Zeitgeist

[Thehappyheretic]

A friend of mine told me to have a look at this on youtube. I just watched the 3 parts on religion, the greatest story ever sold. It points out that the Christian/Jewish belief system was ripped off from the Egyptian sun god and astrology beliefs. Does anyone know more about this stuff?

[Praxis]

Watched this three years ago. It's fun and interesting but not entirely accurate. Personally I found the stuff about the US banking system stuff the most interesting. The 911 stuff is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream! Lots of stuff has been written about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thehappyheretic]

I thought it was very interesting too, even if it's not quite accurate there is enough in there to be quite concerned about. The whole 9/11 stuff I think has some truth to it and it's common knowledge war is very profitable for certain parties!

[SchizoDeluxe]

but not entirely accurate.

I think that's a bit of an understatement but personally aside from a few obvious points here and there, the "film" is mostly garbage.

[davo]

Some of the stuff in Zeitgeist is highly contentious, and a bit of a stretch.

Some of the information comes from Acharya S, better known as D.M. Murdock, as well as Earl Doherty (http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm) who I recommend to read as well as Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html) (that ones a critique of Doherty, you can find other stuff by Richard here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier)).

Acharya S .. whereas much of the research is extremely good, there are critiques of the work and how it has been tied together, also from atheist perspective here (apologists are all over the work in general):

http://www.rationalresponders.com/pr...a_brief_review (http://www.rationalresponders.com/problems_with_acharya_s_a_brief_review)

[GenericBox]

I read through both pages of comments and it was by far the most painful thing I've ever read.

I mean - the Acharya S "fanboys" really could of offered some form of argument - and I'm surprised atheists (are they atheists?) actually think this is sufficient argument.

Don't read the comments - unless you really want to be brain slapped.

Completely baseless assertations and straight out attacks. It was like watching a theist post.

"Provide sources"
"You are stupid"
"Please, provide sources"
"You are a chistian lover"
"Come on this old, give me sources"
"Poopy head"

/sigh I don't know how "Rook" (OP) could stand it - it was frustrating just reading it - the threads 2 years old and I still wanted to add a comment just to yell at those idiots.

[askegg]

Does anyone know more about this stuff?

Yes - it's a very poorly researched piece. Interesting, but ultimately useless. Pay no attention.

[Thehappyheretic]

Thanks for the comments you guys. I watched the whole movie and found the financial system stuff interesting and how America has the 3 stages it uses to change foreign governments to come around to there way of thinking with the last stage being the military. It's hard to know what to believe out of it all.

[davo]

I think the problem is zeitgeist has elements of truth, and embelishes and links them together to create a conspiracy theory. It makes leaps between both coincidence and similarity by embellishing them.

I would be critical in anything you get from it. I really recommend looking up information and judging for yourself. Earl Doherty (http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm) as well as Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html) I recommend reading as I stated, which are a lot more critical than zeitgeist, which is basically a lot of stuff strung together for hype.

The danger with zeitgeist is just that.

For example, just the date the 25th Dec, Pope Julius I declared it jesus birthday around 350 CE. It was not something that evolved from association to Mithras and other beliefs, it was setup to coincide and take over Saturnalia.

[Seamus]

A friend of mine told me to have a look at this on youtube. I just watched the 3 parts on religion, the greatest story ever sold. It points out that the Christian/Jewish belief system was ripped off from the Egyptian sun god and astrology beliefs. Does anyone know more about this stuff?


Oh dear,THAT claptrap again. It's been around for well over 100 years and persists although it has been thoroughly debunked man,many,many times.

To be blunt,the claims are nonsense. Apart from being incapable of distinguishing between correlation and causation,there are some hilarious factual errors:

Perhaps start by having a look at the Isis/Osiris/Horus myth.

A show such as ' Zeitgeist' is worth watching to test your critical skills. If you pay attention,you should be able to begin to deconstruct the loopier claims within a few minutes. Hint: question the evidence; (1)remove supposition used as a premise (2) check with scholarly sources.--------Google is your friend. Better still,visit a Library and take the time to actually have a look at the myths cited.

Similarly, the films of Michael Moore and Religulous will give you an idea how polemics and propaganda work.

[davo]

To be blunt,the claims are nonsense. Apart from being incapable of distinguishing between correlation and causation,there are some hilarious factual errors:

Perhaps start by having a look at the Isis/Osiris/Horus myth.

I wouldn't just blanket state the claims are nonsense, there are a lot of similarities, most of the belief systems in the region were progressive, just as christianity led from judaism, and islam as a response to both.

After reading a lot of this type of stuff, I think there is solid references, and others that are very wishy washy.

I do agree to be critical, but I would not discount all its claims as nonsense by far. Some have very sound grounding. The real problem with zeitgeist is it extrapolates similarities more so than the reality, fills in some with what are just basically twisted fact to push it's concepts, without placing those similarities on the 'interesting' list, it links them and presents it as solid fact.

The reason zeitgeist has used this material and it causes such as stir is there is solid grounding for it from many historians, because christianity was brought together from many various sects that were influenced by beliefs of the time, into a cohesive 'work'/'faith'. To ignore that influence is just as wrong as to claim more power over it than there is.

I think it's interesting, I think there was a lot and still is a lot of influence religions and beliefs have on each other, including the historical beliefs in a region over interpretations of current beliefs/new beliefs. I would not say however that christianity is just a 'reincarnation' of old beliefs, but it would be totally wrong to say it has not been influenced by them. All through christianities history we see that happen, just look at christmas and easter.

It's when folk that place to much emphasis on the relationships based on information that is second hand (usually sourced from earlier historians) that we have problems, where the middle ground is lost.

[Logic]

It points out that the Christian/Jewish belief system was ripped off from the Egyptian sun god and astrology beliefs.

Doesn't Bill Maher reference this in Religulous, I remember him running through some similarities between ancient beliefs and christianity - or am I thinking of something else?

[Thehappyheretic]

I just watched Addendum, the second movie. Overall I think they are on to something. Ever since I was a kid I thought that the way our society was structured was unsustainable and could or should be different. The monetary system is fundamentally flawed. I think there needs to be change and the world would be a better place for it.

[owheelj]

They are not on to anything. They are unqualified and just talking shit. They completely misunderstand the banking system and economics in general. Anything that comes from Peter Joseph should be questioned with the highest level of scepticism, because he just makes stuff up.

I tend to view people who think the Zeitgeist movies are true as more stupid than religious people, because at least religious people have the excuse of cultural indoctrination from birth. What excuse is there for believing incredible statements without any evidence or doing any personal research? If I were a less moral person I would deliberately target these people for some kind of pyramid scheme. Put forward specific claims that he makes if you like, and I will destroy them.

[Thehappyheretic]

They are not on to anything. They are unqualified and just talking shit. They completely misunderstand the banking system and economics in general. Anything that comes from Peter Joseph should be questioned with the highest level of scepticism, because he just makes stuff up.

I tend to view people who think the Zeitgeist movies are true as more stupid than religious people, because at least religious people have the excuse of cultural indoctrination from birth. What excuse is there for believing incredible statements without any evidence or doing any personal research? If I were a less moral person I would deliberately target these people for some kind of pyramid scheme. Put forward specific claims that he makes if you like, and I will destroy them.

OK, first of all I have only just heard about this Zeitgeist movement and I have only just watched the 2 movies.
Regardless of how much shit you think they are talking they say that religion hinders society,which hopefully you agree on. If 90% of the wealth is controlled by 10% and millions are living on less than $2 a day than I think the system needs to change. I'm not about to sign up to this but at least they are making some noise about the inequalities of this world.

[Seamus]

The reason zeitgeist has used this material and it causes such as stir is there is solid grounding for it from many historians, because christianity was brought together from many various sects that were influenced by beliefs of the time, into a cohesive 'work'/'faith'. To ignore that influence is just as wrong as to claim more power over it than there is

Christianity began as a conventional Jewish sect,using the rabbinical tradition still common in Hasidic Judaism.To become follower of Yeshua one had to be Jewish. For a gentile that meant conversion and accepting Mosaic ,including having a bris and following the strict dietary laws. That was far too hard,so Saul abolished the hard bits,and introduced some unjewish ideas,such as eternal hell.


I'll concede I was hasty saying the influence claims are nonsense as a blanket statement.

Yes,of course there are similarities, and some Christian icons and festivals have been stolen directly, mainly from Roman religion.

BUT there is no consensus about the degree to which Christian mythology was influenced by other Middle and Near Eastern religions.

Yet again;correlation does not equal causation. Christianity has no original cosmology or mythology. Basic ideas such as the virgin birth,the resurrected god,eating the god, an afterlife with judgment,heaven and hell are common all over the world. The moral code is also found in every major religion.

Similarities in mythologies imply but do not infer influence. THAT is my point.In my opinion it is simply incorrect to say Christianity was influenced by X Y and Z. At best,all any reputable historian will claim is "this was probably the case or may have been the case".

The crackpot fringe has been using the direct influence argument for over 100 years. It can easily become argument from ignorance. That kind of logic supported an entire genre of "God is an alien" in the 1970's and latterly a plethora of loopy books used by Dan Brown in 'The Da Vinci Code' These books contain just enough facts to convince the gullible,the ignorant,mentally lazy and the plain stupid. ' Zeitgeist' falls into that category'--the same corkscrew logic is also beloved of lunar conspiracy theorists.

That is all I have to say on this topic.

[gruber]

The guy who made this said something like this "I don't expect people to take this as the truth but instead to be inspired to go out and find the truth for themselves"

But most sites that rip into this movie just usualy quote "I don't expect people to take this as the truth..."

[heresy]

The guy who made this said something like this "I don't expect people to take this as the truth but instead to be inspired to go out and find the truth for themselves"

But most sites that rip into this movie just usualy quote "I don't expect people to take this as the truth..."

Good point about quote mining, but that raises another question...

If he knew it wasn't the truth, why not say this in the film? or at least indicate that the portrayal of religion and economic system were drawing on theories?


to - OwheelJ

Your post indicated you know a lot about the financial aspects of Zeitgeist. I would be interested to know your views on the film's 'facts' in order to critically assess the film for myself...

[owheelj]

Ok, well I'm not an economist or study finance, but I have educated myself on the issues, primarily because people have tried to convince me that these movies are true, and I'm very sceptical, because I have studied physics and I know the stuff about 9/11 is completely fictitious and because I'm fairly convinced that the people at and near the top of the Catholic Church and other major religions are deluded, rather than deliberately lying and are actually atheists. So to address TheHappyHeretic's statement that the movies claim that religion hinders society and that hopefully I agree - I do agree if it's phrased like that, but the movies don't actually claim that religion hinders society, they claim that what are essentially atheists have risen to the top of religion and use it for their own means - that they're aware that their teachings are false, and just in it for the power. I certainly don't support that notion at all, and I'm strongly opposed to bad arguments for causes I believe in, especially when the case against religion is already so strong without needing to evoke massive conspiracies.


Regarding economics. You should really put forward specific claims for me to address, because it's about a year since I've watched the second film, and in fact I became so infuriated with it that I didn't watch the whole thing. It's even longer since I've watched the first.

One of the claims I recall is about the Federal Reserve Bank, and about how it's unnecessary and part of the conspiracy of the elite to control the wealth of the world etc. The conspiracy part, I don't really have any evidence against, but I haven't seen any evidence for either, so like all rational people, I accept the null hypothesis that there is no conspiracy. On the issue of necessity though, the Reserve Bank is very important and the economy would almost certainly collapse without it or some similar structure.

Because of the control it has over the financial systems, it ultimately has very strong control over inflation. If you've ever come across the crazy LaRouche movement people (The Citizen's Electoral Council etc.), one of the things they argue fairly well is that we're approaching a time of "hyperinflation" where the feedback from increasing inflation drives more inflation and it grows exponentially. In unregulated markets this happens and is a serious problem (parts of Europe after the world wars, Zimbabwe etc.) However it's never happened in a well regulated market, despite periods of increasing inflation. The reason for this, and the reason the CEC is wrong about their fear of hyperinflation, is the Federal Reserve Bank or similar institutions in other countries that actively intervene in the market to stop the positive feedback loop of growing inflation driving further inflation.

So the suggestion that the Federal Reserve Bank in the US serves only the interests of the mega rich is clearly false. Actually in times of economic instability, although the richest people lose the most money, the poorest people suffer the worst. Regulating financial systems is vital to having healthy economies.

This is pretty basic stuff and would have been surprising that Peter Joseph didn't know it, if it weren't for how unresearched the rest of both films were.

[heresy]

awesome, thanks for expanding on your thoughts owheelj

I believe its one of the strengths of atheists, that it can be assumed that they are also skeptics/sceptics.. and posses that wonderful possibility of being wrong...

Every time I watch something and believe it, I am filled with great joy to hear how wrong I was, and the evidence that supports my error ... I am reminded not to believe the new evidence, but to remember that I forgot my duty to investigate fully for myself.

[Loki]

I think thats one of the reasons atheists identify with science. Science says something is right not because science has shown it to be right, but because science has tried and failed to prove it to be wrong.

Not sure if this makes sense, maybe I'm confusing myself.

[Seamus]

I think thats one of the reasons atheists identify with science. Science says something is right not because science has shown it to be right, but because science has tried and failed to prove it to be wrong.

Not sure if this makes sense, maybe I'm confusing myself.

No,I'm afraid it doesn't make sense,and I think you are mistaken. I think you are using argument from ignorance. viz:

The argument from ignorance,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#cite_note-walton-0) also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#cite_note-walton-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#cite_note-1)), or negative evidence,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#cite_note-walton-0) is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) in which it is claimed that a premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise) is true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) only because it has not been proven false, or is false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False) only because it has not been proven true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance




If a hypothesis has not been falsified,science says only that. I assert "I do not believe in Gods" because there is no evidence. Neither has the existence of gods been falsified. The issue remains open,neither proven nor falsified.

[Loki]

No, I don't think thats it.

Among the most thoughtful philosophers of science and the scientific method was Karl Popper. In Conjectures and Refutations (1963) and Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (1972), he argued that the gold standard for seeking truth was to formulate testable hypotheses and then try to refute them, not confirm them. If you cannot refute them, despite your best analytical and experimental efforts to do so, then you can have some confidence that you are in the ball park. And the most fruitful experiments are those that enable you to refute various competing hypotheses, leaving either one or none still standing. The whole idea of science, Popper once quipped, is to make the mistakes as quickly as possible.This from More Heat than Light, by Paul Monk in todays Australian. He then goes on to give an example where this approach was used to good effect (quantum mechanics). His theory is that this is not how the IPCC works and that this error is causing at least some of the controversy around AGW, that the IPCC seeks to corroborate it's thesis and does not put effort into attempting to falsify it. In short they are not applying the correct scientific rigour. I'd post a link to the whole item but the Australian's web site only seems to have the first screens worth.

I don't think I'm mistaken, it is the scientific method. Whether it's relevant is another question. A hypothesis is formed and a test with a single variable is performed. If the test fails (no difference is observed) the null hypothesis is abandoned. Both positive and negative results with respect to the hypothesis have equal weighting (i.e. the hypothesis is falsifiable).

Argumentum ad ignorantiam does not apply here as first a robust hypothesis must be formulated, i.e. there must be some evidence suggesting the hypothesis applies. The method is then to try and falsify the hypothesis. "Dogs and cats are different therefore god" is argumentum ad ignorantiam. "Dogs and cats have different morphologies so we expect they are different and will be different at the genetic level, and we will do an experiment to determine this, no difference will falsify our hypothesis and difference will confirm it" is not argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I may be going of on a tangent here, it's been a long day and I'm trying to process some stuff into a very small brain. I'm still not sure if this applies to all science. A lot of science is not done this way, but perhaps it should be. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with Paul Monk, I think he's just fiddling around the edges, but I can't put my finger on why.

