Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) islamic creationist
the heekster
http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
His errors are here:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/sitemap.html
He doesn't believe in allowing others to present any evidence or
viewpoint contrary to his own.
http://wordpress.com/blog/2007/08/19/why-were-blocked-in-turkey/
"Logic just doesn’t seem to exist in creationism."
http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/who-is-adnan-oktar-part-ii/
Will in New Haven
He published a honking _huge_book in support of creationism, with tons
of illustrations, and sent a copy to our office for free. If you don't
read the text, the pictures of fossils are neat, although they are not
organized in any understandable way. The production costs of the book
had to be enormous. I guess the creator has been good to him. I
believe that this book is the first of a projected series. Maybe he
will go broke.
Will in New Haven
--
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are
the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There
are, always and only, the bad people, but *some of them are on
opposite sides.*" -- Patrician Vetinari in Pratchett's /Guards!
Guards!/
Free Lunch
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
<1b1036eb-b35d-4096...@m77g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jan 13, 4:07 pm, the heekster <heeks...@iwxt.net> wrote:
>> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>>
>> http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
>>
>> His errors are here:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
>>
>> http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/sitemap.html
>>
>> He doesn't believe in allowing others to present any evidence or
>> viewpoint contrary to his own.
>>
>> http://wordpress.com/blog/2007/08/19/why-were-blocked-in-turkey/
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2lq774
>>
>> "Logic just doesn't seem to exist in creationism."http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/who-is-adnan-oktar-part-ii/
>>
>> http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/conclusions/
>
>
>He published a honking _huge_book in support of creationism, with tons
>of illustrations, and sent a copy to our office for free. If you don't
>read the text, the pictures of fossils are neat, although they are not
>organized in any understandable way. The production costs of the book
>had to be enormous. I guess the creator has been good to him. I
>believe that this book is the first of a projected series. Maybe he
>will go broke.
>
>Will in New Haven
I have heard that one of the ways he saved money was by failing to get
proper permission to use the photographs. I suppose most scientists are
not going to be willing to let someone who hates science use a photo to
misrepresent what the scientist did.
John McKendry
> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>
>http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
A pedophile is a person who is sexually aroused by prepubescent
children. The cited Web page does not use the word "pedophile",
and presents no evidence that Oktar is a pedophile. If we are to
believe the worst, based on the allegations presented, then Oktar
has had sex with girls under the age of 18, but over the age of
legal consent in Turkey. I might agree that this is naughty, if
true, but it is neither criminal nor sociopathic.
Accusing someone of being a pedophile without substantial credible
evidence is reckless and reprehensible.
John
Ray Martinez
> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>
> http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
>
Everything written in the above link is brazen unsupported assertion
which you are presenting as uncontested and settled fact. These
assertions could be explained by hatred of Islam and/or Creationism.
By accusing Yahya of such things, without providing legitimate
references, the unsupported assertions is slander explained by hatred
of Islam and/or Creationism.
If the above link was about any evolutionist Group member here at Talk
Origins you and a host of others would be making the points I am
making. If you disagree to any of this, or if any evolutionist reading
my post disagrees with anything I have said then they are opening them
self up to the exact same treatment: angry opponent creating a web
page filled with unreferenced tabloid slander.
I am not a Muslim but an Evangelical, and because of 911 I am inclined
to not like Muslims for not taking to the streets to protest mass
murder done in the name of the Koran. But I must defend persons from
slander via unsupported assertions written on a web page because there
is no reason to believe that you or I could be next.
In fact, I could almost guarantee that the supporters of Yahya will do
the same to one of their enemies. Imagine YOUR name in the above link.
Where are the references and why aren't they listed in the web page to
begin with?
> His errors are here:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
>
> http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/sitemap.html
>
> He doesn't believe in allowing others to present any evidence or
> viewpoint contrary to his own.
>
Neither do the evolutionists who control the Supreme Court and the
Federal judiciary in this country.
It is obvious that some angry howlers have slandered Yahya.
Again, you guys are next; slander via web page is a two way street.
> http://wordpress.com/blog/2007/08/19/why-were-blocked-in-turkey/
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2lq774
>
> "Logic just doesn't seem to exist in creationism."http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/who-is-adnan-oktar-part-ii/
>
> http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/conclusions/
Word Press is a liberal San Francisco pro-evolution-Atheism blog
conglomeration - all is now explained.
