On Nov 7, 3:25 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Showed himself, once again, to be a lying sack of shit. All by himself, he is making creationism, which was already on the ropes, will have NO credibility. And he is doing this while he THINKS he is promoting it.
Good work, Ray, your whore of a mentor, the late Gene Scott, would be proud of you. Except that he was smooth and sophisticated and made a good living off of suckers like you. So I guess no one would be proud of you.
>On Nov 7, 11:56 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: >> > On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> >> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in >> >> > talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
>> >> > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, Nashie. >> >> > >> Are you a registered sexual offender?
>> >> > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a >> >> > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone in >> >> > >the medical field is hitting below the belt.
>> >> > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that I was >> >> > using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used by this idiot >> >> > when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" for calling Suzanne on >> >> > her spurious claims.
>> >> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to give >> >> Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that suggestions of >> >> sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in the medical field, >> >> even if they are made in jest.
>> >> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making irresponsible >> >> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, and >> >> no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying in >> >> public.
>> > Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? The >> > charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is the >> > standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts it on >> > the Internet then it is established fact.
>> > If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
>> > Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are >> > embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will be >> > treated the way you treat others.
>> > Ray Martinez
>> > SNIP....
>> This is truly disgusting behavior, Ray, and outside the bounds of >> even minimally acceptable social discourse that we have come to >> expect from you. If you had any sense of decency or self-respect >> you would be be thoroughly ashamed of what you reveal about yourself >> with this kind of gratuitous defamation. There is no excuse. Shame >> on you.
>> John- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>Why is John McKendry defending Dana Tweedy?
Why do you tell lies? Some people do not think that your immoral behavior here is funny or acceptable.
If you had any ethics, you would feel ashamed of your behavior, but it is clear from your demonstration here that you are completely immoral.
>> No, Ray. You treat others unfairly, and with malice. You are just >> reflecting the hatred, bitterness, and hurt in your own mangled >> soul.
>> I treat others fairly, and by speaking the truth. The truth hurts >> you, and for that, I'm sorry. I won't, however stop speaking the >> truth just because it upsets you.
>> If you tell the truth about me, I have no problem with that. Hold >> me to the standard of truth, the same one I use, and I'll not object.
>> DJT ... >I do not understand why you are so upset?
>I use your standards of "evidence."
That is the first lie you have posted in this post.
>The fact that you moved out of state to start a new life because you >got caught molesting defenseless patients in the back of your >ambulance is well established.
Show us where. This is a very serious accusation. It is your responsibility to provide supporting evidence when you make such a clear assertion. Where is your evidence?
> The fact that you steal from your >bosses by posting from work is also established. The facts appear on >the Internet and the facts were established by yourself.
Really? Where? You have already shown us that you are a totally untrustworthy writer, why would we ever believe your claims here when you do not offer any evidence to back them up?
> That is your >standard: appears on the Internet = automatically true.
What hogwash.
>Like I said: you will be treated like you treat others.
You are clearly someone who rejects the concepts of morality accepted in this society. You should feel shame for such behavior, but you have demonstrated a shameless willingness to lie, repeatedly about everything.
>I would love to see you in court, Dana. You will then have to explain >why the standard that you accept and employ against others is not >valid when it is deployed against you.
More lies from you.
>No matter how upset you become it is because the truth hurts.
You are profoundly disgusting. You are also lucky that your religion is a complete fraud. If it were true, your god would punish you for your behavior.
>Ray Martinez
apparently you want to earn the reputation as the most vile piece of slime on usenet. How disgusting you are.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:25:45 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 7, 11:56 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: >> > On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> >> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in >> >> > talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
>> >> > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, >> >> > >> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
>> >> > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a >> >> > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone >> >> > >in the medical field is hitting below the belt.
>> >> > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that I was >> >> > using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used by this >> >> > idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" for calling >> >> > Suzanne on her spurious claims.
>> >> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to >> >> give Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that >> >> suggestions of sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in >> >> the medical field, even if they are made in jest.
>> >> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making >> >> irresponsible >> >> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, >> >> and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying >> >> in public.
>> > Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? >> > The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is >> > the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts >> > it on the Internet then it is established fact.
>> > If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
>> > Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are >> > embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will >> > be treated the way you treat others.
>> > Ray Martinez
>> > SNIP....
>> This is truly disgusting behavior, Ray, and outside the bounds of >> even minimally acceptable social discourse that we have come to expect >> from you. If you had any sense of decency or self-respect you would be >> be thoroughly ashamed of what you reveal about yourself with this kind >> of gratuitous defamation. There is no excuse. Shame on you.
>> John- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> Why is John McKendry defending Dana Tweedy?
> Is it because both of them are Darwinists?
> Yes, of course.
Standard Martinez boilerplate. Nobody even reads this stuff any more.
> Dana will be treated like he treats others. Ignoring his slander while > acting like you are some moral individual is deliberate deception, > dishonesty.
> Does the military know that you are gay, Johnny?
> How do you like a taste of your own medicine?
> The fact that you are gay is established. It is established because it > is on the Internet. That is both yours and Dana's standard: if it > appears on the Internet it is true.
> If you don't like to be treated this way why do you do it to others?
> And Dana has admitted to being a molestor. I suspect that you support > him because you are the same.
> Ray (Creationist)
You really need to grow up and act your age, Ray. There are two kinds of moral questions, questions of what you're allowed to do and questions of what you should do. Criminals, sociopaths, and very young children only understand the first kind of question; mature adults understand the second. You, clearly, only understand the first. You see any behavior that doesn't land you in jail as morally acceptable, and you have no regard for the fundamental principles of mutuality and reciprocal good will that mark us as human. You are a sad, stubborn child, and your attempts to excuse your heedless irresponsibility would be laughable if they weren't so desperate.
I have seen some unpleasant people in this newsgroup, Ray, but I have almost never seen anyone so totally lacking a sense of moral responsibility as you. I have seen your equal in pretentious self-regard and preening nastiness, but you have finally outdone yourself. You have shown yourself to be thoroughly and unmistakably vile.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:25:45 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: > > On Nov 7, 11:56 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: > >> > On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in > >> >> > talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
> >> >> > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, > >> >> > >> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
> >> >> > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a > >> >> > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone > >> >> > >in the medical field is hitting below the belt.
