1951
Philip Nicholls
Ammunition
27/07/2006 22:24:00
I have an article by Kurt Wise, the only creationists with a Ph.D in
Paleontology, essentially admitting that transitional fossils do exist
and that they are good evidence for macroevolution.
I can email the article to anyone who wants it. It's a pdf file.
"We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He
used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural
universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We
cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the
creative processes used by the Creator." Duane Gish, from Evolution!
The Fossils Say No! showing us why scientific creationism is an
oxymoron.
1952
Roger Stanyard
Re: Animal Rights Fundamentalists
28/07/2006 11:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> I've just watched a "debate" on animal rights terrorism on
Newsnight.
> It was reminiscent of the religous fundamentalist thing.
I watched a Channel 4 documentary about AR activists about 5 years
ago. They came oover as nasty bits of work then. None of 'em seem to
understand political compromises. They had already got much of what
they wanted and were about to get fox hunting banned.
Worse still, their attitude towards people appeared vile (some game,
I guess, that the fundies frequently play). Methinks that they are
their own worse enemies. We get them here in Winchester in the High
Street from time to time but their stands don't attract anything as
much attention as, quite frankly, the should.
In a sense they've got a point. Chicken farming, for example, is
disgusting in the UK.
Unfortunately, the movement looks to be run by a violently minded
clique; human nature being what it is leads the rest of the world to
assume that the whole movement is like that.
From the stuff I read up some five years ago, it does seem that their
scientific rhetoric has long been well-honed (it doesn't make them
right, though) and they are not easy people to argue/debate with.
Roger
1953
Marc Draco
(OT: Acadamies) Merton Parent Defeated: for technical reasons!
28/07/2006 12:24:00
I know this is slightly off topic, but some readers are interested in
this subject: and shows how our elected representatives are railroading
our rights to make themselves a fat wallet.
http://tinyurl.com/ejbfz
1954
Roger Stanyard
Re: (OT: Acadamies) Merton Parent Defeated: for technical reasons!
28/07/2006 13:20:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> I know this is slightly off topic,
I'm not sure at all that this is off-topic. It's more ammunition for
our case!
Seems to me a clear case of what should be a major issue subject to
public debate amongst the interested parties has been seriously
stitched up. It's very smelly.
Roger
1955
Roger Stanyard
Re: Ammunition
28/07/2006 13:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Philip Nicholls <pan762@...> wrote:
>
Hello Phil,
Methinks the article could prove to be very useful ammunition; would to
like to post it to this group's file folder?
I haven't yet said welcome to the group, so welcome.
I see you are doing some very good work beating up our Banana Bender
friend Applebottie over at CED. Ask him what he thinks about university
graduates and why he kept his daughter away from university.
As you know, fundies don't like education.
Roger
1956
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Ammunition
28/07/2006 13:32:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Philip Nicholls <pan762@...> wrote:
> Hello Phil,
>
> Methinks the article could prove to be very useful ammunition; would to
> like to post it to this group's file folder?
>
> I haven't yet said welcome to the group, so welcome.
Hi Phil, nice to see you again.
> I see you are doing some very good work beating up our Banana Bender
> friend Applebottie over at CED. Ask him what he thinks about university
> graduates and why he kept his daughter away from university.
Because universities brainwash their students and because he was never
accepted.
1957
Philip Nicholls
Re: Re: Ammunition
28/07/2006 13:54:00
>
Hello Phil,
Methinks the article could prove to be very useful ammunition; would to
like to post it to this group's file folder?
I haven't yet said welcome to the group, so welcome.
I see you are doing some very good work beating up our Banana Bender
friend Applebottie over at CED. Ask him what he thinks about university
graduates and why he kept his daughter away from university.
As you know, fundies don't like education.
Roger
How did you get personal information from him?
This group is only open to "evolutionists" correct?
Can I post it here without copyright issues?
I'll email it to anyone who wants it.
1958
Roger Stanyard
Re: Ammunition
28/07/2006 14:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Philip Nicholls <pan762@...> wrote:
>
>>
> How did you get personal information from him?
>
> This group is only open to "evolutionists" correct?
>
> Can I post it here without copyright issues?
>
> I'll email it to anyone who wants it.
The group is by invitation only; Alan Bellis set the rule and I have no
reason to change it, so, basically, there are no fundies here. I
suppose techniclly there is a problem with copyright (I forgot about
that) but if the paper were "accidentally" emailed to me, I would have
a very big smile on my face.
