Re: David Horn's Background
Glenn
Dave wrote:
> In yet another example of a "Christian" witness, "Uncle" Davey wrote:
> > On 27 Lis, 20:39, "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Harvest Dancer wrote:[Snip]
> > >
> > > > > > > Sienkiewicz being Horn,
> > >
> > > > > > And oft repeated lie.
> > >
> > > > > Not at all.
> > >
> > > > You don't often repeat that lie?
> > >
> > > He usually brings it up when the argument is going badly for him, but yes,
> > > it's an oft-repeated lie. He's certainly never given any evidence for the
> > > claim other than some vague comments about idiolects, which he claimed were
> > > as distinctive as fingerprints (there's nothing like a little exaggerration
> > > to try to bolster a bad argument). Most recently, he suggested that the
> > > other readers will judge. The problem is that they have, and they've come
> > > down overwhelmingly against the idea.
> > >
> > > David passed away last October. David bested Davey so many times in debate
> > > that Davey actually admitted that David was the better man. But now that
> > > David is no longer around to defend himself, Davey tries to get the ultimate
> > > revenge--by turning David into a non-person, a sock puppet, a figment of
> > > someone else's imagination. It's pathetic...it's not Christian...and it's
> > > just one reason Davey finds himself in his current predicament.
> > >
> > > Davey wants to whimper about others being "scum?" Davey wrote the *book*.
> > > They don't come any lower than "Uncle" Davey.
> > >
> > > [Snip]
> >
> > Since you knew the guy, I'm sure you kept the obituaries in the
> > newspaper. Why not take this opportunity to make me really eat crow?
> >
> > Because, of course, you can't.
>
> In fact, I do not keep obituaries. My father passed away in 1985. I
> don't have *his* obituary. My grandfather--his father--passed away in
> 1995. I don't have *his* obituary or the obituaries of *any* of my
> relatives who have departed this mortal coil.
>
> Davey's been eating crow during nearly every encounter with me.
>
> > You are scum, Horn...
>
> Feel the love.
>
> > ...because you create puppets people of the same views as you like
> > and then you make them die...
>
> Davey has no evidence for any of this, of course, except that which has
> already been refuted and exposed;
Well I do, and you couldn''t "refute" or "expose" your butt out of a
garbage can.
Readers can easily see the ip of the two posters Horn and Sienkiewicz
being the same:
68.107.47.27
Here's another way. Open up both of these pages and compare the posting
hosts.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/574c691da0b8d14f?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fbcd3015fce5689f?dmode=source&hl=en
Explain away, Paluxy. The two of you are mirror images, and both of you
are full of bullshit, with the same mo. You'll have to do better than
claiming Sienkiewicz died after you got caught nym-shifting, at least
with those that don't just stupidly accept all the bs you spout.
You also got caught using at least one other sockpuppet, bozo. What was
that name, from some comic book character? I suppose I could find it if
it were actually important, which you aren't. Isn't that the sock you
used to try to tie in all your personas as being distinct posters, also
getting caught in that act and disappearing? That one never showed back
up, as I recall, after providing some conflicting, revealing little
tidbit or two. As adamant and motivated as he was to pursue the same
"game" that you and Sienkiewicz had, yet just quit posting altogether
all of a sudden, did he die too?
You told a serviceman one time that you were a Major and demanded he
tell you his commanding officers name, so you could inform him of some
imagined inappropriate behavior. You said "You can call me sir.", if I
recall correctly. Yet when I asked you for evidence of your authority,
you refused, got defensive with me and others, and treated the whole
thing like it was a joke, all the while refusing to identify yourself.
Now I would like to get to the bottom of that one, while you are at
providing evidence that Sienkiewicz was a real person who died and not
your sock puppet.
If you do manage these, I will not regard my doubt to warrant an
apology. You have provided more than enough evidence for any reasonable
person to assume the likelihood that you and Sienkiewicz are one and
the same. If you aren't, you're still my Paluxy.
