This one's for Nando

[Attila]

In the interest of full disclosure and the true pleasure of objective
reality I offer you this:

"6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren
Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven
Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel)."

This quote is taken from the Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for
lending libraries, published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during
the second round of "purifications" (saüberung). Guidelines from Die
Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279.
If you're the holocaust expert you claim to be, I assume no translation is
necessary.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Attila wrote:
> In the interest of full disclosure and the true pleasure of objective
> reality I offer you this:
>
> "6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren

> Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufkl�rung eines primitiven
> Darwinismus und Monismus ist (H�ckel)."

>
> This quote is taken from the Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal
> for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation

> "guidelines" during the second round of "purifications" (sa�berung).
> Guidelines from Die B�cherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279.

> If you're the holocaust expert you claim to be, I assume no
> translation is necessary.

Google translation:

"Philosophical writings and life made ??known law character, whose
Contents of the false scientific enlightenment of primitive
Darwinism and monism is"

lol

[Syamsu]

I see that you continue lying about the holocaust, which is
despicable. Dont you think the holocaust merits a well thought out
opinion taking into account all evidence, and not just the evidence
that clears the reputation of darwinism?

[Attila]

This may be more readable:
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with
the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism
(Haeckel).
Source:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
Do you consider this ample evidence of Nando's lying nature?

[Attila]

Objectively speaking, there is only one liar and its name is...Syamsu aka
Nano Nando. You are a proven liar now. Anything you say now is just
pathetic. As for your subjective ravings, bend over, spread your cheeks, the
doctor is putting on his rubber glove and soon he'll place them where the
sun don't shine. Your name is now and forever more ... Maudit Menteur.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:36:41 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-acffe898-24fb-4...@f2g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):

Errmm... where's the lie?

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Syamsu]

A lie is not a matter of objective fact, it requires subjectivity to
identify a liar. Your pseudoscience of lying, and love, is social
darwinism.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 3, 2:14 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:36:41 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-acffe898-24fb-47d2-92a1-1e2e112c4...@f2g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 10:03 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In the interest of full disclosure and the true pleasure of objective
> >> reality I offer you this:
>
> >> "6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren

> >> Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufkl rung eines primitiven
> >> Darwinismus und Monismus ist (H ckel)."

>
> >> This quote is taken from the Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for
> >> lending libraries, published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during

> >> the second round of "purifications" (sa berung). Guidelines from Die

> >> B cherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279.

> >> If you're the holocaust expert you claim to be, I assume no translation is
> >> necessary.
>
> > I see that you continue lying about the holocaust, which is
> > despicable. Dont you think the holocaust merits a well thought out
> > opinion taking into account all evidence, and not just the evidence
> > that clears the reputation of darwinism?
>
> Errmm... where's the lie?
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

It is in misrepresenting the history of the holocaust in order to
protect the reputation of darwinism.

[Attila]

Maudit Menteur,
You are incapable of telling the truth. Everything that comes out of your
mouth or keyboard is not just a lie but an extremely disgusting lie. You
lied about Haeckel as you have lied about virtually every member of this ng
who happens to disagree with you. You have no shame. The lies trip
effortlessly from your keyboard. The only question of interesst now is
whether your behaviour is typical of all creationists or if you are in a
class by yourself. Please don't feel obliged to answer. Your words aren't
worth the bandwidth to send them.

[Syamsu]

Again, where is the moral authorit of people who dont accept
subjectivity?

[Slow Vehicle]

Try to pay attention.
Here is the issue:
You claim repeatedly, that Darwin and Haeckel caused the Holocaust,
and that Nazi ideology was, in fact, by design, 'social-Dawinism".
This is your subjective opinion, and you claim the moral authority to
call anyone who dies not agree with you a
"fuckingassholenerdevilscientistporvenliarabouttheHolocaust".
You have been provided with an official statement of the guidelines
for the :Purifications" (a real, objective, demonstrable, object,
containing real, objective, demonstrable statements).
Folow:
The organization that planned and carried out the Holocaust publicly
repudiated Darwin and Haeckel, and claimed a proper understanding of
the Gospel as the guiding principle.
In other words, Nazi policy did _not_ embrace Darwin, nor Haeckel--and
specifically repudiated social darwinism.
Which demonstrates, objectively, that your subjective opinion is
unfounded and indefensible, not consonant with reality.
Which means that you tell lies about the Holocaust (and about almost
everything else).
Which means that you tell lies about other people lying.

Now, I expect you to point out that I am bullying you by trying to
"change" your subjective opinion. Pay very close attention to this
bubbeleh: You are free to believe any damned foolish thing you want
to abuse yourself with--but like all other forms of self abuse, you
should do it in private, behind a locked door...and you should not
impose it on others. Your subjective opinion is your own...but when
you claim that your subjective opinion, and _only_ your subjective
opinion, represents "proper thought", _no matter how dissociated from
demonstrable reality_, then you commit a moral crime.

In this case, it is possible to say that your subjective opinion is
wrong--you say Darwin caused the Holocaust; Nazi policy rejected and
repudiated Darwin.
I'll say it again: Nazi policy repudiated Darwin.

To say otherwise is to promulgate a lie. In your case, a classic 'big
lie"--you think is you just keep saying it, as often and as abusively
as possible, it will become true.

_Now _ will you go away?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:49:36 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-b6ee8597-23b2-4...@b10g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>):

Where did that happen? I don't see it in the post in question, so perhaps you
can show me?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:50:34 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-1f60a0e0-6c28-4...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>):

All you need to do is to point out where, exactly, the lie is. This should be
trivial. One wonders why you have not yet done so.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 3, 6:42 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2:10 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Syamsu wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 10:03 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> In the interest of full disclosure and the true pleasure of objective
> > >> reality I offer you this:
>
> > >> "6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren

> > >> Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufkl rung eines primitiven
> > >> Darwinismus und Monismus ist (H ckel)."