Evolutionists in this Group: you are next with the same medicine.
Ray
Mike L
> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>
> http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
Quite a remarkable T.H.Huxley bibliography there.
--
Mike.
wf3h
> On Jan 13, 1:07 pm, the heekster <heeks...@iwxt.net> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/sitemap.html
>
> > He doesn't believe in allowing others to present any evidence or
> > viewpoint contrary to his own.
>
> Neither do the evolutionists who control the Supreme Court and the
> Federal judiciary in this country.
talk to thomas jefferson and james madison. they are the ones who
prohibited establishment of religion by govt. and creationism is
religion....of course, creationists...xtians and muslims...both like
theocracy...
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6d9095a8-6890-473b...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>On Jan 13, 1:07 pm, the heekster <heeks...@iwxt.net> wrote:
>> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>>
>> http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
>
>Everything written in the above link is brazen unsupported assertion
>which you are presenting as uncontested and settled fact. These
>assertions could be explained by hatred of Islam and/or Creationism.
>By accusing Yahya of such things, without providing legitimate
>references, the unsupported assertions is slander explained by hatred
>of Islam and/or Creationism.
[snip]
Ray, as I've pointed out to you in the past, Harun Yahya is a liar. On
http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.php we
find this claim:
Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known
intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers.
Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales
found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as
being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable
evidence that they in fact are.
Yet on another "Harun Yahya" page at
http://www.harunyahya.com/dna07.php he tries to pass off Longisquama
as a real bird with feathers. He refers to a New York Times article,
and though "Harun Yahya" doesn't name this "bird", it is indeed
Longisquama. See
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E2D61F31F930A15755C0A9669C8B63
Additionally, you can see pictures of the Longisquama at
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jun00/birds.htm
It's obviously not a bird.
Ye Old One
>On Jan 13, 1:07 pm, the heekster <heeks...@iwxt.net> wrote:
>> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>>
>> http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
>>
>
>Everything written in the above link is brazen unsupported assertion
>which you are presenting as uncontested and settled fact. These
>assertions could be explained by hatred of Islam and/or Creationism.
>By accusing Yahya of such things, without providing legitimate
>references, the unsupported assertions is slander explained by hatred
>of Islam and/or Creationism.
>
>If the above link was about any evolutionist Group member here at Talk
>Origins you and a host of others would be making the points I am
>making. If you disagree to any of this, or if any evolutionist reading
>my post disagrees with anything I have said then they are opening them
>self up to the exact same treatment: angry opponent creating a web
>page filled with unreferenced tabloid slander.
>
>I am not a Muslim but an Evangelical, and because of 911 I am inclined
>to not like Muslims for not taking to the streets to protest mass
>murder done in the name of the Koran. But I must defend persons from
>slander via unsupported assertions written on a web page because there
>is no reason to believe that you or I could be next.
When are you going to learn the difference between slander and libel?
You make yourself look even more stupid than usual when you make such
basic mistakes Dishonest Ray/
[snip]
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your inability to understand that 'slander' is accurate in this case
and these instances is undoubtedly caused by your low IQ.
Ray
Ye Old One
YOUR inability to understand that 'slander' is NOT appropriate in that
case or in all the other cases of misuse you make, is undoubtedly
caused by your extremely low IQ Dishonest Ray.
Slander is spoken. Libel is written. Usenet and the web are both
written media. Do stop making such a bloody fool of yourself.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Rupert Morrish
Either you're working to your own definition of 'slander', or your own
definition of 'low', because I don't understand why 'slander' is correct
here, either.
>
> Ray
>
>
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
the heekster
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:07:46 -0600, the heekster wrote:
>
>> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>>
>>http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
>
> A pedophile is a person who is sexually aroused by prepubescent
>children. The cited Web page does not use the word "pedophile",
>and presents no evidence that Oktar is a pedophile. If we are to
>believe the worst, based on the allegations presented, then Oktar
>has had sex with girls under the age of 18, but over the age of
>legal consent in Turkey. I might agree that this is naughty, if
>true, but it is neither criminal nor sociopathic.
>
According to Turkish law, it is criminal. Sexual predation isn't
sociopathic? Thanks for that newsflash, Einstein.
The age of consent in Turkey is 18. Where did you get your
information that the girls were over the age of legal consent? Your
defense of a known sexual predator is duly noted.
> Accusing someone of being a pedophile without substantial credible
>evidence is reckless and reprehensible.
