| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Goldhammer" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2004 12:32:04 PM |
| Object: |
Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
Updated sockpuppet list of the troll
Donald R. Alford of Bellingham, WA.
Commonly known as "Septic".
Three entries have been added.
Appendicies have material for
further consideration.
Septic 1995 - 2004 (v 2.1)
"ABC" <abc@hotmail.com>
"Abu ben Hogan" <benhogan@nospamhotmail.com>
Ace (dralford@pacificrim.net)
"Al" <arc@nospam.com>
Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com>
"Arn" <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Arno" <arno02165@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Arnold" <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Art" <art300001@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Art2" <art2300001@hotmailspamblock.com>
"B. Corporeal" <bcorp392@hotmail.com>
"B. Corporel" <bcorp39874@hotmail.com>
"Ben" <someone @microsoft.com>
"Bill Gates" <billg@microsaused.com>
bfskinner@my-deja.com
"Bo Hica" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Bob D." <bobd2004@comcast.com>
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
"Boggs" <muddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com>
muddyboggs@hotmail.com (Boggs)
"C Ketchikan" <cj@ket.net>
"C. Tailor" <ct98229@hotmail.com>
"Creon" <douglacia@nospamathome.com>
"D. Wolfe" <wolfe@stancion.com>
"D R" <nospam@please.com>
D_R_Alford,dralford-pacificrim.net@carletonbe.ottawa.on.ca
(D R Alford,dralford@pacificrim.net)
"Dan" <abusemail@uunet.com>
"***** Dragon" <Matt-Sweetman-Is-A-Fraud@alloverthe.net>
"***** Dragon" <nospam@all.net>
Diesel <abuse-mail@uu.net>
DRAlford@gnn.com (Donald R. Alford)
"Donald Alford" <donald_alford@email.msn.com>
Donald Alford <dralford@pacificrim.net>
"Donald Alford" <y3kSPAM@uswest.net>
DR Feelgood <drfeelgood3000@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Dr. Sinster" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Dr. Sinster" <Slather-is-a-fraud@alloverthe.net>
"Dr. Sister" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Dr. Sister" <Slather-is-a-fraud@alloverthe.net>
(Fish)
"Duck" <quacker@webfoot.net>
"Fish" (David B. Trout) <fish@infidels.invalid>
"Frazier" <fraz@stones.com>
"Fred" <someone@amazon.com>
"Fred Skinner" <nospam@all.all>
"Fred Skinner" <y3k@NOSPAMuswest.net>
"Frisbyterian" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Frisbyterian Skeptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Gawud" <dad@home.com>
"Hans" <hansv@hotmail.com>
"Hans Van M." <hansv@hotmail.com>
"Ho Hum" <hohum@weareallone.net>
"Ho Hum" <nospam@forme.please>
Hum <hohum2001@my-deja.com>
"Huxley" <someone@microsoft.com>
"Hy" <hrh@hrh.net>
I Doubtit <idoubtit@doubt.net>
"I M Notajoiner" <nospam@all.atall>
"Ima Skeptic Too" <Dad@home.com>
int@hotmail.com
"Jaco Bandolim" <jband@sparknode.com>
"Jaco Mandolin" <jmand@sparknode.com>
"John McTavish" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
"JR1" <jr1@jr.com>
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com>
"JR3" <jr3@jr.com>
"KB" <kb@hotmail.com>
"KBC" <kbc@westlink.cop>
"Krait Bungarus Caeruleus" <kbc@wesltink.com>
"Mac" <mac@mac.com>
"Mac Intosh" <macint@mac.com>
"McSweeny" <mcs@hootmon.com>
"Mekkala's Alleged \"Blithering Fucking Idiot\"" <slimshady@mnm.com>
"Muddy Boggs" <muddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com>
"Mudddy Boggs" <mudddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com>
Nav <nav@nav.com>
"Navigator" <nav@nav.com>
Navigator <nav@nospam.com>
navigator3001@hotmail.com (Navigator)
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com>
"Nick" <nospam@all.all>
Notajoiner (donald_alford@nospamemail.msn.com)
Notajoiner (nospam@all.atall)
Notajoiner (nospam@please.comeon)
"Oil-O-Matic" <aikin@nospam.com>
"one" <one@world.net>
"Otto" <ottumwa3001@hotmailt.com>
"Page Downey" <pd98229@hotmail.com>
"Paige Downey" <pd98229@hotmail.com>
"Pat" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net>
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net>
PBJ <pbj@nospam.com>
"PsychStudent" <psychstudent@earth.net>
"Proulx" <pru@az.net>
"Ray" <ray@hotmail.com>
"Rhode Island Red" <rirrooster2000@hotmail.com>
"Roger Bush" <roger@bush.com>
roaster4001@hotmail.com (Roger Roaster)
"Romeo" <romeo@shakespear.net>
"Rooster" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Rooster" <nospam@all.all>
"Rooster" <rooster@hotmail.com>
"Salmon Loaf" <sal097236@hotmail.com>
"Sam Spade" <sspade@hotmail.com>
"Shleptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Skeptic" <abuse-mail@uu.net>
"Skeptic" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Skeptic" <Dad@home.com>
"Skeptic" <nospam@all.all>
"Skeptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Skeptic" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Skeptic Schemeptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com>
"Smith" <nospam@all.all>
"Spike Nail" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Stanley Leverlock" <stan@nospam.com>
"Stanley/Oilman/Ben/Septic/Whatever" <stan@nospam.com>
"Steven V. Snyder" <2098snyder360@hootmail.com>
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
"T. Jefferson" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"The Theeeenker" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"The Theenker" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"The Thinkerator" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Threeball Hall" <hall31728@hotmail.com>
Tim <tim3000@nospam.com>
toadfrog3001@hotmail.com (Todd Field)
"Tom Wetsuit" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Vital Basics" <vb32987@hotmail.com>
"Whitey" <tonyb@hotmail.com>
"Whosya Daddy" <Dad@home.com>
"Wolf Blister" <wolf@uunet.com>
oilomatic@hotmail.com (Y3K)
"Y3K" <y3k@hotmail.com>
"Yoda" <yoda@hotmail.com>
Appendix A: Who is Steven Snyder?