>
> > >> This quote is taken from the Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for
> > >> lending libraries, published these collection evaluation "guidelines"

> > >> during the second round of "purifications" (sa berung). Guidelines from

> > >> Die B cherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279.

> > >> If you're the holocaust expert you claim to be, I assume no translation
> > >> is necessary.
>
> > > I see that you continue lying about the holocaust, which is
> > > despicable. Dont you think the holocaust merits a well thought out
> > > opinion taking into account all evidence, and not just the evidence
> > > that clears the reputation of darwinism?
>
> > Objectively speaking, there is only one liar and its name is...Syamsu aka
> > Nano Nando. You are a proven liar now. Anything you say now is just
> > pathetic. As for your subjective ravings, bend over, spread your cheeks, the
> > doctor is putting on his rubber glove and soon he'll place them where the
> > sun don't shine. Your name is now and forever more ... Maudit Menteur.
>
> A lie is not a matter of objective fact,

I thought you were the great champion of subjectivity...what would
constitute a "subjective" lie?
A lie can only be a matter of objective fact...if you were to say, "I
believe you are incorrect about the causes of the Holocaust", it might
be mistaken, but it is not a "lie".
When you say that someone is a proven liar about the Holocaust, when
what you _mean_ is that that person disagrees with your subjective
opinion about the Holocaust, prferring instead to accept objective,
demonstrable reality, you are telling a lie.
And you know it.

> it requires subjectivity to
> identify a liar.

No. According to your "proper" view of subjectiviy, a subjective
opinion cannot be "wrong".
Insisting that your personal, idiosyncratic, and egregious subjective
opinion represents reality, and that all must accept it or be
fuckingassholenerdliarsabouthteHolocaust, besides being a
bit...egomaniacal, is, at its core, a lie.

And you know it.

>Your pseudoscience of lying, and love, is social
> darwinism.

...and I _really_ wish you would learn what social darwinism _is_
before you try to use it as a blanket insult...

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 3, 9:50 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Where is the "moral authority" of someone who wants the impose his
purely subjective (and demonstrably objectively incorrect) perverted
opinion upon everyone?
Back to the Klubhaus!

[Slow Vehicle]

Right.
Quoting the Nazi's own policy documents is "misrepresenting history".

[Attila]

J.J. O'Shea wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:50:34 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-1f60a0e0-6c28-4264-
ad24-1e9...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>):

That's where the subjectivity comes in. Maudit Menteur shields himself from
all possible empirical evidentence. In his twisted tormented soul, he
*feels* that Darwin and Haeckel personally triggered the holocaust and were
the cause of all those perfectly nice nazis being led astray. I would not
feel comfortable living in the same country as that nutter.

[Attila]

No such luck, I'm afraid. I think your words totally wasted on that
pychopath. Content yourself with the fact that you are probably the most
eloquent left-handed bass player on the subject of the nazi-Haeckel
controvery in the entire planet... and that ain't chicken liver.

[Syamsu]

I know no such thing. I see darwinists abusing the history of the
holocaust to clear the reputation of Darwinism. That is lying about
the holocaust and you all engage in it. And the further worse lie is
recounting the history of the holocaust without reference to the human
spirit in a properly subjective way.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 3, 7:49�pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:50:34 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> > (in article
> > <nando-1f60a0e0-6c28-4264-
>

> ad24-1e9446519...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>):

It is very clear that a very wide variety of intellectual thugs
converged upon Darwin's theory, who all shared a willful ignorance
about how freedom works, and a denial of the legitemacy of subjective
opinion in reaching a conclusion, resulting in a pseudoscience about
love and hate. Why all of you more or less fall into this category,
that is evidence that Darwinists perpetrated the holocaust, that you
Still all engage in pseudoscience, and willful ignorance how freedom
works.

[Boikat]

Only *your* demented version, which has little to do with rality, or
how *normal* people view with, or come to subjective concluisions.
*Your* version is what led to the type of thinking that spawned the
Holocaust, and allowed the holocaust to occur. You just can't deal
with that reality.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

Is bullshit, there are no theories focused on freedom to explain
origins, on talk.origins, except from creationists/intelligent design
folks.

[Boikat]

You would be the expert in that field, since you sling so much BS
around.

> there are no theories focused on freedom to explain
> origins,

Especially the way you use the word "freedom".

> on talk.origins, except from creationists/intelligent design
> folks.

You mean the folks that are pig-ignorant of the scientific method, do
not conduct anything remotely resembling actual science, and instead
blindly ignore the data and facts which contradict their religious
dogma? Well, at least you did not preface the word "theory" with the
word "scientific".

Boikat

[Will in New Haven]

Reality is what two people can look at and _see_ It is objective. Your
fucking feelings don't mean anything and neither, I'm sorry to say, do
mine.

You're all butt-hurt about it but it doesn't matter.

To quote Lenny Bruce "What is, is and what should be is a dirty lie."

--
Will in New Haven

[Boikat]

On Aug 3, 8:08�pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
wrote:

Me, or Nando?

Boikat

[Flywatch]

Attila <jdka...@gmail.com> schreef:
>J.J. O'Shea wrote:

>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:50:34 -0400, Syamsu wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 5:35 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Syamsu wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 3, 2:14 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:

You may just have mentioned the other side of "don't feed them"

Here in the Netherlands, the Nando experience is pretty much like in
TO. His Dutch writings are as badly written as are his posts in
English (word salad when explaining his 'philosophy', repeated lies
and wild accusations with justifications of violence when otherwise).
In this way, Nando's English is rather good ;-)

One difference is the Holocaust: Nando rarely talks about it in Dutch.
The reason for this (if any) is unclear.
In the nl. usenet groups, Nando is sometimes absent for several weeks.
Rumors are, that he is then put away for a while. But most of the
times, when I look in TO, I see he's still active.

