Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Wikipedia’

Proof Congresswoman ilhan Omar is a Racist Liar Who Married Her Brother

These aren’t rumors, but facts backed up by pictures/screenshots and official documents. Wikipedia is falsely claiming it’s a conspiracy theory. There’s even some wacko know-it-all “ex-lawyer” (great credential!) “Charles” on quora making a faps3 and absurd lie that “the press corps” (what the hell is that?!) disproved this with DNA, wow, just lies!

Key smoking gun (besides the pictures and social media admissions by Ilhan’s brother: her first known husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, has the same birthdate as a man with the same name that his fellow students say had the same dad as Ilhan (as in the dad has the same name), the same as that of her brother (who in social media posts twice was pictured with Ilhan), a brother she has not publically disclosed as a sibling/brother (and she will not give out the last names of her family, why? Because their real last names is ‘not’ Omar, but ‘Elmi’). Ilhan and others of her family lied about their last names in order to claim relationship to the Omar (Somali) family for quick access to U.S. and U.K. citizenship. Ahmad was apparently intelligent enough stay outside of America, probably realizing that if he were found out would be the target of harassment and would have had a chance of being arrested by ICE (the immigration police).

New Evidence Supports Claims That Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother


100% Proof Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

ilhan’s Brother Caught Lying About His Education

Why Is This Now New News?

https://www.conservapedia.com/Ilhan_Omarilhan Omar Charged With Fraud

INCEST OMAR: Loomer Launches New Merch to Raise Awareness About Ilhan Omar Marrying Brother

Star-Tribune wrote it, “could neither conclusively confirm nor rebut the allegation that he is Omar’s sibling.”

Snopes.com in February 2019, said “the evidence uncovered thus far isn’t definitive enough to come down on one side or the other.”

For those of you liberals who wonder why I care, it’s because 1. I’m Jewish, or consider myself so as my dad is Jewish (I do not care that in Judaism the mom only counts – it’s a racist doctrine, as Abraham was called the first “Jew” and yet is an Assyrian, and Moses’ wife was an Ethiopian, yet clearly God had considered Moses’ future family line as being sufficient as Jews when God pretended he was about to wipe out most of or half the Jews who were rebellious). 2. Laura Loomer is Jewish and racists within the liberal community are persecuting her and calling her a conspiracy theorist on Wikipedia. 3. On Quora I see a shady guy calling himself “Charles” and an “ex-lawyer” with an unbelievable “24,000+” answers on Quora.com (and a significant yet underwhelming following of 9,900 followers) gave a very suspicious answer about Ilhan, by outright lying and using the infantile and illogical claim that to consider a false accusation is “old hat” that is (possibly) 9 years old (what matters is if it’s true, and it’s coming to light in mass as she became a government official whose opposing the president, all Jews and who can sabotage America via its immigration laws). Something of an interesting side note is that the expression/term/phrase, “old hat” is sexist:

“slang. The vulva. Also: sexual intercourse; a woman regarded as a means of sexual gratification. Now arch. and rare.” – Oxford Dictionary. Ironically the very term “old hat” there is claimed to be a near extinct phrase, itself, old. It originally seems to have meant, “a woman who was only good for sex due to her uselessness and old age” or “a female only good for sex as her vagina has been repeatedly used for sex by more than one male, in otherwords, a “slut”. Shouldn’t Charles, playing know-it-all ex-lawyer (he’s a writer for Apple Inc., too, allegedly) have been careful not to use a sexist expression? It is evidence that Charles is carelessly posting answers. Further evidence is that the expression the way he implied it shows an illogical and criminal state of mind as it’s meaning morphed to, include, “colloq. In predicative use: something considered to be old-fashioned, out of date, unoriginal, or hackneyed.” Since when would wondering about a recently discovered accusation be, “unoriginal” or “old-fashioned”. “Out of date” is an expression itself that refers to style and as such is itself discriminatory/prejudiced then against clothing choice, makeup and hairstyle and by extension then, the treasured doctrine of “liberal diversity”. So, Charles isn’t even using the term correctly and ironically one that itself is considered “out of fashion” to even use and not original/no longer new. Charles meant however, “old news” (apparently trying to force a new meaning to sound clever, original and wise by using a rare term – talk about “weird” and nonsensical”!)

Does it’s older use matter? Of course it does, because in a very large population who seeks information on everything and regarding a very controversial topic in tbe major news people will end up digging into everything, and ironically this topic was something that required some deep digging!

Anne Curzan, an English professor at the University of Michigan claims that the obsolete (pardon this side-topic pun) use of words and phrases no longer counts as what the meaning was replaced with, which true or not, doesn’t excuse Charles’ dually wrong use 1. It’s more modern use applies to fashion 2. He meant it to mean “a topic so old everyone knew about it and that’s been disproven”. 1. It was never a widely known topic as Ilhan herself was obscure and rarely in the news. 2. Again, a thing’s age has nothing to do with it being true or false, it’s grossly childish thinking, like saying, “the Bible is old, so we should completely ignore it” or “climate change”, “rape”, “homosexuality”, “lying”, “evolution”, “evil”. It’s as childish as the expression “judgmental”, itself in it’s modern usage a nonsensical phrase.

The 3rd reason I care about Ilhan’s criminal acts and words, specifically her unlawful marraige is that I don’t think this news has gotten the attention it deserves, as it shows how gullible people, liberal or not, can be in accepting someone merely for the sake of “diversity” (which seems to me to be a word liberals are using out of their dislike for the traditional liberal pretentious ideal of total “unity”/agreement, which truly just meant, “agreement with liberal beliefs/philosophy” – but of course has a conotation of accepting even Christian fundamentalist beliefs which liberals despise, so, they switched to “diversity”, meaning in liberal context, “you don’t have to agree with everyone and any claim like that blacks are mentally inferior, but treat everyone equally under the law, like gays who wish to have the same marraige rights as hetros”, which itsef is hypocritical and impossible as liberals cannot even agree when human life becomes human, and so denies the rights of defenseless babies, and cannot agree when even a preteen child – if at all – should have the right to suicide or have an so called “sex-change”!).

Liberlism is very convoluted. I think too conservatism is too, and perhaps worse, as it seems to imply the Bible sanctions free speech, even lying of the kind liberals use to destroy conservatism. What conservatives fear is their “free speech” to question anything held sacred or “mainstream” or to blaspheme or make statements that merely over being disagreeable, being used to prosecute, censure and execute them over, a fear or concern due to the Catholic Church (a Christian-pagan cult, with an anti-Jewish streak) having used religious doctrines they held sacred (and the Puritans who misused evidence of witchcraft) to do such things. But the conservative and liberal method of dealing with the Catholic and Puritan misuse of religious doctrine is no better. It should never be legal to sanction what traditionally is considered blasphemy or malicious speech that is meant to incite violence or strife, especially random, like a verbal dirty bomb. Example, if I say, “Liberals and conservatives are both fags” or, “Christians are deluded liars”, it should be a criminal slander offense, but ones being broad like that with no direct blasphemy should have a death penalty, just some fine, community service, public rebuke, or a three days in jail. The worse the maliciousness the worse the punishment. Example, if I said, “kids should be tortured for fun”, I’d say that’s six months slaving in some farm, or a year in jail, second offense, double, third, triple, and so on or being committed to a maximum security mental institution until it can be determined by twelve psychologist that whoever said that is not a psychopath or narcissist (two types of mentally ill humans I believe should be in prisons for the insane and pathologically dangerous).

Ilhan’s crimes merit deportation back to Somalia. However, if she admitted the truth, recanted that Jews have magically put the world in a trance (much of the world is disgusted by Jews, so how would that even come close to being true?) and was willing to spend a year in a prison in her home state learning to tolerate Jewish diversity and hear the Bible read each day, I’d say let her stay. That is merciful, unlike Sharia-Muslim law, requiring upwards of 80-200+ lashings with a pronged whip, and even being stoned to death. The Bible only calls for forty lashes for FALSE WITNESS and stoning only by someone who is considered morally pure – part of God’s wise and merciful way of “checks and balances”, till Christ’s return.

Liberal Bullying — YouTube (and CNN) Censor Free Speech and Christians

September 30, 2012 2 comments

A few days ago, I noticed some extremely harsh atheist trolls raving over me and another Christian posting rebuttals to a claim on a video in which a naturist claimed evolution was true. I first saw whiny complaints by a few atheists on YouTube doing the usual: whining about seeing comments about God, and demanding and commanding those mentioning him to not mention him, and one atheist used a typical immature cliche, saying to “get your ass back to church” and talk about God there. There were various insults as always, but none from the Christian, till I came in to rebuke them for their stupidity and trying to take God’s place and them preaching their own version of morality, that being to not talk about God or religion whenever it didn’t meet their approval. These are typical liberal morons who like the liberals that call to conservative radio shows, or who hear them, complain about them, as if they are forced to listen.

A very short while after, I got this email:

The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled:

Bombardier Beetle vs Solpugid aka Camel spider aka Sun spider aka Wind scorpion –

Your account has received one Community Guidelines warning strike, which will expire in six months. Additional violations may result in the temporary disabling of your ability to post content to YouTube and/or the permanent termination of your account.

For more information on YouTube’s Community Guidelines and how they are enforced, please visit the help center.
Sincerely,

The YouTube Team

After reading the comment I tried to post on someone elses video who had complained about the same thing happening to him, but noticed I couldn’t post a comment. I wasted about 10 minutes trying! Then I clicked my account only to get a warning message saying blah blah you did such and such wrong and making me acknowledge I read it. I then was able to go back to posting comments. But was there any appeal button? No, instead, these morons force you to use Google to figure out how to appeal the accusation or naturally have you search their help section. When I searched through their help section, I tried to complain about harassment, which was true, however it wouldn’t work with Firefox 14, and was getting a message in broken English, to select something, yet I had selected “something”. There was nothing left to fill out. I then tried to start over only for it to be stuck with the harassment button being selected, and unable to break out of it and continue the process of the complaint. SO THEN, I opened up Internet Explorer and this time decided to go read everything else that applied to my situation, only to go around TWICE IN A CIRCLE, as there was no genuine method of CONTACTING THEM AS THEIR SITE CLAIMED COULD BE DONE. ANOTHER TEN MINUTES OF MY LIFE DOWN THEIR TOILET OF CONTEMPT FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS.

I then Googled how to appeal a video being removed and saw on top a YouTube video from a user, not a YouTube “team member” that pointed me to YouTube’s official (and pathetic and obviously ignored) blog on . I then, as others had done, left my complaint, AND TRIED ABOUT SIX TIMES TO DO SO, TRIED SIX TIMES BECAUSE EACH TIME THE CAPTCHA ENTRY WAS REJECTED! MORE OF MY LIFE DOWN THE DRAIN. The reason it was failing is because the captchas were using tiny numbers in blocks, which were so blurry or small that I thought it was just part of the mess meant to fool spam bots. Finally I got a comment through, so I thought. I then saw it had to be approved by the moderator. I then looked carefully at the comments left, and noticed that some of the comments that were approved were clearly junk comments, not even serious, just nonsense. Now here was a great lie YouTube made, because in its help section, or that blog, they claimed they really did have moderators evaluating flagged videos 24 hours a day. Now if these moderators are doing that, if they are competent, why did they approve comments not related to that page on flagged videos and why did they reject my appeal!?:

Thank you for submitting your video appeal to YouTube.