> >> >> > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that I was > >> >> > using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used by this > >> >> > idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" for calling > >> >> > Suzanne on her spurious claims.
> >> >> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to > >> >> give Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that > >> >> suggestions of sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in > >> >> the medical field, even if they are made in jest.
> >> >> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making > >> >> irresponsible > >> >> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, > >> >> and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying > >> >> in public.
> >> > Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? > >> > The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is > >> > the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts > >> > it on the Internet then it is established fact.
> >> > If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
> >> > Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are > >> > embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will > >> > be treated the way you treat others.
> >> > Ray Martinez
> >> > SNIP....
> >> This is truly disgusting behavior, Ray, and outside the bounds of > >> even minimally acceptable social discourse that we have come to expect > >> from you. If you had any sense of decency or self-respect you would be > >> be thoroughly ashamed of what you reveal about yourself with this kind > >> of gratuitous defamation. There is no excuse. Shame on you.
> >> John- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > Why is John McKendry defending Dana Tweedy?
> > Is it because both of them are Darwinists?
> > Yes, of course.
> Standard Martinez boilerplate. Nobody even reads this stuff any more.
> > Dana will be treated like he treats others. Ignoring his slander while > > acting like you are some moral individual is deliberate deception, > > dishonesty.
> > Does the military know that you are gay, Johnny?
> > How do you like a taste of your own medicine?
> > The fact that you are gay is established. It is established because it > > is on the Internet. That is both yours and Dana's standard: if it > > appears on the Internet it is true.
> > If you don't like to be treated this way why do you do it to others?
> > And Dana has admitted to being a molestor. I suspect that you support > > him because you are the same.
> > Ray (Creationist)
> You really need to grow up and act your age, Ray. There are two kinds > of moral questions, questions of what you're allowed to do and questions > of what you should do. Criminals, sociopaths, and very young children > only understand the first kind of question; mature adults understand > the second. You, clearly, only understand the first. You see any > behavior that doesn't land you in jail as morally acceptable, and > you have no regard for the fundamental principles of mutuality and > reciprocal good will that mark us as human. You are a sad, stubborn > child, and your attempts to excuse your heedless irresponsibility > would be laughable if they weren't so desperate.
> I have seen some unpleasant people in this newsgroup, Ray, but I > have almost never seen anyone so totally lacking a sense of moral > responsibility as you. I have seen your equal in pretentious > self-regard and preening nastiness, but you have finally outdone > yourself. You have shown yourself to be thoroughly and unmistakably > vile
His entire opinion of people is based on which side they are on. His view of evidence is that it cannot be valid unless it backs his position. His understanding of morality follows the same guidelines.
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:06:20 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in <3b8f19f8-99ed-4f91-90f7-9f5189cf8...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> :
>On Nov 2, 8:30 pm, Musycks <michael.j.robe...@sonydadc.com> wrote: >> Hi Tim, >> Interesting question... >> The universe seems to be the way it is because it's the only way it >> could have evolved to this point, all other possible forms are weeded >> out by survivalist devices if you will. So life on other planets is >> probably a statistical certainty, but it seems the odds of us bumping >> into each other might be so close to nil as to not matter.
>> For creationists they do have the 'out' of lack of biblical account of >> extra terrestrial life.. but any close reading of those texts reveal >> what it is inferring. ie. >> God created the earth for humans, who are made in his image.No mention >> of ET because for those people he wasn't even a remote possibility. Of >> course if it was written by a divine hand we might have expected some >> information on the possibility?
>heh.. What do you think "sons of god" coming down to earth from the >heavens and taking "mortal" women as wives (as plainly stated in >Genesis) means?
>They were extraterrestrial.
Elsewhere you've said that the Watchers were angels. Are angels extraterrestrials?
>> The bible is useless for many things that matter, it is a stone age >> collection of 'existential poetry'... mostly turgid and uninspired and >> the fact it doesn't address this issue is more evidence of it's man >> made genesis.
>You freaks just do not understand the book you love to criticize so >much.
This, from someone who thinks that the "sons of God" were extraterrestrials?
> On Nov 7, 5:48 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:25:45 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 11:56 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: >>>>> On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in >>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net>: >>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, >>>>>>>>> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender? >>>>>>>> Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a >>>>>>>> regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone >>>>>>>> in the medical field is hitting below the belt. >>>>>>> I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that I was >>>>>>> using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used by this >>>>>>> idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" for calling >>>>>>> Suzanne on her spurious claims. >>>>>> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to >>>>>> give Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that >>>>>> suggestions of sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in >>>>>> the medical field, even if they are made in jest. >>>>>> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making >>>>>> irresponsible >>>>>> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, >>>>>> and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying >>>>>> in public. >>>>> Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? >>>>> The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is >>>>> the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts >>>>> it on the Internet then it is established fact. >>>>> If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now. >>>>> Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are >>>>> embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will >>>>> be treated the way you treat others. >>>>> Ray Martinez >>>>> SNIP.... >>>> This is truly disgusting behavior, Ray, and outside the bounds of >>>> even minimally acceptable social discourse that we have come to expect >>>> from you. If you had any sense of decency or self-respect you would be >>>> be thoroughly ashamed of what you reveal about yourself with this kind >>>> of gratuitous defamation. There is no excuse. Shame on you. >>>> John- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Why is John McKendry defending Dana Tweedy? >>> Is it because both of them are Darwinists? >>> Yes, of course. >> Standard Martinez boilerplate. Nobody even reads this stuff any more.
>>> Dana will be treated like he treats others. Ignoring his slander while >>> acting like you are some moral individual is deliberate deception, >>> dishonesty. >>> Does the military know that you are gay, Johnny? >>> How do you like a taste of your own medicine? >>> The fact that you are gay is established. It is established because it >>> is on the Internet. That is both yours and Dana's standard: if it >>> appears on the Internet it is true. >>> If you don't like to be treated this way why do you do it to others? >>> And Dana has admitted to being a molestor. I suspect that you support >>> him because you are the same. >>> Ray (Creationist) >> You really need to grow up and act your age, Ray. There are two kinds >> of moral questions, questions of what you're allowed to do and questions >> of what you should do. Criminals, sociopaths, and very young children >> only understand the first kind of question; mature adults understand >> the second. You, clearly, only understand the first. You see any >> behavior that doesn't land you in jail as morally acceptable, and >> you have no regard for the fundamental principles of mutuality and >> reciprocal good will that mark us as human. You are a sad, stubborn >> child, and your attempts to excuse your heedless irresponsibility >> would be laughable if they weren't so desperate.