Sorry, I'm now way OT.

[Seamus]

If you cannot refute them, despite your best analytical and experimental efforts to do so, then you can have some confidence that you are in the ball park

THAT is what I meant. A skeptic, I opine only " x seems be or not to be the the case ' I seldom assert "X is is not the case" [in an absolute sense] nor does science.


Science is not dogmatic,although scientists may be as individuals.

I suspect our difference of opinion is one of semantics, rather than one of substance.

[Loki]

Unfortunately I don't have the facitity with language that some have. I suppose that's why we keep quoting people who have managed to convey a concept particularly well.

[going to hell_apparently]

a
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjAegPhQOUg&feature=related)

[Atrax Robustus]

As an atheist and a skeptic, I remain dumbfounded that so many atheists even acknowledge that they've seen - let alone give credence to this 'film'.

From what I interpret your OP to be alluding to, having done all these hours of research, what do you find so compelling from the Jesus Mythers?

[going to hell_apparently]

aaaaa

[two dogs]

...
As for the film I have know idea what you find the problem with it is? (I am talking about the 3 parts I posted). It presents a consolidated version of pretty well the conclusions I have draw from my research and study.
You might like to listen to (or read the transcript of ) Episode #196 (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4196) of Brian Dunning's excellent podcast, Skeptoid, for an overview of the validity of the claims made in the film Zeitgeist.

The transcript provides a link to an article which purports to show that the majority of Peter Joseph's assertions are flagrantly wrong. (http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/)

[Atrax Robustus]

a
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjAegPhQOUg&feature=related)

aaaaa

Why have you deleted your posts? :confused:

[Annie]

Going-to-hell-app, seems to have developed a typo-graphical stutter.

[Atrax Robustus]

Going-to-hell-app, seems to have developed a typo-graphical stutter.

Performance anxiety perhaps?

[atheist echo]

A friend of mine told me to have a look at this on youtube. I just watched the 3 parts on religion, the greatest story ever sold. It points out that the Christian/Jewish belief system was ripped off from the Egyptian sun god and astrology beliefs. Does anyone know more about this stuff?
Whilst true about Xianitiy ripping off other beliefs (especially pagan european) not entirely accurate. Haven't seen it but heard about it. I don't believe in the 9/11 CT. I know people with great knowledge of ancient history and they have pointed out many of the flaws in part one. Would still like to view it though, just out of curiousity.

[ugu80]

Biblical Historian please. You're needed on this one.

[going to hell_apparently]

Why have you deleted your posts? :confused:
I'm sick to death of the moderators of this forum taking it upon themselves to edit my comments or move new threads that I have started to the tail end of someone else’s thread that may loosely or not in any way be related to my thread. Its seems that if your not in their clickie club your views or not as worthy as those on the A list. The last 4 threads I have started have been edited, deleted or moved. There are many other people who are both privately and through other forums discussing this problem. :mad:

[Fearless]

I'm sick to death of the moderators of this forum taking it upon themselves to edit my comments or move new threads that I have started to the tail end of someone else’s thread that may loosely or not in any way be related to my thread. Its seems that if your not in their clickie club your views or not as worthy as those on the A list. The last 4 threads I have started have been edited, deleted or moved. There are many other people who are both privately and through other forums discussing this problem. :mad:

1. Before you go assuming too much of the moderators, this is the first I (personally) have known about it.

2. I don't know anything about a clickie club or an 'A' list as you reference.

3. Many other people discussing this problem in private or on other forums? Interesting... considering no one has been discussing it here apart from you unless you can show me where otherwise.

You know the best way to deal with a problem or concern is speak to someone about it, not just go off spreading malcontent as if you weren't being heard.

You can PM any one of us and you might just find out that we are quite reasonable and easy to talk to... I am sorry if you feel otherwise but I don't personally feel you have given us a chance.

Edit: The offer is there... send me a PM and I will address it personally. Please refer to Protium's post below.

[Seamus]

is this what you are suggesting?
How tactful. The way I read the post was going to hell_apparently was making an unequivocal accusation


I'm sick to death of the moderators of this forum taking it upon themselves to edit my comments -- As a common member rather than a tactful moderator, I can say on my own behalf: I have never known of a moderator to censor anyone's post,but they WILL on occasion delete massive walls of cut and pasted text. (and always indicate they have done so)

@going to hell_apparently, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, either provide some evidence of your accusation or shut the fuck up.

[going to hell_apparently]

How tactful. The way I read the post was going to hell_apparently was making an unequivocal accusation


As a common member rather than a tactful moderator, I can say on my own behalf: I have never known of a moderator to censor anyone's post,but they WILL on occasion delete massive walls of cut and pasted text. (and always indicate they have done so)

@going to hell_apparently, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, either provide some evidence of your accusation or shut the fuck up.

Go fuck yourself, you fucking cock head, who the fuck are you to tell me to shut the fuck up. what would you know about private conversation I and several others have been having with other people including moderators about this issue. You fucking moron.

[davo]

Go fuck yourself, you fucking cock head, who the fuck are you to tell me to shut the fuck up. what would you know about private conversation I and several others have been having with other people including moderators about this issue. You fucking moron.

I see what you did there.

http://jamiedubs.com/fuckflickr/data/i%20see%20what%20you%20did%20there/see-cat2.jpg

[Seamus]

Go fuck yourself, you fucking cock head, who the fuck are you to tell me to shut the fuck up. what would you know about private conversation I and several others have been having with other people including moderators about this issue. You fucking moron.

You're quite right of course.I have no idea about any private conversations you may have had. That's why I didn't make any mention of such events, responding instead only to what you actually posted.

Nor did I tell you to simply shut up. You made a public accusation against our moderators I find hard to believe. In effect, I asked do prove your accusation,the cliche " put up or shut up". I have every right to ask this. You have every right to ignore my request.

What neither of us has [here] is the right to insult each other personally,which I did not do to you.

[Praxis]

Go fuck yourself, you fucking cock head, who the fuck are you to tell me to shut the fuck up. what would you know about private conversation I and several others have been having with other people including moderators about this issue. You fucking moron.
What a bizarre outburst. What on earth's gotten into you?

I think you need 24 hours to cool your heels.

This sort of thing simply isn't necessary and goodness me, aren't you sensitive? Protesting too much or simply being caught short with a severe absence of proof (aka refusal to provide any)? Believe it or not, members are able to read and see things very clearly, without any confidences with Moderators being betrayed, and Seamus called you out on what you said. Simple. Your paranoia is showing I'm afraid.

Most unpleasant. All of it.

[Praxis]

I still want to know who these "friends and decent people" are who had their posts allegedly tampered with. I really do.

Somehow, GTHA got a large cracker jammed up his arse and someone lit it. You all witnessed the explosion.

Really, really weird but I'll try not to pull out the deckchair up on the grassy knoll about it just yet ;)

[davo]

You do realise I faked the moon landings don't you?

[wolty]

and wondering if seman is OK..




Seman isn't anything till it fertilizes with a, you know............

Hope he is ok as well. :)

Weird. We had that other one, (name deleted but rhymes with clastic) not long ago that did almost the exact same thing. Spat the dummy, deleted posts, went schizo and blamed everyone else.

@Protium, takes all sorts to make up this strange world. Going to happen again at some stage I would think. Nice you kept your cool. I think that is very much appreciated by everyone. :)

[Fearless]

KpSfThUv_pc

[wolty]

Thanks mate.. I used to get wound up over stuff like this and get emotional and flustered.. that tight chest anxiety thang..

I have now learnt to not let nonsense like this effect me. I just laugh at the logic and stay calm as they puff themselves up.

I thank this forum and you guys for that education. I am a changed person :)

No worrys dude. Although you still look angry. :)

It would almost be an interesting thread in itself, how others behaviours makes one feel. I know in my postion I used to take things personally. Now I have come to the realisation that it takes many many different people to make up the world. What they say or do has not as much relevence to me as what I used to think. It is all to do with how their day or life is going and how they react to that. Small things affect people more than they would think.

There is no point whatsoever getting flustered at what others say or do. :)

[Praxis]

No worrys dude. Although you still look angry. :)

It would almost be an interesting thread in itself, how others behaviours makes one feel. I know in my postion I used to take things personally. Now I have come to the realisation that it takes many many different people to make up the world. What they say or do has not as much relevence to me as what I used to think. It is all to do with how their day or life is going and how they react to that. Small things affect people more than they would think.

There is no point whatsoever getting flustered at what others say or do. :)
And besides, it's teh interwebz - no one here is a real person anyway ;)

[Loki]

Say after me "You are all individuals".

I'm sorry the staff have to put up with this (well we all put up with it but the staff have to deal with it). Seems to be happening a lot lately. Hope things settle down a bit soon.

[davo]

The Global Atheist Conspiracy pays too well to get worked up about things, the bonus cheque for danger money covers the psychiatry bills, plus the end of season holiday to Bermuda takes the edge off.

[wolty]

Yeah well said Loki.
Cheers to all the mods for doing a tough job trying to keep everyone happy, when everyone is so different.

[Annie]

Yeah well said Loki.
Cheers to all the mods for doing a tough job trying to keep everyone happy, when everyone is so different.

Hear Hear Wolty! Time for a GROUP HUG!! :D:D

[wolty]

Hear Hear Wolty! Time for a GROUP HUG!! :D:D


A nice way to finalise the crap that went on, I think. Hug back at you Annie. :)

[Atrax Robustus]

Being bisexual, group hugs can cause me some ethical issues . . .

. . . so . . .

. . . from a respectable distance . . .

Good on ya Mods!

[riddlemethis]

That was the strangest thing I've seen here! Bat. Ball. Home!

[Atrax Robustus]

RMT's comment sparks a suggestion . . .

What about a Classic Dummy Spits thread? A locked sticky where we can all see some of the wondrous things that people post (or suitably sanitised PMs to mods) on their way out the door.

[Goldenmane]

Go fuck yourself, you fucking cock head, who the fuck are you to tell me to shut the fuck up. what would you know about private conversation I and several others have been having with other people including moderators about this issue. You fucking moron.

I think it's an opportune time for a Lesson. Mods, feel free to handle it as you must.

Lessons by Goldenmane, Part 312:

As a devotee, and sometimes proclaimed Master (although I consider myself Journeyman only) of the Art of Creative Invective, I am often asked the following question: Goldenmane, how the fuck do you manage to get away with being such a cunt?

The answer is simple: I'm not a stupid cunt. I'm a clever cunt. For example, it has long been an established fact that discussion forums almost always (not entirely always, but almost always, if they're worth the electrons they're maintained on) have a rule against attacking other members. This is so prevalent that it's actually a surprise to anyone who has spent more than two weeks familiarising themselves with how shit is done on the Internet to come across a forum that doesn't have such a rule. In such cases there are generally other versions of a similar sort of thing - one I could mention manifests a culture wherein you're quite allowed to call anyone anything you like, provided you can demonstrate that you have the basic balls to face that person in a throwdown. This isn't the norm, though I quite like it.

The key here is to get a feel for how shit works on a board before you start posting on it, or at least not getting all worked up if your posts are shifted around in line with avowed policy. Most discussion boards tend to shuffle things around a little because the same shite gets posted again and again and fucking again, and that wastes server space. Standard practice is to merge threads. And here we get to the nub of the thing. Well, two nubs, really, and I always say that two nubs are better than one:

1) You aren't that fucking important, and chucking a hissy-fit when shit doesn't go your way is simply fucking ludicrous. Really, no-one cares. And no-one should care. It's as interesting as seeing a five-year-old lying screaming on the floor in the supermarket because mummy won't buy him a bon-bon. It's infantile bullshit. Most people would rather have to watch a strip show featuring Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott than witness that fucking idiocy.

2) If you want to be that important, then be original. The prime lesson of the school-yard, if it is anything, is that unoriginal is the same as boring. And trust me, chucking a hissy-fit because your threads got merged and the like is about as original as a craigslist ad asking for a barely-legal blonde to dominate. It's the equivalent of asking someone who's just entered a chat-room "a/s/l?" It's less original than posting a LOLcat picture (at least some of which can still be amusing - rarely).

The most important lesson in life, and this is reinforced by the Internet, is this: Get the fuck over yourself. Fail to learn that lesson, and life itself laughs at you.

Here endeth the lesson.

[atheist_angel]

This thread has been hijacked. I propose that this thread be split so that the people who are genuinely interested in replying to the topic will feel comfortable doing so.

I am proposing that the other half of the thread be moved to feedback and support. Since part of that feedback includes a complaint about moving posts, I feel obliged to ask whether there are members that may be for or against this move.

@Members: Do I hear any Yays or Nays?

[Loki]

That's what mods are for. I just try and keep out of your way while you do what you do, and I get a sneaking suspicion Goldenmane agrees.

Nice post there :)

[wolty]

1) You aren't that fucking important, and chucking a hissy-fit when shit doesn't go your way is simply fucking ludicrous. Really, no-one cares. And no-one should care.
Yep, couldn't agree more. There is a fine line between confidence and over-confidence in ones intellect. If people cannot cope with others points of view or opinion, then they really need to keep their collective mouths shut and let all us others get on with having constructive conversation.


2) If you want to be that important, then be original. The prime lesson of the school-yard, if it is anything, is that unoriginal is the same as boring.......................snip


The most important lesson in life, and this is reinforced by the Internet, is this: Get the fuck over yourself. Fail to learn that lesson, and life itself laughs at you.

Here endeth the lesson.
Nice lesson mate. Some do think they are much more important than others. Like I said before, it takes all sorts to make the world go round, we as free speaking, free thinking individuals will always have something to say when we hear something we don't agree on. Much more than the religiotards that blindly, unquestioningly follow.
That is maybe the third rub :), that as atheists, these forums are much more likely to have differing opinions aired, and others need to realise that, get on with living, get over themselves and move forward, not sideways.

@AA I have no problem with any/all threads being merged/shifted as mods see fit. I understand the reasoning is more to do with continuity/searchability and so on. It makes it easier for me and others to find exactly what we are looking for. The forums are here for me to belong to, not the idea I am gracing the forums with my presence.

[atheist_angel]

Thanx guys. I know it may seem silly that I asked, but I think the feedback is going to be helpful to the issue.

[wolty]

Further to the dummy spit that happened.

It is all about ego. I think one needs to check the ego at the door of this forum, to get anywhere.

And it reminds me of the fundamentalist view of the world. eg. the world was put here for their benefit. Just as some think, this forum was put here for their benefit. I don't like it. :(

[atheist_angel]

Personally I rather it stay as it is so the user in discussion gets email notifications of these posts discussing their actions and maybe learn something....One can only hope. :)

[Praxis]

I'm with Protium on this.

And I still look forward to GTHA's confirmation of who these "friends and decent people" are who are allegedly similarly aggrieved, but most of all to the requested proof of what is claimed was done (post tampering, etc).

We have ours all ready to go but for some reason, the plaintiff appears to be a little lacking in the documentation department, Your Honour.

Oh, and thank you for that most excellent lesson, Goldenmane. Always such a pleasure to read your piquant posts :)

[Goldenmane]

Regarding the proposed thread split: I've only moderated one board, and I don't think it's my place to suggest that my input is any more important than anyone else's, but I'll give my not-very-considered opinion before I go and get a caffeine injection (so this may not be terribly coherent):

I'm with Protium on this, for this case, and for the reasons he alluded to, but also for a further reason (the reason, indeed, that I bother responding to idiotic arguments for religion and the like anywhere). That reason is that I don't really post for the sake of the person I'm engaged with - people who are convinced of their own rightness don't tend to be very likely to change their position, after all - but for the sake of the audience that isn't obviously there; the lurker, who might not have a settled opinion on a subject. The idea is to provide information and opinion to help them learn enough to develop a reasoned viewpoint. And to entertain, of course.

