All you fucking assholes, the free will wiki still needs changing

[Syamsu]

It only takes a click to undo the vandalism of Darwinist true
believers.

What this entry says basically is that you are allowed to express
emotions, to have subjective opinions. You are allowed to say a person
is loving, and beautiful, or hateful and ugly, and have it be a
subjective opinion not an objective fact, which conclusion you reached
by a way of choosing.

One can see the 2 ways of reaching a conclusion objective and
subjective in the quotes of Ockham and Reid.

The entry:
Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and
physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that
the
events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not
have an entirely physical explanation, which requires that the world
is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe
that
some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.
In
the dual categories the physical is established to exist by objective
measurement, and the non-physical agency is identified through
subjective opinion, requiring a choice on the part of the observer
(samelike beauty is categoricaly a matter of subjective opinion). [1]
[2]


Dualism The agency in a choice, such as love, hate, God, is
subjectively identified resulting in an opinion. What is chosen, such
as the body, is objectively measured resulting in a fact.


agency in a choice - what is chosen
subjectively identified - objectively measured
non-physical - physical
spiritual - material
soul - body
opinion - fact
God love hate self etc. -
creator - creation


(1) we can have no knowledge of an
immaterial soul; nor can we prove its existence philosophically.
Instead we must rely on revealed truth and faith"
(2)Reid staunchly
refuses to speculate on the substance of the self,...he describes
souls as beings of a quite different Nature than material bodies

[Boikat]

On Apr 8, 8:11 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It only takes a click to undo the vandalism of Darwinist true
> believers.
>
> What this entry says basically is that you are allowed to express
> emotions, to have subjective opinions. You are allowed to say a person
> is loving, and beautiful, or hateful and ugly, and have it be a
> subjective opinion not an objective fact, which conclusion you reached
> by a way of choosing.

That's fine as far as it goes.

>
> One can see the 2 ways of reaching a conclusion objective and
> subjective in the quotes of Ockham and Reid.

But here is where you fuck up.

Wiki is not a podium for you to display your dementia or express your
religious views as "fact".

Boikat

[Syamsu]

So Boikat is a baldfacd liar when he does not affirm that "knowledge
and prove" is contrasted with "faith and revelation" as 2 different
ways of reaching a conlusion in the citation of Ockham.

And I want to point out again that most all evolutionists are habitual
liars about the holocaust as well. They make up a history of the
holocaust with the goal to save the reputation of Darwinists and
Darwinism. Carefully sorting out facts that make them look good, and
mentioning those, and leaving out all facts which make them look bad.
Evolutionists are baldfaced liars about the holocaust, and they are
liars about libertarian philosophers.

You can see on the free will wiki that they attempt to make
libertarians look ridiculous with unwarranted fantasizing about a
soul, instead of that libertarians take subjective opinions seriously,
to arrive at a conclusion through a way of choosing.

You can undo the vandalism of evolutionist liars here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_will&action=history

For completeness one may, or may not enter a contribution to the talk
page , saying that you affirm that Ockham's "prove and knowing"
contrast with "fath and revelation" is reasonably translated with
objective and subjective ways of reaching a conclusion. But it is not
neccessary to do that, because it is obvious that Ockham and Reid
posit dual ways of reaching a conclusion, and the people who oppose it
are all liars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_will

[Boikat]

On Apr 8, 9:36 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 4:13 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 8:11 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > (1) we can have no knowledge of an
> > > immaterial soul; nor can we prove its existence philosophically.
> > > Instead we must rely on revealed truth and faith"
> > > (2)Reid staunchly
> > > refuses to speculate on the substance of the self,...he describes
> > > souls as beings of a quite different Nature than material bodies
>
> > Wiki is not a podium for you to display your dementia or express your
> > religious views as "fact".
>
> So Boikat is a baldfacd liar

Where is my lie?

> when he does not affirm that "knowledge
> and prove" is contrasted with "faith and revelation" as 2 different
> ways of reaching a conlusion in the citation of Ockham.

Not relevant to you psychotic rants.

>
> And I want to point out again that most all evolutionists are habitual
> liars about the holocaust as well.

Now who's lying?

>They make up a history of the
> holocaust with the goal to save the reputation of Darwinists and
> Darwinism. Carefully sorting out facts that make them look good, and
> mentioning those, and leaving out all facts which make them look bad.
> Evolutionists are baldfaced liars about the holocaust, and they are
> liars about libertarian philosophers.
>

And you are still bat-shit insane. It's a wonder they let you roam
about freely.

> You can see on the free will wiki that they attempt to make
> libertarians look ridiculous with unwarranted fantasizing about a
> soul, instead of that libertarians take subjective opinions seriously,
> to arrive at a conclusion through a way of choosing.

I doubt seriously that you represent the typical libertarian.

>
> You can undo the vandalism of evolutionist liars here
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_will&action=history
>
> For completeness one may, or may not enter a contribution to the talk
> page , saying that you affirm that Ockham's "prove and knowing"
> contrast with "fath and revelation" is reasonably translated with
> objective and subjective ways of reaching a conclusion. But it is not
> neccessary to do that, because it is obvious that Ockham and Reid
> posit dual ways of reaching a conclusion, and the people who oppose it
> are all liars.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_will

Take your meds.