>> I have seen some unpleasant people in this newsgroup, Ray, but I >> have almost never seen anyone so totally lacking a sense of moral >> responsibility as you. I have seen your equal in pretentious >> self-regard and preening nastiness, but you have finally outdone >> yourself. You have shown yourself to be thoroughly and unmistakably >> vile
> His entire opinion of people is based on which side they are on. His > view of evidence is that it cannot be valid unless it backs his > position. His understanding of morality follows the same guidelines.
> -- > Will in New Haven
Which is nonetheless remarkable. It is one thing lacking a solid education and being ignorant of many things - there it can happen that that you cannot even see how ignorant you are, and you end up inadvertently making a fool of yourself. So in this respect Ray is just the victim of circumstances that denied him the basic level of education that enables people to realise their limitations.
But with basic rules of civilised behaviour, it is just hard to imagine how anyone could not realise that this type of behaviour is repulsive to everyone else. I mean he _must_ simply know just how bad that makes him and by implication his "side" look or else it is diffcult to see how he can function socially
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? > The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is > the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts > it on the Internet then it is established fact.
Idiot.
> If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
Ray Martinez rapes little girls every Sunday.
Sue me, asshole.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:25:45 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: > > On Nov 7, 11:56 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: > >> > On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in > >> >> > talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
> >> >> > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, > >> >> > >> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
> >> >> > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a > >> >> > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone > >> >> > >in the medical field is hitting below the belt.
> >> >> > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that I was > >> >> > using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used by this > >> >> > idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" for calling > >> >> > Suzanne on her spurious claims.
> >> >> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to > >> >> give Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that > >> >> suggestions of sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in > >> >> the medical field, even if they are made in jest.
> >> >> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making > >> >> irresponsible > >> >> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, > >> >> and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying > >> >> in public.
> >> > Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? > >> > The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is > >> > the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts > >> > it on the Internet then it is established fact.
> >> > If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
> >> > Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are > >> > embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will > >> > be treated the way you treat others.
> >> > Ray Martinez
> >> > SNIP....
> >> This is truly disgusting behavior, Ray, and outside the bounds of > >> even minimally acceptable social discourse that we have come to expect > >> from you. If you had any sense of decency or self-respect you would be > >> be thoroughly ashamed of what you reveal about yourself with this kind > >> of gratuitous defamation. There is no excuse. Shame on you.
> >> John- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > Why is John McKendry defending Dana Tweedy?
> > Is it because both of them are Darwinists?
> > Yes, of course.
> Standard Martinez boilerplate. Nobody even reads this stuff any more.
> > Dana will be treated like he treats others. Ignoring his slander while > > acting like you are some moral individual is deliberate deception, > > dishonesty.
> > Does the military know that you are gay, Johnny?
> > How do you like a taste of your own medicine?
> > The fact that you are gay is established. It is established because it > > is on the Internet. That is both yours and Dana's standard: if it > > appears on the Internet it is true.
> > If you don't like to be treated this way why do you do it to others?
> > And Dana has admitted to being a molestor. I suspect that you support > > him because you are the same.
> > Ray (Creationist)
> You really need to grow up and act your age, Ray. There are two kinds > of moral questions, questions of what you're allowed to do and questions > of what you should do. Criminals, sociopaths, and very young children > only understand the first kind of question; mature adults understand > the second. You, clearly, only understand the first. You see any > behavior that doesn't land you in jail as morally acceptable, and > you have no regard for the fundamental principles of mutuality and > reciprocal good will that mark us as human. You are a sad, stubborn > child, and your attempts to excuse your heedless irresponsibility > would be laughable if they weren't so desperate.
> I have seen some unpleasant people in this newsgroup, Ray, but I > have almost never seen anyone so totally lacking a sense of moral > responsibility as you. I have seen your equal in pretentious > self-regard and preening nastiness, but you have finally outdone > yourself. You have shown yourself to be thoroughly and unmistakably > vile.
> John- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Once again "Honest" John produces a post that defends evolutionist howler slander while slandering those who protest (me). I will continue to give you and all the shit slinging monkeys a taste of your own medicine.
Howler monkeys defend their turf by flinging their own shit at intruders. Darwinists do the same. Anyone who produces arguments against evolution that cannot be refuted are slandered. Darwinists become enraged when argument exposes their theory for what it is: Atheism ideology.
And I have spoken the plain truth about John McKendry: based on the standards that he accepts (if it appears on the Internet then it is established fact) McKendry is a homosexual who supports an admitted molestor (Dana Tweedy).
>On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg >> > <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
>> > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, >> > >> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
>> > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a >> > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone in >> > >the medical field is hitting below the belt.
>> > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that >> > I was using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used >> > by this idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" >> > for calling Suzanne on her spurious claims.
>> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to give >> Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that suggestions of >> sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in the medical field, >> even if they are made in jest.
>> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making irresponsible >> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, >> and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying >> in public.
>Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance?
Because there is no justification for your madness.
>The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is >the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts >it on the Internet then it is established fact.
What evidence Dishonest Ray?
>If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
You are not worth suing, you are a discredited liar that nobody respects.
>Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are >embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will be >treated the way you treat others.
You are really getting pathetic in your old age Dishonest Ray. I fell very sorry for you.
>Ray Martinez
>SNIP....
-- Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will always remember just how bright you made them feel.
>On Nov 7, 11:23 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 12:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following >> > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg >> > > > <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
>> > > > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > > > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, >> > > > >> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
>> > > > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a >> > > > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone in >> > > > >the medical field is hitting below the belt.
>> > > > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that >> > > > I was using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used >> > > > by this idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" >> > > > for calling Suzanne on her spurious claims.
>> > > I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to give >> > > Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that suggestions of >> > > sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in the medical field, >> > > even if they are made in jest.
>> > > I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making irresponsible >> > > charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, >> > > and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying >> > > in public.
>> > Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance?
>> Because your charge is a lie, and you know it be a lie.