Apparently Applebottie has opened up in the past about himself - he's
been around for a generation pushing his regurgiquotes in various
forums. As far as I am aware he is a retired chicken farmer living in
Queensland, Australia amd has a daughter. I have been unable to find
any connections between him and the two fundie outfits based in
Queensland - Creation Ministries International (ex-AiG) and Creation
Research.
IIRC he has an odd belief that a giant meteor/comet crashed into the
Pacific Ocean and caused the Noachian flood or something like that.
Roger
1959
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Ammunition
28/07/2006 15:05:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> The group is by invitation only; Alan Bellis set the rule and I have no
> reason to change it, so, basically, there are no fundies here.
Except for Nick Cowan the chemistry school teacher, but he merely
provides the occasional laugh.
> As far as I am aware he is a retired chicken farmer living in
> Queensland, Australia amd has a daughter.
Another reason he doesn't like universities? They have revolving doors.
I am serious.
> I have been unable to find
> any connections between him and the two fundie outfits based in
> Queensland - Creation Ministries International (ex-AiG) and Creation
> Research.
There aren't. He merely brought the "little red book".
> IIRC he has an odd belief that a giant meteor/comet crashed into the
> Pacific Ocean and caused the Noachian flood or something like that.
Essentially, yes. Ask him to explain his view on the "ring of fire" in
the Pacific *cheeky grin* Oh and if you do, tell him I say hello and
that the term "Australopithecus africanus" does not mean Raymond Dart
knew it was an ape when he proposed it as a hominid...
1960
oeditor
Re: Ammunition
28/07/2006 15:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> Another reason he doesn't like universities? They have revolving doors.
>
> I am serious.
>
He'd better not team up with Andy McIntosh then - Leeds has a Newton's
Lift - scary even for secularists ;-)
Where is this Bluebottle to be found, btw?
Brian
1961
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Ammunition
28/07/2006 22:51:00
oeditor wrote:
> Where is this Bluebottle to be found, btw?
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/debunkingevolutionism
and please don't insult bluebottles:-)
1962
Marc Draco
More trouble for academies
28/07/2006 23:13:00
Report warns of failings in £5bn city academies
Concerns over behaviour and results
http://tinyurl.com/eqbm4
1963
oeditor
Re: Ammunition
29/07/2006 00:20:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> oeditor wrote:
>
> > Where is this Bluebottle to be found, btw?
>
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/debunkingevolutionism
>
> and please don't insult bluebottles:-)
>
Give me strength, and come back Bluebottle, all is forgiven - we'll
pull you out of the water [Goon reference - oh, how sane they were
when I were a lad].
I suppose I'm duty-bound [he said smugly] to look at these
invertebrates, but not tonight - my poorly-designed back's hurting too
much. All power, though, to the elbows of those of you who are taking
them on.
Brian
1964
Roger Stanyard
Re: More trouble for academies
29/07/2006 09:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Report warns of failings in £5bn city academies
> Concerns over behaviour and results
>
> http://tinyurl.com/eqbm4
Marc,
I've just sent the following reply to the Yorkshire Post:
What would be interesting to know is the impact of academy schools
run by extreme religious fundamenalist on the subsequent performace
of their students in science courses at university. Some academy
colleges such as Trinity teach that creationism (that the world was
created 6,000 years ago, evolution is scientifically and morally
wrong, etc..) is valid science.
Already Leeds University, one of the best in Britain, has had to
introduce cumpulsory courses to undo the damage caused by this hocus
pocus. Leicester University has already taken this route.
Why is this problem not being mentioned in official government
reports on academy schools?
How many students have failed their A levels or degree courses
because of the efforts of fundamentalists in academy schools?
Have the academies offered compensation to the individuals involved?
1965
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: More trouble for academies
29/07/2006 09:33:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> How many students have failed their A levels or degree courses
> because of the efforts of fundamentalists in academy schools?
I doubt many because the fundies also teach the curriculum to the letter
, equipping the students to parrot back what the examiners expect to see
written.
1966
Roger Stanyard
Re: More trouble for academies
29/07/2006 09:39:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > How many students have failed their A levels or degree courses
> > because of the efforts of fundamentalists in academy schools?
>
> I doubt many because the fundies also teach the curriculum to the
letter
> , equipping the students to parrot back what the examiners expect to
see
> written.