>
You might want to peruse the definition of the word "possibly", and
then re-read for comprehension.
So, it is ok to be a sexual predator, as long as one is not a
pedophile? The age of the girls involved wasn't given, only that they
were under 18.
the heekster
>On Jan 13, 1:07 pm, the heekster <heeks...@iwxt.net> wrote:
>> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>>
>> http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
>>
>
>Everything written in the above link is brazen unsupported assertion
>which you are presenting as uncontested and settled fact. These
>assertions could be explained by hatred of Islam and/or Creationism.
Yet they were made by this Asian site:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/index.htm
>By accusing Yahya of such things, without providing legitimate
>references, the unsupported assertions is slander explained by hatred
>of Islam and/or Creationism.
>
But, you repeat yourself, IDiot.
>If the above link was about any evolutionist Group member here at Talk
>Origins you and a host of others would be making the points I am
>making.
But it isn't. And you aren't making a point. You are blindly,
mindlessly, attacking.
> If you disagree to any of this, or if any evolutionist reading
>my post disagrees with anything I have said then they are opening them
>self up to the exact same treatment: angry opponent creating a web
>page filled with unreferenced tabloid slander.
>
If I ever decide to become a Turkish, islamic sect leader & gangster,
I'll keep that in mind. BTW, is Hovind still in the slammer?
>I am not a Muslim but an Evangelical, and because of 911 I am inclined
>to not like Muslims for not taking to the streets to protest mass
>murder done in the name of the Koran.
You are irrational.
> But I must defend persons from
>slander via unsupported assertions written on a web page because there
>is no reason to believe that you or I could be next.
>
This statement is just plain absurd.
>In fact, I could almost guarantee that the supporters of Yahya will do
>the same to one of their enemies. Imagine YOUR name in the above link.
>
Non sequitur.
>Where are the references and why aren't they listed in the web page to
>begin with?
>
Go to the source:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/index.htm
>> His errors are here:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
>>
>> http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/sitemap.html
>>
>> He doesn't believe in allowing others to present any evidence or
>> viewpoint contrary to his own.
>>
>
>Neither do the evolutionists who control the Supreme Court and the
>Federal judiciary in this country.
>
Yet, here you are, giving the lie to your own allegations.
>It is obvious that some angry howlers have slandered Yahya.
>
Is it? Who might have done such a thing?
>Again, you guys are next; slander via web page is a two way street.
>
I'm sure the BanglaDeshis, who put up the site, are just terrified
that ol' Ray is gonna slander them. Right after you finish your
definitive book, right, Ray? How's that coming? It must be in
proofreading, by now.
>
>> http://wordpress.com/blog/2007/08/19/why-were-blocked-in-turkey/
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2lq774
>>
>> "Logic just doesn't seem to exist in creationism."http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/who-is-adnan-oktar-part-ii/
>>
>> http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/conclusions/
>
>Word Press is a liberal San Francisco pro-evolution-Atheism blog
>conglomeration - all is now explained.
>
I'm sure others have explained logical fallacies, and false logic to
you. I am equally sure that they were wasting their time in that
endeavor.
>Evolutionists in this Group: you are next with the same medicine.
>
Wow, aren't you the true Christian?
There is absolutely nothing Christlike about you, hypocrite.
raven1
Slander, by legal definition, is transitory verbal defamation. Libel,
by legal definition, is defamation in printed or otherwise fixed
media, such as newspapers, websites, film, etc . Website content that
is defamatory would be libelous, not slanderous, by definition.
That aside, when can we expect to see that paper of yours?
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
Free Lunch
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in
<l1alo3l760j93ov97...@4ax.com>:
Learn to be lazy. Call it defamation. It doesn't matter if it is written
or spoken when you call it defamation.
Free Lunch
How easily you get things wrong.
Some people shoot fish in a barrel, but few fish jump out of the barrel
to impale themselves on the gun as you do.
Free Lunch
raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in
<orklo3lebg9tn08lc...@4ax.com>:
Which also brings up the question: Will you manage to present the paper
without defaming people as has been your wont?
