Uncle Davey's Big Christmas Sienkiewicz-related Bonanza Giveaway.
Uncle Davey
Roll up for the chance to win one of three fabulous prizes in the great
David Sienkiewicz reality proving contest!
This is open to Horn and Harvest dancer, or anyone else such as Dr John
Wilkins, Dr Day and others who had email correspondence with this
alledged person prior to their alledged death, and also to any other
enterprising individuals who would like to win something of value in
addition to kudos by exercising their investigative skills.
The rules are, that the proof that Sienkiewicz existed as an individual
must be documentary, unforgeable, and unambiguous. It must be provided
in this thread, and prior to midnight your local time at the end of
this year, ie 31st December 2006. If it is something which could have
been forged electronically then the original should be forwarded to me
at a mailing address I will give privately to the poster in e-mail. In
the event that more than one piece of qualifying evidence is posted by
more than one person there will be a second prize. For each individual
piece of evidence, only the person posting it first will qualify, and
there will be up to three prizes if three separate pieces of qualifying
evidence are given.
Remember for each of the pieces of evidence, only the first to post it
here will qualify, unless they fail to send it my mail if reasonably
requested, in which case the second person to pst it willbe given the
chance. However the first, second and third prizes will not be decided
chronologically, but by the quality of the evidence. The extent to
which it proves beyond all doubt that this person was bona fide.
Each individual, or household, may only receive one prize.
If no adequate evidence appears, then there will not be any prizes.
All prizes will be given in the first two weeks of January, 2007.
First prize:
Eighty US dollars worth of purchases from any website which accepts
credit cards on a secure interface. You will give me the address to
send the prize to, and let me know the goods you choose and the link to
the site ofering them. If I am not sure that the CC interface is safe,
I have the right to ask you to choose an alternative, until a credible
site is selected. For the avoidance of doubt, known sites and reputable
ones such as Amazon are definitely ok, the sorts of ones that spam
dodgy and illegal goods are definitely not, neither are illegal goods
or pornography acceptable as prizes. The cost of postage and packing
must be included, and if the amount is less than the full prize value
then the "change" will be forfeited, any taxation on the prize in the
prizewinner's jurisdiction is the responsibility of the prizewinner.
Second prize:
Conditions as above, but for fifty dollars.
Third prize:
Conditions as above, but for thirty dollars.
Alternative to goods:
Any prizewinner, if there are any, may elect to have the prize money
paid to a charity of their choice as long as that charity has a secure
internet payment mechanism. In this case I do not need a mailing
address from the prizewinner. The sending of the money to the charity
will contain the name of the prizewinner as the donor if they wish, as
long as the name they give is decent.
My decisions as to the awarding of prizes will be in the first 3 days
of January, and are final.
Entry to the competition, and any posts made to this thread, imply
acceptance of these rules.
Best regards,
Uncle Davey
John Wilkins
> Oyez! oyez! oyez!
>
> Roll up for the chance to win one of three fabulous prizes in the great
> David Sienkiewicz reality proving contest!
>
> This is open to Horn and Harvest dancer, or anyone else such as Dr John
> Wilkins, Dr Day and others who had email correspondence with this
> alledged person prior to their alledged death, and also to any other
> enterprising individuals who would like to win something of value in
> addition to kudos by exercising their investigative skills.
..
Get a life, David.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Dan Luke
Mark K. Bilbo
> Oyez! oyez! oyez!
>
> Roll up for the chance to win one of three fabulous prizes in the great
> David Sienkiewicz reality proving contest!
Oh shut the fuck up you loon.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential of this kind
of world:.... a world in which oil reserves are controlled
by radicals in order to extract blackmail from the West..."
-George Bush
Wait... oil reserves?
Matt Silberstein
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) in
<1hpzwcr.1kte2c44c27oiN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Uncle Davey <jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Oyez! oyez! oyez!
>>
>> Roll up for the chance to win one of three fabulous prizes in the great
>> David Sienkiewicz reality proving contest!
>>
>> This is open to Horn and Harvest dancer, or anyone else such as Dr John
>> Wilkins, Dr Day and others who had email correspondence with this
>> alledged person prior to their alledged death, and also to any other
>> enterprising individuals who would like to win something of value in
>> addition to kudos by exercising their investigative skills.
>..
>
>Get a life, David.
Did Sienkiewicz die? I remember that he was sick, but I think I missed
that he died. How sad.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Harvest Dancer
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:44:34 +1000, in alt.atheism ,
> j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) in
> <1hpzwcr.1kte2c44c27oiN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >Uncle Davey <jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Oyez! oyez! oyez!
> >>
> >> Roll up for the chance to win one of three fabulous prizes in the great
> >> David Sienkiewicz reality proving contest!
> >>
> >> This is open to Horn and Harvest dancer, or anyone else such as Dr John
> >> Wilkins, Dr Day and others who had email correspondence with this
> >> alledged person prior to their alledged death, and also to any other
> >> enterprising individuals who would like to win something of value in
> >> addition to kudos by exercising their investigative skills.
> >..
> >
> >Get a life, David.
>
> Did Sienkiewicz die? I remember that he was sick, but I think I missed
> that he died. How sad.
About a year ago. He stopped posting a few months before as his health
was failing. Since then a particularly sick-minded creep has been
taking advantage of his absense to try to tarnish his name.
Jason Harvestdancer
chris.li...@gmail.com
Uncle Davey wrote:
> Oyez! oyez! oyez!
>
> Roll up for the chance to win one of three fabulous prizes in the great
> David Sienkiewicz reality proving contest!
>
You are a pathetic obscenity.
I miss David. With this post of yours, you move me firmly into the
territory of wishing it had been you, not him.
Chris
Klaus
I did not know he died either, though like Harvestdancer, I knew he was ill.
I liked him.
Klaus
David Iain Greig
> Oyez! oyez! oyez!
First you're going to apologize for this, then you're going
to never do it again.
Do you understand?
--D.
--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
Glenn
Sienkiewicz and Adam Warlock have both posted from the same IP address.
Horn, SonOfFred, Carson West, Ultramaroon have all posted from the same
IP address.
Adam Warlock has posted under *many* different aliases, as has Horn.
Both Horn and Sienkiewicz has posted from many different IP addresses.
Many posters have claimed to see marked similarity in their style,
mannerisms, and so forth, as well as having been seen to be caught "red
handed" in sockpuppetry.
All these posters either deny or make it a point of not admitting they
are sockpuppets.
Both Horn and Sienkiewicz have intimidated other newsgroup posters,
with veiled threats of legal and physical harm.
Sockpuppets and meatpuppets?
I wonder how a "civilized" person would impose a sentence of "sick
minded creeps" on those who have cause to believe the truth is not
being told, concerning someone who is claimed to be dead by those he
doesn't believe tells the truth and is deceptive. I must have not seen
in the rule book where I'm not allowed to doubt the word of opponents,
despite having hard evidence that the opponents either lack the
evidence or are not willing to provide evidence. Were I one who had
been intimidated with threats and inclusion of private information
about myself, I'd be concerened and I think have the right to know the
truth, and that would require evidence. If you want Sienkiewicz' name
not to be bantered about, and if he is truly dead, then you owe it to
him to provide your evidence. Because Sienkiewicz has intimidated and
threatened Davey and others, and they *do* have the right to know
whether he is no longer with us, or if he is one of the posters who
continues to intimidate and threaten them. Or don't you think Davey and
any others who have been intimidated and threatened deserve anything,
because they are "creeps" in your mind, who might happen to participate
in the same games Sienkiewicz and Horn have played?
Frankly, I think you're a stinky piece of shit for thinking you can
just claim to have communicated with Sienkiewicz before he died and
expect anyone to believe that he was a real person and not "Horn", and
try to make anyone who has the integrity to doubt your word into a
monster.
I'll be curious to see how many t.o. posters think invoking "he's dead"
is somehow above challenge and why anyone who does challenge is beyond
repoach.
Matt Silberstein
<harves...@hotmail.com> in
<1165511367.1...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> wrote:
UD is a moral leper and I have avoided touching him. David was a good
man.
chris.li...@gmail.com
If you really believe that, does that somehow make it OK for UD to come
to a place, even a virtual place, where David was liked and respected,
and spew out this pseudo-carnival bullshit? If you want information,
as you claim, there are ways to go about it. As a matter of fact, death
records are public records, and a Google search should turn up quite a
bit about a deceased person. Despite what you think, no one owes you or
UD that information. If you want it, go look it up. If you find that
Dave Horn and David were one and the same, crow about it. But don't be
surprised if, when you defend UD's sickening and sick behavior, people
just tell you to piss off. You're not worthy to sniff David's farts,
and UD is an order of magnitude worse than you.
Chris
Glenn
after he claimed a "pretty flagrant case of false advertising", of
illegality and acted to prosecute outside the newsgroups, later being
informed he was wrong. Is this "he's dead" another "flagrant case",
Matt? Should someone need to write to some company to find out, before
apology is considered?
Unless you are claiming that you knew Sienkiewicz personally and know
for a fact that he was a real person who died and can not be a retired
Horn puppet, you are judging his character based on his behavior in the
newsgroups. I hold a different opinion on his having been a good man.
But your opinion doesn''t entitle you to regard me as a "moral leper",
and surely doesn't give you the right to call Davey one, who has been
intimidated and even had his personal security threatened, and
continues to be intimidated by a poster he considers to be a sockpuppet
as the same person. Davey has good reason to suspect that person isn't
dead, and he has every right to try to determine the truth of whether
Sienkiewicz is really dead. All you jerks who think Davey is scum don't
get to think he isn't entitled to defend himself.
Unless there is evidence that a "David Sienkiewicz" or "Sienkiewicz HD"
was ever a real person, I'm not going to place any weight on his
supporters that he was real, and will assume that this is all a well
constructed con game. I *have* attempted to determine whether
Sienkiewicz was a real person, and found not one record evidencing his
existence in the real world as "Sienkiewicz".
Glenn
Yes, I think it's OK for people to come to t.o. and "spew" just about
anything. That you happen to violently disagree with a poster's beliefs
does not entitle you to ban them from speaking.
>If you want information,
> as you claim, there are ways to go about it. As a matter of fact, death
> records are public records, and a Google search should turn up quite a
> bit about a deceased person. Despite what you think, no one owes you or
> UD that information. If you want it, go look it up.
You assume that I haven't attempted that? You'd be wrong, and you'd be
wrong to think that Davey hasn't used valid reasoning to come to the
suspicion that "Sienkiewicz" is "Horn".