Let's hope that this is the case. Still, the actions of Leeds
University seem to suggest that it is a growing problem. Steve Jones at
UCL has given anecdotal evidence that it is a problem there as well.
Roger
1967
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: More trouble for academies
29/07/2006 09:44:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Still, the actions of Leeds
> University seem to suggest that it is a growing problem.
It is a problem in terms of actual acceptance of evidence as opposed to
mechanical regurgitating.
> Steve Jones at
> UCL has given anecdotal evidence that it is a problem there as well.
Do not forget Islamic fundies in University London's medical school.
1968
Mikey Brass
Fundie beliefs
29/07/2006 09:45:00
So far we have been concentrating on "Christian" fundamentalism here but
Islamic fundamentalism in schools is just as much of a problem, if not
more. The medical schools appear to be more affected by the latter than
the former.
1969
oeditor
BBC admits fundies political
30/07/2006 01:03:00
BBC News 24 "Reporters" has just broadcast (about 0:30 Sunday) a
report on USA end-time nutters. Based about the current Israel
nightmare, but showing that the nutters are keen to stir up Bedlam to
provoke Armageddon. Political acts to promote religious ends. Except:
they ended up claiming that some of the Armageddonists aren't (even?)
Christians. Now whatever sort of nutcases are they?
I've no idea whether this can be found online, but if anyone can spot
it, it's well worth recording and quoting from.
Brian
who despite everything, couldn't really believe they could be as mad
as that :-((
1970
Roger Stanyard
Re: BBC admits fundies political
30/07/2006 07:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> BBC News 24 "Reporters" has just broadcast (about 0:30 Sunday) a
> report on USA end-time nutters.
The irony of this is that it was these end-time nutters
(dispensationalists) who originally got me really concerned about
fundies. Dispensationalism is widely believed in the USA. The outfit
that brought it to my attention was Middle East TV. IIRC this was
originally a CBN operation (CBN being one of the big televangelical
channels in the USA) based in South Lebanon and transmitting into
Israel. It got kicked out and moved to Cyprus.
There is an article on it on my blog at
http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
Basically its aims were political; to get more Jews into Israel so
more would be converted (or killed) at the end time, to stir up shit
in the Middle East (to provoke the end-time) and to proselytise. The
scarry think we found was that some of the dispensationalists
appeared to be pushing for an American invasion of Saudi Arabia
because there is a ban on building Christian churches there. They,
literally, wanted the USA to go to war so they could get into the
country.
The work that I did is now out of date but if you dig around there is
a lot of dispensationalism on the religious TV channels in Europe in
which the Americans are involved.
IIRC the biggest selling "finction" books in the USA in recent years
have been the "Left Behind" series which are basically end-
time/dispensationalist crapola.
Roger
1971
oeditor
Re: BBC admits fundies political
30/07/2006 11:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> BBC News 24 "Reporters" has just broadcast (about 0:30 Sunday) a
> report on USA end-time nutters. nutcases are they?
>
> I've no idea whether this can be found online, but if anyone can spot
> it, it's well worth recording and quoting from.
>
I belatedly found out that it was scheduled for a repeat on Sunday,
10:30. I watched at about 10:50 but it was just "ordinary" news. It's
supposed to come on again at 2:30 this afternoon. I'm not sure if I
can set my VCR to record direct from cable. I'll try, but perhaps
someone else might like to have a go too. If it appears, that is.
Brian
1972
oeditor
Re: BBC admits fundies political
30/07/2006 11:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> IIRC the biggest selling "finction" books in the USA in recent years
> have been the "Left Behind" series which are basically end-
> time/dispensationalist crapola.
The even have them for children! I skimmed one, and it's just
low-grade sf with a religious basis. All the good people disappeared,
eg while flying aeroplanes with predictable consequences. If it had
been - say - any critical group of professionals who disappeared, it
would have been straigh sf. I didn't read far enough, though, to see
if the religion got spread a lot thicker towards the end.
Brian
1973
oeditor
Re: BBC admits fundies political
30/07/2006 14:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
> It's
> supposed to come on again at 2:30 this afternoon. I'm not sure if I
> can set my VCR to record direct from cable. I'll try, but perhaps
> someone else might like to have a go too. If it appears, that is.
>
It appeared, and I hope I've recorded it - you never can be sure with
VCRs! The fundie bit was shorted than I expected - I thought I'd
missed a fair bit of it.
