| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"SJAB1958" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2007 01:28:39 AM |
| Object: |
Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
An allegation was made in the thread "Is the Bible God's word?" by one
poster (Checker) which ran like this:
"You ought to take a look at what agnostics and atheists have done.
Like killing millions of babies in abortions."
Evidence was presented by another poster (Brainiac) in the same thread
which clearly contradicted this allegation.
However Checker made a number of attempts to deny the validity of this
evidence, but presented nothing in the way of evidence that would
support either his original allegation or his rejection of the
evidence that countered his allegation.
Despite Brainiac asking Checker to provide information to support his
position nothing has been heard from Checker on this matter since
August 23rd.
Perhaps Checker would be so kind as to present evidence that supports
the allegation he made in that thread.
.
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
03 Sep 2007 12:41:50 PM |
|
|
On 3 Sep, 07:28, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
An allegation was made in the thread "Is the Bible God's word?" by one
poster (Checker) which ran like this:
"You ought to take a look at what agnostics and atheists have done.
Like killing millions of babies in abortions."
Evidence was presented by another poster (Brainiac) in the same thread
which clearly contradicted this allegation.
However Checker made a number of attempts to deny the validity of this
evidence, but presented nothing in the way of evidence that would
support either his original allegation or his rejection of the
evidence that countered his allegation.
Despite Brainiac asking Checker to provide information to support his
position nothing has been heard from Checker on this matter since
August 23rd.
Perhaps Checker would be so kind as to present evidence that supports
the allegation he made in that thread.
Hmmm, half a day since I posted this as well as the 10 days since
Brainiac last posted to Checker, and still no sign of Checker
producing information that supports his allegedly "solid" position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
03 Sep 2007 11:36:39 PM |
|
|
On 3 Sep, 18:41, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 Sep, 07:28, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
An allegation was made in the thread "Is the Bible God's word?" by one
poster (Checker) which ran like this:
"You ought to take a look at what agnostics and atheists have done.
Like killing millions of babies in abortions."
Evidencewas presented by another poster (Brainiac) in the same thread
which clearly contradicted this allegation.
However Checker made a number of attempts to deny the validity of this
evidence, but presented nothing in the way ofevidencethat would
support either his original allegation or his rejection of the
evidencethat countered his allegation.
Despite Brainiac asking Checker to provide information to support his
position nothing has been heard from Checker on this matter since
August 23rd.
Perhaps Checker would be so kind as to presentevidencethat supports
the allegation he made in that thread.
Hmmm, half a day since I posted this as well as the 10 days since
Brainiac last posted to Checker, and still no sign of Checker
producing information that supports his allegedly "solid" position.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As Checker seems to be unable to respond to either Brainiac in the
thread entitled "Is the Bible God's word?" or to myself in this one,
perhaps someone could speak up and defend Checker's position as stated
in the aforementioned thread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 05:20:34 AM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
As Checker seems to be unable to respond to either Brainiac in the
thread entitled "Is the Bible God's word?" or to myself in this one,
perhaps someone could speak up and defend Checker's position as stated
in the aforementioned thread.
Did you think that maybe people ignore TROLLS like you??
Smile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 11:29:20 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 11:20, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
As Checker seems to be unable to respond to either Brainiac in the
thread entitled "Is the Bible God's word?" or to myself in this one,
perhaps someone could speak up and defend Checker's position as stated
in the aforementioned thread.
Did you think that maybe people ignore TROLLS like you??
Smile.
I have been wondering why, if as you claim I am being ignored because
I am a troll you persist in popping up in any thread I start or post
to, to accuse me of being a troll?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 12:39:51 PM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
I have been wondering why, if as you claim I am being ignored because
I am a troll you persist in popping up in any thread I start or post
to, to accuse me of being a troll?
You know perfectly well why I call you a TROLL!!
You posted your Peter crap to a group frequented by Protestants, and did not
post it to a cath0_lick group. Thus your intent was to provoke protestants,
with your garbage.