Boikat

[Garamond Lethe]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:11:50 -0700, Syamsu wrote:

> It only takes a click to undo the vandalism of Darwinist true believers.
>

You're asking us for a favor and begin by calling us "fucking assholes"?

I think you've demonstrated (over and over and over and over again) that
it takes quite a bit more than a "click" to undo a wikipedia edit. It
also takes more than pages of text repeating the same bad argument and it
takes more than "trying" to build consensus.

But you haven't --- and aren't able --- to learn this. If you weren't
banned you still be over there doing the same unthinking, ineffective
edits. Why? Because you don't have free will, of course.

If you *did* have free will, you could stop and consider another course
of action. You could ask for advice, determine where there was
agreement, do additional research, and most of all hold off on making
further edits until at least a few people agreed with you.

It's not that you're choosing to avoid all of that. You *can't* choose,
even when you see how ineffective your actions are.

That's not a philosophical problem. That's a (treatable!) medical
problem.

[Will in New Haven]

Is this piece of intellectual dogfood calling itself a libertarian? I
guess that is the worst insult we libertarians have ever received on
usenet, which is really quite a feat.


--
Will in New Haven

[Ernest Major]

In message
<7bd79f6c-b796-4944...@x17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> writes

He's claiming to be a metaphysical libertarian (a term of art in
philosophy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)

He may or may not be correct in so claiming, but he is not claiming to
be a libertarian in the American political sense.

>
>--
>Will in New Haven
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Syamsu]

I told you, go fuck yourself liar

[Burkhard]

and he is using his free will and disobeys your order! How...shocking,

[Kleuskes & Moos]

Oooohhhh... Insults... He must have hit some nerve.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________
/ Where do your SOCKS go when you lose \
\ them in th' WASHER? /
--------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Syamsu]

Garamond knows he's fucking guilty, because the facts are obvious, and
the honor of Ockham is at stake. It must mean Garamond is against
freedom, what a fucking asshole, he should never be trusted.

[Boikat]

As opposed to some nut-job that claims rocks have free will and make
decisions?

Boikat

[Garamond Lethe]

On the contrary, I'm happy for you to babble here at t.o. and I would
oppose anyone who would try to curtail your freedom to do so.

You, on the other hand, want to curtail my ability to make edits at
wikipedia. You specifically requested that I be banned, remember?

But I don't think you have any great interest in the freedom of anyone
else. What you'd really prefer is the freedom to tyrannize with
impunity. Most competent people grow out of this phase.

[Syamsu]

I don't want to see you posting liar.

[Boikat]

Aside from your usual inanities, you also have the emotional maturity
of a five year old.

Boikat

[Garamond Lethe]

You have the freedom to walk away, right?

And I have the freedom to keep posting.

Lovely thing, freedom....

[Syamsu]

You're never going to convince me that you are not a liar, and the
other evolutionists don't give a shit that you lied about Ockham. So
fuck off with your ridiculous self-justification that Ockham said
"something".

[Syamsu]

On Apr 9, 1:31 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Aside from your usual inanities, you also have the emotional maturity
> of a five year old.

This matters Boikat. Through lies like these the game of life in
society is corrupted. It matters more than rape and murder, it is
worse. Those who bring false teachings like these are the most guilty
ones, that is what is written in the book. And the book is right,
nazism, communism, false teachings are the worst crimes. And Garamond
Lethe promotes the false teaching that love and hate are matters of
objective fact. And people grow up believing this, and the game of
life is corrupt, it makes people measure each other, instead of being
subjective to one another as the owner of their choices. It very
directly kills love. He is among the worst criminals according to
Islam.

[Boikat]

I didn't think I needed to add "insane". But thanks for the reminder.

Boikat

[Boikat]

But isn't that your argument of justification? When you go off the
deep end of the brink of sanity, you go whole hog.

Boikat

[Garamond Lethe]

Lucky for me that's not part of my year-end review.

> and the other
> evolutionists don't give a shit that you lied about Ockham.

Well, see, that's the funny thing. I've actually read Ockham, and his
ideas on free will *are* tied up with his ideas on the soul. And it
might just be that you'd find those ideas amenable to your position.

But since you don't know how to go about making a solid, persuasive
argument, you're stuck with repeating the same quote over and over
again. That's a bad argument (to the extent it can be called an argument
at all) and until you're willing to drop it you're not going to be
effective in persuading people that you're correct.

At this point I'd usually bring up a citation or two (_The Cambridge
Companion to Ockham_, perhaps) but reading Ockham isn't going to fix what
ails you.

> So fuck off
> with your ridiculous self-justification that Ockham said "something".

Ockham did indeed say something. You just haven't found what he said
about free will.

[Garamond Lethe]

Did you just finish telling me that you had no responsibility for being
banned from wikipedia? Talk about someone not owning their choices....

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:
What "book"?
Either tell me what "book" you are quoting that says that "nazism" and
"communism" are equivalent to "false teachings", and are, therefore
the "worst crimes" (with useable citation), or admit you are an idiot.
Either wake up to recorded history, or admit you are an idiot.
Either...wait--just admit you are an idiot, and that your definition
of "lie" means "disagree with Tyramisu".