That being said, I'm not going to complain whatever happens. It's not something that I consider important enough about to get my panties in a bunch. The mods here do a fine job as far as I can see, and if their decision is that the thread gets split, then I have enough respect for them to think that it's a decision that was made thoughtfully and with the best outcome in mind. That being said, I wouldn't be backward about making my view known if the situation arose such that they cocked up an important decision (now, ain't that a surprise?).

I appreciate the invitation to provide my input, though. Generally speaking, modding is a largely thankless position. So, as an aside, to all the mods here: thanks.

[going to hell_apparently]

Here is my rebuttal:

Firstly I did not just post a tread out of the blue claiming the moderators of this forum were deleting, editing and moving my threads, I was asked publicly by Atrax Robustus (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/member.php?u=238) the following

Why have you deleted your posts? :confused:
To which I answered this question by stating this:

I'm sick to death of the moderators of this forum taking it upon themselves to edit my comments or move new threads that I have started to the tail end of someone else’s thread that may loosely or not in any way be related to my thread. Its seems that if your not in their clickie club your views or not as worthy as those on the A list. The last 4 threads I have started have been edited, deleted or moved. There are many other people who are both privately and through other forums discussing this problem. :mad:


Fearless and Protium both publicly stated that they were concerned that I had believed that posts were being moved, deleted or edited. Protium asked me to provide him with details. I emailed him PRIVATELY to relay my concerns that I have both witnessed and been informed by other members privately.

Bit of background.

After going to see Richard Dawkins at QPAC, two of our friends, we attended with invited us to a bar with a group of other Atheists, which we did. During this time the AFA forum was raised by one of the group. The group discussions then centred around statements that posts were being edited and posts were being deleted. Both my partner and I agreed with the discussions as we had witnessed this first hand.

The discussion also centred around that there appeared to be a select group of around 15 senior members and some moderators who had taken it upon themselves to place themselves above all others (please note I am a member of several forum past and present and it is no different anywhere you go). At this forum I have witnessed several members who take it upon themselves to usually mildly borate, belittle or generally put down other members when they post something that is not up to their self imposed standard of knowledge on all subjects (although it should be noted on numerous occasion they are wrong). One of the people referred to in the group stated that she had joined the forum as someone new to Atheism and as her knowledge of the subject was limited she posted some threads and posts only to be belittled by the usual suspects to which she stated she felt terribly upset over. She stated that she no longer is a member of the forum. Several other people also stated that they no longer use the forum for the abovementioned reasons.

Back to the subject.

Upon Protium’s request of providing details I decided that my partner and I would draft a letter outlining the above and provide the details of other members that would state the alligations. We would then forward it privately to the forum administrator for him to resolve. I contacted one couple that stated that they now have no interest in this forum and therefore did not want to speak with anyone from administration. I emailed another member who replied that she had already contacted and stated that her posts were being edited to which she was threatened with legal action as she could not provide the URL’s for the changes (Please note, could someone please provide me with details of how you could provide URL’s of your posts. What a stupid thing to demand of someone). Due to this she therefore stated to me that because of the ridicules response to her concerns she had no interested in wasting her time on people who did not deserve it. Two other people I contacted on another forum stated that they would be happy for me to provide their names to Protium to relay what they have witness however they have contacted me today and stated after the behaviour of Protium last night (publishing publicly my private messages without my consent and Seamus without provocation telling me to “shut the fuck up”) that they no longer what anything to do with the forum. There were around another 8 people in the referred group however I have no way of contacting them.

If your wondering why I have contacted the other people concerned and not simply provided their details to Protium (if you still need to ask) is that statements made to me privately are exactly that private to which unless that person gives me permission to provide their details then my moral and ethical boundaries do not allow me to provide their details. I can ask and have asked them to contact the administrators, it their right to decide whether they do or not I hope they do and I am encouraging them too.

Lets get to my post directed at seamus.

Seamus posted the following post, this is how I responded.

How tactful. The way I read the post was going to hell_apparently was making an unequivocal accusation


As a common member rather than a tactful moderator, I can say on my own behalf: I have never known of a moderator to censor anyone's post,but they WILL on occasion delete massive walls of cut and pasted text. (and always indicate they have done so)

@going to hell_apparently, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, either provide some evidence of your accusation or shut the fuck up.


3 things
1/ That in no way shape or form did/does Seamus have any information that he was not prive to i.e. private emails, letters other discussions and the statement was not in any way directed to him. Therefore his publicly demanding that he has a right to be provided with the evidence as he quoted a “common member” is self-righteous (one for a better word). The people that the alligation were made about have every right to ask me for evidence. Seamus considering he has nothing to do with the alligation does not.
2/ That I reserve the right to treat anyone in the same way as they treat me i.e. If you are kind to me I reserve the right to be kind to you, if you treat me with respect I will treat you with respect however if you punch me I reserve the right to punch you back. If you are offensive to me I reserve the right to be offensive back to you, if you don’t want me to be offensive to you, simple don’t be offensive to me. Being told to “shut the fuck up by a person unprovoked I find very offensive, was I offensive in return? “yes I was”. If you were standing on the street speaking to someone and a person walked up to you and told you and told you to “shut the fuck” please don’t tell me for a minute you would not find that behaviour offensive. If one of my employees told me or another employee to “shut the fuck up” they would be sitting across my desk having a great deal of trouble justifying why they should keep their job.

If a person displays behaviour toward you that you are unhappy with you have many options to how you respond i.e. ignore the person, ask the person to decease this behaviour, report the person or defend yourself, I decided to be offensive in return (my choice). He was publicly offensive to me I was publicly offensive in return (it sounds immature but I find that the best way to deal with bullies is to bully them back). Also you should note that when he re-stated his comment he conveniently left the word “fuck” out.

Some of you will now post that if I should “harden up” if I find being sworn at (fuck) offensive, however I have never sworn on this forum let alone sworn at anyone therefore I reserve the right not to be sworn at. Remember that this forum is not an over 18 forum and that there are possibly a lot of children who visit here, should they be subject to being told to “shut the fuck up”? (In hindsight I am well aware that I have not considered children or people who don’t appreciate bad language and put my hand up for that and apologise.

[going to hell_apparently]

The point at hand:

Protium claims that he has the details of 12 posts I have made and that he cannot personally find editing or being deleted although several have been tailed. Here is the problem with this and other issues.

1/ I have made around 25 posts not 12.
2/ I administered a forum with around 125,000 members, I am well aware that posts can be deleted, edited etc without any record. I had a problem with over protective moderators editing posts that may have been embarrassing to them. Post can be changed through the servers, cmds, crx’s, scripts etc with no record, there are many programs available that can do this, that is why postings in forum’s can not be used as legal evidence in many country’s.
3/ Demanding that the evidence be URL’s, well that’s self-explanatory
4/ That protium publicly posted some of my private messages. That is totally unacceptable (please note that I instructed him not too) The publishing of private emails and messages without the writers consent is dealt with in the federal communications act 1998. Go to the Commonwealth law acts look for yourselves.
5/ That Protium blocked me for offensive language/behaviour however Seamus was praised even though he told another member in an unprovoked act to “shut the fuck up”. Many responses I have received have also questioned this.
6/The forums own rules clearly state the following: This AFA Forum offers near unlimited freedom of expression and any abuse of this privilege will not be tolerated. Those found to be infringing these freedoms will initially receive a warning, and repeat offenders will be temporarily suspended for a period of time set by an Administrator. I was given no warning.
7/ That protium blocked me and then made a lame attempt with others to berate me while I have no right off reply. Some simple people also stating that as I have not provided evidence on the forum is an admission of guilt, um its like debating a 5 year I will make it simple, I was blocked from posting on the forum aaahhhhh.
8/ That I have made around 25 posts several have now been deleted (not by me), most of the deleted ones contained texts that were edited again not by me.
9/ That I stated that other people claim to have had the same things done to them, I was stating privately to Protium what they I had been informed, please note that Protium posted my private message in regards to other people I have personally spoken to, not me, so you need to get your what was said publicly and private right. I also have no reason to doubt these peoples claims.
10/ That the AFA Forum clearly states the following in its own rules:
The owners of AFA Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.
So for Protium and others to be up in arms and claiming my claims slanderous etc is outrageous considering they clearly state in their own rules that they will do it. If the moderators of this forum believe that deleting posts or their editing posts is slanderous or offensive why do you state in your rules that you will do it.
11/ I only answered a question that was publicly asked of me in regards to editing the 2 posts by Atrax Robustus (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/member.php?u=238)
12/ That the accusation that my posts had been edited was being privately answered
13/ That I was preparing the evidence for Protium however demanding that I respond to him within 12 hours or he would publish my private messages is unacceptable. I rarely use this forum, maybe on the odd weekend if I have nothing else to do. Making threats against a person i.e. publishing their private messages if they don’t respond in a limited time is totally unacceptable.
14/ That by Protium publicly posting my private messages renders his position untenable and he should be removed. People should be aware that at anytime without your consent your private messages and other information can be made public.
15/ That if the language I used against Seamus was offensive, instead of leaving it their for all to see (including children) Protium should have parked it in the server out of public view and resolved the matter privately in a mature, professional manor. If a warning had been warranted then issue it. Instead protium carried on like a school kid who had just been given hall duty by his teacher. Blocking someone from posting then posting away like a little a child is neither proving your right or mature.
16/ That moving threads was not the main problem, it was part of a much bigger problem. I’m amazed at the fact that most of you have decided to focus on that issue only. I don’t have a major issue with it, it just needs to be consistent. Seamus stated “I have never known of a moderator to censor anyone's post,but they WILL on occasion delete massive walls of cut and pasted text. (and always indicate they have done so)”, frankly the bracketed bit is untrue and protium has stated that he is reminding them to do it. Seamus states “I have never known of a moderator to censor anyone's post”, oh well if seamus does not know then it must not be true, seamus knows everything.

Finally.

Thanks for all the emails and comments I have received on facebook and another forum in support (I do wish you would post them here publicly however that’s your choice and I understand why you don’t. I will never post anything that I do not have your permission to post or give your details out). for everyone else I look forward to speaking with you!

[going to hell_apparently]

hmmm.. Suddenly the grammar and spelling is totally different and the writing style is somehow familiar.. Brisbane.. ah..

I will get to your points going to hell_apparently soon. For your info I don't have any PM or email that states don't post your PM.. I posted all contact with you after the said time. You are free to post it here.

all the best Protium Hello GTHA

I am keen to resolve this issue. Can you please supply the URLS and usernames of the people who have made these allegations.

I intend to post your comments in the thread for other users to view. Do you have a problem with that?

Leaving the thread hanging seems disconcerting. I will wait another 24 hours so please respond.

All the best
Protium go read semans comments to me. We rest our case. So the answer is no, my friends and other decent people dont want this sort of abuse from your so called decent members.

good bye


Can you please read the the statement above to your question "so the answer is no"

[going to hell_apparently]

hmmm.. Suddenly the grammar and spelling is totally different and the writing style is somehow familiar.. Brisbane.. ah..

I will get to your points going to hell_apparently soon. For your info I don't have any PM or email that states don't post your PM.. I posted all contact with you after the said time. You are free to post it here.

Could you please explain the "Suddenly the grammar and spelling is totally different and the writing style is somehow familiar.. Brisbane.. ah..".

I have a meeting to go to now, however I will check your explaination later

[davo]

4/ That protium publicly posted some of my private messages. That is totally unacceptable (please note that I instructed him not too) The publishing of private emails and messages without the writers consent is dealt with in the federal communications act 1998. Go to the Commonwealth law acts look for yourselves.

Actually no it's not illegal, even if you send something to someone and you put at the bottom of an email for instance that it is not to be passed onto anyone else and is private.

What you have done is sent someone something, then stated they now have a contract to you which is just not the case unless they agree to that contract. On a web forum, you have used their services, entered data in their database, and then stipulated the rules in regard what they can do with it.

The Federal Communications Act 1988 does not have any such law. You know why?

there is no Federal Communications Act 1988. There is the Malicious Communications Act of 1988?

If you are referring to the Privacy Act, none of your private information was disseminated.

But anyway, your issues are being looked into. I must say tho, from a personal perspective and having access to all the raw logs, your claims basically put me in the fire line as somehow hiding information from the AFA. Not only that, it's my job and livelyhood you are questioning in a public way. *

But, I am not really worried as I have done nothing wrong.

I will say, really the first I have ever heard about or noticed you as a user was your outburst, I don't understand what reason I would have for being in some conspiracy to edit your posts. I mean, why bother?

[Praxis]

I have never sworn on this forum let alone sworn at anyone therefore I reserve the right not to be sworn at.
Really? Seriously, it's a bit hard not to laugh at this, which you posted (well, under this name anyway).

Go fuck yourself, you fucking cock head, who the fuck are you to tell me to shut the fuck up. what would you know about private conversation I and several others have been having with other people including moderators about this issue. You fucking moron.
Sorry, but you seem to have logged in under the wrong name dearie.

Time to change your socks.

[davo]

I luv the interwebz, so many interesting people.

[atheist_angel]

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/hobbies-leisure/eating-drinking/ice-cream-fall.gif

[davo]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5M0BEZry3do/SWt03RIFECI/AAAAAAAABYc/CeypJLGE0NU/s400/HissyFit.jpg

[Seamus]

Brisbane is nice.

I've heard that. I've never been but have wanted to go for a very long time.

Suddenly, I no longer want to go as much. I seem to have developed this strange notion that I might catch paranoia. I have no idea why.:p

[going to hell_apparently]

Sorry. The grammar is so confusing I had no idea what you were saying.

You were resting your case because of semans comments.. and no your friends don't want this abuse from our decent members so you are leaving.

What ever..

"What ever", I am trying to get my 10-year to stop saying that phrase, please not in here too from a self-described adult.

[Fearless]

"What ever", I am trying to get my 10-year to stop saying that phrase, please not in here too from a self-described adult.

Clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Why don't you show your 10-year old that dummy spit post you made... see who comes off as the infantile.

[davo]

"What ever", I am trying to get my 10-year to stop saying that phrase, please not in here too from a self-described adult.

I don't think I have seen Protium ever describe himself as an adult.

But really, honestly, mate the mods have not been editing your posts, there is no 'club' as you infer, most everything is worked out in the threads themselves, even the fundies get more of a chance that they deserve a lot of the time, and you should see some of the dissagreements amongst mods on inane things.

It's what makes life interesting.

As well, the mods are mods basically as they are regular on the forum, they do as good a job as anyone can ask for and continually striving to do better. Stuff that is noticed as an issue or raised is always discussed and in the open as well. Just like anyone else the mods involve themselves in discussion get fired up on points, ups and downs, likes and dislikes. It's the humanity in things.

I'm just surprised at what appears to be a hissy fit out of the blue, I suppose whatever we do we cant win but hey, someone has to do it. If ya can't win, humour doesn't hurt I mean, really.

Anyway, I've collated all your IP's and grepping the logs for comparing all calls they have made to the website, edits etc that will include all the posts you deleted and will get together something that can clearly show the situation off for what it is. claims without evidence.

will take some time tho. should have it by the end of the weekend as I have other stuff to do as well.

[Praxis]

You're far too kind Davo. Really.

[Goldenmane]

That is totally unacceptable (please note that I instructed him not too) The publishing of private emails and messages without the writers consent is dealt with in the federal communications act 1998. Go to the Commonwealth law acts look for yourselves.

First off, this:
Protium go read semans comments to me. We rest our case. So the answer is no, my friends and other decent people dont want this sort of abuse from your so called decent members.


