> > > > On Aug 3, 4:48 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise everyone can just
> > > > > > > assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's religion of
> > > > > > > love was definitely not jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience" only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote. Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence that thay held these views.
> > > > > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > > quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > Correct - you provided the relevant material, which shows that your
> > > claims were completely false. I expect you are not lying in the sense
> > > of saying something you know is false since I believe you are
> > > completely insane and actually believe the incoherent babbling you
> > > post has some relation to reality.
> > Take a look at the writings of Gasman linked in the original post in
> > the thread. According to Mitchell ,Gasman is a crank, and Richards a
> > competent historian.
> > And you are also a social darwinist, not acknowledging the line
> > between subjectivity and objectivity, lying about the holocaust.
> Just out of curiosity, what *does* your shrink think about your
> pathological habit of accusing prople who disagree with your demented
> world view of "subjectivity/objectivity" of being "social darwinists"
> and "liars about the Holocaust"? And don't even try to say the he (or
> she) thinks your pathology is "normal".
> Boikat
God has made basic things simple for us to understand, the
understanding of freedom comes natural. Also the dividing line between
fact and feeling is naturally understood. Kids understand, it is
because of the scientific method that you deny freedom is real, and
fail to subjectively acknowledge a spiritual domain doing the chosing.
> > > > > > > > >> > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > >> Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise everyone can just
> > > > > > > > >> assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > > > >> Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > > > > > I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's religion of love was
> > > > > > > > > definitely not jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan
> > > > > > > > > characteristics.
> > > > > > > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > > > > > Hi Sweet Plum,
> > > > > > > > It's me again, your favourite liar about the holocaust.
> > > > > > > > A coule of rectifications:
> > > > > > > > 1. Mitchell is definitely not a baldfaced liar. His beard is absolutely
> > > > > > > > stunning and he is totally committed to a fact-based approach.
> > > > > > > > 2. I found an interesting source regarding the Aryan Christ movement.
> > > > > > > > Check out Susannah Heschel's book The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and
> > > > > > > > the Bible in Nazi Germany. Funnily enough, I couldn't find a reference to
> > > > > > > > Haeckel. Here's a sample for you:
> > > > > > > > "AT NOON ON SATURDAY, MAY 6, 1939, a group of Protestant theologians,
> > > > > > > > pastors, and churchgoers gathered at the historic Wartburg Castle, resonant
> > > > > > > > with Lutheran and nationalist significance, to celebrate the official
> > > > > > > > opening of the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence
> > > > > > > > on German Church Life (Institut zur Erforschung und Beseitigung des
> > > > > > > > j dischen Einfl usses auf das deutsche kirchliche Leben). The Institute s
> > > > > > > > goals were both political and theological. Seeking to create a dejudaized
> > > > > > > > church for a Germany that was in the process of ridding Europe of all Jews,
> > > > > > > > it developed new biblical interpretations and liturgical materials. In the
> > > > > > > > six years of its existence, as the Nazi regime carried out its genocide of
> > > > > > > > the Jews, the Institute redefined Christianity as a Germanic religion whose
> > > > > > > > founder, Jesus, was no Jew but rather had fought valiantly to destroy
> > > > > > > > Judaism, falling as victim to that struggle. Germans were now called upon to
> > > > > > > > be the victors in Jesus s own struggle against the Jews, who were said to be
> > > > > > > > seeking Germany s destruction." taken from the Introduction -- Theology and
> > > > > > > > Race.
> > > > > > > > Not surprisingly Haeckel wasn't present at that meeting having died 20 years
> > > > > > > > earlier. However you'd expect the name of such an illustrious supporter of
> > > > > > > > Aryan Jesus to turn up somewhere, eh?
> > > > > > > > You'll want to quickly visit this site:
> > > > > > > > <http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum/topics/nazis-christians-and- > > > > > > > > darwin-oh-my>
> > > > > > > > As a Christian, I'm sure you'll find the photograph quite inspiring
> > > > > > > > (uniformed priests giving the Nazi salute). You'll also delight in the fact
> > > > > > > > that the works of both Darwin and Haeckel were banned by the Nazis. Or am I
> > > > > > > > being too objective for you.
> > > > > > > > Have a nice day. :)
> > > > > > > Here is what of interest to you, the creationist theory of mating.
> > > > > > > The mating rituals performed by a large group of animals, consists of
> > > > > > > an effort to the joining of the free will of both partners. If joined
> > > > > > > it results in single decisions resulting in actions in both partners
> > > > > > > at the same time. This joining of wills is very useful for
> > > > > > > reproduction if both partners are involved with later raising of their
> > > > > > > young. But ofcourse the value is in what makes the decisions, as we
> > > > > > > may hope that it is love.
> > > > > > And yet, there are gobs of species that mate, and do not raise their
> > > > > > young. So much for your "creationism theory".
> > > > > > Boikat
> > > > > Have any other theory about mating which involves freedom?
> > > > There are no *scientific* theories about "freedom" as you use it.
> > > > Boikat
> > > You deny all theories based on explaining origins in terms of freedom,
> > > not just mine.
> > Besides your insane blathercrap and laughable excuse for a "theory",
> > what *scientific* theory based upon "freedom" has been presented? I
> > do not recall any.
> The nil potency rewrite theory is a theory which posits freedom in a
> meaningful way.
Then it A, is something you do not understand, or B, is something you
are willfully misrepresenting, or C, does not use the word "freedom"
the same way you do, but you ignore that point. It's one of those
three (or a combination of the three, or all three) sinceno true
science has yet to adequately, one way or the other, your additional
caviats of "the spirit", the "spiritual domain" or anything along the
lines of rocks being able to decide to turn out this way or that, from
moment to moment.
> Mark Isaak recently posted an article from a scienttist arguing for
> freedom, the audience to which the scientist was addressing his
> argument in the article appeared to be darth vader. It reeked of fear
> for putting forward the idea that there may in fact be alternative
> results available in the moment.
Did it address rocks making decisions about turning out one way or the
other, from moment to moment? Did the use of "freedom" in the article
also mandate the "proper acknowledgement of subjectivity in
acknowleding the spiritual domain"? If not, then it has nothing to do
with *your* warped little rants.
> But creationsim is better than all these, because it rightly addresses
> what did the creating, chosing, as a subjective issue.
And, being subjective, it is a matter of personal opinion, and pretty
much is useless, except for making insecure little wretches like you
feel all warm and fuzzy, 'cause the great sky fuzzy-wuzzy wuves you.
The forblem is that you demand that everyone else believes the same
thing. Not going to happen.
> > > > > On Aug 3, 4:48 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise everyone can just
> > > > > > > > assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's religion of
> > > > > > > > love was definitely not jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > > > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > > > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience" only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > > > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > > > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote. Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence that thay held these views.
> > > > > > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > > > quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > > Correct - you provided the relevant material, which shows that your
> > > > claims were completely false. I expect you are not lying in the sense
> > > > of saying something you know is false since I believe you are
> > > > completely insane and actually believe the incoherent babbling you
> > > > post has some relation to reality.
> > > Take a look at the writings of Gasman linked in the original post in
> > > the thread. According to Mitchell ,Gasman is a crank, and Richards a
> > > competent historian.
> > > And you are also a social darwinist, not acknowledging the line
> > > between subjectivity and objectivity, lying about the holocaust.
> > Just out of curiosity, what *does* your shrink think about your
> > pathological habit of accusing prople who disagree with your demented
> > world view of "subjectivity/objectivity" of being "social darwinists"
> > and "liars about the Holocaust"? And don't even try to say the he (or
> > she) thinks your pathology is "normal".
> > Boikat
> God has made basic things simple for us to understand,
That is your subjective 9personal) belief, and nobody is obligated to
accept it as anything *but* yoru personal belief. As such, it also
explains nothing since all you have to do is say "goddidit", and then
role over and go back to sleep. Ignorance is bliss, right?
