Archive

Archive for March, 2008

My Review of Santi Tafarella’s Review of the book “God is Not Great”

The title of Santi Tafarella’s review is “English majors will especially like this book” and was published on April 23, 2007 on Amazon.com. Below are quotes of his review in the order in which they were written with my replies to them.

In the genre of athiest criticism of religion, Hitchens’ book fills a niche. Where, for example, Bertrand Russel approaches religion with a philosophical mind, and Richard Dawkins approaches religion with a scientific mind, Hitchens approaches religion with a literary mind.

And the sophist statement “literary mind” means what? So Russel and Dawkins were poor at English in comparison huh? Is that what you meant? If so, SO WHAT? What matters is the truth, not “wow he’s so eloquent”. Muslims use that same logic to defend the Qur’an, “Oh it’s the most eloquent of books, surely God wrote it.” Ironic that you think like a Muslim isn’t it Santi? Even God points out the stupidity of such thinking:

For Christ did not send me to baptize,
but to preach the gospel—
not with words of human wisdom,
lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

1 Corinthians 1:17

When I came to you, brothers,
I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom
as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.

1 Corinthians 2:1

Santi: “This makes for some fresh and caustic athiest insights that you might not expect to find in either Russell or Dawkins.

Interesting, you praise Hitchens for his “caustic” insights yet when atheists, pagans, and Arminians attack Calvinists they use that same word often to villify them, or “vitriolic”, “hateful”, or “belittling” you call their speech. Damn those Calvinists if they do, damn them if they don’t eh? Is that the highest law of the world? Or how about, “Thou shalt lie”?

Santi: “Hitchens, for example, begins his book by offering three quotes from classic pieces of literature, and within the first few pages he also alludes to George Eliot’s ‘Middlemarch’ without even mentioning Eliot’s name (presuming his readers will know who wrote ‘Middlemarch’). In other words, Hitchens is a man of letters writing to educated, thoughtful people with more than a smattering of English literature classes in their background.

Oh, he’s appealing to the “educated” (“wise”) with “literature” is he? To that God says,

For Christ did not send me to baptize,
but to preach the gospel—
not with words of human wisdom,

lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God.
For the message of the cross is foolishness
to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved
it is the power of God.

For it is written:

‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’

Where is the wise man?
Where is the scholar?
Where is the philosopher of this age?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God
the world through its wisdom did not know him,
God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached
to save those who believe.
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
but we preach Christ crucified:
a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 1:17-24

And isn’t that amazing how 1 Corinthians 1:17 which I used earlier is also tied into this passage too? You might think God foresaw the specific tactics people such as yourself would use against him to tie in the “eloquence” and “we’re educated not those stupid Calvinists who don’t know what Middlemarch is” tactic.

And how does knowing what Middlemarch is mean that a person is “educated”? What kind of retarded (no offense to genuinely retarded people) logic is that? So read that book and we Calvinists are then educated and as wise as you huh? I don’t think so: you see, you would just damn us for not believing you or claim (without evidence as usual) that we didn’t understand it.

Santi: “In this sense, Hitchens, unlike Russell or Dawkins, leads his readers not just to think their way through the book’s issues, but to feel them emotionally, in the way that one might feel one’s way through a novel by Dostoevsky.

Sophistry. Explain what you mean in plain English, not snooty sophistry.

I seriously doubt that all Christians who regularly read the Bible are emotionless and uneducated. I seriously doubt they stand still like a rock just doing nothing. If they were, you’re evil mouth wouldn’t be blabbing as much and this stupid book wouldn’t be a best seller as it would have no worthy target to attack (and pagan religions would still be dominating the world, keeping it in a truly “Dark Age” for all eternity) unless God finally got sick of them.

What is your evidence that when a person reads something other than Middlemarch or Hitchens’ book that they aren’t “feeling” the arguments. And what emotions must be felt to know the truth Santi? Please explain the scientific evidence that Hitchens’ book or Middlemarch gets a person to feel anything as opposed to what Dawkins or Russel wrote. Talk about evil stupid preaching, talk about sophistry. This isn’t an eloquence contest evil one, this is about life and death and you are treating it like a poetry contest. People are suffering and dying in extreme pain, kids, kids dying of cancer, ignored and therefore getting worse or taking forever to get better because of self-obsessed people like yourself hungry for man-praise and gaining it by wasting time speaking nonsense. You are sick.

Santi: “Hitchens is always on the side of suffering individuals,

Oh well what do you know, now you care about suffering inviduals. What a vain, deluded, liar. Does an atheist on Yahoo Answers being voted up by other atheists for saying that drinking beer is the solution to the suffering and dying in Africa also a show of concern for “the suffering”? Neither his book nor your rant nor the votes from anti-Christians for your review evidence that you care about “the suffering”. It sure as Hell does not show concern for the suffering Christians, let alones those kids the Child Protective Service agency KIDNAPPED IN MASS ILLEGALLY FROM A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL REFUSING TO LET THEM GO UNTIL THEY WERE POINTED OUT AS BREAKING THE LAW OF THE STATE. That’s your “concern”. And where was the concern when atheist Stalin killed millions of Christians and tried to exterminate the Ukranians, including the babies and kids? Where was the concern by the atheist government of China all these years for it’s Christian population? Was it shown by demolishing their churches for not having a “religious meeting permit”? “Oh well, they coulda just met at home” says Santi and friends. WRONG: THE ATHEISTS ALSO REQUIRE YOU HAVE A RELIGIOUS MEETING PERMIT FOR MEETING AT YOUR HOUSE. SOME CONCERN FOR SUFFERING, SOME TOLERANCE, SOME FREEDOM. Talk about “CONTROL FREAKS”. Talk about a “GOD COMPLEX”. Talk about “CONTROLLING THE TRUTH”. Talk about “ARROGANT”.

Santi: “and resists at every turn religion’s dogmatism and ‘one size fits all’ obtuseness.

Because you said so sophist, and whatever that meant.

He resists “religion’s dogmatism”. How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that not all religions are dogmatic? Do you even know what that word means? The religion taught in the Bible is based on EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE which babbling parrots like you refuse to look at because you are too busy not caring about the truth and only caring about racking up shallow-man praise to make yourself feel good. ONCE AGAIN: http://snipurl.com/oncesaved

Instead of glorifying “resistance” (rebellion) against “religion” Mr. HUMAN OVER GENERALIZATION WHO PRETENDS NOT TO HAVE A “PLEASE ME” RELIGION, how about being PATIENT and reading the books there with CARE? Why only read what agrees with your “feelings” Mr. Hitchens Gets Me To Feel Emotions? Is that all that matters to you?: GRATIFYING YOURSELF? No wonder you never come to truth.

Santi: “And in this sense Hitchens has hit upon an angle to come at religion that is not usually trodden: popular religion,

Oh, did you catch that weasel word anyone? It’s not the “tiny” religions like Buddhism or the religion of worshiping-atheists-who praise-you-while-slandering-and-murdering-Christians that matter, it’s those oh so evil “popular” religions, those oh so evil “organized” religions, not those oh so good DISORGANIZED CHAOTIC RELIGIONS THAT DISREGARD THE TRUTH. Santi thinks his atheist and or agnostic group is smaller than the “religious group” by pretending or forgetting that there are no similarities between the atheists and agnostic groups or all other non-Calvinist Christian groups. On top of that, does he have any scientific evidence that merely because the atheist group is smaller than the religious group that therefore the atheists are the ones who are most or fully correct in their beliefs? Yeah, right: Scientific evidence that shows atheists are more often correct than religious groups (and of course the evidence will come from atheist scientists {many of who claim there is no such thing as a religious scientist and who based that claim on THE MERE WORD OR FEELINGS OF ATHEISTS}). I can just as easily come up with evidence that all fish taste bad by lumping in the bad, tasting only the bad, and then declaring that the few I sampled represented all of the fish I lumped together. An alien can come to Earth and judge all humans as evil based on actions of the atheists of the Chinese and Vietnamese governments, their actions being their torture and murder both their religious and non-religious citizens, but that wouldn’t make the alien right would it? Or how about declaring a Christian doing nothing wrong but because an atheist murders him, I call both the Christian and atheist evil because both were human; would that judgment be correct?