After further review of the content, we’ve determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding.

Sincerely,

— The YouTube Team”

Can anyone explain how my video is a violation, when nothing was harmed, yet approves of insects being put together in a tight space for the purpose of seeing which will kill each other first, and as the spectators clearly hope to see, in some amazing way or why they approve of animals being eaten alive, or a kitten being used as a machine gun? I can go on, and on, and on, and on, including asking why they approve of little girls dancing in sexual ways, little as in three to eleven years old and a baby being attacked by a cobra a boy drowning a pet snake. Everyone has seen certain ones. Consider also this: that video, mine, which they banned, had under 1,500 views, yet the videos I’ve mentioned have millions of views, with the exception of the machine gun cat video having over about 320,000 views. How about the Man Vs Wild series: is it necessary for Bear Grylls to rip the tentacles off a living octopus, cut the tail ends off scorpions without first killing it, and on, and on, and on, rather than eat animals killed quickly like everyone else? Does anyone think that an octopus with its large brain felt any pain having its tentacles being ripped off? Can anyone say YouTube’s moderators are “anti-Christian sickos”? Obviously they are.

How can liberals and atheists expect to be seen as the most peaceful and rational among all the humans if they are conniving psychopaths and bullies who can’t tolerate disagreement or seeing God being put in a good light, or even a comment that expressed a mere disbelief in evolution theory, a theory for which there is NO EVIDENCE, but rather, a huge amount of evidence against, as my Twitter feed and journal thoroughly documents, as can easily be learned from a few hours of research, or even thought experiments? Did it ever occur to anyone that extremely small bacteria can’t just know what and how to eat without having been deliberately programmed? And even the smallest bacteria aren’t just “simple”, it’s not like you can make one for a few dollars or even with a $1,000,000, you’d need millions to make synthetic bacteria even with America and Japan’s state of the art technology, and you’d still need to use parts that came from a living one just to make a synthetic one. How can baby animals be born knowing how to breath, how to instantly walk, how did such sophisticated programming come about, where did the laws come from that allowed for that? Are the laws of this universe simple? Unlike math, which can’t be engineered, for example 2+2 simply = 4, there is nothing you can do to change that, it is an eternal truth, unlike math, the physics laws of this universe are variable, in that atoms, electrons, particles and dimensions can be changed, if you had God’s powers, so why are the laws of this universe the way they are, and not some other way? Again, it’s not like math truths, because truths can’t be changed no matter what. You could come up with a new math problem, but nothing will change about what the answer will be.

Obvious conclusion: YouTube/Google Corporation is a violation of logic and common sense, it approves of bullying Christians whom it thinks no one will notice being picked on, and is composed of moderators that are no better than the trolls cyberbullying, stalking and harassing other users in various ways. And now YouTube too makes it on the list of my Cyberstalking Hall of Shame, the entire corporation. I have also begun a boycott of YouTube.

Update: I just found out, at about 6:25 AM, that CNN had blocked me, when I went to read the comments about Syria’s president supposedly going to demolish Syrian homes in Hama, I didn’t even intend to say anything. I noticed before reading any, this comment with a beige background: “This site has blocked you from making comments.” I hadn’t made comments for a long time there except for some recent ones, which were about that girl who was elected as a prank as home coming queen. What oh so offensive things did I say that violated the (liberal) Community Guidelines? This: “Stand up for what you believe in and go with your heart and go with your gut. That’s what I did, and look at me now. I’m just as happy as can be!”Good job peers: you just helped spread liberal new age nonsense, the kind that gets people into fights and causes bullying.” I may have said something like that it leads to psychopathy and narcissism and, “Read narcissism. tk” (a website I wrote on the signs of narcissism and psychopath disorder). Not sure if I said the bullying part of if I quote the happy as can be part, but that’s about exactly what I said. It was the 43rd comment (so big surprise it got noticed and of course infuriated the liberals who saw it in mass and pressed that report button). I had posted it about three times, because I saw that CNNs comment system and mangled my paragraph by breaking it up in bizarre ways, so I tried again, and it did the same thing, and once more. I then posted a comment saying, “Why the Hell does CNN keep breaking up my comments dammit!?” (And keep in mind that before hand when I would type out a 8 word paragraph, it would put my comment in moderation. Highly suspicious, it was as if some moderator flagged me for being an anti-liberal and then made it so all my comments would have to be approved of first from then on. I wouldn’t be surprised if earlier comments had been removed without letting me know.

So after my little complaint, I quickly replied to another guy who angered at least one person I saw. He had made a comment like, “Can someone explain this?” and in another comment implied, if I remember right, something like she wasn’t pretty. To his first though I replied, “They didn’t elect someone based on their beauty this time.” Some short comment like that. As millions know, comments like that, even if not inherently rude, and simply repeating what the article itself implies, that IT WAS A PRANK, NOT AN ELECTION OF BEAUTY, will, if liberals or cultists, like self-righteous type Catholics (and note, Catholics, I didn’t say all of you, so don’t freak out you sloppily reading self-righteous arrogant ones) see that you’re opposed to them, will gang up on you and attack you in some way. Even on a pro-conservative site like Infowars, banned me once for criticizing Alex Jones for being an narcissist I’m guessing, or perhaps they didn’t like me typing the narcissism.tk link to show the signs as evidence that he had it rather than just limiting me to typing out the signs, and forcing me in a way then to make a long comment. They do put comments that use urls into moderation just like CNN does. So, I don’t bother using the http:// or www in the links, so that my comment can immediately go through. I just signed up again and (not intentionally as some revenge) continued making the usual comments, for many months now, and even saying more shocking things, that might even repel some of Alex’s Catholic supporters. I said recently for example… oh wait, I just realized I could get arrested for hate speech if I say lol, never mind… Stupid liberals. See how liberalism and atheism are partners in crime and lead to oppression, persecution, intolerance, irrationality, hate, fights, suppression of “free speech”, suppression of all the things they claim they themselves are against, yet do themselves, including by silent actions like banning and removal of things their opposition says. How can you trust people that don’t even mention what you say, and hide it from others, when you state facts, and merely because your belief system doesn’t agree with theirs? Isn’t that atheist communism or Marxism? Isn’t that a dictatorship or rule by mob? America will end up like North Korea, Cuba, Haiti or Syria, if liberals (and psychopaths and narcissists) gain even greater power than they have now. If they do, then worse cultist belief systems will take hold, like communism, Mormonism, and Catholicism (and remember what the Catholics did to Europe and South America and Haiti when they had the greatest power? Remember what the Muslim Moors did to Europe when they had the greatest power?)

Still not convinced? Then consider this: a few days ago Piers Morgan interviewed and allowed the narcissist, racist, murderer and dictator Ahmadinejad (or who plays one at least), even shook his hand and praised him with a dreamy loving smile, even after Ahm. had few minutes before said that homosexuality was an ugly act, and after Piers, in defense of homosexuals being naturally born being attracted to the same sex, gave a passionate emphatic, “Yes I absolutely believe that” (about babies being born to be sexually attracted to others of the same sex). So, CNN will allow this blatantly evil person, a narcissist, to say what he wants, but blocks me for pointing out that people like him and Piers are the type who start arguments and fights by appealing to emotion rather than reason and truth above emotion, and for saying that narcissists should be ignored. Liberalism leads to destruction, more generally: disobedience to God leads to eternal pain for those who disobey him.

If the conservatives, including the conservatives in cults, like the Mormons and Catholics do not rise up against the liberals, then America is doomed, unless God intervenes. I believe that within the next 20 years, most of the world’s population will be wiped out, with less than 13 million people left, a number far fewer than was even proposed on the depopulist Georgia Guidestones, which recommends that 500,000,000 be allowed to live. I am sure, that due to the heavy persecution of his children, and the much worse persecution to come upon them all in general, that God will not allow so many non-Christians to live. Instead he reward them with a shocking massacre, and near lethal blows, just as he did to Israel many times, even to the time of Hitler.

By the way, I noticed something very odd happened right after I tried to post an update to this article about CNN blocking me: my Logitech wireless keyboard malfunctioned, so that it would no longer work. No matter how many times I turned it off and on and mashed and shook and hit it, and even when disconnecting the USB transmitted and plugging it in again, it wouldn’t work. It would only light up (it had back lighting). It made me wonder if Satan had crept up close to me. Or maybe it was because I’d recently washed it with sanitizer wipes and the moisture (hours later?!) somehow messed it up. I don’t see how though since the wipes weren’t dripping. It was an expensive keyboard, so, if it doesn’t cost much to have it repaired, I may do so.

Update: Yesterday (10/22/2012) I posted a comment on CNN’s article on Amazon’s server problems “taking down Reddit”, it was, “Good, I hope God continues to hammer away at that atheist cesspool of sin,” which got the reply, “Wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest, he rented out space on that server” and some little lame quip not worth remembering, a troll like comment from someone who had made over 950 comments on CNN I think. I gave him a sharp reply telling him to get a life. So what did CNN do?: They removed ALL the comments, the original I made and the replies and my second reply, AND, failed to post any of my other similar replies, including one in which I asked if anyone had noticed Amazon having server problems on their home website as I have in the past4 days (5 days now). That’s liberalism for you: not just censoring Christian speech, but BIASED censoring, as in apparently, someone remembers me as being a Christian, or sees me making pro-Christian comments, then decides to be heavy handed with me if I dare defend myself against persons on CNN that troll. And how hypocritical, being that CNN a day or two before posted a front page news story about a REDDIT troll posting sexual garbage all over Reddit and getting over 800,000 subscriptions (which would mainly be from atheists, pagans (like Wiccans and witches) and Catholics (Catholics often secretly engage in activities against their religion). Apparently CNN wasn’t posting the article in disapproval, but throwing it up in the air so that it could be taken either way: they would look righteous to the those against trolling, or doing good by promoting an atheist website and helping air the “troll’s” apology. What hypocrisy.

Atheist Liberals Are a Cult

Welcome to the anti-Church anti-Organized-Religion of Liberalism

Introduction

Liberalism is an anti-church and anti-organized-religion. Liberals have no faith or belief in anything at all and therefore do not judge anyone or make decisions about anything or have any conclusive beliefs about anything and never preach. Rather, we just have random disorganized thoughts, yell at and get depressed and excited and bored at various times and just say random and disorganized stuff. Whatever we do is random and disorganized and chaotic. We randomly worship a flying noodle and meatball monster, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse, Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking. We don’t command people, unlike that stupid Bible thing that no one has ever heard of or touches, command people to donate or tithe or give money the disabled, needy, helpless widows or the poor, especially those blacks in Africa, or to help them in any way. We however do worship or praise the science-loving Stephen Hawking and deGrasse to show that we love truth and logic and are superior in kindness to those disgusting theists and fundies and organized religious people who don’t think for themselves. Yes, doing so makes us superior and will make us superior. We are also so logic and charitiy loving that we give most of our money to The Grand High Univeristies and Colleges of Liberalism, such as, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Oxford and many others, so that we are indebted to them forever and become poor and needly slaves ourselves, and wanting everyone including those nasty stupid religious people to feel sorry for us.

