Grading Alt.atheism's use of the Twit List
Tichy
On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
My first investigation (using an old update by Therion Ware as my
stepping-off point) was the twitting of Vincent Allah.
Vincent said something insulting & rude just prior to being nominated (not a
justification for twitdom, according to the current rules).
Raven1 did the nomination, and posted back to the thread keeping a tally of
the votes *including* a "vote" by lorelei based on her comment to Vincent
which included no intimation (afaics) that Vincent was a twit.
No evidence of invincible ignorance was offered.
Thus, Vincent Allah was inducted into the twitlist for a reason apparently
not covered by the twitlist guidelines, and was entered on the basis of four
votes--also contrary to the twitlist guidelines.
Grade: F
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3678B9BB.7DC2BAE2%40erols.com&
rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DVincent%2BAllah%2Btwit%2Bgroup:alt.atheism%26hl%3D
en%26selm%3D3678B9BB.7DC2BAE2%2540erols.com%26rnum%3D1
Cheers,
Tichy
General Director, THEOHIPPIP
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> Howdy Folks!
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
Going by one of Therion's update posts, my next investigation involves
ws...@twcyn.rr.com.
This guy was apparently a troll, but was nominated & evidently added to the
list with a nomination & three seconds after his claim that evolution would
crumble after the reader visited the ICR website. Maybe there's some
language in the twitlist guidelines dealing with young-earth creationism, so
I'll grade leniently.
Trumped-up charge (no argument attempted or entertained, afaics), and
improper vote count.
Grade: D
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
de-twitted after Mark Richardson initiated a campaign for the de-twitting.
I felt no need to dig at all deeply into this case as a result.
Grade: C
Reflecting simply the initial twitting along with the subsequent overturn.
Liquid Grace
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
Just when I think you're semi-reasonable....
Grace
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
Next on the list is Scotty Higgenbotham.
Scotty was nominated and never seconded, yet apparently made the list.
There was even discussion amongst the alt.atheism regulars regarding the
lack of evidence presented. To no avail.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=MPG.1105b427fb351a9897c5%40new
s-s01.ny.us.ibm.net&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DScotty%2BHigginbotham%2Btwit%2
Bgroup:alt.atheism%26hl%3Den%26selm%3DMPG.1105b427fb351a9897c5%2540news-s01.
ny.us.ibm.net%26rnum%3D3
Baseless charge, no seconds of the nomination (at least two alt.atheism
regulars called "Snotty" a twit in separate threads, however).
Grade: F
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
Next was Iron.
Alf Salte nominated Iron, but unfortunately offered Iron's unspecified posts
as his evidence for twitdom. The nature of the archive made investigation
of Iron's posts specific to alt.atheism.
I did investigate the lone thread that seemed to most influence Alf's
opinion of Iron. I had been inclined to give Alf the benefit of the doubt,
since in my experience he posts reasonably, but I don't detect anything
particularly outrageous at all in my sampling of Iron's posts.
Poor documentation of reasoning (justifying my grade--not a requirement for
a twitdom nomination, afaics), and a nomination & two seconds when a
nomination & five seconds are apparently required.
Grade: D
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
Derek Potter appears again on Therion's list. I doubt that a second
investigation would turn up anything worth noting, so let's skip ahead to:
Frank.
Frank received the requisite number of votes, but the thread leading to his
nomination appears mainly to provide evidence that Frank did not have what
was perceived to have a rational position regarding Biblical authority.
There is no clear evidence of invincible ignorance. In fact, Frank apears
(at times, at least) willing to attempt answers to various questions, and
those attempts appear to consititute the "evidence" of his invincible
ignorance. That's conjecture on my part, assuredly.
Trumped-up charge,
votes properly counted.
Grade: C
Tichy
"Liquid Grace" <liquid...@youspammingfreak.mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:u5ljjmr...@corp.supernews.com...
Hmmm?
Are my facts wrong?
Is my subject forbidden?
Liquid Grace
No, I just had gotten to enjoy reading your opposing point of view, and now
I see you're off on some silly vendetta. Sad, really. Too bad you've
nothing left to contribute.
Sorry, gotta run go plonk you again.
Grace
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> Howdy Folks!
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
I'm now screening Therion's list using the actual twitlist, since his update
is described as being simply nominations (whether successful or not).
Next up is Richard Reboulet.
The nomination was apparently initiated when Reboulet typed "Aristotle" when
he meant "Descartes" and was slow to admit the error when the alt.atheism
watchdogs pointed it out.
Clearly a trumped-up charge.
The votes were adequate, this time.
Grade: C
Packman
Poor Tichy. He's not gonna have anybody left to talk to except
himself, which is what he seems to be doing in this thread anyway.
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
Next is Lim CK.
Lim CK received a ton of votes--some from atheists whom I respect. Many
offered allegations of fallacious argumentation, but I wasn't able (in my
sampling) to verify these stories to my satisficaction.
This was my main example thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=36cf0f7b.4713669%40news.tm.net
.my&rnum=25&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dgroup:alt.atheism%2Bauthor:Lim%2Bauthor:CK%26
start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26selm%3D36cf0f7b.4713669%2540news.tm.net.my%26rnum%3D2
5
Lim is no more guilty of fallacy than the majority who replied to him,
afaics.
Grade: C+
Tichy
Is that a logical conclusion based on the evidence of this thread? Looks
like the fallacy of hasty generalization, to me. If you were one of various
theists posting to this ng, an argument like the one you just made could
result in a twitlist nomination. Doesn't that interest you?
>
> Sorry, gotta run go plonk you again.
So, no doubt you won't be reading this.
I find it interesting that you are not simply apathetic toward, but
apparently *opposed* to reading evidence that alt.atheism twitlist
nominations have been botched, and that the guidelines for nomination are
ignored.
I would have enjoyed seeing your comments regarding this institution
peculiar to alt.atheism.
Is the twitlist meant to be a serious list of those who are "invincibly
ignorant" on the basis of evidence? Or is it a game? A symbol to stitch on
the clothing of ng vistors whose contributions you find objectionable or
silly?
I'm sure that some of the alt.atheism regulars will be interested in looking
at the topic objectively.
You're building an "atheist" culture in this ng. What do you want it to be
like?
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
P.A.A.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=36e012e3.13529772%40news.comm-
plus.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DP.A.A.%2Btwit%2Bgroup:alt.atheism%26hl%3D
en%26selm%3D36e012e3.13529772%2540news.comm-plus.net%26rnum%3D1
Nominated, seconded four times. One short of the requirement, yet he's on
the alt.atheism twitlist.
Some atheists report having productive discussions with him, but to no
avail. Frank Wustner even pointed out that P.A.A. wasn't posting to
alt.atheism--his posts were being crossposted by an atheist (supposedly).
Grade: D
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
Dr. Sinister.
Dr. Sinister did receive sufficient votes, despite Maff91's penchant for
listing the "seconded"'s including the nomination.
Again, there is no apparently example of invincible ignorance. In fact,
Therion himself is on record as saying that it is too early for the
nomination & that invincible ignorance isn't apparent.
Grade: D+
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
Food-for-Thought.
In the following thread, FfT is nominated and never seconded. Maybe there's
another such thread. Checking now . . .
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=37024349.7622949%40news.comm-p
lus.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFood-for-Thought%2Btwit%2Bgroup:alt.atheis
m%26hl%3Den%26selm%3D37024349.7622949%2540news.comm-plus.net%26rnum%3D1
I see no evidence of another twitting thread.
Grade: F
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=aaron-1204991925210001%40aaron
.dial.idiom.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dggrp2%2540fgi.net%2B%2Btwit%2Bgrou
p:alt.atheism%26hl%3Den%26selm%3Daaron-1204991925210001%2540aaron.dial.idiom
.com%26rnum%3D1
Nominated, seconded once. No evidence of invincible ignorance reported
unless we include an account by TheCentralScrutinizer regarding ggrp2's
multiple conversations with an autoreply.
Imo, the fact that the autoreply conversations do not continue even now is
evidence against it being an example of invincible ignorance.
;-)
Grade: F
Ten examples, excluding Derek Potter. Six of the ten appear on the list
despite apparently not having enough "seconds".
Does anybody think that this is a problem?
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
Tiglath
Recieved enough votes, but was nominated for being abrasive with his fellow
atheists, afaics. No mention of invincible ignorance was made, nor examples
given.
Grade: D+
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
Radlester
Could be a misspelling. The only alt.atheism post I can find on this one is
a solitary comment by Wustner.
If anybody knows the proper spelling . . .?