[Syamsu]

You are behaving like a liar by seeking justification in Ockham's
writings. A liar cannot see truth, you must express remorse for your
lying, and right the wrong you did.

[timoth...@gmail.com]

Eh? If a liar "can't see truth" then how does he or she know that he or she is lying? Get your epistemology right.

[timoth...@gmail.com]

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:
What "book"?

[Syamsu]

Liars don't know, they only know the hatred of lying, and then they
know nothing. Garamond Lethe as being the owner of his choices, in the
way Ockham referred to it as a matter of faith and revelation, does
not exist anymore. He says the question whether or not he exist as
being such is false, that it is only a matter of objective fact that
he exists, and not faith and revelation. And I acknowledge the
validity of faith, and choose that he does not exist, and believe it
with the strong faith that comes with being a muslim.

[Burkhard]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12023825@N04/2898021822/lightbox/

> and believe it
> with the strong faith that comes with being a muslim.

I'm sure we won't hold you against Islam.

[Syamsu]

The religious credibility of evolutionists is already non-existent.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:
In this forum, you have asserted: "Those who bring false teachings

like these are the most guilty
ones, that is what is written in the book. And the book is right,
nazism, communism, false teachings are the worst crimes."

I have asked you to identify the "book" of which you speak, and cite
where this interesting claim is made.
You have failed to do so.

Was your assertion a lie?

[Syamsu]

I don't know what rock you crawled out from under, but you are
processed same as everybody else. You are a liar about libertarians
who objectifies love and hate, you are a social darwinist.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Syamsu/Nando considers asking him to cite his sources is a form of
oppression.

Mitchell Coffey

[Slow Vehicle]

So, does this mean you can't answer the question?

Since you lnow know nothing about me, ALL of your statements about me
are, by your own standards, lies.

Which book? It ought to be a fairly easy question...

[John Stockwell]

The religious are certainly credulus, but to say that there is such
a thing as "religious credibility" is on oxymoron. Syamsu puts the
"moron" back in oxymoron.

[Syamsu]

Why don't you get this? The wiki about free will is still the same, so
you are a fucking liar about Ockham. You are one of those smarmy
assholes from school and university who insists on evidence for
arriving at a conclusion, and does not support subjective opinion. You
fucking nerd asshole.

[Garamond Lethe]

Well, you mentioned what was written in a particular book as evidence for
your opinion.

Remember this?

"Those who bring false teachings like these are the most guilty ones,
that is what is written in the book."

I don't think Ockham said that.

Which book were you referring to?

> The wiki about free will is still the same, so
> you are a fucking liar about Ockham.

You were asked which book you were quoting from.

> You are one of those smarmy
> assholes from school and university who insists on evidence for arriving
> at a conclusion, and does not support subjective opinion. You fucking
> nerd asshole.

That's priceless.

[Slow Vehicle]

Which book?

You have made an assertion of a fact.
If that fact is a fabrication of your imagination, then it is a lie.
If that fact is not a lie, you ought to be able to direct me to it.
In other words, why does asking you to support a bald assertion you
have made make you so angry?

Why not tell me which book you are talking about, so that I can read
it myself?

And I remind you that you know NOTHING about me, so EVERY assertion
about me that you fabricate is a lie.

As an exercise: You have asserted that I am a "fucking liar about
Ockham".
I challenge you to demonstrate anything that I have ever said, in any
forum, that allows you to assert that, or upon which such assertion
could colorably be based.

If you cannot do so, I will expect a retraction, and an apology.

[Syamsu]

That's empty, Garamond Lethe as the owner of his choices does not
exist.

[Syamsu]

You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

In response to my civil question, asking you to direct me to the
source of an assertion you have made is as follows:

"You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button."

Is this an admission that you invented the assertion you made? Are
you, in fact, unable to demonstrate which book supports your position?

You still know nothing about me, and you presume to direct my
behavior. Why not just tell me which book you were talking about?

[Boikat]

On Apr 9, 1:20 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
> about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
> over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.

How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?

Boikat

[Garamond Lethe]

What book were you referring to?

Oh, nevermind, you made it up.

[Syamsu]

Sounds like computer error.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

"Those who bring false teachings like these are the most guilty
ones, that is what is written in the book. And the book is right,
nazism, communism, false teachings are the worst crimes."

To which book do you refer?

[Richard Clayton]

"Insists on evidence for arriving at a conclusion"? Man, I hope Nando
never serves on a jury.

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

[Boikat]

On Apr 9, 3:49 pm, Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'm sure they have a Sanity Clause.... Nyuck nyuck nyuck....

Boikat

[Mitchell Coffey]

Wait: the Sanity Clause doesn't exist...

Mitchell Coffey

[Mark Isaak]

You call people who disagree with you "fucking assholes" and threaten to
kill them. I'm sure Ockham must have explained that somewhere.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Syamsu]

On Apr 9, 11:50 pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
> Garamond Lethe wrote:
> > Syamsu wrote:
>
> [..]