Fun: Unlike the detestable and grotesque hordes of theists and religious people who never heard of fun and don’t know how to have fun and don’t know what fun is, we the Liberals know and understand fun and live for fun. We have the Smithsonian Institution, National Geographic, Scientific American, Science Magazine, Discover Magazine, the Discovery Channel, observatories, astronomy and dinosaur museums all over the place, and all of them are super expensive as they should be. We even make money off them. We star at the stars all day and night long and one day we may even inhabit them all. We know the most about stars then anyone else and talk about them all day long. Those crazy astrologers can’t touch us, we are far above them. And the crazy UFO believing people are even dumber than them.

We Liberals invented science and all the useful inventions, religious people had nothing to do with them, they only murdered and destroyed and did these crusade things. In the crusades the religious Christians killed millions of witches and millions of atheists.

We build all the great buildings in the world, like the pyramids, wherever there are pyramids, those were our ideas. We made the Eiffel Tower, we made all the ancient Roman buildings, we even built Babylon. We teach the world about science even though they mostly do not listen. There’s even people so stupid, they believe that the sun goes around the Earth [sic] even though we showed them clearly it doesn’t by taking them into space and showing them that it doesn’t. Yes, we flew them up and sat them in the middle of space and showed them the sun is going around the Earth. We regularly do space tours too to prove that, but no one but us Liberals listen. We proved to the world that there was a giant explosion that happened for a reason we do not know, made of unknown stuff, that exploded billions of years ago. We proved it, but only a few people believe it out of the masses of stupid religious people. We proved that life could come from electrified mud, and we made life that way, but no one but the smart Liberals listen. We proved that the electric mud creatures could turn into other creatures, into fish, fish into monkeys, and monkeys into men, but only the smart Liberals listen. In the Soviet Union, China and Vietnam, we massacred over 100 million people who opposed our beliefs and wouldn’t let us shove it down their throats. And even then, the world still wouldn’t submit to our disOrganization. We even came up with Communism, Socialism, Nationalism, Humanism and Positivism to make them feel better about abandoning their stupid religion – those dumb religious people – but they wouldn’t listen. In America we eventually took control of the highest places, the schools, book stores, libraries, Internet content providers like Yahoo, Answerbag, MSNBC, CNN, banks, news providers and many other places and promised them riches if they would give us there money. We were very successful and impoverished them so that we grew even stronger than them. Sadly, many Liberals apostatized. They are traitors and shun, blacklist from our gatherings, congregations, covens and parties and insult them regularly, especially through our force of mentally ill disorganized Internet trolls.

That is because they are brainwashed with stupid thoughts about morality and religion. They care more about people then science and are all global warming deniers. Yes, they are as bad those Holocaust deniers. They deny climate change, pretending that it never rains one day and is free one rain the next day. They pretend the sun never goes down or comes up. Though we tell them the weather changes, they won’t believe us, that is how stupid those little theists are.

The Sacraments of Liberalism:

Drinking fluoridated and aspartame-filled water
Vaccination with mercury and virus filled vaccines (which exists thanks to our virtual god, Darwin)
Getting rid of things that make carbon (lest the world become filled with more plants for people to eat and they overpopulate so much that we can’t control them as good as we do now, we need to kill most people off, abort them, so we can rebirth the world in a religion free Jesus free random world.)
Destroying some conservative or religious owned business, especially if bribed to do so or out of revenge
Painful baby sacrifices (killing babies before they are born without giving them pain killers first)
Trashing cut up babies in trash bags
Irradiating cancer ridden kids and adults till they hopefully die

Regular anti-church activies:
Watching Discovery Channel dinosaur cartoons and nature shows
Watching PBS
Watching MSNBC
Watching CNN
Reading Skeptic Magazine
Reading Discover Magazine
Reading the New York Times
Watching anime
Playing games
Riding roller coasters
Going to the movies
Vegan food sampling and wine gatherings
Shopping for expensive, silly and useless inventions
Gathering at universities to endorse some liberal point of view
Insulting religious people, UFO believers and creationists
Paying enormous amounts of money to learn at a liberal university
Pretending to be Christians on the Internet and joining Westboro Baptist Church and then acting very stupid to try and convince everyone that Christians are stupid and religion in general
Eating lots of meat
Paying a huge amount of money to exercise in an a gym, though most of us don’t losing much weight and end up fat
Having gay and promiscuous sex
Being random
Caring for dogs, cats and sometimes rats

Conclusion

Just believe us

Feeding Hummingbirds: Honey and Sugar

This is an example of what happens when you parrot something without checking the facts and simply believing a thing because it sounds scientific or by committing the fallacy of appeal to authority, concensus, emotion and committing the fallacy of assuming. I found a thread on GardenWeb started by an Alicia on whether or not feeding honey to hummingbirds is truly an unsafe thing or not (I injected my replies under the name “chosenbygrace”:

From Alicia, (hummerwatcher) “I found in the FAQ for this forum the following statement: “A honey water solution served up in hummingbird feeders can quickly become toxic and deadly. Honey rapidly ferments and also cultures a deadly bacterium. Contrary to popular belief, honey is not “more natural” than the cane sugar that is sold as white sugar. Honey has been chemically altered by honey bees: it is flower nectar and whatever ever else the honey bee ingested, digested, and spit back out again. Honey is nothing like the sucrose found in flower nectar and white sugar.”

I have fed a solution of pure honey/water in my hummingbird feeders for 12 of the 27 years I’ve maintained the feeders. I’ve noticed no ill effects on the apparently happy, healthy and certainly populous hummers who live, breed, nest, fight, flee, dipsy-dive, display, perch, torpor, twitter/screech and otherwise carry on as hummers do around here from April to October each year. I first started using dilute honey as hummer feed after I noticed hummers feeding from an open-source feeder I had placed near my garden beehives one Spring day (a modified chick feeder with an inverted quart jar of feed solution).

I have not observed any difference between the fermentation proclivities of honey/water as compared with cane or beet sugar/water solutions. Nor have I observed any greater tendency to culture bacteria or fungi… Of course, cleanliness of feeders and frequent sterilization are a given when feeding hummingbirds.

Is there a specific bacterium which a honey/water solution will culture and not refined white sugar/water?

I would like to know if anyone has any serious data on feeding honey solution to hummingbirds. Is there any scientific, physiological, biological chemical-analysis research to back-up the broad, generalized and somewhat inaccurate statements made in the FAQ quote shown above? (Honeybees neither ‘digest’ plant nectars, nor ‘spit back out’ the nectar… they do add certain enzymes to the nectar while carrying it in their ‘honey stomach’… and, yes, the nectars are, therefore, chemically different from the pure plant nectars. But pure plant nectars — the natural and best of hummer food — are also quite different chemically from monosource and chemically-refined cane or beet sugars.)

I will appreciate any well-researched information which anyone here might offer on this subject. Even anecdotal observations…

If someone can show to me that feeding honey/water solution is harmful to the hummers, I will, naturally, have to re-assess what I have been doing these past 12 years… with no apparent ill effects.

Alicia … a hummer feeder and watcher since 1981 … a beekeeper since 1970″ birding_nut, “From what I understand from doing a search on google, honey contains a fungus (unsure of the type) that can be transferred to a hummingbirds tongue and could prove fatal. However, I couldn’t find an actual research study cited. I do know that you are not suppose to feed honey to human babies under the age of 1-year because honey may contain the harmful bacterium Clostridium botulinum which causes a rare case of food poisoning.”

And peanuts can also cause rare cases of allergic reactions. What’s your point, ban peanuts?

birding_nut “I would guess that hummingbirds would be susceptible to this as well,”

There’s bacteria everywhere that rarely kills animals, that doesn’t mean don’t feed them food that rarely kills, that’s plain dumb and an appeal to inneffiency just like the greenies would have, ironically, millions or billions of people die to switch entirely to solar panels from oil.

“since the type C form of this bacteria is what causes huge die-offs of waterfowl”

hummers are not waterfowl, nor human babies, as PETAns and other anti-tests-on-animal people would tell you.

“when they ingest it…usually from fermented grain or other sources, they die,”

hummers don’t eat fermented grain

“maggots containing more concentrated amounts of the toxin are then injested..you get the picture.”

No I don’t get the picture, nor does the rest of the world, unless you mean getting the wrong picture or one made up based on nonsense. So, maggots get the bacteria in them, maggots which have super immune systems and whose feces kill all kinds of bacteria, AND? What then happens: the ecosytem collapses? The maggots evolve into walking singing dancing sex-having humanoids? It’s not obvious.

“Thus, I wouldn’t feed honey solutions to hummingbirds”

Thus you made a bunch of non-sequiturs or statements very similar to them.

“based on the above possibilities of contamination.”

What are you talking about man? You can’t boil honey water, only sugar water? Becauuuuse?

“Boiled sugar water is probably safer”

Probably because?

“and is what is pretty much universally recommended”

Pretty much = scientific statement? And who cares about concensus? What matters is what actually is true. Catholics are the majority, but does that mean their or their Popes’ claims, whom they say is God’s representative on Earth, that it’s okay to worship dead humans and pray to them and to angels is merely “venerating” and not worshiping things that aren’t gods or going against God’s word? Noooooo.

“on most of the sites I visited from the google search. Not sure what would happen if you boiled the honey solution first?”

Why not do a scientific experiment!

“BN”

Signing it with BN really added to the discussion. Do you love attention or what? Your user name wasn’t sufficient as a signature?

jimmyjojo then said “This is so sad…”

What’s sad is logical fallacies, like your trollish appeal to emotion at the beginning of your reply, that is what is sad, not DISAGREEING with your feelings or opinions. Stop acting like God and a leading authority on anything, when you’re obviously a person with narcissism disorder from your rants on this thread.

Jimmy then said, ” Quote [“]If someone can show to me that feeding honey/water solution is harmful to the hummers, I will, naturally, have to re-assess what I have been doing these past 12 years… with no apparent ill effects.”

What ill effects would you like to be shown?”

THE ONES THAT SUPPOSEDLY HARM THE BIRDS MORON. WHAT ELSE EFFECTS MORON JIMMY? DO YOU THINK JIMMY THAT PUTTING A QUESTION MARK AT THE END OF A SENTENCE AND ASKING WITH A SMUG TONE MAKES YOU AUTOMATICALLY IN THE RIGHT? What smug arrogant trolling idiot.

Then jimmy the troll said, “Studies like this?

http://biology.georgefox.edu/~dpowers/Powers/HumTopic.html

I just love people like this.”

Oh Jimmy really? You just love people like that? You just love making conniving prideful arrogant statements like that, that is what you love, you love to show off and get attention to make yourself appear to be better then others, and to make everyone else look inferior to you. No jimmy, you’re not superior because you talk with an arrogant know-it-all tone or words. That’s not what true intelligence is. You actually have to THINK CAREFULLY, no lazilly making cheap shots and parroting cliches without evidence to back them up.

“A pile of leading experts tell them something and that isn’t good enough.

Let’s look at that page shall we (love that shall we cliche jimmy? arrogant trolls like you looove cliches like that):

“Page Not Found

Oh dear, we couldn’t seem to find that”

Jimminysnappits! Page not found!

But something tells me one page doesn’t automatically = “a pile of leading experts” and that “a pile” is not a mountain, and that you, being a narcissist, are exagerrating and lying. A pile jimmy the science ignorant, is not the end and be all of knowledge or science. Just as scientists themselves say (and more intelligent parrots than you (especially when attacking Christians): “science is always correcting itself”, “science is always improving” and the fall back “we’re still learning”. But you being an arbitrary narcissist juts his head out in trollish fashion witha big troll face, saying, “Nooo noo nooo, this is sad, this is a troll, nanny nanny look at this study it’s proof of everything, ur a bad person, go away troll”. How about grow up jimmy and go away with your mental disorder and go live like a hermit so you stop annoying the sane people to death?