Coming to your point: I know of no IRL incidents (or near-incidents)
involving Syamsu/Nando. Maybe there are some, in his neighborhood, but
never a thing in the national media. So I suspect the virtual world is
some sort of self-chosen(?) safe haven for his bizarre ideology.
Also, there are no signs that Nando has any followers over here.
On behalf of our population, I urge you to keep him as busy as you
can, it keeps him off the streets. The mentally sane nl.usenet posters
alone are too few for that. Thank you all for your contributions.

[Slow Vehicle]

TYVM! I'll put up a plaque...

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 3, 1:52�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I know no such thing. I see darwinists abusing the history of the
> holocaust to clear the reputation of Darwinism. That is lying about
> the holocaust and you all engage in it. And the further worse lie is
> recounting the history of the holocaust without reference to the human
> spirit in a properly subjective way.

It bears repeating that you think accurately and appropriately quoting
the very document that Nazi leadership used to justify the
"purification" (a document in which, BTW, said leadership _repudiated_
Haeckel and Darwin) is "abusing history".

<snip>

[Slow Vehicle]

It is worth repeating that while _you_ claim that "Darwinists
perpetrated the Holocaust", Nazi leadership repudiated Darwin,
Haeckel, and social darwinism, and self-identified as christian...

[Slow Vehicle]

It is worth repeating that your version of what casued the Holocaust
is repudiated by the very leadership that designed, initiated, and
carried out the "purifications".

[Attila]

Speaking of bullshit, would you care to walk us through one of your
statements made on a different forum?
"There is a science theory called the universal nil-potency rewrite system,
which is based on a logic of nothing. The theory supposedly already has been
applied technically in producing a more advanced mri scanner."
Wow, Menteur, that's really impressive. Curious I tried DuckDuckGoing "nil
potency rewrite" mri. I got no hits aside from you. Anything to say, Maudit
Menteur? Author of this "theory"? Model and manufacturer of the advanced
rmit scanner?
---- deathly silence -----

[Attila]

Always glad to help out my Dutch friends, especially in view of your annual
shipment of tulips to Ottawa every year not to mention rijsttafel,
uitsmijter and great beer. I first set foot in the Netherlands in April,
1978. Loved it then. Love it now. Dank u wel.

[Attila]

YVW. It's in the post now.

[Syamsu]

Again, you are lying about the history of the holocaust, in order to
save the reputation of Darwinism.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:31:52 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-f0190744-47c4-4...@b10g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 4, 6:45ï¿œam, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 1:52 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I know no such thing. I see darwinists abusing the history of the
>>> holocaust to clear the reputation of Darwinism. That is lying about
>>> the holocaust and you all engage in it. And the further worse lie is
>>> recounting the history of the holocaust without reference to the human
>>> spirit in a properly subjective way.
>>
>> It bears repeating that you think accurately and appropriately quoting
>> the very document that Nazi leadership used to justify the
>> "purification" (a document in which, BTW, said leadership _repudiated_
>> Haeckel and Darwin) is "abusing history".
>>

>> ￜ<snip>

>
> Again, you are lying about the history of the holocaust, in order to
> save the reputation of Darwinism.
>

Where's the lie?

[Syamsu]

On Aug 4, 12:38�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:31:52 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-f0190744-47c4-4c0f-9bc2-2a7d03814...@b10g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 6:45 am, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 3, 1:52 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> I know no such thing. I see darwinists abusing the history of the
> >>> holocaust to clear the reputation of Darwinism. That is lying about
> >>> the holocaust and you all engage in it. And the further worse lie is
> >>> recounting the history of the holocaust without reference to the human
> >>> spirit in a properly subjective way.
>
> >> It bears repeating that you think accurately and appropriately quoting
> >> the very document that Nazi leadership used to justify the
> >> "purification" (a document in which, BTW, said leadership _repudiated_
> >> Haeckel and Darwin) is "abusing history".
>

> >> <snip>
>
> > Again, you are lying about the history of the holocaust, in order to
> > save the reputation of Darwinism.
>
> Where's the lie?
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Its still in misreprenting the history of the holocaust to protect the
reputation of darwinism. It is quite transparant, which means you are
also supporting this lying.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:12:32 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-e78ce154-8a8d-4...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>):

Where did any 'misrepresenting' happen? How can directly quoting the persons
in question be a lie?

[Syamsu]

On Aug 4, 8:31�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:12:32 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-e78ce154-8a8d-4d44-a0d8-7406346ab...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>):

By not taking into account all evidence, only the evidence you like.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-6c23dab5-d489-4...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>):

You said there was a lie. Where is it? And which evidence has not been taken
into account? Present it, please.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 4, 10:51�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-6c23dab5-d489-4aac-9b5b-036276b73...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 8:31�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:12:32 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <nando-e78ce154-8a8d-4d44-a0d8-7406346ab...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>):
>

Go fuck yourself, in your own asshole, and stop lying about the
holocaust.

[Slow Vehicle]

BTW: "Aksil" is good stuff--thanks! Your boy does some serious
guitar work--the riffs on "I am a Man of Constant Sorrow" are, IMO,
"indistinguishable from magic".

[Boikat]

> Go fuck yourself, in your own asshole, and stop lying about the
> holocaust.

Game, set, match. Nano looses it again.

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

I'm sure that's a mental image you spend a lot of time on, 'Su--but
you still have not demonstrated a _single lie_...by anyone but you.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Good to see your social skills are improving. But tell me how does
someone go about...uhhh...never mind.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:23:39 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-d9c3acab-aea4-4...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 4, 10:51ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>> (in article
>> <nando-6c23dab5-d489-4aac-9b5b-036276b73...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 8:31ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:12:32 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <nando-e78ce154-8a8d-4d44-a0d8-7406346ab...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>):
>>

Ah.. So there was no lie. That's what I thought.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 19:14:20 -0400, Hemidactylus* wrote
(in article <IZudnVfHBuNQMYDN...@giganews.com>):

I'm quite sure that the NandoBot is expert at that.