>> > The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is >> > the standard you accept against others:
>> I don't accept such a standard against others, Ray, as you know. >> That's why you lie.
>> > if someone says it and posts >> > it on the Internet then it is established fact.
>> I've never claimed that to be true. When there is sufficent >> evidence to support something, I'll accept it as true. For example, >> the fact that your Pastor is a former porn star is a fact, with plenty >> of evidence to back it up. I realize you don't like evidence, but >> it's there nonetheless. If the cliams of your Pastor's former >> career were just a rumor, I'd not give it any creedence. Since there >> is plenty of evidence in print, and on the Internet, I accept it, >> unless you can show any evidence it's not true.
>> > If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
>> As I've pointed out before, there's no point in suing you. First of >> all, your claims are not credible. Second, you have no assets for me >> to seize, so it would be pointless. You know your statements to be >> libelous, and you know you are lying. That only makes you a liar.
>> > Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are >> > embarrassed.
>> I deny because it's not true. I'm not embarassed over false charges >> made by you, Ray. I'm just saddened that you are so morally bankrupt >> that you would do such a thing.
>> > What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will be >> > treated the way you treat others.
>> No, Ray. You treat others unfairly, and with malice. You are just >> reflecting the hatred, bitterness, and hurt in your own mangled >> soul.
>> I treat others fairly, and by speaking the truth. The truth hurts >> you, and for that, I'm sorry. I won't, however stop speaking the >> truth just because it upsets you.
>> If you tell the truth about me, I have no problem with that. Hold >> me to the standard of truth, the same one I use, and I'll not object.
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>I do not understand why you are so upset?
>I use your standards of "evidence."
Liar!
>The fact that you moved out of state to start a new life because you >got caught molesting defenseless patients in the back of your >ambulance is well established.
Liar!
> The fact that you steal from your >bosses by posting from work is also established.
Liar!
>The facts appear on >the Internet and the facts were established by yourself.
Liar!
>That is your >standard: appears on the Internet = automatically true.
Liar!
>Like I said: you will be treated like you treat others.
>I would love to see you in court, Dana.
I'm still waiting for your email Dishonest Ray, have been now for at least two years.
> You will then have to explain >why the standard that you accept and employ against others is not >valid when it is deployed against you.
He has standards, wish you did as well.
>No matter how upset you become it is because the truth hurts.
And the truth is that you are totally dishonest.
>Ray Martinez
-- Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Desertphile wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? >> The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is >> the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts >> it on the Internet then it is established fact.
> Idiot.
>> If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
>On Nov 7, 11:56 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: >> > On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> >> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in >> >> > talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
>> >> > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, Nashie. >> >> > >> Are you a registered sexual offender?
>> >> > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a >> >> > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone in >> >> > >the medical field is hitting below the belt.
>> >> > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that I was >> >> > using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used by this idiot >> >> > when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" for calling Suzanne on >> >> > her spurious claims.
>> >> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to give >> >> Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that suggestions of >> >> sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in the medical field, >> >> even if they are made in jest.
>> >> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making irresponsible >> >> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, and >> >> no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying in >> >> public.
>> > Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? The >> > charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is the >> > standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts it on >> > the Internet then it is established fact.
>> > If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
>> > Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are >> > embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will be >> > treated the way you treat others.
>> > Ray Martinez
>> > SNIP....
>> This is truly disgusting behavior, Ray, and outside the bounds of >> even minimally acceptable social discourse that we have come to >> expect from you. If you had any sense of decency or self-respect >> you would be be thoroughly ashamed of what you reveal about yourself >> with this kind of gratuitous defamation. There is no excuse. Shame >> on you.
>> John- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>Why is John McKendry defending Dana Tweedy?
Because Dana have proved himself to be an honest and reliable person.
The exact opposite of you Dishonest Ray.
>Is it because both of them are Darwinists?
Nope.
>Yes, of course.
>Dana will be treated like he treats others. Ignoring his slander
You are still an illiterate moron Dishonest Ray.
> while >acting like you are some moral individual is deliberate deception, >dishonesty.
>Does the military know that you are gay, Johnny?
>How do you like a taste of your own medicine?
>The fact that you are gay is established. It is established because it >is on the Internet. That is both yours and Dana's standard: if it >appears on the Internet it is true.
You are a lying toerag Dishonest Ray.
>If you don't like to be treated this way why do you do it to others?
>And Dana has admitted to being a molestor.
Liar!
> I suspect that you support >him because you are the same.
Liar!
>Ray (Lying Creationist Moron)
-- Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
>> You really need to grow up and act your age, Ray. There are two kinds >> of moral questions, questions of what you're allowed to do and questions >> of what you should do. Criminals, sociopaths, and very young children >> only understand the first kind of question; mature adults understand >> the second. You, clearly, only understand the first. You see any >> behavior that doesn't land you in jail as morally acceptable, and >> you have no regard for the fundamental principles of mutuality and >> reciprocal good will that mark us as human. You are a sad, stubborn >> child, and your attempts to excuse your heedless irresponsibility >> would be laughable if they weren't so desperate.
>> I have seen some unpleasant people in this newsgroup, Ray, but I >> have almost never seen anyone so totally lacking a sense of moral >> responsibility as you. I have seen your equal in pretentious >> self-regard and preening nastiness, but you have finally outdone >> yourself. You have shown yourself to be thoroughly and unmistakably >> vile.
>> John
> Once again "Honest" John produces a post that defends evolutionist > howler slander while slandering those who protest (me). I will > continue to give you and all the shit slinging monkeys a taste of your > own medicine.
> Howler monkeys defend their turf by flinging their own shit at > intruders. Darwinists do the same. Anyone who produces arguments > against evolution that cannot be refuted are slandered. Darwinists > become enraged when argument exposes their theory for what it is: > Atheism ideology.
> And I have spoken the plain truth about John McKendry: based on the > standards that he accepts (if it appears on the Internet then it is > established fact) McKendry is a homosexual who supports an admitted > molestor (Dana Tweedy).
It does my heart good to see the way that you've laid claim to the moral low ground, Ray.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:02:22 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in <8c10afaa-2d92-4366-b0a2-c5125c647...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>On Nov 7, 2:48 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:25:45 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: >> > On Nov 7, 11:56 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: >> >> > On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in >> >> >> > talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
>> >> >> > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, >> >> >> > >> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
>> >> >> > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a >> >> >> > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone >> >> >> > >in the medical field is hitting below the belt.