>If you find that
> Dave Horn and David were one and the same, crow about it.
I'm posting it, but that doesn't equate to "crowing about it". Horn has
literally dozens of sockpuppets he has not confessed to and denies in
one fashion or another, and many posters have recognized this fact
throughout the years. And about the only hard fact in this whole thing
is that Horn and Sienkiewicz have both posted under the same IP
address, as have other sockpuppets known to be or suspected of being
(for good reasons) either Horn or Sienkiewicz. I'd say that is at least
equal to the weight of evidence Sienkiewicz had when he claimed clear
evidence that Gastrich had committed an illegal act, and acted on that
outside the newsgroups.
>But don't be
> surprised if, when you defend UD's sickening and sick behavior, people
> just tell you to piss off. You're not worthy to sniff David's farts,
> and UD is an order of magnitude worse than you.
>
Now you might think using words like "farts" is somehow persuasive or
evidentiary, but I don't. And you should really learn to read and
comprehend, what actually occurs from your fantasy world. I'm not
providing Davey with a "blanket" defense of every single thing he might
have said or done. That's your department.
Susan S
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com>:
You are a ugly, demented, slime-spouting cockroach. You are also the
only person in the NG I have ever actually insulted as a person, since
it is generally considered Very Bad Form to do so. But your capacity for
nastiness is apparently limitless and immune to reason.
You usually come back later and apologize with "I acted in an
un-Christian manner and it won't happen again" platitudes. And it
doesn't, until the next time.
Most jerks around here are somewhat amusing. You are vile.
Susan Silberstein
"A watched pot always boils." Data, ST:TNG
Friar Broccoli
Uncle Davey wrote:
> Oyez! oyez! oyez!
>
> Roll up for the chance to win one of three fabulous prizes in the great
> David Sienkiewicz reality proving contest!
Note on his health (Sun, Sep 12 2004 4:36 pm):
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c1346c5b57dee8f7
Last post to TO (Oct 22 2004 1:36 pm)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3bdcd0414aff1417
Ghod
news:1165522809.2...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Dumbass. He apologized for making a mistake, not for being wrong
about the asshole in general.
[snip]
> But your opinion doesn''t entitle you to regard me as a "moral
leper",
> and surely doesn't give you the right to call Davey one, who has
been
> intimidated and even had his personal security threatened, and
> continues to be intimidated by a poster he considers to be a
sockpuppet
> as the same person. Davey has good reason to suspect that person
isn't
> dead, and he has every right to try to determine the truth of
whether
> Sienkiewicz is really dead. All you jerks who think Davey is scum
don't
> get to think he isn't entitled to defend himself.
[snip]
How about that, Davey has a fan. For you to defend the turd, you must
have a screw loose.
Richard Clayton
[snip]
You, sir, are a deranged vulture.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon
Glenn
Friar Broccoli wrote:
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > Oyez! oyez! oyez!
> >
> > Roll up for the chance to win one of three fabulous prizes in the great
> > David Sienkiewicz reality proving contest!
>
> Note on his health (Sun, Sep 12 2004 4:36 pm):
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c1346c5b57dee8f7
"X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.105.119.142"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/583c58f8998d0dad?dmode=source&hl=en
"X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.105.119.142"
>
> Last post to TO (Oct 22 2004 1:36 pm)
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3bdcd0414aff1417
"X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.105.112.104"
Last post found in google under that email addrress:
2 Dec 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/msg/fa046075dc913e03?dmode=source&hl=en
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.179.81.130
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?ip=210.179.81.130
Korea?
Horn seemed not to be posting around that time, and well into 2005. But
names his IP address has been pegged to have, like "Ultramaroon". I
haven't dug very deep into these different email addresses and the many
different or slightly different IP addresses he has posted under, but I
don't think that is necessary. I have documented Horn Carson West,
Ultramaroon, Adam Warlock as posting from similar IPs from the
immediate area. If a post from Horn were not found to have originated
from 68.105.112.104 it would probably have been a miracle.
Interestingly, no post under Horn's Southern California posts are
recorded in google when his other nyms have been posting in other areas
of the world. Anyone can show me wrong on that I would appreciate the
evidence.
Glenn
Ghod wrote:
snip
>
> Dumbass. He apologized for making a mistake, not for being wrong
> about the asshole in general.
>
should have, and barged right out of the newsgroups to the real world
to try to prosecute Davey. He apologized after he got caught, and not
because he thought he was wrong in the first place. Yet Sienkiewicz
always expected that others get their eggs all in one basket before
challenging *him*.
>
snip
>
> How about that, Davey has a fan. For you to defend the turd, you must
> have a screw loose.
Yes, I suppose you would think anyone that defends who you think is a
"turd", or who really does defend a turd, must be a turd himself.
That's par for the course.
You're all atheists, aren't you, "Ghod". Let me know when you take over
the majority. "In general", that is.
Glenn
Richard Clayton wrote:
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> You, sir, are a deranged vulture.
> --
vultures should expect the same treatment that their accusers do of
him, in terms of evidence, especially when it comes to issues taken out
of the newsgroup and into the legal world. You better have had your
eggs in one basket had you called people I am involved with informing
them of illegalities or *anything*, intimidating and threatening to
seek me out personally, and other such nonsense. All that combined
constitutes harassment and stalking, in my opinion, or worse. I'll keep
you in mind when I am considering what a "deranged vulture" looks like.
And I sure wouldn't just believe what a few moronic atheists that
either sit around in neutrality while this shit goes on, or supports
the ones that engage in this behavior, about one of them dying and not
morphing into another alias on the newsgroups, who plays the same game
of intimidation and action.
>From the *evidence* I have collected, anyone who disagrees has a hell
of a lot of explaining to do. I haven't been able to collate this
"Horn" complex of sockpuppets to any other scenario than them all being
one and the same, including the character called "Sienkiewicz". The
simple story that all these people know or knew each other, perhaps
related, and visited each others homes and used their computers at
various times does not even jive with the evidence. It would fail to
explain posting habits, history and incidences of posts and posting
locations, it just doesn't make a plausible story. Not that I am
claiming unconditional belief, but that there is a lot of evidence
suggesting that "Sienkiewicz" survives. And that makes perfect sense,
in light of the evidence. No one has yet to come forward with any
substantive evidence, and only to date with some half-assed attempt to
claim they "heard from him" before he passed on.
Friar Broccoli
I am extremely uncertain what is going on here, but if understand
correctly somebody is suggesting that David Horn and David Sienkiewicz
are the same person. The following is a link to a conversation between
the two of them:
chris.li...@gmail.com
If you believe that, then you reveal yourself to be unsocialized and
uncivilized. Whether I disagree with UD on this is irrelevant, but you
*alway* attempt to switch a discussion toward irrelevancies. I
violently disagree with the _manner_ in which he presented his view. If
he had come and posted his thoughts without this repulsive dreck,
people (including me) would have been a little more receptive, and
certainly a lot more polite. As it is, I hope DIG has banned the SOB,
and I don't care if he apologizes or not. An apology offered under
duress has no meaning.
>
> >If you want information,
> > as you claim, there are ways to go about it. As a matter of fact, death
> > records are public records, and a Google search should turn up quite a
> > bit about a deceased person. Despite what you think, no one owes you or
> > UD that information. If you want it, go look it up.
>
> You assume that I haven't attempted that? You'd be wrong, and you'd be
> wrong to think that Davey hasn't used valid reasoning to come to the
> suspicion that "Sienkiewicz" is "Horn".
It's assumed because no mention is made of any attempt on those lines.
I know you accept dowsing; are you also under the impression that t.o.
readers can glean this information from some sort of aura that comes
over Usenet?
>
> >If you find that
> > Dave Horn and David were one and the same, crow about it.
>
> I'm posting it, but that doesn't equate to "crowing about it". Horn has
And I didn't say you were. Read for comprehension.
> literally dozens of sockpuppets he has not confessed to and denies in
> one fashion or another, and many posters have recognized this fact
> throughout the years. And about the only hard fact in this whole thing
> is that Horn and Sienkiewicz have both posted under the same IP
> address, as have other sockpuppets known to be or suspected of being
> (for good reasons) either Horn or Sienkiewicz. I'd say that is at least
> equal to the weight of evidence Sienkiewicz had when he claimed clear
> evidence that Gastrich had committed an illegal act, and acted on that
> outside the newsgroups.
Since I am not aware of David's action against Gastrich, I cannot
comment. I didn't see any of those posts.
>
> >But don't be
> > surprised if, when you defend UD's sickening and sick behavior, people
> > just tell you to piss off. You're not worthy to sniff David's farts,
> > and UD is an order of magnitude worse than you.
> >
> Now you might think using words like "farts" is somehow persuasive or
> evidentiary, but I don't.
Neither do I. Nor did I offer it as evidence of anything.
> And you should really learn to read and
> comprehend, what actually occurs from your fantasy world. I'm not
> providing Davey with a "blanket" defense of every single thing he might
> have said or done. That's your department.
My fantasy world- that's rather amusing, since you're the one drawing
conclusions that are completely unwarranted. Where did I accuse you of
offering UD a blanket defense? I'm not the one who read "farts" as
evidence. You are, however, in this instance, defending a maggot.
Whether he's right or not is virtually immaterial at this point. His
demeanor has convicted him.
Chris
Harvest Dancer
Glenn wrote:
> Ghod wrote:
> > How about that, Davey has a fan. For you to defend the turd, you must
> > have a screw loose.
>
> Yes, I suppose you would think anyone that defends who you think is a
> "turd", or who really does defend a turd, must be a turd himself.
> That's par for the course.
>
> You're all atheists, aren't you, "Ghod". Let me know when you take over
> the majority. "In general", that is.
Now there's an accusation from nowhere. It's funny how many theists on
talk.origins are accused of being atheists.
By the way, he didn't say that those who defend turds are turds, he
said that those who defend turds have a screw loose.
Jason Harvestdancer
Glenn
Both posters IPs come from the same city, San Diego. It's clear that
they are posting to themselves (hell, even over themselves more than
once) in agreement. Horn has claimed at times that he has many
computers, and more than one way to access to the internet. His heades
bear that out. But they have both posted from the same IP address on
occasion. I don't think you can even use this as evidence at all that
they are separate people. They were *clearly* sockpuppets, or
"meatpuppets", as Horn is so willing to accuse others of, in the above
thread.
Let's see if I can think like Horn and Sienkiewicz. Yes, I am familiar
with their method of determining the identity of posters. Let's see;
two posters that have posted under various aliases, with the same IPs
and different IPs at different times. None have been found to be placed
at the same time in different parts of the country or world. They agree
with eachother, and post to eachother, in a common goal and style.