>
> >> You are one of those smarmy assholes from school and university who
> >> insists on evidence for arriving at a conclusion, and does not support
> >> subjective opinion. You fucking nerd asshole.
>
> > That's priceless.
>

> I suppose we are privileged to get a glimpse of an insight in Nando's
> history there.
>
> We can imagine what his fellow students may have thought of him.
>
> I do feel sorry for Nando, despite him being so unpleasant sometimes. He
> must be a very lonely person.

uh fuck you asshole nerd liars. I get attention all the time because I
approach people in a properly subjective way as the owner of their
choices. Most of you are fucking nerd atheist liars in the atheist
damned nation of the USA. Most of the people in the USA hate you
atheist shitbags for what you have done to the country.

[Boikat]

On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 4/9/12 11:29 AM, Boikat wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 1:20 pm, Syamsu<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
> >> about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
> >> over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.
>
> > How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?
>
> You call people who disagree with you "fucking assholes" and threaten to
> kill them.  I'm sure Ockham must have explained that somewhere.

That would make an Art Appreciation class interesting:

"The Mona Lisa, one of the most beautiful portraits ever painted..."

"Lying fucking asshole! She has no eyebrows! I should kill you!"

Boikat

[Syamsu]

On Apr 10, 12:18 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 4/9/12 11:29 AM, Boikat wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 1:20 pm, Syamsu<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
> >> about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
> >> over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.
>
> > How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?
>
> You call people who disagree with you "fucking assholes" and threaten to
> kill them.  I'm sure Ockham must have explained that somewhere.

That's right Mark, the next thing for you in your life is death. After
your lying about the holocaust, and now lying about the way the agency
in a choice is addressed, your soul is empty, in my opinion, and you
just go through the motions until death. Mark as the owner of his
choices also no longer exists. As Ockham said, establishing the
existence of the owner of the decisions is a matter of subjective
opinion, and the choice turns out empty.

[Boikat]

You should probably take another self-imposed "time out" since you're
starting to display psychotic behaviour patterns again.

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

>
> uh fuck you asshole nerd liars. I get attention all the time because I
> approach people in a properly subjective way as the owner of their
> choices. Most of you are fucking nerd atheist liars in the atheist
> damned nation of the USA. Most of the people in the USA hate you
> atheist shitbags for what you have done to the country.

Tyramisu:

What "book" did you mean?

Instead of flailing about in the dark trying to insult me, why not
just tell me the source of your claim?

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

Where did Ockham say that?
And, to what book do you refer in your other claim, the one I have
been patiently asking about?

[timoth...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 9, 2012 9:37:42 PM UTC+10, Syamsu wrote:
> On Apr 9, 12:54 pm, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, April 9, 2012 8:46:42 PM UTC+10, Syamsu wrote:
> > > On Apr 9, 3:14 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:57:14 -0700, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 9, 1:30 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:21:10 -0700, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > >> > On Apr 9, 12:26 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:22:13 -0700, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > >> >> > On Apr 8, 10:51 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> validity of faith, and choose that he does not exist, and believe it

> with the strong faith that comes with being a muslim.

That is the point. If they don't "know", then how can they distinguish truth from falsity, and if they can't distinguish, then how can they choose to deliberately lie? Your argument doesn't make sense.

Of course, they could toss a coin, I suppose. But that would be "objective".

[Syamsu]

On 10 apr, 00:37, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
> Syamsu wrote:
> > nmp wrote:
>
> [..]

>
> >> I do feel sorry for Nando, despite him being so unpleasant sometimes.
> >> He must be a very lonely person.
>
> > uh fuck you asshole nerd liars. I get attention all the time because I
> > approach people in a properly subjective way as the owner of their
> > choices. Most of you are fucking nerd atheist liars in the atheist
> > damned nation of the USA. Most of the people in the USA hate you atheist
> > shitbags for what you have done to the country.
>

> Niet te snel conclusies trekken, Nando.

Fuck off ashole

[Syamsu]

You have been fucking nerd idiot changing my name in your first post.
You are a fucking nerd asshole who doesn't know how to deal with
subjective opinions.

[Slow Vehicle]

> You have been fucking nerd idiot changing my name in your first post.
> You are a fucking nerd asshole who doesn't know how to deal with
> subjective opinions.

Tyramisu:

You are free to voice any subjective opinion you need to foster the
tatters of your self-image.
Your subjective opinion is, however, just that: yours, and subjective,
As such, it does not bear any relationship to truth, or reality,
outside of the vagaries of chance.

You have behaved as a small, spoiled, child, bravely presuming upon
the anonymity of the internet to spew vituperation (and, Ooo! Using
such grown-up language!) hoping to obscure the point that you say
things that are not true, that can be demonstrated to be not true,
while calling others "liars".

You have told multiple lies about me, through ignorance.

You have told multiple lies about history and reality. I choose not to
speculate about why you have done so.

I have asked you for two things:
1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?

I am interested in your demonstration that you are not simply a
careless, inventive liar.

[Syamsu]

On 10 apr, 13:35, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You have been fucking nerd idiot changing my name in your first post.
> > You are a fucking nerd asshole who doesn't know how to deal with
> > subjective opinions.
>
> Tyramisu:
>
> You are free to voice any subjective opinion you need to foster the
> tatters of your self-image.
> Your subjective opinion is, however, just that: yours, and subjective,
> As such, it does not bear any relationship to truth, or reality,
> outside of the vagaries of chance.