Then jimmy the troll said, “This link says “Honey ferments rapidly when diluted with water and can kill hummingbirds.

http://www.hummingbirds.net/feeders.html

And that’s proof, cuz it says so on that page.

What you’re really saying Alicia is that your research since 1981 is better than the experts and scientists in the hummingbird field.”

Jimmy, you’re arrogant and a lazy researcher. You’re lying about who is an expert and committing the fallacies “appeal to authority” and “appeal to concensus” and you’re not even getting the concensus right. And you’re so unintelligent you don’t think about the fact that not all science fields agree, and that there is conflicting and inconclusive data conflicts in different fields of any industry. What do you say about this Mr. Jimmy Knows All:

“It’s a well known fact”

Read that again Mr. Jimmy Expert on Whose A Leading Expert and What Gets the Final Say:

IT’S A WELL KNOWN FACT, EXCEPT TO ARROGANT NARROWMINDED MALIGNANT NARCISSISTS LIKE JIMMY. Moving on (unlike Jimmy and his troll friends):

“that honey is a poor source of nutrients, “Honey contains little amino nitrogen, with the lowest levels found in the lightest honeys”, the compleat Meadmaker (pg 54). Add to that honey’s acidic nature, and poor pH buffering capabilties and you have three factors that can adversely affect the yeast’s ability to effectively to its job… Honey contains very little nutrients for yeast growth. You will need to supplement with a well balance nutrient like Fermaid-K. ? Honey also contains very little (if any) buffering material. The pH will drop dramatically during the first few hours of fermentation, sometimes as low as 2.7-2.9. This will seriously stress the yeast, producing a very unhealthy yeast cell resulting in a long drawn-out fermentation. The problem can be minimized by adding a small amount of potassium carbonate at the beginning of the fermentation. Strive for the fermentation to be completed in two weeks.”

Does that sound like “quickly ferments” or does it sound like a person who is gullible and eager for praise but not willing to do the hard work to get it, and who has a problem with assuming things and not learning his lesson to NOT ASSUME, but who keeps doing so because of his mentally ill craving to bully others and get attention and praise he doesn’t deserve? It sounds like you are a myth repeating parrot, full of logical fallacies, including presumptions, because you have malignant narcissism disorder. The troll is you.

“How about this then, you show us your research proving honey is OK to use?”

Shown, Mr. Pretentious “How About This Then?”

Asking things witha smug tone and placing a question mark at the end, asking things with a questioning doubting “ah hah I got you” tone doesn’t make you right. You’ve got it backwards Jimmy, you celebrate (and immorally gloat) and take on the tone of someone who knows what he’s talking about before actually knowing what you’re talking about. You think doing a search on google and spending five minutes reading makes you a leading authority on what’s true. WRONG. You have EVIDENCE, not pot shots (true science is not pot shots and cheap shots and one time experiments, Jimmy the non expert in science, it’s repetition). You’re a shallow couch potato who thinks skimming for five or less minutes is enough to know the truth, and then you become biased once you’ve made up your mind, or made a fool of yourself by insulting others and bashing them over your beliefs.

“Never Feed Honey Solution to Hummingbirds […] what is this?”

It’s another page with mere claims, just like you. How about this: do actual research.

In Jimmy’s dumbed down world, Jimmy’s anti-science world, science isn’t do the experiments for yourself, it’s “Just believe whoever I say is right, don’t do any actual hard research, don’t you dare question, just believe whoever I say is right, whoever I say is a leading expert, whatever I say is an unclimbable pile, whatever I say is the concensus, don’t pay attention to anything else, ignore your nothing 12 years of feeding, that’s just nothign to talk about, just ignore it and just look at this 4 week study over hear done by guys in white lab coats who went to Harvard whose evolutionist friends granted them a BA in general bird studies and gave them extracredit and a $1000 grant to see if any hummeringbirds got sick a little when eating honey water.” You’re very gullible and illogical Jimmy, and a simpleton.

Jimmy, “You know if you Google “honey hummingbirds” there are 343,000 links most of which say pretty much the same thing,

No Jimmy with narcissism disorder, they don’t all pretty much the same thing. No chronically lazy minded Jimmy, you did not read 343,000 links and then go right to posting a reply to this person. The first three pages standardized pages on google and any other popular search engine, as every serious researcher knows, are the most relavant and 99.9% ONLY relavant pages. What comes after has a rapidly increasing irrelavance and is almost entirely ignored by serious reearchers due to knowing that fact after looking at them many times. You are an arrogant liar.

“and that is never put honey water in hummingbird feeders it’s been found to kill them.”

Appeal to repetition, another logical fallacy and a sign of someone with a NPD. Stop thinking that repeating and belittling makes you the winner in the Right One deparment. It makes you look, to people who know better, like a smug bully who uses arrogant belittlement to bully others into doing whatever he wants them to do.

“Now why would someone in their right mind argue with that? Unless?”

No, what you meant was, “Now why would someone argue WITH ME, JIMMY, THE ONE WHO IS ALWAYS RIGHT, PERFECT, unless they were crazy?”

You’re mentally ill jimmy, a living insult machine due to having been traumatized after too much flattery when you were little, and having been flattered too much by your parent or parents, you never built up the healthy mental ability to deal with criticism or bullying. Now you are a chronic bullier, forever trying to triumph over the humiliation you experienced as a child, by bullying everyone and anyone, for the smallest of things even.

buckmaster, “The tough thing is that it’s tough to tell what long-term effects anything is having on hummers.”

It’s not tough if they are tagged or you have them in captivity or disect them and see what happens after whatever. Not tough if you have the right equipment. This isn’t a study on weak electromagnetic waves on hbs from powerlines five miles away, it’s just diluted honey, buck.

“Unless they drop over at the feeder, you can’t always really tell if honey or red food coloring or whatever is having any effect on them. I know we all have our hummers we know by sight, but unless you’re banding the little guys, how can you be sure the bird that returns this year is the same “Junior” or “Betsy” from last year?”

Sure, tag it or photograph it and get it to get used to being around you upclose. Can you really be sure they all look like clones? Have you ever tried to tell them apart by regularly getting up close to them while they feed?

“Point is, why take the chance?”

For the sake of furthering knowledge and wisdom. Why not further science in this case? Are we talking about murdering a human, or anything that even comes close to being as being as valuable as a human?

“Plus, honey’s way more expensive (unless you keep hives, I guess)…”

And if your not someone who likes the thought of feeding birds refined sugar which is not natural and which is known to cause diabeted in humans from over use (not that birds are humans, but one of the people in this thread makes some comparisons of not quite and hardly related things).

“I’d break the bank if I used it instead of sugar water!”

Unless you didn’t regularly use the feeder and just wanted to see hummingbirds now and then.

christy2828 then said,

“Just want to point out that this user joined TODAY.”

That’s a logical fallacy (in the context you used it) in which you imply that this person is a troll for MERELY ASKING if feeding honey to hb’s was okay after all, and being that they said they’ve been doing it for 12 years (shouldn’t that make an impression on you christy? Or is 12 years nothing Miss LOOK AT ME TYPE “TODAY” IN CAPS! APPEAL TO MY EMPHASIS ON THAT WORD!”?

“For some strange reason, people like to get a rise out of people on GW forums.”

First you said it’s a person who joined today, then you said it’s PEOPLE ON GW forums. You’re very confused obviously, and I’d say a narcissist, being that you used the cliche “for some strange reason” and without any evidence, nor of it being strange. Trolls like you are everywhere, people with narcissism disorder, and being that they have a hankering for one upping everyone and trying to get everyone to think of them as awesome, it’s not strange at all that they’d poke their heads into wherever they’ve chosen to dwell and be a pest like you. Why are you insulting this person, and how did you contribute with your mere insults and pretentious babble? You made another fallacy: appeal to time. Since when are trolls only new to a forum or anywhere? So no one has been a long standing bully anywhere? There are no places that consist in large part of bullies or tyrants or stupid people? No governments, no leadership positions, no websites no homes? You’re truly simpleminded and stupid. It’s due to people like you that trolls do embed like ticks forever, you’re one of them.

“Take it with a grain of salt,”

Another unhelpful cliche typical of narcissists, to back up an your logical fallacies and insults. Why not say, “nanny nanny” to the person daring to question the status quo, daring to questiont the consensus, who dared, oh god know, to dare try and do their own experiment rather than having blind faith in Christy the Lover of Sophisticated Sounding Cliches More Than Hard Original Thinking?

“and let this thread fall down. Christy :)”

Christ: “Yeah, hah hah, hee hee, nanny nanny, smirk, lets oh do say we do indeed let this horrible thread this person started, how dare they! hah, let’s let it… smirk, fall down.” Christy squints her eyes at hummerwatcher Alicia and smiles while looking at her and whispering to her friend jimmyjojotheclownfromcanada just loud enough for Alicia to hear, “Hehe, Alicia is ugly, look at her clothes, she hasn’t been here long enough. Can you believe she actually feeds hummingbirds with honey water? What a stupid creep. She’s a troll haha. Troll. Look at her ugly hair. She wishes she was popular like us. Stupid freshman. Hey I know, lets go to her house at night and take her feeder and egg her house.” *Jimmy smiles back at Christy, yes lets teach that terribly arrogant troll a lesson she’ll never forget! She’ll never poke her noncomformist head back in GW ever again and we shall remain at the top! I bet she’s one of those stupid creationists anyways, they always have to try and get attention! Stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers!” Christy, “I bet she doesn’t believe in global warming! I bet she is one of those weirdos who doesn’t agree with NASA and the leading pile of experts who showed us the hockey stick and schemed in their emails to each other to supress data showing they were wrong and doesn’t believe in melting icebergs crashing everywhere or polar bears and penguins dying left and right and antarctica turning into habitable land for humans to enjoy and that plants actually breath carbon dioxide and thrive in it! SHE PROBABLY BELIEVES THE SUN WARMS THE PLANET LOL!”

sidk “mbuckmaster makes a good point. Unless you are scientifically studying the hummingbirds you don’t have any idea what the honey is doing to them.”

Yeah, a hummerwatcher who fed hummers honey water for 12 years is just a troll that stands a mile away looking through a telescope at hummers feeding on honey water and does trollish things in a hole like joining GW to have fun trying to annoy christyconnivingsmileyfacetroll, sidktroll and jimmyjojothenobodytrollfromcanada and everyone else on GW (all of whom except for newbies like Alicia the noncomformist happen to agree with whatever those three trolls say).

sidk, “I have an old book by an English guy named Mobbs who wrote about keeping hummingbirds in aviaries. It’s not a scientific book”

Then why mention it, and why insult Alicia for doing a 12 year feeding of hummers with honey water when johnnybobo and christy completely dismiss it as having any value? Do as you say not as you do right hypocrites?