That makes you a TROLL!!
What was that definition again??
Oh, yes!!
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online
community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention
of baiting users into an argumentative response.
Smile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 02:36:33 PM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 18:39, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
I have been wondering why, if as you claim I am being ignored because
I am a troll you persist in popping up in any thread I start or post
to, to accuse me of being a troll?
You know perfectly well why I call you a TROLL!!
You posted your Peter crap to a group frequented by Protestants, and did not
post it to a cath0_lick group. Thus your intent was to provoke protestants,
with your garbage.
That makes you a TROLL!!
What was that definition again??
Oh, yes!!
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online
community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention
of baiting users into an argumentative response.
Smile.
Hmmm, "contrary messages" sounds somewhat like the stuff you usually
post when you are ranting against my position, without actually
presenting supportive arguments to defend your position. Sounds like
you are more of a troll than I am.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 02:47:37 PM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
Hmmm, "contrary messages" sounds somewhat like the stuff you usually
post when you are ranting against my position, without actually
presenting supportive arguments to defend your position. Sounds like
you are more of a troll than I am.
If you Hum the tune, I'll sing CRY ME A RIVER for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BRAINIAC" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
05 Sep 2007 01:42:26 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 20:47, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
Hmmm, "contrary messages" sounds somewhat like the stuff you usually
post when you are ranting against my position, without actually
presenting supportive arguments to defend your position. Sounds like
you are more of a troll than I am.
If you Hum the tune, I'll sing CRY ME A RIVER for you.
And may I ask you a question, if according to you SJAB1958 is a troll,
and all trolls are ignored, why then do you keep on responding to
SJAB1958's posts?
After all, this means you have posted contradictory to your own
position, and your posts all too frequently only seem to be designed
with one thing in mind to provoke a reaction from SJAB1958, which by
your own definition of what a troll is makes you a troll too.
But I am guessing now that you will deny this, or like you do with so
many of the posts of SJAB1958 you will snip and ignore what you don't
like and what you cannot or are unwilling to answer.
And perhaps instead of ranting and banging on about trolls, which in
and of itself makes you a troll, you could use reason and supportive
arguments to uphold your objection to SJAB1958's positions.
And let's not forget one thing, you claimed that he/she ran away and
hid after you refuted his/her position on which was the first Bible,
that is untrue, I have looked into those threads and found that
SJAB1958 acknowledged his/her error on that one matter and it seems
all you could do was crow with delight and mock him/her.
Now you just bang on about all SJAB1958's posts being crap and him/her
being a troll. You prove nothing with your own posts except that you
are apparently unable to debate without using profanities or name
calling.
I would suggest that you try and be more civil in your posts if you
want people to listen to you and support or debate your points of view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
05 Sep 2007 01:30:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:42:26 -0700, BRAINIAC <nournme@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
On 4 Sep, 20:47, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
Hmmm, "contrary messages" sounds somewhat like the stuff you usually
post when you are ranting against my position, without actually
presenting supportive arguments to defend your position. Sounds like
you are more of a troll than I am.
If you Hum the tune, I'll sing CRY ME A RIVER for you.
And may I ask you a question, if according to you SJAB1958 is a troll,
and all trolls are ignored, why then do you keep on responding to
SJAB1958's posts?
After all, this means you have posted contradictory to your own
position, and your posts all too frequently only seem to be designed
with one thing in mind to provoke a reaction from SJAB1958, which by
your own definition of what a troll is makes you a troll too.
But I am guessing now that you will deny this, or like you do with so
many of the posts of SJAB1958 you will snip and ignore what you don't
like and what you cannot or are unwilling to answer.
And perhaps instead of ranting and banging on about trolls, which in
and of itself makes you a troll, you could use reason and supportive
arguments to uphold your objection to SJAB1958's positions.