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
Alan Wostenberg! Therion's been promising a recount on Wostnberg's behalf
for ages, now. Apparently this isn't the only one that should have been
recounted.
Nominated amidst a slew of expletives by Bill Felton.
Michael Moore seconded.
Ed. Stoebenau dumurred (Felton was enthusiastic enough about his nomination
to reply to Stoebenau).
maff91 seconded.
End of story (unless there's another thread--and I don't think that there
is).
Same old story: No evidence of invincible ignorance, and less than the
required number of votes and *viola*: You're on the list.
Grade: F+ (a plus because of the niggling--if neglected--conscience of
Therion Ware).
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
Blury Shadow
(apparently BlurryShadow)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3736e91e.7789854%40news.mindsp
ring.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dblurry%2Bshadow%2Btwit%2Bgroup:alt.atheis
m%26hl%3Den%26selm%3D3736e91e.7789854%2540news.mindspring.com%26rnum%3D1
It's a *very* long thread which covers plenty of ground after the nomination
of BlurryShadow.
No seconds detected for the present.
Grade: None
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
TC
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=see-sig-1705992117350001%40poo
l-207-205-157-164.lsan.grid.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DTC%2B%2Btwit%2Bgro
up:alt.atheism%26hl%3Den%26selm%3Dsee-sig-1705992117350001%2540pool-207-205-
157-164.lsan.grid.net%26rnum%3D1
Nominated & seconded.
Four votes shy of being an alt.atheism twit, but there he is on the list, at
number 125.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=7hosqf%24952%241%40imsp009a.ne
tvigator.com&rnum=32&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dgroup:alt.atheism%2Bauthor:TC%26star
t%3D30%26hl%3Den%26selm%3D7hosqf%2524952%25241%2540imsp009a.netvigator.com%2
6rnum%3D32
The recommended thread for evidence that TC deserves to be twitted.
Doesn't appear to constitute invincible ignorance, afaics.
Poor netiquette, maybe.
Therion Ware
wrote in alt.atheism:
A *really* slow weekend is it?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
D'oh!
TC
Grade: F
Alex
wrote:
>I find it interesting that you are not simply apathetic toward, but
>apparently *opposed* to reading evidence that alt.atheism twitlist
>nominations have been botched, and that the guidelines for nomination are
>ignored.
>
>I would have enjoyed seeing your comments regarding this institution
>peculiar to alt.atheism.
>
>Is the twitlist meant to be a serious list of those who are "invincibly
>ignorant" on the basis of evidence? Or is it a game? A symbol to stitch on
>the clothing of ng vistors whose contributions you find objectionable or
>silly?
>
>I'm sure that some of the alt.atheism regulars will be interested in looking
>at the topic objectively.
>You're building an "atheist" culture in this ng. What do you want it to be
>like?
>
I feel sorry for you.
As far as I'm concerned a twit list is a voluntary guideline on who's
plonkable. I, for one, never pay attention to it. Now than I have
Agent I delete whole threads with impunity. I also plonk people
according to my own criteria.
The twit list is just a fun way of suggesting a plonk, not a
democratic process that has rigid controls in the interest of
fairness. The list is also, IMO, a way to discourage trolls as they
see that this group is savvy to their shinanigans.
Alex
atheist #2007
Tichy
"Therion Ware" <tw...@video2cd.com.eac> wrote in message
news:p85m5u8ujvppi1fp5...@4ax.com...
What could be less important than atheists actually following their own
rules for putting somebody on a twitlist?
:-)
You want the atheist newbies to notice the lack of integrity? If they can't
see it, would you deny that they're brainwashed?
voila, btw.
;-)
Therion Ware
wrote in alt.atheism:
You might skip ahead and see why it's in abeyance.
John Baker
bbanz...@hotmail.com says...
AFAIK, "invincible ignorance" isn't a written in stone requirement.
Being supremely annoying is sufficient reason to be twitted, if I'm not
mistaken. In any case, I'm not really that up on how the twit list is
managed, but I wouldn't be surprised to find you're well on your way to
a nomination. <G>
--
"God, we paid for this food ourselves,
so thanks for nothing, OK
~ Bart Simpson ~
aa #1898
BAAWA Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade
raven1
wrote:
>Howdy Folks!
>
>On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
>twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
>comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
>My first investigation (using an old update by Therion Ware as my
>stepping-off point) was the twitting of Vincent Allah.
>Vincent said something insulting & rude just prior to being nominated (not a
>justification for twitdom, according to the current rules).
>Raven1 did the nomination,
Yes, I did, and I'm proud of it. I'd do it again in a second.
>and posted back to the thread keeping a tally of
>the votes *including* a "vote" by lorelei based on her comment to Vincent
>which included no intimation (afaics) that Vincent was a twit.
>No evidence of invincible ignorance was offered.
>
>Thus, Vincent Allah was inducted into the twitlist for a reason apparently
>not covered by the twitlist guidelines, and was entered on the basis of four
>votes--also contrary to the twitlist guidelines.
Of course, the twitdom of Vincent Allah occurred before the current
rules were instituted, IIRC, so your point would appear to be moot.
Also, one might point out that he was, in fact, twitted not for saying
anything "insulting and rude", as you would dishonestly characterize
it, but was, in fact (as my comment on the website puts it), "twitted
for pure evil", for actively encouraging a severely depressed and
suicidal aa regular to kill herself. Which is all available for
perusal in the archives for you to see.
>Grade: F
So are you defending his behavior, which suggests that you're a
sociopath? Or are you merely objecting on procedural grounds, which,
as a theist, you're not eligible to do in the first place?
raven1
wrote:
>
>"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Howdy Folks!
>>
>> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
>> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
>> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>>
>
>Next is Lim CK.
>
>Lim CK received a ton of votes--some from atheists whom I respect. Many
>offered allegations of fallacious argumentation, but I wasn't able (in my
>sampling) to verify these stories to my satisficaction.
Then you haven't looked very hard.
maky m.
> Howdy Folks!
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
> stepping-off point) was the twitting of Vincent Allah.
> Vincent said something insulting & rude just prior to being nominated (not a
> justification for twitdom, according to the current rules).
> the votes *including* a "vote" by lorelei based on her comment to Vincent
> which included no intimation (afaics) that Vincent was a twit.
> No evidence of invincible ignorance was offered.
that twit list *would* be a good tool, if they used ethically.
unfortunatelly, the malkinites say one thing and do another. typical
mob attitude.
why do i support the twit list you say? because septic the troll
belongs in it. he is a shinning example of what it means to be a
twit...
> Thus, Vincent Allah was inducted into the twitlist for a reason apparently
> not covered by the twitlist guidelines, and was entered on the basis of four
> votes--also contrary to the twitlist guidelines.
>
> Grade: F
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3678B9BB.7DC2BAE2%40erols.com&
> rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DVincent%2BAllah%2Btwit%2Bgroup:alt.atheism%26hl%3D
> en%26selm%3D3678B9BB.7DC2BAE2%2540erols.com%26rnum%3D1
chib
<bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy Folks!
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
In other words, you really *don't* have a life.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(Email: change out to in)
Frank Wustner
> Tichy <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> > twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> > comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
> In other words, you really *don't* have a life.
As though we needed any more evidence of that. ^_^x
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
|it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|
Nemesis
Oh, give me a break, Tichy! LimP diCK was one of the most despicable trolls
this group has ever suffered.
Tichy
"Alex" <sup...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2f6m5uc9elj1cu1h5...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 18:45:38 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I find it interesting that you are not simply apathetic toward, but
> >apparently *opposed* to reading evidence that alt.atheism twitlist
> >nominations have been botched, and that the guidelines for nomination are
> >ignored.
> >
> >I would have enjoyed seeing your comments regarding this institution
> >peculiar to alt.atheism.
> >
> >Is the twitlist meant to be a serious list of those who are "invincibly
> >ignorant" on the basis of evidence? Or is it a game? A symbol to stitch
on
> >the clothing of ng vistors whose contributions you find objectionable or
> >silly?
> >
> >I'm sure that some of the alt.atheism regulars will be interested in
looking
> >at the topic objectively.
> >You're building an "atheist" culture in this ng. What do you want it to
be
> >like?
> >
>
> I feel sorry for you.
Really? Why?
>
> As far as I'm concerned a twit list is a voluntary guideline on who's
> plonkable. I, for one, never pay attention to it. Now than I have
> Agent I delete whole threads with impunity. I also plonk people
> according to my own criteria.
Bravo.