I'll watch it again and make a few notes - probably tomorrow.
Meanwhile, the person saying that some End-timers weren't xians was an
RC anti-abortionist, trying to disassociate from them.
Brian
1974
Roger Stanyard
Re: BBC admits fundies political
30/07/2006 15:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, the person saying that some End-timers weren't xians was an
> RC anti-abortionist, trying to disassociate from them.
>
To put it bluntly I'm not sure that any fundamentalist or end-timer is
a Christian as I understand the meaning of the term. Everybody is aware
of my opinion that fundamentalists lie; out of necessity, habitually
and repeatedly. That's not my understanding of what it means to be a
Christian at all.
I must admit I am still smarting from being told that I lie by Nick
Cowan - of course my request for evidence went unanswered. Which
supports my position of course!
Seems to me that one of the props that fundies have is that because
they believe they were born in the image of God and have been born
again that they are little gods in their own right. It saves a lot of
soul searching when it comes to be not telling lies.
The fundie equation seems to be: I'm right therefore I can't lie;
you're wrong therefore you must lie.
I look forward to your report with interest Brian!
Roger
1975
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: BBC admits fundies political
30/07/2006 15:36:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> I must admit I am still smarting from being told that I lie by Nick
> Cowan
I have been in this business for six and a half years. For a lengthy
period, I would remain upset or at least agitated if I was lied to or
accused of lying. However, with experience, you will learn to literally
shrug off such ignorance and focus on the core issues by hammering away
in return.
1976
oeditor
Re: BBC admits fundies political
30/07/2006 15:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> To put it bluntly I'm not sure that any fundamentalist or end-timer is
> a Christian as I understand the meaning of the term.
Is Osama bin Laden a Muslim? Extremists of both persuasions ultimately
derive their inspiration from their scriptures. Less violent adherents
of their religions claim that the madmen are not their
co-religionists. Not because they really think that, but because they
can't bear to admit that their scribblings, taken at face value, are
so nasty. Goodness, that would be admiting that their deities may not
be quite so benign after all!
Brian
1977
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: BBC admits fundies political
30/07/2006 16:15:00
On 30 jul 2006, at 16:53, oeditor wrote:
> Goodness, that would be admiting that their deities may not
> be quite so benign after all!
Remember that every self-appointed "moderate" muslim ever interviewed
over the past ten years, anywhere in the world (with the exception of
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but then she isn't a muslim any longer), has stated
that Islam is especially respectful and caring with women.
Except when they leave the kitchen, of course. Or wish to preserve the
capability of enjoying sex. Or want to marry somebody they personally
care for. Or...
The muslim discrimination against women appears to be ultimately
founded in the anecdote of Muhammad not taking kindly to his male
visitors in Medina taking an interest in some of his wives. Of course,
this may well prove to be apocryphal, as may everything else about his
existence or personal history...
____________________________
Rudy Vonk
Oviedo, Spain
<rudy@mores.es>
+34 607 354100
You can't always want what you get
____________________________
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1978
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: BBC admits fundies political
30/07/2006 23:28:00
> To put it bluntly I'm not sure that any fundamentalist or end-timer is a
Christian as I understand the meaning of the term.
Don't make the mistake of conflating modern day touchy feely "christianity"
with the actual religion of the bible Roger.
The usage of the word christian that you are alluding to - the whole "love
thy neighbour" beard and sandles thing - is an invention of the last hundred
years at most. Christianity has been just as blood thirsty and evil for most
of it's existance as islam. Remember that Jesus is supposed to have said "I
do not come to bring peace, but the sword".
>That's not my understanding of what it means to be a Christian at all.
You need to read some more of that holy book Roger - lying, cursing,
cheating, incest, murder and rape are all A-OK if it's being done to the
enemies of bible god.
What most people consider "Christian" in this day and age is anything but -
it's basically humanist morality with some supernatural elements of
reincarnation and a santa-clause like notion of an afterlife. In contrast,
true biblical christianity is morally repugnant to the majority of modern
people.
The quite absurd thing for me is not that it's the fundies (both in islam
and christianity) who are actually following the religion "properly". The
more moderate ones are choosing to ignore parts of their holy books, and
accept that human society can provide a higher moral authority than god, and
yet, oddly, these moderates are considered to represent the true religion
more than the fundamentalists...
Ian.