It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.

> You have behaved as a small, spoiled, child, bravely presuming upon
> the anonymity of the internet to spew vituperation (and, Ooo! Using
> such grown-up language!) hoping to obscure the point that you say
> things that are not true, that can be demonstrated to be not true,
> while calling others "liars".

You fucking nerd shitbag.

> You have told multiple lies about me, through ignorance.

Your decision not to chang the free will wiki, together with your
smarmy nerdness to ask for evidence in a thread about subjective
opinion, fully validates the opinion, that you are a fucking nerd
asshole.

> You have told multiple lies about history and reality. I choose not to
> speculate about why you have done so.

You are a liar yourself obvious, I have not told any lies.

> I have asked you for two things:
> 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?

Go fuck yourself nerd.

> I am interested in your demonstration that you are not simply a
> careless, inventive liar.

I am interested in cussing out a fucking nerd liar.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu: In extremis, you become tedious.

> > > You have been fucking nerd idiot changing my name in your first post.
> > > You are a fucking nerd asshole who doesn't know how to deal with
> > > subjective opinions.
>
> > Tyramisu:
>
> > You are free to voice any subjective opinion you need to foster the
> > tatters of your self-image.
> > Your subjective opinion is, however, just that: yours, and subjective,
> > As such, it does not bear any relationship to truth, or reality,
> > outside of the vagaries of chance.
>
> It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
> your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.

What does this sentence mean? More to the point, what do you think it
means?

> > You have behaved as a small, spoiled, child, bravely presuming upon
> > the anonymity of the internet to spew vituperation (and, Ooo! Using
> > such grown-up language!) hoping to obscure the point that you say
> > things that are not true, that can be demonstrated to be not true,
> > while calling others "liars".
>
> You fucking nerd shitbag.

Ooo! Such plangent discourse!

> > You have told multiple lies about me, through ignorance.
>
> Your decision not to chang the free will wiki, together with your
> smarmy nerdness to ask for evidence in a thread about subjective
> opinion, fully validates the opinion, that you are a fucking nerd
> asshole.

Wait--you mean there isn't a book? Ockham did not say what you said
he said? The cake is a lie?

> > You have told multiple lies about history and reality. I choose not to
> > speculate about why you have done so.
> You are a liar yourself obvious, I have not told any lies.

-What "book"?
-Where did Okham say, ."..establishing the

existence of the owner of the decisions is a matter of subjective
opinion"?

-Your take on the reasons you got suspended.
-And, parenthetically, every single thing you have said about me
(other than the fact that I refer to by an alteration of your name).

You could start showing me that you are not a liar by addressing these
issues.

>
> > I have asked you for two things:
> > 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> > 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> > the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
>
> Go fuck yourself nerd.

Ooo! Such bravery! Such intellectual rigor! Such studliness!

> > I am interested in your demonstration that you are not simply a
> > careless, inventive liar.
>
> I am interested in cussing out a fucking nerd liar.

That's sweet, and it explains the amount of time you must spend
yowling at reflective surfaces...and, co-incidentally, defines the
upper limits of your intellectual ability.
It would probably be more effective if you had any idea what any of
the words you use mean.

Once again:

[Syamsu]

On 10 apr, 14:38, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tyramisu:  In extremis, you become tedious.

> > It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
> > your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.
>
> What does this sentence mean?  More to the point, what do you think it
> means?

As I said, the fucking asshole nerd doesn't understand subjective
opinion.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 04/09/2012 06:18 PM, Syamsu wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:50 pm, nmp<n...@mail.please> wrote:
>> Garamond Lethe wrote:
>>> Syamsu wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>> You are one of those smarmy assholes from school and university who
>>>> insists on evidence for arriving at a conclusion, and does not support
>>>> subjective opinion. You fucking nerd asshole.
>>
>>> That's priceless.
>>
>> I suppose we are privileged to get a glimpse of an insight in Nando's
>> history there.
>>
>> We can imagine what his fellow students may have thought of him.
>>
>> I do feel sorry for Nando, despite him being so unpleasant sometimes. He
>> must be a very lonely person.
>
> uh fuck you asshole nerd liars. I get attention all the time because I
> approach people in a properly subjective way as the owner of their
> choices. Most of you are fucking nerd atheist liars in the atheist
> damned nation of the USA.

Here is is asserted that the USA is an atheist nation. Could that mean a
negligible number of people in the USA are believers?

> Most of the people in the USA hate you
> atheist shitbags for what you have done to the country.

Yet here it is asserted that most people in an atheist nation hate
atheists. Could that mean atheists hate themselves?


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Slow Vehicle]

So, what you mean is, "In my opinion, this person is a 'fucking
asshole nerd', and because it is my opinion, it needs no
correspondence to reality at any point"?

If that were true, why is it a problem that your chosen form of self-
expression, reminiscent of caged adolescent simians, has been removed
form the Free Will wiki? Isn't that just a "subjective opinion", too?