Are you aware of my recent posts to free.christians, and the couple
crossposted to talk.origins, providing the background for this
evidence? Horn goes back a long way. One of his socks has posted under
perhaps hundreds of aliases. Some confirmed, others without IP, but
with the same email address. Several posters on several occasions have
recognized this sockpuppetry, without IP address knowledge. I found one
thread where Horn gives himself away, as "Becky" and tries
unconvincingly to show that it was an accident. This guy is a treasure
trove of deception and lies. And it appears for all the world to me
that Sienkiewicz became uncomfortable to Horn, and he decided to retire
the alias, and concocted the scheme that he had died. I had been on to
him, as had Davey, for some time. His latest and greatest failure to be
careful, though, had started around the time "Sienkiewicz" was to have
died, when
"Ultramaroon" appeared, soon followed by others such as "Carson West"
and "Adam Warlock", and eventually, "Horn" was woven back into the
timeline. It appears he is "WarriorScribe" on Wiki. With the exception
of WarriorScribe, who I have not seen headers from, all shared the same
IP address on quite a few occasions.
Glenn
chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
>
> It's assumed because no mention is made of any attempt on those lines.
> I know you accept dowsing; are you also under the impression that t.o.
> readers can glean this information from some sort of aura that comes
> over Usenet?
>
where the other stands, or at least I do with you. Yes, you are aware
of my position on dowsing, and
to associate that with "some sort of aura" shows you to be a deceptive
liar.
My views on dowsing are clear, and *do not and never did* involve
claims of paranormal or supernatural powers. You've brought this up
several times now, and I have corrected you more than once.
If I thought you were worth the bother, I'd pull some posts so people
could see what you know, and expose you for the liar you are. But you
aren't.
You're just a snot nose punk who got hurt by something I said, and you
haven't got over it, so you do whatever it takes to damage my
credibility.
snip
Glenn
I said that I supposed he would think of me as a turd. I didn't say
that he claimed I was a turd. I've read about as many posts from you
now that you have made "errors" like this in. But they aren't errors,
and you aren't simply correcting me, are you. "Ghod" has felt
predisposed to use that expression "have a screw loose" for some time.
But maybe he thinks Davey doesn't have a screw loose, that he's just
"evil".
And I'll leave it up to me to determine whether Ghod is an atheist, not
you. You might have noticed as well that you snipped the part where he
called me a "dumbass" and Davey an asshole. Do you think that dumb
people necessarily have screws loose, and that turds are assholes,
"Harvestdancer"? What does your dictionary say on that issue, eh. You
are always such the stickler for perfection. I'm waiting for your
"oration" on the uses of these words.
Uncle Davey
On 7 Gru, 21:01, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > Harvest Dancer wrote:
> > > Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:44:34 +1000, in alt.atheism ,
> > > > j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) in
> > > > <1hpzwcr.1kte2c44c27oiN%j.wilki...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > repoach.If you really believe that, does that somehow make it OK for UD to come
> to a place, even a virtual place, where David was liked and respected,
> and spew out this pseudo-carnival bullshit? If you want information,
> as you claim, there are ways to go about it. As a matter of fact, death
> records are public records, and a Google search should turn up quite a
> bit about a deceased person. Despite what you think, no one owes you or
> UD that information.
I didn't say they did. That's precisely why I'm offering valuable
prizes for anyone who cares to take the trouble to gain this info,
because I haven't ben able to find it. I never said anyone owes me the
info. I would either have asked for it as a favour, as a sporting
challenge or as a competition with prizes in, which can, if you so
wish, be commuted to gifts in your name to the charity of your choice.
> If you want it, go look it up. If you find that
> Dave Horn and David were one and the same, crow about it. But don't be
> surprised if, when you defend UD's sickening and sick behavior, people
> just tell you to piss off.
Thank you for that admission. Of course it is not surprising, but is
always a welcome confirmation of the zero intellectual integrity of
your camp. You simply do not care whether one of your number socks or
not, even when he's been manipulating people on your side also by the
use of multiple personalities. he tried to do this to Aaron Clausen one
time, to Dr Day, who is conspicuous by his absence in rushing to Horn's
defence, which is a good sign in my opinion, and he did it to
Harvestdancer, who may or may not care about it, as I haven't read his
response yet, if there is one, to teh direct question I asked him about
that, yesterday.
> You're not worthy to sniff David's farts,
Not so much not worthy, as physically not equipped. A physically
existent human being is not biologically equipped to smell the farts of
a fictional character. I understand science is working on that, but you
t.o. people would be more privy to that information than I am.
> and UD is an order of magnitude worse than you.
I'm so crushed by that remark like you would not imagine ;-)
Uncle Davey
Mark K. Bilbo
Didn't take long for you to revert to type did it?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due
to the absence, from Jerusalem, of a lunatic asylum.
-Havelock Ellis
Uncle Davey
On 7 Gru, 19:05, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> Uncle Davey <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oyez! oyez! oyez!First you're going to apologize for this, then you're going
> to never do it again.
>
> Do you understand?
>
> --D.
Or else what? Curtailment of my free speech on t.o.?
If you are thinking of destroying your group's credibility as a place
where evidence can be discussed in a scientific way without
emotion, then that would be the way to go.
However, if proper scientific evidence about his existence as a
separate person is forthcoming, then you are still wrong, because in
that case I will first pay out the prizes, second apologize, and
thirdly never do it again.
If not, ie, if no evidenc eis forthcoming, then of course I will not
apologise, and of course I will do it again.
For as long as it takes. If Horn publicly owns up to his deed, then
naturally I will stop the same day.
And if, as moderator of t.o., you choose to ban me over this, then I
will discredit the group as a place where evidence on issues is
actually handled with objectivity and a scientific, skeptical frame of
mind. I will use the entire resources of the internet at my disposal to
publicise the fact of my being banned over questioning the existence of
a sockpuppet who happened to be your best shot at believers, and who
all your skeptic, evidence-loving members supported as being a person
when there was not a thread of evidence of that being the case, if that
is what you choose to do.
If you people are going to be skeptic rationalists about some things,
but not about others, then you are just pleasing yourselves. But then,
we already knew that.
Have I made myself clear enough?
Davey
Richard Clayton
I did too, and I miss his posts.
There are several posters to t.o whom I'd love to meet in person, and
he was one of them. I regret that I never had a chance.
Stuart
Uncle Davey wrote:
> On 7 Gru, 19:05, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> > Uncle Davey <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oyez! oyez! oyez!First you're going to apologize for this, then you're going
> > to never do it again.
> >
> > Do you understand?
> >
> > --D.
>
> Or else what? Curtailment of my free speech on t.o.?
>
> If you are thinking of destroying your group's credibility as a place
> where evidence can be discussed in a scientific way without
> emotion, then that would be the way to go.
You actually think cutting you off reflects on t.o's credibility?
My, but you are a loon.
Stuart
Glenn
credibility.
For example, if the Moderator banned posters for criticism of
evolutionary theory, that would clearly be a reflection on the
integrity of the group. I'd extend that to criticism of any topic.
Either this group is moderated for content, or it is not. Banning for
violations of Usenet netiquette, illegal acts, violations of
crossposting and such are exceptions to this rule. If the group can and
is moderated for content, when posters are banned for disagreeing with
other posters, the group becomes no better than an exclusive club
enjoying whatever restraint of opposing viewpoints or beliefs the group
sees fit to supress.
If you think that Davey is only posting to be rude and cast aspersions
on the reputation of a deceased individual, then I would agree that
would go beyond criticism of a subject, and constitute grounds for
improper conduct, which would not reflect badly on the group's
credibility. In my view, it would result in just the opposite.
However, no one has offered Davey evidence that Sienkiewicz was a real
person now deceased. Obviously it is possible that a nymshifter could
easily claim one of his socks had died, and use that as leverage with
other's who would react with disgust at any attempt to show that they
were both the same poster, thereby providing the shifter an appearance
of respectibility, and the accuser in disrespect.
Davey has tried to determine whether Sienkiewicz was a real person, as
have I. Horn denies it, but offers no support other than his word. A
few others have claimed to have "communicated with him" or received
email from him before he died. The claim as it is *allowed to stand* is
only evidence of a claim, nothing more. Sienkiewicz himself posted to
public newsgroups before that name ceased to be used in the groups. And
Davey has claimed to have gone to some lengths to find out one way or
the other. A search of the Internet will return claims of those
attempts. I have done the same, more than once over a period of three
years. What Davey and I have found is no evidence that he was ever a
real person, and evidence that he was a sockpuppet of the poster widely
known as "Dave Horn".
But what is important, and what makes this more than an issue of
catching sockpuppets, is that Horn still posts, and whoever he really
is, is a real poster that behaves in a similar manner as Sienkiewicz
did, intimidating, harassing and threatening real people in real life.
This behavior has been condemned by the Moderator of this group; "if
you can't keep it here, you can't stay". And this is relevant to
Davey's attempt to find out, whether the "Sienkiewicz" that spoke of
coming to see Davey in Poland, that referred to his family, outright
claimed that he might show up when Davey didn't expect him, trying any
tactic he could think of to find out more personal information, is the
same poster known as "Horn", who continues to intentionally create the
appearance that it isn't important for posters to know who he is, but
important for him to know (and threaten, and actually claim to act
against in real life) who other poster's identities are. The worst
thing about this all is that no one, including Horn, is willing to
provide evidence. This appears *intentional*, which further complicates
the issue.
And here's a bigger problem. Various posters have recognized a
similarity in "Horn" personas for years. I've documented some recently,
as well as exposing various posters as being connected to the same IP
addresses and email addresses. When an IP identifies an assignment of a
specific account, posters sharing that address are associated. Now they
may all just be sharing the same computer, or router, or account. When
everything is taken into account, the same address and other
similarities, denials of knowing other aliases, aliases agreeing with
one another, changing stories, and more...all this combined makes a
fairly persuasive argument IMO that they are all the same poster.
Perhaps you think this is very unusual for someone who accepts and
defends evolutionary theory, and perhaps it is unusual, but not beyond
possibility. Horn is confirmed to be "SonOfFred", "Carson West",
"Ultramaroon" by IP addresses, and he denies having these socks. He
denies being Sienkiewicz, yet he, Sinkiewicz, Anastasia, Adam Warlock
have all shared the same IP address. One of his socks in late October
posted with the same IP address that only Sienkiewicz had posted with,
and a "usmc.mil" address at that, some months after Sienkiewicz was
supposed to have died.