1979
Andrew
Re: Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 02:09:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Lowe
> Don't make the mistake of conflating modern day touchy feely
> "christianity"
> with the actual religion of the bible Roger.
> The usage of the word christian that you are alluding to - the whole "love
> thy neighbour" beard and sandles thing - is an invention of the last
> hundred
> years at most. Christianity has been just as blood thirsty and evil for
> most
> of it's existance as islam. Remember that Jesus is supposed to have said
> "I
> do not come to bring peace, but the sword".
[Etc]
Your post conflates early tribal stuff with Christianity as it began to
develop about two thousand years ago.
The earlier Judaic writings were accepted by the developing Christian
church, but two factors need to be taken into account here:
1) The Judaic writings show developments and adjustments. I'd agree with
you when you contrast them with ideas we now find more humane, but they
can't be taken en bloc as a summary of accepted notions at the time that
Christianity was developing. In particular the Prophetic tradition had
questioned many of the assumptions of Judaic nationalism.
2) Jewish thinking contemporary with the rise of Christianity and after
shows developments that are more in line with modern ideas and values.
The repugnant things you've instanced in your email do occur in parts of the
traditional writings accepted by both Judaism and Christianity, and
obviously that shouldn't be glossed over. But accepting everything in the
tradition as being right and valid doesn't follow. The occurence of such
things in texts regarded as sacred has been a problem solved in a variety of
ways throughout Christianty's history.
The simple way has been to regard all this as something primitive in Judaism
superseded by the development of Christianity. (Of course that overlooks
the fact that Judaism didn't cease with the rise of Christianity, and more
recent Judaism has its own ways of accounting for these aspects of its
history.) And as we know, some contemporary fundamentalists want to go back
to the most basic tribal attitudes.
There have been other solutions, of which typology and allegory (as one of
four levels of interpretation, and so on) are salient ones.
The Gospels select aspects of the Judaic traditions, and quoting one single
passage like "I do not come to bring peace, but the sword" is inadequate as
a summary of the complex weaving of different strands of attitude. But one
thing all the early Christian traditions agree on is that Jesus didn't
regard the `kingdom' as a political power issue.
Early Christianity didn't take very long to revert to power and violence.
The Docetism heresey and the violence it gave rise to is a prime example, if
I remember rightly. And even during the time the `New Testament' writings
were developing we have the aggression and revenge of the Apocalypse, where
all the suppression, martyrdom and so forth that wasn't resisted by violence
wells up. But overall the Christianity depicted in the writings that became
included in the New Testament doesn't embody the particularly repugnant
aspects of the much older tribal traditions you referred to. That took a
little longer to well up and burst out.
Yes, modern Christianity isn't historically the same as early Christianity.
But nor is early Christianity quite as you've presented it. Nor, either, is
the Judaic tradition necessarily characterised by the things you've referred
to, despite their inclusion in their sacred writings.
In the final analysis I don't agree that the fundamentalists represent the
early form of Christianity - much as they themselves would like to think
they do. Some of them hark back to attitudes that early Christianity didn't
feel happy about - e.g stoning. Others seem closer to the early church
because they model themselves on it, but the fact is that attitudes that
were natural in that period of history and in that culture have to be
self-consciously adopted now, so there's a massive difference despite the
apparent similarity.
Basically, yes, the writings we conveniently refer tio as the `Bible'
contain much that modern readers swould rightly find repognant. But we need
a scholarly and complex perspective on why those writings occur as they do
and in what context. The fundamentalists often fall into the trap of
interpreting those writings naively because they've repudiated Biblical
scholarship and substituted their own logic-chopped mix-and-match version.
But we as more responsioble people than that need to treat the complexities
of facts with more care than that.
1980
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 07:41:00
This thread has degenerated into ignorant religious bashing. This is
precisely what is *not* needed. Quit it or risk isolating those very
people you need to *help* stop the spread of Christian fundamentalism.
1981
Roger Stanyard
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 08:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
Chaps and Chapess's,
We have to lay off the religion bashing. It diverts attention and is
not within the group's remit. Much as we all have views, for and
against, on the matter, it's far too big a subject to discuss in this
forum.
The fundies have been shouting for years that creation science has
nothing to do with religion; it's thus one of our great strengths that
we can turn this against them and force them to just talk science where
they are weak and we are strong.
We are weak on religion so we shouldn't use it as a weapon. That
applies even if everyone in this group is highly religious. We would
still be divided over religion as even the religious can't agree on it.