“but he goes into a lot of detail on particular hummingbirds including how long they lived in captivity. It was usually just a few weeks or months, which made me really sad and angry to read. When he could tell what they died of it was usually a yeast infection (candida). He fed them honey because back then they thought it was more natural. Now that we know better”

“Now we know better” because of a non-scientific study and a dead link and two pages of mere claims no longer than a few sentences vs a 12 year at least casual observation Alicia? Question: are you a moron? And trolls like you would arbitrarily to make themselves look good, say, “Oh that’s an outdated study” if the book had disagreed. Further, you said, “usually”. So you made a casual connection and now that’s proof it’s honey that’s at fault, and honey can’t be improved, can’t be boiled. What simpletons, what petty neurotic babies. I can just imagine you all talking all speedy when making your comments acting all freaked out and with subdued anger, “Lets get rid of Alicia hurry so we can get back to our real lives. She’s upsetting our worldview, she’ll make fools of us if we don’t shut her up fast. Kill the thread don’t give her anymore attention. She’s like a creationist!”

“and make their artificial nectar from white sugar”

And don’t you know they need us and our artificial refined white sugar? Don’t you know humans have nothing better to do then feed hummers and that they would all die out if not for us. They would suffer horribly. I thought “natural evolution and humans living off raw veggies and gray water” is the God Saviour? Which leading expert on New Age Stuff should I follow?

“some zoos have been able to keep hummingbirds alive for years. Wat does that tell you?”

It tells me you made a mere claim they’ve been able to keep a vague unsaid amount of unsaid type of hummingbirds alive for years” and that you’re a confused and illogical idiot who doesn’t know how to make logical connections when trying to express himself.

“Here is a link that might be useful: Troll”

I’m betting you don’t understand that page sidk and think that merely because you posted it you must be an expert on Trolls and couldn’t possibly be one. Typical idiot-think and a typical troll tactic.

mbuckmaster, “Good info, sidk…and anecdotal evidence like that is really the best we have with hummingbirds. Sounds fairly conclusive to me as far as it goes. And a shrewdly included link! ;)”

Someone sounds sane, that’s dangerous. jimmyjojo, “Sidk, One thing many people in North America don’t know is that in Europe “humming birds” (two words) is a common word for a type of nectar eating sunbird. They are found through the middle east and into Africa, and are kept in Europe as caged birds much like people do to parrots over here.”

Wow the parrot comparison just really made everything more understandable. *rolls eyes*. And this is proof now that hummbers will die and the entire eco system will collapse, and that maggots something or other will uh, Mars is crashing into Venus and hummers love geodes ten four ten four over and out do you read me that Alicia is a creationist religious extremist and global warming denier and that Jews suffered nothing during Nazi march of dimes? I’m sure you get the picture.

jimmydodo, pardon, “jojo” I mean, “When you read on the internet or in books about “keeping” humming-birds it’s a totally different genus of bird.”

What are you talking about and what’s this have to do with honey fed hummers? You are a lemon salesman man.

“I hope that person is a Troll and not someone killing our hummingbirds”

Cuz trolls are people that would harm animals. And what a moron, based on one study, a page that isn’t even cached on google, a study that didn’t say anything about mass killings from what little you mentioned, nothing close, you’re exagerrating it up to “killing YOUR hummingbirds” “our” as in “whoever agrees with me jimmyjojo”? You’re malignant narcissist, which includes paranoia and extreme self-centeredness for whoever doesn’t know. What’s next jimmy, are you going to say Alicia is going to be responsible for another holocaust? You have “extremist” crazyiness in place of logic. I hope you don’t have kids or friends to drive insane.

“through sheer arrogance.”

Did you say that while loudly sipping your gourmet 10 year aged wine, little boy? Mr. Sheer Arrogance says you can kill his hummingbirds (which just cannot, oh, oh oh oh cannot belong to THOSE kinds of people like, ew, oh perish the thought, people like… eh, ew, ugh, gross, disgusting, EW PEOPLE WITH OPINIONS THAT DON’T MATCH MY PRESUMPTIONS… PEOPLE LIKE, EH EH EH, UHHHH, UH LEE, UH, AH, ALICIA. God I finally said it, that name. I must wash my royal princely mouth out. I shall never say that name again so long as I, jimmyjojoofkahnadah, lives.

sidk, “Mobbs”

christy, “DAMNIT SIDK I SAID LETS LET THIS THREAD DIE SHALL WE! DAMNIT! WHY CAN’T YOU ALL JUST LISTEN TO ME AND TAKE A SUBTLE HINT WITH MY PRECIOUS SMILEY FACE AND NAME SIGNED AT THE END! Can’t you see this Alicia is a subversive who is trying to upset our happiness!? … Fools.”

sidk, continued, “may have also written about sunbirds or other nectar drinking birds but the book I have is specifically about hummingbirds. I haven’t run across any examples of that confusion in other books about aviculture but I guess there’s no shortage of ignorance about nature on either side of the Atlantic.”

I love that, “no shortage of ignorance”. Makes you sound like very wise person in his mid forties. You must be very smart. Your comment about Mobbs maybe having written about such and such really furthered the discussion on whether or not IT’S A MYTH THAT FEEDING HUMMINGBIRDS DILUTED HONEY WILL CAUSE HUMMINGBIRD MASS DIE OFFS, let alone kill a few in even a year vs refined sugar WHICH ALSO HASN’T BEEN OBSERVED IN ANY LONG TERM STUDIES AS IS OBVIOUS FROM THE IGNORANT BABBLE IN THIS THREAD MADE BY THE “NO NO NO, YOU’RE A TROLL” oafs here.

sidk, “I can’t imagine why anybody would call any other bird a “humming bird” since only hummingbirds have wings that hum.”

*Falls asleep. Wakes up.* I have an idea: lets not feed humming birds at all, even he abandoned ones, cuz that’s interferring with Mother Evolution and you’ll end up in Hell for that. And it’s not natural to feed refined sugar water let alone in plastic feeders with BPA in them most likely probsly prob, and the sugar water and feeding dishes can get dirty, and fill with bacteria and viruses very quickly since bacteria and viruses are all over in the airy stuff in the air (leading experts in Mainstream Science and Authoritarians Say So! PILES OF THEM! AND THERE’S 343,000,000,000,000,000,000 RESULTS ON GOOGLE THAT PRETTY MUCH SAY THE SAME THING!) and hummers are always sticking their tongues in dirty stuff, and uh, so, they might die from bacteria collecting in the non living dish which doesn’t naturally clean itself and which people have to clean, people who are dirty and covered in bacteria that hummers don’t often seem to come into contact with (BUT I’M NOT A MAIN STREAM SCIENTIST WHO BELIEVES IN A 13 BILLION YEAR OLD BIG MAGIC LIFE ORDERING MAKING BOMB I NEVER SAW NOR ABIOGENESIS, NOR MACRO EVOLUTION, SO SHOULD YOU EVEN READ WHAT I’M SAYING? CUZ THAT MAKES ME A KOOK! KOO KOO KOO KOO, I DON’T AGREE WITH THE MAINSTREAMERS! I’M SO STUPID, SUCH A SINNER) blah blah the point is, don’t feedum, cuz it’s not natural. And give up your dogs and cats. Only take care of your own kids, don’t even look at kids that aren’t your own, don’t touch them, don’t take pics of them, and just do what is natural for the non-arrognt humans to do: eat raw veggies and build homes out of dirt, just dig a hole in the ground and live like a fox. Now that’s true humility and caring for the environment. Woah, wait, that might harm worms and displace the mother earth gaya dirt, and might harm bacteria… oh what to do… I know! Lets kill ourselves! No wait, then maggots mite eat our bacteria infested bodies, and that’s not natural. Maybe I’ll just stand still for as long as I can and wish myself out of existance.

One more thing sicky, chistyconniving and jimmyjester: why would a troll post in their first statement a warning about feeding hummingbirds with honey, if they were trying to upset you by convinving everyone to do so, and denying for a malicious reason that it was a problem, and never denying once in their statement that it might be? Why even bring it to your attention with concern they might be doing harm if they WERE trying to upset you more than hummingbirds, and harm hummingbirds? Further, why are you acting like Alicia is denying there are such warnings or are none, when her very first sentence she points one out? Stupid, crazy, libeling, insano, idiot, hypocrite, careless, parrots blind to the utter obvious much? Trolls? You can’t see the first sentence? Progress haters? Fearmongers?

Nectar

Nectar is rich in vitamins and minerals and is a good substitute for the white-refined sugar. Nectars are produced by plants. They are a good substitute for sugar and rich in essential vitamins and minerals. Since the nectar is derived from nature the diabetic people can easily substitute nectar with sugar as it will never increase the blood sugar due to the presence of glycemic index. The nectar is converted by the bees while they make honey. Nectars have very recently entered the family of edible food stuffs. Unlike the honey the nectars are produced by the flowers. They are preferred by the vegetarians as there is no animal involved in the creation process.

Honey

Honey is a well known healthy food and is known for its healing and nutritional qualities. It is a good source of energy and is beneficial for our health. People who have diabetes can consume them without any fear of their blood sugar getting increased. Unlike nectar honey is created by bees who utilize the nectars harvested by them from flowers. They have been a favorite among people for many years. They are however sometimes despised by the vegetarians as there are animal involved.” – vspages

The earliest mention I could find of honey water getting fungus in it, and it was also the earliest seemingly scientific one, was from a “Wildlife review, Dept. of Recreation and Travel Industry,” 1969, Volumes 5-6, of the British Columbia. Dept. of Recreation and Travel Industry, British Columbia. Fish and Wildlife Branch, and an apparent vague reference to it in a letter from a reader to Popular Mechanics in 1970 to it, which apparently then became used as a warning by others into a DO NOT DO THIS warning. So that’s it for the most part, a reference to some super obscure hummingbird study in or before 1969, which canadian jimmyjojo (and christy and sidk by agreeing with him) turned into, “basically 300,000 links that all agree with each other”. That one statement got repeated over and over in various hummingbird books and websites and by other gullible, presumpteous, lazy-minded lookwhaticandoers.

And if that’s not enough evidence for you that this whole honey is murder thing is nearly a mass hallucination, it’s a fact that sugar water can also ferment under heat and sunlight and that depending on the temperature, the feeder would need to be cleaned daily (this is Farenheit, starting ith 71-75):

71-75 = 6 days
76-80 = 5 days
81-84 = 4 days
85-88 = 3 days
89-92 = 32 days
93+ = change daily

Now who, knowing this, is going to say, “but you can’t boil the honey, it’s impervious to boiling, only refined sugar in water can be boiled”?

If you do become of a hummingbird that has been infected by a fungus, either take it to a vet if you can catch it, or consult this book here and try it on your own if you want to.

Categories: trolls, trolls Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Quacks, kooks, and crackpots, weirdos and weirdies, buffoons, imbeciles, morons and idiots

March 28, 2012 1 comment


From left to right: Sex offender and stalker Daniel Intermont, hyper obsessive cyberstalker and atheist Jimli Oxley
Art credits, from left to right: The Fool, by hellobaby, The Fool, by poisondlo

Where do these words come from and how did they get their meanings?