The females, "Becky" and "Anastasia" had both been careful to
distinguish personalities from Horn, by putting "Dr" or "Mr" in front
of everyones name they referred. Horn appeared to not know who "Becky"
was when he posted under "Becky" himself, and tried to correct it.
Horn has claimed or allowed to stand all manner of boasts about his
qualifications and abilities. The Moderator was posting at that time,
in 1999. It appears that he, Elsberry, perhaps Moran and others were
aware of his identity. Horn is a well known poster here, as was
Sienkiewicz, and I have little doubt that more than a few posters are
familiar with the charge that they are sockpuppets. Had any of these
posters evidence that Sienkiewicz was a real person *separate* from
Horn, to not speak up, to me, makes them willing bystanders in this
shifter's intimidating, threatening, dangerous behavior. And treating
Davey like he doesn't deserve to try to find out is what it *really*
disgusting here. It's apparently easy to condemn Davey for speaking ill
of the dead, though.
Uncle Davey
On 9 Gru, 00:16, "Glenn" <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> Stuart wrote:
> > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > > On 7 Gru, 19:05, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> > > > Uncle Davey <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Oyez! oyez! oyez!First you're going to apologize for this, then you're going
> > > > to never do it again.
>
> > > > Do you understand?
>
> > > > --D.
>
> > > Or else what? Curtailment of my free speech on t.o.?
>
> > > If you are thinking of destroying your group's credibility as a place
> > > where evidence can be discussed in a scientific way without
> > > emotion, then that would be the way to go.
>
> > You actually think cutting you off reflects on t.o's credibility?
>
> > My, but you are a loon.What the Moderator does in that capacity does reflect on the group's
> of the dead, though.- Ukryj cytowany tekst -- Pokaż cytowany tekst -
All true. In addition I would just say that it's in t.o.'s interests to
find an excuse to keep me out, as I have a number of unanswered
questions over there. One of them relates to the problem of monogenesis
in language and the impossibility of proving the Nostratic hypothesis,
and the other to the fact that one of the groups best specialists and
selected Goliath in the matter of the evolution of the urological
mechanisms raised more valid questions of evolution that he answered
when accounting for the rise of the kidney in vertebrates above the
hagfish. In other words, a professor, in his chosen specialist subject,
as good as admitted that vertebrate life must have come to be in
rivers, not the sea, which when you consider the odds against it is a
massive bullet to bite, and I never heard back from him on the topic
after that.
Aaron Clausen, a member in good standing there, is on record as calling
me "one of the most mischievous creationists" because I sounded more
credible than most he had dealt with before, and another time some more
honest evolutionists said they thought it should be me in charge of the
creationist movement - though I certainly wouldn't want that. That of
course is the real reason why they want rid of me, and now that this
time I have shown that they are not capable, not a single one of them,
of analysing a hypothesis that is all about evidence in an unemotional,
objective way, they have just disqualified themselves en masse from
being any authority at all about how the scientific method applies to
one's view of the origins of life.
Evolution only has any credibility at all because God designed this
life to offer choices, so that belief could be a matter of free-will
and not duress. Therefore God enabled people to be faced with various
credible alternatives. Still "my sheep hear my voice" and those called
by Jesus are not fooled by the vanity of human science, which has not
retained God in its knowledge as Paul says and therefore gone on to
honour the creation more than the Creator.
My purpose in relation to evolution is simply to show that it is not
proven, that it is a matter of faith. It is the interpretation of the
world chosen by people SUBJECTIVELY from among alternatives, either
because they are stupid, cowardly and lazy and do not want to exercise
their brains against the consensus opinion, or because they love their
sins and will not have God as their Lord, even though within their
hearts they have had more than an inkling of His existence, His
presence and His claims.
Seeking God leads to finding God. And likewise seeking reasons not to
find God results in finding them too. God even left them there for that
purpose. Seek and ye will find.
God bless,
Davey
Peter Barber
Uncle Davey wrote:
> On 7 Gru, 19:05, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> > Uncle Davey <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oyez! oyez! oyez!First you're going to apologize for this, then you're going
> > to never do it again.
> >
> > Do you understand?
> >
> > --D.
>
> Or else what? Curtailment of my free speech on t.o.?
>
> If you are thinking of destroying your group's credibility as a place
> where evidence can be discussed in a scientific way without
> emotion, then that would be the way to go.
>
> However, if proper scientific evidence about his existence as a
> separate person is forthcoming, then you are still wrong, because in
> that case I will first pay out the prizes, second apologize, and
> thirdly never do it again.
>
> If not, ie, if no evidenc eis forthcoming, then of course I will not
> apologise, and of course I will do it again.
>
> For as long as it takes. If Horn publicly owns up to his deed, then
> naturally I will stop the same day.
>
> And if, as moderator of t.o., you choose to ban me over this, then I
> will discredit the group as a place where evidence on issues is
> actually handled with objectivity and a scientific, skeptical frame of
Would that comprise the usenet group alt.fan.uncle-davey?
Mark K. Bilbo
> On 7 Gru, 19:05, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>> Uncle Davey <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Oyez! oyez! oyez!First you're going to apologize for this, then you're going
>> to never do it again.
>>
>> Do you understand?
>>
>> --D.
>
> Or else what? Curtailment of my free speech on t.o.?
Let's get this straight for once and for all. "Free speech" means
government entities cannot censor you. It does *not* mean you have a right
to demand other private citizens give you a platform.
Usenet made up of almost all privately owned servers. Whose owners *allow
you to use space on in exchange for a fee. No one owes you access to their
private property. No one. Ever. Period.
On accessing Usenet, you voluntarily agreed to an Acceptable Use Policy
published by your provider. Most of these incorporate, whole, the FAQs,
charters, conventions, and other rules of each and every newsgroup.
By posting to t.o., you have already agreed to the rules and conventions
and already agreed that if you violate same, they can moderate you.
It's not "free speech." It's "does Uncle Dorky ever honor an agreement?"
> If you are thinking of destroying your group's credibility as a place
> where evidence can be discussed in a scientific way without
> emotion, then that would be the way to go.
Because they won't talk about your obsession with "sock puppets?"
The t.o. newsgroup wasn't set up to talk about David S., Horn, or any
other pet obsession of yours. You have t.o. confused with your "fan" group
apparently.
> However, if proper scientific evidence about his existence as a
> separate person is forthcoming, then you are still wrong, because in
> that case I will first pay out the prizes, second apologize, and
> thirdly never do it again.
>
> If not, ie, if no evidenc eis forthcoming, then of course I will not
> apologise, and of course I will do it again.
Didn't take you long to revert to type.
> For as long as it takes. If Horn publicly owns up to his deed, then
> naturally I will stop the same day.
>
> And if, as moderator of t.o., you choose to ban me over this, then I
> will discredit the group as a place where evidence on issues is
> actually handled with objectivity and a scientific, skeptical frame of
> mind. I will use the entire resources of the internet at my disposal to
> publicise the fact of my being banned over questioning the existence of
> a sockpuppet who happened to be your best shot at believers, and who
> all your skeptic, evidence-loving members supported as being a person
> when there was not a thread of evidence of that being the case, if that
> is what you choose to do.
WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
Unca Dorky is gonna "discredit" t.o.! He's a gonna use the Inturnets and,
gasp, resources!
> If you people are going to be skeptic rationalists about some things,
> but not about others, then you are just pleasing yourselves. But then,
> we already knew that.
>
> Have I made myself clear enough?
Yeah, you're finally going off the deep end. We get it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential of this kind
of world:.... a world in which oil reserves are controlled
by radicals in order to extract blackmail from the West..."
-George Bush
Wait... oil reserves?
Mark K. Bilbo
> If you think that Davey is only posting to be rude and cast aspersions
> on the reputation of a deceased individual,
Of course he is. It's what he does. It's all he does.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language
is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't
just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their
pockets for new vocabulary." -James D. Nicoll
Mark K. Bilbo
> All true. In addition I would just say that it's in t.o.'s interests to
> find an excuse to keep me out, as I have a number of unanswered
> questions over there.
Ah, so *that's your game. You're going to push things so that t.o. has to
moderate you so you can claim you're being "censored."
You're really working hard on becoming a full blown Net Kook aincha?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about
a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of
comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is
aware that they are myths and that he believes them only
because they are comforting. But he dare not face this
thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his
opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are
disputed." -Bertrand Russell
Mark K. Bilbo
He has a web site too!
(Fear him)
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Oswald Ving
news:1165597566....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> On 7 Gru, 19:05, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>> Uncle Davey <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Oyez! oyez! oyez!First you're going to apologize for this, then
>> > you're going
>> to never do it again.
>>
>> Do you understand?
>>
>> --D.
<snip>
> Have I made myself clear enough?
Yes. You're a pompous ass who threatens to impugn the credibility of others
but apparently are too stupid to realize that you must have credibility of
your own to accomplish such a feat.
Most people would run off in embarrassment after making such a dunderheaded
empty threat - when they sobered up.
Tsk.
<snip>
chris.li...@gmail.com
Glenn wrote:
> chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> snip
> >
> > It's assumed because no mention is made of any attempt on those lines.
> > I know you accept dowsing; are you also under the impression that t.o.
> > readers can glean this information from some sort of aura that comes
> > over Usenet?
> >
> I'm not going to waste my time with you, Chris. We pretty well know
Translation: "I can't rebut so I claim you're a waste of time."
> where the other stands, or at least I do with you. Yes, you are aware
> of my position on dowsing, and
> to associate that with "some sort of aura" shows you to be a deceptive
> liar.
Again, the switch to irrelevancies. You completely ignore the point of
that, which was to indicate that you never made any mention of the
efforts you supposedly made, and that it's impossible to discern those
efforts if you don't mention them.
But then, you *always* turn to irrelevancies when you can't deal with
something.
>
> My views on dowsing are clear, and *do not and never did* involve
> claims of paranormal or supernatural powers. You've brought this up
> several times now, and I have corrected you more than once.
You squirmed and hemmed and hawed, then ran. If you call that a
correction, well, go ahead. The rest of us call it just more of your
usual BS.
>
> If I thought you were worth the bother, I'd pull some posts so people
> could see what you know, and expose you for the liar you are. But you
> aren't.
See translation, above.
>
> You're just a snot nose punk who got hurt by something I said, and you
> haven't got over it, so you do whatever it takes to damage my
> credibility.
You can't hurt me. You're so lacking in several significant areas that
even dreaming about hurting me is the sign of a neurotic personality.