Repeatedly, Donald R. Alford
has hysterically insisted that
"Sniper" is "Steven V. Snyder".
Which is most amusing, because
"Steven V. Snyder" is actually
Donald R. Alford. E.g.,
From: "Steven V. Snyder" <2098snyder360@hootmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Possibilist vs. Impossibilist (was Re: "Atheists"
Believe in Ghosts!)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
Message-ID: <QA1A9.5290$L75.5211@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.231.81.82
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net 1037084080 12.231.81.82 (Tue, 12
Nov 2002 06:54:40 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 06:54:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 06:54:40 GMT
It pays to read the latest
Skeptic sockpuppet list update.
Appendix B: Concerning the relationship
between Donald Alford and his sockpuppet
"Fish".
There are, in alt.atheism, numerous
posters who irreflectively adhere to
modes of thought reminiscent of Donald
Alford. The notions, for example, that
an unproved "positive existential claim"
is automatically false by default, or
that a "negative existential claim"
is automatically true by default. With
respect to this aberration of the mind,
Alford is hardly unique, as even some of
the posters who criticize him for it
maintain the same thing in other threads.
However, there is one line of "reasoning"
that is absolutely peculiar to Donald
R. Alford and his sockpuppets. That is,
not simply that "negative claims" are true
by default, but that "negative claims" are
*not claims at all*. This is the distinguishing
characteristic of Alford's thought processes.
And it just so happens to be one of Fish's
as well:
From: (Fish)
Subject: Re: Atheists DO have a burden of proof
Date: 1997/12/17
Secondly, you've got it backwards. "God does not exist"
is not what's being disputed. The claim that "God exists"
is what's being disputed.
"God does not exist" is not a claim at all. "God exists"
is the claim.
Non-existence does not need to be proven, Dan. It is not
a positive claim. It is the default.
The bottom line is: positive claims of existence must
*always* be supported, and "claims" of non-existence
are not really claims; they are simply statements
disputing the existence claim.
Next, what do you estimate is the
likelihood that the following is
merely a coincidence?
First, Fred Skinner, who is Donald Alford:
From: Fred Skinner (nospam@all.all)
Subject: Re: help - witness/Elizabeth Loftus
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.theory
Date: 1999/05/15
By the way, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus at University of
Washington has done extensive research on witness
reliability/memory. You might look her up in Psych
Abstracts in the library.
One of her books:
Eyewitness Testimony by Elizabeth F. Loftus (1996)
(revised edition of 1979 book) Cambridge,Ma: Harvard
Univ. Press.
Now from Alford's "Skeptic" sockpuppet:
From: Skeptic (abuse-mail@uu.net)
Subject: Re: TQOTM: What would make you believe in God?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Date: 1999/09/16
See http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/ for links
to Elizabeth Loftus' research results concerning the
profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
And turning to David B. Trout's
homepage you'll find (you guessed it!)
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dtrout/
Eyewitness Testimony (Fascinating!)
Everyone knows eyewitness testimony is the best type of evidence
there is, right? WRONG! Elizabeth F. Loftus's award winning book on
the fragility of human memory explains why eyewitness testimony is
actually the most unreliable and inaccurate evidence there is!
Here I present the complete text for chapter 4 (complete with
illustrations) of this important, groundbreaking book. Once
you see how easily an eyewitness's memory can be radically altered
simply by the way they are questioned, and how new memories can be
implanted and old ones altered in subtle ways, I hope you'll go out
and buy this important book and read it for yourself.
But don't let peculiar little
details like geographical proximity
and the the oddly similar ring of
the names "Donald R. Alford" and
"David B. Trout" confuse you. Just
ponder the fact that the "Fish" sockpuppet
knew Septic's true identity. No one else
had any idea until until "Fish" blundered
and revealed it to alt.atheism.