Santi: “popular unlike great literature, resists the tragic, the ambiguous, and the particular.

Because you said so, and whatever you say is true because you said it. Well using your anti-popular anti-“unoriginal” logic, Judaism is the best philosophy, yet how many non-Jews in Israel have been killed because of Zionism, which an even smaller sect of Judaism (and must therefore be the right way to follow)? How many in the world have died because of Zionist self-ambition? Zionists control Israel and have a major influence in America, yet how much good have they demonstrated?

And using your logic, the unpopular Calvinist religions are also the right way to go, that very Christian denomination you oppose most without even realizing it perhaps,

The popular Christian denominations which believe salvation must be earned by either good works and or obedience to the ten commandments (or at least 8 of them, and at least to some degree) not counting the fact that you can’t do a good deed without obedience to the ten commandments minus the 7th day Sabbath commandment:

There is one group of Christians who believes that salvation from Hell (or non-existence) must be earned, in keeping with what the evil copy-cat reformer named Arminius taught, these are the Christian groups:

1,115,000,000 billion Catholics (not all of whom believe they are Christians)

224,770,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians

80,000,000 Angelicans

66,000,000 Lutherans

15,000,000 Coptic Orthodox Christians

12,000,000 Mormons (not all of whom believe they are Christians)

10,650,000 Seventh-day Adventists

7,000,000 Serbian Orthodox

5,888,650 Jehovah’s Witnesses

4,000,000 Armenian Apostolics

723,000 Disciples of Christ (or Campbellites, which is a heretical sect whose beliefs are nebulous because they pretend that to save what they believe in way that can be referred to simply by repeating it {and thereby making it convenient to know and understand} is the equivalent of making a “creed” and that creeds are a sin). Their creed can be summed up as, “We only believe in repeating Bible verses that suit our tastes and anyone who teaches that we are going to Hell for teaching that, is evil.”

430 million Pentecostals (which includes the Assemblies / Assembly of God). It seems that most of these Pentecostals believe Arminius over Calvin despite claiming to be Calvinistic, because (though they may say with their mouths that salvation can’t be earned} they teach that you must keep your salvation by obeying some of the “ten commandments”, and that God gave salvation to them because he foresaw them for it out of the goodness of their heart on their own, in other words, is rewarding them for their goodness, on top of that, teach that they can obtain eternal life as long as you obey some of the commandments in the Bible {and to get eternal life will SAVE them from ever having to go to Hell}. So without realizing it {or knowing they are contradicting themselves but keeping it to themselves} are teaching that salvation can be earned).

There is a very different group of Christians who believe salvation from Hell and the eternal life that goes with it, CAN’T be earned:

75,000,000 Reformed Christians (or 5 Point Calvinist Christians).

So, there are about 1,96,381,650 Christians who believe that God’s forgiveness must be earned and / or kept by doing good deeds and / or by obeying the the commandments given by Jesus and that you don’t get eternal life until after you die (which sounds ironic now that I think about it) vs. 75 million Calvinists who believe that forgiveness and eternal life are free and that you can only get either before you die and that to be forgiven will automatically get you eternal life.

The nearly 2 billion “saved by good deeds” Christians hate the 75 million that don’t, and would gladly see these 75 million tortured in Hell forever (and the rest of the world), as ironic as that sounds, but it’s the truth. They may pretend to care about non-Christians, but only in the sense in that they would love to lord it over them and be worshiped by them. Another irony is that most non-Christians (even kids) would think that if God or any gods did exist, or do, would or do think that eternal peace can be earned as well. Another irony is that both the “earn salvation Christians” and “earn peace non-Christians” don’t even treat each other that well; they are always committing crimes against each other and out of distrust of each other.

The world can be divided into TWO GROUPS then: Those who believe that they can achieve eternal peace by earning it (which includes simply doing “whatever you want” also expressed as “being true to yourself” and which basically means, “to do what you feel like over what the God of the Bible commands you to do”) and the other group is, guess who?: The Calvinist / “Once Saved Always Saved” group.

Using both Santi’s logic, that would mean that the Calvinists are the ones who have “the truth” since they are the smallest religious group. Ironically, the Bible teaches that too:

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.
As it is, you do not belong to the world,
but I have chosen you out of the world.
That is why the world hates you.
John 15:18-20

Do not be surprised,
my brothers,
if the world hates you.

1 John 3:13

You adulterous people,
don’t you know that friendship with the world
is hatred toward God?
Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world
becomes an enemy of God.

James 4:4

So, Santi, and all those who deliberately voted for is review have admitted that the main Calvinist doctrine is correct and that they are the most trustworthy of all groups. You admitted it without even knowing it. Talk about digging your own pit and eating your own words.

“Thus if you love literature, and identify with frail humanity via literature, you will resist the easy platitudes of religion.”

The Bible is literature, and of course it makes people “feel” emotions and all the time and it literally commands people to not only fellowship together for men and women to have sex with each other ALL THE TIME. That’s a command that even anti-Christian sickos have no problem obeying (except homosexuals). What a big massive duh.

Besides those obvious facts you’ve reviewed a book here ON THE BIBLE, and that book is even called “God is Not Great”, and on top of that it’s common knowledge (I guess you forgot in your addiction to showing off and for shallow man-praise) that the Bible is the best selling book in the world and has been for many years straight and still is. On top of that it’s the most written about, and the book you’ve reviewed is just another example.

ON TOP OF THAT, since when does the Bible not say that humanity is frail?????? Since when do Christians deny that they are???? Have you even read the Bible carefully in any way or learned Bible basics that little Christian kids have and do all the time? Here’s some help:

All our days pass away under your wrath;
we finish our years with a moan.
The length of our days is seventy years—
or eighty, if we have the strength;
yet their span is but trouble and sorrow,
for they quickly pass, and we fly away.

Psalm 90:9-10

Remember, O God,
that my life is but a breath;
my eyes will never see happiness again.

Job 7:7

What is man that you make so much of him,
that you give him so much attention,
that you examine him every morning
and test him every moment?

Job 7:17-18

My life is consumed by anguish
and my years by groaning;
my strength fails because of my affliction,
and my bones grow weak.

Psalm 31:10

Man born of woman
is of few days and full of trouble.
He springs up like a flower and withers away;
like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure.

Job 14:1-2

What does a man get for all the toil
and anxious striving with which he labors
under the sun? All his days his work is pain
and grief; even at night his mind does not rest.

Ecclesiastes 2:22

This is what the Sovereign Yahweh says:
“I myself will take a shoot
from the very top of a cedar and plant it;
I will break off a tender sprig from its topmost shoots
and plant it on a high and lofty mountain.
On the mountain heights of Israel I will plant it

Ezekiel 17:22-23

Their people, drained of power,
are dismayed and put to shame.
They are like plants in the field,
like tender green shoots,
like grass sprouting on the roof,
scorched before it grows up.

2 Kings 19:26

Their people, drained of power,
are dismayed and put to shame.
They are like plants in the field,
like tender green shoots,
like grass sprouting on the roof,
scorched before it grows up.

Isaiah 37:27

All men are like grass, and all their glory
is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall

1 Peter 1:23

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

Isaiah 53:2

Jesus replied,
“Foxes have holes
and birds of the air have nests,
but the Son of Ma
 has no place to lay his head.

Matthew 8:20

A voice says, “Cry out.”
And I said, “What shall I cry?”:
“All men are like grass,
and all their glory
is like the flowers of the field.
The grass withers and the flowers fall,
because the breath of Yahweh blows on them.
Surely the people are grass.
The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God stands forever.”

Isaiah 40:6-8

What words can I say to express how evil and stupid you are including the almost 2,200 ignorants who deliberately voted your review up beyond what I’ve already said?