And let's not forget one thing, you claimed that he/she ran away and
hid after you refuted his/her position on which was the first Bible,
that is untrue, I have looked into those threads and found that
SJAB1958 acknowledged his/her error on that one matter and it seems
all you could do was crow with delight and mock him/her.
Now you just bang on about all SJAB1958's posts being crap and him/her
being a troll. You prove nothing with your own posts except that you
are apparently unable to debate without using profanities or name
calling.
I would suggest that you try and be more civil in your posts if you
want people to listen to you and support or debate your points of view.
Just a suggestion, kill file him/her or just ignore her/him.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
05 Sep 2007 01:29:02 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 20:47, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
Hmmm, "contrary messages" sounds somewhat like the stuff you usually
post when you are ranting against my position, without actually
presenting supportive arguments to defend your position. Sounds like
you are more of a troll than I am.
If you Hum the tune, I'll sing CRY ME A RIVER for you.
Still you cannot defend your rejection of my position on any matter,
nor can you prove me to be a troll even by the definition you have
presented.
After all on the matter of Matthew 16:18 I was expecting responses -
why else would one bother to post if not to get responses - but it was
never my intention to upset anyone.
And you still haven't proven me wrong on that matter, after all it was
a Protestant claim that Jesus called Simon a pebble, and that Jesus
was the rock upon which the church was built, and my OP in that
particular thread proved that Protestant claim to be in error.
Neither you or anyone else has been able to refute my position on that
matter with reasoned debate, all that has happened is people like you
rant against my position solely on the basis that I didn't initially
post that thread in a Roman Catholic newsgroup, and for that you call
me a troll, claim that I am ignored and that everything I post is
crap.
How about you actually prove it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BRAINIAC" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
05 Sep 2007 01:33:55 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 20:47, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
Hmmm, "contrary messages" sounds somewhat like the stuff you usually
post when you are ranting against my position, without actually
presenting supportive arguments to defend your position. Sounds like
you are more of a troll than I am.
If you Hum the tune, I'll sing CRY ME A RIVER for you.
Zadok, perhaps you should try and prove SJAB1958 wrong by presenting
proof that he/she is wrong rather than just banging on about him/her
supposedly being a troll.
Nowhere have you actually proven SJAB1958 to be wrong on any position
that he/she holds on any matter.
And Checker has failed to present any supporting information for his
allegation regarding the issue of abortions and who is responsible for
them all, which is what this thread is supposed to be considering.
So as it appears that Checker posted a comment that was intended to
provoke people, shouldn't you be calling him a troll too?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BRAINIAC" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
05 Sep 2007 01:23:49 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 18:39, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
I have been wondering why, if as you claim I am being ignored because
I am a troll you persist in popping up in any thread I start or post
to, to accuse me of being a troll?
You know perfectly well why I call you a TROLL!!
You posted your Peter crap to a group frequented by Protestants, and did not
post it to a cath0_lick group. Thus your intent was to provoke protestants,
with your garbage.
That makes you a TROLL!!
What was that definition again??
Oh, yes!!
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online
community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention
of baiting users into an argumentative response.
Smile.
I have looked at the exchanges between you and SJAB1958 (in this and
other threads) and you haven't proved him/her to be a troll, all you
seem to do is reject his/her point of view without information to
support your rejection.
Perhaps you can do so now.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 02:34:41 PM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 18:39, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
I have been wondering why, if as you claim I am being ignored because
I am a troll you persist in popping up in any thread I start or post
to, to accuse me of being a troll?
You know perfectly well why I call you a TROLL!!
You posted your Peter crap to a group frequented by Protestants, and did not
post it to a cath0_lick group. Thus your intent was to provoke protestants,
with your garbage.
That makes you a TROLL!!
What was that definition again??
Oh, yes!!
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online
community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention
of baiting users into an argumentative response.
Smile.
Now let's see, I started a thread in which my OP showed that the
claims of some Protestants that Jesus called Simon a pebble to be
erroneous, and neither Zadok or anyone else has been able to prove my
reasoning to be flawed in any way.