Golden rule: Fight the fundies on our terms, not theirs!
Roger
> This thread has degenerated into ignorant religious bashing. This is
> precisely what is *not* needed. Quit it or risk isolating those very
> people you need to *help* stop the spread of Christian fundamentalism.
>
1982
Roger Stanyard
Er, I think I have a Problem
31/07/2006 09:28:00
This came into my email in-box this morning. Um, does anyone have any
comments? I suspect it applies to my blog but it doesn't say:
Dear Yahoo! account holder:
By creating and using your Yahoo! account, you agree to abide by
Yahoo!'s Terms of Service (TOS). Pursuant to the TOS, Yahoo! reserves
the right to terminate your account or otherwise prohibit use of your
account in the event that, among other things, Yahoo! believes that
you
have violated or acted inconsistently with the letter or spirit of the
TOS.
It has come to our attention that you may have violated the TOS.
Please reread the TOS and cease any use of your account that may
violate the TOS.
If your use of your Yahoo! account is brought to our attention again,
and we believe that such use violates the TOS, then we may terminate
your account without further notice.
Please do not reply to this email. Any questions concerning Yahoo!'s
Services should be submitted through the on-line form in the help area
( http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/help ).
1983
Ian Lowe
RE: Er, I think I have a Problem
31/07/2006 09:54:00
Anyone who runs a "contentious" group will find someone bitching to yahoo
sooner or later.
Most likely, someone mailed the "this group was nasty to me, boo hoo" link
at yahoo groups.
Remember that (as I have said before) this group is wide open to the public,
and can be read by anyone, whether they are a member or not.
You are discussing individuals, their jobs, what groups they are members of
etc.
It would hardly be surprising that someone has complained to Yahoo -
sticking their own name into google will likely bring up this group as a
"hit".
I would strongly suggest the following:
1) register a domain (as little as £3 a year at 123-reg)
2) get the domain hosted on a cpanel server (nice and easy, and I can offer
some assistance if you require)
3) use "mailman" or phpbb/m2f as a discussion mechanism instead
That way, it is under your control and yahoo (who do not, as news from china
shows, have a great record on protecting freedom of speech or political
groups) cannot simply pull the group for a TOS violation. (incidentally, if
your own account is "TOS"ed, this group will be deleted along with it,
unless there is another owner)
Ian.
1984
Robert K
Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
31/07/2006 10:10:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> This came into my email in-box this morning. Um, does anyone have any
> comments? I suspect it applies to my blog but it doesn't say:
>
> Dear Yahoo! account holder:
>
> By creating and using your Yahoo! account, you agree to abide by
> Yahoo!'s Terms of Service (TOS). Pursuant to the TOS, Yahoo! reserves
> the right to terminate your account or otherwise prohibit use of your
> account in the event that, among other things, Yahoo! believes that
> you
> have violated or acted inconsistently with the letter or spirit of the
=====================================================
Ask them to confirm that the message is genuinly from them. Then ask
for specifics, as until you have these you have no capacity to change
the details of any offending activity. Maybe it is an automated
response and needs someone to actually spell out what has happened.
Rbt
PS. do you think that maybe we are beginning to ruffle a few
fundamentalist feathers?
1985
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 10:42:00
> We have to lay off the religion bashing. It diverts attention and is not
within the group's remit.
Yes, yes, yes - those poor, poor sensitive christians living in a world with
nasty evil atheists who don't fall prostrate every time they say "jehovah".
They might get offended. Or something.
You want less bashing, don't start speculating on whether fundies are really
christian.
I.
1986
Roger Stanyard
Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
31/07/2006 11:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Robert K" <rmkyargo@...> wrote:
>
>
> Ask them to confirm that the message is genuinly from them. Then ask
> for specifics, as until you have these you have no capacity to change
> the details of any offending activity. Maybe it is an automated
> response and needs someone to actually spell out what has happened.
>
> Rbt
>
> PS. do you think that maybe we are beginning to ruffle a few
> fundamentalist feathers?
If you look at the message it says do not reply.
It could well be a scam. Moreover, it doesn't say whether it refers to
my blog which has ruffled feathers or to Blackshadow. I went back to
the relevant Yahoo admin page and there is nothing there where I can
respond or ask questions.
Seems to me that Yahoo has put me in a position where I can't do
anything. It seems that they can threaten me (and have) with no
explanation or defense whatsoever and then pull the plug.