As for your credibility..hehe.
Chris
>
> snip
chris.li...@gmail.com
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 05:49:33 -0800, Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> > All true. In addition I would just say that it's in t.o.'s interests to
> > find an excuse to keep me out, as I have a number of unanswered
> > questions over there.
>
> Ah, so *that's your game. You're going to push things so that t.o. has to
> moderate you so you can claim you're being "censored."
>
> You're really working hard on becoming a full blown Net Kook aincha?
He has aspirations to Jabriol's status.
Chris
Richard Clayton
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:16:02 -0800, Glenn wrote:
>
>> If you think that Davey is only posting to be rude and cast aspersions
>> on the reputation of a deceased individual,
>
> Of course he is. It's what he does. It's all he does.
Also appropriate from that movie: "He can't be reasoned with!"
Glenn
credibility are acting childishly. I didn't run from my opinion of
dowsing, and I certainly did make it explicit that I didn't appeal to
some supernatural or occult force. I provided my opinion and support
for that, and is all that I can do. And I can evidence that fact. It
wouldn't matter to you, since I already have, and you just play the
same tune. That idiots like you think you can distort truth and
practice misrepresentation and deception as long as it takes before a
poster stops posting, so you can claim they "run" is ridiculous.
Bizarre, actually, for an adult, and especially bizarre for a
professional. You don't bother me at all, Chris, you're small fry, just
one more voice to the kooks that defend Horn and Sienkiewicz.
As to irrelevancies, I wonder how you justify your own behavior to be
more than that. Whatever I think of dowsing has nothing to do with the
subject at hand, "teacher". I wonder whether you actually teach your
students to believe what certain people say about other people, if they
have this thing you call "credibility". No need to check anyones work,
eh?
If Horn claims a poster to be a sock of Davey, without even benefit of
an IP address, we should believe him, because he has "credibility", but
what if someone shows that "Horn" has posted at 68.7.12.219, as well as
has "Carson West", and "Horn" has posted at 68.105.118.6 as has "Carson
West" and "SonOfFred", and "Ultramaroon" has posted with the same IP as
"Carson West", and amost all of them have posted at numerous IPs that
"Sienkiewicz", "Adam Warlock", "Anastasia" have, including "Horn". We
should believe Horn when he denies being any of these other personas,
and take his word that some of them aren't related to him or his
"netword", and other's share his network? I should imagine you would,
and think that this persona's behavior and "mission" has been a noble
one. And you likely think that this "Horn" persona doesn't engage in
irrelevancies when he make such a big deal out of exposing other's
nymshifting, playing sockpuppets and "meatpuppets", disparaging other's
religious beliefs, and intimidating and threatening posters. As I said,
I know where you stand. Your efforts consist of accusations, innuendo
and ad hominem. Mine are of the same as the above, evidentiary based.
And that includes the currently off-topic subject of dowsing. To put it
bluntly, your crap is irrelevant, and you are crap.
Glenn
Richard Clayton wrote:
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:16:02 -0800, Glenn wrote:
> >
> >> If you think that Davey is only posting to be rude and cast aspersions
> >> on the reputation of a deceased individual,
> >
> > Of course he is. It's what he does. It's all he does.
>
> Also appropriate from that movie: "He can't be reasoned with!"
> --
that "Sienkiewicz" was just a sockpuppet of "Horn"?
And why would you think that Davey isn't entitled to a reason for his
current behavior besides being "rude and to cast aspersions on the
reputation of a dead person"?
Is this all one sided? Assuming Davey has behaved badly on Usenet, how
does that somehow automatically allow a rejection of any other reason
for anything he says?
I'll have to be on Davey's side in this matter, so this is an excellent
opportunity for all you morons to excercise your condemnations and use
of ad hominems. And fantasies. It won't stop me from exposing "Horn",
and it won't erase my doubt about "Sienkiewicz", or my assumptions of
his use of other socks he denies. There are *more* of them than there
are claimed real people that have been claimed to use "Horn's" network.
And with so many different IP addresses, this "network" are different
computers on different accounts. The claim is simply, extraordinary, to
say the least, that these posters are all different people.
That "Sienkiewicz" is claimed to be a sock is simply an inference drawn
from much evidence and *reasoning*. And this *is* appropriate.
Mark K. Bilbo
>
> Richard Clayton wrote:
>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>> > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:16:02 -0800, Glenn wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you think that Davey is only posting to be rude and cast aspersions
>> >> on the reputation of a deceased individual,
>> >
>> > Of course he is. It's what he does. It's all he does.
>>
>> Also appropriate from that movie: "He can't be reasoned with!"
>> --
> What reasoning is there, Richard? What evidence outweighs the evidence
> that "Sienkiewicz" was just a sockpuppet of "Horn"?
>
> And why would you think that Davey isn't entitled to a reason for his
> current behavior besides being "rude and to cast aspersions on the
> reputation of a dead person"?
>
> Is this all one sided? Assuming Davey has behaved badly on Usenet, how
> does that somehow automatically allow a rejection of any other reason
> for anything he says?
Look, it's simple. I've seen his behavior over a long period of time. Being
rude and casting aspersions is what he's *about.
That's all this is. That's all this ever was.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H. L. Mencken
Richard Clayton
> Richard Clayton wrote:
>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:16:02 -0800, Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you think that Davey is only posting to be rude and cast aspersions
>>>> on the reputation of a deceased individual,
>>> Of course he is. It's what he does. It's all he does.
>> Also appropriate from that movie: "He can't be reasoned with!"
>> --
> What reasoning is there, Richard? What evidence outweighs the evidence
> that "Sienkiewicz" was just a sockpuppet of "Horn"?
>
> And why would you think that Davey isn't entitled to a reason for his
> current behavior besides being "rude and to cast aspersions on the
> reputation of a dead person"?
[snip]
The dead deserve a little respect, I think, and Uncle Davey's ghoulish
behavior is unbecoming. I'd also point out that the burden of proof is
traditionally on the person making the claim; all Davey has done is crow
"I say David Sienkiewicz was a sock puppet for Dave Horn and YOU CAN'T
PROVE ME WRONG!"
This behavior would be vulgar coming from anybody, even from posters
with untarnished records in talk.origins. But coming from a liar,
coward, and fraud like Uncle Davey-- a notorious sock puppeteer in his
own right-- it's downright repulsive. I'm inclined to give it no more
mental bandwidth than Gastrich's claims of supernatural gasoline refills.
But it's getting Davey talked about, which I suspect was his real goal
all along.
As to David Sienkiewicz, I had several email conversations with him,
and he always struck me as an honest and shrewd gentleman with a weather
eye for liars and frauds. If I recall correctly, he also invited me to
drop by if my business travels ever took me through his area; I wish I'd
taken him up on that. I realize that doesn't prove his objective
existence, of course, but it's unusual behavior for a fictional entity.
I've seen no conclusive evidence to persuade me that David was anything
other than a real, living person, and I'm sorry he's gone.
chris.li...@gmail.com
As usual, nothing relevant.
You are barking up the wrong tree, little poodle.
If you would spend a moment reading for comprehension (tough one for
you, I know) you would see that I never defended anything.
On the other hand, I attacked UD's sickening method of trying to gather
his information.
His style- performance art, as he's fond of calling it- is more
nauseating than ever.
It no longer even matters to me if David was real or a sock puppet.
UD's post in this thread, and your defense of it (not to mention your
lies and distortions about UD being in some sort of danger) have shown
you will sink to the lowest possible level to try to smear someone.
It hasn't worked yet, and now it will never work. We all know you for
the truly miserable lowlife you are, Glenn. Maybe someday you'll get
clean on this one, but I can't imagine how.
Chris
Glenn
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:42:13 -0800, Glenn wrote:
>
> >
> > Richard Clayton wrote:
> >> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:16:02 -0800, Glenn wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If you think that Davey is only posting to be rude and cast aspersions
> >> >> on the reputation of a deceased individual,
> >> >
> >> > Of course he is. It's what he does. It's all he does.
> >>
> >> Also appropriate from that movie: "He can't be reasoned with!"
> >> --
> > What reasoning is there, Richard? What evidence outweighs the evidence
> > that "Sienkiewicz" was just a sockpuppet of "Horn"?
> >
> > And why would you think that Davey isn't entitled to a reason for his
> > current behavior besides being "rude and to cast aspersions on the
> > reputation of a dead person"?
> >
> > Is this all one sided? Assuming Davey has behaved badly on Usenet, how
> > does that somehow automatically allow a rejection of any other reason
> > for anything he says?
>
> Look, it's simple. I've seen his behavior over a long period of time. Being
> rude and casting aspersions is what he's *about.
>
> That's all this is. That's all this ever was.
>
anyone else in that respect. I don't think he's here to be rude and
cast aspersions. I don't think that's what you are here for, or Horn is
here for. Davey may have a clear purpose depending on the subject, as
does Horn or anyone else, and be other than some image you likely have
about how a "true" Christian should act, but I don't see you
dehumanizing Horn or anyone else because of their behavior, except of
course with those you perceive as enemies. I've read quite a lot of
Davey over a long period of time as well, and I don't see his behavior
being any worse than yours or Horn's or Sinkiewicz's. He actually tries
to restore some order and civility at times, which is met with a brick
wall of resistance and further alienation. You assholes never budge an
inch, despite your various claims to "apologize" when you get caught at
something. And those apologies are accepted, but Davey's never are. I
doubt you even want him gone from Usenet, you'd lose your toy. You
*want* the opportunity to say "Oh shut the fuck up you loon." It makes
you feel "good". You clearly have a desire to denigrate Christians, and
you are quite prolific at it. You make fun of Christian belief, and
you're no one to talk about being rude and casting aspersions. That
fits you, Horn, Sienkiewicz, Harvestdancer to a "tee". And to be blind
to the fact that people see you behaving exactly the same way you claim
your enemies do, really does say something about your mental state.
In closing, I suspect you to be one of the rudest posters around,
regularly using obscene and demeaning language. So judge yourself what
*you're about*.
chris.li...@gmail.com
As usual, if there's a decent way to do something, you will manage to
chart a course 180 degrees from it.
Did it ever enter what passes for your conscience that if you come to
t.o., where people miss David, and act in this fashion, you will
automatically poison your case?
Your "performance art" this time around makes you a maggot, feasting on
the dead. And it doesn't matter if we all think maggots are needed in
an ecosystem, no one wants to be seen with one. Real maggots can't help
what they are. You on the other hand, choose to wallow in the reek.