All you did in that thread was to call me a troll and declare my OP to
be rubbish, but you never, I repeat never, presented anything in the
way of evidence or reasoning that proved my OP to be wrong.
And you are doing the same thing in this thread, calling me a troll
yet again, and providing nothing to prove my postings to be wrong.
Just because you don't like where I am coming from is no reason to get
yourself all bent out of shape.
You should use the opportunity to present supported arguments against
my position if you really feel so strongly about what I have said.
Calling me a troll and my posts crap doesn't make you right and
doesn't prove me wrong.
I have constantly invited people to present evidence to prove me wrong
on the debate regarding Matthew 16:18 and what Jesus called Simon in
that verse. And I am still waiting.
And both Brainiac and I are waiting for Checker to present evidence to
support his/her claim that atheists are responsible for all the
abortions, and also for Checker to present information that proves the
statistics and sources presented by Brainiac to be flawed.
Invitations have been offered by myself and Brainiac to Checker and
others to prove our positions wrong, by using reasoned debate and
supportive arguments, and so far none that oppose our views have ever
been able to do so.
They all resort to name calling, profanities, and basic denial; none
of which proves them to be right or Brainiac or myself to be wrong. My
intention is to enter into debate, not to upset people, and I am sure
that this is the intention of our fellow poster Brainiac.
However if people are offended then it is down to them to present
counter arguments to the debate instead of resorting to pathetic ad
hominem attacks on myself or anyone else that doesn't hold the same
point of view.
So come on Checker and Zadok, instead of allegations, name calling and
rants of denial, how about you use reasoned debate and supportive
arguments. And that way everyone can examine both sides of the issues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 02:46:14 PM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
All you did in that thread was to call me a troll and declare my OP to
be rubbish, but you never, I repeat never, presented anything in the
way of evidence or reasoning that proved my OP to be wrong.
You problem, and why you are a TROLL is that you post crap!!
I refuted you on Peter, and I refuted you on when the first bible was
prepared. But did you listen.
No, your closed little mind was already made up.
Even that clown Roger Pearse pointed out to you that Constantine had the
first bible prepared.
And what did you do, run and hide.
And now you are back here crying for Checker to do something for you.
Haven't you got it through your thick head.
TROLLS like you get ignored!!
So, listen. CRY US A FUCKING RIVER.
You are a TROLL, like it or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
05 Sep 2007 01:21:45 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 20:46, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
All you did in that thread was to call me a troll and declare my OP to
be rubbish, but you never, I repeat never, presented anything in the
way of evidence or reasoning that proved my OP to be wrong.
You problem, and why you are a TROLL is that you post crap!!
I refuted you on Peter, and I refuted you on when the first bible was
prepared. But did you listen.
You didn't refute my position on Matthew 16:18 you refused to accept
it.
I acknowledged my error on the Constantine Bible and all you did was
giggle and gloat.
No, your closed little mind was already made up.
Even that clown Roger Pearse pointed out to you that Constantine had the
first bible prepared.
And what did you do, run and hide.
Liar, I repeat now I acknowledged my error on the Constantine Bible
and all you did was giggle and gloat.
And now you are back here crying for Checker to do something for you.
Not crying for, but requesting, as Brainiac is that Checker provide
evidence that supports his allegation that atheists and agnostics are
solely responsible for the millions of abortions.
Haven't you got it through your thick head.
TROLLS like you get ignored!!
So, listen. CRY US A FUCKING RIVER.
You are a TROLL, like it or not.
You haven't proven that I am a troll by any definition, you only
declare me a troll because I don't agree with your point of view.
And you still haven't refuted me on the meaning of Matthew 16:18 as
all you did was reject it because you didn't like the fact that
initially I had not posted in in a Roman Catholic newsgroup.
Perhaps you could actually start a thread of your own in which you can
genuinely refute my posts with reasoned debate and supporting
arguments, because so far you haven't been able to do that.