Quack (and quackery): http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-quackery/index.html, http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/curiousq.htm, http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-qua1.htm

Kook: http://www.drbilllong.com/More2006/InsultsVII.html

Crackpot: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/crackpot.html

Weirdo: http://www.drbilllong.com/More2006/InsultsVII.html

Moron: http://listverse.com/2007/08/28/10-slang-words-and-phrases-explained, http://voices.yahoo.com/origin-word-moron-eugenics-racism-henry-474052.html, http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8632, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moron, http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8632

Idiots: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=idiot

Dummy: Some might instantly think that this wasn’t even worth mentioning because the meaning would be so obvious: a wooden dummy being the meaning behind calling someone a dummy, which is what I thought, but wanting to give full coverage of common insults, and curious if anyone looked deep into the word, found out I was wrong (and forgot the word “dumb” in the King James version of the Bible I realized when reading the second website linked to the second link), http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dummy, http://www.dailywritingtips.com/numskulls-noodles-and-nincompoops, http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-meaning-nincompoop

Buffoon: http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/02/buffoon

Imbecile: http://web.archive.org/web/20100718113934/http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/teaching/disability/further/negative.html, http://clir.pacscl.org/2011/01/10/idiots-imbeciles-and-morons http://www.omg-facts.com/view/Facts/6513

Dunce: http://holidayinsights.com/moreholidays/November/dunceday.htm, http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/02/origin-of-word-dunce.html

By the way: while looking up these words, I ended up on Codelphia.com due to Google having an outdated lookup for the word “kook”, and while looking for the now gone definition, saw the word libertine defined on top. I learned, with some deduction of my own, that it used to mean a person who was freed from Roman slavery, but later freethinkers (often associated with atheists) started referred to themselves as such, and then Christians associated the word libertine with those who were immoral/without morals, and then though maybe that that was where the word “liberal” may have come from. I came across this interesting site on the meaning of “freedom” while doing research to see if I was right. Was my guess right?

Wikipedia Popular Pages Stats Prove That Most Americans and Brits Are Stupid. And What Beggar Jimmy Wales and His Army Want Your $5 For

January 5, 2012 Leave a comment


(The Essjay Scandal and It’s Effect On Wikipedia’s Donations for the Months Ahead)

Wikipedia is a propaganda tool for anti-Christians and narcissists who want to somehow prove that they are superior to those around them and to feed their craving for attention, but without risking their public reputation by being exposed as cyberbullies and retaliation against them for it (hence why they hide their identities). The goal of Wikipedia is also to subtly fool people into thinking that Wikipedia is trustworthy and that the Bible is only partially reliable and ultimately that since there is no God to answer to or who can hurt or reward anyone, that whoever has the control (which wouldn’t be God) makes right, as a narcissist might say.

So what does Jimmy Wales and his army of gullibles want our money for, or as Jimmy puts it currently, our $5 for? They seem to fancy that ht money is meant to enlighten you about anything and everything you want to know about, but it’s not that simple. First, the obvious: Wikipedia is an excellent propaganda tool. The information on it can be found elsewhere, and it puts it together on one page. So what. Second, the money doesn’t just go to bandwidth in general, it’s used up mostly on stupid pages (see list of stupid waste of bandwidth pages below). Guess why? Because most of the world is stupid. I’m sure the idea is to get people to think, “Wow Wikipedia got this right, wow it let me know all these cool facts really fast about Michael Jackson and din’t make fun of him, my hero, at all” so that when Wikipedia says that evolution is true and creationism false, the same idiot will think, “Well they got MJ’s profile right, so they must be trustworthy with everything else,” in the hopes that such morons will influence others to be the same way till there are no Christians left, just stupid and easy-to-manipulate people who won’t make them (the Wikipedia know-it-alls) feel bad for being the immoral, self-centered, lying, hypocrite, manipulators that they are. So, what those donations are mostly covering are pages that don’t further civilization/advancement in living longer, happier, with an improved knowledge of the most helpful truths for those things, but instead, destroy it. Here’s the top 100 most popular pages on Wikipedia for 2009, with my comments written after the number of people given who viewed the page for the year).

1. Wiki (131,383 page hits per day) = 47,954,795 total views for the year. So, Jimmy Wales wants Christians, all theists, and all atheist to pay $5 to teach people that he invented Wikipedia (false)? Cuz that’s the claim where “Wiki” ends up leading visitors to.

2. The Beatles (111,896) = 40,842,040 million hits a year. Jimmy Wales wants Christians, all theists, to pay $5 so the world can learn about the Beatles? No Jimmy atheist, no.

3. Michael Jackson (79,734) = 29,102,910. Jimmy Wales wants Christians, all theists, to pay $5 so the world can learn about Homosexual Pedophile-inclined singer with multiple bad nose jobs even in the controversy section, which Jimmy whitewashes out of the MJ article? Because? Is Wikipedia for celebrity promoting and advertising Jimmy? No Jimmy Atheist Wales, you’re not getting my money.

4. Favicon.ico (78,077) = 28,498,105. No Jimmy, won’t be donating so that you can have more bandwidth to teach people about favicon.ico.

5. YouTube (72,318) = 28,498,105. No I won’t donate $5 so you can learn about Youtube, just go to Youtube and learn from Youtube itself.

6. Wikipedia (52,542) = 19,177,830. No I’m not donating $5 so you can learn about Wikipedia or learn a new random fact from it’s homepage.

7. Barack Obama (49,401). Liberal fodder. No five.

8. Deaths in 2009 (48,758). Lovely what attracts the non-Christian and false Christian world. Not “Breakthroughs of 2009” not “Greatest achievements of 2009” or just all time world-benefiting breakthroughs or achievements, not even for the decade, no, it’s “deaths for this year.” And the anti-Christian world says Christians are morbid and full of hate? Backwards, evil, blind, negative idiots. You’re not inspiring at all anti-Christians, you’re depressing and morbid with an unhealthy interest in pain, fighting and death.

9. United States (46,545). You can only learn about the US from Wikipedia? Nope, far from it. There’s city-data, the CIA, and many other sites.

10. Facebook (42,679). Try watching Social Networking first.

11. Current events portal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events] (40,962). An encyclopedia of current events? Uh… what happened to CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, Reuters, Bloomberg, Asianews, CNBC, and using the many years old RSS feed button? No five dollars.

12. World War II (29,736). But you won’t be learning that Hitler was a narcissist who endorsed atheism. No five for you.

13. Twitter (28,511). Boring. No five.

14. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (28,395). Of course anti-social nerds with no life and little kids are attracted to Wikipedia: it talks about anything and everything except actually giving all the facts against evolutionism, big bangism, and the Jimmy Wales Wikipedia cult.

15. Slumdog Millionaire (26,755). That’s an important topic to use up thousands of dollars of bandwidth for isn’t it? No. No five let alone five million.

16. Lil Wayne (26,210). But not Jesus. No five.

17. Adolf Hitler (25,481). No five unless you’re going to point out Hitler had narcissism disorder and endorsed the atheist Nietzsche’s books (and in stop lying about Christians, Christian history and the Bible).

18. India (25,380). Like the USA, you can learn about India from plenty of other sources than the untrustworthy Wikipedia. I know that Indians are one of the main drivers of the traffic to that page. It’s also one of the most popular because India has one of the world’s largest populations.

19. Transformers 2 (24,842). Fail again.

20. Scrubs (TV series) (24,758). And again.

21. Sex (24,754). Nope: can’t learn about sex elsewhere: you need Jimmy Wales to explain it to you. And like a hodgepodge fest of narcissist atheist nerds have any business teaching anyone about sex? Eeek.

22. Rhianna (24,670). Wow, no. I wonder why Jenna Jameson isn’t in the top 100. Says a lot that no matter how much you whore yourself and no matter how beautiful you still won’t make the top 100 in Wikipedia.

23. United Kingdom (24,300). Same as USA and India: look elsewhere.

24. Abraham Lincoln (23,743). Hmmm, let me guess if there would be an atheist spin on Abraham Lincoln. I wonder why American Civil War and the American Revolution aren’t in the top 100. I know those are standard public school topics. Maybe liberals have marginalized them for fear of being accused of spreading Christian teachings.

25. Heroes (TV series) (23,569). No I won’t donate to Wikipedia.

26. Watchmen (film) (23,544). No Jimmy Silly Wales, I can always go to IMDB.

27. Lady GaGa (23,376). No I won’t give $5 so you can learn extensive information about the idiot narcissist who wears meat on her head and thinks the most important thing in life is looking like a rich crazy. Anyone know what a dandy is?

28. Star Trek (film) (22,990). Atheist Trek.

29. 2009 Swine Flu outbreak (22,968). I really wanna give $5 for atheist propaganda allied with the CDC (Center for Disease Censorship and Propaganda that started off with deadly experiments on humans). Not.

30. Featured content portal (22,829). So Wikipedia home page gets 19,177,830 hits a year, + millions more to their ,”Recommended by atheist narcissist control-freak nerds for the day” page. No five.

31. Megan Fox (22,573). And no one is hotter than MF? Sad. No five for the nerds who obsess on MF on Wikinerdia.

32. Naruto (22,573). Wow, kid and nerdfest. Where’s Pokemon?

33. Australia (22,544). See popular page 38.

34. Canada (22,437). Canada? Wonder if it has anything to do with marijuana.

35. World War I (22,307). Oh I get it: in American public school they have you do a piece on WWI and WW2, so guess where all the kids and teens and college students go for quick facts to reword, and why: cuz Google and Yahoo put it on the top five results (and no doubt those $5 bills are going to pay Google to be on the top ten.)

36. Vagina (22,295). Of course Jimmy is using the world’s money to teach everyone about the female private parts. No five.

37. List of House episodes (21,950). Wow, talk about sad net pollution.

38. Japan (21,797). (Oh I see why now Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Australia, the UK and the US are in the top 100, after I read through the top 100 and had a lil drink of beer): they were the major players in WWI AND WWII and linked to those pages.

39. Martin Luther King Jr (21,786). I wonder if shampedia mentions that MLK JR was an adulterer who preached a social gospel (a false gospel). Obviously this is public school generated traffic and white washed to appease blacks.

40. Miley Cyrus (21,724). Nerds.

41. Robert Pattinson (21,515). Not Pat Robertson? No, Wikipedia doesn’t want you to learn more about a false Christian and why he’s false. Instead it wants to cater and pander to Twlight obsessed emoMoron nerds like themselves. E-morons are not getting my $5 to learn about a pretty boy.

42. Deadpool (comics) (21,264). Shallow silly nerds who think reading narcissistic babble in comic book = learning something useful. Interesting that Superman, Dare Devil, Ghost Rider, Spiderman, Spawn, Hulk and Punisher aren’t in the top 100. I’m sure they’re close by though.

43. Twilight (2008 film) (21,158). Shallow nerds. It says a lot that Wikipedia attracts people who are into shedding blood and using violence to get there way and pretending to have super powers.

44. Windows 7 (21,018). Yawn. No where else in the universe can you learn about Windows 7 except Wikipedia? Try Annoyances.org. No doubt Jimmy Wales is friends with the ultimate nerd and pays to get that page in Google’s top five so that Bill Gates, a closet atheist (who wants the world’s population reduced to only what he considers the perfect special people), is put in a good light. I’d bet the people going to this page are W7-haters and elderly people who rarely use a computer and looking for info on them.

45. House (TV series) (20,882). No five.

46. Terminator Salvation (20,743). Nerds.

47. Kristen Stewart (20,538). Nerds.

48. Internet Movie Database (20,422). What? Dumb.

49. 2012 (20,347). New Age nerds : )

50. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (20,150). Ultra nerds.

51. Penis (20,076). Sad. I’m sure this is a page popular with sociopaths and psychopaths.

52. List of Presidents of the United States (19,884). Public school fodder. A clever way to draw in kids to Wikipedia and to get them to trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of info, including the Big Bang, abiogensis, and evolution pages. Evil.