It seems essential that I very quickly look at the alternatives. I'll
be working on this for the rest of the week.
Does anyone have a spare web site/domain name that we can use? I don't
want to spend a vast amount of time and money setting up something from
scratch. I have no skills whatsover in producing web sites.
Roger
1987
Mikey Brass
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 11:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@>
> wrote:
> >
> Chaps and Chapess's,
>
> We have to lay off the religion bashing.
Atheist and religious bashing serves *no* purpose whatsoever.
Stating that fundies are outside of mainstream Christianity is
completely valid and *not* an invitation to bash religion as a whole.
1988
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
31/07/2006 11:23:00
> Does anyone have a spare web site/domain name that we can use? I don't
want to spend a vast amount of time and money setting up something from
scratch. I have no skills whatsover in producing web sites.
It takes neither, so don't panic !!
Roger, I'll mail you off list - I can help with this.
1989
Mikey Brass
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 11:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
> You want less bashing,
Loos the damn martrydom complex; it is completely counter-productive
in the fundie arena.
1990
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 11:42:00
Mikey,
Seriously, cram it up your ass mate.
I really don't give a rat's ass what you have to say about this, okay? I
didn't care the last time, I don't care this time, and I won't care next
time.
Nobody here is five. We don't need the thought police telling us what is,
and what is not, acceptable speech.
I.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 31 July 2006 11:22
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: BBC admits fundies political
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
> You want less bashing,
Loos the damn martrydom complex; it is completely counter-productive in the
fundie arena.
1991
Mikey Brass
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 11:50:00
Dude, take a chill pill, get laid, something.
1992
Mikey Brass
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 11:52:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
> Nobody here is five.
You need to understand the basics of fighting creationism and learn
from those of us who have been doing it successfully for years. And if
you think me or anyone else here gives a hoot as to your religious
views, think again. Tactics, Ian, tactics.
1993
Andrew
Re: Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 11:59:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Lowe
> Mikey,
> Seriously, cram it up your ass mate.
> I really don't give a rat's ass what you have to say about this, okay? I
> didn't care the last time, I don't care this time, and I won't care next
> time.
> Nobody here is five. We don't need the thought police telling us what is,
> and what is not, acceptable speech.
I wish I'd waited and seen this before wasting time writing a lengthy
response to your earlier mail. This group exists to deal with a serious
problem. It doesn't exist as a forum for your comments about Christianity -
which were simplistic anyway, as I attempted to show.
Agreed - no one here is five. So giving people a bit of room and not trying
to take over everything is a reasonable expectation. And so is reasoned
discussion.
1994
oeditor
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 11:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> I'll watch it again and make a few notes - probably tomorrow.
Here we go:
Notes on the "Reporters" item on End-time fundamentalists.
The report draws on the current Lebanon conflict for background, and
looks at the reasons for the USA's unflinching support of Israel. It
attributes this not so much to the number of Jews as to a large
Christian lobby inspired by end-times theology. A major supporter of
this is the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio,Texas. It's pastor John
Hagee says that it is "impossible to govern Americal without the
bible", that the bible teaches that there... will be nuclear warfare
after which "God will have to re-make the earth" with a new garden of
Eden.
Kevin Pillips, author of "American Theocracy" claims that about half
the ruling Republican coalition believes in the literal account of a
"second coming" set out by the end-times theologists, and drive USA
policy in the Middle East. He claims that Israel wouldn't have existed
but for Christian evangelical sentiments in Britain after WW1. He says
"You cannot attack the bible, certainly in [the USA] and probably not
in Britain.
The programme then goes on to show Hagee at the replica of the Wailing
Wall that's he's built at his church. Apparently he's raised millions
of dollars to help Russian Jews to settle in Israel and to support
settlers in the occupied territories. He's formed a lobby group
"Christians United for Israel" intended to organise 40 million "bible
believing Christians" to lobby by phone and email within 24 hours of
"any perceived threat" to Israel.
Phillips is shown saying that prominent Republicans have attended
Cornerstone Church and publicly backed its policies. Former majority
leader Tom Delay held views typical of other powerful figures in
Congress. "God told him what to do", spoke of Israel in biblical
terms, said they must do anything needed to support Israel.
Finally, Frances Kissling, co-moderator of the "Religion Counts"
anti-abortion group, hower, claims that many "Christian Zionists" are
not even Christians. They're just common or garden political zionists
jumping on the bandwaggon. OTOH, she says that end-timers would have
to support Israel no matter what.