>> >> >> > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that I was >> >> >> > using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used by this >> >> >> > idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" for calling >> >> >> > Suzanne on her spurious claims.
>> >> >> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to >> >> >> give Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that >> >> >> suggestions of sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in >> >> >> the medical field, even if they are made in jest.
>> >> >> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making >> >> >> irresponsible >> >> >> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, >> >> >> and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying >> >> >> in public.
>> >> > Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? >> >> > The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is >> >> > the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts >> >> > it on the Internet then it is established fact.
>> >> > If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
>> >> > Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are >> >> > embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will >> >> > be treated the way you treat others.
>> >> > Ray Martinez
>> >> > SNIP....
>> >> This is truly disgusting behavior, Ray, and outside the bounds of >> >> even minimally acceptable social discourse that we have come to expect >> >> from you. If you had any sense of decency or self-respect you would be >> >> be thoroughly ashamed of what you reveal about yourself with this kind >> >> of gratuitous defamation. There is no excuse. Shame on you.
>> >> John- Hide quoted text -
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>> > Why is John McKendry defending Dana Tweedy?
>> > Is it because both of them are Darwinists?
>> > Yes, of course.
>> Standard Martinez boilerplate. Nobody even reads this stuff any more.
>> > Dana will be treated like he treats others. Ignoring his slander while >> > acting like you are some moral individual is deliberate deception, >> > dishonesty.
>> > Does the military know that you are gay, Johnny?
>> > How do you like a taste of your own medicine?
>> > The fact that you are gay is established. It is established because it >> > is on the Internet. That is both yours and Dana's standard: if it >> > appears on the Internet it is true.
>> > If you don't like to be treated this way why do you do it to others?
>> > And Dana has admitted to being a molestor. I suspect that you support >> > him because you are the same.
>> > Ray (Creationist)
>> You really need to grow up and act your age, Ray. There are two kinds >> of moral questions, questions of what you're allowed to do and questions >> of what you should do. Criminals, sociopaths, and very young children >> only understand the first kind of question; mature adults understand >> the second. You, clearly, only understand the first. You see any >> behavior that doesn't land you in jail as morally acceptable, and >> you have no regard for the fundamental principles of mutuality and >> reciprocal good will that mark us as human. You are a sad, stubborn >> child, and your attempts to excuse your heedless irresponsibility >> would be laughable if they weren't so desperate.
>> I have seen some unpleasant people in this newsgroup, Ray, but I >> have almost never seen anyone so totally lacking a sense of moral >> responsibility as you. I have seen your equal in pretentious >> self-regard and preening nastiness, but you have finally outdone >> yourself. You have shown yourself to be thoroughly and unmistakably >> vile.
>> John
>Once again "Honest" John produces a post that defends evolutionist >howler slander while slandering those who protest (me). I will >continue to give you and all the shit slinging monkeys a taste of your >own medicine.
>Howler monkeys defend their turf by flinging their own shit at >intruders. Darwinists do the same. Anyone who produces arguments >against evolution that cannot be refuted are slandered.
What arguments are you refering to?
>Darwinists >become enraged when argument exposes their theory for what it is: >Atheism ideology.
And Ray becomes enraged when shown that this claim is false.
>And I have spoken the plain truth about John McKendry: based on the >standards that he accepts (if it appears on the Internet then it is >established fact) McKendry is a homosexual who supports an admitted >molestor (Dana Tweedy).
> On Nov 7, 2:48 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:25:45 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 11:56 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: > > >> > On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: > > >> >> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in > > >> >> > talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
> > >> >> > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> >> > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, > > >> >> > >> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
> > >> >> > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a > > >> >> > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone > > >> >> > >in the medical field is hitting below the belt.
> > >> >> > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that I was > > >> >> > using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used by this > > >> >> > idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" for calling > > >> >> > Suzanne on her spurious claims.
> > >> >> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to > > >> >> give Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that > > >> >> suggestions of sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in > > >> >> the medical field, even if they are made in jest.
> > >> >> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making > > >> >> irresponsible > > >> >> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, > > >> >> and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying > > >> >> in public.
> > >> > Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? > > >> > The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is > > >> > the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts > > >> > it on the Internet then it is established fact.
> > >> > If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
> > >> > Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are > > >> > embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will > > >> > be treated the way you treat others.
> > >> > Ray Martinez
> > >> > SNIP....
> > >> This is truly disgusting behavior, Ray, and outside the bounds of > > >> even minimally acceptable social discourse that we have come to expect > > >> from you. If you had any sense of decency or self-respect you would be > > >> be thoroughly ashamed of what you reveal about yourself with this kind > > >> of gratuitous defamation. There is no excuse. Shame on you.
> > >> John- Hide quoted text -
> > >> - Show quoted text -
> > > Why is John McKendry defending Dana Tweedy?
> > > Is it because both of them are Darwinists?
> > > Yes, of course.
> > Standard Martinez boilerplate. Nobody even reads this stuff any more.
> > > Dana will be treated like he treats others. Ignoring his slander while > > > acting like you are some moral individual is deliberate deception, > > > dishonesty.
> > > Does the military know that you are gay, Johnny?
> > > How do you like a taste of your own medicine?
> > > The fact that you are gay is established. It is established because it > > > is on the Internet. That is both yours and Dana's standard: if it > > > appears on the Internet it is true.
> > > If you don't like to be treated this way why do you do it to others?
> > > And Dana has admitted to being a molestor. I suspect that you support > > > him because you are the same.
> > > Ray (Creationist)
> > You really need to grow up and act your age, Ray. There are two kinds > > of moral questions, questions of what you're allowed to do and questions > > of what you should do. Criminals, sociopaths, and very young children > > only understand the first kind of question; mature adults understand > > the second. You, clearly, only understand the first. You see any > > behavior that doesn't land you in jail as morally acceptable, and > > you have no regard for the fundamental principles of mutuality and > > reciprocal good will that mark us as human. You are a sad, stubborn > > child, and your attempts to excuse your heedless irresponsibility > > would be laughable if they weren't so desperate.
