| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2008 01:04:53 PM |
| Object: |
Auto robo atheists |
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim. The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals. Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
.
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
30 Jan 2008 06:45:02 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
JM20000000@hotmail.com wrote:
| 1. James Norris
| View profile
| (2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
| How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
| working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
| throughput
| quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
| local
| newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
| obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
| automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
| throughput
| at all.
|
| ------
| I agree with that Jim. The "inane remarks which look automated" is
| in part the work of many soc puppets that are employed to create the
| illusion of mass atheist rebuttals. Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
| One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
| ------
|
| Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
| individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
| their
| own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
| communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
| the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
| conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
| Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
| exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
|
| ____
| At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
|
| JM
| ____
|
|
|
| Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
| literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
| experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
| friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
| any answers?
|
Fortunately for alt.atheism, I am that computer literate and more. My
career is as a Computer Systems Engineer. And since I happen to run my
own news server, I can say unequivocally:
You are wrong again!
Video, ISBN's, vaporware censorship.
Any thoughts McDickless?
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHoRoOf+wl0F6+jvgRAnBZAJ9VbTgH0oTcxcOJ8E593BBESMZW6ACfSv1X
uvE4x3nqxPmSYlWalXomrQQ=
=7VW1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
30 Jan 2008 02:27:39 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:b0d2b114-10fd-41ad-a2f4-f65c6f0edc38
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com to alt.atheism on 30 Jan 2008:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim. The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals. Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
For the last time, McBrainless,
USENET IS NOT YOUR HOME SCHOOLER!
You should have paid attention in class and read some books. Your
ignorance is not our fault.
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
The monkeys are loose in the library again. They're gibbbering something
about "Answers In Genesis".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
30 Jan 2008 01:28:09 PM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim. The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals. Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
If you don't like the rate at which messages get posted to A.A. (even
though it's a lot) then LEAVE!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
30 Jan 2008 02:41:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
30 Jan 2008 02:45:52 PM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 12:41=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. =A0James Norris
View profile
=A0(2 users) =A0More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? =A0A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. =A0A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim. =A0
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
=A0The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
------
Where is everybody? =A0It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? =A0 Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. =A0Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
30 Jan 2008 03:26:31 PM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 3:45 pm, wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
JM
Yes, he did, Brainless.
You know, the one you keep ducking..
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Auto robo atheists |
30 Jan 2008 04:40:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
JM
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
30 Jan 2008 07:23:49 PM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 2:40=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. =A0James Norris
View profile
=A0(2 users) =A0More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? =A0A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. =A0A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim. =A0
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
=A0The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? =A0It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? =A0 Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. =A0Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
JM
Bob.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 04:40:55 PM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 8:23 pm, wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why should you? You haven't before..
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 05:53:41 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
JM
Bob.
JM
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 05:56:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why not? What have you got to lose? Oh, of course, when they are
public you will not be able to use the videos as a shield for your
lies.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 04:10:02 PM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 3:56=A0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. =A0James Norris
View profile
=A0(2 users) =A0More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? =A0A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. =A0A large proportion of the postings consist of mindles=
s
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim. =A0
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
=A0The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going t=
o
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do=
..
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? =A0It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? =A0 Does it make up a viewpoint f=
or
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplann=
ed
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?=
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. =A0Some people must have checked it out=
-
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. Al=
l
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why not? What have you got to lose? Oh, of course, when they are
public you will not be able to use the videos as a shield for your
lies.
What video and for what reason?
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 08:08:38 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
JM20000000@hotmail.com wrote:
|
| What video and for what reason?
|
<SMACK>
You know damn well what video, McLiar.
Put up already, or shut the ***** up.
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHon8mf+wl0F6+jvgRAojvAKCJx3wvxfvleqXgkJzm6vSNSaqllACfaRpx
/Qs3OI1tE9q4kU4GhSAj2KY=
=xXiu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 04:44:44 PM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 5:10 pm, wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:56 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why not? What have you got to lose? Oh, of course, when they are
public you will not be able to use the videos as a shield for your
lies.