How about this?:

In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of,
because you know those from whom you learned it,
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures,
which are able to make you wise for salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:12-15
Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

Agnostic Jeremiah Attempts to Rescue Atheists From “My Forced Critical Opinions”

An agnostic named Jeremiah who apparently is super-thick read a poll I posted on my profile, meant for atheists only, took offense (I wonder if that’s an admission that he is apart of the atheist group in some way, like THAT THEY HATE CHRISTIANS? I wonder, not) and insulted me on how I was forcing people to read that poll if MY OPINIONS (when it was atheist and agnostic opinion, and agnostic in too since the same reasons atheists don’t believe are the same reasons why agnostics doubt, hence why he took offense no doubt) and said I shouldn’t have (so apparently he’s the owner of this certain site where I had permission to put the poll and though I’ve committed a hacking crime according to him, he’s decided to let that poll remain and not report me to the F.B.I.; lame hah).

He said that “the church” is hated because of (Christian) opinions like mine (supposedly in the poll I posted) as if every Christian denomination is the same (he obviously doesn’t know the differences between them let alone what a 5 point Calvinist is from such a stupid slanderous stereotype) and as if only Christians are the ones that ask the questions I posted (which was clearly not the case since another member afterwards asked what my religions beliefs were).

He also said I have to realize that not everyone will have my convictions, which was totally stupid to say since the very posting of their opinions on my poll was showing I already knew what THEIR convictions where and that they weren’t the same as mine hah, and then he said that my criticizing people will only drive them farther away (yeah, and that’s why atheists and agnostics and other non-Christians become Christians every day and why there are 75 million 5-point Calvinists, right? Talk about blind, hypocritical, and stupid). So he can preach to me and post that stupid rant on my profile but I can’t post a poll on my own profile page? So he can criticize Christians and say can say whatever he wants against them in the streets, radio, T.V., the internet, anywhere, including on the profiles of Christians, yet we aren’t even allowed on our own profiles to ask why, or about his other opinions forced on us, about his beliefs about our God? “Do as I say not as I do” is the second greatest law of non-Christians.

Categories: Uncategorized

Yet Another Stupid Atheist Posts Super Ignorant Stupidty

I was watching a video of Benny Hinn on Youtube performing virtual witchcraft doing what is called “slaying people in the spirit” and found this stupid comment from Gheg111, an apparent atheist, on the first page:

“Because selling out to a diety doesn’t happen in any other country. It’s official. Go tell your mamma….. you’re a dumbass!!!!”

God isn’t a ‘diety’ he is the ONLY DEITY you evil liar who cant spell basic religious words yet pretends to be wise. And ignoramus, since when do other countries not have gods or worship God? What have you been doing all day since you were born not to know basic religious history? Every idiot knows the world has been worshiping God and gods for the past 6400 years. Amazing, two super stupid comments about the history of religion in row or in the space of a few minutes.

You’re sick, a man is displayed as committing severe evil in God’s name and you take advantage of that to take the slander further against God and all the Christians who lovingly serve him AND YOU, giving the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars to your kind each year, and in millions of cases that money is given by poor Christians who worked hard for that money.

Categories: Uncategorized

Yet Another Super Stupid Atheist Replies With Super Stupidity

March 29, 2008 4 comments

An atheist on Youtube named johnnierah claimed that we evolved from sea creatures (without showing evidence of course) and my reply, sent on Mar 27, 2008, 5:55 P.M., was:

hi

We didn’t start out as sea creatures millions of years ago because you or anyone else said so. You… were wrong to say [“]we[“] are taught nothing, there are plenty of libraries and bookstores and online books God makes available. AND WHO THE HELL IS EMBA[R]RASSED TO TEACH EVOLUTION? The anti-Christian liars who know it’s false? Yes, them[,] if anyone, not the creationists WHO DO HAVE AN EDUCATION and do know right from wrong who do understand and know God who Christ loves and supports.

Stop being vain, if anyone had a bad education[,] it was you, or you weren’t listening, or were too busy obsessing on your own opinions and not carefully listening to the Calvinists.

He replies with one of thee dumbest letters I have ever gotten which is powerful evidence as to how stupid Darwinists are, or anyone who believes his warped theory:

From: johnnierah
Sent: March 29, 2008
Subject: Re: hi
Message:    

“hi”

well, i disagree. i think evolution is obvious.”

And of course if you think it’s obvious then it must be true let alone obvious, and that mean I’m stupid and blind as well as the other millions of Christians who can’t just see that obviousness of evolution where things are just evolving right before our eyes all the time. Are you serious? I pointed out to you that you were claiming something was true based not on evidence but your mere feelings, and what do you do? Do you stop and carefully go over your logic to see if that’s what you are doing? NOPE, being a stupid God-hater you just go right ahead ramming your head into the petra of truth again. Incredibly stupid of you.

And what in the hell is your evidence that we evolved, is it your “I think”? That’s science huh? No. You don’t feel truths into existence and that includes evidence. You don’t go into a court to convince a judge that you didn’t murder anyone by saying, “Well I think I didn’t” or “Well I don’t feel it’s true judge, I think it’s obvious, now let me go.” God sure won’t take that for an excuse.

“and religion is a new invention.”

I laughed when I read that in your message before replying. Sir, you are ignorant of history to say something that incredibly dumb. You must be obsessing hard on everything that isn’t important and obsessing to the extreme on your opinions to not know that religion has been practiced since Adam and Eve were created let alone the first civilization. NO HISTORIAN OR ARCHAEOLOGIST has ever found any sign that religion was not practiced by humans (that includes the so called Neanderthals. NONE. Have you been abused all your life and living in a prison with not even news papers to read? How can you not know these obvious facts taught in public High Schools? What history book does not include ancient man and his religious activities?

And what in the Hell does “newness” have to do with the truth? Using your stupid childish logic evolution is 100% false since the concept of religion is about 4500 years older! Big MASSIVE, DUH! BIG BIG DUH! How did that asteroid of a fact slip right past your eyes without you noticing? Are you blind? You must be.

“we will soon get over it.”

Did your magical feelings that make things true also tell you that? You don’t speak for the 75 million Calvinsts and creationists, stop being arrogant by saying “we” Mr. Psychic.

“and people like me will not be despised by believers of a 1000 different faiths.”

Who said Calvinists despised anyone slandering stereotyper? Ignorant much? Living in a hole staring at your toes all day much? “LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF” IS THE SECOND GREATEST LAW IN THE BIBLE WHICH CALVINISTS OBEY CONTINUOUSLY. WE AREN’T GIVING OUT OUR HARD EARNED MONEY TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO DESPISE US (HYPOCRITE) BECAUSE WE DESPISE YOU. OK MR. DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO? Amazing how you excuse your own hatred yet are happy to point out the imaginary hatred of Calvinsts against you. Stop lumping in everyone religious as if they are all the same in your stupidity and ignorance. Logic lesson for you: HUMANS DO EVIL, does that mean they are all evil to the same degree? According to you, NO.

Before you make accusations, GET EVIDENCE. HINT: EVIDENCE IS NOT WHATEVER YOU SAY IT IS MR. ATHEIST WHO’S GROUP HAS KILLED OVER 140 MILLION PEOPLE INCLUDING MANY KIDS AND EVEN YOUR OWN KIND IN THE PAST 100 YEARS AND IN LESS THAN 100 YEARS. THAT IS MORE PEOPLE THAN EVEN THE EVIL CATHOLICS HAVE KILLED WITH THEIR ATTEMPTED GENOCIDE OF THE TRUE CHRISTIANS. NOW GUESS HOW MANY PEOPLE CALVINISTS HAVE KILLED SINCE ADAM EXISTED? NOTHING CLOSE TO 140 MILLION (A NUMBER WHICH GROWS DAILY FROM YOUR NEGLIGENCE OF THE NEEDY AND DELIBERATE OPPRESSION OF THEM, ESPECIALLY IN ASIA).

“peace”

No, your peace is not peace, it’s a lie used to make war:

“Not a word from their mouth can be trusted; their heart is filled with destruction. Their throat is an open grave; with their tongue they speak deceit.” – Psalm 5:9

“They fully intend to topple him from his lofty place; they take delight in lies. With their mouths they bless, but in their hearts they curse.” – Psalm 62:4

STOP LYING AND BELIEVE THE TRUTH: http://snipurl.com/oncesaved

Categories: Uncategorized

I Knew Comcast Was Cheating Me!