John McKendry
> On 13 Jan 2008 22:40:36 GMT, John McKendry <jlas...@comcast.dot.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:07:46 -0600, the heekster wrote:
>>
>>> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>>>
>>>http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
>>
>> A pedophile is a person who is sexually aroused by prepubescent
>>children. The cited Web page does not use the word "pedophile",
>>and presents no evidence that Oktar is a pedophile. If we are to
>>believe the worst, based on the allegations presented, then Oktar
>>has had sex with girls under the age of 18, but over the age of
>>legal consent in Turkey. I might agree that this is naughty, if
>>true, but it is neither criminal nor sociopathic.
>>
> According to Turkish law, it is criminal. Sexual predation isn't
> sociopathic? Thanks for that newsflash, Einstein.
> The age of consent in Turkey is 18. Where did you get your
> information that the girls were over the age of legal consent? Your
> defense of a known sexual predator is duly noted.
>
"In his testimony, Oktar claimed that he had committed no crime as the
intercourse was consensual, allowed under Turkish law."
But let's see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe :
"The age of consent in Turkey is the age of majority (set at 18), as
specified by the 2004 Turkish Penal Code Art. 103 & 104."
http://www.ageofconsent.com/turkey.htm :
"The age of consent in Turkey is 15."
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/
SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaTurkey.asp :
"There is not precisely a legal age of consent for sexual activity."
http://www.glrl.org.au/publications/major_reports/age_of_consent/
age_of_consent_07.htm :
"Country M/F Sex M/M Sex F/F Sex
Turkey* 15/16 18 18"
http://www.unicef.org/turkey/hm/hm3c.html :
"The legal definition of a child varies in Turkey:
* The age of majority is eighteen;
* The legal age of consent to marriage is eighteen;
* The age of minors before the law is between eleven and fourteen;
* Children over the age of fifteen are considered adults before the law;
* The minimum age for normal employment is fifteen;
* The minimum age for light employment which is not harmful to the
education or health of a child is thirteen;
* There is no minimum age for employment in agriculture, household based
activities, establishments with less than three workers, apprenticeship
centres or as domestic servants."
Tell me which source is most credible, and why. I was basing my
statement on the source you provided. If your source was inaccurate,
well, silly me; you're quite right, I should have been more
skeptical.
I will also point out that your source, insofar as it can be
relied on, shows Oktar to be an alleged sexual predator, not a
known sexual predator.
>> Accusing someone of being a pedophile without substantial credible
>>evidence is reckless and reprehensible.
>>
> You might want to peruse the definition of the word "possibly", and
> then re-read for comprehension.
>
While I'm doing that, you might want to peruse the definition of
the word "pedophile", which is the word I was disputing.
> So, it is ok to be a sexual predator, as long as one is not a
> pedophile? The age of the girls involved wasn't given, only that they
> were under 18.
I was disputing your accusation that Oktar is a possible pedophile.
You have presented no evidence that he is a possible pedophile.
Instead, you have distorted both my position and your own evidence.
Righteous indignation is no excuse for twisting the truth.
John
Bodega
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:59:43 -0600, the heekster wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:07:46 -0600, the heekster wrote:
>
> >>> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>
Yes. You've made your point. You know a lot (for some reason) about
why child sex abuse is OK in Turkey. Now why don't you run off to some
other more appropriate site?
Will in New Haven
Because in other than strictly legal terminology libel is a subset of
slander. To slander someone in writing or in print is to libel him.
Just because it's Ray is no reason to suppose he's _always_ wrong. He
probably said "good morning" on a particularly fine October morning a
few months ago, for instance, and most of the people on this ng would
have argued with him about THAT.
Even Harun Yahya may be innocent of somethign; even Ray may be right
about something.
Will in New Haven
--
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
> Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
> ------------------ Hide quoted text -
DJT
> On Jan 13, 1:07 pm, the heekster <heeks...@iwxt.net> wrote:
>
> > This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a pedophile.
>
> >http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
>
> Everything written in the above link is brazen unsupported assertion
> which you are presenting as uncontested and settled fact.
While I agree that the charges of child molestation are not well
supported in the article, do you have any information that refutes
these charges?
> These
> assertions could be explained by hatred of Islam and/or Creationism.
Or dislike of dishonesty, and/or child abuse.
> By accusing Yahya of such things, without providing legitimate
> references, the unsupported assertions is slander explained by hatred
> of Islam and/or Creationism.
Or dislike of dishonesty, and/or child abuse. Note, Ray that you
have made similar unsupported assertions against others as well.
>
> If the above link was about any evolutionist Group member here at Talk
> Origins you and a host of others would be making the points I am
> making.