Is almost entirely incoherent, and no-one could be reasonably expected to think that it constituted the meaningful communication of a refusal to permit the publication of communications between Protium and yourself. I know it's a hard, harsh world, but my advice is to spend a bit of time writing shit coherently if you want to communicate something. It isn't anyone else's job to penetrate waffle and work out what the fuck you're vainly attempting to communicate, especially if it appears (as it did, in this instance) that you're trying to say something entirely unrelated. This is why English has shit like punctuation, subjects, clauses, prepositions and the rest. It's a pretty comprehensive toolkit that's free to use.

Second, I can't find any such thing as "the federal communications act 1998". There is the Telecommunications Act 1997, but that doesn't contain any such prohibition. It does prohibit carriage service providers from publishing personal details and communications of their customers, but that doesn't apply in this instance because the AFA and Protium aren't carriage service providers. No part of the Act says anything like "Privately run discussion boards and/or their officials aren't allowed to make public private communications between them and other people". Indeed, it's pretty firmly established in legal precedent that if you are a participant in a discussion, you can do whatever the fuck you like regarding making public or keeping private the contents of that discussion... and so can anyone else involved in that discussion. This is why doctors have had to ensure that patient confidentiality is a recognised legal right - to prevent legal coercion being brought to bear and making them reveal shit that they shouldn't be made to reveal. It's also the basis of legal defense of sources for media, a fundamental fucking right and responsibility that needs to be constantly protected from legal challenge and erosion.

I love it when people wave spurious claims about the law around.

Now, you might be able to make a case that Protium publishing the communications between the two of you was less than entirely classy and honorable (if that's what you chose to do) but given the fucking hissy-fits and attempts at bullying (which is what waving spurious claims about the law is) I don't think you'll do very well in that regard either.

I say all this, of course, as simply an onlooker. I'm not a mod, I'm not a member of the board, I don't even know if there is a board (aside from this discussion board, of course). I'm just the drunk standing in the corner watching stupid shit happening and giggling to himself. And here's a possibly telling fact: I've been drinking since 11:25am, it's now 6:15pm, and I still make more sense than anything I've seen you post.

And you can't say I'm part of this protected clique you seem so determined to maintain exists, since I've hardly even been here except for the last couple of weeks. Most people here wouldn't fucking know me if they fell over me.

[going to hell_apparently]

Actually no it's not illegal, even if you send something to someone and you put at the bottom of an email for instance that it is not to be passed onto anyone else and is private.

What you have done is sent someone something, then stated they now have a contract to you which is just not the case unless they agree to that contract. On a web forum, you have used their services, entered data in their database, and then stipulated the rules in regard what they can do with it.
I think you need to update yourself on the act. When I have time I will privately forward it to you.

The Federal Communications Act 1988 does not have any such law. You know why?
Yes I know why! Because the 1988 act does not legislate for electronic communications that’s why I said 1998. I will assume you mistyped and were not being deceptive

there is no Federal Communications Act 1988. There is the Malicious Communications Act of 1988?
As above

If you are referring to the Privacy Act, none of your private information was disseminated.
You need to familiarise yourself with the act in regards to what constitutes private

But anyway, your issues are being looked into. I must say tho, from a personal perspective and having access to all the raw logs, your claims basically put me in the fire line as somehow hiding information from the AFA. Not only that, it's my job and livelyhood you are questioning in a public way. *

But, I am not really worried as I have done nothing wrong.
No one is saying editing or deleting post is wrong. When I signed up to this forum the rules were quite clear "The owners of AFA Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason." All I stated was that I was sick of this happening

I will say, really the first I have ever heard about or noticed you as a user was your outburst, I don't understand what reason I would have for being in some conspiracy to edit your posts. I mean, why bother?
Why bother Davo, Why do people do a lot of things that you me and a lot of the Australian people don’t understand, I think some people need to feel their argument is right regardless, I think too many people have too much time on their hands

hope this helps

[going to hell_apparently]

Sorry. The grammar is so confusing I had no idea what you were saying.

You were resting your case because of semans comments.. and no your friends don't want this abuse from our decent members so you are leaving.

What ever..

No I am resting my case in regards to select members being able to belittle or berate other members without repercussions

[owheelj]

Wow, I can't wait to hear what the judge says when this goes to court. lol.

[going to hell_apparently]

well I would but I need to rearrange my sock drawer.. but I'm sure anyone can view your profile, look at the statistics and skim all your posts and make their own mind up..

Brisbane is nice.

I asked you in a reasonable way a question that is puzzling me and you give a childish reply; I see where I went wrong here I was dealing with you as an adult.

[Praxis]

What's puzzling to me is that we're yet to see you explain your utterly inexplicable statement that you have never sworn at anyone on this forum when the evidence is there for anyone to read.

Well?

[Fearless]

Wow, I can't wait to hear what the judge says when this goes to court. lol.

Indeed

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/962/teacup.jpg

[going to hell_apparently]

Really? Seriously, it's a bit hard not to laugh at this, which you posted (well, under this name anyway).


Sorry, but you seem to have logged in under the wrong name dearie.

Time to change your socks.

If you actually read my post, which I wrote in adult form, you would have no problem establishing that the statement was past tense.

Now for the children, I did not swear at anyone before I was sworn at so no one should be allowed to swear at me.

Praxis read any version that fits

[going to hell_apparently]

I luv the interwebz, so many interesting people.

Davo I could not agree more. Lucky their not real people.

[owheelj]

Davo I could not agree more. Lucky their not real people.

Their not real people what? And why are they lucky?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

If you actually read my post, which I wrote in adult form, you would have no problem establishing that the statement was past tense.

Now for the children, I did not swear at anyone before I was sworn at so no one should be allowed to swear at me.

Praxis read any version that fits

With all due respect, you did end up posting a barrage of abuse in reply to Seamus when all he was trying to say was to provide evidence of your claims or shut up. That was all he was saying. And what did you do? You decided to have a hissy fit and post a barrage of abuse as opposed to providing the evidence.

And people are allowed to "swear at you" (since "swearing" is no such thing) as they are allowed to do at me.

And besides, what is swearing anyway?

[Fearless]

Now for the children, I did not swear at anyone before I was sworn at so no one should be allowed to swear at me.

I love people who are condescending... :rolleyes:

You're right, you have been violated... an eye for an eye... great lesson to teach your kids... if anyone does something to you, you have the right to do it back to them.

Sounds like a classic playground defense "But he did it to me first!!!"

Oh well, I'm bored of this nonsense... good luck with your crusade.

[going to hell_apparently]

I've heard that. I've never been but have wanted to go for a very long time.

Suddenly, I no longer want to go as much. I seem to have developed this strange notion that I might catch paranoia. I have no idea why.:p

I tell you why you should not come here seamus. Because up here if you walk up to someone you don’t know and tell them to "Shut the Fuck up" you will most likely be sitting on your arse. Lucky you only do it in cyber land.

As for paranoia, I recall you were the one who posted a aggressive and offensive statement because I made a claim, seems to me I know who maybe a little paranoid

[owheelj]

In all seriousness, I agree that Seamus response that you're talking about was crude and inappropriate. Indeed I find myself disagreeing with probably 90% of what Seamus says or how he says it, although I seldom bother to vocalise that. On the other hand, you've made incredible suggestions of conspiracies against you without any evidence. I don't know anybody on this forum in person (as far as I know). I'm not a member of any groups or gangs on the forum (as far as I know), your suggestions about the poor modding and not being part of the group was rubbish, and the way you're carrying on now is irrational and childish.

Of course you're welcome to behave however you like, and I'm not going to tell you what to do, but wow. People aren't out to get you, you've created this whole issue yourself out of thin air.

[going to hell_apparently]

Clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Why don't you show your 10-year old that dummy spit post you made... see who comes off as the infantile.

Who had a dummy spit ???? I didn’t spit the dummy did you? Maybe it was protiums who blocked me? Maybe it was seamus.

Let me explain something to Fearless that Davo kind of alluded to the other day.

IN THE REAL WORLD

A group of us are at (lets say for argument sake) a bar. I am talking to you about something that is bugging me and a bloke who we don’t know walks up and tells me to "shut the fuck up". Now everyone is different you may chose to wack him others may not, you may chose to make a complaint to the manager you may not, you may simply walk away. The point is that for a person to walk up to someone they don’t know and make an offensive comment to them there are consequences. The offended person is able to decide on a course of action they wish to take to give themself some level of retribution to satisfy themself.

THE CYBER WORLD

AAHHHH The brave new world were even 10 years can safely abuse people, make threats against them. A world where a person who is even frightened of his own shadow in public can become the terminator. Abuse people at will, threaten people at every turn, all with no real life consequences or more to the point no real life pain. So the choices for the same act in the real world committed in the cyber world for a person who is told to "shut the fuck up" do not apply here. In the real world if you are one of the many people here that have meet me you would have no doubts that seamus would ever tell me to "shut the fuck up" but in the cyber world the real world rules don’t apply.

Therefore as I have really no real (world) retribution against seamus, I calmly wrote a post that even for my standards was very offensive (and I have worked with the night club and in the legal fraternity for quite some time), but that was the point. You all need to take a look at it with a more open mind, a more cyber thinking Patten, don’t apply real world behaviour to a cyber world, you will only confuse the real issue.

[going to hell_apparently]

ha ha ha ha... no I'm a self described baby.. are you new here?

Is the meeting you were going to cancelled?

No finished, thanks for asking

[Goldenmane]

hope this helps

Might help if you worked out how to use quote tags. Oh, and could provide some evidence to support the apparently spurious notion that "federal communications act 1998" actually existed and said what you claim it does.

Hey, I'm an attention whore too, how come you won't respond to my posts?

[Goldenmane]

I've heard that. I've never been but have wanted to go for a very long time.

Suddenly, I no longer want to go as much. I seem to have developed this strange notion that I might catch paranoia. I have no idea why.:p

Durro's there. If you don't catch paranoia, you're collateral damage.*

*This is a joke which shouldn't need explanation, but probably does. If you don't get it, I can't be bothered explaining it. Praxis might, but I doubt it.

[going to hell_apparently]

I don't think I have seen Protium ever describe himself as an adult.

But really, honestly, mate the mods have not been editing your posts, there is no 'club' as you infer, most everything is worked out in the threads themselves, even the fundies get more of a chance that they deserve a lot of the time, and you should see some of the dissagreements amongst mods on inane things.

It's what makes life interesting.

As well, the mods are mods basically as they are regular on the forum, they do as good a job as anyone can ask for and continually striving to do better. Stuff that is noticed as an issue or raised is always discussed and in the open as well. Just like anyone else the mods involve themselves in discussion get fired up on points, ups and downs, likes and dislikes. It's the humanity in things.

I'm just surprised at what appears to be a hissy fit out of the blue, I suppose whatever we do we cant win but hey, someone has to do it. If ya can't win, humour doesn't hurt I mean, really.

Anyway, I've collated all your IP's and grepping the logs for comparing all calls they have made to the website, edits etc that will include all the posts you deleted and will get together something that can clearly show the situation off for what it is. claims without evidence.

will take some time tho. should have it by the end of the weekend as I have other stuff to do as well.


Davo credit where credit is due, you appear to be a sensible person and are conducting yourself in the same way, enjoying the conversation with you.
As I stated in my rebuttal I administered a forum for around 2 years that averaged around 900 posts a day, my biggest problem was not with the punters it was with the mods, some where great others created most of the problems on the forum. But remembering that these people require no training, no interpersonal skills and no management skills, some of my mods were even simply kids. Besides a lack of time I grew tied of the childish problems and sold it.

Let me just reiterate my main point to you: The rules of the forum state clearly that you (admin) can/will edit, delete or move post or threads without reason, I am not stating that this illegal, wrong or anything else, what I stated when asked publicly is that I personally am sick of it happening. I'm not sure why if you state in your rules that you do it that you are going to spend so much time disproving it. If you don't do it why publish that you do.

[Fearless]

If I was in a pub talking shit, complaining and being a bit of a sook, I'd sort of expect someone to eventually walk up to me and tell me to STFU.

You know what? I probably would too.

[Atrax Robustus]

Here is my rebuttal:

Firstly I did not just post a tread out of the blue claiming the moderators of this forum were deleting, editing and moving my threads, I was asked publicly by Atrax Robustus (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/member.php?u=238) the following
Why have you deleted your posts? :confused:To which I answered this question by stating this:
I'm sick to death of the moderators of this forum taking it upon themselves to edit my comments or move new threads that I have started to the tail end of someone else’s thread that may loosely or not in any way be related to my thread. Its seems that if your not in their clickie club your views or not as worthy as those on the A list. The last 4 threads I have started have been edited, deleted or moved. There are many other people who are both privately and through other forums discussing this problem. :mad:

So . . . just so I've got this straight . . . Were you asserting that a moderator edited the two posts I was referring to?

If so, your assertion needs to explain away the basic forum functionality that clearly indicates who edits a post. (The body of each post indicates that it was you who edited them both at 7:02PM on the 17th April.)

If you did edit out your initial posts, did you do this 'in protest' or something? If so - in protest of what?

BTW - am I a member of the clique? :cool:

Fearless and Protium both publicly stated that they were concerned that I had believed that posts were being moved, deleted or edited. Protium asked me to provide him with details. I emailed him PRIVATELY to relay my concerns that I have both witnessed and been informed by other members privately.

. . . but . . . have you provided the requested details of the posts in question?

[going to hell_apparently]

First off, this:


Is almost entirely incoherent, and no-one could be reasonably expected to think that it constituted the meaningful communication of a refusal to permit the publication of communications between Protium and yourself. I know it's a hard, harsh world, but my advice is to spend a bit of time writing shit coherently if you want to communicate something. It isn't anyone else's job to penetrate waffle and work out what the fuck you're vainly attempting to communicate, especially if it appears (as it did, in this instance) that you're trying to say something entirely unrelated. This is why English has shit like punctuation, subjects, clauses, prepositions and the rest. It's a pretty comprehensive toolkit that's free to use.

Second, I can't find any such thing as "the federal communications act 1998". There is the Telecommunications Act 1997, but that doesn't contain any such prohibition. It does prohibit carriage service providers from publishing personal details and communications of their customers, but that doesn't apply in this instance because the AFA and Protium aren't carriage service providers. No part of the Act says anything like "Privately run discussion boards and/or their officials aren't allowed to make public private communications between them and other people". Indeed, it's pretty firmly established in legal precedent that if you are a participant in a discussion, you can do whatever the fuck you like regarding making public or keeping private the contents of that discussion... and so can anyone else involved in that discussion. This is why doctors have had to ensure that patient confidentiality is a recognised legal right - to prevent legal coercion being brought to bear and making them reveal shit that they shouldn't be made to reveal. It's also the basis of legal defense of sources for media, a fundamental fucking right and responsibility that needs to be constantly protected from legal challenge and erosion.

I love it when people wave spurious claims about the law around.

Now, you might be able to make a case that Protium publishing the communications between the two of you was less than entirely classy and honorable (if that's what you chose to do) but given the fucking hissy-fits and attempts at bullying (which is what waving spurious claims about the law is) I don't think you'll do very well in that regard either.

I say all this, of course, as simply an onlooker. I'm not a mod, I'm not a member of the board, I don't even know if there is a board (aside from this discussion board, of course). I'm just the drunk standing in the corner watching stupid shit happening and giggling to himself. And here's a possibly telling fact: I've been drinking since 11:25am, it's now 6:15pm, and I still make more sense than anything I've seen you post.

And you can't say I'm part of this protected clique you seem so determined to maintain exists, since I've hardly even been here except for the last couple of weeks. Most people here wouldn't fucking know me if they fell over me.