[Attila]

I'll pass along your comments. I know it will make him very happy. And now
for something completely different:
War is good for business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaM3HXrYnOc

[Syamsu]

On Aug 5, 1:32�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 19:14:20 -0400, Hemidactylus* wrote

> (in article <IZudnVfHBuNQMYDNnZ2dnUVZ_qqdn...@giganews.com>):

You are the fucking annoying whining child robot, repeatin what you
say without engaging in reason.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 5, 1:31�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:23:39 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-d9c3acab-aea4-4746-b17f-0becffbb3...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 10:51�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <nando-6c23dab5-d489-4aac-9b5b-036276b73...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>> On Aug 4, 8:31�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:12:32 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> >>>> (in article
> >>>> <nando-e78ce154-8a8d-4d44-a0d8-7406346ab...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>):
>

More lying about the holocaust upon your soul.

[Boikat]

Irony.

Boikat

[Boikat]

You fail to present any evidecne that antone "lied about the
Holocaust. The "lie" is your accusations.

Boikat

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 05:56:54 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-7ef5a521-ea23-4...@fj14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):

Interesting. WHy can't you show the evidence, as I asked, politely, earlier?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 05:27:05 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-b2066ceb-350b-4...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 5, 1:31ï¿œam, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:23:39 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>> (in article
>> <nando-d9c3acab-aea4-4746-b17f-0becffbb3...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 10:51ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <nando-6c23dab5-d489-4aac-9b5b-036276b73...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>):
>>

>>>>> On Aug 4, 8:31ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:12:32 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <nando-e78ce154-8a8d-4d44-a0d8-7406346ab...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>> ):
>>

>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 12:38ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:31:52 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>> <nando-f0190744-47c4-4c0f-9bc2-2a7d03814...@b10g2000vbj.googlegroups.c
>>>>>>>> om
>>>>>>>>>>
>>

Where did I lie? It should be easy for you to point it out.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 5, 1:44�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 05:27:05 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-b2066ceb-350b-4c24-a2ef-ffc7f66ac...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 1:31 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:23:39 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <nando-d9c3acab-aea4-4746-b17f-0becffbb3...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>> On Aug 4, 10:51 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> >>>> (in article
> >>>> <nando-6c23dab5-d489-4aac-9b5b-036276b73...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>>>> On Aug 4, 8:31 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:12:32 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> >>>>>> (in article
> >>>>>> <nando-e78ce154-8a8d-4d44-a0d8-7406346ab...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
> >>>>>> ):
>

Misrepresenting the history of the holocaust by only focusing on the
evidence which clears the reputatioj of Darwinism.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:34:21 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-d08597bd-58fe-4...@fj14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 5, 1:44ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 05:27:05 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>> (in article
>> <nando-b2066ceb-350b-4c24-a2ef-ffc7f66ac...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 5, 1:31 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:23:39 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <nando-d9c3acab-aea4-4746-b17f-0becffbb3...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>)
>>>> :
>>
>>>>> On Aug 4, 10:51 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <nando-6c23dab5-d489-4aac-9b5b-036276b73...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>> ):
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 8:31 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:12:32 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>> <nando-e78ce154-8a8d-4d44-a0d8-7406346ab...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.co
>>>>>>>> m>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>

So where is the evidence which shows otherwise? I asked you to show that
earlier. You seemed to have a problem providing it. Have you found it yet?
Just show it.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 5, 2:49 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:34:21 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-d08597bd-58fe-4b62-b7e1-528937c18...@fj14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):

That is not the way to do history about the holocaust, read the
referenc to gasman in another thread, and look for other articles on
that site.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:20:48 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-5d95eea2-43bc-4...@g1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 5, 2:49 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:34:21 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>> (in article
>> <nando-d08597bd-58fe-4b62-b7e1-528937c18...@fj14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 5, 1:44 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 05:27:05 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <nando-b2066ceb-350b-4c24-a2ef-ffc7f66ac...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>)
>>>> :
>>
>>>>> On Aug 5, 1:31 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:23:39 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <nando-d9c3acab-aea4-4746-b17f-0becffbb3...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com
>>>>>> >)
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 10:51 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>> <nando-6c23dab5-d489-4aac-9b5b-036276b73...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.co
>>>>>>>> m>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>

I've read the thread. I've seen no references to any evidence which supports
your position. Surely you can simply post the reference?

[Syamsu]

On Aug 5, 4:43�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:20:48 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-5d95eea2-43bc-4464-85e3-055c614f5...@g1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):

The original post in the revisionism thread has a link.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:44:45 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-7f21c933-967e-4...@g1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 5, 4:43ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:20:48 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>> (in article
>> <nando-5d95eea2-43bc-4464-85e3-055c614f5...@g1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 5, 2:49 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:34:21 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <nando-d08597bd-58fe-4b62-b7e1-528937c18...@fj14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
>>>> ):
>>
>>>>> On Aug 5, 1:44 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 05:27:05 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <nando-b2066ceb-350b-4c24-a2ef-ffc7f66ac...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com
>>>>>> >)
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 1:31 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:23:39 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>> <nando-d9c3acab-aea4-4746-b17f-0becffbb3...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.c
>>>>>>>> om
>>>>>>>>>>
>>

>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 10:51 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>> <nando-6c23dab5-d489-4aac-9b5b-036276b73...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.

But that doesn't point to evidence which supports your position.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 5, 6:19�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:44:45 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-7f21c933-967e-4f04-b84f-d2412e392...@g1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):

You have read the articles on that site?

[Slow Vehicle]

Sweetie:

This is not about the "reputation" of "darwinism". This is about you,
habitual liar, habitual potty-mouth,, delusional reviser of history,
delusional attempted enforcer of _your_ subjective opinions as the
_only_ "valid" or "moraly acceptable" take on objective reality; being
shown that you _are_ telling a lie, a demonstrated lie, an
usupportable lie, when you say the Haeckel and Darwin claimed that
love is a matter of fact.".
The Haeckel quote does not say what you claimed it proved, as has been
demonstrated.