Maybe, but do you have any evidence that refutes the claims above?
> If you disagree to any of this, or if any evolutionist reading
> my post disagrees with anything I have said then they are opening them
> self up to the exact same treatment: angry opponent creating a web
> page filled with unreferenced tabloid slander.
Ray, you've tried this before, only to get your bluff called.
>
> I am not a Muslim but an Evangelical, and because of 911 I am inclined
> to not like Muslims for not taking to the streets to protest mass
> murder done in the name of the Koran.
And to express your own hatred of Muslims.
> But I must defend persons from
> slander via unsupported assertions written on a web page because there
> is no reason to believe that you or I could be next.
Ray, you've libeled people yourself, using unsupported claims. You
only "defend" Oktar because he supports creationism. You are willing
to overlook his dishonesty, and possible criminal activities, just
because he happens to agree with you.
>
> In fact, I could almost guarantee that the supporters of Yahya will do
> the same to one of their enemies. Imagine YOUR name in the above link.
"Shrug", not a problem. You see, when a person is honest, they don't
have much to fear from something like that.
>
> Where are the references and why aren't they listed in the web page to
> begin with?
The references are given, but the links seem to be down.
>
> > His errors are here:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
>
> >http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/sitemap.html
>
> > He doesn't believe in allowing others to present any evidence or
> > viewpoint contrary to his own.
>
> Neither do the evolutionists who control the Supreme Court and the
> Federal judiciary in this country.
Actually, Ray, this is an example of you making an unsupported
assertion. You have no evidence that the Supreme Court, or the
Federal judicary are "controlled" by "evolutionists", and you have no
evidence that they prevent creationists from presenting any evidence,
or viewpoint different from evolution.
Creationists are quite free to present any evidence they wish to
present in any scientific journal. For some reason, however the
creationists have utterly failed to do so. That's why their beliefs
are not considered to be scientific.
>
> It is obvious that some angry howlers have slandered Yahya.
Is that obvious? There is evidence that Yahya did engage in some
possibly criminal activities, such as blackmail and harassment. The
group he founded has lost court cases, and has been required to pay
fines. Yahya's group has also presented anti-semetic claims, and
Holocaust denials.
>
> Again, you guys are next; slander via web page is a two way street.
Actually, if you are Christian, Ray, you should follow the words of
Christ and turn the other cheek. In any case, you bluff has been
called before.
>
> >http://wordpress.com/blog/2007/08/19/why-were-blocked-in-turkey/
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2lq774
>
> > "Logic just doesn't seem to exist in creationism."http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/who-is-adnan-oktar-part-ii/
>
> >http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/conclusions/
>
> Word Press is a liberal San Francisco pro-evolution-Atheism blog
> conglomeration - all is now explained.
Ray, that itself is an unsupported assertion, not to mention being ad
hominem.
>
> Evolutionists in this Group: you are next with the same medicine.
Ray, you really don't understand Christianity at all.
DJT
Rupert Morrish
Really? In normal usage, and in every definition I have seen, slander is
always verbal, and libel is always written. The term that covers both is
defamation.
> To slander someone in writing or in print is to libel him.
> Just because it's Ray is no reason to suppose he's _always_ wrong.
I'm not arguing with him because it's Ray. I'm arguing with him because
he's claiming that people don't use his definition of slander (which
includes me) are stupid.
> He
> probably said "good morning" on a particularly fine October morning a
> few months ago, for instance, and most of the people on this ng would
> have argued with him about THAT.
I don't think Ray talks to people in real life.
>
> Even Harun Yahya may be innocent of somethign;
Praemunire, perhaps?
> even Ray may be right
> about something.
He is sufficiently right to be worth arguing with, unlike, say,
backspace, who is so wrong as to be incomprehensible.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Ray
>> -----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
>> Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
>> ------------------ Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Rupert Morrish
> wrong". He is very intelligent and accepts the verdict of Science
> corroborating the Bible. Unless you are an Atheist, you owe him an
> apology.
Who is Mr. Science and when did he pronounce this verdict? How do you
motivate corroboration?
backspace is to be admired for his skill in English - few in this group
are as fluent in their second language as he is. However, that does not
give him the right to redefine words in that language, particularly
against the advice of native speakers and all major dictionaries.
I am glad that you don't think I owe backspace an apology, although I'm
confused as to why you think I would if I were a Hindu.