And don't forget I acknowledged my error on the Constantine Bible and
all you did was giggle and gloat.
However one thing you cannot refute is that the Constantine Bible was
not a bible that was in widespread use, being limited to
Constantinople.
Also unrefutable is that not a single copy of this Bible exists and
that no one can be certain exactly what it contained as even your
precious Eusebius' canon at least on the NT portion couldn't decide on
whether or not to include seven of the books common to ALL BIBLES ever
since.
Another thing about the history of the Bible you cannot refute is that
the first actual Bible in common usage was the Latin Vulgate produced
under the order of Pope Damasus ! by St Jerome.
And you didn't refute the position I hold on Matthew 16:18 all you did
was refuse to accept it.
By the way if my being a troll is the reason I am being ignored, why
do you bother responding to my posts?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BRAINIAC" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 07:46:50 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 11:20, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
As Checker seems to be unable to respond to either Brainiac in the
thread entitled "Is the Bible God's word?" or to myself in this one,
perhaps someone could speak up and defend Checker's position as stated
in the aforementioned thread.
Did you think that maybe people ignore TROLLS like you??
Smile.
I wouldn't call SJAB1958 a troll, nothing in this thread posted by him/
her contains false information.
And for your edification here is the common definition of a troll; "a
newsgroup post that is DELIBERATELY INCORRECT, intended to provoke
readers; or a person who makes such a post"
I have been waiting for Checker to support the allegations he made in
the thread mentioned by SJAB1958 for twelve days now.
I presented information that contradicted his statement, which he
attempted to dismiss, deny and claim was meaningless.
But Checker did not then and still has not provided any information
that will support his position, and still persists in declaring his
position as "solid".
So how about you or Checker proving your allegations, rather than
behaving as trolls yourselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 08:42:17 AM |
|
|
"BRAINIAC" <> wrote in message
And for your edification here is the common definition of a troll; "a
newsgroup post that is DELIBERATELY INCORRECT, intended to provoke
readers; or a person who makes such a post"
For your edification dear, when it comes to religion, anything can be proved
to be deliberately incorrect.
And in the past, SJAB has posted his religious rants to groups designed to
provoke protestants!!
So, that makes him a TROLL!!
But not to belabour the point, but you tend to define TROLL as you please.
Here is an internet definition!!
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online
community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention
of baiting users into an argumentative response.
*****, I don't see anything there about deliberately incorrect!!
How about you??
You can consider yourself dismissed!!
Smile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 09:03:18 AM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 9:42 am, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"BRAINIAC" <> wrote in message
And for your edification here is the common definition of a troll; "a
newsgroup post that is DELIBERATELY INCORRECT, intended to provoke
readers; or a person who makes such a post"
For your edification dear, when it comes to religion, anything can be proved
to be deliberately incorrect.
And in the past, SJAB has posted his religious rants to groups designed to
provoke protestants!!
So, that makes him a TROLL!!
But not to belabour the point, but you tend to define TROLL as you please.
Here is an internet definition!!
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online
community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention
of baiting users into an argumentative response.
You left the remainder of the definition out:
More specifically a troll is an insult or accusation made against a
poster. It would be highly unusual for any internet poster to claim
the title of troll[citation needed], rather a community member may
sometimes try to deflate a post that is controversial or thought
provoking by referring to it as "trolling". Properly, to call someone
a troll is to say that any dispute over a post is not valid not
because the issues raised are not valid, but to claim the intent of
the poster invalidates the post. As a speech act the term troll is
sometimes used as an ad hominem argument, attacking the poster rather
than the content or issues of the post.
http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070824164640AA5h5NW
Unfortunately, you've picked a definition from a forum in which people
get to make up their own definitions. How convenient.
*****, I don't see anything there about deliberately incorrect!!
How about you??
You can consider yourself dismissed!!