>
> The twit list is just a fun way of suggesting a plonk, not a
> democratic process that has rigid controls in the interest of
> fairness. The list is also, IMO, a way to discourage trolls as they
> see that this group is savvy to their shinanigans.
The description of the twitlist is squarely opposed to your view of it. Do
you find that tension acceptable?
Does it concern you that the description is essentially dishonest, and/or
that the supposed qualifications are ignored seemingly at will?
Tichy
"raven1" <psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:e29m5uknr3f4qf3d2...@4ax.com...
If it was so easy to find a specific example, I wonder why the numbered
atheists who vote seem in the habit of utterly omitting concrete examples.
I checked approximately two dozen posts.
How many *should* I have checked?
Tichy
"Nemesis" <fuck_trolls@kill_them_all.net> wrote in message
news:AfM68.6027$Hu6.1...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
He was added to a twit list, not a troll list. Ever read the description of
what the twit list allegedly is?
Tichy
"Therion Ware" <tw...@video2cd.com.eac> wrote in message
Skip ahead to where?
Tichy
"John Baker" <jba...@neo.rr.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:MPG.16c4e9af3cbefe82989688@news-server...
No, I suspect it was written in HTML or the like:
---
How Does Someone Get on The aa Twit List?
It's not enough to be stupid. It's not enough to be rude. It's not enough to
be uneducated. You have to be what our Catholic friends call "invincibly
ignorant," and recognised as such by a number of people.
What's "invincibly ignorant"?
---
http://www.twitlist.co.uk/aatwit.html
I guess it depends upon what your definitions of "have," "to," and "be" are.
> Being supremely annoying is sufficient reason to be twitted, if I'm not
> mistaken. In any case, I'm not really that up on how the twit list is
> managed, but I wouldn't be surprised to find you're well on your way to
> a nomination. <G>
Sure, because pointing out the problems that numbered atheists have in
tallying votes is clear evidence of *my* invincible ignorance . . . cuz,
well, *it's annoying!*
:-)
Tichy
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:42:43 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Howdy Folks!
> >
> >On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> >twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> >comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
> >
> >My first investigation (using an old update by Therion Ware as my
> >stepping-off point) was the twitting of Vincent Allah.
> >Vincent said something insulting & rude just prior to being nominated
(not a
> >justification for twitdom, according to the current rules).
> >Raven1 did the nomination,
>
> Yes, I did, and I'm proud of it. I'd do it again in a second.
>
> >and posted back to the thread keeping a tally of
> >the votes *including* a "vote" by lorelei based on her comment to Vincent
> >which included no intimation (afaics) that Vincent was a twit.
> >No evidence of invincible ignorance was offered.
> >
> >Thus, Vincent Allah was inducted into the twitlist for a reason
apparently
> >not covered by the twitlist guidelines, and was entered on the basis of
four
> >votes--also contrary to the twitlist guidelines.
>
> Of course, the twitdom of Vincent Allah occurred before the current
> rules were instituted, IIRC,
You may be right, but it *was* during the Ware era. My other posts reflect
more clearly that I'm aware that rule changes may have taken place.
so your point would appear to be moot.
iyrc.
> Also, one might point out that he was, in fact, twitted not for saying
> anything "insulting and rude", as you would dishonestly characterize
> it, but was, in fact (as my comment on the website puts it), "twitted
> for pure evil", for actively encouraging a severely depressed and
> suicidal aa regular to kill herself. Which is all available for
> perusal in the archives for you to see.
You don't think that's insulting or rude?
It's a twit list, not an "evil poster" list, last I checked.
Here's the nomination thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3678B9BB.7DC2BAE2%40erols.com&
rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DVincent%2BAllah%2Btwit%2Bgroup:alt.atheism%26hl%3D
en%26selm%3D3678B9BB.7DC2BAE2%2540erols.com%26rnum%3D2
You nominate him, and add that he deserves it "especially after his response
to Sarah."
Sounds like the response to Sarah is an afterthought to the nomination.
You contradicted yourself.
;-)
>
> >Grade: F
>
> So are you defending his behavior, which suggests that you're a
> sociopath?
Rotfl
Non sequitur (a logical fallacy).
Or are you merely objecting on procedural grounds, which,
> as a theist, you're not eligible to do in the first place?
I can post about this all I want, afaics. There's nothing in the faq that
suggests that I can't. Changing the twitlist is up to the numbered
atheists, but the freedom to discuss it is open to all, apparently.
You appear to be whining.
Tichy
"chib" <ch...@outreach.com> wrote in message
news:010220021934111690%ch...@outreach.com...
> In article <7Az68.184389$_w.287...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, Tichy
> <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Howdy Folks!
> >
> > On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> > twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> > comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
> In other words, you really *don't* have a life.
>
> -chib
Whereas *you* are here making comments like the above.
Tichy
"maky m." <mman...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:188f56bf.02020...@posting.google.com...
> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<7Az68.184389$_w.287...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
> > Howdy Folks!
> >
> > On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> > twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> > comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
> >
> > My first investigation (using an old update by Therion Ware as my
> > stepping-off point) was the twitting of Vincent Allah.
> > Vincent said something insulting & rude just prior to being nominated
(not a
> > justification for twitdom, according to the current rules).
> > Raven1 did the nomination, and posted back to the thread keeping a tally
of
> > the votes *including* a "vote" by lorelei based on her comment to
Vincent
> > which included no intimation (afaics) that Vincent was a twit.
> > No evidence of invincible ignorance was offered.
>
> that twit list *would* be a good tool, if they used ethically.
> unfortunatelly, the malkinites say one thing and do another. typical
> mob attitude.
Agreed, and that's why I brought up the topic again. How hard would it be
to have a troll list, or an "irritating person" list? Or how hard to merely
change the description of the twit list to describe what it really is? The
currrent description is little more than an outrageous lie, given the manner
in which the twitlist is used.
>
> why do i support the twit list you say? because septic the troll
> belongs in it. he is a shinning example of what it means to be a
> twit...
I quite agree with that.
Apparently he was twitted & then untwitted, but nobody that I've observed in
alt.atheism fits the official description better than Septic.
<snip>
Tichy
> Howdy Folks!
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
> My first investigation (using an old update by Therion Ware as my
> stepping-off point) was the twitting of Vincent Allah.
> Vincent said something insulting & rude just prior to being nominated (not
a
> justification for twitdom, according to the current rules).
> Raven1 did the nomination, and posted back to the thread keeping a tally
of
> the votes *including* a "vote" by lorelei based on her comment to Vincent
> which included no intimation (afaics) that Vincent was a twit.
> No evidence of invincible ignorance was offered.
>
> not covered by the twitlist guidelines, and was entered on the basis of
four
> votes--also contrary to the twitlist guidelines.
>
With apologies, I was careless in counting Vincent's vote total. Despite
raven1's vote on behalf of somebody else, Vincent *did* receive the number
of votes required for twitdom according to the modern standard.
Revised grade: C
Walter Brameld
>
> "Alex" <sup...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2f6m5uc9elj1cu1h5...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> > The twit list is just a fun way of suggesting a plonk, not a
> > democratic process that has rigid controls in the interest of
> > fairness. The list is also, IMO, a way to discourage trolls as they
> > see that this group is savvy to their shinanigans.
>
> The description of the twitlist is squarely opposed to your view of it. Do
> you find that tension acceptable?
> Does it concern you that the description is essentially dishonest, and/or
> that the supposed qualifications are ignored seemingly at will?
I don't profess to be an expert on the alt.atheism twitlist, but it
seems to me that you are blowing its degree of officialness way out of
proportion. AFAICT from mainly lurking in this group, nominating
somebody for and putting him on the twit list is just a way for the
regular posters to show a person, when all else fails, that many people
find his behavior here inappropriate, for whatever reason. In a forum
such as this, that usually means a consistentantly irrational style of
argument, but it could also mean that the person is just being
intentionally difficult, antagonizing, or represantitive of any other
unpleasant form of behavior. To expect it to follow some exactingly
rigid system of rules is, IMO, silly. If it helps you to understand it,
then think of the description of the twitlist as a general guide and
nothing more.
Regards,
Walter Brameld
Dave Holloway
wrote:
>Howdy Folks!
>
>On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
>twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
>comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>
[snip]
I leave this as an exercise for the reader: why would anyone put so
much time and effort -- including searching for the data,
consolodating it, analyzing it and presenting the results in a series
of at least thirty posts (which makes no sense in terms of conserving
bandwidth, but which makes perfect sense if one is trying to attract
attention to oneself), not to mention the initial commitment to the
project -- into deconstructing what is essentially a running joke?