For that matter, how can you use the word "lie" when your opinions
share no orthographic map with demonstrable reality? If everything is
subjective, how can anything be a lie?

You have still failed to answer any actual questions.
You have still failed to demonstrate where I have told a lie.

I reiterate:

[Syamsu]

Oh horrible nerdspeak. I am sure that many a person you have met,
would also like to express the opinion about you , that you as the
owner of your choices are a fucking nerd asshole.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

It is (a little bit) interesting that you claim to know what others
think, when everything is subjective...
It is (a little bit less) interesting that you seem to believe that
personal invective can somehow replace, or stand in for, discourse.

How can you use the word "lie" when your opinions

share no orthographic map with demonstrable reality? If everything
is
subjective, how can anything be a lie?

You have still failed to answer any actual questions.
You have still failed to demonstrate where I have told a lie.

I reiterate:
1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?

Could it be that your vituperation, your sophomoric insults, are
supposed to distract from the fact that there is no "book" that makes
the claim you forward?
That Ockham did not, in fact, make the assertion you forward?

[Syamsu]

You are a fucking nerd requesting objective facts in a thread about
subjective opinion. What you get is subjective opinon, you fucking
retard nerd.

[Slow Vehicle]

You made a substantive claim. I asked you to verify said claim. You
retreated to personal attack, demonstrating that your substantive
claim is not, shall we say, in accordance with any truth outside your
head. The fact that you have been unable to substantiate even one
concrete claim casts everything you have said into doubt. If you
can't even answer a question about your own sources, or about your own
claims, why is your subjective take on history, meaning, truth,
beauty, or the pursuit of mooseberry bushes (for that matter your
subjective idea of what the thread is "about") be taken to have any
kind of validity outside your onanistic mewling?

If everything is subjective, and nothing is to be held to a standard
of demonstrable reality, then you truly have no place to complain--in
that context, the concept of "lie" has no meaning. The content of a
wiki has no meaning.

So, I ask again, purely for my own edification:

[Boikat]

On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 9, 11:50 pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> > > Syamsu wrote:
>
> > [..]
>
> > >> You are one of those smarmy assholes from school and university who
> > >> insists on evidence for arriving at a conclusion, and does not support
> > >> subjective opinion. You fucking nerd asshole.
>
> > > That's priceless.
>
> > I suppose we are privileged to get a glimpse of an insight in Nando's
> > history there.
>
> > We can imagine what his fellow students may have thought of him.
>
> > I do feel sorry for Nando, despite him being so unpleasant sometimes. He
> > must be a very lonely person.
>
> uh fuck you asshole nerd liars. I get attention all the time because I
> approach people in a properly subjective way as the owner of their
> choices.

No, you get peoples attention in the same way as someone who is
wearing a pair of cardboard antlers on his head, and nothing else,
while running down a busy street in traffic and yelling, "Look at me!
I'm a gazelle!" gets attention.

> Most of you are fucking nerd atheist liars in the atheist
> damned nation of the USA. Most of the people in the USA hate you
> atheist shitbags for what you have done to the country

You just want to destroy our knowlege of freedom from religious
extremists.

Boikat

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:29:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Boikat
<boi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Apr 9, 1:20 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
>> about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
>> over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.
>
>How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?

As far as I can tell:

"Hey, did I really think that?"

<ponder, ponder>

"Yep, I sure did."
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Syamsu]

On Apr 10, 5:50 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You made a substantive claim. I asked you to verify said claim.  You
> retreated to personal attack, demonstrating that your substantive
> claim is not, shall we say, in accordance with any truth outside your
> head.  The fact that you have been unable to substantiate even one
> concrete claim casts everything you have said into doubt.  If you
> can't even answer a question about your own sources, or about your own
> claims, why is your subjective take on history, meaning, truth,
> beauty, or the pursuit of mooseberry bushes (for that matter your
> subjective idea of what the thread is "about") be taken to have any
> kind of validity outside your onanistic mewling?
>
> If everything is subjective, and nothing is to be held to a standard
> of demonstrable reality, then you truly have no place to complain--in
> that context, the concept of "lie" has no meaning.  The content of a
> wiki has no meaning.
>
> So, I ask again, purely for my own edification:
>
> 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
>  the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?

Indeed, I will never answer your nerd question, you fucking asshole.
How do you go from Ockham "distinghuished subjective and objective" to
"everything is subjective"? Obviously you are a fucking nerd asshole
who makes everything into a matter objective fact, and then you
project on me that I make everything subjective.

[Slow Vehicle]

Hey, Tyramisu:

You are the one who keeps saying that this thread is about subjective
opinion, meaning (at least in your-what passes for a-mind) that
objective facts have no place. So that's where I'm getting it. If
objective reality, has no place in this discussion, then everything
(here) is purely subjective. Your rules.
If so, what distinguishes your constructed-from-whole-cloth cardboard
version of "Darwinism", that not even Darwin would recognize, fro a
lie? It certainly isn't rooted in, or based in any way upon, any
substantive reality...

1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?

3. Where does Darwin say what you say he said?

[Syamsu]

the free will wiki still needs changing. I will answer your questions
after you have changed it.