I might have had some sympathy for you if you had posted a thoughtful
and considerate request for assistance. Now, it doesn't matter what you
discover. You're filthy, and you're never going to get clean on this
one.
Chris
(-:W H O S O E V E R:-)
I have to wonder if you will say the same thing about Dave Horn if he
is, indeed, Sienkiewicz. If he is, and you don't, why not?
Glenn
Sienkiewicz and Horn have both been shown to be liars as well, but you
are free to choose who to believe in that respect. Just know that your
casting of aspersions is no more valid to an objective observer than
mine. What is more revealing are claims which can be verified easier
than "who said what" and "whose the real liar", such as your's above
about Davey having done nothing but "crow". He has done more, and I
have done more than crow, and it's been going on for years.
You started out above with the assumption that "Sienkiewicz" was
actually a real person who died. How fortunate for your argument, eh?
And how fortunate for the puppetmaster, eh?
>
> But it's getting Davey talked about, which I suspect was his real goal
> all along.
>
> As to David Sienkiewicz, I had several email conversations with him,
> and he always struck me as an honest and shrewd gentleman with a weather
> eye for liars and frauds.
Means nothing here, and less than that with me personally, since I was
often the center of his attention, and know how honest and shrewd he
was with his dealings with me.
>If I recall correctly, he also invited me to
> drop by if my business travels ever took me through his area; I wish I'd
> taken him up on that. I realize that doesn't prove his objective
> existence, of course, but it's unusual behavior for a fictional entity.
> I've seen no conclusive evidence to persuade me that David was anything
> other than a real, living person, and I'm sorry he's gone.
> --
I'm glad that you realize that, since many people had email
conversations with "Sienkiewicz", if you regard Usenet posts to be
email. His offer was not evidence of his existence as separate from
Horn, either, nor is it evidence that someone really died.
But conclusive evidence is what Davey is trying to get. He's made the
offer, knowing that he would have been wrong these years, if evidence
was produced. I would think it would be easy to supply evidence of a
person having existed, and having died for that matter.
As to unusual behavior, that's what I thought about Sienkiewicz wanting
to drop by on Davey in Poland, then backing out, afterward claiming he
might drop in on him when Davey didn't expect him to. I understand he
did that to Ed Conrad as well, but I don't recall the specifics in that
case. Perhaps my memory fails me here. Care to elaborate on what you
remember of Sienkiewicz' participation in those affairs?
chris.li...@gmail.com
I might have had something to say, had not UD engaged in his maggoty
behavior. You've poisoned your own case.
CT
chris.li...@gmail.com
Uncle Davey wrote:
> On 7 Gru, 19:05, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> > Uncle Davey <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oyez! oyez! oyez!First you're going to apologize for this, then you're going
> > to never do it again.
> >
> > Do you understand?
> >
> > --D.
>
> Or else what? Curtailment of my free speech on t.o.?
You don't have free speech on t.o. You have restricted speech. It's
governed by the terms of use of your ISP and it's governed by the t.o.
charter, as interpreted by DIG.
>
> If you are thinking of destroying your group's credibility as a place
> where evidence can be discussed in a scientific way without
> emotion, then that would be the way to go.
Since you're not talking about creation and evolution, we're not losing
any credibility as it pertains to evidence for or against creation or
evolution, if you get banned.
>
> However, if proper scientific evidence about his existence as a
> separate person is forthcoming, then you are still wrong, because in
> that case I will first pay out the prizes, second apologize, and
> thirdly never do it again.
In that case you've posted commercial messages, and deserve to get
banned.
> If not, ie, if no evidenc eis forthcoming, then of course I will not
> apologise, and of course I will do it again.
And that sort of threat, to spam the group with your personal issues,
should be more than enough to get you banned.
>
> For as long as it takes. If Horn publicly owns up to his deed, then
> naturally I will stop the same day.
>
> And if, as moderator of t.o., you choose to ban me over this, then I
> will discredit the group as a place where evidence on issues is
> actually handled with objectivity and a scientific, skeptical frame of
> mind.
What issue? This has nothing to do with evolution. Threatening to spam
the group on an off-topic issue is certainly cause for banning.
I will use the entire resources of the internet at my disposal to
> publicise the fact of my being banned over questioning the existence of
> a sockpuppet who happened to be your best shot at believers, and who
> all your skeptic, evidence-loving members supported as being a person
> when there was not a thread of evidence of that being the case, if that
> is what you choose to do.
Aren't we the spoiled little sack of shit?
>
> If you people are going to be skeptic rationalists about some things,
> but not about others, then you are just pleasing yourselves. But then,
> we already knew that.
>
> Have I made myself clear enough?
>
> Davey
You've made it clear you are an attention-hounding, repulsive little
troll, who will stoop to using the dead to get people to react to you.
You're pathetic.
Chris
(-:W H O S O E V E R:-)
chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> I might have had something to say, had not UD engaged in his maggoty
> behavior. You've poisoned your own case.
*I've* poisoned *what* case? I have no case. In this matter, I am
merely an observer waiting to see who ends up with egg on their
face(es).
Glenn
(-:W H O S O E V E R:-) wrote:
Chris has been around a *long* time here. He knows Horn's history. The
Moderator goes back to the day of "Becky" and "Chaver" as well. And I
suspect that most of Horn's supporters (well liked here) don't care if
he was Sienkiewicz. Sienkiewicz showed up in Horn's absense, and took
up Horn's "charge", then they came together later to support eachother.
Supporters would likely just take this or any other opportunity to
continue their efforts to dehumanize opponents. This one, enabled by
Davey's posting this thread, is just another opportunity. It's been
going on as long as I've been around. It's funny to watch them. Play
their game a little, and watch them jump all over you for the same
thing they do. They truly act like unsupervised children. Every so
often they play a kind of "good cop, bad cop" or some such other game
that they think veils their characters, but they soon come right back
with avengence. One of my favorites is their game of accusing other's
of "running". By and large, here be a version of "atheists gone wild".
Chris knows that I had claimed that there was something to dowsing, and
that I had stated that I didn't know how it worked, but suspected that
it worked though manifestation of unconscious knowledge or perhaps
knowledge from the normal senses that we don't recognize but can be
used. There were very long threads on the subject, and I didn't "run"
from them. In fact, I used to be regarded as a poster who would argue
with another till the sun didn't shine. Yet Chris tries in this thread
to create the appearance that I advocated some supernatural power and
ran when challenged. It's quite amusing, a grown man, supposedly a
science teacher, playing these games for years on Usenet.
It'd be easy enough for someone to provide some evidence of some kind,
at least, even if not completely convincing evidence of the existence
of a poster who died. There are several posters who link to "Horn" and
claim knowledge of "Sienkiewicz", yet no one has ever offered anything
more than "I communicated with him before he died, so there." It's
bullshit, but that's their m.o.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Glenn wrote:
> (-:W H O S O E V E R:-) wrote:
> > chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > You're filthy, and you're never going to get clean on this
> > > one.
> >
> > I have to wonder if you will say the same thing about Dave Horn if he
> > is, indeed, Sienkiewicz. If he is, and you don't, why not?
>
> Chris has been around a *long* time here. He knows Horn's history. The
Lie number 1. I had some very brief interaction with Horn over on
Maleboge.org- it amounted to about 6 posts. I don't think I interacted
with him here more than once, if that. Glenn makes shit up as he goes
along.
> Moderator goes back to the day of "Becky" and "Chaver" as well. And I
> suspect that most of Horn's supporters (well liked here) don't care if
> he was Sienkiewicz. Sienkiewicz showed up in Horn's absense, and took
> up Horn's "charge", then they came together later to support eachother.
> Supporters would likely just take this or any other opportunity to
> continue their efforts to dehumanize opponents. This one, enabled by
> Davey's posting this thread, is just another opportunity. It's been
> going on as long as I've been around. It's funny to watch them. Play
> their game a little, and watch them jump all over you for the same
> thing they do. They truly act like unsupervised children. Every so
> often they play a kind of "good cop, bad cop" or some such other game
> that they think veils their characters, but they soon come right back
> with avengence. One of my favorites is their game of accusing other's
> of "running". By and large, here be a version of "atheists gone wild".
> Chris knows that I had claimed that there was something to dowsing, and
> that I had stated that I didn't know how it worked, but suspected that
> it worked though manifestation of unconscious knowledge or perhaps
> knowledge from the normal senses that we don't recognize but can be
> used. There were very long threads on the subject, and I didn't "run"
> from them. In fact, I used to be regarded as a poster who would argue
> with another till the sun didn't shine. Yet Chris tries in this thread
> to create the appearance that I advocated some supernatural power and
> ran when challenged.
Lis 2. Go back and read the posts, Glenn. I wrote nothing at all about
a supernatural power behind dowsing. You made that up, hoping no one
would call you on it.
And here's one for you. You were right. When we were discussing
dowsing, you never ran. You stayed on, as a matter of fact, long, long
after your references had been shown to be faulty in their methodology,
analysis, and conclusions. You even stayed in the discussion after it
was obvious you altered a quote to change the meaning! So no, you don't
run, and like Olbermann said about Bush, you never, ever change your
mind, even when everything around you changes.
It's sad, really. Why do you feel you have to be dishonest about
things?
Here's a link to that dowsing discussion, if anyone is interested:
or
> It's quite amusing, a grown man, supposedly a
> science teacher, playing these games for years on Usenet.
>
> It'd be easy enough for someone to provide some evidence of some kind,
> at least, even if not completely convincing evidence of the existence
> of a poster who died. There are several posters who link to "Horn" and
> claim knowledge of "Sienkiewicz", yet no one has ever offered anything
> more than "I communicated with him before he died, so there." It's
> bullshit, but that's their m.o.
And in Glenn's world, absence of evidence proves a negative.
Chris
Glenn
chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > (-:W H O S O E V E R:-) wrote:
> > > chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > You're filthy, and you're never going to get clean on this
> > > > one.
> > >
> > > I have to wonder if you will say the same thing about Dave Horn if he
> > > is, indeed, Sienkiewicz. If he is, and you don't, why not?
> >
> > Chris has been around a *long* time here. He knows Horn's history. The
>
> Lie number 1. I had some very brief interaction with Horn over on
> Maleboge.org- it amounted to about 6 posts. I don't think I interacted
> with him here more than once, if that. Glenn makes shit up as he goes
> along.
You've interacted with Horn since 2001, you have posted to me on
threads that involved Horn and Sienkiewicz, since about the same time.