53. List of sex positions (19,876). Ultimate nerd and new age grannies fodder. This page I bet links to India too, which would cause India to have higher traffic than many other pages and countries.

54. Masturbation (19,730). N.E.R.D.S., and kids.

55. William Shakespeare (19,714). Emo and narcissist fodder. Jesus should at least be here.

56. Farrah Fawcett (19,584). Wow nerdy.

57. Germany (19,514). Not “beer”?

58. Swine flu (19,092). CDC propaganda page.

59. Israel (19,077). See above. (Yeah atheists are really gonna be experts on Israel).

60. Google (19,070). Of course.

61. George W. Bush (18,964). Liberal fodder.

62. Global warming (18,809). LOL.

63. Wikipedia About Page (18,803). WOW. Six million+ people a year go to learn the Jimmy Wales invented Wikipedia fantasy and that Wikipedia is mostly free of bias it’s atheists claim. No five, for wasting time.

64. New York City (18,251). The mecca or narcissist/dandies, liberals, atheists, and the avaricious.

65. Tupac Shakur (18,186). Losers.

66. Taylor Swift (18,101). Of course the Swift fans making sure everything is factual.

67. Henry VIII of England (17,912). Because atheists need to find dirt about the funder of the King James Bible. “Did you know HVIII was a homosexual you fundies!? Therefore the KJV is bad and God doesn’t exist and the KJV shouldn’t be read and Christianity fails.” Atheist logic = roach poop.

68. Jade Goody (17,802). Who? Don’t care. Wait, let me guess, something to do with Twilight?

69. Sexual intercourse (17,716). NERDS.

70. The Notorious B.I.G. (17,572). WOW, SAD.

71. Human penis size (17,403). ULTRA SAD NERDFEST. Of course it’s the kids too.

72. 2009 in film (17,270). Try IMDB instead.

73. Anal sex (17,052). Wow nerds, get lives.

74. Twilight (novel) (17,040). *Shakes head*. What happened to Star Wars and Harry Potter? Are they too intellectual for nerds?

75. Natasha Richardson (17,001). Who? Oh is that Charlie Sheen’s wife? No that’s Denise.

76. China (16,935). Wow never heard of China. Gotta go to Wikipedia to learn… oh: Chinese going to read about themselves. Probably public school fodder too. No doubt anti-communists and conservatives wondering what the atheist liberals have to say about their atheist “one child for Chinese citizens only or we’ll kill your extra kid and sterilize you” brethren.

77. American Idol (16,728). Booooooooring.

78. MySpace (16,240). Super boring.

79. France (16,198). Bleah.

80. Metallica (16,110). Nerds trying to be cool by swinging their heads up and down with long hair and shutting out the world with earphones and pretending to play the drums. Really sad and really anti-social.

81. Relapse (album) (16,099). Whatever. Where’s Bach, Mozart or Vivaldi? Not Chinese or Greek ancient music? Not medieval or renaissance “age of atheist enlightenment” music? … oh, cuz the music wasn’t enlightened by atheists. Fail.

82. List of Family Guy episodes (15,961). Massive conniving atheist nerd fail. Where’s South Park? I guess it would be too embarrassing for atheists to frequent a page about paper cut outs babbling childish nonsense? Pathetic.

83. Bleach (manga) (15,947). But not Hentai? I’m sure in a few years Hentai will pop up in the top 100.

84. Russia (15,674). Same as China: learn elsewhere. Wait, the Russians must be googling, “What does helve Westerners think ehbout Russia, what say them on wooorld’s most poopular ensickcloopedia?”

85. Mickey Rourke (15,616). Sounds familiar.

86. Jonas Brothers (15,561). Gay nerds?

87. Vietnam War (15,306). Public school fodder, college fodder, Vietnamese and American veterans and their family doing fact-checking. no doubt to me.

88. Kim Kardashian (15,213). What? Not Kim Jong Il?

89. Lost (season 5) (15,107). Atheist and liberals are truly lost.

90. Selena Gomez (15,086). Get a life. She’s dead. I wonder how many Mexicans make up the traffic to that page.

91. Wolverine (comics) (15,062). Lol nerds.

92. Family Guy (15,013). This again? Talk about obsessed.

93. Valentine’s Day (14,924). Huh… I wonder why nerds are so interested in this day… oh, never mind. I can just imagine, “We’ll you see my nerd blow up doll girlfriend, this isn’t really a day that needs to be celebrated because it’s really a Catholic thing, and look how much people spend on this day to give silly gifts. See, it’s all about making money, so we can safely ignore this day.”

94. Hotmail (14,880). Holy nerd fest.

95. The Dark Knight (film) (14,782). Ultra nerd fest.

96. America’s Next Top Model (14,752). So sad, nerds have no life.

97. Mexico (14,709). Nerds wishing to escape to the greener grass on the other side, dreaming of seducing an ignorant poor chica. I wonder if there’s such thing as Mexican brides.

98. Batman (14,654). Classic nerd icon.

99. List of Heroes episodes (14,652). *Shakes head.* No five.

100. Pornography (14,650). Of course: the ultimate atheist liberal kids-looking-for-easy-porn nerd food. I wonder if Hentai is somewhere in there.

How are atheists and liberals supposed to be more informed about Christianity and religion then Christians when no where in these top 100 is anything about religion, not even about the worlds biggest religions, not even Catholicism, not even the Bible or most popular Bible verse, “Do to others as you’d have them do to you,” or “mistakes in the Bible” even, and not even EVOLUTION! Not DARWIN, NOT CARL SAGAN, NOT MICHIO KAKU, not the word “atheist” or “Big Bang” or “arguments against religion.” And only two wars (no doubt atheists looking for something to blame theists on too) but not the Crusades which atheists love to use as a sole top example of why not to be religious (talk about simple-minded and not reasoning)? WIKIPEDIA IS AWESOME: because it is useful for showing what is on the mind of non-Christians and anti-Christians, even the rest of the world (which no doubt to me parallels the English world’s fixations and idols). It shows atheists, liberals, anti-Christians and the world in general is NOT scholarly, is not more interested in what matters most in life, but rather, temporary pleasure fixes, what kids and silly females and boys are interested in for the moment. Tis is what the atheists loons, nerds with no life, and liberals attract with Widgetpedia: Shallow morons, narcissists, kids, teens, recluses, fanboys and fangirls, in other words, stupid people, shallow people, ignorant people, those curious about what liberals have to say about pop culture figures and idolaters/man-worshipers. What a whopping massive monster of a fail. But of course, it’s not a fail in that atheists have managed to put a somewhat fun and professional face on the chaotic, warped, morbid mass-murder-filled face of atheism, and the atheists who pretend that atheism = “this life now matters most (meaning their life, not yours)” rather than simply meaning “no belief in God or gods.” But again, a fail: because Wikipedia’s information content would have had to have come mostly from theists, since atheists only make up 4% of the world by some estimates, and there is no way it’s more than 10%, and there’s no evidence that atheists contribute more information than theists. It’s the crazy shattered-mirror reflection of the combined faces of the atheists and liberals in control of Wikipedia.

It’s a satisfying feeling to know Wikipedia’s bandwidth is being drained away on stupidity. Hopefully one day an EMP will disable that monster propaganda machine, or God will take it over.

Related Info:

Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia (haven’t read it yet)
Jan/13/2011: “Jimmy Wales says Wikipedia too complicated for many.” Thanks Captain Obvious. Now guess why Wikipedia is mostly staffed by obsessive compulsive, social misfits and hatemongers with no lives, aka: “geeks”?

References:

http://www.techxav.com/2009/08/31

Categories: atheism, liberalism, Wikipedia Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wikipedia: ”What’s Your Problem? It’s Only $5”

November 28, 2011 Leave a comment

No, I win.

 

http://antisocial.tk

Sick Britain: UK High Court Only Permits Liberals To Adopt Children, Not Fundamentalist Christians

March 11, 2011 4 comments

High Court of Britain rules that fundamentalists may not adopt children, only liberals may, because sexual “comfort” and pleasure for children is law.
Now the world knows where to go for preteen sex without “judgment”.

Better For A Child to Have No Loving Parents Than To Experience Diversity According To British Government and Adoption Agency

The British people have spoken through their “High Court”, by letting the world know that they only allow parents to have children if they encourage all children to have homosexual sex, and that it is forbidden for parents to have children if they have thoughts of disapproval against gay and lesbian child sex. Britain is now a thought-police state that discriminates against non-hypocritical Christians and which relies on opinions, rather than facts for their “opinions”, yes: relying on opinions to make opinions, aka “non judgments”, but Christians can’t have any of those, according to their High Judges, who are perverted morons high on evil and their power. Maybe Wikipedia will be Britain’s new law book soon: arbitrary, biased and ever-changing.

So, it’s okay for homosexuals to discriminate against Christians by denying them right to parent, but it’s not okay for the parent to merely tell their child that homosexuality is wrong based on their understanding what God has said is right and wrong? What extremist hypocrites gay se, lovers are. Truly, Britain’s Prime Hypocrite was right when he said: “Multicultralism has failed” in Britain, read for yourself:

Christian foster couple lose ‘homosexuality views’ case
from the BBC
2/28/2011/14:27 ET

Mr and Mrs Johns said they could not tell a child homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle

A Christian couple opposed to homosexuality have lost a battle over their right to become foster carers.

Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, from Derby, said the city council did not want them to look after children because of their traditional views.

The pair, who are Pentecostal Christians, say they were “doomed not to be approved”.

The High Court ruled that laws protecting people from sexual discrimination should take precedence.

The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers.

They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.

At the High Court, they asked judges to rule that their faith should not be a bar to them becoming carers, and the law should protect their Christian values.

Moral opinions

But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation “should take precedence” over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds [because they are Christian-hating perverts who love Satan].

They said that if children were placed with carers who objected to homosexuality and same-sex, relationships, “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to ‘safeguard and promote the welfare’ of looked-after children”.

The case is likely to be seen as a landmark decision, as senior judges ruled so decisively against any idea that attitudes might be justified purely because they were Christian in origin.

The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not.

Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.

Significantly, the court said that while there was a right not to face discrimination on the basis on either religion or sexual orientation, equality of sexual orientation took precedence.

This was the most decisive ruling against the idea of Christian values underpinning English law since judges ruled last year that to protect views simply because they were religious would be irrational, divisive and arbitrary.

Today the message was that courts would interpret the law in cases like the Johns’ according to secular and not religious values.

They rejected suggestions that the case involved “a threat to religious liberty”, adding: “No one is asserting that Christians – or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims – are not fit and proper persons to foster or adopt. No-one is contending for a blanket ban.”

Speaking outside the court in London, Mrs Johns said: “All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents.

“We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, Christian views on sexual ethics.

“We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.”

The couple, who cared for about 15 children in the 1990s, have called for a public inquiry into the matter.

Derby City Council has welcomed the court’s ruling.

A spokesman said the authority “valued diversity and promoted equality” and “encouraged and supported children in a non judgmental way, regardless of their sexual orientation or preference”.