This is about you (see earned titles, above) claiming that Haeckel and
Darwin caused the Holocaust by shaping Nazi policy"; being shown that,
contrary to your lies, Nazi policy _repudiated_ Haeckel and Darwin by
name.

This is about you lying; about you getting caught lying; about you
lying about your lies; about you getting caught lying about your lies,
and about you whining about being the subject of a "feeding frenzy"
because several people have taken the time and effort to point out
that, as usual, your screed is based on things that are demonstrably
not true.

Your subjective idiosyncratic non-factual opinions may make you happy,
and you are welcome to them--like other such solitary pursuits, you
should engage in it in private, behind locked doors, or in the company
of consenting adults.

That's what your Klubhaus is for...

[Slow Vehicle]

No. You say I am "leaving out evidence". You provide the "evidence"
you say I am "leaving out".
it will be more lies, of course, but that way I won't waste my time
doing your homework, which you will then ignore and claim the dog ate.

[Syamsu]

No because it is wrong to form an opinion about the holocaust that
way. You come back when you have a thorougly well thought through
opinion based on a general scope of the evidence. And oh yeah, that
you have formed a properly subjective opinion on the spirit in which
people were acting, and have some ideas about what alternatives were
available to them when they made their choices.

[Syamsu]

Pseudoscientific posing on your part, you have prejudicially only
entered evidence which saves the reputation of Darwinism. Your reading
of Haeckel totally omitting mention of aryan.characteristics
is.absurd.

[Slow Vehicle]

Let me get this straight:

Are you _actually_ saying that it is _wrong_ to form an opinion about
a documented historical event based on documented evidence?

I would appreciate it if you would answer this question.

>You come back when you have a thorougly well thought through
> opinion based on a general scope of the evidence.

You mean, like the one I have, that you have no idea what it is,
because all of your prattle about "proven liar about the Holocaust" is
based on your _assumptions_ of what I _must_ believe, since you
_assume I am a "fucking asshole evil scientist stereotype liar"?

>And oh yeah, that
> you have formed a properly subjective opinion

Who are _you_ to even pretend to judge _my_ subjective opinion? You
get your tube sock in a twist when someone points out that your
subjective opinion has nor basis in any kind of reality at all--how
are you then qualified to judge whether I, or anyone else, has a
""proper" subjective opinion?

I would appreciate it if you would answer that question, too.

>on the spirit in which people were acting,

What evidence do you have for "the spirit in which people weer
acting"? Your claimed ability to read minds? (You never did take me
up on my offer to test that. You really ought to demonstrate such b
before you claim it.) Absent your brand of lying, all that one is
left with is the actor's own statemetns, in context--such as Nazi
leadership _repudiating_ Darwn, and Haeckel, by name...

Not that evidence, objective reality, or demonstrable truth have a
place at the altar of your subjective opinion...

>and have some ideas about what alternatives were
> available to them when they made their choices.

I really hope you will answer the two questions I have asked you.

Here they are again:

Are you _actually_ saying that it is _wrong_ to form an opinion about
a documented historical event based on documented evidence?
And,
Who are _you_ to even pretend to judge _my_ subjective opinion?

[Slow Vehicle]

I asked you to explain what bearing _you_ thought they had on
_you_getting caught lying...
You have refused to clarify.
Why is that, do you suppose?

And, seriously, sweetie, you should figure out what "pseudoscientific"
means before you pretend to use it in what is supposed to be a
sentence...

[Syamsu]

Asking for evidence of the human spirit...... People made choices, the
choices resulted in the holocaust, now you chose about what made their
choices turn out the.way it did. A proper subjective opinion is an
opinion that comes from the heart. And to state they were 'in fact'
dishonest, or in fact dishonorable, like Boikat talked elsewhere, is
improper, because it is not a matter of fact.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 5, 1:29�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip for clarity>

>
> > I really hope you will answer the two questions I have asked you.
>
> > Here they are again:
>
> > Are you _actually_ saying that it is _wrong_ to form an opinion about
> > a documented historical event based on documented evidence?
> > And,
> > Who are _you_ to even pretend to judge _my_ subjective opinion?
>
> Asking for evidence of the human spirit...... People made choices, the
> choices resulted in the holocaust, now you chose about what made their
> choices turn out the.way it did. A proper subjective opinion is an
> opinion that comes from the heart. And to state they were 'in fact'
> dishonest, or in fact dishonorable, like Boikat talked elsewhere, is
> improper, because it is not a matter of fact.

Here they are, _again_:

[Syamsu]

On Aug 5, 9:19嚙緘m, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 12:32嚙緘m, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 7:37嚙緘m, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > This is not about the "reputation" of "darwinism". 嚙確his is about you,

> > > habitual liar, habitual potty-mouth,, delusional reviser of history,
> > > delusional attempted enforcer of _your_ subjective opinions as the
> > > _only_ "valid" or "moraly acceptable" take on objective reality; being
> > > shown that you _are_ telling a lie, a demonstrated lie, an
> > > usupportable lie, when you say the Haeckel and Darwin claimed that
> > > love is a matter of fact.".
> > > The Haeckel quote does not say what you claimed it proved, as has been
> > > demonstrated.
>
> > > This is about you (see earned titles, above) claiming that Haeckel and
> > > Darwin caused the Holocaust by shaping Nazi policy"; being shown that,

> > > contrary to your lies, Nazi policy _repudiated_ 嚙瘡aeckel and Darwin by

> > > name.
>
> > > This is about you lying; about you getting caught lying; about you
> > > lying about your lies; about you getting caught lying about your lies,
> > > and about you whining about being the subject of a "feeding frenzy"
> > > because several people have taken the time and effort to point out
> > > that, as usual, your screed is based on things that are demonstrably
> > > not true.
>
> > > Your subjective idiosyncratic non-factual opinions may make you happy,
> > > and you are welcome to them--like other such solitary pursuits, you
> > > should engage in it in private, behind locked doors, or in the company
> > > of consenting adults.
>
> > > That's what your Klubhaus is for...
>
> > Pseudoscientific posing on your part, you have prejudicially only
> > entered evidence which saves the reputation of Darwinism. Your reading
> > of Haeckel totally omitting mention of aryan.characteristics
> > is.absurd.
>
> I asked you to explain what bearing _you_ thought they had on
> _you_getting caught lying...
> You have refused to clarify.
> Why is that, do you suppose?
>
> And, seriously, sweetie, you should figure out what "pseudoscientific"
> means before you pretend to use it in what is supposed to be a
> sentence...