*You* simply *do not get to* get away with intimidating a young
serviceman, on talk.origins or anywhere else, without evidence of your
authority to intimidate. What you *do* get to do is make yourself look
the loon you are. I only helped you along that path, years ago. Got
that straight, boy?
Dave
flagrantly fraudulent "Christians" one is ever to encounter!
Newbie doesn't have any evidence, either--none that hasn't been
addressed or exposed as bogus.
So newbie points at a message by him and that's evidence? Well, I
guess that figures. Newbie was always someone who was incredibly
arrogant, and really had nothing to be arrogant about.
> Readers can easily see the ip of the two posters Horn and Sienkiewicz
> being the same:
> 68.107.47.27
That is correct, and it's been explained. David was using my services
to access and post to Usenet.
> Here's another way. Open up both of these pages and compare the posting
> hosts.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/574c691da0b8d14f?dmode=source&hl=en
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fbcd3015fce5689f?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> Explain away, Paluxy.
It's been explained. Moronic newbie can't seem to figure out that if
David was using my services, *naturally* the posting host would be the
same. That may be too much for newbie to understand, but no one else
was confused by it.
> The two of you are mirror images...
Wrong, of coursem but neither Davey nor newbie can provide evidence for
it--they just post it or, in the case of newbie, spew it.
> ...and both of you are full of bullshit, with the same mo.
Newbie is something of a laughing stock in talk.origins--one who can't
tell his ass from a hole in the ground without a map written out with a
Crayola--preferably "burnt sienna." We are "full of bullshit" because
we, among many others--pretty much everybody, as a matter of
fact--exposed newbie as a clueless moron. Newbie's still got a mad on
about that, years later, so, every bit as scummy as Davey and probable
more so, he got wind that David's no longer with us, so he decides to
join Davey's line of attack. Newbie could never get the best of David
when he was posting. This is revenge--pure and simple. It's pathetic.
> You'll have to do better than claiming Sienkiewicz died
> after you got caught nym-shifting, at least with those
> that don't just stupidly accept all the bs you spout.
Of course, I was never "caught nym-shifting." Newbie is lying, good
"Christian" that he is...
> You also got caught using at least one other sockpuppet, bozo.
> What was that name, from some comic book character?
So Newbie claims that I was caught, using a name from a comic book
character, but he can't remember the name and can't post it? This all
sounds like made-up-after-the-fact nonsense to me. Typical of Newbie.
> I suppose I could find it if it were actually important, which
> you aren't.
Obviously, I'm important enough that, after years of scraping Newbie
off of my shoes and leaving him in the gutter where he belongs, Newbie
comes looking for me...
> Isn't that the sock you used to try to tie in all your
> personas as being distinct posters, also getting caught
> in that act and disappearing? That one never showed back
> up, as I recall, after providing some conflicting, revealing little
> tidbit or two.
Fact is that I've had quite a few people posting from my network. The
only one that I recall actually having run-ins with Newbie is David
who, it should be pointed out, humiliated Newbie on a fairly regular
basis. Newbie never grew up, and never gets over those sorts of
things, so none of this nonsense is surprising.
> As adamant and motivated as he was to pursue the same
> "game" that you and Sienkiewicz had, yet just quit posting altogether
> all of a sudden, did he die too?
Since Newbie can't be specific, I don't know how I'm supposed to answer
this, or at all, since Newbie has already told us that I'm not worth
the trouble of him actually presenting *evidence* for his claims.
> You told a serviceman one time that you were a Major and
> demanded he tell you his commanding officers name, so
> you could inform him of some imagined inappropriate
> behavior. You said "You can call me sir.", if I recall correctly.
This would be Josiah Koniecki, a young Marine who wandered into
talk.origins and pretended that this being a 19 year-old Marine and a
marksman was somehow relevant to the discussion, there. Newbie gets
some of this wrong. I was in the Reserve, at the time, and had quite a
few years in the service--9 active, the rest in the Reserve. Josiah
was acting like an ass and I put him in his place, as I have done with
Newbie on more occasions than is needed to recount here.