Dave
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, #1184
Quotemeister; DDS, EAC Mars Division; Disgruntled Merkin
THE NEW ATHEOLOGICAL THINKING: http://atheist.8k.com
Therion Ware
wrote in alt.atheism:
[snip]
>Skip ahead to where?
To where all this was discussed. About a year ago, I think.
chib
<bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A comment is somewhat different from the research you appear to be
doing here, for reasons that nobody really cares about.
Liz
<e1mn5usl49gb64gca...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:13:55 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Skip ahead to where?
>
>To where all this was discussed. About a year ago, I think.
LOL I think Tichy needs to get a life.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Liz's Commandment #14: What can a loser do to transform
into a winner? Nothing! A loser by definition does not
want to change. Change is the kind of thing winners do.
Tichy
"Walter Brameld" <bu...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3C5BCD78...@bigfoot.com...
> Tichy wrote:
> >
> > "Alex" <sup...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:2f6m5uc9elj1cu1h5...@4ax.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The twit list is just a fun way of suggesting a plonk, not a
> > > democratic process that has rigid controls in the interest of
> > > fairness. The list is also, IMO, a way to discourage trolls as they
> > > see that this group is savvy to their shinanigans.
> >
> > The description of the twitlist is squarely opposed to your view of it.
Do
> > you find that tension acceptable?
> > Does it concern you that the description is essentially dishonest,
and/or
> > that the supposed qualifications are ignored seemingly at will?
>
> I don't profess to be an expert on the alt.atheism twitlist, but it
> seems to me that you are blowing its degree of officialness way out of
> proportion. AFAICT from mainly lurking in this group, nominating
> somebody for and putting him on the twit list is just a way for the
> regular posters to show a person, when all else fails, that many people
> find his behavior here inappropriate, for whatever reason.
I'm quite aware that many in the ng view the list this way. However, the
description of the twitlist gives no inkling of that view.
That's the point of what I wrote. You can do what you like (as a group).
I'm just pointing out a discrepancy in how the list is described & how it is
practiced.
In a forum
> such as this, that usually means a consistentantly irrational style of
> argument, but it could also mean that the person is just being
> intentionally difficult, antagonizing, or represantitive of any other
> unpleasant form of behavior. To expect it to follow some exactingly
> rigid system of rules is, IMO, silly. If it helps you to understand it,
> then think of the description of the twitlist as a general guide and
> nothing more.
If the twitlist is what you say it is, *why is there an apparently rigid
description of what the twitlist supposedly is*?
*Read it*!
http://www.twitlist.co.uk/aatwit.html
Maybe a description of what the list *really* is would be appropriate.
Hmmm?
Tichy
"Therion Ware" <tw...@video2cd.com.eac> wrote in message
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:13:55 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Skip ahead to where?
>
> To where all this was discussed. About a year ago, I think.
So, all this was discussed about a year ago & things remain essentially as
they were after the discussion? About a *year* later?
lol
Then it's about time that it was discussed again, don't you think?
Tichy
> In article <puN68.503553$oj3.97...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, Tichy
> <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "chib" <ch...@outreach.com> wrote in message
> > news:010220021934111690%ch...@outreach.com...
> > > In article <7Az68.184389$_w.287...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, Tichy
> > > <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Howdy Folks!
> > > >
> > > > On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> > > > twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the
newly
> > > > comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
> > >
> > > In other words, you really *don't* have a life.
> > >
> > > -chib
> >
> > Whereas *you* are here making comments like the above.
>
> A comment is somewhat different from the research you appear to be
> doing here, for reasons that nobody really cares about.
>
> -chib
Well, now, that's why I'm doing it. This thread forces a reaction. You
read it, and you don't care.
You don't care that your fellow atheists don't follow the rules that they
agreed upon, and you don't care that the posted rules don't agree with your
practice even though they could easily be changed.
In essence, I've found a way to show (potentially & graphically) that you're
collectively a bunch of unrepentant hypocrites.*
Please note chib's vote for unrepentant hypocrisy.
*The alternative, of course, is to actually change things.
Tichy
"Dave Holloway" <silen...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:ibjn5ucukek6ohbmm...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:42:43 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Howdy Folks!
> >
> >On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> >twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> >comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> I leave this as an exercise for the reader: why would anyone put so
> much time and effort -- including searching for the data,
> consolodating it, analyzing it and presenting the results in a series
> of at least thirty posts (which makes no sense in terms of conserving
> bandwidth, but which makes perfect sense if one is trying to attract
> attention to oneself), not to mention the initial commitment to the
> project -- into deconstructing what is essentially a running joke?
Holloway thinks that hypocrisy is funny!
I think that's funny! Hey, Holloway--why is the description of the twit
list at odds with the practice?
For laughs?
lol
Tichy
"Liz" <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:9j4o5uo5f9b0v1kb3...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 12:15:39 +0000, Therion Ware <tw...@video2cd.com.eac>,
> <e1mn5usl49gb64gca...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:13:55 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote in alt.atheism:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>Skip ahead to where?
> >
> >To where all this was discussed. About a year ago, I think.
>
>
> LOL I think Tichy needs to get a life.
>
Translation: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Please don't hit as at this
vulnerable point in our hypocritical practice as a community of atheists!
Handwave mode! Handwave mode! Handwave mode! Alert! Alert!
Handwave mode!
lol
Cheeers,
Tichy
General Director, THEOHIPPIP
Tichy
> wrote:
>
> >Howdy Folks!
> >
> >On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> >twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> >comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> I leave this as an exercise for the reader: why would anyone put so
> much time and effort -- including searching for the data,
> consolodating it, analyzing it and presenting the results in a series
> of at least thirty posts (which makes no sense in terms of conserving
> bandwidth, but which makes perfect sense if one is trying to attract
> attention to oneself), not to mention the initial commitment to the
> project -- into deconstructing what is essentially a running joke?
>
>
> Dave
I must revisit Dave's response, since it is so preposterous.
The twit list is a "running joke".
And what was that about conserving bandwidth?
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
Teresita.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Teresita+twit+nomination+group:alt.atheism
&start=10&hl=en&scoring=d&selm=7jh5me%24gdm%241%40engnews1.eng.sun.com&rnum=
16
The above thread doesn't vote her a twit, afaics.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Teresita+twit+nomination+group:alt.atheism
&start=10&hl=en&scoring=d&selm=MPG.11c4d3cc91325bf9989b19%40news-s01.ny.us.i
bm.net&rnum=17
Nor does this one.
The grade would provisionally be an "F", but the threads are so convoluted
that I'm withholding giving a final grade on Teresita's twitdom.
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> Howdy Folks!
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
AmericanMuslim
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3808000e.1074217415%40news2.ne
wscene.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DAmericanMuslim%2Btwit%2Bnomination%2Bgr
oup:alt.atheism%26hl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3D3808000e.1074217415%2540new
s2.newscene.com%26rnum%3D2
Nominated & seconded (once) but that's all. The rationale for twitting him
was apparently the same as walksalone's rationale for recommending that
AmericanMuslim be reported to his ISP.
Grade: F
Therion Ware
wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>"Therion Ware" <tw...@video2cd.com.eac> wrote in message
>news:e1mn5usl49gb64gca...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:13:55 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Skip ahead to where?
>>
>> To where all this was discussed. About a year ago, I think.
>
>So, all this was discussed about a year ago & things remain essentially as
>they were after the discussion? About a *year* later?
>
>lol
>
>Then it's about time that it was discussed again, don't you think?
No.
The consensus was that I have absolute authority as regards the list
and currently I an exercising that authority by leaving it be for the
reasons that are on record.
Therion Ware
wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>"Liz" <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote in message
>news:9j4o5uo5f9b0v1kb3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 12:15:39 +0000, Therion Ware <tw...@video2cd.com.eac>,
>> <e1mn5usl49gb64gca...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:13:55 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
>> >wrote in alt.atheism:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >>Skip ahead to where?
>> >
>> >To where all this was discussed. About a year ago, I think.
>>
>>
>> LOL I think Tichy needs to get a life.
>>
>
>Translation: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Please don't hit as at this
>vulnerable point in our hypocritical practice as a community of atheists!
>Handwave mode! Handwave mode! Handwave mode! Alert! Alert!
>Handwave mode!
>
>lol
Erm, can we arrange a face-to-face meeting? I just bought a Canon XL1S
so I could get some *really clear* pictures.
Tichy
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Az68.184389$_w.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> Howdy Folks!