To conclude lying you must chose that i hatefully chose to convey a
false fact.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:36:15 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-195330b4-66ae-4...@g1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 5, 6:19ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:44:45 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>> (in article
>> <nando-7f21c933-967e-4f04-b84f-d2412e392...@g1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 5, 4:43 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:20:48 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <nando-5d95eea2-43bc-4464-85e3-055c614f5...@g1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>>> On Aug 5, 2:49 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:34:21 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <nando-d08597bd-58fe-4b62-b7e1-528937c18...@fj14g2000vbb.googlegroups.co
>>>>>> m>
>>>>>>>>
>>

>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 1:44 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 05:27:05 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>> <nando-b2066ceb-350b-4c24-a2ef-ffc7f66ac...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.c
>>>>>>>> om
>>>>>>>>>>
>>

>>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 1:31 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:23:39 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>> <nando-d9c3acab-aea4-4746-b17f-0becffbb3...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups

>>>>>>>>>> .c
>>>>>>>>>> om
>>

>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 10:51 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>>>> <nando-6c23dab5-d489-4aac-9b5b-036276b73...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroup

I've read comments from those who have. Perhaps you have a specific piece of
evidence in mind? And if so, can you just quote it?

[Slow Vehicle]

No: your state of mind has no bearing on whether you are lying...you
have gone 'way past the point where you could even pretend that you
are mistaken.
A lie told for "loving" reasons; a lie told for "hateful" reasons; a
lie told for "hungry" reasons, or "bored" reasons, or "arrogant"
reasons" or "self-agrandizing reasons" is still a lie.

Not to mention, what in the name of the marching Kewpie Dolls of
Lulongomeela is a "false fact"? If it is a "fact", it is not
false...if it is an assertion that is demonstrably false, it is not a
"fact".

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:48:54 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-a4192f1f-568e-4...@a19g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 5, 9:19 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 12:32 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 5, 7:37 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>>> On Aug 5, 6:34 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 5, 1:44 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 05:27:05 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <nando-b2066ceb-350b-4c24-a2ef-ffc7f66ac...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com
>>>>>> >):
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 1:31 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:23:39 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>> <nando-d9c3acab-aea4-4746-b17f-0becffbb3...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.c
>>>>>>>> om>):
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 10:51 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:59:23 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>> <nando-6c23dab5-d489-4aac-9b5b-036276b73...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.
>>>>>>>>>> com>):
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 8:31 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:12:32 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>>>> <nando-e78ce154-8a8d-4d44-a0d8-7406346ab...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroup
>>>>>>>>>>>> s.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>

>>>> This is not about the "reputation" of "darwinism".  This is about you,

>>>> habitual liar, habitual potty-mouth,, delusional reviser of history,
>>>> delusional attempted enforcer of _your_ subjective opinions as the
>>>> _only_ "valid" or "moraly acceptable" take on objective reality; being
>>>> shown that you _are_ telling a lie, a demonstrated lie, an
>>>> usupportable lie, when you say the Haeckel and Darwin claimed that
>>>> love is a matter of fact.".
>>>> The Haeckel quote does not say what you claimed it proved, as has been
>>>> demonstrated.
>>
>>>> This is about you (see earned titles, above) claiming that Haeckel and
>>>> Darwin caused the Holocaust by shaping Nazi policy"; being shown that,

>>>> contrary to your lies, Nazi policy _repudiated_  Haeckel and Darwin by

Well, so far the evidence suggest that this is exactly what you have done.
You have, despite repeated requests, refused to provide the support you say
you have. It certainly seems that said support does not exist, and that you
know that it doesn't.

[Boikat]

Then why are you attacking "darwinism", and not the evil consequences
of free will?

<snip>

Boikat

[Syamsu]

On Aug 5, 10:19�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:48:54 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-a4192f1f-568e-411b-8656-8432ca24d...@a19g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):

Again, I provided some link, read that. The time for me to run around
the internet providing quotes to darwinists is past. Mostly.

And the evidence is that you yourself here and now dont acknowledge
the line between subjectivity and objectivity. This evidence about the
darwinist movement is of a much higher relevance because of the direct
availability of it.

Where is the line between objectivity and subjectivity? Is it between
what choses and what is chosen?

[Boikat]

And the "right way' is *your* way, where facts are not important,
since facts are evil objective things. *Your8 way is through
subjective opinion, the hell with facts, as long as you *feeeeeel*
good about your conclusions, right?

<snip>

Boikat

[Boikat]

You mean evidence that refuted your claims.

> Your reading
> of Haeckel totally omitting mention of aryan.characteristics
> is.absurd.

Not as absurd as claiming one must only come to conclusions based
uponsubjective opinion.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

On Aug 5, 10:16 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 1:48 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 9:19 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 5, 12:32 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 5, 7:37 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > This is not about the "reputation" of "darwinism".  This is about you,

> > > > > habitual liar, habitual potty-mouth,, delusional reviser of history,
> > > > > delusional attempted enforcer of _your_ subjective opinions as the
> > > > > _only_ "valid" or "moraly acceptable" take on objective reality; being
> > > > > shown that you _are_ telling a lie, a demonstrated lie, an
> > > > > usupportable lie, when you say the Haeckel and Darwin claimed that
> > > > > love is a matter of fact.".
> > > > > The Haeckel quote does not say what you claimed it proved, as has been
> > > > > demonstrated.
>
> > > > > This is about you (see earned titles, above) claiming that Haeckel and
> > > > > Darwin caused the Holocaust by shaping Nazi policy"; being shown that,

> > > > > contrary to your lies, Nazi policy _repudiated_  Haeckel and Darwin by

I disagree, it is not a lie to deliberately tell a false fact out of
love, it is simply telling a false fact.