You have been around a long time, and if you claim not to be familiar
with Horn, you're claiming to be blind. But it's my opinion that you
are familiar with Horn, and that isn't a lie. You don't have to
"interact" with another to be familiar with their history.
You go back and read what I actually said, then go read what you
actually said, idiot. I said you tried to create the appearance that I
advocated some supernatural power. Read your response to the claim that
there is reasonable evidence to suspect Horn being Sienkiewicz:
"It's assumed because no mention is made of any attempt on those lines.
I know you accept dowsing; are you also under the impression that t.o.
readers can glean this information from some sort of aura that comes
over Usenet?"
Now what is "some sort of aura", Chris? I interpret "gleaning
information from some sort of aura" as a reflection of what I accept
concerning dowsing; that I "also" think that evidence can be seen with
this issue as I think can be seen with dowsing.
You're the liar, Chris. You either know or don't know that I never
attributed dowsing to any sort of "aura"al power. If you don't, you're
making it up. If you do, you're lying. Either way, your performance in
this little exchange so far has been quite clearly less satisfactory
than mine.
>
> And here's one for you. You were right. When we were discussing
> dowsing, you never ran. You stayed on, as a matter of fact, long, long
> after your references had been shown to be faulty in their methodology,
> analysis, and conclusions. You even stayed in the discussion after it
> was obvious you altered a quote to change the meaning! So no, you don't
> run, and like Olbermann said about Bush, you never, ever change your
> mind, even when everything around you changes.
>
> It's sad, really. Why do you feel you have to be dishonest about
> things?
The only people that will believe your continuous intecessions of
unsupported accusations are your followers, Chris. If I have never
changed my mind about a subject, would not necessarily mean what you
want to make it appear as. You're really stupid to try this tact, dude.
First you "change your mind", which means you were lying in the first
place when you said that I did run "You squirmed and hemmed and hawed,
then ran.", then you change your mind. What caused that? A change in
your tactics, Chris.
And it is not a matter of fact that my references had been shown to be
faulty, and the claim itself is definitely not a fact here. I stuck by
what I believed was right, and if I didn't back down or change my mind,
it would have been that I was not argued out of my position. And that's
all. You brought up this dowsing thing, and it's off topic. You bring
absolutely no evidence to the thread that your claims have any
validity, or that the subject is even relevant to the topic of the
thread, yet you think you can run around accusing me of this and that,
for what? To discredit me? I'm not looking for credit; I'm showing
evidence. That appears to be like poison to you. Why is that? You
claimed you aren't even familiar with Davey and Sienkiewicz's posts. I
suppose you turn a blind eye to what I have said in this thread about
why I think the issue is worth bringing light to, yet you participate.
Why, Chris? Get a hint yet? I'll tell you why. You're a spoiled brat
that wants to get back at me, and you'll pull just about any stunt to
do it.
>
> Here's a link to that dowsing discussion, if anyone is interested:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/f788ec4ec44fbb76/f5a6809077f1eb26?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#f5a6809077f1eb26
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yktpyc
So? No quotes, no argument? Want your ass given to you in a sling?
>
> > It's quite amusing, a grown man, supposedly a
> > science teacher, playing these games for years on Usenet.
> >
> > It'd be easy enough for someone to provide some evidence of some kind,
> > at least, even if not completely convincing evidence of the existence
> > of a poster who died. There are several posters who link to "Horn" and
> > claim knowledge of "Sienkiewicz", yet no one has ever offered anything
> > more than "I communicated with him before he died, so there." It's
> > bullshit, but that's their m.o.
>
> And in Glenn's world, absence of evidence proves a negative.
>
Another lie. And you're not even good at it. I'm the *only* one that
has produced evidence in this thread, loon.
Curious. In the "dowsing" thread you reference above, I was the last to
post, and the last thing I said was "When Betz crew can find water
with a *significantly* higher success rate than any other method, that
*is* data."
Absence of evidence proving a negative? Running? Chris, I hope you
don't play with guns. You'd shoot yourself in the foot for sure.
Glenn
chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > (-:W H O S O E V E R:-) wrote:
> > > chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > You're filthy, and you're never going to get clean on this
> > > > one.
> > >
> > > I have to wonder if you will say the same thing about Dave Horn if he
> > > is, indeed, Sienkiewicz. If he is, and you don't, why not?
> >
> > Chris has been around a *long* time here. He knows Horn's history. The
>
> Lie number 1. I had some very brief interaction with Horn over on
> Maleboge.org- it amounted to about 6 posts. I don't think I interacted
> with him here more than once, if that. Glenn makes shit up as he goes
> along.
>
"interaction" between himself and the poster. And I'm the liar here
making shit up?
Perhaps the truth could be found in your words, Chris: "I don't think".
ROTFLMAO! Read the rest below!
>
snip
> It's sad, really. Why do you feel you have to be dishonest about
> things?
> And in Glenn's world, absence of evidence proves a negative.
Just an addendum to my last response to this post. I didn't want you
thinking that I ever supplied evidence. :) Here's some that is a little
more specific than a cite of a thread with almost 500 posts in it with
no quote or argument. Like you just did.
from 2001. You respond directly to Horn.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9c8273460267fe8c?dmode=source&hl=en
from 2003. (Dave is Dave Horn) You make the last remark in the post:
************************************************
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3d0ca404e0521767?dmode=source&hl=en
>> While probably saving your life, it nonetheless seems to have failed
>> to detect the sarcasm in Dave Horn's post. I think Dave is fully
>> aware of your efforts, and also of the veritable Great Wall that
>> GlenNewbie has erected around himself to guard against the ravening
>> scientists roaming outside.
>
> While I was well aware that Dave's post was intended for
> Glenn's "benefit", I thought I should make it perfectly
> clear (to Glenn, not to Dave) that although there was more
> than a bit of sarcasm in Dave's comments I was perfectly
> serious with mine (also aimed at Glenn, not at Dave): I've
> given up on attempting to educate Glenn, since he only plays
> word games and seems to love wallowing in ignorance. Life's
> too short to waste much of it on fools.
Kind of the 2000's mental equivalent of heading down into Five Points
in the
1880's, I guess.
***********************************************************
from 2005. the last remark is yours, agreeing that you had made an
error. Kind of gives the ballgame away, doesn't it, Chris:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/67e9d156a4792c3d?dmode=source&hl=en
************************************************************
> I think you are confusing Dave Horn with David S., although there
> is no doubt that David knew Anastasia. Carson West appears to be
> another of that cohort from San Diego with the same high class. I
> have no idea if it is cultural or genetic.
>
> David D.
>
Yes, I was distraught and not really assimilating things well. Thanks
for
pointing out the error in relationship there.
******************************************************
One last one, again from 2005. I couldn't resist. Not familiar with
Horn, Chris?:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6df36c1dfdd7a261?dmode=source&hl=en
Why on earth are you including Dave Horn with that bunch?
IIRC Dave Horn wrote at least one FAQ for the TO archive.
He is not a creationist by any means.
Chris
***************************************************
chris.li...@gmail.com
So in 6 years of posts, you managed to find 4 times- FOUR POSTS of
mine, that referenced Horn, or that appeared in posts in which he also
posted, some of which were not responses to anything Horn wrote.
How many Usenet posts have I made in those six years, Glenn?
How important are those 4 posts to me? One was a one-liner toss-off.
Another was a reply to Bob Casanova. One was where I admitted that I
was unfamiliar enough with Horn to tell the difference between him and
someone else!
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
You're such an idiot.
Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
What you conflate in your own mind, what bizarre connections between
things no one else connects, is your problem, not mine.
Go ahead and have your fun. You've hitched your wagon to the sleaziest
wretch this group has seen since Jabriol, and it's cemented peoples'
opinion of you, I am sure. You show a pathological need to fight over
the stupidest issues. While that's amusing for a short while to us sane
folk, it quickly palls. By all means keep making baseless assertions,
snarling and snapping at your phantom enemies. I'm sure David's ghost
is laughing his ass off at you this very moment.
Chris
Glenn
Would ten million help you out here?
>
> How important are those 4 posts to me? One was a one-liner toss-off.
> Another was a reply to Bob Casanova. One was where I admitted that I
> was unfamiliar enough with Horn to tell the difference between him and
> someone else!
I don't think it matters how important you think your posts are. The
referenced posts *do* show you were aware of Horn and knew some of his
history. And one was where you admitted you made an error in
*assimilating* who was who, and *that* indicates your familiarity with
Horn et.al.
>
> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
>
> You're such an idiot.
>
Because I actually provide evidence, huh.
Here's another couple posts in this thread where you respond directly
to Horn twice:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ee7fba884c73f4f3/77fff27be5512381?lnk=st&q=horn+author%3Arockwallaby%40takeouterols.com&rnum=9&hl=en#77fff27be5512381
Glenn
Here's the *only* "bizarre connection" that has been made:
"It's assumed because no mention is made of any attempt on those lines.
I know you accept dowsing; are you also under the impression that t.o.
readers can glean this information from some sort of aura that comes
over Usenet?"
That's you, loon.
>
> Go ahead and have your fun. You've hitched your wagon to the sleaziest
> wretch this group has seen since Jabriol, and it's cemented peoples'
> opinion of you, I am sure. You show a pathological need to fight over
> the stupidest issues. While that's amusing for a short while to us sane
> folk, it quickly palls. By all means keep making baseless assertions,
> snarling and snapping at your phantom enemies. I'm sure David's ghost
> is laughing his ass off at you this very moment.
>
You're sure, huh. Chris, *you're* a sleasy wretch.
You've just ran from being blown out of the water with your dishonest
attack on me in this thread.
You have ignored all evidence presented, and ignored a very valid
reason for why Davey would want to find out about Sienkiewicz.
Beyond ignoring, you've appeared to be oblivious of it, and sought to
create the impression that none exist.
You got nothing but crap to contribute. Your behavior could be seen
here as begging attention to be seen as taking the moral high ground,
by stomping over everyone else to get there.
Mark K. Bilbo
Yes he is. That's what he does. It's what he always does.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
Ghod
news:1165530416.8...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ghod wrote:
> snip
> >
> > Dumbass. He apologized for making a mistake, not for being wrong
> > about the asshole in general.
> >
> That's not the point, Einstein.
Which point, yours, or his, Lumpy Gravy?
> Sienkiewicz didn't get the evidence he should have, and barged right
out
> of the newsgroups to the real world to try to prosecute Davey.
Your warped view of reality is evident. I was paying some attention
to the goings-on then, and I haven't forgotten what was happening
then. IOW, I don't need you're biased account to inform me.