> > I have seen some unpleasant people in this newsgroup, Ray, but I > > have almost never seen anyone so totally lacking a sense of moral > > responsibility as you. I have seen your equal in pretentious > > self-regard and preening nastiness, but you have finally outdone > > yourself. You have shown yourself to be thoroughly and unmistakably > > vile.
> > John- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Once again "Honest" John produces a post that defends evolutionist > howler slander while slandering those who protest (me).
Ray, the only one engaging in defamation here is you. Your claims are false, and you know you are lying. Trying to pretend you are the victim here is even more pathetic than usual for you.
> I will > continue to give you and all the shit slinging monkeys a taste of your > own medicine.
Once again, Ray, you are just thowing a temper tantrum. You don't seem to grasp that by responding to people telling the truth with outrageous lies it only makes you seem desparate and disgusting.
> Howler monkeys defend their turf by flinging their own shit at > intruders. Darwinists do the same.
Note that you are the one dealing in the lies, not the "Darwinists" here.
>Anyone who produces arguments
> against evolution that cannot be refuted are slandered.
No one has produced any arguments against evolution that can't be refuted. Your own claims have easily been shot down, as you well remember. You also seem to have lost track of the thread here.
> Darwinists > become enraged when argument exposes their theory for what it is: > Atheism ideology.
Evolution is not atheist ideology, and you are the one appearing "enraged". You really are missing the point, and are in such a slavering rage you have lost all control.
Remember, what's at issue here is your false, and libelous statements, not anyone "exposing" evolution for anything.
> And I have spoken the plain truth about John McKendry:
No, Ray, you have lied. You know you've lied, and so does everyone else. Why you would so wantonly assassinate your own character (such as it is) this way is puzzling. Is selling whatever small measure of self respect you may have had worth the 'pottage' of making irresponsible charges against those you can't intellectually compete with?
> based on the > standards that he accepts (if it appears on the Internet then it is > established fact)
No one has that standard, Ray, and you know it. You seem to think that if you deny a truth with enough force, it will go away. Obviously not everything on the internet is true, (after all, there are plenty of creationist sites on the internet, and they are false).
Your problem is that if you don't want to believe something, that does not mean it's false. What I've said is true, and can be supported with not only a lot of evidence on the internet, but much evidence that's not. There are business records, photographs, marriage records, and witnesses that attest to the fact. A recent issue of Maire Claire Magazine ran a story about it.
If, as you claimed, "if it's false you would have sued", why hasn't she sued Mare Claire?
> McKendry is a homosexual who supports an admitted > molestor (Dana Tweedy).
Ray, you know both those claims are false. You know they are false because you made them up out of your own hatred, and twisted sexual fantasies. Repeating your lies only makes you look more depraved, and more disgusting. It really doesn't harm me, or John.
When you are through playing around in the filth, Ray, maybe you can gather up enough courage to discuss the acutal evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:06:57 +0000, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Desertphile wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? > >> The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is > >> the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts > >> it on the Internet then it is established fact. > > Idiot. > >> If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now. > > Ray Martinez rapes little girls every Sunday. > > Sue me, asshole. > Not helping.. :o(
Sorry: I was angered at all this stupid shit. Martinez has claimed that Tweedy "admits it," when Tweedy not only consistently denies the fraudulent and libelous claim, but has pointed out there is no basis for the claim. Martinez is a despicable, evil bastard.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
>On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg >> <reddfr...@bresnan.net>: >> >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, >> >> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender? >> >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a >> >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone in >> >the medical field is hitting below the belt. >> I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that >> I was using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used >> by this idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" >> for calling Suzanne on her spurious claims. >I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to give >Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that suggestions of >sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in the medical field, >even if they are made in jest.
It's not only in the medical field; *serious* accusations of abuse, child pornography and the like are potentially damaging to *anyone*, and especially to those who deal with the public from positions of trust. (Note the emphasis on "serious", which does not equate to "valid".)
> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making irresponsible >charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, >and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying >in public.
I had the same thing happen to me when Earl Curley accused me, completely out of the blue, of racism because I pointed out some errors he made. But he was emphatically *not* being sarcastic; he was merely lashing out (as Nashie is prone to do) against someone who persistently exposed his idiocies.
> If I object to someone else making irresponsible statements >about me, I have to also object to someone making irresponsible >statements about others, even extremely unpleasant persons like >Nikky. >> My intent was to >> rub his nose in the fact that neither was abuse, and that >> his accusations were baseless. >I understand that, and agree that his accusations were baseless. >However in this case, two wrongs really don't make a right. When >USENET stuff has the potential to bleed over into real life, one must >be very cautious.
And I thought that by making it obvious my post was intended as sarcasm I was being as cautious as required. I agree that my comments could be taken out of context, but if we must all post in such a way as to make this impossible (which seems to me to be an impossible undertaking in itself) we might as well leave Usenet to Nashie and the like, for whom quoting out of context is a way of life.
(In fact, this thread has itself been taken out of context to an extent, because the original post by Inez is missing, along with the prefatory remarks I made which clearly show my intent was a sarcastic comment on Nashie's hypocrisy. Entire original exchange shown below.)
[begin]
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:49:03 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in talk.origins, posted by Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com>:
>> >...There's still no rational basis for >> > believing in magic, and I don't see any evidence to support the >> > current crop of religions. >> And why should anybody care about your thoughts? >Help! Help! A woman abuser is after me!
Amazing how different it is when the shoe is on the other foot...
So, Nashie, why do you abuse women?
<snip>
>> > think that the question of whether gods exist or not is intriguing but >> > ultimately unimportant. >> Who cares what you think?
More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
[end] --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
> > > > > On Nov 3, 9:42 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > > > > > > Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > For the creationist:
> > > > > > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that > > > > > > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar > > > > > > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to > > > > > > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose > > > > > > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star > > > > > > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this > > > > > > > change your mind about creationism?
> > > > > > Boring. See James Blish, A Case of Conscience > > > > > > for a much better christian puzzle.
> > > > > Care to provide a Coles Notes summary? > > > > Jesuit priest scientist is sent to a planet of entirely rational and > > > > unemotional reptilians. They use reason alone. Have no religion or > > > > rituals but behave exactly according to rational self interest. They > > > > are very nice.