[Slow Vehicle]

Liar.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Apr 10, 6:52 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Tell you what: answer my questions, convince me that the wiki needs
changing, admit to the reasons you can't make the changes you want
yourself, and apologize for being such an abusive, annoying bundle of
misinformation and baseless assertions...and if you are successful,
then I will edit the wiki. TANSTAAFL.

[Syamsu]

The citations are provided with the entry already. You only have to
substantiate that "prove and knowing" of Ockham is fairly explained
with objective measurement, and "faith and revelation" with
subjectively identified.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

As i've remarked before: starting a slanging match implies you have no more
arguments and hence an admission you've lost the actual debate.

Well...

Thanks for so much honesty, even if it's only implied.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________
< Did I SELL OUT yet?? >
----------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[James Beck]

Poor Nando has been reading Ordinatio I on his own and no one told him
that 'subjective' doesn't mean the same thing in Medieval philosophy
as it does now.

'Destroying freedom' may be 'destroying determination,' also Ordinatio
I.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

Start here:

1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
3. Where does Darwin say what you say he said?

Extra credit:
Explain which of these tow contradictory statements of your is a lie:
1. "Indeed, I will never answer your nerd question, you fucking
asshole." (4/10 s:45 PM)
2 "...the free will wiki still needs changing. I will answer your
questions
after you have changed it. " (4/10 6:52 PM)

You could also explain why you can't just make the changes you want
yourself, if they need to be made.

Convince me.

[Syamsu]

That was bullshit, and the wiki is still the same, and that is your
fault.

[Slow Vehicle]

> That was bullshit, and the wiki is still the same, and that is your
> fault.

Tyramisu:

Are you incapable of processing a simple sentence? It is up to you to
convince me that the wiki needs changing.

1. Where did Ockham say what you said he said?
2. Where did Darwin say what you said he said?
3. Which "book" do you mean, when you make claims about what is
written in "the book", and where is what you say is written, written?
4 Identify what I have said (as opposed to what you have attributed to
me) that is a lie.
5. Identify which of your two contradictory statements listed above is
a lie.
6. Convince me why the wiki needs changing.
7. Explain why, if the changes are so important, and so right, you
cannot make them yourself.

[Syamsu]

Well, fuck off lying nerd asshole.

[Slow Vehicle]

Hey, Tyramisu:

Could you make it a little more obvious that you cannot, in fact,
answer any of my questions?

Just for clarity:

> Well, fuck off lying nerd asshole.

does not advance any of your claims.

[Syamsu]

Again, get it nerd, fuck off.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu, sweetie:

When you say:

> Again, get it nerd, fuck off.

...that does not distract anyone from the fact (there's that word
again) that you cannot answer any of my questions, in any substantive
way. Nor does it advance any of your peculiar claims.

So, again:

1. Where did Ockham say what you said he said?
2. Where did Darwin say what you said he said?
3. Which "book" do you mean, when you make claims about what is
written in "the book", and where is what you say is written, written?
4 Identify what I have said (as opposed to what you have attributed
to me) that is a lie.
5. Identify which of your two contradictory statements listed above
is a lie.
6. Convince me why the wiki needs changing.
7. Explain why, if the changes are so important, and so right, you
cannot make them yourself.

8. Explain why you continue to avoid any substantive discourse.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 06:31:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:

Just a suggestion...

When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole you can't
escape, stop digging.

[Syamsu]

Nerd explosion asking for facts of a fucking asshole who doesn't know
how to deal with subjective opinion.

[Earle Jones]

In article
<nando-8e91b11a-54c4-4...@i2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
,

*
Nando:

When you address your posting as "All You Fucking Assholes", don't you
think that might limit your readership?

I was sure that, not being a "Fucking Asshole", it could not have been
directed to me. It must have been toward someone else.

earle
*

[Boikat]

On Apr 11, 4:11 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <nando-8e91b11a-54c4-4e14-a6eb-0e7fe00d9...@i2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
<snip>

>
> *
> Nando:
>
> When you address your posting as "All You Fucking Assholes", don't you
> think that might limit your readership?

It certainly limits his credibility, which doesn't count for much...

Boikat

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

In other words you lied about everything. I am glad that there is at
least one piece of reality that you are in touch with.

[Syamsu]

On Apr 11, 11:11 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <nando-8e91b11a-54c4-4e14-a6eb-0e7fe00d9...@i2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>

> > Indeed, I will never answer your nerd question, you fucking asshole.
> > How do you go from Ockham "distinghuished subjective and objective" to
> > "everything is subjective"? Obviously you are a fucking nerd asshole
> > who makes everything into a matter objective fact, and then you
> > project on me that I make everything subjective.
>
> *
> Nando:
>
> When you address your posting as "All You Fucking Assholes", don't you
> think that might limit your readership?
>
> I was sure that, not being a "Fucking Asshole", it could not have been
> directed to me.  It must have been toward someone else.