> He apologized after he got caught, and not
> because he thought he was wrong in the first place. Yet Sienkiewicz
> always expected that others get their eggs all in one basket before
> challenging *him*.
So, he made one slip, and you're all over him....even over a year and
a half after he died. Why? Because you never have had your shit
together, and his words still burn you, you pathetic half-wit.
BTW, dowsing qualifies for the $1,000,000 prize, why don't you take a
gander?
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
In a way, you're right about dowsing not being
paranormal/supernatural.....'cause it flat out doesn't work.
> snip
> >
> > How about that, Davey has a fan. For you to defend the turd, you
must
> > have a screw loose.
>
> Yes, I suppose you would think anyone that defends who you think is
a
> "turd", or who really does defend a turd, must be a turd himself.
> That's par for the course.
Most intelligent, sane people who've had interactions with Davey-poo
recognize his foulness. The fact that you love him says volumes about
you, son.
> You're all atheists, aren't you, "Ghod".
How many people do you think I am, loony?
> Let me know when you take over the majority. "In general", that is.
Where'd you get the impression that I'm trying to take over? This
isn't how I'd do it, if I were interested.
Glenn
That would work, but more accurately, multiple.
>
> > Let me know when you take over the majority. "In general", that is.
>
> Where'd you get the impression that I'm trying to take over? This
> isn't how I'd do it, if I were interested.
Which I are you now?
Ghod
>
> Harvest Dancer wrote:
> > Glenn wrote:
> > > Ghod wrote:
> > > > How about that, Davey has a fan. For you to defend the turd,
you must
> > > > have a screw loose.
> > >
> > > Yes, I suppose you would think anyone that defends who you think
is a
> > > "turd", or who really does defend a turd, must be a turd
himself.
> > > That's par for the course.
> > >
take over
> > > the majority. "In general", that is.
> >
theists on
> > talk.origins are accused of being atheists.
> >
> > By the way, he didn't say that those who defend turds are turds,
he
> > said that those who defend turds have a screw loose.
> >
> Very good, son. Now did Jack get up the hill?
>
> I said that I supposed he would think of me as a turd.
> I didn't say that he claimed I was a turd.
No, you simply assumed that I would consider you to be one. It's good
that you recognize that your behaviour is that overtly turdly, though.
> I've read about as many posts from you
> now that you have made "errors" like this in. But they aren't
errors,
> and you aren't simply correcting me, are you.
Myself, I see no real point to anyone "correcting" you, as you resist
learning.
> "Ghod" has felt
> predisposed to use that expression "have a screw loose" for some
time.
As opposed to no time? How many times to you believe that have I used
the phrase, goofball?
> But maybe he thinks Davey doesn't have a screw loose, that he's just
> "evil".
Evil is as evil does. What are you, besides being an asshole?
> And I'll leave it up to me to determine whether Ghod is an atheist,
not
> you.
You could just ask, fool. Or even read a few of my posts.
> You might have noticed as well that you snipped the part where he
> called me a "dumbass" and Davey an asshole.
I'm perfectly happy to tell you again, stupid. You're a dumbass, you
prove it repeatedly, and you don't give a shit who knows it. My
saying doesn't make it true, your posts show it to be true.
> Do you think that dumb people necessarily have screws loose, and
that turds are assholes, "Harvestdancer"?
Why're you asking _him_, too afraid of me?
> What does your dictionary say on that issue, eh. You
> are always such the stickler for perfection. I'm waiting for your
> "oration" on the uses of these words.
This is even lamer than the average spelling flame. That's to be
expected from one of such low caliber.
Mark K. Bilbo
Exactly.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
to believe in him.
-Woden
Mark K. Bilbo
>
> (-:W H O S O E V E R wrote:
>> chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > You're filthy, and you're never going to get clean on this
>> > one.
>>
>> I have to wonder if you will say the same thing about Dave Horn if he
>> is, indeed, Sienkiewicz. If he is, and you don't, why not?
>
> Chris has been around a *long* time here. He knows Horn's history. The
> Moderator goes back to the day of "Becky" and "Chaver" as well. And I
> suspect that most of Horn's supporters (well liked here) don't care if
> he was Sienkiewicz. Sienkiewicz showed up in Horn's absense, and took
> up Horn's "charge", then they came together later to support eachother.
> Supporters would likely just take this or any other opportunity to
> continue their efforts to dehumanize opponents.
<snip>
Oh yeah, it's all a Big Conspiracy.
Sheesh.
It ever occurred to you that a hell of a lot of people took David S. at
face value and just liked him?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because
if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather
than that of blindfolded Fear"
- Thomas Jefferson
Uncle Davey
On 7 Gru, 12:33, "Uncle Davey" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oyez! oyez! oyez!
>
> Roll up for the chance to win one of three fabulous prizes in the great
> David Sienkiewicz reality proving contest!
>
> This is open to Horn and Harvest dancer, or anyone else such as Dr John
> Wilkins, Dr Day and others who had email correspondence with this
> alledged person prior to their alledged death, and also to any other
> enterprising individuals who would like to win something of value in
> addition to kudos by exercising their investigative skills.
>
> The rules are, that the proof that Sienkiewicz existed as an individual
> must be documentary, unforgeable, and unambiguous. It must be provided
> in this thread, and prior to midnight your local time at the end of
> this year, ie 31st December 2006. If it is something which could have
> been forged electronically then the original should be forwarded to me
> at a mailing address I will give privately to the poster in e-mail. In
> the event that more than one piece of qualifying evidence is posted by
> more than one person there will be a second prize. For each individual
> piece of evidence, only the person posting it first will qualify, and
> there will be up to three prizes if three separate pieces of qualifying
> evidence are given.
>
> Remember for each of the pieces of evidence, only the first to post it
> here will qualify, unless they fail to send it my mail if reasonably
> requested, in which case the second person to pst it willbe given the
> chance. However the first, second and third prizes will not be decided
> chronologically, but by the quality of the evidence. The extent to
> which it proves beyond all doubt that this person was bona fide.
>
> Each individual, or household, may only receive one prize.
>
> If no adequate evidence appears, then there will not be any prizes.
>
> All prizes will be given in the first two weeks of January, 2007.
>
> First prize:
>
> Eighty US dollars worth of purchases from any website which accepts
> credit cards on a secure interface. You will give me the address to
> send the prize to, and let me know the goods you choose and the link to
> the site ofering them. If I am not sure that the CC interface is safe,
> I have the right to ask you to choose an alternative, until a credible
> site is selected. For the avoidance of doubt, known sites and reputable
> ones such as Amazon are definitely ok, the sorts of ones that spam
> dodgy and illegal goods are definitely not, neither are illegal goods
> or pornography acceptable as prizes. The cost of postage and packing
> must be included, and if the amount is less than the full prize value
> then the "change" will be forfeited, any taxation on the prize in the
> prizewinner's jurisdiction is the responsibility of the prizewinner.
>
> Second prize:
>
> Conditions as above, but for fifty dollars.
>
> Third prize:
>
> Conditions as above, but for thirty dollars.
>
> Alternative to goods:
>
> Any prizewinner, if there are any, may elect to have the prize money
> paid to a charity of their choice as long as that charity has a secure
> internet payment mechanism. In this case I do not need a mailing
> address from the prizewinner. The sending of the money to the charity
> will contain the name of the prizewinner as the donor if they wish, as
> long as the name they give is decent.
>
> My decisions as to the awarding of prizes will be in the first 3 days
> of January, and are final.
>
> Entry to the competition, and any posts made to this thread, imply
> acceptance of these rules.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Uncle Davey
OK,
There are only 2 days left to win these valuable prizes. There has been
no evidence forthcoming yet, neither does Mr Horn himself appear to
have anything to say on the matter.
I have left talk.origins out this time, as the moderator, like a baby,
changes the subject headers of what I write, because instead of being a
group reaching to know objective truth about things, the place has
become just a power kick to him.
Please don't miss the deadline.
It's a question of speak now, or forever hold your peace.
I won't need to do the same thing again, as it must be pretty obvious
to anyone whose opinion is objective that if Sienkie were not merely a
puppet, it would be easy enough for someone in the US to dredge up some
evidence that is publicaly available if you live there (which I don't
or I would do it myself) and make some easy money.
What would be cool is if Horn actually had the nads to own up to having
uncoughed socks and telling both friend and foe the porky that he knew
Sienkiewicz personally, even making people undergo sensations of grief
when he put his sock to death. I think Horn ought to own up to this,
but he has backed himself into a corner of not being able to do so by
hypocritically taking the higher ground about other people's socks,
even when they were coughed up to and apologised for in a short space
of time.
HNY
Uncle Davey
Mark K. Bilbo
> OK,
>
> There are only 2 days left to win these valuable prizes. There has been
> no evidence forthcoming yet, neither does Mr Horn himself appear to
> have anything to say on the matter.
Nobody, I repeat, nobody other than you cares about your little game.
> I have left talk.origins out this time, as the moderator, like a baby,
> changes the subject headers of what I write, because instead of being a
> group reaching to know objective truth about things, the place has
> become just a power kick to him.
Bullshit. Show us in the t.o. charter where discussing sock puppets is
named as one of the purposes of the group. For that matter, where in the
charter does it state t.o. is "talk.about.anything.Davey.wants.to"
> Please don't miss the deadline.
Please go fuck yourself.
> It's a question of speak now, or forever hold your peace.
Nobody, I repeat, nobody other than you cares about your little game.
> I won't need to do the same thing again, as it must be pretty obvious
> to anyone whose opinion is objective that if Sienkie were not merely a
> puppet, it would be easy enough for someone in the US to dredge up some
> evidence that is publicaly available if you live there (which I don't
> or I would do it myself) and make some easy money.
Nobody, I repeat, nobody other than you cares about your little game.
> What would be cool is if Horn actually had the nads to own up to having
> uncoughed socks and telling both friend and foe the porky that he knew
> Sienkiewicz personally, even making people undergo sensations of grief
> when he put his sock to death. I think Horn ought to own up to this,
> but he has backed himself into a corner of not being able to do so by
> hypocritically taking the higher ground about other people's socks,
> even when they were coughed up to and apologised for in a short space
> of time.
Get. A. Shrink.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.
sailorbr...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:03:46 -0800, Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> > OK,
> >
> > There are only 2 days left to win these valuable prizes. There has been
> > no evidence forthcoming yet, neither does Mr Horn himself appear to
> > have anything to say on the matter.
>
> Nobody, I repeat, nobody other than you cares about your little game.
This is probably as good a place as any to post this: