Founding Fathers Debate -- Need Help

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 10:12pm

Getting your attention was exactly my intention. Now, GC, the problem comes up with a few things: circumstantial evidence, to be honest, but they influenced my intuition, so I'll list them.

1: You use the phrase "self-congratulation" a lot. You've done it multiple times in TNZ, at least once here. I have never, in the year I've been on this board, used that phrase. "Visionrazor" uses it several times on TrollKingdom.

2: You lurk here without posting. A lot. "Visionrazor" knows everything we say here, with the exception of PM's. You're a major suspect on this one, because for someone who came in here so passionately, and claims such devout views, you would think you'd either A) Get involved, or B) Get disgusted and leave -- yet all you've done, primarily, is lurk. Never getting involved with subjects in this very forum that we would logically expect such a devout Christian as yourself to have some definite opinions on.

Yet, even through everything in the "impersonator" subject -- right up until my last post. Even you must admit that, viewed objectively, that behavior is mildly suspicious.

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-07 10:49pm

1. The term is self-congratulatory...and I've used it, IIRC, about 4 times - one of them here. But looked at objectivly, is it MORE likely that someone - even you if you were really sick - would see a well turned phrase and copy it (ONE TIME!) , or that the Fundie who has constantly resisted using profanity even on the likes of Scourge who so richly deserves it, would throw out all his standards for this little misadventure? Certainly either is POSSIBLE, but which is MORE likely?

Come to think of it, The "imposter" uses the term "asshat" constantly...as do you - constantly - so, maybe the "imposter" really is you, huh?
Circumstantial evidence indeed.

2. Ever single time that I have come to this board and found a fresh post in this thread which concerned me I have replied to it.

THIS is lurking?

I don't LOOK at the other threads because I know, before I start, that I'll be pegged as a "Fundamentalist Moron" and it's foolish to fight so many battles you can't win.
I have a few boards I am established on that I already devote WAY to much time to. I don't want or need another one. As I have TRIED to make clear on this very thread!

[Pachino voice] I TRY to get out! But they KEEP PULLING ME BACK IN![/Pachino voice]

lol

Does it offend you that I'm not going to set myself up to be the resident whipping boy for you guys?

Are you crushed that you won't have repeated opportunities to pat yourself on the back for denonstrating how "illogica"l I am?

Too bad.

I DO have opinions. Youv'e been on TNZ long enough to know what they are. But unlike the rabid athiest obsessed with ridiculing Christians (such as yourself) I have no need to convince you all that I am right. God didn't call me to win arguments.

So, that's all you got?
You think using one small phrase which I "always" use is evidence yet you ignore the TONS of words used which INEVER use...

You accuse me of lurking because I don't chose to argue on every thread here (as if that's all I've got to do)....

Weak, son, REALLY weak.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-05-07 10:51pm

For someone who doesn't have time to address simple rebuttals of points (eg- your claim that it's OK to appeal to authority when it's the Supreme Court), you seem to have quite enough time to construct long posts attacking RDJ.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 11:11pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:For someone who doesn't have time to address simple rebuttals of points (eg- your claim that it's OK to appeal to authority when it's the Supreme Court), you seem to have quite enough time to construct long posts attacking RDJ.

I think he likes me.

On a more serious note, I think you're just a touch defensive. And to address the phraseology of the impersonator... Anybody can read my writing and pick out a phrase. The difference is that where the impersonator used the phrase "self-congratulation" once (that I've seen) he uses the words "fucktard" and "asshat" ad nauseam. Do you know what that tells me?

The impersonator slipped when he used his own phraseology once. He's been busting his ass trying to sound like a member of SDN the rest of the time. Too bad he comes off as a caricature.

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-07 11:42pm

Well, over in the other thread, the good Admiral is convinced I live near Toronto.
That tells me all I need to know about the reasoning skills I'm up against.

Enjoy your delusions gentlemen.

I tried.

I have no intention of desending to your level, but I no longer feel oblidged to keep my hat in my hand either.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-07 11:43pm

GC wrote: I don't LOOK at the other threads because I know, before I start, that I'll be pegged as a "Fundamentalist Moron" and it's foolish to fight so many battles you can't win.
I

This is such BS i must call you on it. Over the course of the entire time that I have visited these forums, first as a lurker myself not really having the time or inclination to respond, and now as a poster, i must say that NO one has in seriousness been called a moron for their religious beliefs UNTIL after they have presented them without any logic or evidence behind their statements, or until after they have made a statement that is preposterous and a sign of limited intellect "i believe the bible is the literal word of god" is one of those statements, considering that sheer problems with translation/lostworks/fallicious works that COULD have arrisen over the years added to that the proven incorrectness of some parts shows how saying that that document is literally true is sheer stupiditiy. but basically my point is that NO ONE is labeled a moron until they say something moronic, and even then their statements are always addressed, disected, and shown to be wrong in a logical manner by one of more of the members of this forum. It is only the last attempt of someone desparately scared of loosing an argument to say that their opponents wont fight fare and will prejudge them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-08 12:25am

GC wrote:Well, over in the other thread, the good Admiral is convinced I live near Toronto.

That tells me all I need to know about the reasoning skills I'm up against.

You think the use of arin.net is somehow an indictment of reasoning skills?

OK, fine. All of your posts have come from 205.208.167.* or 205.208.166.*, and according to arin.net WHOIS, those address ranges correspond to Nu-Pharm Inc. and Group Multimedia Network, both of which happen to be based in Toronto.

Enjoy your delusions gentlemen.

I tried.

No, you didn't. When faced with massive logical failures in your claim that it's OK to appeal to the authority of the Supreme Court in 1892 in order to prove that American government is based on Christianity, you changed the subject to say that American CULTURE (as opposed to government) is based on Christianity, and pretended that this was your position all along. And when asked what aspects of American social principles were uniquely Christian, you simply did not answer. I do not call that a genuine effort.

I have no intention of desending to your level, but I no longer feel oblidged to keep my hat in my hand either.

Descending to our level? Puh-lease. Another passive-aggressive swipe? Is this how you normally conduct yourself?

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-08 12:36am

NapoleonGH wrote:
GC wrote: I don't LOOK at the other threads because I know, before I start, that I'll be pegged as a "Fundamentalist Moron" and it's foolish to fight so many battles you can't win.
I

This is such BS i must call you on it. Over the course of the entire time that I have visited these forums, first as a lurker myself not really having the time or inclination to respond, and now as a poster, i must say that NO one has in seriousness been called a moron for their religious beliefs UNTIL after they have presented them without any logic or evidence behind their statements, or until after they have made a statement that is preposterous and a sign of limited intellect "i believe the bible is the literal word of god" ...

I believe the Bible, read in context, is the literal word of God.

Close enough for you?

You don't think I couldn't figure out that this position was one of those you "intellectuals" would consider "moronic"?

You may now procede with your ridicule.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-08 12:40am

GC wrote:I believe the Bible, read in context, is the literal word of God.

Does "read in context" mean "I get to dismiss everything I don't like?"

What's your position on infanticide? Do you think it's a bad thing? How about mass murder and genocide? Are those bad things?

You don't think I couldn't figure out that this position was one of those you "intellectuals" would consider "moronic"?

Your use of quotation-marks means that you sincerely believe Biblical literalism is NOT moronic. Care to defend that claim?

You may now procede with your ridicule.

It would be more fun to watch you try to defend that position than to simply ridicule you in absentia.

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-08 12:59am

Darth Wong wrote:
GC wrote:I believe the Bible, read in context, is the literal word of God.
Does "read in context" mean "I get to dismiss everything I don't like?"

What's your position on infanticide? Do you think it's a bad thing? How about mass murder and genocide? Are those bad things?
You don't think I couldn't figure out that this position was one of those you "intellectuals" would consider "moronic"?
Your use of quotation-marks means that you sincerely believe Biblical literalism is NOT moronic. Care to defend that claim?
You may now procede with your ridicule.
It would be more fun to watch you try to defend that position than to simply ridicule you in absentia.

Sigh.

Without getting dragged into another losing debate...
(while I was away I saw the "CampAmerican" thread and the unanamity therein...I know better than to argue with ALL of you)
...read in context means that, for instance, many Psalms are writers writing their human emotions ABOUT God...not words from God himself. Their INCLUSION is inspired, to show that OT believers struggled with their faith just as we do. But their content is from the point of view of the writer, not God. Thus, there is no contridiction between a single Psalm starting with "God has forsaken me" and ending with "My God will never forsake me" because it is merly a song about real life.

Read in context means when Paul wrote "beware of dogs" he didn't mean I couldn't own a beagle.

The only people who have any problem with understanding the concept are people with an inherent bias towards the book.

Context means you understand illustrative languae when you see it (such as "a camel through the eye of a needle") and you understand figures of speech and cultural idioms when you see them. It means that you understand the nature of eyewitness reporting instead of expecting the Gospels to be word for word copies of each other. It means you put a little effort into understanding the Book instead of looking through it to play "gotcha" thinking you found an error no one ever noticed before.