By DEBORAH YAO,
AP Business Writer Thu Mar 27, 5:21 PM ET

PHILADELPHIA – Under pressure from federal regulators, Comcast Corp. reversed its stance over hampering online file-sharing by its subscribers and promised Thursday to treat all types of Internet traffic equally.

The Internet service provider said it will collaborate with BitTorrent Inc., the company that invented a more efficient successor to file-sharing services such as Napster and Kazaa, to improve the transmission of large files over the Internet — and it will eventually stop delaying file transfers based on the specific technology used.

Since user reports of interference with file-sharing traffic were confirmed by an Associated Press investigation in October, Comcast had vigorously defended its practice, most recently at a hearing of the Federal Communications Commission in February.

At issue was whether a service provider like Comcast has the right to control what types of Internet traffic it will let through, block or delay. Comcast said it needs to clamp down on heavy users of Internet bandwidth so others won’t be slowed down.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said that while he was “pleased” that Comcast has reversed course, he remains concerned that the nation’s largest cable company isn’t stopping the practice now. Comcast gave itself until year’s end.

“While it may take time to implement its preferred new traffic-management technique, it is not at all obvious why Comcast couldn’t stop its current practice of arbitrarily blocking its broadband customers from using certain applications,” Martin said in a statement.

Martin said the FCC will remain “vigilant” to ensure consumers can access any lawful content online.

Consumer-rights groups say the FCC should still act to protect consumers against other “discriminatory” network-management practices.

“Any arrangements made now would not cover any future developments in blocking, throttling or filtering that any other companies may use,” said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge.

Consumer and “Net Neutrality” advocates have accused Comcast of playing judge and gatekeeper for the Internet by secretly blocking some connections between file-sharing computers. They also accused Comcast of stifling delivery of Internet video, an emerging competitor to its core business.

“This deal is the direct result of public pressure, and the threat of FCC action, against Comcast,” said Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press, a media reform group. “But with Comcast’s history of broken promises and record of deception, we can’t just take their word that the Internet is now in safe hands.”

Comcast did not specify how it would manage traffic in the future but said one option was to delay file transfers for the heaviest downloaders, regardless of the specific mechanism used, as the company has been doing.

Comcast said it also was monitoring Time Warner Cable Inc.’s experiment in placing explicit caps on the monthly downloads for new customers in Beaumont, Texas. Subscribers who go over their allotment will pay extra, much like a cell-phone subscriber who uses too many minutes in a month.

But Comcast may be wary about charging certain users more because of competitive pressure, especially after rival Verizon Communications Inc. said recently that such traffic is legitimate and that its FiOS network can handle the flow, said Harold Feld of Media Access Project, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington, D.C.

BitTorrent and the eDonkey protocol are used for about a third of all Internet traffic, according to Arbor Networks.

The vast majority of file-sharing is illegal distribution of copyright-protected files. But file-sharing is also emerging as a low-cost way of distributing legal content — in particular, video.

Comcast initially veiled its traffic-management system in secrecy, saying openness would allow users to circumvent it. The company now promises to release details on the new technique and take into account feedback from the Internet community.

Comcast and BitTorrent said they want to work out network management issues privately, without government intervention.

BitTorrent acknowledged service providers have to manage their networks somehow, especially during peak times.

“While we think there were other management techniques that could have been deployed, we understand why Comcast and other ISPs adopted the approach that they did initially,” Eric Klinker, BitTorrent’s chief technology officer, said in a statement.

Comcast also said that the issue is larger than BitTorrent. It said it was in talks with other parties to find solutions, although the cable company might not have much choice.

Verizon recently announced that by sharing information with Pando Networks, another file-sharing company, it simultaneously sped file-sharing downloads for its subscribers and reduced the strain on its network. AT&T Inc. has been looking at similar collaborations.

But phone companies are better positioned than cable companies to deal with file-sharing traffic because neighbors don’t share capacity on phone lines.

Shares in Philadelphia-based Comcast rose 17 cents to $19.88 in afternoon trading Thursday.

Associated Press Business Writer Barbara Ortutay and Technology Writer Peter Svensson in New York contributed to this story.

Yet these theives charged me extra for having to call them to restore my internet service and after their software messed up my ability to connect on top of it. On top of that they expect me to pay even higher rates and a whopper of a bill from last month. HELL NO, I WANT ALL MY MONEY BACK OR FOUR MONTHS FREE FOR PREVENTING ME FROM COMPLETING MY DOWNLOADS! THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE ABOUT 5 DAYS AFTER I’VE BEEN USING BITORRENT!

Categories: Uncategorized

A Review of a Confused Yahoo

A Review of
“Confused, Prurient and Amateur:
A debate is needed,
but this isn’t the book to lead it,
By O. Buxton ‘Olly Buxton'”

by Daniel Jackson Knight

This is my review of Olly’s review of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture

“Confused, Prurient[pretentious word] and Amateur”

“A debate is needed, but this isn’t the book to lead it[citation needed][dubious][POV pushing]

Because you said so.

“By O. Buxton ‘Olly Buxton’[pretentious][redundant]” “Since Andrew Keen is so instinctively dismissive about amateur contributors to the internet[citation needed][dubious][ranting] – people like me – it’s hardly surprising that I should instinctively dismiss his book,”

Do as you say not as you do huh? Yep, you’re a true Yahoo Wikipedian.

“so let me declare an interest right away: I like Web 2.0.[ranting]
And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how?

“I’ve been a contributor to it – through Amazon customer reviews, Wikipedia[citation needed], discussion forums[citation needed], MySpace[citation needed], Napster[citation needed] and so on – for nearly a decade now,[citation needed]
And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how? Oh, and so you’re right because you’ve contributed.; excellent Yahoo Wikipedian logic: It’s you’re feelings that matter, not the truth, and not doing as you say Mr. “No Citation Is Needed As Long As You Appease the Yahoo and Wikipedia Moderators”.

“and I’ve followed the emergence of the political movement supporting it, exemplified by writers such as Larry Lessig and Yochai Benkler, with some fascination.[citation needed]
And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how?
“and no, I’ve never made a dime out of it (though I have been sent a few books to review, not including this one).[citation needed]
And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how? Mr. “Didn’t Get a Dime (But Wait: I Did Get Free Books)” you get man-praise from like-minded liars which you clearly love more than God-praise for telling the truth.

“Andrew Keen is that classic sort of British reactionary: the sort that would bemoan the loss of the word ‘gay’ to the English language, and regret the damage caused by industrial vacuum cleaners on the chimney sweeping industry.[citation needed][“personal attack”][ranting]
True Yahoo Wikipedian babble. And aren’t personal attacks against the rules of both Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia and isn’t POV pushing against the rules of Wikipedia? Blind much? Hypocritical much? Repeatedly forget what truth, evidence, reality, hypocrisy and contradiction mean much?

“His book is an empassioned[spelling], but simple-minded, harkening[spelling]

Did you mean “impassioned” and “hearkening”? Hey, if atheists can dote on spelling errors of Christians, can’t I at least point their’s out? Atheists love to make fun of Christians for not using a spell checker; will they do the same to you?

“to those simpler times which concludes that our networked economy has pointlessly exalted the amateur, ruined the livelihood of experts, destroyed incentives for creating intellectual property, delivered to every man-jack amongst us the ability – never before possessed – to create and distribute our own intellectual property and monkeyed around mischievously with the title to property wrought from the very sweat of its author’s brow.[citation needed]
And besides missing yet another citation and getting that 132nd thumbs up for it, can you speak in a way that makes sense to everyone rather than pretending to be an expert on the truth by using awkward grammar and phrases posing as eloquent Shakespearean speech?

“Keen thinks this is a bad thing;[citation needed] but that is to assume that the prior state of affairs was unimpeachably good.[dubious]

Who made this assumption? You, or him Mr. Weasel in the “But”? Isn’t weasel-wording against Wikipedia’s rules too? You don’t even seem to be an amateur with your repeated violations of Wikipedia’s Universal Religious Code. James the Wikipope and Essjay the Wikibishop shall hear of this.