Smile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BRAINIAC" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 11:22:31 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 15:03, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 9:42 am, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"BRAINIAC" <> wrote in message
And for your edification here is the common definition of a troll; "a
newsgroup post that is DELIBERATELY INCORRECT, intended to provoke
readers; or a person who makes such a post"
For your edification dear, when it comes to religion, anything can be proved
to be deliberately incorrect.
And in the past, SJAB has posted his religious rants to groups designed to
provoke protestants!!
So, that makes him a TROLL!!
But not to belabour the point, but you tend to define TROLL as you please.
Here is an internet definition!!
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online
community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention
of baiting users into an argumentative response.
You left the remainder of the definition out:
More specifically a troll is an insult or accusation made against a
poster. It would be highly unusual for any internet poster to claim
the title of troll[citation needed], rather a community member may
sometimes try to deflate a post that is controversial or thought
provoking by referring to it as "trolling". Properly, to call someone
a troll is to say that any dispute over a post is not valid not
because the issues raised are not valid, but to claim the intent of
the poster invalidates the post. As a speech act the term troll is
sometimes used as an ad hominem argument, attacking the poster rather
than the content or issues of the post.
http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070824164640AA5h5NW
Unfortunately, you've picked a definition from a forum in which people
get to make up their own definitions. How convenient.
I Googled with "define:troll" and got a whole list of definitions but
only two referred to the matter of trolls in newsgroups. In one it it
said to troll was "to post controversial or provocative messages in a
deliberate attempt to provoke flames" and in the other it said
trolling was "a newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect,
intended to provoke readers; or a person who makes such a post".
So would I be correct in presuming that controversial or provocative
messages could on occasions contain information that was deliberately
incorrect?
And I do recall having looked at some of the thread in which Zadok
appears to be baiting SJAB1958 and one in which Zadok claimed that
SJAB1958 had actually made up a definition of what a troll was.
Perhaps, and this is only an assumption on my part being relatively
new to the newsgroups, it is probably Zadok who is the troll and not
SJAB1958.
*****, I don't see anything there about deliberately incorrect!!
How about you??
You can consider yourself dismissed!!
Smile.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 11:14:28 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 15:03, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 9:42 am, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"BRAINIAC" <> wrote in message
And for your edification here is the common definition of a troll; "a
newsgroup post that is DELIBERATELY INCORRECT, intended to provoke
readers; or a person who makes such a post"
For your edification dear, when it comes to religion, anything can be proved
to be deliberately incorrect.
And in the past, SJAB has posted his religious rants to groups designed to
provoke protestants!!
So, that makes him a TROLL!!
But not to belabour the point, but you tend to define TROLL as you please.
Here is an internet definition!!
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online
community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention
of baiting users into an argumentative response.
You left the remainder of the definition out:
More specifically a troll is an insult or accusation made against a
poster. It would be highly unusual for any internet poster to claim
the title of troll[citation needed], rather a community member may
sometimes try to deflate a post that is controversial or thought
provoking by referring to it as "trolling". Properly, to call someone
a troll is to say that any dispute over a post is not valid not
because the issues raised are not valid, but to claim the intent of
the poster invalidates the post. As a speech act the term troll is
sometimes used as an ad hominem argument, attacking the poster rather
than the content or issues of the post.
So my raising the point that Checker seems unwilling or unable to
defend his/her position in light of the evidence that Brainiac
presented as a counter to Checker's allegations would generally not be
considered trolling. Whereas it is probable that Zadok's persistent ad
hominem attacks against myself could be considered trolling. I merely
ask for clarification.
http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070824164640AA5h5NW
Unfortunately, you've picked a definition from a forum in which people
get to make up their own definitions. How convenient.
*****, I don't see anything there about deliberately incorrect!!
How about you??
You can consider yourself dismissed!!
Smile.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 07:51:30 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 13:46, BRAINIAC <nour...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 4 Sep, 11:20, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
As Checker seems to be unable to respond to either Brainiac in the
thread entitled "Is the Bible God's word?" or to myself in this one,
perhaps someone could speak up and defend Checker's position as stated
in the aforementioned thread.