Oh no, I just don’t even know where to start pulling pretty well your whole post down, also from experience spending time trying to educating the drunk in the corner has always seemed a pointless exercise to me. Maybe best you call last drinks sir, I will get you a cab.

Let me just say two things


1/ Read the last line of your post then talk to me about correct gramma.


2/ This is part of the bigger problem people I have spoken with have stated to me. They are sick of being be-little or berated by members of this forum. I could not tell you how many times I have read posts where someone has been put down by other members because of their spelling, incorrect wording, incorrect pronunciation etc. I cannot read anywhere that a person has to have a set Mensa amount of gramma skill. I also fail to read anywhere that if your gramma is not up to the standards required of the self imposed select members you will be publicly berated. Please point me in that direction because I cannot find it. I always believed that being an atheist did not require a certain level of gramma, I thought it was available to everyone. And you wonder way a lot of members don’t post.


: P.S I never said you were part of any clique club! Maybe a paranoia problem there or maybe one to many drinks

[going to hell_apparently]

What's puzzling to me is that we're yet to see you explain your utterly inexplicable statement that you have never sworn at anyone on this forum when the evidence is there for anyone to read.

Well?
Praxis please read the posts before making statements

[Fearless]

Gotta love circular reasoning :rolleyes:

[Goldenmane]

Davo credit where credit is due, you appear to be a sensible person and are conducting yourself in the same way, enjoying the conversation with you.
As I stated in my rebuttal I administered a forum for around 2 years that averaged around 900 posts a day, my biggest problem was not with the punters it was with the mods, some where great others created most of the problems on the forum. But remembering that these people require no training, no interpersonal skills and no management skills, some of my mods were even simply kids. Besides a lack of time I grew tied of the childish problems and sold it.

Sooo... what, you ran a forum that you couldn't control, gave mod positions to kids you couldn't adequately administer, and then you at some stage decide to come here and chuck a fucking hissy-fit about shit that you can't support?

Word to the wise: If you think that mods need no training, need no examination of their people-skills, and so forth, then your venture is doomed to fail. It's not even the failure of the mods. It's the failure of your understanding of how to select mods. It is, simply, your fucking failure. You're the dude in charge, in the situation as presented, and it fell in a fucking heap. That's your heap, you clean it up. Don't just fucking sell it. Clean it up first... unless you don't have the skills to do so. But don't cry if the new owner calls in Shannon Lush and charges it to you, either.

[going to hell_apparently]

Their not real people what? And why are they lucky?

I have a friend who is studying phycology at uni and her major is core research is human interaction on the Internet. She told me during discussions a couple of months ago that her research and findings are (very brief) that people behaviour differently in chat rooms and forums than they do in real life. That as people perceive there are no consequences for their actions i.e. you can shot someone on the Internet. They behave in a manor different to how they are in life; they take on an almost fake persona (unlike a real person).

Why lucky, well imagine for a moment that everyone that threatened someone over the Internet actually carried out that threat. Imagine a young man who bravely states over the internet that "he is going to blow up a building" however when he leaves the sanctuary of his bedroom cyber world, can not commit to the real world consequences. Why are they lucky should be “we are lucky”

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

As a forum administrator/moderator of a forum with only 30 members in it and not very active at the moment, you may think I am not very qualified to doing the job. But let me tell you right now that there are some logical things involved with being an admin.

As I stated in my rebuttal I administered a forum for around 2 years that averaged around 900 posts a day, my biggest problem was not with the punters it was with the mods, some where great others created most of the problems on the forum. But remembering that these people require no training, no interpersonal skills and no management skills, some of my mods were even simply kids. Besides a lack of time I grew tied of the childish problems and sold it.First of all, as an admin, you should realize that you have the power to demote moderators to ordinary users whenever they cause problems. Second of all, you obviously did not pick your moderators wisely, given you assume they do not need any training/interpersonal skills/management skills - they should show them to you before you pick them. On the forum that I administer there is only one mod - and she happens to be the wife of other admin (and owner) - new mods will be needed only if the forum gets more active or bigger.

Also if you cannot control your forum, it will control you. In this case, you ended up selling it because you had poor control over your forum.

I have recently had problems with users putting spam in their signatures, and I have devised a solution to that problem: a graduated moderation scheme. If you have a problem, find a solution instead of acting crybaby and giving up in the first shot. In your case, you should have picked your mods more carefully and on an "on-demand" basis instead of letting a bunch of kids be moderators.

In the end all of this relates to how you manage your entities and assets.

[Goldenmane]

I have a friend who is studying phycology at uni and her major is core research is human interaction on the Internet. She told me during discussions a couple of months ago that her research and findings are (very brief) that people behaviour differently in chat rooms and forums than they do in real life. That as people perceive there are no consequences for their actions i.e. you can shot someone on the Internet. They behave in a manor different to how they are in life; they take on an almost fake persona (unlike a real person).

Ok... so your friend who is studying mushrooms at uni told you that some people are cowards, and therefore you don't have to spend any time checking your spelling because we're all cunts. But fake cunts. Who wouldn't have the balls (cunts have balls?) to actually point out that "you can shot someone on the internet" doesn't make the slightest bit of sense even to a drunk cunt like me. I'll remind you: I've been drinking since 11:25am. You'd think I'd have given up and descended into incoherence by now, yeah? Sorry, still not drunk enough to think you're talking sense.

Edit: oh, sorry... I confused phycology with something else, probably mycology. Oops. Doesn't make phycology mean anything though.

[going to hell_apparently]

With all due respect, you did end up posting a barrage of abuse in reply to Seamus when all he was trying to say was to provide evidence of your claims or shut up. That was all he was saying. And what did you do? You decided to have a hissy fit and post a barrage of abuse as opposed to providing the evidence.

And people are allowed to "swear at you" (since "swearing" is no such thing) as they are allowed to do at me.

And besides, what is swearing anyway?

Love how you all have changed what seamus said to read "shut up" instead of "shut the fuck up", there is a massive difference. If he has simply told me to shut up I would not have taken anywhere the level of offensive and quite frankly we would not be having this conversation.

Oh sorry, I was unaware that you are the persons who decides what people can say and what they cannot say to each other, I always thought it was the church, silly me.


Let me correct you swearing at someone is not acceptable and I think you will find many references in common law that pertain to offensive language. Please test it out by going up to the next police officer you come across and telling him to fuck off, or tomorrow (assuming you’re a professional) go and tell the receptionist to “fuck off” or one of your companies clients to do the same or better still walk into your boss’s office tomorrow and let him have the full 4 letter dictionary, let me know how you go.

[Fearless]

If your boss copped a 'four letter dictionary' and was worthy of his/her position in his/her role, I doubt very much he/she would swear back at you... he/she would simply be showing you the door.

There is a difference.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Love how you all have changed what seamus said to read "shut up" instead of "shut the fuck up", there is a massive difference. If he has simply told me to shut up I would not have taken anywhere the level of offensive and quite frankly we would not be having this conversation.Can you explain to me what the difference is? Perhaps the "the fuck" in the middle is a bit of emphasis?

He said (in the EXACT WORDS) "either provide some evidence of your accusation or shut the fuck up." - and that is NOT the same as a plain old "shut the fuck up" is it? He was saying "provide evidence of your accusation or shut the fuck up" instead. That means provide some evidence for your accusations, or don't speak.

Oh sorry, I was unaware that you are the persons who decides what people can say and what they cannot say to each other, I always thought it was the church, silly me.Yes, silly you! It was the bloody church! They are the same loudmouth fuckwits who tell us not to "blaspheme" or "swear" and try and control our speech by telling us what we can and cannot say.


Let me correct you swearing at someone is not acceptable and I think you will find many references in common law that pertain to offensive language.Why isn't it acceptable? When did it become illegal for me to say "fuck" then? Provide references please.

Please test it out by going up to the next police officer you come across and telling him to fuck off, or tomorrow (assuming you’re a professional) go and tell the receptionist to “fuck off” or one of your companies clients to do the same or better still walk into your boss’s office tomorrow and let him have the full 4 letter dictionary, let me know how you go.Please if you end up in court go up to the judge and go "Get lost you freak!" or (if assuming you're a professional) go and tell the receptionist to "shut that stupid mouth of yours" and tell me how you went.

[Goldenmane]

Love how you all have changed what seamus said to read "shut up" instead of "shut the fuck up", there is a massive difference. If he has simply told me to shut up I would not have taken anywhere the level of offensive and quite frankly we would not be having this conversation.

Oh sorry, I was unaware that you are the persons who decides what people can say and what they cannot say to each other, I always thought it was the church, silly me.


Let me correct you swearing at someone is not acceptable and I think you will find many references in common law that pertain to offensive language. Please test it out by going up to the next police officer you come across and telling him to fuck off, or tomorrow (assuming you’re a professional) go and tell the receptionist to “fuck off” or one of your companies clients to do the same or better still walk into your boss’s office tomorrow and let him have the full 4 letter dictionary, let me know how you go.
Rule fucking #3.

Oh, and if I chose to spend a bit of time I could find the ruling that stated that saying "fuck off" to a police officer wasn't a criminal offense. Oh, and further, I tell my boss to fuck off on a semi-regular basis. Haven't been fired yet, might have something to do with my boss not being a fucking moron.

[going to hell_apparently]

So . . . just so I've got this straight . . . Were you asserting that a moderator edited the two posts I was referring to?

If so, your assertion needs to explain away the basic forum functionality that clearly indicates who edits a post. (The body of each post indicates that it was you who edited them both at 7:02PM on the 17th April.)

If you did edit out your initial posts, did you do this 'in protest' or something? If so - in protest of what?

BTW - am I a member of the clique? :cool:

. . . but . . . have you provided the requested details of the posts in question?

Ah atrax wondered when you would turn up. No I made that quite clear to protium that I deleted the text from the last two posts and I have never stated or suggested otherwise I believe I even stated that to you when you asked me why I did. Protium simply asked me as he was going through the logs if I was also referring to the last two posts.

You know what I cannot answer you in regards to if I was protesting. I guess in away I was, I was claiming my words back, but before you all start carrying on, I put no thought into it, I have not really thought about it

"BTW - am I a member of the clique? :cool:" Funny you should say that

[going to hell_apparently]

Like Kitty chasing her tail when she was little... never ceases to amuse, or to make the kitty dizzy.

But whos having the most fun you or kitty. :rolleyes:

[going to hell_apparently]

Sooo... what, you ran a forum that you couldn't control, gave mod positions to kids you couldn't adequately administer, and then you at some stage decide to come here and chuck a fucking hissy-fit about shit that you can't support?

Word to the wise: If you think that mods need no training, need no examination of their people-skills, and so forth, then your venture is doomed to fail. It's not even the failure of the mods. It's the failure of your understanding of how to select mods. It is, simply, your fucking failure. You're the dude in charge, in the situation as presented, and it fell in a fucking heap. That's your heap, you clean it up. Don't just fucking sell it. Clean it up first... unless you don't have the skills to do so. But don't cry if the new owner calls in Shannon Lush and charges it to you, either.

I don’t know why I’m arguing with a drunk fool but anyway here goes.

Bad administration you say:

Not that it’s any of you business however.

I started a forum in 2005 from scratch within two years I had over 125,000 members posting on average around 900 posts a day give or take. The forum made approximately $1900.00us a month in advertising. So a sensible person may ask why sell it, well in short I have several businesses and the time it ended up taking me to administer did not justify the returns. We I set it up it was just a hobby however through lets say "good administration management" it grew to well beyond the time I could allow. I ended up selling it to an American company for just over $100,000us.

Now lets go back and read your educated comments shall we. Again I say I don’t know why I’m arguing with a drunk fool

[going to hell_apparently]

Wow, I can't wait to hear what the judge says when this goes to court. lol.

Will you be there ??

[davo]

hope this helps

Actually i realise you don't know what you are talking about with internet law.
After parsing your inability to quote, i would love to see the law you refer too.
You may have run a forum, so what.
I run a number of services on the net for activists around the world, i have dealt with open publishing systems that are true anonymous with systems custom built on encrypted partitions, i have dealt with the AFP over stuff like this with people stalking and posting death threats and misinformation or whistleblowing.
You name it.
I have had dealings on copyright with billion dollar industries here in australia, i have dealt with information released on indonesian companies that equate to our coles ...
So when you claim bullshit over someone posting a PM you sent them, even if you ask them not to post it all over the web, and say i should be more up with the law, i can say quite categorically, my bullshit meter is going apeshit.
By all means pass the law reference over, by all means update me on the privacy act.
But if you are going to infer someone is breaking the law you better know your Shit.
So go on, post your evidence regarding this, rather than slander.
I'd be interested to see how deep you can dig.

[davo]

Darn phone ... Hard to write properly on it forgive me :)
You get the gist anyway.
Keep digging :)

[going to hell_apparently]

ha ha.. This is a pisser.. The poster is a shape shifter. I've been watching the IP change and have received emails from someone "who dropped gtha home after a meet up and is helping gtha to sort out the bad AFA atheists?" from the same IP..

I'm sorry but this is pathetic.. get your ghost writer to come up with better shit your not making sense..

Make a fucking rational claim, sue me or fuck off!

Can I tell you about my little Dog that has short legs but can't talk?

** Hi to all the facebook users watching.. I hope your as embarrassed about "your friend" as we are...**

Now what's on TV? hopefully some guys having anal sex. I love that I love shit on my cock

Hi Chrys.. Love you mate.


I have no idea what hell this post is supposed to mean. I think someone has lost the plot, little help here, maybe Davo you can help me make sense of this, look forward to hearing back from you can private message me. Maybe this is just a lame attempt to discredit me ??? Goldenmane I don't see your posts to protium in regards to his gramma, consistency please

[davo]

Um you didn't message me silly.
I am quite happy discussing this in public anyway :)
Oh the interwebz, it does not fail to amuse.

[going to hell_apparently]

If your boss copped a 'four letter dictionary' and was worthy of his/her position in his/her role, I doubt very much he/she would swear back at you... he/she would simply be showing you the door.

There is a difference.

My point exactly fearless. Not sure if you agreeing with me, little worried if you are

[going to hell_apparently]

Rule fucking #3.

Oh, and if I chose to spend a bit of time I could find the ruling that stated that saying "fuck off" to a police officer wasn't a criminal offense. Oh, and further, I tell my boss to fuck off on a semi-regular basis. Haven't been fired yet, might have something to do with my boss not being a fucking moron. beacuse im really a unemployed uneducated deadshit

rofl there you go

[going to hell_apparently]

What has algae got to do with this?

sorry am I bad? auto correct, I did not proof read

[Goldenmane]

I don’t know why I’m arguing with a drunk fool but anyway here goes.

Bad administration you say:

Not that it’s any of you business however.

I started a forum in 2005 from scratch within two years I had over 125,000 members posting on average around 900 posts a day give or take. The forum made approximately $1900.00us a month in advertising. So a sensible person may ask why sell it, well in short I have several businesses and the time it ended up taking me to administer did not justify the returns. We I set it up it was just a hobby however through lets say "good administration management" it grew to well beyond the time I could allow. I ended up selling it to an American company for just over $100,000us.

Now lets go back and read your educated comments shall we. Again I say I don’t know why I’m arguing with a drunk fool

Nor do I. I have no idea whatsofuckingever why you choose to argue with a drunk fool... who spells better, has better grammar, and all-round communicates better and is willing to support his claims. You claim "good administration management" allowed it to grow beyond your ability to administer. That's not good administration management. That's being fucking retarded. I don't care if you made a bundle out of it or not, that doesn't demonstrate anything about you being really intelligent, it just means you managed to sell shit to someone.

Selling shit isn't a reflection of awesomeness. It means you found someone more gullible than you.

Oh, yeah, I'm not a fool, I'm a cunt. Get it right.