.
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
06 Mar 2004 12:22:17 PM |
|
|
Goldhammer wrote:
...
The notions, for example, that
an unproved "positive existential claim"
is automatically false by default ...
Not "is false," knucklehead, "is reasonably presumed false." Nobody ever
has to prove that what you theists propose, "Invisible God might exist"
is false. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the atheists.
Get that right in the future, or you will only continue to add to the
huge pile of evidence that you are nothing but an incorrigible fraud and
a liar.
And furthermore, you can't have what you want, a default presumption
that, for example, "It is true that an invisible God might exist anyway,
even though there is no evidence of any such thing" is true unless
proven false. That would be logical fallacy, knucklehead.
What do you think, would you consider it reasonable justice to eliminate
the default reasonable presumption of "No guilt" in criminal court?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
06 Mar 2004 06:59:30 PM |
|
|
In article <tFo2c.60939$PR3.1070397@attbi_s03>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Goldhammer wrote:
...
The notions, for example, that
an unproved "positive existential claim"
is automatically false by default ...
Not "is false," knucklehead, "is reasonably presumed false."
But that is not at all what Simple Septic (the Purple Pimple), claims.
He claims that it is a fact that there are no gods. That claim is hardly
a mere presumption of falshood.
Nobody ever
has to prove that what you theists propose, "Invisible God might exist"
is false.
No theist ever claimed what Simple Septic (the Purple Pimple), here
alleges they claim. Theist creeds, by definition of theist, insist on a
belief in the ACTUAL existence, not merely the possible existence, to
their god(s). Agnostics, and even many atheists allow that god(s) may
exist, but never that they must exist.
The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the atheists.
Nor to the agnostics.
But true theists (god(s) must exist) and true anti-theists( gods cannot
exist) both have something to prove, and that burden cannot be shifted
to those who old neither gospel.
Get that right in the future, or you will only continue to add to the
huge pile of evidence that you are nothing but an incorrigible fraud and
a liar.
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
What do you think, would you consider it reasonable justice to eliminate
the default reasonable presumption of "No guilt" in criminal court?
Who is being accused of a crime?
Is it reasonable to submit a non-criminal issue to a criminal court?
This is a matter of fact not of guilt or innocence of some defendant.
Unless the crime is perjury and the defendant is Simple Septic (the
Purple Pimple).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
07 Mar 2004 02:23:06 PM |
|
|
In article
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-554844.17593006032004@news.nntpservers.com>,
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <tFo2c.60939$PR3.1070397@attbi_s03>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Goldhammer wrote:
...
The notions, for example, that
an unproved "positive existential claim"
is automatically false by default ...
Not "is false," knucklehead, "is reasonably presumed false."
But that is not at all what Simple Septic (the Purple Pimple), claims.
He claims that it is a fact that there are no gods. That claim is hardly
a mere presumption of falshood.
Nobody ever
has to prove that what you theists propose, "Invisible God might exist"
is false.
No theist ever claimed what Simple Septic (the Purple Pimple), here
alleges they claim. Theist creeds, by definition of theist, insist on a
belief in the ACTUAL existence, not merely the possible existence, to
their god(s). Agnostics, and even many atheists allow that god(s) may
exist, but never that they must exist.
The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the atheists.
Nor to the agnostics.
But true theists (god(s) must exist) and true anti-theists( gods cannot
exist) both have something to prove, and that burden cannot be shifted
to those who old neither gospel.
Get that right in the future, or you will only continue to add to the
huge pile of evidence that you are nothing but an incorrigible fraud and
a liar.
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
What do you think, would you consider it reasonable justice to eliminate
the default reasonable presumption of "No guilt" in criminal court?
Who is being accused of a crime?
Is it reasonable to submit a non-criminal issue to a criminal court?
This is a matter of fact not of guilt or innocence of some defendant.
Unless the crime is perjury and the defendant is Simple Septic (the
Purple Pimple).
Dearest, why are you speaking in the third person? Septic is right here.
You are in fact arguing with him over himself.
preliminary evidence:
Comcast.
Knucklehead.
Calling agnostics and atheists "closet theists" in earlier threads.
If you were already aware, sorry for the butt-in. Carry on. It's just
that I do make it a point to flag him when I think he hasn't been
noticed in his new persona yet. You shouldn't have to argue with him if
you already have him killfiled.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
06 Mar 2004 07:05:46 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <tFo2c.60939$PR3.1070397@attbi_s03>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Goldhammer wrote:
...
The notions, for example, that
an unproved "positive existential claim"
is automatically false by default ...
Not "is false," knucklehead, "is reasonably presumed false."
But that is not at all what Simple Septic (the Purple Pimple), claims.
He claims that it is a fact that there are no gods.
"There are no gods" is not a claim (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial (negation) of one, knucklehead, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial:
Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion in question.
The source of the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true
unless proven otherwise.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