Come on, we are all fucking assholes, everybody included, because the
free will wiki does not present the fact that agency is a matter of
subjective opinion. It's not like we don't know this is true, Ockham
said it in the middle ages, and all monks believed like this, it's
because we don't care enough for the facts of the matter. We need all
to be taken down many pegs, all that egotistical waffle about free
will about multiverses, about compatibilism, all that is vanity. And
creationists also didn't care enough to get it in there, for they well
could have if they cared more. Me as well included, I judge against me
that I didn't succeed in getting it entered at the free will wiki.
Ofcourse I am talking to somebody who never did anything at all to get
it in there... Just affirm that "know and prove" and "faith and
revelation" is reasonably generically interpreted as "objectively
measured" and "subjectively identified". It all fits with Ockham who
is known for his empiricism, but also is known for helping found
democracy, and for his deep theorizing based on a logic of alternative
results, which resembles quantuam indeterminacy for including
undecided as a state.

Here are the categories again in all their clichee self-evident
truths, left is a category belonging together, right is a category
belonging together, the spiritual and material connected through
choice.

agency in a choice !! what is chosen

subjectively identified || objectively measured

non-physical || physical

spiritual || material

soul || body

opinion || fact

God love hate self etc. ||

creator || creation

We know what is chosen, the material, through objective measurement,
and the result is a fact. We know about the agency, the spiritual
through subjective identification, and the result is an opinion. You
know this is true, you are just a liar if you deny it, you yourself as
the owner of your choices can only be subjectively identified. And all
people atheists and creationists alike who treat God as a matter of
fact issue, instead of a faith issue, are obviously liars.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu, sweetie:

I reject inclusion in any group defined by your behavior.

> We know what is chosen, the material, through objective measurement,
> and the result is a fact. We know about the agency, the spiritual
> through subjective identification, and the result is an opinion. You
> know this is true, you are just a liar if you deny it, you yourself as
> the owner of your choices can only be subjectively identified. And all
> people atheists and creationists alike who treat God as a matter of
> fact issue, instead of a faith issue, are obviously liars.

I reject your categorization of what I know and do not know based on
your utter lack of knowledge (and your demonstrated lack of the
ability to form or develop knowledge) of what I actually believe.

I think it informative that, according to you, if there is a god, a
soul, or a creator, each is, at most, a subjective opinion.
Interesting waffle.

So, again:
1. Where did Ockham say what you said he said?
2. Where did Darwin say what you said he said?
3. Which "book" do you mean, when you make claims about what is
written in "the book", and where is what you say is written, written?
4 Identify what I have said (as opposed to what you have attributed
to me) that is a lie.

5. Identify which of your two contradictory statements (about
answering/never answering my questions) listed above

is a lie.
6. Convince me why the wiki needs changing.
7. Explain why, if the changes are so important, and so right, you
cannot make them yourself.
8. Explain why you continue to avoid any substantive discourse.

9. Identify where I said anything about free will not being real.
10. Identify where I said anything about alternative results not
being
possible.

It would be getting harder and harder for you to keep track of your
lies, if you even cared about the fact that it is obvious that telling
lies is all that you bring to the table...


Back to your assignment, carissimi:

[Earle Jones]

In article
<nando-3bf19d2d-8582-4...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
,

Syamsu <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 11, 11:11 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <nando-8e91b11a-54c4-4e14-a6eb-0e7fe00d9...@i2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
>
> > > Indeed, I will never answer your nerd question, you fucking asshole.
> > > How do you go from Ockham "distinghuished subjective and objective" to
> > > "everything is subjective"? Obviously you are a fucking nerd asshole
> > > who makes everything into a matter objective fact, and then you
> > > project on me that I make everything subjective.
> >
> > *
> > Nando:
> >
> > When you address your posting as "All You Fucking Assholes", don't you
> > think that might limit your readership?
> >
> > I was sure that, not being a "Fucking Asshole", it could not have been
> > directed to me.  It must have been toward someone else.
>

> Come on, we are all fucking assholes, everybody included...

*
Speak for yourself, Nando. I am not a "fucking asshole."

earle
*

[John S. Wilkins]

Come on, after all these years, is anyone surprised Nando is a total
liar and fraud? The man has the moral fibre of a mercenary.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Syamsu]

On 12 apr, 07:04, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article

> <nando-3bf19d2d-8582-4eee-b31a-416345c35...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
> ,

So somebody who spends a good deal of their time gathering knowledge,
and preaching about how important facts are, and how important it is
to have a realistic view on things, and then simply ignores knowledge
about freedom, plays fast and loose with the knowledge, doesn't even
allow the standard opinion about it on the free will wiki that is
practically useful, that person is not reasonably described as a
fucking asshole?

Where ofcourse subjective opinions about agency are not even validated
now in this "community". The opinion is warranted, your ego get's a
bashing that is fine and just.

[Syamsu]

Again fucking nerd, this is about subjective opinion, fuck off and die
with your fucking objective facts.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

> Again fucking nerd, this is about subjective opinion, fuck off and die
> with your fucking objective facts.

Do you really believe that objective, demonstrable fact is
meaningless, or that subjective opinions are not and should not be, at
least informed by reality? Have you thought that through at all?
Besides, this particular thread appears to be more about you trying to
get someone, anyone, to do something you can't--that is, bend the Free
Will wiki to your heart's desire.

You have a lot of work to do...
...and a lot of lies to keep up with.