>
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
Brian Pickrell
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Brian%20Pickrell%20twit%20nomination&as
_scoring=d&hl=en
lol
There *is* no nomination for Brian Pickrell, afaics. I even tried removing
the ng specification just in case it was crossposted, but no luck.
This (lack of) evidence suggests an "F" grade.
Tichy
"Therion Ware" <tw...@video2cd.com.eac> wrote in message
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 16:34:09 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >
> >"Therion Ware" <tw...@video2cd.com.eac> wrote in message
> >news:e1mn5usl49gb64gca...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:13:55 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote in alt.atheism:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >Skip ahead to where?
> >>
> >> To where all this was discussed. About a year ago, I think.
> >
> >So, all this was discussed about a year ago & things remain essentially
as
> >they were after the discussion? About a *year* later?
> >
> >lol
> >
> >Then it's about time that it was discussed again, don't you think?
>
> No.
There is a discrepancy between your description of what the twitlist is, and
the actual administration of the twitlist.
That effectively makes you a liar.
At least you're telling us where the buck stops.
>
> The consensus was that I have absolute authority as regards the list
> and currently I an exercising that authority by leaving it be for the
> reasons that are on record.
Google searches which include "twitist" "twit list" "Therion" and
"authority" come up empty.
Without suggested keywords, your claim of earlier discussion is pretty much
an unverifiable reference.
Therion Ware
wrote in alt.atheism:
No doubt. I change my address frequently for technical reasons, and no
doubt you find a plethora of Therion videos. 'Tis not me though'. Not
unless you really know where to look, at least...
>Without suggested keywords, your claim of earlier discussion is pretty much
>an unverifiable reference.
Being the absolute authority on these matters, you think I care what
you think? You have a problem with it address me directly and bear in
mind that it no longer functions for reasons you are apparently unable
to determine but which have been more or less noted in this thread.
But whatever you say, make it sharp and to the point, 'cos like most
mortals, I don't have a lot of time left and don't wish to take it up
unnecessarily.
raven1
wrote:
Yes. Have you read his description included there, and, I might add,
on the Kook list, which is infinitely harder to get on?
raven1
wrote:
This description, it should be noted, was written after more than two
thirds of the twits were already included on the list.
John Baker
Problem is, Tichy, you seem to take the twit list a lot more seriously than
we "numbered atheists" do. It's only an amusing diversion to us. Nothing
personal against you, you seem a decent sort, but you must be really bored.
<G>
raven1
wrote:
Which is relevant to events that took place before them how?
>
> so your point would appear to be moot.
>
>iyrc.
Agreed.
>
>> Also, one might point out that he was, in fact, twitted not for saying
>> anything "insulting and rude", as you would dishonestly characterize
>> it, but was, in fact (as my comment on the website puts it), "twitted
>> for pure evil", for actively encouraging a severely depressed and
>> suicidal aa regular to kill herself. Which is all available for
>> perusal in the archives for you to see.
>
>You don't think that's insulting or rude?
That it happens to be that as well is irrelevant. It is also (and
primarily) evil, disgusting, and worthy of every bit of contempt that
can be directed at it. It is the action of a despicable, vile, stupid
person, who deserves far worse names than "twit". Are you always this
disingenuous, or are you just being intentionally obtuse to be
annoying?
>It's a twit list, not an "evil poster" list, last I checked.
Again, are you defending his actions?
>
>Here's the nomination thread:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3678B9BB.7DC2BAE2%40erols.com&
>rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DVincent%2BAllah%2Btwit%2Bgroup:alt.atheism%26hl%3D
>en%26selm%3D3678B9BB.7DC2BAE2%2540erols.com%26rnum%3D2
>
>You nominate him, and add that he deserves it "especially after his response
>to Sarah."
>Sounds like the response to Sarah is an afterthought to the nomination.
Sounds to me like it was the motivation for the nomination. Since I'm
the one who made it, not to mention the author of the description on
the website, which gives the reason for his inclusion, I would tend to
think that I'm probably more qualified than you to judge why I
nominated him.
>
>You contradicted yourself.
Your presumption is duly noted, as is your dishonesty.
>;-)
FOAD
>
>>
>> >Grade: F
>>
>> So are you defending his behavior, which suggests that you're a
>> sociopath?
>
>Rotfl
>Non sequitur (a logical fallacy).
At this point I must admit that I'm somewhat puzzled. I suspect that
you know the above isn't a Non Sequitur fallacy, and are being
deliberately annoying, but in case you're genuinely that dense, go
back and re-read the phrase "which suggests that" a few more times.
Notice that it doesn't say (for example) "in which case", or the like.
Then go back and look up what a Non Sequitur fallacy actually is.
>
> Or are you merely objecting on procedural grounds, which,
>> as a theist, you're not eligible to do in the first place?
>
>I can post about this all I want, afaics.
Yes, you can. You can also expect your posts to be cheerfully ignored
or flamed.
> There's nothing in the faq that
>suggests that I can't.
That's not the point, which I suspect you realize.
> Changing the twitlist is up to the numbered
>atheists, but the freedom to discuss it is open to all, apparently.
You can discuss it until you're blue in the face, but no input will be
accepted from you.
>You appear to be whining.
You appear to be trolling.
raven1
wrote:
>
>Apparently he was twitted & then untwitted, but nobody that I've observed in
>alt.atheism fits the official description better than Septic.
Hey, finally I can agree whole-heartedly with you on one point!
Of course, Maky M. belongs on a separate "asshole" list, but that's
beside the point.
Michelle Malkin
<tw...@video2cd.com.eac> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 16:51:39 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>>"Liz" <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote in message
>>news:9j4o5uo5f9b0v1kb3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 12:15:39 +0000, Therion Ware <tw...@video2cd.com.eac>,
>>> <e1mn5usl49gb64gca...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:13:55 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
>>> >wrote in alt.atheism:
>>> >
>>> >[snip]
>>> >
>>> >>Skip ahead to where?
>>> >
>>> >To where all this was discussed. About a year ago, I think.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL I think Tichy needs to get a life.
>>>
>>
>>Translation: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Please don't hit as at this
>>vulnerable point in our hypocritical practice as a community of atheists!
>>Handwave mode! Handwave mode! Handwave mode! Alert! Alert!
>>Handwave mode!
>>
>>lol
>
>Erm, can we arrange a face-to-face meeting? I just bought a Canon XL1S
>so I could get some *really clear* pictures.
Isn't Tichy already on the twit list? If so, he's certainly showing
why he is. Tichy is a theist, so he can bluster all he wants. He
has no say in how the twit list is run, who is on it or how they got
there.
Then again, if Tichy isn't on the twit list, he may be trying for that
honor. Tsk.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
aa atheist list #1 ULC list #3 SMASH member
High Priestess Bastet of the non-Church Temple of Si & Am
EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG!
makym# SPONG!!
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com/
http://www.geocities.com/hypatiab7/
http://www.thehungersite.com/
http://bigcats.care2.com/
http://ecologyfund.com/
Tichy
Of the former:
Of course. What's your point (if any)?
That an allegation of the use of fallacy should pass as evidence of
invincible ignorance?
Of the latter: No. Irrelevant, afaics. Any reason why I should believe
otherwise?
Tichy
"Therion Ware" <tw...@video2cd.com.eac> wrote in message
Searching for the term "Therion" should give a result regardless of your
change of address. Those New Orleans videos? *You*?
>
> >Without suggested keywords, your claim of earlier discussion is pretty
much
> >an unverifiable reference.
>
> Being the absolute authority on these matters, you think I care what
> you think?
1) I was offering a point of fact, not an opinion.
2) Apparently you care enough to reply.
You have a problem with it address me directly and bear in
> mind that it no longer functions for reasons you are apparently unable
> to determine but which have been more or less noted in this thread.
That's a tad ambiguous--you never located the password? If so, your
administration is of questionable value.
>
> But whatever you say, make it sharp and to the point, 'cos like most
> mortals, I don't have a lot of time left and don't wish to take it up
> unnecessarily.
Up to you whether being truthful & having integrity is worth your time, or
not.
I'm not going to force it on you. That's beyond my ability, afaics.
Tichy
It should also be noted that I began my assessment of the list more than
two-thirds down the list (108 Vincent Allah: 108 of 140 or so).
Got any other irrelevancies you wish to bring up?
Tichy
"John Baker" <j...@spamfree.net> wrote in message
news:YBW68.8588$Hu6.1...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
You're imagining things, afaics. You can do what you like with the twit
list. Want it all in fun? That's fine. Want it a list of suggested
"plonks"? That's fine. Want it to be a list of invincibly ignorant folks?