> Yet when I asked you for evidence of your authority,
> you refused, got defensive with me and others...
There were no "others," it was just Newbie. He *demanded* from me and
I told him to kiss my ass. I was quite right to do so. Newbie was
being presumptuous and got spanked for it. That was only one of many
such occasions. Ah, good times...good times...
> ...and treated the whole thing like it was a joke...
Correction: I treated *Newbie* as if *he* was a joke which, of course,
he was.
> ...all the while refusing to identify yourself.
I refused to provide personal information into the newsgroup--something
I learned, the hard way, should not be done. Newbie was, at the time,
a fairly anonymous, ranting idiot who demanded information to which he
had no right, even assuming that it was actually relevant (it
wasn't--retirees don't have commanding officers, for one thing).
> Now I would like to get to the bottom of that one, while you are at
> providing evidence that Sienkiewicz was a real person who died and not
> your sock puppet.
Newbie's claim requires that he present evidence. I am not obligated
to disprove Newbie's (or Davey's) claims--they must prove them. They
have not done so. Newbie is simply dredging up old stuff that not only
was already addressed, but was *volunteered* by David quite some time
ago. Outside of that, Newbie is owed nothing but contempt.
> If you do manage these, I will not regard my doubt to warrant an
> apology. You have provided more than enough evidence for any reasonable
> person to assume the likelihood that you and Sienkiewicz are one and
> the same. If you aren't, you're still my Paluxy.
And Newbie is still my bitch. What Newbie claims about how I am viewed
is completely inconsequential to me. Newbie was and probably remains
in the habit of making those sorts of statements, presuming to speak
for others, but he's only marginally capable of speaking for himself.
It's clear that this is all a tantrum based on battles that he lost
long ago, and he's not going to "win" them by dredging up old hatreds.
> *You* simply *do not get to* get away with intimidating a young
> serviceman, on talk.origins or anywhere else, without evidence of your
> authority to intimidate.
Except that I *did* "get away" with it. Where is Josiah, today? It's
possible that he's a bit older and, perhaps a bit wiser for the
experience. Then again, Newbie is a pretty good example of one who
never grows out of that sort of arrogance. The Marine Corps culture
certainly won't mature a young man with that sort of attitude, so
sometimes it falls to someone else, whenever such a young man decides
to step into someone else's yard and encounter the population there.
> What you *do* get to do is make yourself look the loon
> you are. I only helped you along that path, years ago. Got
> that straight, boy?
What I "got straight" is Newbie being Newbie, presuming to make
representations he's not qualified to make, while sniping like a
toothless puppy at the heels of his betters; and all that's needed to
deal with that is the usual rolled-up newspaper.
Newbie is another of a long line of phony "Christians" who seems to
think that the words of Jesus are not applicable to him, and he's shown
in on many occasions. He's a phony, a fraud, and a liar. He doesn't
have any credibility.
Glenn
know that you think you speak for everyone, though. But "using my
services" is somewhat lame, and only a claim. "It's been explained"
doesn't get you out of the sock, Paluxy. Fact is that both your
personas were posting from the same address, and that *is* evidence.
You even thought you could get away with creating an appearance that
you had some disagreement with Sienkiewicz, and him writing back
agreeing with you. Now wasn't that convenient, seeing as how you knew
him well enough to share an address with him, while he was "away".
Being "away, "Sienkiewicz" even replies and includes an email address
for you to contact him - using the same IP address. Not quite smart
enough, Paluxy. So Sienkiewicz was away from his regular posting
address, using your's, and felt he needed to supply you with an email
address. Brilliant!
In the same thread as the prior reference:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dab536e72cb3e766?dmode=source&hl=en
"But yes, I have other things in mind for when I can return to full
participation. Email me: hdsienkiewicz at the Mighty Y."