[going to hell_apparently]

Fuck.. I'm lost.. who's turn is it :)

I dont know but I am having a lot of trouble keeping up, no time to correct mistakes, must type faster

[going to hell_apparently]

Why do I have trouble believing any of this... ummmmm..

Without disclosing any "private" information, what was the forums focus? how large was the database with 125,000 members and 900 posts a day?, what forum software did you use?

I have heard almost the same specs from another friend in QLD as well.. must be big business up there.

Formula 1

[going to hell_apparently]

finally court up, thank you everyone, lines men, ball boys etc, going to bed, a lot of work to get done tomorrow.

[loubert]

Oh, yeah, I'm not a fool, I'm a cunt. Get it right.


GQO1qZD5lek


;););)

[Fearless]

My point exactly fearless. Not sure if you agreeing with me, little worried if you are

Nope, I think you missed the point TBH. I was reflecting on your actual response to Seamus by behaving and swearing the way you did compared to how a competent boss would most likely behave in your example to Croc.

[Fearless]

GQO1qZD5lek


;););)

Useless fact #447: The lead singer of TISM was my English teacher in year 9.

[Goldenmane]

I don’t know why I’m arguing with a drunk fool but anyway here goes.

Bad administration you say:

Not that it’s any of you business however.

I started a forum in 2005 from scratch within two years I had over 125,000 members posting on average around 900 posts a day give or take. The forum made approximately $1900.00us a month in advertising. So a sensible person may ask why sell it, well in short I have several businesses and the time it ended up taking me to administer did not justify the returns. We I set it up it was just a hobby however through lets say "good administration management" it grew to well beyond the time I could allow. I ended up selling it to an American company for just over $100,000us.

Now lets go back and read your educated comments shall we. Again I say I don’t know why I’m arguing with a drunk fool

What was the name of this forum? URL? In short: evidence to support your claims, please. I find it difficult to believe that someone who can't take the time to spell could run a site that could rival craigslist and I wouldn't hear of it.

[davo]

Who cares?
I haz forum i haz skillz?
Lol :)
Ok Lets start a pissing contest.
I haz mirror of uk Indymedia when anti terrorist police confiscated it.

Your turn.

[going to hell_apparently]

What was the name of this forum? URL? In short: evidence to support your claims, please. I find it difficult to believe that someone who can't take the time to spell could run a site that could rival craigslist and I wouldn't hear of it.

Let me get this right because you have not heard of it, it does not exist. And that if a forum had 125,000 you would know about it.

Sorry to correct you all wise all knowing but as a simple example of size, here is a forum that a group of us go to for healthy debate. http://www.christianforums.com (http://www.christianforums.com/)

A simple forum that I am guessing you have never heard of, take a quick look at the membership numbers.

[Seamus]

In all seriousness, I agree that Seamus response that you're talking about was crude and inappropriate. Indeed I find myself disagreeing with probably 90% of what Seamus says or how he says it, although I seldom bother to vocalise that.
Crude? Certainly, and intentionally so, precisely because I thought it was appropriate in the circumstances. Virtually all of the posts from what's-his-name since have validated that belief in my opinion.

90% eh? How interesting to learn your opinion of my posts is so much higher than mine of yours. :D

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

. My crack about paranoia was uncalled for and insensitive. Meant as teasing, it was not my intention to make an accurate observation,which apparently I did.



I have actually told people in real life 'to shut the fuck up' having lived in army barracks for 2 years. That was considered provocative,but not overly offensive. The tirade of abuse I received from what's-his-name would have earned the offender a king hit.

An observation of behaviour: I am fully aware that I can be an old cunt and a wanker. Age and level of personal insight seem to be differences between me and GTHA. That makes him a fool in my book. A character flaw I know,but I don't suffer fools.I've bunged him on ignore.

@GTHA:In case you don't understand what that means:I can no longer see anything you post.

Indifference is far greater insult than open hostility.

[going to hell_apparently]

And that's where you frequently go wrong.

Would you be surprised to hear that some posters on this thread are regular readers, and at least one is a participant?

Anyway, nice try at distraction.

Don't take me out of context black, I would have given you more credit.

As for the second part I don't understand your point

[going to hell_apparently]

Let me get this right because you have not heard of it, it does not exist. And that if a forum had 125,000 you would know about it.

Sorry to correct you all wise all knowing but as a simple example of size, here is a forum that a group of us go to for healthy debate. http://www.christianforums.com (http://www.christianforums.com/)

A simple forum that I am guessing you have never heard of, take a quick look at the membership numbers.

Sorry someone messaged me with details of a forum they belong to with 1,757,480,060 members (would love 5% of the advertising revenue),
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/index.php
so in the scheme of things my forum was quite small goldenmane would surely have known about this one

[davo]

Sorry to correct you all wise all knowing but as a simple example of size, here is a forum that a group of us go to for healthy debate. http://www.christianforums.com (http://www.christianforums.com/)

meh, c'mon you attend a really large forum?

lol I am on heaps of them bigger than that. Over 1 million Members just on the Ubuntu forum ya nong. You think the above is big? lol

Mate, this forum is run and owned by a registered association with paying members, you do realise that? It's not just an open forum, it's the members forum, that is open to visitors. They pay for it with their dues, the mod team is answerable to the committee, and the committee to the members.

If you have a real problem with the moderation in our association, by all means approach the AFA committee about it with your particular grievances. But otherwise you are just throwing stuff out there with claims with no evidence, and when people do their best to tell you that is just not so then go to the trouble to list all the changes in the mod queue because you start going off. It get's a bit tiring and hurtful your claims that are only just that, claims.

Only Protium and myself could possibly clean the logs and fiddle with it to hide said edits and deletes .. and I don't think Protium would know where to begin with trying to edit the database other than thru the control panel, which is logged itself so I would know, your basically saying I am part of some conspiracy to edit your posts, and not only that but the whole mod team is in on it supressing this info.

Sorry, but I really couldn't give a shit about you I don't know you nor CARE, the honest truth. I wouldn't go to the bother of spending the time trying to do it I have no reason too. I just couldn't be bothered.

So if you look at what you are doing from the perspective of people that just know it is not true, it's laughable. The sad thing is you are just doing like what fundies do .. if you throw enough mud hopefully some will stick.

[davo]

Sorry someone messaged me with details of a forum they belong to with 1,757,480,060 members (would love 5% of the advertising revenue),
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/index.php
so in the scheme of things my forum was quite small goldenmane would surely have known about this one

What is your point? really? I offered the chance to start a pissing match, let's do it.

But how this justifies you cracking a wobbly and making all these accusations using anecdotal evidence is just childish.

[going to hell_apparently]

meh, c'mon you attend a really large forum?

lol I am on heaps of them bigger than that. Over 1 million Members just on the Ubuntu forum ya nong. You think the above is big? lol

Mate, this forum is run and owned by a registered association with paying members, you do realise that? It's not just an open forum, it's the members forum, that is open to visitors. They pay for it with their dues, the mod team is answerable to the committee, and the committee to the members.

If you have a real problem with the moderation in our association, by all means approach the AFA committee about it with your particular grievances. But otherwise you are just throwing stuff out there with claims with no evidence, and when people do their best to tell you that is just not so then go to the trouble to list all the changes in the mod queue because you start going off. It get's a bit tiring and hurtful your claims that are only just that, claims.

Only Protium and myself and anyone else that gets access/hack into the c/panel, could possibly clean the logs and fiddle with it to hide said edits and deletes .. and I don't think Protium would know where to begin with trying to edit the database other than thru the control panel, which is logged itself so I would know, your basically saying I am part of some conspiracy to edit your posts, and not only that but the whole mod team is in on it supressing this info.

Sorry, but I really couldn't give a shit about you I don't know you nor CARE, the honest truth. I wouldn't go to the bother of spending the time trying to do it I have no reason too. I just couldn't be bothered and I no that if I do everyone will see that I lied and look like a dick head.

So if you look at what you are doing from the perspective of people that just know it is not true, it's laughable. The sad thing is you are just doing like what fundies do .. if you throw enough mud hopefully some will stick.

Take the legal action Davo, get your mods to stop sending me private emails telling me that they have filed the court documents (although you need to inform them that a slander case is not heard in the magistrates court it is heard in the Federal Court) and actually take the action, lets test it in court. I'm calling you! File the documents.

[Fearless]

I hope I didn't do it in my sleep!

[Praxis]

You, jointly and severally, GTHA, are an outright liar.

This is not a word I use lightly.

Proof is required immediately of these alleged emails from "a mod" about pending court action.

Bring it on, publicly, or check back into the psych unit, you lunatic.

[davo]

Take the legal action Davo, get your mods to stop sending me private emails telling me that they have filed the court documents (although you need to inform them that a slander case is not heard in the magistrates court it is heard in the Federal Court) and actually take the action, lets test it in court. I'm calling you! File the documents.

You are not quite all there are you? It's getting tiring.

I passed you the associations phone number, you can talk to the President himself if you so wish and the Committee will review your 'evidence'.

http://www.greatestvideolinks.com/img/n-nutcase.jpg

[davo]

I just replied to two of his PM's CC'd to all mods.

[Praxis]

Read and received, Davo.

I will also publicly go on record that I have had no private dealings with this member nor any sock puppets posting from the same IP.

[Fearless]

It seems a few mods are taking action according to GTHA. Pretty amazing considering we are all here wasting time with you yet again comfortably denying it.

I hope you have a ladder long enough to get out of that hole you are digging before someone gets tired of the stench and starts shovelling the shit back in.

Or is it that you realise you have gone too far and now going for broke?

Trolling perhaps.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

S(he) still hasn't bothered answering any of my questions (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=75930&postcount=128) let alone posted the URL to the forum s(he) supposedly administered before losing the plot and selling it as a result.

[Praxis]

This is either nothing but a smokescreen, designed (by others) to distract and detract the AFA generally, or GTHA is genuinely delusional and needs psychiatric help stat.

I confess I'm actually 50/50 on which is the truth.

[davo]

This is either nothing but a smokescreen, designed (by others) to distract and detract the AFA generally, or GTHA is genuinely delusional and needs psychiatric help stat.

I confess I'm actually 50/50 on which is the truth.

Well, you know you are doing something right when this is the only way they can 'attack you'

lol.

I wouldn't worry about it, just some loony going off, it was fun for a while, now just tiring.

[atheist echo]

Who had a dummy spit ???? I didn’t spit the dummy did you? Maybe it was protiums who blocked me? Maybe it was seamus.

Let me explain something to Fearless that Davo kind of alluded to the other day.

IN THE REAL WORLD

A group of us are at (lets say for argument sake) a bar. I am talking to you about something that is bugging me and a bloke who we don’t know walks up and tells me to "shut the fuck up". Now everyone is different you may chose to wack him others may not, you may chose to make a complaint to the manager you may not, you may simply walk away. The point is that for a person to walk up to someone they don’t know and make an offensive comment to them there are consequences. The offended person is able to decide on a course of action they wish to take to give themself some level of retribution to satisfy themself.

THE CYBER WORLD

AAHHHH The brave new world were even 10 years can safely abuse people, make threats against them. A world where a person who is even frightened of his own shadow in public can become the terminator. Abuse people at will, threaten people at every turn, all with no real life consequences or more to the point no real life pain. So the choices for the same act in the real world committed in the cyber world for a person who is told to "shut the fuck up" do not apply here. In the real world if you are one of the many people here that have meet me you would have no doubts that seamus would ever tell me to "shut the fuck up" but in the cyber world the real world rules don’t apply.

Therefore as I have really no real (world) retribution against seamus, I calmly wrote a post that even for my standards was very offensive (and I have worked with the night club and in the legal fraternity for quite some time), but that was the point. You all need to take a look at it with a more open mind, a more cyber thinking Patten, don’t apply real world behaviour to a cyber world, you will only confuse the real issue.
I disagree with your conspiratorial accusations but I can agre with what you said here. It isn't advisable to tell soemone to "shut the fuck up!" in the real world. WhatI dislike about the Cyber world is that it brings about behaviour that people would not have the courage to do int eh real world. Who here would have the guts to go up to a stranger in a conversation and tell them to "shut the fuck up!"? No takers?
However, I do believ that your profanity filledresponse GTHA was a definite over reaction....

[atheist echo]

And GTHA the accusations you have made are serious, concrete ones. It's also not advisable to make these without PROOF.

From your various posts it sems like hearsay...:eek:

[Goldenmane]

Let me get this right because you have not heard of it, it does not exist. And that if a forum had 125,000 you would know about it.

Sorry to correct you all wise all knowing but as a simple example of size, here is a forum that a group of us go to for healthy debate. http://www.christianforums.com (http://www.christianforums.com/)

A simple forum that I am guessing you have never heard of, take a quick look at the membership numbers.

Heh. Never heard of it? I was there yesterday, for fuck's sake. Not signed up, not taking part in a discussion, but I was there, watching the nine billionth iteration of "Religious people cannot reason".

[Logic]

I disagree with your conspiratorial accusations but I can agre with what you said here. It isn't advisable to tell soemone to "shut the fuck up!" in the real world. WhatI dislike about the Cyber world is that it brings about behaviour that people would not have the courage to do int eh real world. Who here would have the guts to go up to a stranger in a conversation and tell them to "shut the fuck up!"? No takers?
However, I do believ that your profanity filledresponse GTHA was a definite over reaction....

Let's put the 'shut the fuck up' back into the original context:
"@going to hell_apparently, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, either provide some evidence of your accusation or shut the fuck up. "

It was strong language for a common saying, 'put up or shut up'. Different from just telling someone 'to shut the fuck up'.

[atheist echo]

Let's put the 'shut the fuck up' back into the original context:
"@going to hell_apparently, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, either provide some evidence of your accusation or shut the fuck up. "

It was strong language for a common saying, 'put up or shut up'. Different from just telling someone 'to shut the fuck up'.
Fair enough. And that's pretty much what I said in my follow up: provide proof. Like I said they were big accusations he was making...and still not a shred of evidence.

[Atrax Robustus]

Simply astounding! :confused:

All of this follows the original post where he/she recommended that we watch the Zietgeist vids and alluded that there might be something of value contained within the Christ Mythers' assertions! It's a pity that I hadn't quoted the original post now . . . at least I'd be able to recall the content (it all seems so looooong ago!)

And now it appears that I'm a member of the dreaded AFA clique because I called him/her on both counts.

Wow!

Just Wow! :eek:

EDIT: Quoting the post to which I am referring regarding clique membership. . . JIC.

Ah atrax wondered when you would turn up. No I made that quite clear to protium that I deleted the text from the last two posts and I have never stated or suggested otherwise I believe I even stated that to you when you asked me why I did. Protium simply asked me as he was going through the logs if I was also referring to the last two posts.

You know what I cannot answer you in regards to if I was protesting. I guess in away I was, I was claiming my words back, but before you all start carrying on, I put no thought into it, I have not really thought about it

"BTW - am I a member of the clique? :cool:" Funny you should say that

[Praxis]

Clique go the shears boys, clique clique clique ...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Clique go the shears boys, clique clique clique ...I could use a GI style haircut. Which way to the clique boutique?

[davo]

My biz partners hubby is a shearer, might be able to sort something out for ya croc, if he doesn't skin ya for boots ...

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

In that case, I will disguise myself as a god...

[Loki]

But which one? Choices, choices.

[davo]

I wanna be Quetzacotal (try spelling that on a phone keypad with autocomplete )

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Yahweh sounds BADASS!

[Annie]

I bags Athena. The daughter of Zeuss and the Virgin Mother of Greece! ROFL! :D:D

[Lord Blackadder]

Yahweh sounds BADASS!