[Syamsu]

More out there absurdity...

[Boikat]

On Aug 5, 4:53 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 11:47 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 2:29 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> > > Asking for evidence of the human spirit...... People made choices, the
> > > choices resulted in the holocaust,
>
> > Then why are you attacking "darwinism", and not the evil consequences
> > of free will?
>
> > <snip>
>

> More out there absurdity....

How is it "out there"? You just said "people make choices, the
choices resulted in the Holocaust". They chose, therefore they
exercised their "freedom" to do so, and it resulted in the Holocaust.
I bet they even properly acknowledged the spirit with which they made
their choices! Didn't your hero, Hitler, claim he was doing "Gods
work"? I can't think of a more important "spirit" to properly
acknowledge when forming a subjective opinion in order to determine
reality, can you?

Boikat

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:45:59 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-d5a4845c-3356-4...@a9g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 5, 10:19ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:48:54 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>> (in article
>> <nando-a4192f1f-568e-411b-8656-8432ca24d...@a19g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 5, 9:19 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 5, 12:32 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 5, 7:37 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Aug 5, 6:34 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 1:44 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 05:27:05 -0400, Syamsu wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>> <nando-b2066ceb-350b-4c24-a2ef-ffc7f66ac...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.c
>>>>>>>> om
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>

But that link does not seem to show what you think it shows. Why not simply
point out your 'evidence'?

> The time for me to run around
> the internet providing quotes to darwinists is past. Mostly.

So you refuse to provide the evidence. I thought that this would be the case.

>
> And the evidence is that you yourself here and now dont acknowledge
> the line between subjectivity and objectivity. This evidence about the
> darwinist movement is of a much higher relevance because of the direct
> availability of it.
>
> Where is the line between objectivity and subjectivity? Is it between
> what choses and what is chosen?
>

In the time it took for you to type that, you could have provided the
evidence. if it existed.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:48:54 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:

>On Aug 5, 9:19�pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 12:32�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

....

>> > Pseudoscientific posing on your part, you have prejudicially only
>> > entered evidence which saves the reputation of Darwinism. Your reading
>> > of Haeckel totally omitting mention of aryan.characteristics
>> > is.absurd.
>>
>> I asked you to explain what bearing _you_ thought they had on
>> _you_getting caught lying...
>> You have refused to clarify.
>> Why is that, do you suppose?
>>
>> And, seriously, sweetie, you should figure out what "pseudoscientific"
>> means before you pretend to use it in what is supposed to be a
>> sentence...
>
>To conclude lying you must chose that i hatefully chose to convey a
>false fact.

Falsehood. Yes, when we call someone a liar, it is because they
intentional conveyed a falsehood after they have been corrected on their
erroneous claims. You have been corrected on many of your erroneous
claims and refused to correct yourself. It is clear that you are proud
that you lie to us.

[Syamsu]

Again creationism establishes both objectivity and subjectivity as
logically valid. And yes generally there is a higher priority for
subjectivity than there is for objectivity, the belief your parents
love you has more import than the theory of gravity. This is normal.
And I guess there are many violations on the part of religion. Like
with the earth being at the center of the universe. But it must be
considered that accepting as fact that the earth is not at the center
was a psycological blow to many people, and resulted in some
questionable devaluation of human life. To be ruthless in accepting
facts must be condemned, people are always looking for excuses to be
ruthless.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:

>On Aug 5, 10:16�pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 1:48�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

....

>> > To conclude lying you must chose that i hatefully chose to convey a
>> > false fact.
>>
>> No: your state of mind has no bearing on whether you are lying...you
>> have gone 'way past the point where you could even pretend that you
>> are mistaken.
>> A lie told for "loving" reasons; a lie told for "hateful" reasons; a
>> lie told for "hungry" reasons, or "bored" reasons, or "arrogant"
>> reasons" or "self-agrandizing reasons" is still a lie.
>>
>> Not to mention, what in the name of the marching Kewpie Dolls of
>> Lulongomeela is a "false fact"? �If it is a "fact", it is not
>> false...if it is an assertion that is demonstrably false, it is not a
>> "fact".
>
>I disagree, it is not a lie to deliberately tell a false fact out of
>love, it is simply telling a false fact.

There is no such thing as a false fact. You need to stop telling lies to
yourself.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:48:57 -0700 (PDT), Slow Vehicle
<oneslow...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

He has already shown us that he is a prejudiced ignoramus.

[Boikat]

On Aug 5, 5:08 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 11:41 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 9:20 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

> > > That is not the way to do history about the holocaust,
>
> > And the "right way' is *your* way, where facts are not important,
> > since facts are evil objective things.  *Your8 way is through
> > subjective opinion, the hell with facts, as long as you *feeeeeel*
> > good about your conclusions, right?

> Again creationism establishes both objectivity and subjectivity as
> logically valid.

No it doesn't.

> And yes generally there is a higher priority for
> subjectivity than there is for objectivity, the belief your parents
> love you has more import than the theory of gravity.

That would be a context thing. But do you think that a loving parent
would lovingly tell a child that they love them soooo much, that if
they were to accidently fall off of a 100 foot cliff, the child will
be okay because the parents love will set them gently on the ground?

> This is normal.

Only if you live in a fantasy world.

> And I guess there are many violations on the part of religion. Like
> with the earth being at the center of the universe. But it must be
> considered that accepting as fact that the earth is not at the center
> was a psycological blow to many people, and resulted in some
> questionable devaluation of human life.

If they had weak minds

> To be ruthless in accepting
> facts must be condemned, people are always looking for excuses to be
> ruthless.