“You don’t have to be a paranoid Chomskyite to see the pitfalls of concentrated mass media ownership (Keen glosses over them), or note that the current intellectual property regime – which richly rewards a few lucky souls and their publishers at the expense of millions of less fortunate (but not, necessarily, less talented) ones, isn’t the only way one could fairly allocate the risks and rewards of intellectual endeavour.[Pov pushing]

Is this about the book’s content or your views of the value of Wikipedia and Yahoo! Answers as a source of useful references let alone truthful references? You know personal commentaries not on the book but what the book talk about in the review space is against Amazon’s rules right?

“Keen’s world is one where there is a transcendental reality; a truth, purveyed by experts, trained journalists, and in great danger of dissolution by the radically relativised truths of Wikipedia where the community sets the agenda, and if two plus two equals five, then it is five.[citation needed][pretentious ranting][POV pushing]

“So much Big Brother: Orwell’s novel gets repeated mention,[citation needed] it apparently having escaped Keen that a media owned by a concentrated, cross-held clique of corporate interests[pretentious ranting] – which is what the old economy perpetuated[pretentious ranting] – looks quite a lot more totalitarian than publishing capacity distributed to virtually every person on the planet.[citation needed][pretentious ranting][POV pushing]
“Keen laments[pretentious wording: Keep it simple genius; I know you hate kids and teens but wish to impress them at the same time, but not all of are mindless followers who enjoy hearing you pretending to be Andy Rooney] the loss of a ‘sanctity of authorship’[citation needed][pretentious ranting] of the sort which vouchsafed[pretentious ranting] to Messrs Jagger and Richards (and their recording company)[citation needed] a healthy lifetime’s riches for the fifteen minutes it took to compose and record Satisfaction[citation needed] (notwithstanding their debt – doubtless unpaid – to divers blues legends from Robert Johnson to Chuck Berry) and seems to believe individual creativity will be suddenly stifled by undermining it[weasel-wording][POV pushing][entire quoted section is here is word salad]

“There’s no evidence for this (certainly not judging by MySpace, the proliferation of blogs, Wikipedia, and so forth, as Keen patiently recounts), and no reason I can see for supposing it to be true on any other grounds.[citation needed][POV pushing]

And show us your citation for “no evidence” for whatever the Hell you meant by your word salad up there. Dosado, mix those words 1 2 3, swing your partners, now clap your hands, rant and rant to all your fans, harass to death every man! Yaaaaaahoooooo!

“On the contrary, Yale law professor Yochai Benkler in his excellent (and freely available!)[citation needed]

Yaaaaaahoooooo! This is also freely available: mininova.org/tor/1273681 and so is cheap candy and bug-ridden freeware.

“The Wealth Of Networks has a much more sophisticated analysis:[citation needed]

And “more sophisticated” is what matters most don’t ya know, not the truth! True Yahoo-Wikipedian logic: “using uncommon words and complex wording to make yourself look as wise as genuine wisemen matters more than being a wise man.”

“there is a non-market wealth of information and expertise – residing in heads like yours and mine – which the networked economy has finally unlocked, for the benefit of all, and at the cost of the poor substitute that preceded it.[word salad][Pov pushing]

“That this might have compromised the gargantuan earnings capacity of one latter day Rolling Stones (to the incremental benefit of a few thousand others) is far less of a travesty – and more of a boon – than Keen thinks it is.[citation needed][word salad][POV pushing]Now rock bands have to sing for their supper. [citation needed][pretentious wording][word salad]

And what does copyright law being broken (which is against Wikipedia’s rules) have to do with whether or not Wealth Of Networks or Cult of the Amateur say anything worth listening to?

“Keen may regret that but, as a concert goer, I sure don’t.[weasel words][POV pushing]

And why does it matter, that you, a moral ignorant, “sure don’t”?
“Keen also, irritatingly, keeps returning to the Monkeys and Typewriters analogy (writes your dear correspondent, a monkey).[citation needed][pretentious rant][POV pushing]

“It is true there may not be much talent behind the infinite typewriters,[rant] but the evolutionary lesson is that there doesn’t need to be,[citation needed][POV pushing]

Since when are evolutionary lessons automatically are true and useful or any lessons? Thanks for those revealing weasel words DARWINIST. Yet another Darwinist defending Yahoo! Answers, the Myspace forums (where a Satanist and some anti-Christian were harassing me and who myspace banned for it. Would you like to see the confirmation emails I received? Or should I not allow the chance of another Darwinist to harass me with emails?) Using your logic creation science theories are also true and valid merely because they’ve been used as lessons.

And it’s “true that it’s maybe true” lol? Actual quote from you: rearranged so that everyone can more clearly see nonsense you said: “It is true there may … be not much [truth]”. And did you mean “It’s true THAT there” Mr. Communication Expert?

“as long as we have tools,[citation needed][POV pushing]

Oh, so as long as “we” have tools (including us creationists, Calvinists right, and anti-“the truth isn’t important; all you need is references which appease the Yahoo and Wikipedia moderators”ists, right?) then the tools will magically make us do what’s useful. I think I’ll add that line to my book of arguments against God: “but we have tools and as long as we have them, we can defeat God and don’t need the truth.”

Wow you’re still ranting and the amazon moderators have allowed your dissertation to remain long enough to get 131 votes up since July 24, 2007. How hypocritical that amazon kept removing my review, a “dissertation” as one amazon moderator called it, and which his master agreed with, despite it being shorter than your rant. Biased they are, just like you.

“be they Google algorithms or manual reputation management devices (things like Amazon’s ‘helpful review’ voting buttons):[citation needed][POV pushing]

Oh yeah, don’t you know anti-Christian trolls voting down my review on Bean-zyme as soon as I made it, and creating new accounts to vote any reviews I’ve made down when they see someone has voted it up is just so useful? Funny how Calvinists don’t use the same deceptive tactics. Is that because we’re less evolved? Would you like us to evolve and create dummy accounts to vote you down?

“to sort the wheat from the chaff.[pretentious ranting]

Would you like to give credit to the Bible for that unnecessary sentence? Or would you like everyone to believe that you’re just really original? Give honor to whom honor is due credit-thieving Darwinist. Truly you are like your father Darwin who stole credit for the theory of natural selection from Edward Blyth (a creation scientist) and whose lovers continue to do so today on the Charles Darwin and Origin of the Species pages on Wikipedia.

“And like it or not, we *do* have these tools:[pretentious ranting][POV pushing]

See the last three replies Mr. Pom Poms. And what does this part of your rant have to do with whether or not this book says anything useful? Time-wasting, opinion-parroting, feelings-basher?

“they’re the sine non qua of Web 2.0,[pretentious ranting] the thing without which it would never have got off the ground.[citation needed][POV pushing]

“And Wikipedia (or Linux, or eBay, or Amazon’s customer review system) is potent evidence of that.[POV pushing][ranting]

YOU JUST MENTIONED THOSE THINGS REDUNDANT TIME-WASTER, example: “be they Google algorithms or manual reputation management devices (things like Amazon’s ‘helpful review’ voting buttons)”. Evil opinion-basher: Stop ranting and repeating yourself; you are personally attacking in hypocrisy.

Sickening, you’re still babbling:

“That there are notorious cases,[pretentious wording]

“a few of which Keen recounts,[citation needed]

What’s wrong, don’t want us to learn about Essjay the lying Wikipedia moderator and the incredible stubbornness of James, owner of Wikipedia, to admit it and get rid of him? Is that why you don’t cite what you’re talking about?

“doesn’t detract from the fact that Wikipedia is largely comprised of brilliant articles,[citation needed][POV pushing]

Because ye said so. Since when is everyone a gullible, simpleton like you? Since when is everyone an “ignore the examples showing that mobs cannot trusted” type like you are? And how arrogant that you pretend to be the representative and think you are, of 30+ million Calvinists and other countless numbers of Christians who don’t worship Darwin or your mob moderators. Delusions of Grandeur much? Do you have any references that show you speak for the 30+ million Calvinists and anti-Darwinists?

Wow, please, shut up already:

“with helpful links and useful surrounding discussion, a complete history, and those articles that aren’t so good are obviously not: all you need to pack for a visit is your critical faculties. Again, if the choice were blind faith[citation needed][POV pushing] in Encyclopaedia[weasel word][personal attack] Britannica”

Did you mean Encyclopedia, or pedophile? Got something on your mind that you’d like to share with us Mr. Paedia?