Will in New Haven
I guess normal usage may have conformed to legal usage in the interim
but I learned these terms forty years ago and "to slander" was to lie
about someone in a manner to harm him (or her) while "to libel" was to
do it in print. I know that my journalism professors told us to use
the legal definitions but that "slander" would work for either or both
in casual conversation. "Defame" is a good general term and I will use
it in future because it saves confusion.
>
> > To slander someone in writing or in print is to libel him.
> > Just because it's Ray is no reason to suppose he's _always_ wrong.
>
> I'm not arguing with him because it's Ray. I'm arguing with him because
> he's claiming that people don't use his definition of slander (which
> includes me) are stupid.
>
> > He
> > probably said "good morning" on a particularly fine October morning a
> > few months ago, for instance, and most of the people on this ng would
> > have argued with him about THAT.
>
> I don't think Ray talks to people in real life.
That may very well be the case.
>
>
>
> > Even Harun Yahya may be innocent of somethign;
>
> Praemunire, perhaps?
>
> > even Ray may be right
> > about something.
>
> He is sufficiently right to be worth arguing with, unlike, say,
> backspace, who is so wrong as to be incomprehensible.
>
"Not as stupid as backspace" isn't really a compliment but it is an
awfully nice thing to say about Ray.
Will in New Haven
--
"But Rosie you're all right -- you wear my ring
When you hold me tight -- Rosie that's my thing
When you turn out the light -- I've got to hand it to me
Looks like it's me and you again tonight Rosie"
"Rosie" by Jackson Browne and Donald Miller off RUNNING ON EMPTY
(c) 1977 Swallow Turn Music
Ray Martinez
> > wrong". He is very intelligent and accepts the verdict of Science
> > corroborating the Bible. Unless you are an Atheist, you owe him an
> > apology.
>
> Who is Mr. Science and when did he pronounce this verdict? How do you
> motivate corroboration?
>
> backspace is to be admired for his skill in English - few in this group
> are as fluent in their second language as he is. However, that does not
> give him the right to redefine words in that language, particularly
> against the advice of native speakers and all major dictionaries.
>
> I am glad that you don't think I owe backspace an apology, although I'm
> confused as to why you think I would if I were a Hindu.
>
> Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rupert: insulting Backspace makes you look like an Atheist since he is
a Christian. This is why no apology is necessary.
Ray
John McKendry
I have read through your argument several times now, line by line,
and I can't seem to find the parts where you establish that
- anyone other than the OP has accused Oktar of child sex abuse, and
- I said that child sex abuse is OK, in Turkey or otherwise.
What I did say is that one shouldn't accuse anyone of pedophilia
without substantial credible evidence, and that there is no such
evidence in the case at hand. I can't imagine that you would disagree
with the first statement, so you must be disagreeing with the second.
(But don't let me put words in your mouth; if you think it's acceptable
to accuse people of pedophilia without evidence, just say so.)
If you disagree with the second statement, you must think there is
evidence that Oktar engaged in sex with children. What is that
evidence?
John
Lee Oswald Ving
>
> Rupert: insulting Backspace makes you look like an Atheist since he is
> a Christian.
That would make you an Atheist as well, the number of times you've done so
in this newsgroup.
But the opposite of "Christian" isn't "atheist," you idiot.
> This is why no apology is necessary.
Actually, no apology is ever neccesary for being right, unless you're
married.
FNORD
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> insulting Backspace makes you look like an Atheist since he is
> a Christian.
When a Baptist insults a Presbyterian, who looks like an atheist? Or is
it your contention that no True Christian ever utters an insult?
When Thurisaz issues one of his frequent invectives against
"morontheists", does he look like an atheist, even though you know he
believes in many gods?
> This is why no apology is necessary.
Actually, no apology is necessary because I'm not wrong and I don't care
if that hurts his feelings.
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Kermit
>
> [snip]
>
> > insulting Backspace makes you look like an Atheist since he is
> > a Christian.
>
> When a Baptist insults a Presbyterian, who looks like an atheist? Or is
> it your contention that no True Christian ever utters an insult?
Ray insults other people frequently, so we can only conclude that:
Christians do not insult other Christians;
if a Presbyterian insult a Baptist and vice versa, then one of them is
not a Christian;
if we atheist-evilutionionists want to know which is which, we would
have to ask Ray.
He would probably say both of them are, since their doctrines disagree
with him on a number of issues.
