM11/27/09
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:00:36 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

Your opposition to reality is noted.

raven1

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 6:40:46 PM11/27/09
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:00:36 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com> wrote:

>On Nov 27, 4:42 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 9:41 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>>
>> > Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>>
>> > Effective January 1,. 2010
>>
>> If you are serious (which I doubt) the proper way of going about this
>> is to submit a Request for Discussion to news.announce.newgroups. You
>> must also submit your rfd to talk.origins, since that is the group you
>> are proposing to change. After a reasonable period of discussion, you
>> can submit your proposal (if it lives) for a vote. If the vote
>> carries, most major sites will change the name as you propose.
>>
>> But let me warn you. You are proposing the creation of an entirely new
>> Big 7 hhierarchy- namely, talk.atheist.*
>>
>> You know not what you do. But that's not unusual for you.
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> Chris
>
>You misunderstand.
>
>I have read the TO archive going back 20 years. Yes. That is two -
>zero.

Yet you learned nothing in the process. How sad.

>TO has become Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins compared to what it use to
>be back in the day.
>
> Therefore I propose a name change, not the creation of a new NG.

I see you're as ignorant of Usenet hierarchies as you are of
everything else.

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 7:01:20 PM11/27/09
to
On 28 nov, 00:00, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 4:42 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 9:41 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> > > Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>
> > > Effective January 1,. 2010
>
> > If you are serious (which I doubt) the proper way of going about this
> > is to submit a Request for Discussion to news.announce.newgroups. You
> > must also submit your rfd to talk.origins, since that is the group you
> > are proposing to change. After a reasonable period of discussion, you
> > can submit your proposal (if it lives) for a vote. If the vote
> > carries, most major sites will change the name as you propose.
>
> > But let me warn you. You are proposing the creation of an entirely new
> > Big 7 hhierarchy- namely, talk.atheist.*
>
> > You know not what you do. But that's not unusual for you.
>
> > Good luck.
>
> > Chris
>
> You misunderstand.
>
> I have read the TO archive going back 20 years. Yes. That is two -
> zero.

The sad part is, you seem tohave learned nothing from it.

<snip>

Boikat

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 3:12:23 AM11/28/09
to
On Nov 27, 5:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 4:42 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 9:41 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> > > Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>
> > > Effective January 1,. 2010
>
> > If you are serious (which I doubt) the proper way of going about this
> > is to submit a Request for Discussion to news.announce.newgroups. You
> > must also submit your rfd to talk.origins, since that is the group you
> > are proposing to change. After a reasonable period of discussion, you
> > can submit your proposal (if it lives) for a vote. If the vote
> > carries, most major sites will change the name as you propose.
>
> > But let me warn you. You are proposing the creation of an entirely new
> > Big 7 hhierarchy- namely, talk.atheist.*
>
> > You know not what you do. But that's not unusual for you.
>
> > Good luck.
>
> > Chris
>
> You misunderstand.
>
> I have read the TO archive going back 20 years. Yes. That is two -
> zero.

And lerned absolutly nothing.

>
> TO has become Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins compared to what it use to
> be back in the day.

That would be evidence that you did not actually read anything at all.

>
>  Therefore I propose a name change, not the creation of a new NG.- Hide quoted text -

Your ignorance is no basis for suggesting a name change of anything,
except maybe the name plate on your cage door: "Dumb Assed-I(diot)
would do nicely.

Boikat

All-Seeing-I

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 3:35:56 AM11/28/09
to
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You really should seek help for your substance abuse problems.

All-Seeing-I

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 3:34:44 AM11/28/09
to
> Your opposition to reality is noted.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Your love of lies is recorded

All-Seeing-I

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 3:39:18 AM11/28/09
to
On Nov 27, 12:32 pm, Will in New Haven

Gee.. ...first you want me to set myself in fire, and now THIS?

tsk tsk... will Will WILL


You should seek professional help.

DO IT SOON!

YOU MAY BE A DANGER TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS!

Boikat

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 3:39:54 AM11/28/09
to
> You really should seek help for your substance abuse problems.-

Projection.

Boikat

Ye Old One

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 7:09:31 AM11/28/09
to
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:39:18 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>On Nov 27, 12:32 pm, Will in New Haven
><bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 9:41 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>>
>> > Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>>
>> > Effective January 1,. 2010
>>
>> I propose you slit your fucking wrists before you start another
>> thread.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
>Gee.. ...first you want me to set myself in fire, and now THIS?

Any method you select will do.


>
>tsk tsk... will Will WILL
>
>
>You should seek professional help.
>
>DO IT SOON!
>
>YOU MAY BE A DANGER TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS!

Is that why they keep you in a padded cell?


--
Bob.

If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.

Ye Old One

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 7:11:46 AM11/28/09
to
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:34:44 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I

<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>My love of lies is recorded

Text corrected.

--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.

heekster

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 12:09:23 PM11/28/09
to

You really should obtain a competent education.

heekster

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 12:08:25 PM11/28/09
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:00:36 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com> wrote:

>On Nov 27, 4:42�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 9:41�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>>
>> > Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>>
>> > Effective January 1,. 2010
>>
>> If you are serious (which I doubt) the proper way of going about this
>> is to submit a Request for Discussion to news.announce.newgroups. You
>> must also submit your rfd to talk.origins, since that is the group you
>> are proposing to change. After a reasonable period of discussion, you
>> can submit your proposal (if it lives) for a vote. If the vote
>> carries, most major sites will change the name as you propose.
>>
>> But let me warn you. You are proposing the creation of an entirely new
>> Big 7 hhierarchy- namely, talk.atheist.*
>>
>> You know not what you do. But that's not unusual for you.
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> Chris
>
>You misunderstand.
>
>I have read the TO archive going back 20 years. Yes. That is two -
>zero.
>

How in the hell could you have possibly read all that with
comprehension, and yet still remain the most ignorant poster in the
group?

Ray Martinez

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 1:43:21 PM11/28/09
to
On Nov 27, 6:41 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>
> Effective January 1,. 2010

That would require ruining the entire "reason-for-being" of Talk
Origins (deny the pro-Atheism claims, position, and objectives of
evolutionary theory).

Ray

Bob Casanova

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 2:42:09 PM11/28/09
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:00:36 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:

>On Nov 27, 4:42 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 9:41 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>>
>> > Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>>
>> > Effective January 1,. 2010
>>
>> If you are serious (which I doubt) the proper way of going about this
>> is to submit a Request for Discussion to news.announce.newgroups. You
>> must also submit your rfd to talk.origins, since that is the group you
>> are proposing to change. After a reasonable period of discussion, you
>> can submit your proposal (if it lives) for a vote. If the vote
>> carries, most major sites will change the name as you propose.
>>
>> But let me warn you. You are proposing the creation of an entirely new
>> Big 7 hhierarchy- namely, talk.atheist.*
>>
>> You know not what you do. But that's not unusual for you.
>>
>> Good luck.

>You misunderstand.


>
>I have read the TO archive going back 20 years. Yes. That is two -
>zero.
>
>TO has become Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins compared to what it use to
>be back in the day.
>
> Therefore I propose a name change, not the creation of a new NG.

Missed Chris' point, did you? Quelle surprise...

Bob Casanova

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 2:43:57 PM11/28/09
to
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:08:25 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heek...@ifiwxtc.net>:

Quite easily; he simply rejects evidence which doesn't fit
his preconceptions.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 3:35:37 PM11/28/09
to

Much too complex. T.O exists simply to bring people like you out of
the woodwork so that we can point at them and laugh. I don't think
it's a particularly kind thing to do. Fortunately, I don't care.

How's the paper going. Any ready to wipe with yet?

John Wilkins

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 7:12:22 PM11/28/09
to
In article <j3m2h550aoamt1pd8...@4ax.com>, heekster
<heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:

"Apes don't read philosophy!"
"Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it!"

Free Lunch

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 7:20:59 PM11/28/09
to
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:12:22 +1100, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
wrote in talk.origins:

Sadly for philosophers, that may have been the most important
observation about philosophy in the past half century.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 7:43:28 PM11/28/09
to
In article <0if3h51qmrintij3o...@4ax.com>,
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

No problem the apes that write philosophy don't understand it either.

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

heekster

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 8:13:23 PM11/28/09
to
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:12:22 +1100, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
wrote:

Aristotle was not Belgian.

The central message of Buddhism
is not every man for himself.

The London Underground is not a political
movement.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 12:36:00 AM11/29/09
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:41:29 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:

> I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>
> Effective January 1,. 2010

Good grief. I know you are an attention whore, but now you want the
whole newsgroup named after you.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Burkhard

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 4:33:48 AM11/29/09
to
On Nov 29, 1:13 am, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:12:22 +1100, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <j3m2h550aoamt1pd8rt59p680nsd8c7...@4ax.com>, heekster

Have you looked it up?

heekster

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 10:58:31 AM11/29/09
to

No, but I suspect that you are thinking of the "UK underground", which
was a counterculture movement.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 11:14:09 AM11/29/09
to

I think you're wrong about Theravada Buddhism also. It's message _is_
in a very odd way, "every man for himself." Of course, there are many
more Mahayan Buddhists but fuck em.

heekster

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 1:44:51 PM11/29/09
to

My mistake. These were lines from "A Fish Called Wanda", as were
Wilkins' lines. I just noticed that I left off the quote marks. Sorry
to have you guys chase movie lines as though they were serious
statements.

Burkhard

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 2:25:03 PM11/29/09
to
Nothing that sophisticated - it's just the next line in the Wanda
dialogue ;o)

heekster

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 3:50:13 PM11/29/09
to
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:25:03 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I didn't remember that one. I'll have to watch it again.
Damn the bad luck. ;)

Will in New Haven

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 4:10:58 PM11/29/09
to

I recognized them, so I didn't reply at first. But temptation got the
better of me.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 4:34:07 PM11/29/09
to
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:12:22 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Wilkins
<jo...@wilkins.id.au>:

True, but irrelevant to the point. I suspect that quite a
few of the fundies who post here both read and understand
what they're told. They simply reject it, evidence or not.

David Iain Greig

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 12:49:07 AM11/30/09
to
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins

Sure, submit the RFD. I'll even vote for it.

--D.

--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum

David Iain Greig

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 12:47:56 AM11/30/09
to
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>
> Effective January 1,. 2010

This another spintronic nym?

--D.

VoiceOfReason

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 8:53:26 AM11/30/09
to
On Nov 30, 12:47�am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> > Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>
> > Effective January 1,. 2010
>
> This another spintronic nym?

Nah, different nutter.

Ernest Major

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:19:53 AM11/30/09
to
In message <cabal-slrnhh6...@darwin.ediacara.org>, David Iain
Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> writes
No. That is M-adman/Adman/Uriel. He's been behaving himself more
recently in regards to nymshifting. My killfile accumulated 5 different
email addresses for M-adman, but he's only used the one under his newer
nym.
--
alias Ernest Major

Ye Old One

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 4:47:24 AM11/30/09
to

No, it is a [M]adman nym. Almost as stupid as Spincronic, but not
quite.

--
Bob.

David Fritzinger

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 12:02:58 PM11/30/09
to
In article <cabal-slrnhh6...@darwin.ediacara.org>,

No. It is another (M)adman nym. I believe he announced the change
though.

Ron O

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 7:16:32 AM11/30/09
to
On Nov 29, 11:47�pm, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

No, this is adman, [M]adman, uriel etc. Some of his Nym changes are
due to changing providers. adman has messed around with nyms for the
fun of it, but he hasn't done it lately, as far as I know.

Ron Okimoto

Eric Root

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:57:27 AM11/30/09
to
On Nov 30, 12:47�am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

No, it's adman.

Eric Root

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 7:45:04 AM11/30/09
to
On Nov 30, 12:47�am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> > Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>
> > Effective January 1,. 2010
>
> This another spintronic nym?

No. He used [M]Adman variations for a couple of months and then
openly changed to this name. He does not switch names often and then
stays with the change.

He has been, by far, the most prolific creationist poster for 4 or 5
months. On the nutty scale he is about equal to Ray with the normal
degree of variation.

Greg G.

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 10:00:41 AM11/30/09
to
On Nov 29, 11:47�pm, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

No. He has completely different problems.

John Wilkins

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 8:07:11 PM11/30/09
to
In article <cabal-slrnhh6...@darwin.ediacara.org>, David
Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

I don't think so. This one is insane in a wholly different manner.
Drools from the other side of his mouth, for example.

Eric Root

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 10:59:19 PM11/30/09
to
On Nov 30, 12:47�am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

An adman nym

chris thompson

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 7:54:48 AM11/30/09
to
On Nov 30, 12:47 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

Nope. ASI is Madman.

Chris

raven1

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 9:52:31 AM11/30/09
to

No, it's [M]adman/Uriel.

Eric Root

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 3:36:45 PM11/30/09
to
On Nov 30, 12:47�am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

It's adman.

David Iain Greig

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:59:50 PM11/30/09
to
Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 12:47�am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> > I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>>
>> > Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>>
>> > Effective January 1,. 2010
>>
>> This another spintronic nym?
>>
> No, it's adman.
>

Well he's ok then.

--D.

Dave Oldridge

unread,
Dec 2, 2009, 12:58:06 AM12/2/09
to
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote in news:daa9762f-eb0a-4f96-afad-
dbea72...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

>I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
>Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>
>Effective January 1,. 2010

Why don't you properly rename all the creationist lie-tanks for the Satanic
religions that THEY represent?

Of course that wouldn't really serve the agenda of your god, the father of
all lies.


--
Dave Oldridge+

rossum

unread,
Dec 2, 2009, 4:26:07 AM12/2/09
to
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:58:06 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

>All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote in news:daa9762f-eb0a-4f96-afad-
>dbea72...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
>>I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>>
>>Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>>
>>Effective January 1,. 2010
>
>Why don't you properly rename all the creationist lie-tanks for the Satanic
>religions that THEY represent?

They are not Satanic, they are just Christianity Lite - the version
with 10% less commandments than before. They only follow nine of the
original ten.

rossum

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Dec 2, 2009, 7:46:26 AM12/2/09
to
On Dec 2, 4:26�am, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:58:06 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>
> <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in news:daa9762f-eb0a-4f96-afad-
> >dbea723a2...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

>
> >>I Propose the renaming of Talk.Origins to:
>
> >>Talk.Atheist.Religion.Origins
>
> >>Effective January 1,. 2010
>
> >Why don't you properly rename all the creationist lie-tanks for the Satanic
> >religions that THEY represent?
>
> They are not Satanic, they are just Christianity Lite - the version
> with 10% less commandments than before. �They only follow nine of the
> original ten.
>
> rossum

If you're talking about:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"

1) He, like most creationists, has carefully avoided witnessing
any evidence that might condradict his beliefs.
2) Nobody here is his neighbour.

So he's in the clear, heaven bound !!

0 new messages