Did you think that maybe people ignore TROLLS like you??
Smile.
I wouldn't call SJAB1958 a troll, nothing in this thread posted by him/
her contains false information.
And for your edification here is the common definition of a troll; "a
newsgroup post that is DELIBERATELY INCORRECT, intended to provoke
readers; or a person who makes such a post"
I have been waiting for Checker to support the allegations he made in
the thread mentioned by SJAB1958 for twelve days now.
I presented information that contradicted his statement, which he
attempted to dismiss, deny and claim was meaningless.
But Checker did not then and still has not provided any information
that will support his position, and still persists in declaring his
position as "solid".
So how about you or Checker proving your allegations, rather than
behaving as trolls yourselves.
I have tried in the past to explain to Zadok what a troll is and he
has complained that I have made up my own definition of the word.
Yet your definition comes straight off of a Google search and is so
similar to what I told Zadok it was that perhaps he has the wrong
definition to start with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 08:45:15 AM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
I have tried in the past to explain to Zadok what a troll is and he
has complained that I have made up my own definition of the word.
Yet your definition comes straight off of a Google search and is so
similar to what I told Zadok it was that perhaps he has the wrong
definition to start with.
There are all kinds of definitions around for TROLL!!
Here is another one!!
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online
community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention
of baiting users into an argumentative response.
Amazing, you get to pick the one you want!!
And of course the one you pick, has been proved to be correct.
Now CRY ME A RIVER, TROLL!!
Smile.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 06:14:21 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 11:20, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
As Checker seems to be unable to respond to either Brainiac in the
thread entitled "Is the Bible God's word?" or to myself in this one,
perhaps someone could speak up and defend Checker's position as stated
in the aforementioned thread.
Did you think that maybe people ignore TROLLS like you??
Smile.
This isnt a matter of trolling, but asking for someone to corroborate
their own allegation, that being Checker and his claim that atheists
and agnostics are responsible for all the abortions.
Brainiac presented evidence that contradicted Checker's allegation,
which Checker then tried to dismiss as meaningless, yet Checker was
unable to present anything in the way of information that supported
his position.
And Checker has remained utterly silent on the matter in question
since his last posting on the 23rd of August.
So how about you go and look at the thread in question, and see for
yourself what I have presented here?
This is nothing to do with your allegation of my being a troll (which
is totally untrue) and it has a heck of a lot to do with Checker
coming up with evidence for his allegation.
In fact if he is unable to do so, will you be calling him a troll too?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 06:59:03 AM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
This isnt a matter of trolling, but asking for someone to corroborate
their own allegation,
You protest too much TROLL!!
Smile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
04 Sep 2007 07:39:12 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep, 12:59, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message
This isnt a matter of trolling, but asking for someone to corroborate
their own allegation,
You protest too much TROLL!!
Smile.
And I see you still persist in snipping what you are unable or
unwilling to answer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Checker's Lack Of Response - : Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
06 Sep 2007 09:29:17 AM |
|
|
On 3 Sep, 07:28, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
An allegation was made in the thread "Is the Bible God's word?" by one
poster (Checker) which ran like this:
"You ought to take a look at what agnostics and atheists have done.
Like killing millions of babies in abortions."
Evidence was presented by another poster (Brainiac) in the same thread
which clearly contradicted this allegation.
However Checker made a number of attempts to deny the validity of this
evidence, but presented nothing in the way of evidence that would
support either his original allegation or his rejection of the
evidence that countered his allegation.
Despite Brainiac asking Checker to provide information to support his
position nothing has been heard from Checker on this matter since
August 23rd.
Perhaps Checker would be so kind as to present evidence that supports
the allegation he made in that thread.
Its fourteen days since Checker failed to respond to Brainiac's
request to back up his allegation "You ought to take a look at what
agnostics and atheists have done. Like killing millions of babies in
abortions."