A quick Google reveals that Hagee is a wealthy televangelist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee
Phillips' book is reviewed here: http://tinyurl.com/fkwc2
Brian
1995
Roger Stanyard
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 12:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
The rule of this group is NO RELIGION.
Ian, calm down. Your one of the great guys who has a vast amount to
say. Use it to beat the fundies. This is a single issue group.
Yep, we can all rub each other up badly. Time to take a break and leave
off the religion.
Roger
1996
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 12:10:00
On 31 jul 2006, at 13:03, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Time to take a break and leave
> off the religion.
The FSM is exempt, of course :-)
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1997
Roger Stanyard
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 12:43:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Mikey Brass" <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@> wrote:
>
> > Nobody here is five.
>
> You need to understand the basics of fighting creationism and learn
> from those of us who have been doing it successfully for years. And if
> you think me or anyone else here gives a hoot as to your religious
> views, think again. Tactics, Ian, tactics.
Message to Ian and the group off the back of Mikey's above comment:
The religious (of any religion) are the best allies we can get. I want
as many on side as we can possibly find. Take a look at the hammering
Dave Oldridge does on fundies. Look at the help we've got from Lenny.
Over in SJS look at the contributions the likes of Michael Roberts and
Peter Henderson are giving. They have a seriously deep understanding of
what the fundies are about. Look at the staggering amount of work Mikey
has done over the years on this issue.
They are our pals as well as our allies. They are damn bright people.
None of them are pushing their religious opinions and beliefs. It's
their authorative positions in the anti-creationist that count.
Likewise, that's the position with the effective atheists and agnostics
in the movement.
Falling out over religion in this group is about as daft as falling out
over politics. In both cases we have to accept our differences and
benefit from them.
If you are fighting a war, you need to turn everything to your
advantage and at the enemy's expense. If the fundies are spouting
religion, use it to our advantage rather than rubbishing it.
The fundies have a massive weakness - they are fighting a war on three
fronts - politics, religion and science. It's overstretch. Let's fight
on our terms - just science. We've got the numbers on our side. We've
got the professional and managerial classes on our side. We're
a "broard church". They are just a tiny clique. If we throw out the
religious all we will end up being is a tiny clique and they've won.
The real game that is being played out in this war we have with the
fundies is the products of authoriarianism, ignorance and reaction
against the products of the Rennaisance, the age of enlightenment,
rationality and democracy. For the most part the religious are not only
part of the latter, they helped make it. They are onside by definition.
Roger
1998
Roger Stanyard
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 12:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
> On 31 jul 2006, at 13:03, Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > Time to take a break and leave
> > off the religion.
>
> The FSM is exempt, of course :-)
LOL!!! Yep, OK, the FSM is an exception.
1999
Roger Stanyard
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 12:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > I'll watch it again and make a few notes - probably tomorrow.
> Here we go:
> Notes on the "Reporters" item on End-time fundamentalists.
>
> The report draws on the current Lebanon...
Thanks Brian.
I have an article on Hagee. I may have already posted it. If not, does
anyone want me to post it here. The man is revolting, btw.
Roger
2000
jbs13uk
Re: BBC admits fundies political
31/07/2006 12:54:00
Ain't you heard? The horsemen don't ride 'til the red cow's bred.
http://www.thislife.org/
1999 show archive, episode 125 - Apocalypse
"Act One. Cowboys of the Apocalypse. How fundamentalist Christians and
Orthodox Jews are combining forces to breed a perfect red cow that
could bring about the end of the world. Ira talks with cattleman and
minister Clyde Lott, and with New Yorker writer Lawrence Wright. (17
minutes)"
Those end time dates in act four may, uh, have to be revised.
Jim.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> BBC News 24 "Reporters" has just broadcast (about 0:30 Sunday) a
> report on USA end-time nutters. Based about the current Israel
> nightmare, but showing that the nutters are keen to stir up Bedlam to
> provoke Armageddon. Political acts to promote religious ends. Except:
> they ended up claiming that some of the Armageddonists aren't (even?)
> Christians. Now whatever sort of nutcases are they?
>
> I've no idea whether this can be found online, but if anyone can spot
> it, it's well worth recording and quoting from.
>
> Brian
> who despite everything, couldn't really believe they could be as mad
> as that :-((
>