No. But it does prevent them from trying to cross to the building
across the stree from a tenth floor balcony.

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

Oh, sweetie--that explains a lot. Your lies aren't really "lies": to
you, because you feel "loving" when you say things that you _know_ are
not the truth...
However, objectively, your lies are just...lies. Untruths.
Falsehoods. Fibs.
No, just lies.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 6, 12:13 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:45:59 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-d5a4845c-3356-4c2b-9424-1d22c7e9a...@a9g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>):

I conclude you have not read in the articles of the link I provided.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 6, 12:16�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:48:54 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu

> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:

The single piece of.evidence does not refute anything I say, it is you
who is lying.

[Attila]

And there you have it folks. *FULL* *DISCLOSURE* ! Nando is not bound (or
does not feel himself bound) by the normal rules of human discourse. When a
normal person lies, somewhere along the line they have told an untruth.
Nando and only Nando has the power to turn a lie into the truth by doing it
lovingly. Of course the "lovingly" part could also be a lie but again done
with love so not a lie. Before you know it, we're in an infinite regression.
I wonder if these rules apply only to Nando or are they general for all
creationists. If the latter it makes any attempt at meaningful dialogue
pointless. So Nando can never "lie" because if claims to do it lovingly
which he claims to do lovingly which he claims to do lovingly.....

Oh while we're on the subject, Nando has (lovingly) said, "Go fuck yourself,
in your own asshole," I'm just curious (assuming this act is physical
possible for a Nando) how do you "fuck yourself, in someone else's asshole"?

[Boikat]

In the catagory of "You say that like you mean it".

>
> I disagree, it is not a lie to �deliberately tell a false fact out of
> love, it is simply telling a false fact.

Boikat

[Boikat]

How about telling a true fact with a dash of disdain?

Boikat

[Syamsu]

It's difficult to say, socializing can be complicated. You are not
allowed to call people a liar, or selfish without subjective judgement
on your part. You must risk your own heart in challenging somebody
elses heart, only that way is civilized. And to call people liars and
selfish like if you are just measuring facts, is to take out all
emotion from communication. To confuse hardness of fact with hardness
of judgement is why scientists and evolutionists especially are widely
reviled as awful human beings.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:49:59 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-1e02bd35-bbb1-4...@f2g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):

Oh, my.

[Slow Vehicle]

The "single piece of evidence" is simply more support of _all_ the
other times it has been pointed out to you that you are lying.
And now you are, as usual, lying about lying...

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:47:54 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-01dc332a-5bc2-4...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>):

I conclude that you're dodging. As usual. Why will you not provide your
evidence... if you have any?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 6, 2:50 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 9:17 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 4:52 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 5, 10:16 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Not to mention, what in the name of the marching Kewpie Dolls of
> > > > Lulongomeela is a "false fact"? If it is a "fact", it is not
> > > > false...if it is an assertion that is demonstrably false, it is not a
> > > > "fact".
>
> > > I disagree, it is not a lie to  deliberately tell a false fact out of
> > > love, it is simply telling a false fact.
>
> > How about telling a true fact with a dash of disdain?
>
> It's difficult to say, socializing can be complicated. You are not
> allowed to call people a liar,

It is _hysterical_ to listen to you, an admitted liar, a demonstrated
liar, a habitual liar, an abusive liar, a liar so enmeshed in lies you
have trouble remembering what you've lied about, and what you've been
caught lynig about, pretend to be able to tell an honest person they
are not "allowed" to call you a liar.
You have admitted that you have nno scruples about lying, because it
isn't "really a lie" if your intent is "loving".

>or selfish without subjective judgement
> on your part.

Nonsense. When you continue to make assertions at odds with
demonstrable reality, you are, objectively, lying...not matter how you
subjectively console yourself.

>You must risk your own heart in challenging somebody
> elses heart, only that way is civilized.

AH. Truth is determined in trial by combat.
*snerk*

>And to call people liars and
> selfish like if you are just measuring facts,

What about your reflexive decision that annyone who disagrees with you
on any point of your subjective fantasy is a "proven liar about the
Holocaust"?
Are you now admitting that that is, and always has been, a lie? An
intentional lie? A lie told to attempt to intimidate and silence
anyone who dares disagree with you?

Or do you just _like_ lying about people?

> is to take out all
> emotion from communication.

Why yes--your own communications are a model of calm, rational
discourse.
As are your personal attacks.
And your insults.
</sarcasm>

>To confuse hardness of fact with hardness
> of judgement is why scientists and evolutionists especially are widely
> reviled as awful human beings.

Your lies and personal abuse do _not_ constitute a widespread
opinion...

[Syamsu]

On Aug 6, 11:53�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> I conclude that you're dodging. As usual. Why will you not provide your
> evidence... if you have any?

I conclude that you support lying about the holocaust. To take a
position on the relationship of darwinism to nazism, on the basis of 3
pieces of evidence, which you prejudicially searched to fit your
preconceived opinion, is lying about the holocaust.

[Syamsu]

Completely without subjective judgement on your part and therefore
meaningless. You are lying about the holocaust, and this is what my
heart tells me is true about you chosing to prejudically use a single
piece of evidence to save the reputation of Darwinism.

[Attila]

Yet you even lie about subjective matters. You state that Slow Vehicle has
not made a subjective judgement about you. I believe he certainly has done.
I have also made a subjective judgement about you. Probably everyone who has
ever had the misfortune to stumble upon you has equally made a subjective
judgement about you. Further I claim there is neither unanimity of these
diverse judgements, viz. you are an *utter* *twat* . And I say this with
much love having chosen with my own free will to be the decider. Have a nice
day.

[Syamsu]

All this bullshit must stop, and you must all accept subjectivity as
valid, and respect the line between subjective and objective, as
between what choses, and what is chosen.

I have shown that it works practically, you all have given no other
practical way to distinghuish subjective from objective, you must all
cease your bullshit which avoids your responsibilities.