Make no mistake, you don't need any elaboration from me. The positions I hold, I have NO DOUBT, you find "moronic"...that's okay by me.

I'm not trying to impress anyone.

In 100 years, likely much less, we'll all be dead and well all have become acquainted with who was right.

That's not something Im worried about and I'm sure it's not something you are worried about either.

I'll pray for you guys, and hope somewhere down the line you discover a non-moronic Christian you will actually listen to. But I expect even that remark is an invetation to ridicule and rebuke.

So I've said my peace on the matter.

I'll return to the previously scheduled tit-for-tat.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-08 01:06am

GC wrote:(while I was away I saw the "CampAmerican" thread and the unanamity therein...I know better than to argue with ALL of you)

I don't see 1400 users posting in this particular thread.

...read in context means that, for instance, many Psalms are writers writing their human emotions ABOUT God...not words from God himself. Their INCLUSION is inspired, to show that OT believers struggled with their faith just as we do. But their content is from the point of view of the writer, not God. Thus, there is no contridiction between a single Psalm starting with "God has forsaken me" and ending with "My God will never forsake me" because it is merly a song about real life.

Who cares about the Psalms? What about the truly nonsensical stuff, like Jonah living for days in the belly of a living whale? Must I look for a marine biology text to show why this won't work?

Read in context means when Paul wrote "beware of dogs" he didn't mean I couldn't own a beagle.

The only people who have any problem with understanding the concept are people with an inherent bias towards the book.

Like you?

Context means you understand illustrative languae when you see it (such as "a camel through the eye of a needle") and you understand figures of speech and cultural idioms when you see them. It means that you understand the nature of eyewitness reporting instead of expecting the Gospels to be word for word copies of each other. It means you put a little effort into understanding the Book instead of looking through it to play "gotcha" thinking you found an error no one ever noticed before.

Eyewitness reporting is not literally true. It is secondhand information. How can you claim the Bible is literally true while explaining how we are NOT to take it literally? I suppose what you really mean is "some parts of the Bible are literal truth, and some are not".

Make no mistake, you don't need any elaboration from me. The positions I hold, I have NO DOUBT, you find "moronic"...that's okay by me.

Ah, if only the position you held did not contradict itself. First you say it's the LITERAL TRUTH, then you admonish us not to interpret it literally, and to apply all sorts of rules which are normally applied to eyewitness testimony etc.

I'm not trying to impress anyone.

In 100 years, likely much less, we'll all be dead and well all have become acquainted with who was right.

Not likely. You won't be acquainted with much of anything when you're dead.

That's not something Im worried about and I'm sure it's not something you are worried about either.

In the meantime, you have still failed to logically support any argument you've ever made, and all you've done with this post is contradict yourself.

I'll pray for you guys, and hope somewhere down the line you discover a non-moronic Christian you will actually listen to. But I expect even that remark is an invetation to ridicule and rebuke.

There are plenty of non-moronic Christians on the board. None of them are foolish enough to say that the Bible is literal truth, or worse yet, say it and then immediately contradict themselves as you have.

So I've said my peace on the matter.

I'll return to the previously scheduled tit-for-tat.

Ah, much easier than addressing all of the logical holes in your previous arguments. For the umpteenth time, I note that you have plenty of time for this tit-for-tat bullshit, but a resoundingly firm refusal to stand and debate logical points on any kind of issue.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-08 01:14am

Has there ever been a christian that said the bible is the literal word of god and that god therefore needs a labotomy for the good of mankind? I'd find that humorous.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-05-08 03:10am

GC wrote:I don't have time for this...

One hour later, GC wrote:I really don't have time for this...

Two hours later, GC wrote:I don't want to be here.

Six hours later, wrote:I have better things to do!

zagnutboy · Post by **zagnutboy** » 2003-05-08 04:02am

="Raoul Duke, Jr
On a more serious note, I think you're just a touch defensive.

Defensive?

Pot...kettle...black.

You gonna sue me now for defaming your character?

What character, pathetic plagerizer.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 04:08am

Oy, the fucknut just made himself a target! Time to flame the hell out of this turdfucking dipshit fuckwit...

By the way, was nice of you to make that post here, after adding this one here, you won't be able to delete it anymore, and I'm sure the Lex Animata will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Have fun, fucktard!

Edi

zagnutboy · Post by **zagnutboy** » 2003-05-08 04:12am

Edi wrote:Oy, the fucknut just made himself a target! Time to flame the hell out of this turdfucking dipshit fuckwit...

By the way, was nice of you to make that post here, after adding this one here, you won't be able to delete it anymore, and I'm sure the Lex Animata will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Have fun, fucktard!