“or a sceptical”[Britishism]

Did you mean “skeptical”?

“read of Wikipedia, I know which I’d have, and which I’d counsel for my children – especially since Wikipedia is automatically up-to-date,[citation needed][POV pushing]
If your idea of skeptical reading is to claim without evidence that Wikipedia magically updated whenever new information about THE TRUTH (oopsie, Wikipedia ain’t about the truth it says as well as one of their harassing moderator repeated to me) is p made then you are a extremely deluded moron. Hopefully your kids are already sick of your over-weening pride and have seen through your gross, immoral, stupidity.

“preternaturally[pretentious wording (kids, look in the dictionary, your dad is playing scholar again)]

“following the zeitgeist,[pretentious word] and replete[pretentious word] with good know-how on things that Britannica would never have in a million years.[citation needed][dubious][POV pushing][“personal attack”]

Are ya done playing scholar yet? Oh no:

“Most of the time, we don’t need a nobel-prize certified article,[citation needed][pretentious ranting]

“and in Britannica wouldn’t get one anyway,[dubious][POV pushing]

“if what we wanted to know about was *The Knights who say ‘Ni’.[pretentious rant]

Stop ranting please. No, he won’t:

“Elsewhere Keen misunderstands Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jaques Rousseau, the Correspondence Theory of Truth,[dubious][citation needed]

“implies that traditional media isn’t systemically biased, assumes his fellow men have no sense of scepticism whatever (because something is watched on YouTube,[citation needed]

“Keen assumes it is necessarily believed true),[citation needed]

“and constantly fails to see the double standards in his own arguments:[citation needed]

“Complaining that traditional media is losing out to a swarm of unpaid, underresourced amateurs,[citation needed][punctuation: should end in a period (which would help make it look less like you’re ranting. Oh wait, you are.)]”

Did you mean undererererersourced? Were you tired of ranting? I wonder if it’s considered “poor etiquette” in Wikipedia’s holy guidelines as well to not make sure you haven’t posted any typos rather than simply because you didn’t sign your post which automatically gets signed anyways. Hmmm, lsince Wikipedia’s morality is backwards and petty… probably not.

STOP: You are vandalizing Amazon’s review section and your review will be removed. Dang, it didn’t work (must only work on creationists):

“Keen suddenly remarks ‘but in reality it’s often those with the loudest, most convincing message, and the most money to spread it, who are being heard’. Plus ca change, eh?[nonsense]

Plus what? Are done gushing stupid garbage yet? Yet? Nope, Darwin still gotsum opinions to show off:

“Lastly,”

Really? We’re almost there yet? Please? How about you stop the car now so us kids can get out and find some foster parents who aren’t full of themselves? I’ll trade you some printed pages of Wikipedia.

“Keen laments[pretentious wording] the passing of specialist record and book shops like Tower, whose ‘unparalleled’ and ‘remarkably diverse selection’ will be lost to us for ever.[citation needed][word salad]

“Clearly he’s no online shopper then,[dubious][citation needed][POV pushing]

Dang, he doesn’t shop online, he’s bad, very bad. Is “Thou shalt shop online.” part of the Web 2.0 religious code?

“since dear old Amazon[pretentious rant]

“Dear” to you. You’re not the spokesperson for Calvinists and creationists.

“would lick all of them put together[pretentious rant]

What? Essjay? Essjay is that you? Come on, I know it’s you Essjay.

“- but Amazon, he says, lacks the dedicted[typo] expertise of sales assistants”

STOP: It is considered poor etiquette (by uh) to post a long rant without at least checking for spelling errors, so that only your Darwinist friends can mock pagans and Christians for making them.

I thought this was the “last”? God bless you but can you leave now? I have a life you know, it’s not about listening to people like you rant nonstop about how wonderful you and your “contributions” are oh Benefactor.

“that could have stepped out of Nick Hornby’s Hi Fidelity.[pretentious ranting]

(yawn)

“Except that it doesn’t, since it has literally millions of them –[ranting]

“people like you and me –[ranting][pouting]

“who can offer our tuppence[pretentious wording]

Where did you get these words? Wikipedia’s page on How to Sound Like You’re Smart and Even If You’re An Ill-tempered Knows-nothing? Or was it that book, The Art of Verbal Self-Defense: For Dummies.

“worth gladly and without thought of recompense.[pretentious word][word salad]”

“The thing is, there *is*[pom poms]

Still talking Mr. Lastly or should we called you Pom Poms?

“debate to be had here, though not quite the apocalyptic one that this author believes is necessary, and at times Keen touches on it, but his brimming prurience[pretentious wording] and needless moral disgust[ranting][POV pushing]

Becuz, u, said, so. And ooooo damn his morals. Your Amazonian, Yahooligan, Wikipedian, Darwinian Truth-Don’t Matter Just Evolution and Amazonian, Yahooligan, Wikipedian, Darwinian Approved References religion is the right one. I’m so happy that all I have to do is call myself an Calvinistic Christian or just an eternian to identify what I stand for.

Curls nose:

“- at the cost of level-headed anlysis[typo] and expostion[typo][pretentious rant]

“- towards a community which has simply adjusted to the new social envinronment[typo] more quickly than traditional political and business models have makes this a poor entry for the purposes of kicking off that debate.[pretentious rant][word salad]

Do I need to call the police? I said no solicitations, can you read spammer? What little you know about good and evil you are confused about; that’s not debatable.

“In the mean time, Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom and Lawrence Lessig’s Code: Version 2.0 (neither of which Keen seems to have read)[dubious][POV pushing][pointless repetition]

“might be a better place for interested persons to start.”

A Mob Spokesman: Hey everyone, our mob of Congressman have decided to pass the Patriot Act (except presidential candidate Ron Paul). Does that men the FBI might come to your house and that you might lose some of your rights when they come to investigate you? Maybe, maybe. But which is more important? Your security, or your freedom? Maybe it’s your security. It just might be a better country now that we get to spy on you whenever we feel like it. It just maybe might be the truth. So yeah. There.

Visit this excellent store and gain wisdom. Purchase a book to help me continue to expose lies and to spead the truth.

Categories: Uncategorized

A Review of a Confused Yahoo

March 28, 2008 4 comments
This is my review of Olly’s review ofThe Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture whose review was called, “Confused, Prurient and Amateur: A debate is needed, but this isn’t the book to lead it, By O. Buxton ‘Olly Buxton'”.

“Confused, Prurient[pretentious word] and Amateur:”

“A debate is needed, but this isn’t the book to lead it[citation needed][dubious][POV pushing]

Because you said so.

By O. Buxton ‘Olly Buxton’[pretentious][redundant]

“Since Andrew Keen is so instinctively dismissive about amateur contributors to the internet”[citation needed][dubious][ranting] – people like me – it’s hardly surprising that I should instinctively dismiss his book,”

Do as you say not as you do huh? Yep, you’re a true Yahoo Wikipedian.

“so let me declare an interest right away: I like Web 2.0.[ranting]

And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how?

“I’ve been a contributor to it – through Amazon customer reviews, Wikipedia[citation needed], discussion forums[citation needed], MySpace[citation needed], Napster[citation needed] and so on – for nearly a decade now,[citation needed]

And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how? Oh, and so you’re right because you’ve contributed.; excellent Yahoo Wikipedian logic: It’s you’re feelings that matter, not the truth, and not doing as you say Mr. “No Citation Is Needed As Long As You Appease the Yahoo and Wikipedia Moderators”.

“and I’ve followed the emergence of the political movement supporting it, exemplified by writers such as Larry Lessig and Yochai Benkler, with some fascination.[citation needed]

And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how?
“and no, I’ve never made a dime out of it (though I have been sent a few books to review, not including this one).[citation needed]

And this has what to do with whether or not this book contains truths or lies how? Mr. “Didn’t Get a Dime (But Wait: I Did Get Free Books)” you get man-praise from like-minded liars which you clearly love more than God-praise for telling the truth.