I wonder why that is so?
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Checker's Lack Of Response - : Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
06 Sep 2007 12:49:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:29:17 -0700, SJAB1958 <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
Its fourteen days since Checker failed to respond to Brainiac's
request to back up his allegation "You ought to take a look at what
agnostics and atheists have done. Like killing millions of babies in
abortions."
I wonder why that is so?
It goes without saying. No practicing Christian can butcher his own unborn.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Checker's Lack Of Response - : Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
06 Sep 2007 04:38:03 PM |
|
|
On 6 Sep, 18:49, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:29:17 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Its fourteen days since Checker failed to respond to Brainiac's
request to back up his allegation "You ought to take a look at what
agnostics and atheists have done. Like killing millions of babies in
abortions."
I wonder why that is so?
It goes without saying. No practicing Christian can butcher his own unborn.
Here are the statistics and links posted by Brainiac and which Checker
rejected on the most spurious of grounds, without providing anything
in the way of information to support his position.
Extracts from the US Census Bureau website:
US Population: 281,421,906 (est. 2000 AD)
US Population by religion: 55% Protestant; 28% Catholic; 2% Jewish; 6%
Other; 8% None (est. 1999 AD)
Extracted from: http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/3422602t.html#t2
Abortions by religion: Protestants 42.8%; Catholics 27.4; Other
Religions 7.6%; No Religion 22.2%
Perhaps you can explain how you can hold the view you stated in light
of these statistics.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Checker's Lack Of Response - : Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
06 Sep 2007 05:12:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:38:03 -0700, SJAB1958 <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Sep, 18:49, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:29:17 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Its fourteen days since Checker failed to respond to Brainiac's
request to back up his allegation "You ought to take a look at what
agnostics and atheists have done. Like killing millions of babies in
abortions."
I wonder why that is so?
It goes without saying. No practicing Christian can butcher his own unborn.
Here are the statistics and links posted by Brainiac and which Checker
rejected on the most spurious of grounds, without providing anything
in the way of information to support his position.
Extracts from the US Census Bureau website:
US Population: 281,421,906 (est. 2000 AD)
US Population by religion: 55% Protestant; 28% Catholic; 2% Jewish; 6%
Other; 8% None (est. 1999 AD)
Extracted from: http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/3422602t.html#t2
Abortions by religion: Protestants 42.8%; Catholics 27.4; Other
Religions 7.6%; No Religion 22.2%
Perhaps you can explain how you can hold the view you stated in light
of these statistics.
That's easy. The card in the wallet does not determine the religion.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Checker's Lack Of Response - : Abortion Allegations and Evidence |
06 Sep 2007 05:31:22 PM |
|
|
On 6 Sep, 23:12, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:38:03 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Sep, 18:49, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:29:17 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Its fourteen days since Checker failed to respond to Brainiac's
request to back up his allegation "You ought to take a look at what
agnostics and atheists have done. Like killing millions of babies in
abortions."
I wonder why that is so?
It goes without saying. No practicing Christian can butcher his own unborn.
Here are the statistics and links posted by Brainiac and which Checker
rejected on the most spurious of grounds, without providing anything
in the way of information to support his position.
Extracts from the US Census Bureau website:
US Population: 281,421,906 (est. 2000 AD)
US Population by religion: 55% Protestant; 28% Catholic; 2% Jewish; 6%
Other; 8% None (est. 1999 AD)
Extracted from:http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/3422602t.html#t2
Abortions by religion: Protestants 42.8%; Catholics 27.4; Other
Religions 7.6%; No Religion 22.2%
Perhaps you can explain how you can hold the view you stated in light
of these statistics.
That's easy. The card in the wallet does not determine the religion.
Then perhaps you should see the additional info that Brainiac supplied
after Checker refused to accept the first lot of statistics.
Extracted from: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves
as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.
As you can see it is nothing to do with any "card in the wallet" being
checked by someone else, this information came directly from the
women.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