Read the rest of the thread.
snip more empty bullshit
Dave
More substanceless nonsense of no merit or value
Newbie's credibility is zero, he's an established liar, and he can't
even read for comprehension a considerable amount of the time. It's
one reason of many that I disposed of him ages ago. The threads to
which he refers include several examples of this, and are reminders of
his inability to make an intelligent argument for, well, anything.
Here's a list of articles that I posted, in response to and as
exposures and refutations of Newbie's idiocies, from which he ran:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/daf21478829caff5?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fa1a70ea7105d607?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6e0266fd951300d?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/edc61669e065b532?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0e091803979d599e?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e5e1cfb02fd16957?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/34cb6ffc0da80b45?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/960752c26531cd75?hl=en&
These are only a few examples of the many that I could cite, and some
of them come from the thread to which Newbie, himself, refers. They
are indicative of the game that Newbie tries to play. He can never
best anyone, intellectually, so he gets into these long threads of
arguments that go absolutely nowhere.
My own responsibilities have increased considerably since the days when
I could banter back and forth with the likes of Newbie (and since the
days when I, admittedly, had frustration and anger issues with respect
to a situation in which I no longer find myself). For example, I
teach, and tonight I have 17 draft papers to grade--all written by
people who *do* know how to read, so I'm sure to get more out of them.
I also took on concern, long ago, that talk.origins, in particular, was
being polluted by these silly personality wars that detracted from the
actual purpose of the group. I'm fairly certain that the tactic is, in
fact, intentional. Some creationists--like Newbie--completely
incapable, as they are, of actually arguing the science, make the group
unreadable by perpetuating off-topic nonsense. I certainly contributed
to that but, long ago, I decided to try to refrain from participating
in them, myself, and effectively cease being "part of the problem."
Newbie is free to rant and rave--an expose himself for the phony that
he is. He has no credibility and is of no consequence. I am,
therefore, free to ignore him.
Dave
Dave
Hypocritical Newbie wrote:
> But "using my services" is somewhat lame, and only a claim.
It's a fact that was established at the time and even before.
> "It's been explained" doesn't get you out of the sock,
> Paluxy. Fact is that both your personas were posting
> from the same address, and that *is* evidence.
Isn't it interesting, though, that when David was exposing Newbie's
sock, "majormyass," and using the fact that they were both using the
same service, Newbie insisted that this was *not* evidence.
Well, never mind that...Newbie is nothing and nobody. See the other
message.
Glenn
Dave wrote:
nothing constituting evidence
LOL. Hey Paluxy, I understand you used to be a "Dr.", another of your
past sockpuppets claims:
"since I know Dave personally"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/529bbcba5e8dc8f4?dmode=source&hl=en
"In checking, I noticed that Pagano did not reply to any part of Dr.
Horn's
response to Kristin's questions"
How many sockpuppets have you ran, Dr. Major Paluxy? Are you also an
astronaut? I know you are modest and not wont to brag, but let's have
the full story. All these puppets having common interests in the same
posters, with oh so similar attitudes and opinions concerning so many
topics, is it a wonder how you ever thought you could get away with
your usenet shenanigans. How many, Paluxy? I suspect at least 6, some
running concurrently, on and off for the past 13 or more years. You'll
feel better when you fess up, Doctor Dave, you really will.
I seem to remember you claiming you had a BS. Perhaps "BeckyLynn"
didn't know you as well as she thought? Or has all this *been* BS.
****************************************************
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e2e3d90f7bc8f59e?dmode=source&hl=en
> After all, he has claimed to be or been a "Major" in
> the Armed Forces, has alleged BS degrees in psychology
> and biology, and claimed to have been on Usenet for
> 6 years. LOL!
Or I could pretend to wander into a newsgroup - as Newbie has - and
pretend
to be able to hold my own with science professionals because I took a
couple
of science classes, built a complete coyote skeleton and have a pilot's
license.
****************************************************
Well Dr Major Paluxy, I have taken a couple of science classes, I did
build a coyote skeleton, and I do have a pilot's license. And I didn't
need any of that to expose you!