That's fine, too.
I simply think that the description should describe what it is/does.
It's only an amusing diversion to us. Nothing
> personal against you, you seem a decent sort, but you must be really
bored.
> <G>
And you must be delightfully apathetic to not care that the "official"
description of the twitlist & its operation scantly resembles the actual
practice.
You're achieving my purpose, one way or another.
raven1
wrote:
It should also be noted that you were discussing Alan Wostenberg
above, not Vincent Allah.
>Got any other irrelevancies you wish to bring up?
It seems like you've got the market cornered on them.
maky m.
actually, the topic has been visited previously.
the list has not been "inactive" after the dubious nomination of
someone named francois tremblay.
now the part about the list "no longer" functioning is apparently a
blatant lie by therion. as i recall, there were one or two additions
after the declaration of suspension of the list.
Dave Holloway
wrote:
>
>"Dave Holloway" <silen...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:ibjn5ucukek6ohbmm...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:42:43 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Howdy Folks!
>> >
>> >On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
>> >twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
>> >comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
>> >
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I leave this as an exercise for the reader: why would anyone put so
>> much time and effort -- including searching for the data,
>> consolodating it, analyzing it and presenting the results in a series
>> of at least thirty posts (which makes no sense in terms of conserving
>> bandwidth, but which makes perfect sense if one is trying to attract
>> attention to oneself), not to mention the initial commitment to the
>> project -- into deconstructing what is essentially a running joke?
>
>Holloway thinks that hypocrisy is funny!
No I don't. But I don't think failing to take seriously the guidelines
to something which wass not meant to be taken seriously in the first
place doesn't genuinely qualify as hypocrisy, except perhaps to those
who are desperate to believe that it does.
>I think that's funny! Hey, Holloway--why is the description of the twit
>list at odds with the practice?
>For laughs?
No, because sometimes we simply don't give a darn. It's kind of like
the EAC -- which, mind you, does not exist. We're not trying to build
an "atheist culture" here on the newsgroup, we're just out to have a
little fun. Apparently, you're the only one who fails to see that.
Dave
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, #1184
Quotemeister; DDS, EAC Mars Division; Disgruntled Merkin
THE NEW ATHEOLOGICAL THINKING: http://atheist.8k.com
Dave Holloway
wrote:
I'll repeat: your actions make no sense in terms of conserving
bandwidth, but make perfect sense if you are trying to draw attention
to yourself. If you have a problem with that statement, then the
problem is yours, not ours.
Dave Holloway
wrote:
>
>Up to you whether being truthful & having integrity is worth your time, or
>not.
>I'm not going to force it on you. That's beyond my ability, afaics.
>
If one stakes one's reputation for truthfulness and integrity on the
consistent and democratic maintenance of a running joke, then one has
even less of a life than you do.
Budikka
> On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
[SNIP standard twitchy blather]
43 out of the 70 segments in this thread are authored by Twitchy.
Does anyone else on the planet love to hear himself blather as much as
this clueless moron does? I thought it was just a summer fling, but
he really is in love with himself, isn't he?! Does anyone really give
a flying fuck what he thinks about anything? Is it true that he is
trying to negotiate to get voice-recordings of his postings marketed
as sleep aids?
Budikka
Neal Stein
news:85u1sz9...@cr171940-a.pr1.on.wave.home.com...
> "John Baker" <j...@spamfree.net> writes:
>
>
> > Problem is, Tichy, you seem to take the twit list a lot more
> > seriously than we "numbered atheists" do. It's only an amusing
> > diversion to us.
>
>
> list quite seriously...
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=38a1dfd5.428187811%40enews.newsgu
y.com
Does something said 2 YEARS ago hold that much bearing on what it is today?
Things change, and online they change fast. Get used to it.
--
Neal Stein
[/\tom]
aa #1984
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish
appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave
mankind and monopolize power and profit." -Thomas Paine
no_...@no.place.com
wrote:
>I find it interesting that you are not simply apathetic toward, but
>apparently *opposed* to reading evidence that alt.atheism twitlist
>nominations have been botched, and that the guidelines for nomination are
>ignored.
That is because they are guide lines, not rules: Do you understand
the difference? None of the atheists in here are big on rules, generally
speaking most of us find the One Rule, to be sufficient.
>
>I would have enjoyed seeing your comments regarding this institution
>peculiar to alt.atheism.
This NG has been the author of more than one innovation, but generally
speaking, a sense of humor is a prerequisite to appreciating them.
>
>Is the twitlist meant to be a serious list of those who are "invincibly
>ignorant" on the basis of evidence?
Depends on who is twitted.
> Or is it a game?
It is that as well.
> A symbol to stitch on
>the clothing of ng vistors whose contributions you find objectionable or
>silly?
No, we leave such objectional activities to xtians.
>
>I'm sure that some of the alt.atheism regulars will be interested in looking
>at the topic objectively.
Very difficult to do, when the only objective part is the list it's
self, and even then, only objective at a certain level.
>You're building an "atheist" culture in this ng. What do you want it to be
>like?
Fun, child, fun.
Tichy
<no_...@no.place.com> wrote in message
news:kt1o5u48ejhh22r43...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 18:45:38 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I find it interesting that you are not simply apathetic toward, but
> >apparently *opposed* to reading evidence that alt.atheism twitlist
> >nominations have been botched, and that the guidelines for nomination are
> >ignored.
>
> That is because they are guide lines, not rules: Do you understand
> the difference?
Sure--but on what do you base your claim that they are "guidelines" rather
than rules? Is it an "unwritten rule" that the rules are mere guidelines?
;-)
None of the atheists in here are big on rules, generally
> speaking most of us find the One Rule, to be sufficient.
>
Atheists have an awful lot in common considering that all they have in
common (allegedly) is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
:-)
> >
> >I would have enjoyed seeing your comments regarding this institution
> >peculiar to alt.atheism.
>
> This NG has been the author of more than one innovation, but generally
> speaking, a sense of humor is a prerequisite to appreciating them.
Heh. Another from the "the twitlist is a running joke" crowd.
Slander is funny!
You just have to have the right sense of humor to appreciate it!
:-)
>
> >
> >Is the twitlist meant to be a serious list of those who are "invincibly
> >ignorant" on the basis of evidence?
>
> Depends on who is twitted.
That's a "no".
>
>
> > Or is it a game?
>
> It is that as well.
That's a qualified "yes".
Slander is a fun game (evidently)!
>
>
> > A symbol to stitch on
> >the clothing of ng vistors whose contributions you find objectionable or
> >silly?
>
> No, we leave such objectional activities to xtians.
You're ignoring obvious evidence in alt.atheism that is contrary to what you
say.
>
> >
> >I'm sure that some of the alt.atheism regulars will be interested in
looking
> >at the topic objectively.
>
> Very difficult to do, when the only objective part is the list it's
> self, and even then, only objective at a certain level.
Maybe you should go ahead & bow out, then (seriously)?
>
>
> >You're building an "atheist" culture in this ng. What do you want it to
be
> >like?
>
> Fun, child, fun.
>
Slander/libel can be such fun!!! (apparently)
Tichy
"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@home.com> wrote in message
news:vlqo5uoupl99fv5ok...@4ax.com...
Why? Because I'm displaying "invincible ignorance"? Or because it would be
"fun" to put me there?
In the former case, the twitlist would have to be treated as it is described
on the twitlist site--which appears rare, if ever.
For the latter--won't any excuse do if it's in the name of fun?
Tichy is a theist, so he can bluster all he wants. He
> has no say in how the twit list is run, who is on it or how they got
> there.
Where is the rule posted prohibiting atheists from blustering all they want
(I fear that it's being broken on a daily basis, fwiw)?
>
> Then again, if Tichy isn't on the twit list, he may be trying for that
> honor. Tsk.
What kind of honor could it possibly be? Is it an honor to be labelled as
being "invincibly ignorant" without evidence establishing the fact (or
probable fact)? Or is it simply an honor to be libelled or slandered by the
alt.atheism community?
Explain?
Tichy
123 Alan Wostenberg
http://www.twitlist.co.uk/aatwit.html
Wostenberg's "twitting" was subsequent to that of Vincent Allah. Your point
remains utterly irrelevant, afaics.
>
> >Got any other irrelevancies you wish to bring up?
>
> It seems like you've got the market cornered on them.
lol
Exquisite irony, raven1.
Tichy
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 19:52:59 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Up to you whether being truthful & having integrity is worth your time,
or
> >not.