How about this one?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Sobek.svg/150px-Sobek.svg.png

Sobek (also called Sebek, Sochet, Sobk, Sobki, Soknopais, and in Greek, Suchos (Σοῦχος)) was the deification of crocodiles, as crocodiles were deeply feared in the nation so dependent on the Nile River. Egyptians who worked or travelled on the Nile hoped that if they prayed to Sobek, the crocodile god, he would protect them from being attacked by crocodiles.The god Sobek, which was depicted as a crocodile or a man with the head of a crocodile was a powerful and frightening deity; in some Egyptian creation myths, it was Sobek who first came out of the waters of chaos to create the world. As a creator god, he was occasionally linked with the sun god Ra. (Thank you, oh great Wikipedia)

Badass enough for you? :D

[wolty]

Howdy AA. :)

I like this one..


Coyote (Southwestern Indians, but known in other areas as well)

A trickster, a clown. The creator and teacher of men. Like Loki, Coyote is always lurking about, causing trouble and playing pranks. To the Zunis, Coyote is a hero who set forth the laws by which men may live in peace. The Pomo Indians maintain that Coyote created the human race and stole the sun to keep them warm. The Montana Sioux say that Coyote created the horse.


Edit, I got it from this site First People (http://www.firstpeople.us/glossary/native-american-gods-northern.html) Scroll down and look on the left hand side of the page. Spooky.

[Loki]

Xipe Totec
Xipe Totec - Our Lord of the Flayed One
God of suffering and diseases and goldsmiths. His worship required the flaying of a slave and the wearing of his skin.

Yeeuuuuwwww! Bloody Aztecs.

This should be a thread, "Gods you have known and loved"

[Annie]

@Loki. Yup! This should be a thread. (A moment ago I had to check what thread this was). If it turns into one, I still bags Athena!! (There are lots of other virgins on the god list ladies - 251 in the wiki !!!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=1&search=virgin+goddesses&limit=20&offset=0

Howdy freaky town friends! :) *waves*

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

How about this one?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Sobek.svg/150px-Sobek.svg.png

Sobek (also called Sebek, Sochet, Sobk, Sobki, Soknopais, and in Greek, Suchos (Σοῦχος)) was the deification of crocodiles, as crocodiles were deeply feared in the nation so dependent on the Nile River. Egyptians who worked or travelled on the Nile hoped that if they prayed to Sobek, the crocodile god, he would protect them from being attacked by crocodiles.The god Sobek, which was depicted as a crocodile or a man with the head of a crocodile was a powerful and frightening deity; in some Egyptian creation myths, it was Sobek who first came out of the waters of chaos to create the world. As a creator god, he was occasionally linked with the sun god Ra. (Thank you, oh great Wikipedia)

Badass enough for you? :DHe's even more BADASS and I bet there is a secret thingo I could use to invoke him to stop all that war and nonsense. :D

[davo]

Personally i would prefer an experienced godess :)

[Loki]

Freaky

We need a mod. Call the Praxinator.

Actually they might not be able to chop up the Zeitgeist thread, apparently that's not allowed.

[davo]

Chaos, that thing between 0 and 1 that makes things interesting.

[loubert]

bags pan!

[Praxis]

bags pan!
You put that pan back or there'll be no omelette for breakfast!

[atheist echo]

Didn't this thread go off topic days ago? (and yes i played my part in that!)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

What we have is not a zeitgeist. What we have is a poltergeist.

[Praxis]

What we have is not a zeitgeist. What we have is a poltergeist.
Banned for invoking woo!

Oh hang on, wrong thread :D

[davo]

D.M. Murdock/Acharya S presents 105 pages of primary sources and the works of credentialed authorities backing up the first part of the original "ZEITGEIST" film. Includes a bibliography with over 150 sources, nearly 350 citations, and some 80 illustrations.

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf

This is the definitive Sourcebook for only for the first part - the religion part - of the first ZEITGEIST film, please note D.M. Murdock had nothing to do with the rest of the production by Peter Joseph.

I recommend those that have seen the film and all it's over the top representation of her work grab a copy of this, it is the most definitive break-down of the historical backgrounding of the work the film mashed together (in my interpretation).

[Atrax Robustus]

Link's not opening for me - which is probably fortunate. It'll prevent me from getting frustrated and spending ages writing a post bagging the references as woo. :mad:

[davo]

Link's not opening for me - which is probably fortunate. It'll prevent me from getting frustrated and spending ages writing a post bagging the references as woo. :mad:

yea she just uploaded it, so it's starting to be hit hard.

Bagging the references as woo? I am pretty critical of Zeitgeist, these references are interesting in regard giving a proper perspective on the historicity touched on .. for instance it clarifies the 25th december section with regard Horus, which the movie just states 'born the 25th'. (bolded is what the movie states, then the actual references as to where they got it. I think this really shows up Zeitgeist for the sensationalism it is)

12. Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows. Horus was born on December 25th….

It needs to be understood that the Egyptian stories were never ―laid out‖ in a linear form; rather, they appear in bits and pieces in primary sources such as the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts and Book of the Dead, compiled and altered over many centuries, beginning as early as 7,000 years ago. Thus, it is a common misconception that the myths unfold in the same linear manner as in the Christian narrative. Most of these motifs are indeed not linear narratives, but, rather, symbolic associations derived from different Egyptian texts, as well as later mythographers‘ accounts. Since this description of Horus here is obviously angled from the reference point of the Christian narrative, the subject needs to be deconstructed and reconsidered from the standpoint of each motif, rather than the overall narrative. The Christian story must, in turn, likewise be considered from the standpoint of each individual motif and not linearly, because this basic ―mythicist‖44 argument is that the Christian religion is a compilation of religious motifs which existed previously—and separately.

Obviously, the English term ―December 25th‖ did not exist in the ancient Egyptian calendar but simply refers to the winter solstice, which the ancients perceived as beginning on December 21st and ending at midnight on the 24th. We learn from one of the most famous historians of the first century, Plutarch (46-120 AD/CE), that Horus the Child—or ―Harpocrates,‖ as was his Greek name—was ―born about the winter solstice, unfinished and infant-like...‖45
Three centuries after Plutarch, ancient Latin writer Macrobius (395–423 AD/CE) also reported on an annual Egyptian ―Christmas‖ celebration (Saturnalia, I, XVIII:10):

…at the winter solstice the sun would seem to be a little child, like that which the Egyptians bring forth from a shrine on an appointed day, since the day is then at its shortest and the god is accordingly shown as a tiny infant.46
As Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov remarks: ―The symbol of the savior-child was the eye of the sun newly born every year at the winter solstice.‖47

Other indications of the Egyptian reverence of the winter solstice may be found in hieroglyphs, as Murdock relates:

As [Egyptologist Dr. Heinrich] Brugsch explains, the Egyptians not only abundantly recorded and revered the time of the winter solstice, they also created a number of hieroglyphs to depict it, including the image mentioned by Budge, which turns out to be the goddess-sisters Isis and Nephthys with the solar disc floating above their hands over a lifegiving ankh—the looped Egyptian cross—as the sun‘s rays extend down to the cross symbol. This image of the sun between Isis and Nephthys, which is sometimes depicted without the ankh, is described in an inscription at Edfu regarding Ptolemy VII (fl. 145 BCE?) and applied to the winter solstice, translated as: ―The sun coming out of the sky-ocean into the hands of the siblings Isis and Nephthys.‖ This image very much looks like the sun being born, which is sensible, since, again, Harpocrates, the morning sun, was born every day, including at the winter solstice.48

44 The ―mythicist position‖ or ―mythicism‖ posits that many if not most of the ancient gods, goddesses and godmen, as well as various heroes and legends, are not ―real people‖ but mythical figures. This perception may include not just the Greek and Roman gods, for example, who are presently viewed as myths by mainstream scholarship and the lay public alike, but also many biblical figures, including Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
45 Plutarch, ―Isis and Osiris‖ (65, 387C); King, C.W., 56; Plutarch/Babbitt, 153.
46 Macrobius/Davies, 129. The original Latin of this paragraph in Macrobius is: ―…ut parvulus videatur hiemali solstitio, qualem Aegyptii proferunt ex adyto die certa, quod tunc brevissimo die veluti parvus et infans videatur…‖ (Murdock, CIE, 89.)
47 Mojsov, 13.
48 Murdock, CIE, 94.


She has gone thru what the movie claims and then her actual references and the other references that it cherry picked from, which the movie fails to put forward .... it was a total sensationalist work I totally agree, and dislike it immensely actually once I started looking into it's claims.

I think however the information is a lot more accurate to the reality of the bodies of work and a very interesting read.

[Atrax Robustus]

Still can't access it.

Davo, anything written by Ms Murdock earns rapid derision on my part. I suspect that if I could open the paper, I'd be presented with the same pre-19th century primary references and numerous citations that simply don't stand up to scrutiny or refer to one or another of her own books.

Mythers are almost as hard to reason with as creationists. Acharya is to christmyth as Dr Dino is to creationism..

[owheelj]

This topic should be moved from "science and reason" to somewhere else, since it's neither.

[Atrax Robustus]

This topic should be moved from "science and reason" to somewhere else, since it's neither.

An astute observation - although IIRC you aren't the first to have raised this apparent anomaly.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Sounds like a "General Chit-chat about Atheism" subject to me.

[Atrax Robustus]

Appreciate the quandary Mr B. I think this has been raised before and the general concensus was that shooting down a conspiracy theory belonged in S&R. The supporting evidence for the bible based parts of zeitgeist however would qualify for creation of a debunking topic. P'raps OT is appropriate, cos it soesn't fit 'any of the above'.

[owheelj]

Hooray, the system works :D

[Seamus]

Glad it was moved,I'd prefer such a thread was simply locked very early ..

Some propositions and broad ideas are so off the wall they may be dismissed out of hand. Zeitgeist is one of them. It's one of those topics best suited to the mental pygmies who think Dan Brown is a profound scholar.:p

PS: apologies for the politically incorrect term 'pygmies'

[davo]

Whereas I totally agree with regard Zeitgeist, I think much of the historical aspects are very interesting, there are a lot of good references from diverse sources that clearly show parallels to myth constructions with no call for a progression between myths, simply parallels. I am and have stated when brought up that linking into a conspiracy type "timeline" is ridiculous. I gave the 25th december date as an example, which Zeitgeist puts forward as running on from the Egyptian myth, which in fact was around ~350CE Pope Julius set this up to 'take over' Saturnalia.

I think people reading the material sources need to also be looking at other sources and cross referencing, I agree ... having read quite a bit of this type of stuff over the past year I kind of take it for granted a lot of the similarities myths have between them, without attributing that to a linear eqyptian sun god --> jesus. There are simply similarities in all myths that are extremely interesting.

Readers of folk such as Dan Barker will also see he mentions this myth similarity, I am pointing this out as there is a definite similarity in how myths evolve, and elements of them. As to direct influence of one myth on another that is simply impossible to claim in most circumstances, however there is definitely influence such as what I have mentioned in regard christianity subverting the pagan festival.

[Troy Geri]

Hi,

I just read thru this thread, I am sorry you guys had to put up with such rubbish. Someone who is such an obvious liar doesn't have any warrant in attaching the word christian to them at all. The guy deserved everything he got...

[Xeno]

That was nice.

[Centauri]

Go fuck yourself, you fucking cock head, who the fuck are you to tell me to shut the fuck up. what would you know about private conversation I and several others have been having with other people including moderators about this issue. You fucking moron.

I think he took the news well :)

P.S. The guy had atrocious spelling :(

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Centauri... that post has been dealt with already, and it's over and done with.

I don't think it really needs or deserves another mention, and it's quite late to bother with it now.

Let forum-based bygones be forum-based bygones unless it has relevance to what is happening now I say.

----------------

Now I have a question for Troy Geri - now that the "debate" has finished, which I forgot about until now.

Someone who is such an obvious liar doesn't have any warrant in attaching the word christian to them at all.Are you suggesting they're "not true christian" by any chance? Tell me Troy, what is a "true christian" according to you, and how do you know you are right? In fact, what makes you any better than the individual you are referring to?

[riddlemethis]

Hi,

I just read thru this thread, I am sorry you guys had to put up with such rubbish. Someone who is such an obvious liar doesn't have any warrant in attaching the word christian to them at all. The guy deserved everything he got...

No! Real christians engage in much subtler forms of deception, right?

[Troy Geri]

Centauri... that post has been dealt with already, and it's over and done with.

I don't think it really needs or deserves another mention, and it's quite late to bother with it now.

Let forum-based bygones be forum-based bygones unless it has relevance to what is happening now I say.

----------------

Now I have a question for Troy Geri - now that the "debate" has finished, which I forgot about until now.

Are you suggesting they're "not true christian" by any chance? Tell me Troy, what is a "true christian" according to you, and how do you know you are right? In fact, what makes you any better than the individual you are referring to?

Hi - I don't think I am any better than anyone really, we all have to give an account for our own actions and be responsible where we have not done the right thing. I suppose the only thing I would say is that those like the individual referred to in this thread would fail to reflect on their actions and would either continue in their behaviour without any acknowledgement of wrongdoing or regret. They would also usually prefer to take the easy way out, not be willing to grow and accept consequences. That again, probably does not make me any better, just highlights a point of difference. I personally believe that what builds character is how someone responds to a situation, especially if it one that would be easier to simply run away from.. Thanks for your time Croc..

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Hi Troy,

Whilst of course, the individual at hand was doing something wrong, I was wondering why that makes him/her any less deserving of the "christian" title. Who deserves the "christian" title then?

[Seamus]

Hi Troy,

Whilst of course, the individual at hand was doing something wrong, I was wondering why that makes him/her any less deserving of the "christian" title. Who deserves the "christian" title then?

Croc,would you like to explain the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy" to Mr Perfect? I can't be bothered.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Seamus: as usual someone else has done it for me (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/)
_HJrAaGJudw?border=1&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000

[Troy Geri]

Croc,would you like to explain the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy" to Mr Perfect? I can't be bothered.

I am far from perfect Seamus.. where did I claim that?

I don't see the merit of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Using the same logic then, any atheist who did something "unpleasant" or "distasteful" would not be able to be dismissed as being not representative of atheists ?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

He'd still be an atheist, Troy, but not a representative of all atheists. It's exactly the same situation with a "good samaritan" style atheist. He'd be an atheist, but not a representative of all atheists.

But they are still "true" atheists and still deserve the title atheist, because they don't have any religion and as such, do not believe in the supernatural. That's all there is to atheism really.

[Troy Geri]

Hi Troy,

Whilst of course, the individual at hand was doing something wrong, I was wondering why that makes him/her any less deserving of the "christian" title. Who deserves the "christian" title then?

Basically. their ongoing behaviour. From what I have experienced, those who I have met that are committed to trying to following the principles laid out in the bible are genuinely remorseful where they have strayed from that and this is then evidenced by a clear change in that area..

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Basically. their ongoing behaviour. From what I have experienced, those who I have met that are committed to trying to following the principles laid out in the bible are genuinely remorseful where they have strayed from that and this is then evidenced by a clear change in that area..You mean they burn witches, stone adulterers, own slaves, rape others, mass murder non-believers, commit genocide against those who are not white, lie4jesus, eat their own children, etcetera?

[Troy Geri]

He'd still be an atheist, Troy, but not a representative of all atheists. It's exactly the same situation with a "good samaritan" style atheist. He'd be an atheist, but not a representative of all atheists.

But they are still "true" atheists and still deserve the title atheist, because they don't have any religion and as such, do not believe in the supernatural. That's all there is to atheism really.

Fair point Croc, however, going back to the definition that was given, it said, that a member of a group (so let's postulate atheism as a group with a shared point of view) tries to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting no true member of the group would do such a thing. If this argument holds it means atheists for example should not be able to avoid being associated with any unpleasant act done by those who claim to belong to the group, "atheists:".