Glenn
Dave wrote:
snip bullshit
>
> My own responsibilities have increased considerably since the days when
> I could banter back and forth with the likes of Newbie (and since the
> days when I, admittedly, had frustration and anger issues with respect
> to a situation in which I no longer find myself). For example, I
> teach, and tonight I have 17 draft papers to grade--all written by
> people who *do* know how to read, so I'm sure to get more out of them.
> I also took on concern, long ago, that talk.origins, in particular, was
> being polluted by these silly personality wars that detracted from the
> actual purpose of the group. I'm fairly certain that the tactic is, in
> fact, intentional. Some creationists--like Newbie--completely
> incapable, as they are, of actually arguing the science, make the group
> unreadable by perpetuating off-topic nonsense. I certainly contributed
> to that but, long ago, I decided to try to refrain from participating
> in them, myself, and effectively cease being "part of the problem."
>
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=aHvP3xAAAAAfULrYDWI3wGaB2-lQbXQc&hl=en
Now you're a teacher, eh.
Glenn
Dave wrote:
> Funny thing, though:
>
> Hypocritical Newbie wrote:
>
> > But "using my services" is somewhat lame, and only a claim.
>
> It's a fact that was established at the time and even before.
>
> > "It's been explained" doesn't get you out of the sock,
> > Paluxy. Fact is that both your personas were posting
> > from the same address, and that *is* evidence.
(Crickets chirping)
>
> Isn't it interesting, though, that when David was exposing Newbie's
> sock, "majormyass," and using the fact that they were both using the
> same service, Newbie insisted that this was *not* evidence.
>
"Sienkiewicz" exposed a sock by the "fact" that two posters used the
same news service?
Dr.Horn, your rhetoric as Sienkiewicz was not evidence of anything but
your ability to flap your lips, and was no more convincing than your
claim above. Damn, but that was one slick piece of work, Paluxy.
ROTFLMAO! I suspect that if I went back I could find socks of yours by
simply checking if they used Dejanews, huh.
Glenn
Dave wrote:
snip empty rhetoric
> Newbie is free to rant and rave--an expose himself for the phony that
> he is. He has no credibility and is of no consequence. I am,
> therefore, free to ignore him.
You would have been wise to have done so before you started posting,
"Doctor" Paluxy.
Tell us again how I interrupt the newsgroup, by providing listeners
with a little advanced peek into why I call you Paluxy. Or should I?
You know, your dogged insistence that in a conversation with another
about the Paluxy footprints, I referred to human tracks? And how long
it took, after I warned you to clear out, how long it took you to
realize you had been a fool? And that even after that, you wanted to
argue with me as if I did believe that there were human tracks of the
past there? Come on, Paluxy, give us a story about interrupting the
newsgroup, and how you are seen as the wise sage of the internet.
Glenn
Dave wrote:
>
> Well, never mind that...Newbie is nothing and nobody. See the other
> message.
The one where "Sienkiewicz, Esquire" gets in too deep with legal
matters, apologizes to a business Gastrich contracted with, and
disappears for good before he gets his ass investigated and in trouble
for poking his silly face into other people's private lives?
Or this one, you know, your old habit of claiming people aren't
Christians when they don't do what you think they should? Uncle Davey
picked up on it a long time ago. Run with it, Paluxy:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/44e66763845bb5e4?dmode=source&hl=en
david.sienkiew...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message
<news:35fa3772.04100...@posting.google.com>...
> So, "major," what about:
> "And The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every
> one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with
> gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to
> know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after
> being captured by him to do his will." - 2 Timothy 2:24-26
> Got something to tell us about this?
> Now, now...don't forget to turn that other cheek.
> You can sneer at us later about how you're here to "fight."
Looks like this one goes with "turn the other cheek," eh, "major?"
**************************************
Sound familiar, "Sienkiewicz"? It *should*. It's your m.o.
By the way, you still have a website running.