“Andrew Keen is that classic sort of British reactionary: the sort that would bemoan the loss of the word ‘gay’ to the English language, and regret the damage caused by industrial vacuum cleaners on the chimney sweeping industry.”[citation needed][“personal attack”][ranting]

True Yahoo Wikipedian babble. And aren’t personal attacks against the rules of both Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia and isn’t POV pushing against the rules of Wikipedia? Blind much? Hypocritical much? Repeatedly forget what truth, evidence, reality, hypocrisy and contradiction mean much?

“His book is an empassioned[spelling], but simple-minded, harkening[spelling]

Did you mean “impassioned” and “hearkening”? Hey, if atheists can dote on spelling errors of Christians, can’t I at least point their’s out? Atheists love to make fun of Christians for not using a spell checker; will they do the same to you?

“to those simpler times which concludes that our networked economy has pointlessly exalted the amateur, ruined the livelihood of experts, destroyed incentives for creating intellectual property, delivered to every man-jack amongst us the ability – never before possessed – to create and distribute our own intellectual property and monkeyed around mischievously with the title to property wrought from the very sweat of its author’s brow.[citation needed]

And besides missing yet another citation and getting that 132nd thumbs up for it, can you speak in a way that makes sense to everyone rather than pretending to be an expert on the truth by using awkward grammar and phrases posing as eloquent Shakespearean speech?

“Keen thinks this is a bad thing;[citation needed] but that is to assume that the prior state of affairs was unimpeachably good.[dubious]

Who made this assumption? You, or him Mr. Weasel in the “But”? Isn’t weasel-wording against Wikipedia’s rules too? You don’t even seem to be an amateur with your repeated violations of Wikipedia’s Universal Religious Code. James the Wikipope and Essjay the Wikibishop shall hear of this.

“You don’t have to be a paranoid Chomskyite[weasel-wording] to see the pitfalls of concentrated mass media ownership (Keen glosses over them), or note that the current intellectual property regime – which richly rewards a few lucky souls and their publishers at the expense of millions of less fortunate (but not, necessarily, less talented) ones, isn’t the only way one could fairly allocate the risks and rewards of intellectual endeavour.[POV pushing]

Is this about the book’s content or your views of the value of Wikipedia and Yahoo! Answers as a source of useful references let alone truthful references? You know personal commentaries not on the book but what the book talk about in the review space is against Amazon’s rules right?

“Keen’s world is one where there is a transcendental reality; a truth, purveyed by experts, trained journalists, and in great danger of dissolution by the radically relativised truths of Wikipedia where the community sets the agenda, and if two plus two equals five, then it is five.[citation needed][pretentious ranting][POV pushing]

“So much Big Brother: Orwell’s novel gets repeated mention,[citation needed][pretentious ranting] it apparently having escaped Keen that a media owned by a concentrated, cross-held clique of corporate interests – which is what the old economy perpetuated[pretentious ranting] – looks quite a lot more totalitarian than publishing capacity distributed to virtually every person on the planet.[citation needed][pretentious ranting][POV pushing]

“Keen laments[pretentious wording: Keep it simple genius; I know you hate kids and teens but wish to impress them at the same time, but not all of are mindless followers who enjoy hearing you pretending to be Andy Rooney] the loss of a ‘sanctity of authorship’[citation needed][pretentious ranting] of the sort which vouchsafed[pretentious ranting] to Messrs Jagger and Richards (and their recording company)[citation needed] a healthy lifetime’s riches for the fifteen minutes it took to compose and record Satisfaction[citation needed] (notwithstanding their debt – doubtless unpaid – to divers blues legends from Robert Johnson to Chuck Berry) and seems to believe individual creativity will be suddenly stifled by undermining it[weasel-wording][POV pushing][entire quoted section is here is word salad]

“There’s no evidence for this (certainly not judging by MySpace, the proliferation of blogs, Wikipedia, and so forth, as Keen patiently recounts), and no reason I can see for supposing it to be true on any other grounds.[citation needed][POV pushing]

And show us your citation for “no evidence” for whatever the Hell you meant by your word salad up there. Dosado, mix those words 1 2 3, swing your partners, now clap your hands, rant and rant to all your fans, harass to death every man! Yaaaaaahoooooo!

“On the contrary, Yale law professor Yochai Benkler in his excellent (and freely available!)”

Yaaaaaahoooooo! This is also freely available: mininova.org/tor/1273681 and so is cheap candy and bug-ridden freeware.

“The Wealth Of Networks has a much more sophisticated analysis:”[citation needed]

And “more sophisticated” is what matters most don’t ya know, not the truth! True Yahoo-Wikipedian logic: “using uncommon words and complex wording to make yourself look as wise as genuine wisemen matters more than being a wise man.”

“there is a non-market wealth of information and expertise – residing in heads like yours and mine – which the networked economy has finally unlocked, for the benefit of all, and at the cost of the poor substitute that preceded it.[word salad][Pov pushing]

“That this might have compromised the gargantuan earnings capacity of one latter day Rolling Stones (to the incremental benefit of a few thousand others) is far less of a travesty – andmore of a boon – than Keen thinks it is.[citation needed][word salad][POV pushing] Now rock bands have to sing for their supper.[citation needed][pretentious wording]

And what does copyright law being broken (which is against Wikipedia’s rules) have to do with whether or not Wealth Of Networks or Cult of the Amateur say anything worth listening to?

“Keen may regret that but, as a concert goer, I sure don’t.[weasel words][POV pushing]

“Keen also, irritatingly, keeps returning to the Monkeys and Typewriters analogy (writes your dear correspondent, a monkey).[citation needed][pretentious rant][POV pushing]

“It is true there may not be much talent behind the infinite typewriters,[rant] but the evolutionary lesson is that there doesn’t need to be,[citation needed][POV pushing]

Since when are evolutionary lessons automatically are true and useful or any lessons? Thanks for those revealing weasel words DARWINIST. Yet another Darwinist defending Yahoo! Answers, the Myspace forums (where a Satanist and some anti-Christian were harassing me and who myspace banned for it. Would you like to see the confirmation emails I received? Or should I not allow the chance of another Darwinist to harass me with emails?) Using your logic creation science theories are also true and valid merely because they’ve been used as lessons.

And it’s “true that it’s maybe true” lol? Actual quote from you: rearranged so that everyone can more clearly see nonsense you said: “It is true there may… be not much [truth]”. And did you mean “It’s true THAT there” Mr. Communication Expert?

“as long as we have tools,[citation needed][POV pushing]

Oh, so as long as “we” have tools (including us creationists, Calvinists right, and anti-“the truth isn’t important; all you need is references which appease the Yahoo and Wikipedia moderators”ists, right?) then the tools will magically make us do what’s useful. I think I’ll add that line to my book of arguments against God: “but we have tools and as long as we have them [we can defeat God and don’t need the truth.]”

Wow you’re still ranting and the amazon moderators have allowed your dissertation to remain long enough to get 131 votes up since July 24, 2007. Hypocritical that they kept removing a “dissertation” as one amazon moderator called one of my reviews, despite it being shorter than your rant here.

“be they Google algorithms or manual reputation management devices (things like Amazon’s ‘helpful review’ voting buttons):[citation needed][POV pushing]

Oh yeah, don’t you know anti-Christian trolls voting down my review on Bean-zyme as soon as I made it, and creating new accounts to vote any reviews I’ve made down when they see someone has voted it up is just so useful? Funny how Calvinists don’t use the same deceptive tactics. Is that because we’re less evolved? Would you like us to evolve and create dummy accounts to vote you down?

“to sort the wheat from the chaff.[pretentious ranting]

Would you like to give credit to the Bible for that unnecessary sentence? Or wouldyou like everyone to believe that you’re just really original? Give honor to whom honor is due credit-thieving Darwinist. Truly you are like your father Darwin who stole credit for the theory of natural selection from Edward Blyth (a creation scientist) and whose lovers continue to do so today on the Charles Darwin and Origin of the Species pages on Wikipedia.

“And like it or not, we *do* have these tools:[pretentious ranting][POV pushing]

See the last three replies. And what does this part of your rant have to do with whether or not this book says anything useful? Time-wasting, opinion-parroting, feelings-basher?