I don't think that would be a fair argument to apply to either atheists or christians

[Troy Geri]

You mean they burn witches, stone adulterers, own slaves, rape others, mass murder non-believers, commit genocide against those who are not white, lie4jesus, eat their own children, etcetera?

No - when I say principles, I'm talking about mainly the Mosaic Law (i.e. Ten Commandments) and the principles Jesus taught such as making use of unique talents given to each of us, for my daughter for example, this would mean music and literature.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Fair point Croc, however, going back to the definition that was given, it said, that a member of a group (so let's postulate atheism as a group with a shared point of view) tries to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting no true member of the group would do such a thing. If this argument holds it means atheists for example should not be able to avoid being associated with any unpleasant act done by those who claim to belong to the group, "atheists:".

I don't think that would be a fair argument to apply to either atheists or christiansIf you talk to an atheist about a mass murderer, and apparently he says "I don't believe in god" and if the atheist goes "no true atheist would do such a thing" then you can mention the No True Scotsman fallacy. It works both ways mate. Again: an atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in any gods. More specifically, according to AFA standard definition, the acceptance that there is no credible evidence for the supernatural, and thus no belief in such a thing.

But apparently many christians love doing this. Whenever a christian does something nasty, especially if it's in the name of jesus, or even reverts to atheism, then apparently he was never a true christian in the first place according to them.

No - when I say principles, I'm talking about mainly the Mosaic Law (i.e. Ten Commandments) and the principles Jesus taught such as making use of unique talents given to each of us, for my daughter for example, this would mean music and literature.What are the principles? Where do you get these ideas that you can follow one thousandth of the bible, and ignore the other 999/1000 of the bible?

Judging by this, I can say I am a Christian because even though I do not believe in any gods, I do not steal. I follow the "Thou shalt not steal" portion of the bible, which sounds quite reasonable to me, and therefore am a christian.

[Troy Geri]

If you talk to an atheist about a mass murderer, and apparently he says "I don't believe in god" and if the atheist goes "no true atheist would do such a thing" then you can mention the No True Scotsman fallacy. It works both ways mate. Again: an atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in any gods. More specifically, according to AFA standard definition, the acceptance that there is no credible evidence for the supernatural, and thus no belief in such a thing.

But apparently many christians love doing this. Whenever a christian does something nasty, especially if it's in the name of jesus, or even reverts to atheism, then apparently he was never a true christian in the first place according to them.
.

You're entitled to that view Croc but I still don't see the merit of the view. Basically it means anyone can claim to be a member of anything and then cast aspersions on the group of a whole by their ongoing conduct even if it flies in the face of everything that group stands for, I just don't buy that, there has to be good evidence that the person truly holds the views of the group they are clainming membership of and if there is a set of common beliefs, lives mostly according to them and pulls themselves in line when they don't..


What are the principles? Where do you get these ideas that you can follow one thousandth of the bible, and ignore the other 999/1000 of the bible?

Judging by this, I can say I am a Christian because even though I do not believe in any gods, I do not steal. I follow the "Thou shalt not steal" portion of the bible, which sounds quite reasonable to me, and therefore am a christian.

I would say the things I referred to are the fundamental principles of the bible, not 1/1000th of it. In the christian faith, it is not our actions alone that make us a christian, because no one ever lives up to the moral laws I pointed out perfectly and hence fall short of God's standard. It is acknowledging you can't keep the law perfectly, seeking His forgiveness and then trying to live a life that honours Him.. I know you don't hold this view but I am just clarifying the way I believe the bible calls it..

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

You're entitled to that view Croc but I still don't see the merit of the view. Basically it means anyone can claim to be a member of anything and then cast aspersions on the group of a whole by their ongoing conduct even if it flies in the face of everything that group stands for, I just don't buy that, there has to be good evidence that the person truly holds the views of the group they are clainming membership of and if there is a set of common beliefs, lives mostly according to them and pulls themselves in line when they don't..Are you yourself truly compliant with the highlighted statement? As far as I am concerned, you don't seem to be like one who would burn witches, stone adulterers, or sell your daughter(s) to slavery. These are the views of your group. How do I know this? Because it is all in the bible which is the basis for your religion.

I would say the things I referred to are the fundamental principles of the bible, not 1/1000th of it. In the christian faith, it is not our actions alone that make us a christian, because no one ever lives up to the moral laws I pointed out perfectly and hence fall short of God's standard. It is acknowledging you can't keep the law perfectly, seeking His forgiveness and then trying to live a life that honours Him.. I know you don't hold this view but I am just clarifying the way I believe the bible calls it..So then by that, one can easily be a mass murdering genocidal ultra-maniac who has nothing better to do than ruin other peoples' lives, and when he/she acknowledges falling short of your god's standard, he/she is forgiven. I don't see the point in the bible being full of all those pages about the burning witches, stoning adulterers, slavery, etc then.

[Troy Geri]

Are you yourself truly compliant with the highlighted statement? As far as I am concerned, you don't seem to be like one who would burn witches, stone adulterers, or sell your daughter(s) to slavery. These are the views of your group. How do I know this? Because it is all in the bible which is the basis for your religion.


No I don't agree these things are the basis for my religion. In fact Jesus intervened to prevent an adulteress from being stoned and said he who is without sin cast the first stone. Slavery was observed in the bible but not necessarily endorsed as it was never a book on politics. And to further this point of view William Wilberfoce who launched the principal assault to end slavery did it on the basis of his christian beliefs. In the 1600's it was christian like Thomas Ady and John Wagstaffe that argued against the belief in attributing "evil events" to superstitious casues such as witches and so forth and argued strongly from the bible that this was a false teaching. This is consistenht with the way Jesus responded to so called sorcery, He reached out to them that they might come to source of true power.


So then by that, one can easily be a mass murdering genocidal ultra-maniac who has nothing better to do than ruin other peoples' lives, and when he/she acknowledges falling short of your god's standard, he/she is forgiven. I don't see the point in the bible being full of all those pages about the burning witches, stoning adulterers, slavery, etc then.

Apart from being speculative, I would say that very few so called mass murderers would genuinely repent over their action and breaking of God's laws in the worst possible way and go on to surrender their lives fully to God.

On the other side of the coin, if the atheist view is correct, then the same mass murderer who is never caught and convicted and laughs that he has gotten away with it, will simply end his life and never be held to account. Under the christian faith He will be righteously judged and held to account, as will we all..

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

No I don't agree these things are the basis for my religion. In fact Jesus intervened to prevent an adulteress from being stoned and said he who is without sin cast the first stone. Slavery was observed in the bible but not necessarily endorsed as it was never a book on politics. And to further this point of view William Wilberfoce who launched the principal assault to end slavery did it on the basis of his christian beliefs. In the 1600's it was christian like Thomas Ady and John Wagstaffe that argued against the belief in attributing "evil events" to superstitious casues such as witches and so forth and argued strongly from the bible that this was a false teaching. This is consistenht with the way Jesus responded to so called sorcery, He reached out to them that they might come to source of true power.I wonder, Troy, have you read (at least) the last item of the list I linked to you? I am not referring to the stories in general; I am referring to the detailed instructions your god offers to christians.

Apart from being speculative, I would say that very few so called mass murderers would genuinely repent over their action and breaking of God's laws in the worst possible way and go on to surrender their lives fully to God.

On the other side of the coin, if the atheist view is correct, then the same mass murderer who is never caught and convicted and laughs that he has gotten away with it, will simply end his life and never be held to account. Under the christian faith He will be righteously judged and held to account, as will we all..All one has to do is ask for forgiveness, and all the sins will be forgiven. Including such mass murders. Is there any verses which say you need to have remorse for your sins when asking for forgiveness? If so, please cite or list them.

Oh and apparently you guys have to murder non-believer as mandated in the bible.

[Xeno]

I would say the things I referred to are the fundamental principles of the bible, not 1/1000th of it. In the christian faith, it is not our actions alone that make us a christian, because no one ever lives up to the moral laws I pointed out perfectly and hence fall short of God's standard. It is acknowledging you can't keep the law perfectly, seeking His forgiveness and then trying to live a life that honours Him.. I know you don't hold this view but I am just clarifying the way I believe the bible calls it..Troy, I have had difficulty getting an answer to the following question in the past. Perhaps you can help.

Is all of the bible true, to be taken literally? If some parts of the bible are symbolic or reinterpretable, or some parts not the word of god but human error, then how do you determine which part falls into which category please? What are your rules for these decisions?

[Troy Geri]

I wonder, Troy, have you read (at least) the last item of the list I linked to you? I am not referring to the stories in general; I am referring to the detailed instructions your god offers to christians.


With respect, I'll respond to arguments put to me but not links to another article. You've seen my response, about both what Jesus taught thru His example and the stand christian believers have taken to overthrow these very things


All one has to do is ask for forgiveness, and all the sins will be forgiven. Including such mass murders. Is there any verses which say you need to have remorse for your sins when asking for forgiveness? If so, please cite or list them.


Oh and apparently you guys have to murder non-believer as mandated in the bible.

Yes - I'll cite the references because that is exactly what it teaches when you read the verses in the entirety of the chapter and not some verses just plucked out in isolation which is the very way the media behaves and tries to distort truth.

I'll do this tonight as I have to get back to some work I am doing this afternoon

I don't see christians going around murdering any non believers Croc, so we must all disagree with you, again, historical and cultural context need to be considered when interpreting scripture..

I'll get back to you later tonight mate..

[Troy Geri]

Troy, I have had difficulty getting an answer to the following question in the past. Perhaps you can help.

Is all of the bible true, to be taken literally? If some parts of the bible are symbolic or reinterpretable, or some parts not the word of god but human error, then how do you determine which part falls into which category please? What are your rules for these decisions?

Hi Xeno,

Thanks for the question and it is a very good one deserving of a thorough answer, give me a day to provide you with a considered response. I'll try and get back to this at some point tomorrow. Cheers

[robertkd]

On the other side of the coin, if the atheist view is correct, then the same mass murderer who is never caught and convicted and laughs that he has gotten away with it, will simply end his life and never be held to account. Under the christian faith He will be righteously judged and held to account, as will we all..

Now that's an assumption yes I would consider that the person who commits such a deed and "gets" away with it so to speak effectively gets away scott free if they were never found out before they die. However to consider that there is a so called judgement is only a belief, indeed your belief and one used to propagate most religions for instance Osiris. I expect none of us will be judged death is just the end.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

...again, historical and cultural context need to be considered when interpreting scripture..No problem. I think I understand now. Fred Phelps and his family, the abortion doctor murderers, the crusaders, those people in the Phillipines who nail 16 year olds to the cross in order to commemorate the death of Jesus and those pastors who abuse others, and the Hillsong Church (ripping money off their members) have all got it right.

[Seamus]

No - when I say principles, I'm talking about mainly the Mosaic Law (i.e. Ten Commandments)

Oh dear,another one. "Mosaic Law" or simply "The Law" consists 613 commandments (Mitzvah),known collectively as 'mitzvot. Christians formally recognise ten,although some are inordinately fond of citing Leviticus regarding homosexuality.

Jesus is recorded as specifically admonishing his followers to keep the law.However, Paul changed that requirement, making it easy for gentiles to join what had been a strictly Jewish sect.

That you do not grasp or agree with a commonly accepted logical fallacy does not invalidate it,but merely demonstrate your ignorance.


00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000

MOSAIC LAW


The 613 Mitzvot (Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language): תרי"ג מצוות‎: Taryag Mitzvot, "613 commandments"; Biblical Hebrew: Miṣwoth) are statements and principles of law and ethics contained in the Torah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah) or Five Books of Moses. These principles of Biblical law are sometimes called commandments (mitzvot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitzvot)) or collectively as the "Law of Moses" (Torat Moshe, תורת משה), "Mosaic Law", or simply "the Law" (though these terms are ambiguous and also applied to the Torah itself).
Although there have been many attempts to codify and enumerate the commandments contained in the Torah, the traditional view is based on Maimonides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides)' enumeration. The 613 commandments are either "positive commandments" to perform an act (mitzvot aseh) or "negative commandments" to abstain from certain acts (mitzvot lo taaseh). There are 365 negative commandments, corresponding to the number of days in a solar year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_year), and 248 positive commandments, ascribed to the number of bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone) and significant organs in the human body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Commandments#cite_note-0) Though the number 613 is mentioned in the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud), its real significance increased in later medieval rabbinic literature, including many works listing or arranged by the mitzvot.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Commandments

JESUS AND THE LAW

Matt:5 (FNT) (http://www.faithfulbible.com/nt/Matt5.htm#17)
17 Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one dot-of-an-"i" or cross-of-a-"t" will not pass away from the law, until all come to pass.
Luke 16 (FNT) (http://www.faithfulbible.com/nt/Luke16.htm#17)
17 But it is easier that heaven and earth pass away than for one cross-of-a-"t" to fall from the law.

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/law.html

[Brother Nelson]

With respect, I'll respond to arguments put to me but not links to another article.

C'mon Croc, haven't the last few days taught you anything? the preferred method is to cut and paste from the original article.:p

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

He said he won't respond to links to another article. He did not say he won't respond to the linked article itself. I be waiting.

In fact, I want to see if he can answer this thread by Xeno too.

[Vicarious]

Hi All,

First off I hope that this is the right place for this thread, however if not could a moderator please shift this to the right sub-section, thanks.

Now I ran a search and didn't find a thread pertaining to the Zeitgeist documentary's directly, and although I'm sure many in this community would have previously either seen or heard of them I thought I would start a thread to bring it to the attention of those who have not.

I would love to hear some opinions on these documentary's both positive and negative. In particular relevance to us in the Atheist community, the first of the series which in the first approx 35min systematically attacks religion. The rest of this instalment deals with 9/11 and the reserve bank which I will hold my opinion on here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Ya5qiiW6k&playnext=1&list=PL2549EB5238981CA6&feature=results_video

The other two films (Zeitgeist Addendum & Zeitgeist moving forward) were also great in my opinion, although they both have a more politically oriented approach.

Being a sceptic I found these documentary's great, mainly because they forced me to investigate the claims and evidence put forth as I am not about to take it as gospel (:p) just because it appeals to my way of thinking. And although I do not agree with everything I found these to be very interesting and thought provoking.

A warning, these are quite long the shortest being about 2hrs so you might need to devote time to watch them, if you choose to.

Looking forward to hear some opinions, and on a side note a big hello! to everyone who I did not meet in the welcome area :).

[Praxis]

are those things still doing the rounds?

IIRC there's a dedicated thread to those tinfoil hat films. I'm sure a kindly mod will find it and merge.

From memory, the first part is nothing new (how xtianity stole blatantly from other much older mythology) and the rest is the sort of stuff that Truthers love so dearly (was it blame the Jews or something? the great banking conspiracy? Can't remember).

I never bothered to see part 2. I was quite excited when I first saw it but felt a lot better when I read the thorough debunking of it.

[Praxis]

Mods! Mop and bucket to aisle 5!

Meanwhile, schnitzels are on sale in the deli, three for $10.

[Vicarious]

Whoops sorry guys, I did run a search but I guess it I need to get a stronger prescription for my glasses :headbang:, either that or go to bed earlier.

Well, so much for first impressions :rolleyes:.

[EvilDRMike]

Mods! Mop and bucket to aisle 5!

Meanwhile, schnitzels are on sale in the deli, three for $10.

Cool 3 for $10 that's great!

EDM

[Mjt]

Cool 3 for $10 that's great!

EDM

Free range organic?

[EvilDRMike]

Free range organic?

Unlikely, still a good deal though.

EDM

[Mjt]

Unlikely, still a good deal though.

EDM

Yeah I suppose. And once you Parma 'em up you can't tell the difference