(-:W H O S O E V E R:-)
Dave wrote:
> Here's a list of articles that I posted, in response to and as
> exposures and refutations of Newbie's idiocies, from which he ran:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/daf21478829caff5?hl=en&
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fa1a70ea7105d607?hl=en&
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6e0266fd951300d?hl=en&
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/edc61669e065b532?hl=en&
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0e091803979d599e?hl=en&
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e5e1cfb02fd16957?hl=en&
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/34cb6ffc0da80b45?hl=en&
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/960752c26531cd75?hl=en&
You really need to get another hobby, Dave. Your need to either keep
or find past posts seems to be at the level of obsession...
> Newbie is free to rant and rave--an expose himself for the phony that
> he is.
More jejeune name-calling along with the same old "phony"
song-and-dance from you. You're really starting to sound like a
johnny-one-note-paranoid kinda-guy.
> He has no credibility and is of no consequence.
So proclaimeth Dave Horn. Dave "is" therefore we should believe him
and hang on his every word.
> I am,
> therefore, free to ignore him.
Then why don't you?
(As seen below, Dave just HAD to respond one more time to Glenn, the
man of "no credibility" or "consequence". I also remember Dave saying
that he was finished with Wolf and would no longer be responding to
him. That lasted what? A few hours?)
chris.li...@gmail.com
Glenn wrote:
snip
> No one else probably cared or wanted to have you attack them. Good to
> know that you think you speak for everyone, though. But "using my
> services" is somewhat lame, and only a claim.
You seemed to think it was good enough when you started posting under
"ianstim..." or whatever it was.
Sauce. Goose. Gander.
Chris
Glenn
chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > No one else probably cared or wanted to have you attack them. Good to
> > know that you think you speak for everyone, though. But "using my
> > services" is somewhat lame, and only a claim.
>
> You seemed to think it was good enough when you started posting under
> "ianstim..." or whatever it was.
>
> Sauce. Goose. Gander.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d00aa5d4b0bb5b9a?dmode=source&hl=en
"Yes. Glenn ran into the google "posting limit" and decided to let me,
his evil twin, Glenn, take over for awhile. He tried to resolve the
issue with google, but got no response and couldn't post after an hour.
Of course, as soon as I was in control, I sent email back to google
explaining that it had all been a mistake, and that everything was
fine."
That was me, explaining why I used a different email address in a
thread I had made frequent posts in. It must have confused poor Chris
terribly, what with a "sockpuppet" admitting that he knew and was the
twin of the other sock, posting under the same IP address.
I guess "true" sock puppetry will fool the "faithful" every time.
Glenn
This reposted again on Dec 3?
Ironic, Horn speaks about detracting from some "actual purpose" of a
group, and posts the above twice to free.christians. Another irony, he
has often chastized others for not staying "on topic", yet when
pressed, brings up his old accusations that have nothing to do with the
current topic of sockpuppetry. He breaks his own rules! Of course, Horn
has never been seen to care about what rules he breaks. He thinks *he*
gets to do whatever he wants, but other's aren't entitled. This was
what set him off in my very first post to him, and he exhibited *just*
that nature, that I just explained.
I'll not clutter the group with defense of his claims above. I could,
with evidence, easily show that he is lying (his claim about me, of
course), and provide a couple posts where I do address his questions.
He will not accept that I am even entitled to my opinion, and the "long
threads that go nowhere" is exactly what he expects and wants to
happen. I'm sure there is little doubt in anyones mind about *that*. I
should have snipped his reposted innuendo above, but I left it to
strengthen any doubt of that.
Another typical m.o. for "Horn" is his predisposition, when cornered,
to play every ad homenim he thinks might sound reasonable to his
imagined followers, and claim something like he has "disposed" of his
adversaries. This is common behavior for Horn et.al. when substantive
evidence is brought against him. He hit's back with everything he's
got, which is *nothing*, just more of the same substanceless rhetoric.
A lot of it, pages and pages of it, on and on. The links above will
only move one into more of the same, Horn's world of insanity.