What video and for what reason?
JM
How about that video you claimed to film in highdef and yet refuse to
produce, Brainless.
Let's start with that one.
PDW
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 06:36:16 PM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 2:44=A0pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:10 pm, wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:56 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST), =
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. =A0James Norris
View profile
=A0(2 users) =A0More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? =A0A few peo=
ple
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in =
a
local
newspaper. =A0A large proportion of the postings consist of min=
dless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look=
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all =
the
time?
=A0The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you goi=
ng to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?=
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want t=
o do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a ve=
ry
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? =A0It would be quite easy for a few dedicat=
ed
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run i=
t
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intellige=
nt
communication happening, or what? =A0 Does it make up a viewpoi=
nt for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with prep=
lanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real peo=
ple?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephon=
e-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readershi=
p?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something els=
e.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-=
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself w=
ith
friends or work colleagues. =A0Some people must have checked it=
out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human=
..
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship=
.. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why not? What have you got to lose? Oh, of course, when they are
public you will not be able to use the videos as a shield for your
lies.
What video and for what reason?
JM
How about that video you claimed to film in highdef and yet refuse to
produce, Brainless.
Why?
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
01 Feb 2008 01:56:57 AM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 7:36 pm, wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:44 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:10 pm, wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:56 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why not? What have you got to lose? Oh, of course, when they are
public you will not be able to use the videos as a shield for your
lies.
What video and for what reason?
JM
How about that video you claimed to film in highdef and yet refuse to
produce, Brainless.
Why?
JM
Well, how about to prove you actually have the thing.
Otherwise, you'll be mocked (Again).
PDW, AA#1148
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 08:15:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:36:16 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:44 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:10 pm, wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:56 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why not? What have you got to lose? Oh, of course, when they are
public you will not be able to use the videos as a shield for your
lies.
What video and for what reason?
JM
How about that video you claimed to film in highdef and yet refuse to
produce, Brainless.
Why?
I have no idea why you refuse to produce it. You tell us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 04:59:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:10:02 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:56 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why not? What have you got to lose? Oh, of course, when they are
public you will not be able to use the videos as a shield for your
lies.
What video and for what reason?
JM
You really are a very stupid and dishonest person McClueless. I can't
work out why you are not doing time - someone as dishonest as you
always ends up in prison, just look at Hovind as an example.
McClueless Video Challenge - day 20.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19.
TO censorship - still no examples.
Your dishonesty rating grows by the day McMoron - only you can change
that.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 06:37:23 PM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 2:59=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:10:02 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:56=A0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. =A0James Norris
View profile
=A0(2 users) =A0More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? =A0A few peop=
le
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a=
local
newspaper. =A0A large proportion of the postings consist of mind=
less
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim. =A0
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all t=
he
time?
=A0The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you goin=
g to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to=
do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a ver=
y
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? =A0It would be quite easy for a few dedicate=
d
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it=
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligen=
t
communication happening, or what? =A0 Does it make up a viewpoin=
t for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with prepl=
anned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real peop=
le?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone=
-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership=
?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else=
..
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself wi=
th
friends or work colleagues. =A0Some people must have checked it =
out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.=
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship.=
All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why not? What have you got to lose? Oh, of course, when they are
public you will not be able to use the videos as a shield for your
lies.
What video and for what reason?
JM
You really are a very stupid and dishonest person McClueless. I can't
work out why you are not doing time - someone as dishonest as you
always ends up in prison, just look at Hovind as an example.
McClueless Video Challenge - day 20.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19.
TO censorship - still no examples.
Your dishonesty rating grows by the day McMoron - only you can change
that.
Would you like to clarify the issues you had made above?