> > > > A scientific experiment on that planet causes a major catastrophe that > > > > extinguishes all life on the planet just as the priest decides he is > > > > forced by theological considerations to exorcise the planet as demonic. > > > > He then presents himself for trial as a heretic (as Satan cannot > > > > create, but he decided that the planet was created by Satan).
> > > The two times I read the book I did not understand it. Perhaps one > > > needs at least a brief background in Christian mythology, and > > > specifically Catholic / Jesuit mythology, before one can keep up > > > with what goes on.
> > > A nuclear accident, and the exorcism, destroyed the alien planet.
> > > --http://desertphile.org > > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > > > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > I realize that reading is beyond your ability, however...
> > A_Case_of_Conscience is part of a novella. You have to read the other > > books to fully understand it.
> A "novella" is not a series of books. It is a work of fiction shorter > than a novel but too long to be called a short story.When people give > awards out to literary works they have a number of words that makes > something a novella, rather than a longish short story, but I don't > remember how many words make up a novella.
> The book in question is a full-length novel, although I don't think > it's a long one, not a novella. It _may_ be built around an earlier > novella or short story but I don't think it was. It is part of a > series of books, called the "After Such Knowledge" trilogy but it is > very often read on its own and the other two books, _Black Easter_ and > _Dr. Mirabellia_
_Dr. Mirabilis_, a historical novel about Roger Bacon.
> aren't read widely anymore. It may be that all three > books ought to be read in order to understand what Blish was getting > at but the first one is the only really good read, in my opinion.
> I recently re-read the Blish novel, after reading Maria Doria > Russell's _The Sparrow_ and _The Children of God_ The themes involved > are thought-provoking.
> -- > Will in New Haven
> > Kinda like you have to read all of the other Jewish books of midrash, > > legends, and be familuar with the language and customs of 3000 years > > ago to fully understand the bible.- Hide quoted text -
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:06:57 +0000, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> > wrote:
> > Desertphile wrote: > > > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez > > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? > > >> The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is > > >> the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts > > >> it on the Internet then it is established fact. > > > Idiot. > > >> If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now. > > > Ray Martinez rapes little girls every Sunday. > > > Sue me, asshole. > > Not helping.. :o(
> Sorry: I was angered at all this stupid shit. Martinez has claimed > that Tweedy "admits it," when Tweedy not only consistently denies > the fraudulent and libelous claim, but has pointed out there is no > basis for the claim. Martinez is a despicable, evil bastard.
> --http://desertphile.org > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Yes, I know... was very tempted myself. But we need to keep up standards, as the creo's won't! ;o)
>On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg >> > <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
>> > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, >> > >> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
>> > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a >> > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone in >> > >the medical field is hitting below the belt.
>> > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that >> > I was using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used >> > by this idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" >> > for calling Suzanne on her spurious claims.
>> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to give >> Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that suggestions of >> sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in the medical field, >> even if they are made in jest.
>> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making irresponsible >> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, >> and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying >> in public.
>Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance?
Why should he "admit" to a lie?
>The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is >the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts >it on the Internet then it is established fact.
Cite to the relevant data, please.
>If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
Not if the "charges" exist only in the inflamed imagination of moral bankrupts such as yourself. So either post a reference to where these "charges" can be found or STFU.
>Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are >embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will be >treated the way you treat others.
If you were treated the way you treat others you'd be in jail. --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
> On Nov 7, 5:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2:48 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:25:45 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: > > > > On Nov 7, 11:56 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:03:06 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote: > > > >> > On Nov 7, 10:41 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: > > > >> >> On Nov 6, 11:54 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in > > > >> >> > talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net>:
> > > >> >> > >On Nov 5, 1:05 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, > > > >> >> > >> Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
> > > >> >> > >Nashton is hardly someone I'd like to meet, or interact with on a > > > >> >> > >regular basis, but making this kind of accusation against someone > > > >> >> > >in the medical field is hitting below the belt.
> > > >> >> > I thought it would be obvious that it was sarcasm, and that I was > > > >> >> > using exactly the same sort of criteria that was used by this > > > >> >> > idiot when he accused YOO of "abuse against women" for calling > > > >> >> > Suzanne on her spurious claims.
> > > >> >> I understand it was meant to be sarcastic, and was an attempt to > > > >> >> give Nikky a dose of his own medicine. My point is that > > > >> >> suggestions of sexual misconduct are terribly hard to live down in > > > >> >> the medical field, even if they are made in jest.
> > > >> >> I had a recent brush with this when Ray was making > > > >> >> irresponsible > > > >> >> charges against me. Even though I knew he was just being a jerk, > > > >> >> and no one believed him, it was still a dangerous thing to be saying > > > >> >> in public.
> > > >> > Why not just admit that you are a molestor who drives an ambulance? > > > >> > The charge, evidence and details appear on the Internet----which is > > > >> > the standard you accept against others: if someone says it and posts > > > >> > it on the Internet then it is established fact.
> > > >> > If the charges were not true you would have sued somebody by now.
> > > >> > Since you claim to be married we understand why you deny and are > > > >> > embarrassed. What comes around goes around. Like it or not you will > > > >> > be treated the way you treat others.
> > > >> > Ray Martinez
> > > >> > SNIP....
> > > >> This is truly disgusting behavior, Ray, and outside the bounds of > > > >> even minimally acceptable social discourse that we have come to expect > > > >> from you. If you had any sense of decency or self-respect you would be > > > >> be thoroughly ashamed of what you reveal about yourself with this kind > > > >> of gratuitous defamation. There is no excuse. Shame on you.
> > > >> John- Hide quoted text -
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
> > > > Why is John McKendry defending Dana Tweedy?
> > > > Is it because both of them are Darwinists?
> > > > Yes, of course.
> > > Standard Martinez boilerplate. Nobody even reads this stuff any more.
> > > > Dana will be treated like he treats others. Ignoring his slander while > > > > acting like you are some moral individual is deliberate deception, > > > > dishonesty.
> > > > Does the military know that you are gay, Johnny?
> > > > How do you like a taste of your own medicine?
> > > > The fact that you are gay is established. It is established because it > > > > is on the Internet. That is both yours and Dana's standard: if it > > > > appears on the Internet it is true.
> > > > If you don't like to be treated this way why do you do it to others?
> > > > And Dana has admitted to being a molestor. I suspect that you support > > > > him because you are the same.