Edi

Oh dear god! I'm going to get flamed!

I'd better hang on to my girdle.

Who are the "Lex Animata"? Is that some kind of bukkake tag team? If so, I'm not interested.

zagnutboy · Post by **zagnutboy** » 2003-05-08 04:13am

Edi wrote:Oy, the fucknut just made himself a target! Time to flame the hell out of this turdfucking dipshit fuckwit...

By the way, was nice of you to make that post here, after adding this one here, you won't be able to delete it anymore, and I'm sure the Lex Animata will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Have fun, fucktard!

Edi

I'm just jerkin yer chain, bud.

I love Raoul Duke, Jr. and all that he stands for.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 04:23am

zagnutboy wrote:
Edi wrote:Oy, the fucknut just made himself a target! Time to flame the hell out of this turdfucking dipshit fuckwit...

By the way, was nice of you to make that post here, after adding this one here, you won't be able to delete it anymore, and I'm sure the Lex Animata will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Have fun, fucktard!

Edi
Oh dear god! I'm going to get flamed!

I'd better hang on to my girdle.

Who are the "Lex Animata"? Is that some kind of bukkake tag team? If so, I'm not interested.

Lex Animata happens to be the custom title of the admin hereabouts, and means "The Living Law". You'll find out soon enough just what that means, given all your antics. Did you take a look at a couple of the threads where they are discussed? You've pissed off a lot of people, and coming here just gave them a whole host of weapons to use on you. They are not reliant on asking other places for some info they've wanted to get their hands on anymore, for instance...

You're in for a good deal of grief, and quite a bit of it might very well come not just here, but in your real life. Can't say I'll lose sleep over that, though. In fact, I think I'll be sleeping better knowing it.

You had your fun, now you'll find out that there also comes a time to pay the piper...

Edi

zagnutboy · Post by **zagnutboy** » 2003-05-08 04:26am

Edi wrote:[ You've pissed off a lot of people, and coming here just gave them a whole host of weapons to use on you. They are not reliant on asking other places for some info they've wanted to get their hands on anymore, for instance...

Pissed off a lot of people? I've been here 20 minutes! How can I possible be that offensive?

You're in for a good deal of grief, and quite a bit of it might very well come not just here, but in your real life.

Is that a threat? You seriously did not just threaten me with physical violence, did you?

I'm going to moderators. This is not tolerable.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 04:37am

zagnutboy wrote:
Edi wrote:You've pissed off a lot of people, and coming here just gave them a whole host of weapons to use on you. They are not reliant on asking other places for some info they've wanted to get their hands on anymore, for instance...
Pissed off a lot of people? I've been here 20 minutes! How can I possible be that offensive?

Originally posted by you:

zagnutboy wrote:Defensive?

Pot...kettle...black.

You gonna sue me now for defaming your character?

What character, pathetic plagerizer.

You identified yourself as the idiot who's been posing as Raoul's normal handle (the one he uses everywhere else) on the TK boards and distributing his work without permission, and that tends to earn a lot of enemies here. Look around, you'll figure it out.

zagnutboy wrote:
Edi wrote:You're in for a good deal of grief, and quite a bit of it might very well come not just here, but in your real life.
Is that a threat? You seriously did not just threaten me with physical violence, did you?

I'm going to moderators. This is not tolerable.

No, I didn't threaten you with physical violence. Even if I were inclined to do so, which I'm not, look at my location: Helsinki, Finland, Europe. Ooh, yeah, I'm such a serious physical threat, just an ocean and a continent away. No, what I'm talking about is other sorts of real life consequences arising from actions you have publicly claimed credit for. I'm just stating a fact based on what people other than me have said. Look around and you might find what I'm talking about.

I'll enjoy watching you being figuratively impaled on the stake. You don't have a lot of time either, just until Mike checks the AdmiralKanos account private messages and checks a few things, then it'll be all over for you...

Edi

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-05-08 09:12am

zagnutboy wrote:Pissed off a lot of people? I've been here 20 minutes! How can I possible be that offensive?

By stating that you're the idiot who's committing slanderous misrepresentation of RDJ on another board, asshole.

Is that a threat? You seriously did not just threaten me with physical violence, did you?

I'm going to moderators. This is not tolerable.

Goodbye, troll. You obviously signed up with AOL for the sole purpose of trolling the board; I see now what kind of people we are dealing with. TrekBBS demonstrates its superior maturity once again

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-05-08 10:01am

BTW, for all the TrekBBS assholes who were claiming that RDJ would do this to himself, we just had a troll come in here and take responsibility, and no, his IP address does not match RDJ. I suppose you people still think it's "hilarious", eh?