> >I'm not going to force it on you. That's beyond my ability, afaics.
> >
>
> If one stakes one's reputation for truthfulness and integrity on the
> consistent and democratic maintenance of a running joke, then one has
> even less of a life than you do.
I don't believe in the legitimacy of "compartmentalizing" different areas of
life when it comes to measuring character.
Do you?
Therion's failure (imo) is simply in permitting an inaccurate description of
the twitlist to exist--for a substantial period of time.
The description doesn't fit, and contributes to an insidious lie perpetrated
against those on the list.
Tichy
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 16:42:10 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Holloway" <silen...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> >news:ibjn5ucukek6ohbmm...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:42:43 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Howdy Folks!
> >> >
> >> >On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> >> >twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the
newly
> >> >comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
> >> >
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> I leave this as an exercise for the reader: why would anyone put so
> >> much time and effort -- including searching for the data,
> >> consolodating it, analyzing it and presenting the results in a series
> >> of at least thirty posts (which makes no sense in terms of conserving
> >> bandwidth, but which makes perfect sense if one is trying to attract
> >> attention to oneself), not to mention the initial commitment to the
> >> project -- into deconstructing what is essentially a running joke?
> >
> >Holloway thinks that hypocrisy is funny!
>
> No I don't. But I don't think failing to take seriously the guidelines
> to something which wass not meant to be taken seriously in the first
> place doesn't genuinely qualify as hypocrisy, except perhaps to those
> who are desperate to believe that it does.
The numbered atheists do not appear to monolithically agree that the list is
all in fun--nor should they, since they specifically label persons as
"invincibly ignorant" & intentionally marginalize the opinion of those who
appear on the list (at least insofar as alt.atheism is concerned).
Is that really supposed to be funny?
>
>
> >I think that's funny! Hey, Holloway--why is the description of the twit
> >list at odds with the practice?
> >For laughs?
>
> No, because sometimes we simply don't give a darn.
Libel a few folks? Hey, why not? Who cares?
It's kind of like
> the EAC -- which, mind you, does not exist. We're not trying to build
> an "atheist culture" here on the newsgroup, we're just out to have a
> little fun. Apparently, you're the only one who fails to see that.
It does't matter whether you're trying to do it or not. It's happening.
Self-proclaimed atheists have grouped together here for conversation (&
laughs) and what you do both represents atheism & constitutes a culture.
The constituents of capitalistic cultures probably think they're just trying
to make a buck.
It's obvious that a main goal of the community is to have fun--from
Michelle's lame one-liners to the bandwidth-sucking megaflames of the
BWAHAHA Knights. There is also a let's-pretend air of rationality &
superiority. Look at the frequency of posts ridiculing, belittling &
mocking theists. The undercurrent is "we are more rational/moral/etc. than
they are."
I'm charging the group with acting inconsistently with the description of
the twitlist.
I'm hearing the excuse that it's all in fun.
Where do you draw the line, btw?
Tichy
Maybe I'm just trying to have fun. Wouldn't that be an adequate
justification?
But seriously, I find it hilarious that you would take me to task over this
series of posts & its bandwidth effects when the typical twitlist nomination
(done in the name of fun, reportedly) takes up more bandwidth by far.
raven1
wrote:
Missing the point seems to be your speciality.
>
>>
>> >Got any other irrelevancies you wish to bring up?
>>
>> It seems like you've got the market cornered on them.
>
>lol
>Exquisite irony, raven1
As if you could recognize it when you see it.
raven1
wrote:
> Look at the frequency of posts ridiculing, belittling &
>mocking theists.
There's a difference between "ridiculing, belittling & mocking
theists" and "ridiculing, belittling & mocking theism".
no_...@no.place.com
>that twit list *would* be a good tool, if they used ethically.
But the twit list was never intended as an ethical tool, that would just
serve to spoil your image of us, and thereby sadden you.
As if you aint sad enough as you are.
no_...@no.place.com
>> Problem is, Tichy, you seem to take the twit list a lot more seriously
>than
>> we "numbered atheists" do.
>
>You're imagining things, afaics.
Then why did you mention it in the first place?
> You can do what you like with the twit
>list. Want it all in fun? That's fine. Want it a list of suggested
>"plonks"? That's fine. Want it to be a list of invincibly ignorant folks?
>That's fine, too.
Your consent is irrelevant, and unnecessary.
>I simply think
That will make a change.
>that the description should describe what it is/does.
Consider it as a work of abstract art; The artist knows what it is,
you do not need to.
>
>> It's only an amusing diversion to us. Nothing
>> personal against you, you seem a decent sort, but you must be really
>bored.
>> <G>
>
>And you must be delightfully apathetic to not care that the "official"
>description of the twitlist & its operation scantly resembles the actual
>practice.
It would appear that our twit list has properties that we never seriously
considered, although there has been indication of it in the past.
It seems to have an almost hypnotic fascination for fundys, and can even
induce jealousy, and a strong "sour grapes" attitude, in those not included.
Or is this just a knee jerk reaction from a bunch of loosers who believe that
their god gave them a brain, but doesn't want them to use it?
Could it be that they consider inclusion on our twit list an accolade, an
indication that they have finally reached that nadir of mind numbing
stupidity, that they believe their god requires of them?
If this is true, could it also be, that we are making their Nirvana, too easily
achieved? Should we perhaps hold out for a more total dissolution of
intelligence, and only grant membership to those fundys who have so completely
rejected intelligence, that they can no longer post the products of their
plummeting stupidity, to the usenet. In doing this we should be able to
intensify the jealousy, and make the grapes even more sour.
Dave Holloway
wrote:
If we accepted only things that were "monolithically agreed" to be
true by all relevant persons, then we would just barely be able to
accept the existence of a round earth. If some people do take the list
seriously, that's not Therion's fault, nor the fault of anyone else
who sees the list for what it really is.
>>
>>
>> >I think that's funny! Hey, Holloway--why is the description of the twit
>> >list at odds with the practice?
>> >For laughs?
>>
>> No, because sometimes we simply don't give a darn.
>
>Libel a few folks? Hey, why not? Who cares?
Clutching at straws? Hey, why not? Who cares?
> It's kind of like
>> the EAC -- which, mind you, does not exist. We're not trying to build
>> an "atheist culture" here on the newsgroup, we're just out to have a
>> little fun. Apparently, you're the only one who fails to see that.
>
>It does't matter whether you're trying to do it or not. It's happening.
>Self-proclaimed atheists have grouped together here for conversation (&
>laughs) and what you do both represents atheism & constitutes a culture.
>The constituents of capitalistic cultures probably think they're just trying
>to make a buck.
The very definition of the word "atheism" precludes the possibility of
atheism as a whole either having a culture or being represented as
such.
>It's obvious that a main goal of the community is to have fun--from
>Michelle's lame one-liners to the bandwidth-sucking megaflames of the
>BWAHAHA Knights. There is also a let's-pretend air of rationality &
>superiority. Look at the frequency of posts ridiculing, belittling &
>mocking theists. The undercurrent is "we are more rational/moral/etc. than
>they are."
I believe that atheists as a whole are more rational and moral than
theists as a whole, and many atheists here share that view. What does
this have to do with the twit list?
>I'm charging the group with acting inconsistently with the description of
>the twitlist.
Guilty as charged. We certainly didn't need a demonstration of your
Internet-searching capabilities and desperation to demonize atheists
to know that. Once again, we simply don't give a darn.
>I'm hearing the excuse that it's all in fun.
You are hearing correctly.
>Where do you draw the line, btw?
>
Somewhere on this side of acting inconsistently with the United States
Constitution, for instance.
Dave Holloway
wrote:
It would, but all the signs indicate that you are taking yourself
very, very seriously.
>But seriously, I find it hilarious that you would take me to task over this
>series of posts & its bandwidth effects when the typical twitlist nomination
>(done in the name of fun, reportedly) takes up more bandwidth by far.
>
I find it hilarious that you think that. You have posted about twice
as much in this thread alone as I post in an average month.
For that matter, I find it hilarious that you are so hung up over what
was literally a parenthetical remark.
Dave Holloway
wrote:
>
>"Dave Holloway" <silen...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:07to5usjej704qhjr...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 19:52:59 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Up to you whether being truthful & having integrity is worth your time,
>or
>> >not.
>> >I'm not going to force it on you. That's beyond my ability, afaics.
>> >
>>
>> If one stakes one's reputation for truthfulness and integrity on the
>> consistent and democratic maintenance of a running joke, then one has
>> even less of a life than you do.