> > > > Ray (Creationist)
> > > You really need to grow up and act your age, Ray. There are two kinds > > > of moral questions, questions of what you're allowed to do and questions > > > of what you should do. Criminals, sociopaths, and very young children > > > only understand the first kind of question; mature adults understand > > > the second. You, clearly, only understand the first. You see any > > > behavior that doesn't land you in jail as morally acceptable, and > > > you have no regard for the fundamental principles of mutuality and > > > reciprocal good will that mark us as human. You are a sad, stubborn > > > child, and your attempts to excuse your heedless irresponsibility > > > would be laughable if they weren't so desperate.
> > > I have seen some unpleasant people in this newsgroup, Ray, but I > > > have almost never seen anyone so totally lacking a sense of moral > > > responsibility as you. I have seen your equal in pretentious > > > self-regard and preening nastiness, but you have finally outdone > > > yourself. You have shown yourself to be thoroughly and unmistakably > > > vile.
> > > John- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Once again "Honest" John produces a post that defends evolutionist > > howler slander while slandering those who protest (me).
> Ray, the only one engaging in defamation here is you. Your claims > are false, and you know you are lying. Trying to pretend you are the > victim here is even more pathetic than usual for you.
> > I will > > continue to give you and all the shit slinging monkeys a taste of your > > own medicine.
> Once again, Ray, you are just thowing a temper tantrum. You don't > seem to grasp that by responding to people telling the truth with > outrageous lies it only makes you seem desparate and disgusting.
> > Howler monkeys defend their turf by flinging their own shit at > > intruders. Darwinists do the same.
> Note that you are the one dealing in the lies, not the "Darwinists" > here.
> >Anyone who produces arguments
> > against evolution that cannot be refuted are slandered.
> No one has produced any arguments against evolution that can't be > refuted. Your own claims have easily been shot down, as you well > remember. You also seem to have lost track of the thread here.
> > Darwinists > > become enraged when argument exposes their theory for what it is: > > Atheism ideology.
> Evolution is not atheist ideology, and you are the one appearing > "enraged". You really are missing the point, and are in such a > slavering rage you have lost all control.
> Remember, what's at issue here is your false, and libelous > statements, not anyone "exposing" evolution for anything.
> > And I have spoken the plain truth about John McKendry:
> No, Ray, you have lied. You know you've lied, and so does everyone > else. Why you would so wantonly assassinate your own character (such > as it is) this way is puzzling. Is selling whatever small measure of > self respect you may have had worth the 'pottage' of making > irresponsible charges against those you can't intellectually compete > with?
> > based on the > > standards that he accepts (if it appears on the Internet then it is > > established fact)
> No one has that standard, Ray, and you know it. You seem to think > that if you deny a truth with enough force, it will go away. > Obviously not everything on the internet is true, (after all, there > are plenty of creationist sites on the internet, and they are false).
> Your problem is that if you don't want to believe something, that > does not mean it's false. What I've said is true, and can be > supported with not only a lot of evidence on the internet, but much > evidence that's not. There are business records, photographs, > marriage records, and witnesses that attest to the fact. A recent > issue of Maire Claire Magazine ran a story about it.
> If, as you claimed, "if it's false you would have sued", why hasn't > she sued Mare Claire?
> > McKendry is a homosexual who supports an admitted > > molestor (Dana Tweedy).
> Ray, you know both those claims are false. You know they are false > because you made them up out of your own hatred, and twisted sexual > fantasies. Repeating your lies only makes you look more depraved, > and more disgusting. It really doesn't harm me, or John.
> When you are through playing around in the filth, Ray, maybe you can > gather up enough courage to discuss the acutal evidence that supports > the theory of evolution.
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The *degree* of slander seen in this post against anti-evolutionists is equal to the *degree* that Dana and the other howlers present perceive Dr. Scott's refutation of evolution to be irrefutable----this is how we explain the attack.
This "standard of evidence" says anything posted or asserted on the Internet is established fact.
Dana Tweedy moved suddenly out of state and attempted to start a new life because he was caught molesting defensless patients in the back of his ambulance. He also stole time and money from his bosses by posting his slander attacks from work. In the past he consented for his picture to be associated with gay pornography and even more recently he posted links connected to gay pornography. We will now contact Dana's present employers to see if they are aware of him using company time and computers to slander those who oppose evolution.
We know these things are true because Dana has admitted to the facts. The facts exist
...
> Ray Martinez wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2:48 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> You really need to grow up and act your age, Ray. There are two kinds > >> of moral questions, questions of what you're allowed to do and questions > >> of what you should do. Criminals, sociopaths, and very young children > >> only understand the first kind of question; mature adults understand > >> the second. You, clearly, only understand the first. You see any > >> behavior that doesn't land you in jail as morally acceptable, and > >> you have no regard for the fundamental principles of mutuality and > >> reciprocal good will that mark us as human. You are a sad, stubborn > >> child, and your attempts to excuse your heedless irresponsibility > >> would be laughable if they weren't so desperate.
> >> I have seen some unpleasant people in this newsgroup, Ray, but I > >> have almost never seen anyone so totally lacking a sense of moral > >> responsibility as you. I have seen your equal in pretentious > >> self-regard and preening nastiness, but you have finally outdone > >> yourself. You have shown yourself to be thoroughly and unmistakably > >> vile.
> >> John
> > Once again "Honest" John produces a post that defends evolutionist > > howler slander while slandering those who protest (me). I will > > continue to give you and all the shit slinging monkeys a taste of your > > own medicine.
> > Howler monkeys defend their turf by flinging their own shit at > > intruders. Darwinists do the same. Anyone who produces arguments > > against evolution that cannot be refuted are slandered. Darwinists > > become enraged when argument exposes their theory for what it is: > > Atheism ideology.
> > And I have spoken the plain truth about John McKendry: based on the > > standards that he accepts (if it appears on the Internet then it is > > established fact) McKendry is a homosexual who supports an admitted > > molestor (Dana Tweedy).
> It does my heart good to see the way that you've laid claim to the moral > low ground, Ray.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I understand your point----Caranx, but the Bible advocates "eye-for- eye-tooth-for-for-tooth."
Expect to be treated exactly how you treat others.
For others (not you per se) to ignore the slander produced by Dana while condemning me as if I did something unprovoked shows satanic dishonesty.
|