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-08 11:03am

AdmiralKanos wrote:BTW, for all the TrekBBS assholes who were claiming that RDJ would do this to himself, we just had a troll come in here and take responsibility, and no, his IP address does not match RDJ. I suppose you people still think it's "hilarious", eh?

Any chance you could PM me that IP, Admiral?

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-05-08 06:34pm

No problem. PM sent, for the following IP:

Arin.Net wrote:Search results for: 63.201.200.103

OrgName: Pac Bell Internet Services
OrgID: PACB
Address: 208 Bush St. #5000
City: San Ramon
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94104
Country: US

NetRange: 63.192.0.0 - 63.207.255.255
CIDR: 63.192.0.0/12
NetName: PBI-NET-7
NetHandle: NET-63-192-0-0-1
Parent: NET-63-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.PBI.NET
NameServer: NS2.PBI.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
Comment: please send all abuse issue e-mails to abuse@pbi.net
RegDate: 1999-05-10
Updated: 2001-09-26

TechHandle: PIA2-ORG-ARIN
TechName: IPAdmin-PBI
TechPhone: +1-888-212-5411
TechEmail: IPAdmin-PBI@sbis.sbc.com

OrgAbuseHandle: APB2-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse - Pacific Bell
OrgAbusePhone: +1-888-212-5411
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@pacbell.net

OrgNOCHandle: SPBI-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Support - Pacific Bell Internet
OrgNOCPhone: +1-888-212-5411
OrgNOCEmail: support@pacbell.net

OrgTechHandle: PIA2-ORG-ARIN
OrgTechName: IPAdmin-PBI
OrgTechPhone: +1-888-212-5411
OrgTechEmail: IPAdmin-PBI@sbis.sbc.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-05-07 20:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

I suppose the TrekBBS people will just say you moved to California in order to perpetrate this wonderfully "hilarious" joke upon yourself

Alternatively, they could simply say that the location is wrong, but this is a non-portable IP block, so they haven't leased sub-blocks out to people in other districts (if that's indeed what happened with GC, although quite frankly, I see no reason to trust anything he says).

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-08 07:30pm

Now the interesting thing, here, Admiral -- what this worthless trolling palmfucker is doing is actually considered Identity Theft in California. Our man zagnutboy is looking at criminal charges here.

But since the admins on his board are protecting him and in fact permitting him to continue with his acts of misrepresentation, it strikes my as being more than likely that I could name either the admins or site owner as accessories to his behavior.

After all, they could stop him, but choose not to. And they've already made it clear that they know "visionrazor" is misrepresenting his identity -- see

Sadistic Bastard wrote:Not if Lincoln was innocent.

(In regards to a character defamation analogy involving Abraham Lincoln)

You obviously don't understand how defamation of character works.

And it's MUCH harder to impersonate someone in real life my friend (again, something I think you need more experience with...maybe if you asked your keepers for more slack in the chain...enough to leave the basement perhaps?). Besides, do you really think people take an anonymous screen name seriously?

"I'm Sparticus!"

"Visionrazor" has not "adopted an anonymous screen name". He is claiming to be the author of my work. Are you so fucking dense that you genuinely don't understand the difference?

Even if someone did "run you out of town" in a cyber sense, you have many other places to go. Pull up stakes, move to the outback somewhere, and be nice to your neighbors and you have no worries.

That's not a decision for the members of this or any other bulletin board to mandate.

Your reputation in the real world is unaffected, hence no damage.

Red herring. My reputation in the real world is not the issue here. My reputation as an online author is. There is damage.

Your "right" to post on a BBS is not something upheld by law. And you have no copyright to a screen name.

Red herrings again. I'm not claiming any "right to post on a BBS" and I'm not claiming copyright on the screen name. The poster called "visionrazor" is materially misrepresenting my work, and myself as an author. That is libel, and it is actionable. Look it up.

Write for fun...and expect it to be ripped off, OR write seriously, copyright and protect the material and get paid for it.

The material is copyrighted. Additionally, the site specifies that material may not be reproduced without prior written consent.

Don't expect the same response to a blog or drivel you post on an open web-site and ASK for feedback from the masses.

I didn't ask anyone at this board for feedback.

Maybe your missing my point, DSK, I'm not really interested in your personality or reputation, or even you. I'm just fascinated by your persistence and energy output (but then again, I like train wrecks too).

Then you acknowledge that I am the author and "visionrazor" is an impersonator. Actually, this whole post of yours acknowledges