>
> When Thurisaz issues one of his frequent invectives against
> "morontheists", does he look like an atheist, even though you know he
> believes in many gods?
>
> > This is why no apology is necessary.
>
> Actually, no apology is necessary because I'm not wrong and I don't care
> if that hurts his feelings.
> -----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
> Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
> -----------------
Hmm. Since backspace is an idiot, would insulting him make me look
smart?
Kermit
the heekster
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:24:31 -0800, Bodega wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 7:57 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:59:43 -0600, the heekster wrote:
>>> > On 13 Jan 2008 22:40:36 GMT, John McKendry
>>> > <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:07:46 -0600, the heekster wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> This clown is a turkish islamic creationist, and possibly a
>>> >>> pedophile.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Yes. You've made your point. You know a lot (for some reason) about why
>> child sex abuse is OK in Turkey. Now why don't you run off to some other
>> more appropriate site?
>
> I have read through your argument several times now, line by line,
>and I can't seem to find the parts where you establish that
>- anyone other than the OP has accused Oktar of child sex abuse, and
>- I said that child sex abuse is OK, in Turkey or otherwise.
>
> What I did say is that one shouldn't accuse anyone of pedophilia
>without substantial credible evidence,
No one did accuse anyone of pedophilia, you benighted, strawman
slinging ignoramus. The possibility of such a condition was stated.
Sort of like, "There is a possibility that McKendry can read for
comprehension." While such a condition is theoretically possible,
there is absolutely no evidence to support the premise that McKendry
is capable of reading for comprehension.
John McKendry
How embarrassing for me not to have understood that you actually
meant "While there is a theoretical possibility that Adnan Oktar
might be a pedophile, there is absolutely no evidence that such
is the case". I will read your posts with more care in the future.
John
Cj
news:9e606e33-d03f-4b44...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> wrong". He is very intelligent and accepts the verdict of Science
> corroborating the Bible. Unless you are an Atheist, you owe him an
> apology.
>
>
Ray Ray Stop writing about other nuts and concentrate on finishing your
monumental paper to destroy the theory of evolution.
Cj
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:58:58 -0600, the heekster wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
John: your integrity and decency in this topic should be commended.
Persons resisting your point(s) do so because they agree with the
tactic of slander by web site. This should not be a creationist,
evolutionist, Christian or Atheist thing....but a thing of decency and
integrity. Defenders of Yayha being slandered without the slightest
shred of legitimate evidence or reference are too stupid to see that
when one person is sacrificed this way then they too can be sacrificed
this way. Anyone can create a link and slander away.
Ray
raven1
When's that paper coming out, Ray?
John McKendry
Well, I'll be damned. Thank you, Ray.
John
the heekster
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have to concede that you give every appearance of being an insensate
fool. In a monumental blast of irony, you do exactly what you accused
me of doing. That would make you a hypocrite, or worse, since there
was no intent on my part to slander anyone.
BTW,
>Persons resisting your point(s) do so because they agree with the
>tactic of slander by web site.
is a truly astonishing imbecility. False premises must really make
you feel all warm and fuzzy.
I know it must baffle the shit out of someone like you, but the point
of indicating the possibility of pedophilia came from the statement
that the women, actually girls, involved were under 18, and that
possibility is dependent on just how far under the age of 18 the girls
actually were. It was a flag indicating that the person bears
watching, nothing more. Certainly nothing like the imbecilic
McCarthyite creation of McKendry, exhibiting the righteous indignation
of an ignorant buffoon, whilst arguing against something that did not
occur. You were drawn to it, no doubt, because of it's abject
imbecility. It has been observed that you are attracted to nefarious
imbecilities, like creationism, ID, and logical fallacies, as a moth
to a flame.
But, your forte is the strawman, and it doesn't seem to matter whether
you borrow someone else's strawman, or evolve your own.
You stand incapable of presenting a coherent & capable argument for
your IDiotic allegations, and grandstanding on a minor, fabricated,
off-topic issue, such as this, is the best that you will ever be able
to do. At best, all you can ever hope for is to divert attention away
from your hollow arguments and manifold stupidities.
Everyone here knows it, and newcomers quickly figure it out rather
easily.
So, now that you've had your puerile, pitiable diversion, when is your
tome coming out, bupi?
There are two possibilities.
1) It will never publish.
2) It will publish, and be found to be 100% buncombe.