> the
> understanding of freedom comes natural.
Not the way you use it.
> Also the dividing line between
> fact and feeling is naturally understood.
Then why does it give you so much trouble?
> Kids understand, it is
> because of the scientific method that you deny freedom is real,
Just your version, and "kids" will believe what their parents teach
them to believe, so that really does not justify or support your
claims.
> and
> fail to subjectively acknowledge a spiritual domain doing the chosing.
I do not "deny" it, I simply do not take it into account because there
is no evidence to support a "spiritual domain".
> On Aug 3, 7:47 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 3:42 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 1:36 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 2, 6:03 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 3, 12:40 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 2, 5:15 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > > > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > > > I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's religion of love was
> > > > > > > definitely not jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan
> > > > > > > characteristics.
> > > > > > That sounds like a subjective claim, not a *scientific* claim.
> > > > > > Therefore, you are being dishonet.
> > > > > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > > > Look in a mirror, unless you are too afraid to face the reality of the
> > > > > > fact that you are dishonest.
> > > > > > Boikat
> > > > > And dishonesty is not a matter of fact, that is a matter of opinion.
> > > > Is that the excuse you use when you lie about people lying about the
> > > > Holocaust?
> > > > Boikat
> > > So you support pseudoscientific findings of dishonesty, and again
> > > subjectivity is left useless in reaching a conclusion.
> > If I supported "pseudoscientific finding of dishonesty", I would be
> > thinking like you and claiming everyone was lying about the Holocaust
> > because they did not properly acknowledge subjectivity and the human
> > spirit. I'd also toss something stupid and meaningless about the
> > "spiritual realm" and "EEEEEEville kitten eating mad scientists".
> > Boikat
> But you can see here all Darwinists are lying about the holocaust,
> without any conscience.
It is worth repeating that while you claim that Darwin and Haeckel
caused the Holocaust, the Nazi 12-step plan for solving the "Jewish
problem" specifically repudiated Darwin, and Haeckel, by name.
Your grotesque little fanfic of Hitler hugging a picture and singing
"Charlie is my Darwin" only happened in the sticky tube sock you use
for a mind...
On Aug 3, 12:35 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 6:38 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:18:28 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 12:00 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 4:53:27 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote: > > On Aug 2, 5:32 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 9:41:39 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote: > > [snip]> For instance the subjective belief, "my girlfriend loves me", and then to > > attack this belief because it is subjective, and demand that the belief is > > replaced with a fact forced by evidence. This is the kind of mental aggression > that Darwinists perpetrate on a wide scale on the newsgroups and in society. > > [snip] > > Post three examples of a "Darwinist" on this newsgroup attacting a belief like "my girlfriend loves me" because it is "subjective" and "demanding" that the belief is replaced with a fact. Since facts aren't "forced" by evidence I won't hold you to that bit of gibberish. My theory is you just made this fact up. > > As for "severe emotional distress," you're the guy who has explained his calling for the m
as
> > s murder of millions of people for disagreeing with you (etc.), as the result of the anger you suffered from voluntarily reading people d > > isagreeing with you. > > Mitchell Coffey > > > You are gaming this issue, you are not trying to look to the truth of the > > matter, but you are trying to score points in denying. > > Oh, bullshit. You do little except point scoring: you insult, lie and gibber on in your own, private language. You avoid any and all actual discussion, refuse to respond to other peoples' arguments, refuse to produce evidence, when you do produce it it turns out you'd lied about your sources, refuse to produce examples of what you claim people have said, claim people believe things they don't believe, claim people support you who don't, apply wildly non-standard definitions of words - after you use them - for your own purposes. You do nothing, you have nothing. Your whole argument is base on treating the several differing usages of words like "freedom" as if they all mean the same thi
> > and they you insist on your own, wildly non-standard privat definition. When this basic fact is point out to you, you run away. > > As you just did. Claims like you made above - that "Darwinist" on this newsgroup attact a belief like "my girlfriend loves me" because it is "subjective" and demand that the belief is replaced with a fact - are central to your agrument, as part of your routine inventions about what "Darwinists" believe. "Darwinist" don't believe that, no one on this newsgroup has said anything like that, it's just another of your lies, and I caught you in your lie. Since your lies about what "Dawinists" believe are key to your argument, this isn't point scoring. > > > The main thing in what I said ofcourse is the line between objective and > > subjective. > > You don't get to tell me what the "main thing" is; if you tell a lie I get to call you on it. And, you're lying again, of course: we do discuss the "line between objective and subjective." Your "line between objective and subjective" is
> th
> > at virtualy every event is subjective: a rock rolling down a hill makes a subjective decision every time it makes a random bounce on its path, constituting an act of free will. When people point out that you're reduced free will to quantum variation, that in fact you do not believe in free will as it is conceived by anyone else, you run away or descend into your private definitions of words and gibberish. > > The rest includes more of the lies of the sort I just caught you in, you lying bigot. > > [snip] > > Mitchell Coffey > > Mitchell Coffey
> > >> Again, that is not providing argument, that is not providing any evidence, >> you are bullying this issue away of where the dividing line between
> > >> subjectivity and objectivity is.
> > In this exchange you are specifically *refusing* to provide evidence for a specific claim. And you are specifically refusing to discuss this supposed devidning line, because you have snipped and refused to respond to where I discussed it. If you claim I'm bullying you, and not lying about it as an excuse to avoid discussing, post the exact sentence where I bullied and explain how it was bullying. Otherwise people can assume you're lying again.
> > Mitchell Coffey
> Your bullcrap is pointless. Where is the line?
It is worth repeating that you are wrong about Nazi philosophy being
founded on Darwin and Haeckel, when their interior documents
specifically repudiate both.
> On Aug 3, 9:34 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Boikat wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 1:37 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On Aug 3, 8:05 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Slow Vehicle wrote:
> > >> > > On Aug 3, 9:53 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> > >> On Aug 3, 4:48 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
> > >> > >> > > wrote: On Thursday, August 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu
> > >> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > [snip]
> > >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
> > >> > >> > > > > pseudoscience.
> > >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
> > >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> > >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's
> > >> > >> > > > religion of love was definitely not jewish, but instead
> > >> > >> > > > representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
> > >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
> > >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of analysis
> > >> > >> > with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history and religion
> > >> > >> > are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act like these were
> > >> > >> > science; it's possible he did, if you can show that he did then
> > >> > >> > one can call it pseudoscience.
> > >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
> > >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's work
> > >> > >> > ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred years ago,
> > >> > >> > one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if modern "Darwinists"
> > >> > >> > gave a shit about him.
> > >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a quote
> > >> > >> > with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he did. And
> > >> > >> > you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote. Nonetheless,
> > >> > >> > you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only enhance your
> > >> > >> > reputation as a liar. But what's important is that you seem to
> > >> > >> > consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin significant to
> > >> > >> > *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence that thay held
> > >> > >> > these views.
> > >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> > >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > >> > > Liar.
> > >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
> > >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
> > >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> > >> You are nuts.
> > > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> > > Boikat
> > How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
> > your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> acknowledge it is there.
It is worth pointing out to you that your tiresome refrain that Darwin
and Haeckel caused the Holocaust id Objectively demonstrable as a
false statement. The fact that you cling to it subjectively
demonstrates exactly where the "line between subjectivity and
objectivity" is...
At what point would you allow a documented, demonstrable objective
historical fact to influence your screed?
Is it just that much more fun to lie?
> On Aug 3, 8:48 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 5:10 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 8:19 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Thursday, August 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > >> [snip]
> > > > >> > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is pseudoscience.
> > > > >> Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise everyone can just
> > > > >> assume you're lying again.
> > > > >> Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's religion of love was
> > > > > definitely not jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan
> > > > > characteristics.
> > > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > Hi Sweet Plum,
> > > > It's me again, your favourite liar about the holocaust.
> > > > A coule of rectifications:
> > > > 1. Mitchell is definitely not a baldfaced liar. His beard is absolutely
> > > > stunning and he is totally committed to a fact-based approach.
> > > > 2. I found an interesting source regarding the Aryan Christ movement.
> > > > Check out Susannah Heschel's book The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and
> > > > the Bible in Nazi Germany. Funnily enough, I couldn't find a reference to
> > > > Haeckel. Here's a sample for you:
> > > > "AT NOON ON SATURDAY, MAY 6, 1939, a group of Protestant theologians,
> > > > pastors, and churchgoers gathered at the historic Wartburg Castle, resonant
> > > > with Lutheran and nationalist significance, to celebrate the official
> > > > opening of the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence
> > > > on German Church Life (Institut zur Erforschung und Beseitigung des
> > > > j dischen Einfl usses auf das deutsche kirchliche Leben). The Institute s
> > > > goals were both political and theological. Seeking to create a dejudaized
> > > > church for a Germany that was in the process of ridding Europe of all Jews,
> > > > it developed new biblical interpretations and liturgical materials. In the
> > > > six years of its existence, as the Nazi regime carried out its genocide of
> > > > the Jews, the Institute redefined Christianity as a Germanic religion whose
> > > > founder, Jesus, was no Jew but rather had fought valiantly to destroy
> > > > Judaism, falling as victim to that struggle. Germans were now called upon to
> > > > be the victors in Jesus s own struggle against the Jews, who were said to be
> > > > seeking Germany s destruction." taken from the Introduction -- Theology and
> > > > Race.
> > > > Not surprisingly Haeckel wasn't present at that meeting having died 20 years
> > > > earlier. However you'd expect the name of such an illustrious supporter of
> > > > Aryan Jesus to turn up somewhere, eh?
> > > > You'll want to quickly visit this site:
> > > > <http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum/topics/nazis-christians-and- > > > > darwin-oh-my>
> > > > As a Christian, I'm sure you'll find the photograph quite inspiring
> > > > (uniformed priests giving the Nazi salute). You'll also delight in the fact
> > > > that the works of both Darwin and Haeckel were banned by the Nazis. Or am I
> > > > being too objective for you.
> > > > Have a nice day. :)
> > > Here is what of interest to you, the creationist theory of mating.
> > > The mating rituals performed by a large group of animals, consists of
> > > an effort to the joining of the free will of both partners. If joined
> > > it results in single decisions resulting in actions in both partners
> > > at the same time. This joining of wills is very useful for
> > > reproduction if both partners are involved with later raising of their
> > > young. But ofcourse the value is in what makes the decisions, as we
> > > may hope that it is love.
> > And yet, there are gobs of species that mate, and do not raise their
> > young. So much for your "creationism theory".
> > Boikat
> Have any other theory about mating which involves freedom?
My mating habits are none of your business, pervert (but I am free to
practice them as I choose...).
> > > On Aug 3, 4:48 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise everyone can just
> > > > > > assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's religion of
> > > > > > love was definitely not jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience" only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote. Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence that thay held these views.
> > > > Mitchell Coffey
> > > Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > Correct - you provided the relevant material, which shows that your
> > claims were completely false. I expect you are not lying in the sense
> > of saying something you know is false since I believe you are
> > completely insane and actually believe the incoherent babbling you
> > post has some relation to reality.
> Take a look at the writings of Gasman linked in the original post in
> the thread. According to Mitchell ,Gasman is a crank, and Richards a
> competent historian.
> And you are also a social darwinist, not acknowledging the line
> between subjectivity and objectivity, lying about the holocaust.
It is worth repeating that you keep lying about the Holocasut, even
though it has been demonstrated and documented that your repeated
screed about who caused the Holocaust is not accordant with reality.
I bet you will keep telling that lie, though...it's all you have.
Don't they miss you at the Klubhaus?
>> > > > > > > >> > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
>> > > > > > > >> > pseudoscience.
>> > > > > > > >> Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
>> > > > > > > >> everyone can just assume you're lying again.
>> > > > > > > >> Mitchell Coffey
>> > > > > > > > I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's religion of
>> > > > > > > > love was definitely not jewish, but instead representative
>> > > > > > > > of higher Aryan characteristics.
>> > > > > > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
>> > > > > > > Hi Sweet Plum,
>> > > > > > > It's me again, your favourite liar about the holocaust.
>> > > > > > > A coule of rectifications:
>> > > > > > > 1. Mitchell is definitely not a baldfaced liar. His beard is
>> > > > > > > absolutely stunning and he is totally committed to a
>> > > > > > > fact-based approach. 2. I found an interesting source
>> > > > > > > regarding the Aryan Christ movement. Check out Susannah
>> > > > > > > Heschel's book The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the
>> > > > > > > Bible in Nazi Germany. Funnily enough, I couldn't find a
>> > > > > > > reference to Haeckel. Here's a sample for you:
>> > > > > > > "AT NOON ON SATURDAY, MAY 6, 1939, a group of Protestant
>> > > > > > > theologians, pastors, and churchgoers gathered at the
>> > > > > > > historic Wartburg Castle, resonant with Lutheran and
>> > > > > > > nationalist significance, to celebrate the official opening
>> > > > > > > of the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish
>> > > > > > > Influence on German Church Life (Institut zur Erforschung und
>> > > > > > > Beseitigung des j dischen Einfl usses auf das deutsche
>> > > > > > > kirchliche Leben). The Institute s goals were both political
>> > > > > > > and theological. Seeking to create a dejudaized church for a
>> > > > > > > Germany that was in the process of ridding Europe of all
>> > > > > > > Jews, it developed new biblical interpretations and
>> > > > > > > liturgical materials. In the six years of its existence, as
>> > > > > > > the Nazi regime carried out its genocide of the Jews, the
>> > > > > > > Institute redefined Christianity as a Germanic religion whose
>> > > > > > > founder, Jesus, was no Jew but rather had fought valiantly to
>> > > > > > > destroy Judaism, falling as victim to that struggle. Germans
>> > > > > > > were now called upon to be the victors in Jesus s own
>> > > > > > > struggle against the Jews, who were said to be seeking
>> > > > > > > Germany s destruction." taken from the Introduction --
>> > > > > > > Theology and Race.
>> > > > > > > Not surprisingly Haeckel wasn't present at that meeting
>> > > > > > > having died 20 years earlier. However you'd expect the name
>> > > > > > > of such an illustrious supporter of Aryan Jesus to turn up
>> > > > > > > somewhere, eh? You'll want to quickly visit this site:
>> > > > > > > <http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum/topics/nazis- christians-and-
>> > > > > > > darwin-oh-my>
>> > > > > > > As a Christian, I'm sure you'll find the photograph quite
>> > > > > > > inspiring (uniformed priests giving the Nazi salute). You'll
>> > > > > > > also delight in the fact that the works of both Darwin and
>> > > > > > > Haeckel were banned by the Nazis. Or am I being too objective
>> > > > > > > for you. Have a nice day. :)
>> > > > > > Here is what of interest to you, the creationist theory of
>> > > > > > mating.
>> > > > > > The mating rituals performed by a large group of animals,
>> > > > > > consists of an effort to the joining of the free will of both
>> > > > > > partners. If joined it results in single decisions resulting in
>> > > > > > actions in both partners at the same time. This joining of
>> > > > > > wills is very useful for reproduction if both partners are
>> > > > > > involved with later raising of their young. But ofcourse the
>> > > > > > value is in what makes the decisions, as we may hope that it is
>> > > > > > love.
>> > > > > And yet, there are gobs of species that mate, and do not raise
>> > > > > their young. So much for your "creationism theory".
>> > > > > Boikat
>> > > > Have any other theory about mating which involves freedom?
>> > > There are no *scientific* theories about "freedom" as you use it.
>> > > Boikat
>> > You deny all theories based on explaining origins in terms of freedom,
>> > not just mine.
>> Besides your insane blathercrap and laughable excuse for a "theory",
>> what *scientific* theory based upon "freedom" has been presented? I
>> do not recall any.
> The nil potency rewrite theory is a theory which posits freedom in a
> meaningful way.
> Mark Isaak recently posted an article from a scienttist arguing for
> freedom, the audience to which the scientist was addressing his
> argument in the article appeared to be darth vader. It reeked of fear
> for putting forward the idea that there may in fact be alternative
> results available in the moment.
> But creationsim is better than all these, because it rightly addresses
> what did the creating, chosing, as a subjective issue.
Please try not to forget that you are a proven liar. That's why you're called Maudit Menteur (at least by me). Funny you should mention the "nil potency rewrite theory" as an answer to Boikat's question. I looked it up and found a reference to a poster on Philosophy Forums. The poster's nym was .. Nando and the poster's status was "banned". It's actually not surprising that you don't mention this, Menteur. Here's a small sample of the Nazi-
loving liar's *scientific* theory. Look on and know revulsion:
"Based upon my limited understanding of the theory...., it goes like, the universe starts with nothing, and at every next step in time the totality is nothing, and it ends up as nothing. Not only are the things in the universe created out of nothing, but the rules are also created out of nothing.
"For example if the rule of multiplication is introduced, then the rule of division is automatically introduced with it. The totality of the rule of multiplication and division is nothing. And if A is introduced then B is introduced as conjugate to A, so that the totality remains nothing."
Interestingly I could find no independent source for the Liar's "nil potential rewrite theory". I conclude that the quoted material above represents pretty much the sum total of this "freedom-loving theory." Any bets on finding further info on this alleged theory? Believe anything that the Menteur says at your peril.
> > > > > On Aug 3, 4:48 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise everyone can just
> > > > > > > > assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's religion of
> > > > > > > > love was definitely not jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > > > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > > > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience" only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > > > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > > > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote. Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence that thay held these views.
> > > > > > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > > > quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > > Correct - you provided the relevant material, which shows that your
> > > > claims were completely false. I expect you are not lying in the sense
> > > > of saying something you know is false since I believe you are
> > > > completely insane and actually believe the incoherent babbling you
> > > > post has some relation to reality.
> > > Take a look at the writings of Gasman linked in the original post in
> > > the thread. According to Mitchell ,Gasman is a crank, and Richards a
> > > competent historian.
> > > And you are also a social darwinist, not acknowledging the line
> > > between subjectivity and objectivity, lying about the holocaust.
> > Just out of curiosity, what *does* your shrink think about your
> > pathological habit of accusing prople who disagree with your demented
> > world view of "subjectivity/objectivity" of being "social darwinists"
> > and "liars about the Holocaust"? And don't even try to say the he (or
> > she) thinks your pathology is "normal".
> > Boikat
> God has made basic things simple for us to understand, the
> understanding of freedom comes natural. Also the dividing line between
> fact and feeling is naturally understood. Kids understand, it is
> because of the scientific method that you deny freedom is real, and
> fail to subjectively acknowledge a spiritual domain doing the chosing.
It is worth pointing out to you that your "answer" assumes
"god"...with no evidence.
If the "dividing line between fact and feeling" is so "naturally
understood", why do you keep getting it wrong and insisting that your
subjective take on things is the only morally acceptable reality, even
when it contradicts demonstrable fact?
Syamsu wrote:
> On Aug 3, 9:34 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Boikat wrote:
>> > On Aug 3, 1:37 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Aug 3, 8:05 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Slow Vehicle wrote:
>> >> > > On Aug 3, 9:53 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> On Aug 3, 4:48 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
>> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
>> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August 2,
>> >> > >> > > 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
>> >> > >> > > > [snip]
>> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
>> >> > >> > > > > pseudoscience.
>> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
>> >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
>> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said
>> >> > >> > > > Jesus's religion of love was definitely not jewish, but
>> >> > >> > > > instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
>> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
>> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
>> >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
>> >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of
>> >> > >> > analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history
>> >> > >> > and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act
>> >> > >> > like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show
>> >> > >> > that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
>> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
>> >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's
>> >> > >> > work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred
>> >> > >> > years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if
>> >> > >> > modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
>> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a
>> >> > >> > quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he
>> >> > >> > did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote.
>> >> > >> > Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only
>> >> > >> > enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that
>> >> > >> > you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
>> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence
>> >> > >> > that thay held these views.
>> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
>> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
>> >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
>> >> > > Liar.
>> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
>> >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
>> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
>> >> You are nuts.
>> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
>> > Boikat
>> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
>> your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> acknowledge it is there.
As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim about Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a lie. You make a claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it weren't your own fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are now banned you state, "Based upon my limited understanding of the theory.." suggesting that you are not its author. Ok, so tell us who is the author.
Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again. Liar, liar! You're pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit Menteur.
> Syamsu wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 9:34 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Boikat wrote:
> >> > On Aug 3, 1:37 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 3, 8:05 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Slow Vehicle wrote:
> >> >> > > On Aug 3, 9:53 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >> On Aug 3, 4:48 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
> >> >> > >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
> >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August 2,
> >> >> > >> > > 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
> >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
> >> >> > >> > > > > pseudoscience.
> >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
> >> >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said
> >> >> > >> > > > Jesus's religion of love was definitely not jewish, but
> >> >> > >> > > > instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
> >> >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
> >> >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of
> >> >> > >> > analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history
> >> >> > >> > and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act
> >> >> > >> > like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show
> >> >> > >> > that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
> >> >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's
> >> >> > >> > work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred
> >> >> > >> > years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if
> >> >> > >> > modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a
> >> >> > >> > quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he
> >> >> > >> > did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote.
> >> >> > >> > Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only
> >> >> > >> > enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that
> >> >> > >> > you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence
> >> >> > >> > that thay held these views.
> >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> >> >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> >> >> > > Liar.
> >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
> >> >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
> >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> >> >> You are nuts.
> >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> >> > Boikat
> >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
> >> your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> > acknowledge it is there.
> As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim about
> Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a lie. You make a
> claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it weren't your own
> fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are now banned you state,
> "Based upon my limited understanding of the theory.." suggesting that you
> are not its author. Ok, so tell us who is the author.
> Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again. Liar, liar! You're
> pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit Menteur.
I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
for the event. It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
ignore subjectivity. Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
not for history that does justice to the event.
> > >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
> > >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August 2,
> > >> >> > >> > > 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
> > >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
> > >> >> > >> > > > > pseudoscience.
> > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
> > >> >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said
> > >> >> > >> > > > Jesus's religion of love was definitely not jewish, but
> > >> >> > >> > > > instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
> > >> >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
> > >> >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of
> > >> >> > >> > analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history
> > >> >> > >> > and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act
> > >> >> > >> > like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show
> > >> >> > >> > that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
> > >> >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's
> > >> >> > >> > work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred
> > >> >> > >> > years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if
> > >> >> > >> > modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a
> > >> >> > >> > quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he
> > >> >> > >> > did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote.
> > >> >> > >> > Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only
> > >> >> > >> > enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that
> > >> >> > >> > you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence
> > >> >> > >> > that thay held these views.
> > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > >> >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > >> >> > > Liar.
> > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
> > >> >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
> > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> > >> >> You are nuts.
> > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> > >> > Boikat
> > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
> > >> your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> > > acknowledge it is there.
> > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim about
> > Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a lie. You make a
> > claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it weren't your own
> > fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are now banned you state,
> > "Based upon my limited understanding of the theory.." suggesting that you
> > are not its author. Ok, so tell us who is the author.
> > Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again. Liar, liar! You're
> > pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit Menteur.
> I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
> for the event.
How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
event"?
> It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
> making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
> ignore subjectivity.
In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
research is based upon subjective opinion?
> Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
> not for history that does justice to the event.
Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
> > > >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
> > > >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August 2,
> > > >> >> > >> > > 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
> > > >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
> > > >> >> > >> > > > > pseudoscience.
> > > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
> > > >> >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said
> > > >> >> > >> > > > Jesus's religion of love was definitely not jewish, but
> > > >> >> > >> > > > instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
> > > >> >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
> > > >> >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of
> > > >> >> > >> > analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history
> > > >> >> > >> > and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act
> > > >> >> > >> > like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show
> > > >> >> > >> > that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
> > > >> >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's
> > > >> >> > >> > work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred
> > > >> >> > >> > years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if
> > > >> >> > >> > modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a
> > > >> >> > >> > quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he
> > > >> >> > >> > did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote.
> > > >> >> > >> > Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only
> > > >> >> > >> > enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that
> > > >> >> > >> > you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> > > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence
> > > >> >> > >> > that thay held these views.
> > > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> > > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > >> >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > >> >> > > Liar.
> > > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
> > > >> >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
> > > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> > > >> >> You are nuts.
> > > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> > > >> > Boikat
> > > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
> > > >> your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> > > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> > > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> > > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> > > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> > > > acknowledge it is there.
> > > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim about
> > > Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a lie. You make a
> > > claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it weren't your own
> > > fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are now banned you state,
> > > "Based upon my limited understanding of the theory.." suggesting that you
> > > are not its author. Ok, so tell us who is the author.
> > > Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again. Liar, liar! You're
> > > pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit Menteur.
> > I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
> > for the event.
> How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
> the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
> event"?
> > It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
> > making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
> > ignore subjectivity.
> In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
> come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
> research is based upon subjective opinion?
> > Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
> > not for history that does justice to the event.
> Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
> evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
> those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
> Boikat
Now honor is an issue of fact? You suffer from mad evil scientist
syndrome. It is your opinion from your subjective feeling. But you
didnt cultivate any feeling, took no care in judgement,resulting in no
moral authority.
> > > > >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
> > > > >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August 2,
> > > > >> >> > >> > > 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > > pseudoscience.
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > Jesus's religion of love was definitely not jewish, but
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
> > > > >> >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
> > > > >> >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of
> > > > >> >> > >> > analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history
> > > > >> >> > >> > and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act
> > > > >> >> > >> > like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show
> > > > >> >> > >> > that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
> > > > >> >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's
> > > > >> >> > >> > work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred
> > > > >> >> > >> > years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if
> > > > >> >> > >> > modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a
> > > > >> >> > >> > quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he
> > > > >> >> > >> > did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote.
> > > > >> >> > >> > Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only
> > > > >> >> > >> > enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that
> > > > >> >> > >> > you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> > > > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence
> > > > >> >> > >> > that thay held these views.
> > > > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > > >> >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > > >> >> > > Liar.
> > > > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
> > > > >> >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
> > > > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> > > > >> >> You are nuts.
> > > > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> > > > >> > Boikat
> > > > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
> > > > >> your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> > > > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> > > > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> > > > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> > > > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> > > > > acknowledge it is there.
> > > > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim about
> > > > Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a lie. You make a
> > > > claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it weren't your own
> > > > fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are now banned you state,
> > > > "Based upon my limited understanding of the theory.." suggesting that you
> > > > are not its author. Ok, so tell us who is the author.
> > > > Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again. Liar, liar! You're
> > > > pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit Menteur.
> > > I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
> > > for the event.
> > How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
> > the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
> > event"?
> > > It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
> > > making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
> > > ignore subjectivity.
> > In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
> > come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
> > research is based upon subjective opinion?
> > > Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
> > > not for history that does justice to the event.
> > Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
> > evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
> > those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
> > Boikat
> Now honor is an issue of fact? You suffer from mad evil scientist
> syndrome. It is your opinion from your subjective feeling. But you
> didnt cultivate any feeling, took no care in judgement,resulting in no
> moral authority.
No, stupid.
"Fact" is a matter of fact.
And it is a fact that you do not have even a passing familiarity with
reality.
>> > > >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu
>> > > >> >> > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
>> > > >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August
>> > > >> >> > >> > > 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin,
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > is pseudoscience.
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this,
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > otherwise everyone can just assume you're lying
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > again.
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > said Jesus's religion of love was definitely not
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan >
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > characteristics.
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
>> > > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as
>> > > >> >> > >> > saying that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as
>> > > >> >> > >> > "pseudoscience" only if Haeckel affected a scientific
>> > > >> >> > >> > suggested style of analysis with his writings on Christ.
>> > > >> >> > >> > His opinions on history and religion are subjective, as
>> > > >> >> > >> > far as I can tell he didn't act like these were science;
>> > > >> >> > >> > it's possible he did, if you can show that he did then
>> > > >> >> > >> > one can call it pseudoscience.
>> > > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's
>> > > >> >> > >> > particuarly later work on ethnography *were*
>> > > >> >> > >> > pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's work ceased to have
>> > > >> >> > >> > much influence on science over a hundred years ago, one
>> > > >> >> > >> > wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if modern
>> > > >> >> > >> > "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
>> > > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not
>> > > >> >> > >> > produce a quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact,
>> > > >> >> > >> > as you claimed he did. And you haven't to my knowledge
>> > > >> >> > >> > produced such a quote. Nonetheless, you call me "a
>> > > >> >> > >> > baldfaced liar." This can only enhance your reputation
>> > > >> >> > >> > as a liar. But what's important is that you seem to
>> > > >> >> > >> > consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
>> > > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce
>> > > >> >> > >> > evidence that thay held these views.
>> > > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
>> > > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided
>> > > >> >> > >> you the quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
>> > > >> >> > > Liar.
>> > > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does
>> > > >> >> > > not magically make it become true, no matter how much you
>> > > >> >> > > want it to.
>> > > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
>> > > >> >> You are nuts.
>> > > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
>> > > >> > Boikat
>> > > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur
>> > > >> give it your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
>> > > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
>> > > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
>> > > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
>> > > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't
>> > > > even acknowledge it is there.
>> > > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim
>> > > about Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a
>> > > lie. You make a claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it
>> > > weren't your own fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are
>> > > now banned you state, "Based upon my limited understanding of the
>> > > theory.." suggesting that you are not its author. Ok, so tell us who
>> > > is the author. Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again.
>> > > Liar, liar! You're pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit
>> > > Menteur.
>> > I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
>> > for the event.
>> How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
>> the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
>> event"?
>> > It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
>> > making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
>> > ignore subjectivity.
>> In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
>> come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
>> research is based upon subjective opinion?
>> > Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
>> > not for history that does justice to the event.
>> Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
>> evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
>> those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
>> Boikat
> Now honor is an issue of fact? You suffer from mad evil scientist
> syndrome. It is your opinion from your subjective feeling. But you
> didnt cultivate any feeling, took no care in judgement,resulting in no
> moral authority.
Lying is not a way to assert moral authority. You are now known to all and sundry not only as a liar but as a particularly vicious liar. You speak so much about the holocaust that I'm getting the sickening feeling that you anxiously await the next one. Have you already picked your victims? I think I can guess who they'd be.
> > > > > >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August 2,
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > pseudoscience.
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Jesus's religion of love was definitely not jewish, but
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
> > > > > >> >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
> > > > > >> >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of
> > > > > >> >> > >> > analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history
> > > > > >> >> > >> > and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act
> > > > > >> >> > >> > like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show
> > > > > >> >> > >> > that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
> > > > > >> >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's
> > > > > >> >> > >> > work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred
> > > > > >> >> > >> > years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if
> > > > > >> >> > >> > modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a
> > > > > >> >> > >> > quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he
> > > > > >> >> > >> > did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote.
> > > > > >> >> > >> > Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only
> > > > > >> >> > >> > enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that
> > > > > >> >> > >> > you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> > > > > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence
> > > > > >> >> > >> > that thay held these views.
> > > > > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > > > >> >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > > > >> >> > > Liar.
> > > > > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
> > > > > >> >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
> > > > > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> > > > > >> >> You are nuts.
> > > > > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> > > > > >> > Boikat
> > > > > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
> > > > > >> your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> > > > > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> > > > > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> > > > > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> > > > > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> > > > > > acknowledge it is there.
> > > > > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim about
> > > > > Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a lie. You make a
> > > > > claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it weren't your own
> > > > > fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are now banned you state,
> > > > > "Based upon my limited understanding of the theory.." suggesting that you
> > > > > are not its author. Ok, so tell us who is the author.
> > > > > Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again. Liar, liar! You're
> > > > > pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit Menteur.
> > > > I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
> > > > for the event.
> > > How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
> > > the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
> > > event"?
> > > > It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
> > > > making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
> > > > ignore subjectivity.
> > > In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
> > > come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
> > > research is based upon subjective opinion?
> > > > Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
> > > > not for history that does justice to the event.
> > > Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
> > > evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
> > > those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
> > > Boikat
> > Now honor is an issue of fact? You suffer from mad evil scientist
> > syndrome. It is your opinion from your subjective feeling. But you
> > didnt cultivate any feeling, took no care in judgement,resulting in no
> > moral authority.
> No, stupid.
> "Fact" is a matter of fact.
> And it is a fact that you do not have even a passing familiarity with
> reality.
Boikat crossed the line, and so do you all, not even acknowledging it
is there.
> >> > > >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu
> >> > > >> >> > >> > wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin,
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > is pseudoscience.
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this,
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > otherwise everyone can just assume you're lying
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > again.
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > said Jesus's religion of love was definitely not
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan >
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > characteristics.
> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> >> > > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as
> >> > > >> >> > >> > saying that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as
> >> > > >> >> > >> > "pseudoscience" only if Haeckel affected a scientific
> >> > > >> >> > >> > suggested style of analysis with his writings on Christ.
> >> > > >> >> > >> > His opinions on history and religion are subjective, as
> >> > > >> >> > >> > far as I can tell he didn't act like these were science;
> >> > > >> >> > >> > it's possible he did, if you can show that he did then
> >> > > >> >> > >> > one can call it pseudoscience.
> >> > > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's
> >> > > >> >> > >> > particuarly later work on ethnography *were*
> >> > > >> >> > >> > pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's work ceased to have
> >> > > >> >> > >> > much influence on science over a hundred years ago, one
> >> > > >> >> > >> > wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if modern
> >> > > >> >> > >> > "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> >> > > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not
> >> > > >> >> > >> > produce a quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact,
> >> > > >> >> > >> > as you claimed he did. And you haven't to my knowledge
> >> > > >> >> > >> > produced such a quote. Nonetheless, you call me "a
> >> > > >> >> > >> > baldfaced liar." This can only enhance your reputation
> >> > > >> >> > >> > as a liar. But what's important is that you seem to
> >> > > >> >> > >> > consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> >> > > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce
> >> > > >> >> > >> > evidence that thay held these views.
> >> > > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> >> > > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided
> >> > > >> >> > >> you the quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> >> > > >> >> > > Liar.
> >> > > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does
> >> > > >> >> > > not magically make it become true, no matter how much you
> >> > > >> >> > > want it to.
> >> > > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> >> > > >> >> You are nuts.
> >> > > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> >> > > >> > Boikat
> >> > > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur
> >> > > >> give it your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> >> > > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> >> > > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> >> > > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> >> > > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't
> >> > > > even acknowledge it is there.
> >> > > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim
> >> > > about Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a
> >> > > lie. You make a claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it
> >> > > weren't your own fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are
> >> > > now banned you state, "Based upon my limited understanding of the
> >> > > theory.." suggesting that you are not its author. Ok, so tell us who
> >> > > is the author. Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again.
> >> > > Liar, liar! You're pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit
> >> > > Menteur.
> >> > I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
> >> > for the event.
> >> How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
> >> the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
> >> event"?
> >> > It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
> >> > making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
> >> > ignore subjectivity.
> >> In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
> >> come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
> >> research is based upon subjective opinion?
> >> > Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
> >> > not for history that does justice to the event.
> >> Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
> >> evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
> >> those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
> >> Boikat
> > Now honor is an issue of fact? You suffer from mad evil scientist
> > syndrome. It is your opinion from your subjective feeling. But you
> > didnt cultivate any feeling, took no care in judgement,resulting in no
> > moral authority.
> Lying is not a way to assert moral authority. You are now known to all and
> sundry not only as a liar but as a particularly vicious liar. You speak so
> much about the holocaust that I'm getting the sickening feeling that you
> anxiously await the next one. Have you already picked your victims? I think
> I can guess who they'd be.
Nonsense again. You dont acknowledge the line between subjectivity and
objectivity......therefore social darwinist, therefore liar about the
holocaust. And anybody can see that darwinists dont acknowledge this
line, the evidence is plain to see on this forum, to date none have.
So on the one hand plain evidence, on the other your bullshit
accusations with no evidence to support them.
> > On 3 Aug, 08:53, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 4:48 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise everyone can just
> > > > > > assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's religion of
> > > > > > love was definitely not jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience" only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote. Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence that thay held these views.
> > > > Mitchell Coffey
> > > Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > Correct - you provided the relevant material, which shows that your
> > claims were completely false. I expect you are not lying in the sense
> > of saying something you know is false since I believe you are
> > completely insane and actually believe the incoherent babbling you
> > post has some relation to reality.
> Take a look at the writings of Gasman linked in the original post in
> the thread. According to Mitchell ,Gasman is a crank, and Richards a
> competent historian.
Note that you've been unable to present any facts and arguments actually quoting Gasman and Richards to demonstrate otherwise. You dishonestly avoid answering.
But Thompson's actual reference was your claim that I was "a baldfaced liar" for asking for you to support with quotes from Haeckel and Darwin your claim "To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin [...]." Your description of what Haeckel allegedly said did not constitute saying love is a fact. And you haven't even tried to defend your claim about Darwin, yet dishonestly pretend that you did. You're telling several lies here.
> And you are also a social darwinist,
Your definition of "social darwinist" is yours and yours alone, and matches neither any dictionary definition or common usage. Or uncommon usage, for that matter. You are lying.
> not acknowledging the linebetween subjectivity and objectivity,
This is another lie.
> lying about the holocaust.
And this is the greatest lie of all. Note that you have not once been able to post a quote which you claim is lying about the Holocaust from anyone you've accused of this.
Note that you've even lied about the definition of lying.
> > > On 3 Aug, 08:53, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 3, 4:48 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise everyone can just
> > > > > > > assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said Jesus's religion of
> > > > > > > love was definitely not jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience" only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote. Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence that thay held these views.
> > > > > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > > quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > Correct - you provided the relevant material, which shows that your
> > > claims were completely false. I expect you are not lying in the sense
> > > of saying something you know is false since I believe you are
> > > completely insane and actually believe the incoherent babbling you
> > > post has some relation to reality.
> > Take a look at the writings of Gasman linked in the original post in
> > the thread. According to Mitchell ,Gasman is a crank, and Richards a
> > competent historian.
> Note that you've been unable to present any facts and arguments actually quoting Gasman and Richards to demonstrate otherwise. You dishonestly avoid answering.
> But Thompson's actual reference was your claim that I was "a baldfaced liar" for asking for you to support with quotes from Haeckel and Darwin your claim "To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin [...]." Your description of what Haeckel allegedly said did not constitute saying love is a fact. And you haven't even tried to defend your claim about Darwin, yet dishonestly pretend that you did. You're telling several lies here.
> > And you are also a social darwinist,
> Your definition of "social darwinist" is yours and yours alone, and matches neither any dictionary definition or common usage. Or uncommon usage, for that matter. You are lying.
> > not acknowledging the linebetween subjectivity and objectivity,
> This is another lie.
> > lying about the holocaust.
> And this is the greatest lie of all. Note that you have not once been able to post a quote which you claim is lying about the Holocaust from anyone you've accused of this.
> Note that you've even lied about the definition of lying.
> Mitchell Coffey
I provided a link in the original post, look around there, read
something. All who fail to do so do not have sufficient ground to
reach an opinion. And all points to Richards being an evolution
activist who lies about the holocaust as part of his activism, just
like all darwinists here do.
So what Mitchel is saying here is that for Haeckel to assert in his
book that Jesus's religion of love is definitely not semitic,but
representative of higher characteristics of the aryan race, that this
is not normally interpreted as assuming love is a factual issue of
human biology.
And Mitchell has still failed to acknowledge any border between
subjective and objective, instead he has said there is no border, and
that it is very complicated to distinguish subjectivity from
objectivity. At least thats what he was saying when it suited his
argument, now ofcourse his opinion is changed into an opinion which
supports the scientific.method and clears the reputation of darwinism,
whatever he can conjure up to make it appear like that. And make it
appear that I am a liar, all appearences.
> > > > >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
> > > > >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August 2,
> > > > >> >> > >> > > 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > > pseudoscience.
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > Jesus's religion of love was definitely not jewish, but
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
> > > > >> >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
> > > > >> >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of
> > > > >> >> > >> > analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history
> > > > >> >> > >> > and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act
> > > > >> >> > >> > like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show
> > > > >> >> > >> > that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
> > > > >> >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's
> > > > >> >> > >> > work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred
> > > > >> >> > >> > years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if
> > > > >> >> > >> > modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a
> > > > >> >> > >> > quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he
> > > > >> >> > >> > did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote.
> > > > >> >> > >> > Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only
> > > > >> >> > >> > enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that
> > > > >> >> > >> > you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> > > > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence
> > > > >> >> > >> > that thay held these views.
> > > > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > > >> >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > > >> >> > > Liar.
> > > > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
> > > > >> >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
> > > > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> > > > >> >> You are nuts.
> > > > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> > > > >> > Boikat
> > > > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
> > > > >> your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> > > > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> > > > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> > > > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> > > > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> > > > > acknowledge it is there.
> > > > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim about
> > > > Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a lie. You make a
> > > > claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it weren't your own
> > > > fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are now banned you state,
> > > > "Based upon my limited understanding of the theory.." suggesting that you
> > > > are not its author. Ok, so tell us who is the author.
> > > > Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again. Liar, liar! You're
> > > > pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit Menteur.
> > > I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
> > > for the event.
> > How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
> > the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
> > event"?
> > > It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
> > > making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
> > > ignore subjectivity.
> > In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
> > come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
> > research is based upon subjective opinion?
> > > Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
> > > not for history that does justice to the event.
> > Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
> > evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
> > those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
> > Boikat
> Now honor is an issue of fact?
You are being obtuse, and dishonest.
> You suffer from mad evil scientist
> syndrome.
That means nothing, coming from someone with obvious emotional
stability problems, problems dealing with reality, and a psychotic
fear and loathing of science, scientists, and anything rational.
> It is your opinion from your subjective feeling. But you
> didnt cultivate any feeling, took no care in judgement,resulting in no
> moral authority.
Oh, but I did. It is my subjective opinion that you are a loathsome,
psychotic Neo-Nazi, but since you also know thisw, you project your
evilness onto others so you can feeeel better about yourself.
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August 2,
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > pseudoscience.
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Jesus's religion of love was definitely not jewish, but
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote.
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > that thay held these views.
> > > > > > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > > > > >> >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > > > > >> >> > > Liar.
> > > > > > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
> > > > > > >> >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
> > > > > > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> > > > > > >> >> You are nuts.
> > > > > > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> > > > > > >> > Boikat
> > > > > > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
> > > > > > >> your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> > > > > > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> > > > > > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> > > > > > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> > > > > > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> > > > > > > acknowledge it is there.
> > > > > > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim about
> > > > > > Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a lie. You make a
> > > > > > claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it weren't your own
> > > > > > fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are now banned you state,
> > > > > > "Based upon my limited understanding of the theory.." suggesting that you
> > > > > > are not its author. Ok, so tell us who is the author.
> > > > > > Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again. Liar, liar! You're
> > > > > > pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit Menteur.
> > > > > I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
> > > > > for the event.
> > > > How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
> > > > the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
> > > > event"?
> > > > > It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
> > > > > making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
> > > > > ignore subjectivity.
> > > > In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
> > > > come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
> > > > research is based upon subjective opinion?
> > > > > Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
> > > > > not for history that does justice to the event.
> > > > Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
> > > > evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
> > > > those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
> > > > Boikat
> > > Now honor is an issue of fact? You suffer from mad evil scientist
> > > syndrome. It is your opinion from your subjective feeling. But you
> > > didnt cultivate any feeling, took no care in judgement,resulting in no
> > > moral authority.
> > No, stupid.
> > "Fact" is a matter of fact.
> > And it is a fact that you do not have even a passing familiarity with
> > reality.
> Boikat crossed the line, and so do you all, not even acknowledging it
> is there.
You are the one who crosses the line of sanity when you claim
subjectivity should determine reality. That only demonstrates *you*
are the one with a broblem of knowing where "the line" is. Hasn't
your shrink explained that to you?
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > 2, 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin,
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > is pseudoscience.
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this,
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > otherwise everyone can just assume you're lying
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > again.
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > said Jesus's religion of love was definitely not
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > jewish, but instead representative of higher Aryan >
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > characteristics.
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > saying that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > "pseudoscience" only if Haeckel affected a scientific
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > suggested style of analysis with his writings on Christ.
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > His opinions on history and religion are subjective, as
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > far as I can tell he didn't act like these were science;
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > it's possible he did, if you can show that he did then
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > one can call it pseudoscience.
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > particuarly later work on ethnography *were*
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's work ceased to have
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > much influence on science over a hundred years ago, one
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if modern
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > produce a quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact,
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > as you claimed he did. And you haven't to my knowledge
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > produced such a quote. Nonetheless, you call me "a
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > baldfaced liar." This can only enhance your reputation
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > as a liar. But what's important is that you seem to
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > evidence that thay held these views.
> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> > >> > > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided
> > >> > > >> >> > >> you the quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > >> > > >> >> > > Liar.
> > >> > > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does
> > >> > > >> >> > > not magically make it become true, no matter how much you
> > >> > > >> >> > > want it to.
> > >> > > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> > >> > > >> >> You are nuts.
> > >> > > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> > >> > > >> > Boikat
> > >> > > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur
> > >> > > >> give it your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> > >> > > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> > >> > > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> > >> > > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> > >> > > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't
> > >> > > > even acknowledge it is there.
> > >> > > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim
> > >> > > about Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a
> > >> > > lie. You make a claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it
> > >> > > weren't your own fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are
> > >> > > now banned you state, "Based upon my limited understanding of the
> > >> > > theory.." suggesting that you are not its author. Ok, so tell us who
> > >> > > is the author. Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again.
> > >> > > Liar, liar! You're pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit
> > >> > > Menteur.
> > >> > I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
> > >> > for the event.
> > >> How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
> > >> the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
> > >> event"?
> > >> > It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
> > >> > making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
> > >> > ignore subjectivity.
> > >> In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
> > >> come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
> > >> research is based upon subjective opinion?
> > >> > Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
> > >> > not for history that does justice to the event.
> > >> Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
> > >> evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
> > >> those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
> > >> Boikat
> > > Now honor is an issue of fact? You suffer from mad evil scientist
> > > syndrome. It is your opinion from your subjective feeling. But you
> > > didnt cultivate any feeling, took no care in judgement,resulting in no
> > > moral authority.
> > Lying is not a way to assert moral authority. You are now known to all and
> > sundry not only as a liar but as a particularly vicious liar. You speak so
> > much about the holocaust that I'm getting the sickening feeling that you
> > anxiously await the next one. Have you already picked your victims? I think
> > I can guess who they'd be.
> Nonsense again. You dont acknowledge the line between subjectivity and
> objectivity......therefore social darwinist, therefore liar about the
> holocaust. And anybody can see that darwinists dont acknowledge this
> line, the evidence is plain to see on this forum, to date none have.
> So on the one hand plain evidence, on the other your bullshit
> accusations with no evidence to support them.
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > On Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 12:03 am, Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, August 2,
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > 2012 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > To say love is a fact, as Haeckel did, and Darwin, is
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Jesus's religion of love was definitely not jewish, but
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote.
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > that thay held these views.
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > > > > > >> >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > Liar.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
> > > > > > > >> >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
> > > > > > > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> > > > > > > >> >> You are nuts.
> > > > > > > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> > > > > > > >> > Boikat
> > > > > > > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
> > > > > > > >> your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> > > > > > > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> > > > > > > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> > > > > > > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> > > > > > > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> > > > > > > > acknowledge it is there.
> > > > > > > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim about
> > > > > > > Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a lie. You make a
> > > > > > > claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it weren't your own
> > > > > > > fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are now banned you state,
> > > > > > > "Based upon my limited understanding of the theory.." suggesting that you
> > > > > > > are not its author. Ok, so tell us who is the author.
> > > > > > > Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again. Liar, liar! You're
> > > > > > > pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit Menteur.
> > > > > > I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
> > > > > > for the event.
> > > > > How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
> > > > > the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
> > > > > event"?
> > > > > > It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
> > > > > > making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
> > > > > > ignore subjectivity.
> > > > > In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
> > > > > come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
> > > > > research is based upon subjective opinion?
> > > > > > Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
> > > > > > not for history that does justice to the event.
> > > > > Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
> > > > > evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
> > > > > those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
> > > > > Boikat
> > > > Now honor is an issue of fact? You suffer from mad evil scientist
> > > > syndrome. It is your opinion from your subjective feeling. But you
> > > > didnt cultivate any feeling, took no care in judgement,resulting in no
> > > > moral authority.
> > > No, stupid.
> > > "Fact" is a matter of fact.
> > > And it is a fact that you do not have even a passing familiarity with
> > > reality.
> > Boikat crossed the line, and so do you all, not even acknowledging it
> > is there.
> You are the one who crosses the line of sanity when you claim
> subjectivity should determine reality. That only demonstrates *you*
> are the one with a broblem of knowing where "the line" is. Hasn't
> your shrink explained that to you?
> Boikat
Subjectivity determines the reality of what choses, the reality who
you are as the owner of your choices, and all choices. Is there love
in the weather? You decide it. All the love and hate reality, the
spiritual domain, it is identified with free will.This symptom of
stating as fact which is properly opinion
indicates you suffer from m.e.s.s.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Produce where Haeckel and Darwin wrote this, otherwise
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > everyone can just assume you're lying again.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell Coffey I quoted it to you where Haeckel said
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Jesus's religion of love was definitely not jewish, but
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > instead representative of higher Aryan > > characteristics.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Mitchell is a baldfaced liar
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > Um, actually, (1) you did not just now quote Haeckel as saying
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > that love is a fact; and (2), it would count as "pseudoscience"
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > only if Haeckel affected a scientific suggested style of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > analysis with his writings on Christ. His opinions on history
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > and religion are subjective, as far as I can tell he didn't act
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > like these were science; it's possible he did, if you can show
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > that he did then one can call it pseudoscience.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > It's not controversial that much of Haeckel's particuarly later
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > work on ethnography *were* pseudoscience. And, as Haeckel's
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > work ceased to have much influence on science over a hundred
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > years ago, one wonders why you keep evoking Haeckel as if
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > modern "Darwinists" gave a shit about him.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > People will notice - with ease - that you did not produce a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > quote with Darwin saying that love is a fact, as you claimed he
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > did. And you haven't to my knowledge produced such a quote.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > Nonetheless, you call me "a baldfaced liar." This can only
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > enhance your reputation as a liar. But what's important is that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > you seem to consider these alledged views of Haeckel and Darwin
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > significant to *your* argument, yet you can't produce evidence
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > that thay held these views.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > Mitchell Coffey
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> Your furious games are of no interest. I already provided you the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> quote on Haeckel, the evidence has been given.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Liar.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > You did no such thing. Asserting a lie over and over does not
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > magically make it become true, no matter how much you want it to.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > I've got 5 grand riding on him not coming up with a citation.
> > > > > > > > >> >> You are nuts.
> > > > > > > > >> > Projection. Pure and simple projection.
> > > > > > > > >> > Boikat
> > > > > > > > >> How long before I get to collect my 5 grand. C'mon Maudit Menteur give it
> > > > > > > > >> your best shot. Are you just shooting blanks?
> > > > > > > > > This is some attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.
> > > > > > > > > Playing with the history of the holocaust to divert attention away
> > > > > > > > > from where the line between objectivity and subjectivity is. It is
> > > > > > > > > pointless to look for Darwinists crossing the line if you don't even
> > > > > > > > > acknowledge it is there.
> > > > > > > > As predicted, blanks, blanks, nothing but blanks. You make a claim about
> > > > > > > > Darwin. It is a lie. You make a claim about Haeckel. It is a lie. You make a
> > > > > > > > claim about the "nil potency rewrite theory" as if it weren't your own
> > > > > > > > fabrication. On Philosophy Forums from which you are now banned you state,
> > > > > > > > "Based upon my limited understanding of the theory.." suggesting that you
> > > > > > > > are not its author. Ok, so tell us who is the author.
> > > > > > > > Caught in yet another lie. You've been rumbled again. Liar, liar! You're
> > > > > > > > pants are on fire! You are a Nazi-loving Maudit Menteur.
> > > > > > > I take proper care of the history of the holocaust to ensure justice
> > > > > > > for the event.
> > > > > > How is lying about the causes of the Holocaust "taking proper care" of
> > > > > > the history of the Holocaust, or serve to "ensure justice for the
> > > > > > event"?
> > > > > > > It is very clear you all fail to have any idea about
> > > > > > > making sure your heart is pure in doing research, because you all
> > > > > > > ignore subjectivity.
> > > > > > In matters of research, in history or science, your goal should be to
> > > > > > come to an *objective conclusion*. How can you do that if your
> > > > > > research is based upon subjective opinion?
> > > > > > > Your care is for the reputation of Darwinism, and
> > > > > > > not for history that does justice to the event.
> > > > > > Your lies about the cause of the Holocaust do not "do justice for the
> > > > > > evnt". In fact, it dishoners those murdered during the Holocaust, and
> > > > > > those that put an end to the Nazi regime.
> > > > > > Boikat
> > > > > Now honor is an issue of fact? You suffer from mad evil scientist
> > > > > syndrome. It is your opinion from your subjective feeling. But you
> > > > > didnt cultivate any feeling, took no care in judgement,resulting in no
> > > > > moral authority.
> > > > No, stupid.
> > > > "Fact" is a matter of fact.
> > > > And it is a fact that you do not have even a passing familiarity with
> > > > reality.
> > > Boikat crossed the line, and so do you all, not even acknowledging it
> > > is there.
> > You are the one who crosses the line of sanity when you claim
> > subjectivity should determine reality. That only demonstrates *you*
> > are the one with a broblem of knowing where "the line" is. Hasn't
> > your shrink explained that to you?
> > Boikat
> Subjectivity determines the reality of what choses, the reality who
> you are as the owner of your choices, and all choices.
You're changing the context of what you have claimed before. You've
whined about how "darwinists" did not allow subjectivity determine
reality.
> Is there love
> in the weather? You decide it.
The is *NO* emotion in weather. If you believe there is, that is
something you should keep to yourself, or possibly share with you
shrink.
> All the love and hate reality, the
> spiritual domain, it is identified with free will.
As has been stated many times, you can use your free will to believe
anything you want. Your problem is that you want everyone to believe
what you believe. Sorry, I've never been that drunk.
> This symptom of
> stating as fact which is properly opinion
> indicates you suffer from m.e.s.s.