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Auto robo atheists |
01 Feb 2008 03:09:26 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:37:23 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:59 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:10:02 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:56 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why not? What have you got to lose? Oh, of course, when they are
public you will not be able to use the videos as a shield for your
lies.
What video and for what reason?
JM
You really are a very stupid and dishonest person McClueless. I can't
work out why you are not doing time - someone as dishonest as you
always ends up in prison, just look at Hovind as an example.
McClueless Video Challenge - day 20.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19.
TO censorship - still no examples.
Your dishonesty rating grows by the day McMoron - only you can change
that.
Would you like to clarify the issues you had made above?
JM
McClueless Video Challenge - day 21.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19.
TO censorship - still no examples.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
31 Jan 2008 08:17:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:37:23 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:59 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:10:02 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:56 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. James Norris
View profile
(2 users) More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? A few people
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists in a
local
newspaper. A large proportion of the postings consist of mindless
obscenities, childish name-calling and inane remarks which look
automated, and if these are filtered out, there is not much
throughput
at all.
------
I agree with that Jim.
So you are both stupid. Why do you want to go on proving it all the
time?
The "inane remarks which look automated" is
in part the work of many soc puppets
The label, you pathetic dimwit, is SOCK PUPPET. When are you going to
learn to speak/write in the same language as everyone else here?
that are employed to create the
illusion of mass atheist rebuttals.
Any evidence McClueless?
Or, in the case of Bobbie (Ye Olde
One), it is employed to force me to do something I don't want to do.
Hard luck McMoron. You will just have to stand convicted as a very
dishonest person then.
I see, no comment on that. Looks like you are finally beginning to
accept your own dishonesty.
------
Where is everybody? It would be quite easy for a few dedicated
individuals to monopolise the newsgroup all the time, and run it
their
own way. Does Usenet have a method of preventing much intelligent
communication happening, or what? Does it make up a viewpoint for
the groups for each individual, like a computer game, with preplanned
conversations and AI effects to simulate dialogue with real people?
Perhaps Usenet forms small groups on a per town or per telephone-
exchange basis, which they pretend have a 'worldwide' readership?
____
At this point I think usenet is being replaced by something else.
JM
____
Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is sufficiently computer-
literate and interested in technology to cooperate with me in
experiments on the newsgroups, otherwise I'd check for myself with
friends or work colleagues. Some people must have checked it out -
any answers?
Yes - you are a dishonest, moronic, miserable excuse for a human.
McClueless Video Challenge, McPiltdown Deathmarch, TO censorship. All
three matters need you attention.
--
Bob.
Did you say challenge?
Yes McClueless, the challenge you keep showing your dishonesty by
avoiding.
Should I take you at your word?
Why not? What have you got to lose? Oh, of course, when they are
public you will not be able to use the videos as a shield for your
lies.
What video and for what reason?
JM
You really are a very stupid and dishonest person McClueless. I can't
work out why you are not doing time - someone as dishonest as you
always ends up in prison, just look at Hovind as an example.
McClueless Video Challenge - day 20.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19.
TO censorship - still no examples.
Your dishonesty rating grows by the day McMoron - only you can change
that.
Would you like to clarify the issues you had made above?
Even you're not that stupid. You know perfectly well what he's talking
about, McLiar. Don't you have any sense of shame?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Auto robo atheists |
01 Feb 2008 01:02:36 AM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 6:17=A0pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:37:23 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:59=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:10:02 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:56=A0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:23:49 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:40=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:41=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:53 -0800 (PST), JM20000...@hotmail.c=
om
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
1. =A0James Norris
View profile
=A0(2 users) =A0More options Jun 21 2007, 6:34 am
How come alt.atheism has so little activity in it? =A0A few p=
eople
working reasonably hard could produce the amount of visible
throughput
quite easily, equivalent to the output of a few journalists i=
n a
local
newspaper. =A0A large proportion of the postings consist of m=
indless
obsceni | | | | | | | | | | |