>
>I don't believe in the legitimacy of "compartmentalizing" different areas of
>life when it comes to measuring character.
>
>Do you?
If I believed that in the sense that you purport to believe it, then I
would have no choice but to believe, based on your participation in
this newsgroup, that you are a complete and total failure as a human
being.
>Therion's failure (imo) is simply in permitting an inaccurate description of
>the twitlist to exist--for a substantial period of time.
>The description doesn't fit, and contributes to an insidious lie perpetrated
>against those on the list.
Negative. Saying that there was no Holocaust when millions upon
millions of people died is an insiduous lie. Saying that there must be
a nomination and three seconds to officially recognize a given person
as a "twit" is having a sense of humor.
Petteri Sulonen
<silen...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >Where do you draw the line, btw?
> >
>
> Somewhere on this side of acting inconsistently with the United States
> Constitution, for instance.
Dave is, naturally, speaking only for himself. I, for example, couldn't
care less about the US Constitution.
/Petteri
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with
experience. -- Andrew Welch
Muddy Boggs
"Petteri Sulonen" <Petteri...@seittipaja.spambuster.fi> wrote in
message news:030220021605439333%Petteri...@seittipaja.spambuster.fi...
> In article <cd8q5u8nh81hbvf08...@4ax.com>, Dave Holloway
> <silen...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > >Where do you draw the line, btw?
> > >
> >
> > Somewhere on this side of acting inconsistently with the United States
> > Constitution, for instance.
>
> Dave is, naturally, speaking only for himself. I, for example, couldn't
> care less about the US Constitution.
>
> /Petteri
>
Well then, Petteri, if not the principles expressed in the US Constitution,
then how about the self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration of the
US Congress of 1776?
That all people come into the world equal.
That all people come into the world with certain unalienable rights.
That among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
Muddy Boggs
>
> > It's kind of like
> > the EAC -- which, mind you, does not exist. We're not trying to build
> > an "atheist culture" here on the newsgroup, we're just out to have a
> > little fun. Apparently, you're the only one who fails to see that.
>
> It does't matter whether you're trying to do it or not. It's happening.
> Self-proclaimed atheists have grouped together here for conversation (&
> laughs) and what you do both represents atheism & constitutes a culture.
> The constituents of capitalistic cultures probably think they're just
trying
> to make a buck.
>
Except that atheism isn't the act of "trying to make" anything, as The
Atheism Web points out, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in
the existence of gods."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
As Thomas Huxley said a hundred years ago, in his excoriation of the
Christian belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity," all that is essential to
agnosticism is to point out the logical principle that anybody like the
Christian is wrong to say that she is certain of the truth of her "God"
proposition unless she can provide evidence that justifies that certainty.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Both of those are examples of a complete absence of any belief in the
existence of gods.
Muddy Boggs
>
> "maky m." <mman...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:188f56bf.02020...@posting.google.com...> news:<7Az68.184389$_w.287...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
> > > Howdy Folks!
> > >
> > > On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> > > twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the
newly
> > > comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
> > >
> > > stepping-off point) was the twitting of Vincent Allah.
> > > Vincent said something insulting & rude just prior to being nominated
> (not a
> > > justification for twitdom, according to the current rules).
> > > Raven1 did the nomination, and posted back to the thread keeping a
tally
> of
> > > the votes *including* a "vote" by lorelei based on her comment to
> Vincent
> > > which included no intimation (afaics) that Vincent was a twit.
> > > No evidence of invincible ignorance was offered.
> >
> > that twit list *would* be a good tool, if they used ethically.
> > mob attitude.
>
> Agreed, and that's why I brought up the topic again. How hard would it be
> to have a troll list, or an "irritating person" list? Or how hard to
merely
> change the description of the twit list to describe what it really is?
The
> currrent description is little more than an outrageous lie, given the
manner
> in which the twitlist is used.
>
> >
> > why do i support the twit list you say? because septic the troll
> > belongs in it. he is a shinning example of what it means to be a
> > twit...
>
> I quite agree with that.
>
> Apparently he was twitted & then untwitted, but nobody that I've observed
in
> alt.atheism fits the official description better than Septic.
>
Has there ever been anybody named "Septic" on the list, or is that just more
wishful thinking on your part, like your "Designer-God" thingy??
John Baker
>
> You're imagining things, afaics. You can do what you like with the twit
> list. Want it all in fun? That's fine. Want it a list of suggested
> "plonks"? That's fine. Want it to be a list of invincibly ignorant
folks?
> That's fine, too.
>
> It's only an amusing diversion to us. Nothing
> > personal against you, you seem a decent sort, but you must be really
> bored.
> > <G>
>
> And you must be delightfully apathetic to not care that the "official"
> description of the twitlist & its operation scantly resembles the actual
> practice.
No, actually, I don't care much. Nor do I really pay much attention to the
"Quote of the Month" nominations or other such things. For one thing, there
have been far too many QOTM nominations in both categories lately, and most
haven't been particularly noteworthy. The whole thing has become rather
meaningless, IMO. I'll vote or second or whatever if something strikes me as
particularly apt, but I don't need to have someone officially "twitted" to
justify my decision to killfile them, nor does something someone said need
to be placed in some hall of fame or shame to prove that it was either
insightful enough or clueless enough to merit some special recognition.
They're all just diversions that have little to do with the real purpose of
the group, or why most of us are here. For that matter, why are you here?
>
> You're achieving my purpose, one way or another.
And what purpose would that be? (Other than to start yet another Thread That
Will Not Die, that is. <G>)
Jeff Young
> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<7Az68.184389$_w.287...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
> > On the basis of my observation of how atheists *appear* to use their
> > twit-list, I decided to investigate its past--made possible by the newly
> > comprehensive nature of the Google Usenet archive.
> Does anyone really give
> a flying fuck what he thinks about anything?
Yes.
Good job of threshing the hypocrites out Tichy! Keep it up. I for
one am reading this entire thread.
Jeff
Jeff Young
> "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2l678.196497$_w.31...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Dave Holloway" <silen...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> > news:b8so5uc05ddjrtv34...@4ax.com...
>
> >
> > > It's kind of like
> > > the EAC -- which, mind you, does not exist. We're not trying to build
> > > an "atheist culture" here on the newsgroup, we're just out to have a
> > > little fun. Apparently, you're the only one who fails to see that.
> >
> > It does't matter whether you're trying to do it or not. It's happening.
> > Self-proclaimed atheists have grouped together here for conversation (&
> > laughs) and what you do both represents atheism & constitutes a culture.
> > The constituents of capitalistic cultures probably think they're just
> trying
> > to make a buck.
> >
>
> Except that atheism isn't the act of "trying to make" anything,
Irrelevant. Atheists are not _prevented_ from getting together into a
group and "trying to make" something. And golly gosh, we even seem to
have an example: alt.atheism. And in particular the alt.atheism twit
list.
Once again you are refuted and remain the refuted, mendacious, and
totally discredited old fool of alt.atheism.
Jeff
Tichy
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 07:53:26 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Holloway" <silen...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> >news:07to5usjej704qhjr...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 19:52:59 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Up to you whether being truthful & having integrity is worth your
time,
> >or
> >> >not.
> >> >I'm not going to force it on you. That's beyond my ability, afaics.
> >> >
> >>
> >> If one stakes one's reputation for truthfulness and integrity on the
> >> consistent and democratic maintenance of a running joke, then one has
> >> even less of a life than you do.
> >
> >I don't believe in the legitimacy of "compartmentalizing" different areas
of
> >life when it comes to measuring character.
> >
> >Do you?
>
> If I believed that in the sense that you purport to believe it, then I
> would have no choice but to believe, based on your participation in
> this newsgroup, that you are a complete and total failure as a human
> being.
On the basis of what? Or is this just another bald assertion which might be
taken as a sampling of your overall character?
>
>
> >Therion's failure (imo) is simply in permitting an inaccurate description
of
> >the twitlist to exist--for a substantial period of time.
> >The description doesn't fit, and contributes to an insidious lie
perpetrated
> >against those on the list.
>
> Negative. Saying that there was no Holocaust when millions upon
> millions of people died is an insiduous lie.
Bzzt.
Fallacy of special pleading (evidently).
Saying that there must be
> a nomination and three seconds to officially recognize a given person
> as a "twit" is having a sense of humor.
lol
Apparently lying is yet another way some atheists express their senses of
humor:
"You'll only be elected to the office of twit if five regular members of
alt.atheism second the nomination."
http://www.twitlist.co.uk/aatwit.html
Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about, Dave?