“they’re the sine non qua of Web 2.0,[pretentious ranting] the thing without which it would never have got off the ground.[citation needed][POV pushing]

“And Wikipedia (or Linux, or eBay, or Amazon’s customer review system) is potent evidence of that.[POV pushing][ranting]

YOU JUST MENTIONED THOSE THINGS REDUNDANT TIME-WASTER, example: “be they Google algorithms or manual reputation management devices (things like Amazon’s ‘helpful review’ voting buttons)”. Evil opinion-basher: Stop ranting and repeating yourself; you are personally attacking in hypocrisy.

Sickening, you’re still babbling:

“That there are notorious cases,[pretentious wording]

“a few of which Keen recounts,[citation needed]

What’s wrong, don’t want us to learn about Essjay the lying Wikipedia moderator and the incredible stubbornness of James, owner of Wikipedia, to admit it and get rid of him? Is that why you don’t cite what you’re talking about?

“doesn’t detract from the fact that Wikipedia is largely comprised of brilliant articles,[citation needed][POV pushing]

Because ye said so. Since when is everyone a gullible, simpleton like you? Since when is everyone an “ignore the examples showing that mobs cannot trusted” type like you are? And how arrogant that you pretend to be the representative and think you are, of 30+ million Calvinists and other countless numbers of Christians who don’t worship Darwin or your mob moderators. Delusions of Grandeur much? Do you have any references that show you speak for the 30+ million Calvinists and anti-Darwinists?

Wow, please, shut up already:

“with helpful links and useful surrounding discussion, a complete history, and those articles that aren’t so good are obviously not: all you need to pack for a visit is your critical faculties. Again, if the choice were blind faith in Encyclopaedia[weasel word] Britannica”

Did you mean Encyclopedia, or pedophile? Got something on your mind that you’d like to share with us Mr. Paedia?

“or a sceptical[Britishism]

Did you mean skeptical? Are you British?

“read of Wikipedia, I know which I’d have, and which I’d counsel for my children – especially since Wikipedia is automatically up-to-date,[citation needed][POV pushing]

If your idea of skeptical reading is to claim without evidence that Wikipedia magically updated whenever new information about THE TRUTH (oopsie, Wikipedia ain’t about the truth it says as well as one of their harassing moderator repeated to me) is p made then you are a extremely deluded moron. Hopefully your kids are already sick of your over-weening pride and have seen through your gross, immoral, stupidity.

“preternaturally[pretentious wording (kids, look in the dictionary, your dad is playing scholar again)]

“following the zeitgeist,[pretentious word] and replete[pretentious word] with good know-how on things that Britannica would never have in a million years.[citation needed][dubious][POV pushing][“personal attack”]

Are ya done playing scholar yet? Oh no:

“Most of the time, we don’t need a nobel-prize[capitalization] certified article,[citation needed][pretentious ranting]

“and in Britannica wouldn’t get one anyway,[dubious][POV pushing]

“if what we wanted to know about was *The Knights who say ‘Ni’.[pretentious rant]

Stop ranting please. No, he won’t:

“Elsewhere Keen misunderstands Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jaques Rousseau, the Correspondence Theory of Truth,[dubious][citation needed]

“implies that traditional media isn’t systemically biased, assumes his fellow men have no sense of scepticism whatever (because something is watched on YouTube,[citation needed]

“Keen assumes it is necessarily believed true),[citation needed]

“and constantly fails to see the double standards in his own arguments:[citation needed]

“Complaining that traditional media is losing out to a swarm of unpaid, underresourced amateurs,[citation needed][punctuation: should end in a period (which would help make it look less like you’re ranting. Oh wait, you are.)]

Did you mean undererererersourced? Were you tired of ranting? I wonder if it’s considered “poor etiquette” in Wikipedia’s holy guidelines as well to not make sure you haven’t posted any typos rather than simply because you didn’t sign your post which automatically gets signed anyways. Hmmm, since Wikipedia’s morality is backwards and petty… probably not.


Please stop. If you continue to post nonsense and mere insults in Amazon.com you will increase God’s hatred of you.


“Keen suddenly remarks ‘but in reality it’s often those with the loudest, most convincing message, and the most money to spread it, who are being heard’. Plus ca change, eh?[nonsense]

Plus what? Are done gushing stupid garbage yet? Yet? Nope, Darwin still gotsum opinions to show off:

“Lastly,”

Really? We’re almost there yet? Please? How about you stop the car now so us kids can get out and find some foster parents who aren’t full of themselves? I’ll trade you some printed pages of Wikipedia.

“Keen laments[pretentious wording] the passing of specialist record and book shops like Tower, whose ‘unparalleled’ and ‘remarkably diverse selection’ will be lost to us for ever.[citation needed][word salad]

“Clearly he’s no online shopper then,[dubious][citation needed][POV pushing]

Dang, he doesn’t shop online, he’s bad, very bad. Is “Thou shalt shop online.” part of the Web 2.0 religious code?

“since dear old Amazon[pretentious rant]

“Dear” to you. You’re not the spokesperson for Calvinists and creationists.

“would lick all of them put together[pretentious rant]

What? Essjay? Essjay is that you? Come on, I know it’s you Essjay.

“- but Amazon, he says, lacks the dedicted[typo] expertise of sales assistants”

STOP: It is considered poor etiquette (by uh) to post a long rant without at least checking for spelling errors, so that only your Darwinist friends can mock pagans and Christians for making them.

I thought this was the “last”? God bless you but can you leave now? I have a life you know, it’s not about listening to people like you rant nonstop about how wonderful you and your “contributions” are oh Benefactor.

“that could have stepped out of Nick Hornby’s Hi Fidelity.[pretentious ranting]

(yawn)

“Except that it doesn’t, since it has literally millions of them –[ranting]”

“people like you and me –[ranting][pouting]

“who can offer our tuppence[pretentious wording]

Where did you get these words? Wikipedia’s page on How to Sound Like You’re Smart and Even If You’re An Ill-tempered Knows-nothing? Or was it that book, The Art of Verbal Self-Defense: For Dummies.

“worth gladly and without thought of recompense.[pretentious word][word salad]

“The thing is, there *is*[pom poms]

Still talking Mr. Lastly or should we called you Pom Poms?

“debate to be had here, though not quite the apocalyptic one that this author believes is necessary, and at times Keentouches on it, but his brimming prurience[pretentious wording] and needless moral disgust[ranting][POV pushing]

Because, you, said, so. And ooooo damn his morals. Your Amazonian, Yahooligan, Wikipedian, Darwinian Truth-Don’t Matter Just Evolution and Amazonian, Yahooligan, Wikipedian, Darwinian Approved References religion is the right one. I’m so happy that all I have to do is call myself an Calvinistic Christian or just an eternian to identify what I stand for.

Curls nose:

“- at the cost of level-headed anlysis[typo] and expostion[typo][pretentious rant]

“- towards a community which has simply adjusted to the new social envinronment[typo] more quickly than traditional political and business models have makes this a poor entry for the purposes of kicking off that debate.[pretentious rant][word salad]

Do I need to call the police? I said no solicitations, can you read spammer? What little you know about good and evil you are confused about; that’s not debatable.

“In the mean time, Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom and Lawrence Lessig’s Code: Version 2.0 (neither of which Keen seems to have read)[dubious][POV pushing][pointless repetition]

“might be a better place for interested persons to start.”

A Mob Spokesman: Hey everyone, our mob of Congressman have decided to pass the Patriot Act (except presidential candidate Ron Paul). Does that men the FBI might come to your house and that you might lose some of your rights when they come to investigate you? Maybe, maybe. But which is more important? Your security, or your freedom? Maybe it’s your security. It just might be a better country now that we get to spy on you whenever we feel like it. It just maybe might be the truth. So yeah. There.

The truth is out there, but don’t be a gullible simpleton. Learn the definitions of words, including the common words you use, and once you understand these common words, start reading the Bible and learning what the words in it mean, especially in their original languages. And believe the Bible above all else.

Visit this excellent store and gain wisdom. Purchase a book to help me continue to expose lies and to spread the truth.

Categories: Uncategorized