HOLD ON: A “NON JUDGMENTAL WAY”? What the Hell is “non judgmental”? Wasn’t the social worker judging the parents, isn’t this moron judging that homosexuality is good and not wrong which is why he is opposed to these parents and anti-homosexuality? Wasn’t the PAID TO JUDGE JUDGE over the parents JUDGING them for their beliefs, and wasn’t the Derby City Council and the extremist hateful anti-Christian “Ben Summerskill”, chief executive of Stonewall, the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity (what it’s not a charity for heterosexuals, it discriminates, it judges not to help them?), who said: “Thankfully, Mr and Mrs Johns’ out-dated views aren’t just out of step with the majority of people in modern Britain, but those of many Christians too.”?

Ben the Anti-Christian Bigot: What is your evidence that God’s law is “out-dated”? Does time negate God’s laws or any laws? No. If they did that would mean that laws against discrimination against homosexuals can also become “out-dated”. Further Ben the Anti-Christian Bigot: You admitted that those laws were once IN DATE, as in ACCEPTABLE: YOU CAN’T THINK LOGICALLY ON MORALITY! YOU ARE YOUR OWN PROOF THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CORRUPTION OF LOGIC!

And Ben: since when does it matter if “many” or a “majority” agree with you, when MANY and THE MAJORITY of people in Britain were once AGAINST homosexuality? And it’s been like that all over the world Ben the Anti-Christian Bigot who has implied with his anti-Christian statement that NUMBERS DETERMINE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT. Well then Ben, it must be true that in a population of anti-homosexuality Christians, that HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG. And Mr. “MANY” Ben, are you thankful that many homosexuals disagree with not giving a child a home and parents because it personally upsets morons like you that the parents would not agree with whatever you wanted them to agree is the right way to live, oh “God Ben”? What an extremist control monger you are and the many who side with your extremist views. How unhealthy your and their minds are. You are logic-deniers and logic-haters. You hate what is good, because you are evil and you hate the truth, because you are a liar and a hypocrite. You are not for good, you are for your personal feelings. What tyrants you all are who deny a child love because you don’t want him to be told what love really is. Since you have done that to the child and want that to be done to all children, you will also be parted from True Love, forever, unless He decides to forgive you, which is unlikely.

And Ben and all you other homosexuality-lovers an approvers: Should children also be denied parents because the parents are against se, with little kids and babies, or se, animals, and oh no: would dare tell the child that and why they are against it? But oh: being “non judgmental” and not having “opinions that hurt adults who hate Christ” is the rule of law in Britain. EVIL!

Oh and: Is Michael Savage still banned, Mr. Prime Minister who said “multiculturalism has failed”? Do you love being a hypocrite?

This just in!: 6 March 2011 Last updated at 12:36 ET

Mother ‘raped in front of children’ in Bessbrook

“A young mother has been raped while out walking near Bessbrook, County Armagh, with her two children.” But let’s not judge the rapist and make sure not to tell children that raping is wrong, because, well, because Britain is against judging sexual offenders and making sense.

I wonder why the British pro-homosexuals of Britain are so obsessed with blocking fundamentalist Christians when they are the ones responsible for the worst crimes? Maybe you should focus more on Britain’s shocking racism problems before playing judge of what is sexually right, because don’t you know: if you can’t get along with your neighbors, people you invite over, should you Non-Judgmental Free Willers really be deciding what is right for Christians to say, who, even when poor, freely without expecting thanks, give their money to help people of every races, and who even try to adopt them?

Get the log out of your own eye first you hypocrite judges!:

Irish increase in racist crimes third highest in EU

Racism on the rise in Scotland, Attacks on Poles and Muslims have been identified as contributing to a 20% increase in racist incidents over the past 12 months.

SHOCKING JOB DISCRIMINATION IN THE UK

Racism on the rise in Scotland
Attacks on Poles and Muslims have been identified as contributing to a 20% increase in racist incidents
over the past 12 months.
2/11/2011/15:43 GMT – Source

Rise in alcohol-related conditions shows Scotland not ready for 24-hour drinking
11/16/2005
SNP Deputy Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Transport Committee, Bruce Crawford MSP, today called on MSPs to reject moves for the 24-hour opening of licensed premises during the Stage 3 debate on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill. – Source

Sharp rise reported in child abuse by women
11/9/2009
The number of children reporting sexual abuse by women to ChildLine has more than doubled over the past five years, it was revealed today.

New figures show a 132 per cent rise in complaints of female sexual assaults to the helpline service in this period, compared with a 27 per cent increase in reports of abuse by men. – Source

Domestic abuse in Scotland on the rise with one case every ten minutes
3/1/2011

The number of domestic abuse incidents reported to police in Scotland rose during January – with an average of one incident every ten minutes.

Figures from Scotland’s Violence Reduction Unit showed 5,029 incidents were reported in January, a rise from 4,783 in December.

Chief inspector Graham Goulden, who leads the Anti Violence Campaign on behalf of the Violence Reduction Unit, said the figures suggested more people were reporting incidents of domestic abuse, but that the statistics were “worrying”.

He said: “When we released the December figures, I said they were a badge of shame for Scotland. The fact the figures for January are higher, and that a comparison with the previous year shows a rise of 1,870 incidents, reinforces that. – Source

CEOP see a rise in online reports
11/5/2010

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre police unit says there has been an increase in the number of reports it has received.

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre believe the rise is due to greater awareness.

Recently social networking sites such as Facebook have begun working with the agency to introduce a panic button to report incidents of concern. CEOP encourages people to report anything they find offensive.

Between April 2009 and March 2010 Ceop received over 6,000 reports about incidents of potential child abuse or online grooming, nearly 900 more than the previous year. More than 1,500 of those were reports of online grooming. – Source

17% rise in alcohol consumption in 11 years
A report published today shows that alcohol consumption in Ireland has increased by 17% over the past 11 years.

The Health Research Board report reveals that the average Irish adult drank almost two litres of alcohol more in 2006 than in 1995.

This rise in consumption has led to an increase in the number of alcohol-related diseases.

There was a 147% increase in alcohol related liver disease between 1995 and 2004… – Source

Study finds alcohol abuse on the rise in Ireland
11/01/2007/16:39:51 GMT

Dublin – Alcohol consumption rose by 17 per cent in Ireland between 1995 and 2006 and this has led to an increase in alcohol- related harm, disease and deaths, Ireland’s Health Research Board reported Thursday. A total of 1,775 died from alcohol abuse during the 11-year period.

The average Irish adult consumed 13.4 litres of alcohol in 2006, up from 11.5 litres in 1995, with hospitals reporting a doubling of alcohol-related problems.

The number of people discharged from hospital after receiving treatment for alcohol-related problems rose by 90 per cent in the 1995-2004 period, while bed days due to alcohol-related illnesses more than doubled to 117,373 from 55,805, the study found.

“These figures … are remarkable,” according to the study’s lead author Dr Deirdre Mongan.

“Moreover, because (the study) does not record people attending Accident and Emergency who are not actually admitted to a hospital bed, it is fair to assume that these figures actually underestimate the pressure of problem alcohol use on acute hospital services,” she said.

The biggest increase was found in alcohol-related liver disease, with hospital discharges for the problem rising 147 per cent in the 1995-2004 period.

The study’s authors also found a worrying increase in younger women presenting with alcohol-related illness. – Source

Alcohol-Related Deaths in UK Rising
2/4/2008

The number of people in the United Kingdom dying from alcohol-related problems continues to rise. Figures released by National Statistics shows that alcohol-related deaths among men rose from 13.4 deaths per 100,000 in 2006 to 18.3 per 100,000 in 2007. This is twice the rate among women, which is at 8.8 deaths per 100,000.

The biggest increase was for men ages 34-54—more than 100% in the past year. Meanwhile, women between the ages of 55 and 74 showed the highest gains. It is reported that in the age group 16-24 women regularly drink twice the recommended daily limit. – Source

The Rise of the Alcopop and Children Drinking

The rise in teenage binge-drinking is fuelled by the marketing and promotion of cheap alcoholic beverages. The popularity of drinks like alcopops has escalated to the point where these beverages now rival cider and lager as the alcohol of choice. The UK’s children have the highest level of drinking in Europe, as well as the highest teenage pregnancy rate, and concerns continue to mount.

Whilst the promotion of alcopops may not have increased the number of people consuming these beverages, it has however, increased the amount that these drinkers readily consume in one evening. Worryingly, a large percentage of the young people consuming this type of beverage is female, and under-age. – Source

Moron Liberals Accuse British Police of Racism:

Police statistics shed fresh light on link between crime and race
Official police statistics have shed fresh light on the link between crime and race in London.

6/27/2010/10:15 AM BST

What do we know about race and crime in London?

Nine out of 10 street crimes, knife crimes and gun crimes are committed by men rather than women.

Twelve per cent of London’s men are black. But 54 per cent of the street crimes committed by men in London, along with 46 per cent of the knife crimes and more than half of the gun crimes, are thought by the Metropolitan Police to have been committed by black men. …

Many of the victims of street crime are black: twice as high a proportion of the total victims, according to the Met’s figures, as you would expect from the proportion of black people in London’s population as a whole.

It is not remotely likely that their racism leads these black victims to mis-identify the people who attack them as black when they are in fact white – and it is scarcely more plausible to maintain that white victims routinely mis-identify their attackers as black when they are white.

Even if you take the unjustified and unsupported position that police racism means that half of the black men “proceeded against” for street crimes are innocent of any wrong doing, it would still be the case that twice as many black men are involved in street crime as would be predicted from their portion of the male population of London.

Almost no-one thinks that today’s Met is made up of unrepentant racists who take it upon themselves to frame innocent black men.

In the 21st century, the principal grounds on which the Met is accused of racism is that black men make up a much higher proportion of the people stopped and searched by police officers than any other ethnic group.

The Equality Commission assumes that such a practice shows that officers must be covertly racist. – Source

Number of race crimes on the rise
7/3/2008/8:25 AM

Hate crimes were reported to police in Barnet at a rate of five a day last year, with racist crimes rising more than in any other borough.

In the 12 months up to May this year, police recorded 1,859 hate crimes, which include domestic and homophobic incidents, as well as racist crimes.

The number of reported racist crimes alone increased by 21.3 per cent in the borough, from 314 in the year ending May 2007, to 381 in the following 12 months.

The percentage increase is higher than in any other London borough and is set against a fall in reported racist crimes of 11.1 per cent in the capital as a whole. – Source

And do you notice any bias in Liberal reporting of crimes committed by Muslim and homosexuals in these articles?:

Harrow woman convicted of keeping Tanzanian as slave
3/16/2011/16:24 ET

Campaigners claim hundreds more slaves could be being kept in houses across the UK

A former hospital director has been ordered to pay £25,000 to an African woman she kept as a slave in London.

Mwanahamisi Mruke, 47, was flown from Tanzania in 2006 and made to work 18-hour days for Saeeda Khan, 68, at her home in Harrow, north-west London.

Khan was convicted of trafficking a person into the UK for exploitation.

The judge at Southwark Crown Court, who also gave her a suspended nine-month prison term, said she was guilty of “the most appalling greed”.

Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC said Khan had told “a pack of lies” during her trial by saying her victim, whom he described as “naive and illiterate”, was treated as part of the family.

Sentencing her he said: “Your own behaviour was callous and greedy.

Saeeda Khan ordered Mwanahamisi Mruke around by ringing a bell

“You could easily have afforded to pay her a reasonable sum by way of wages. You chose to give her virtually nothing.”

He told Khan that her age, the fact she has two adult disabled children and was in poor health had prevented him from passing an immediate custodial sentence.

During the trial jurors heard Miss Mruke was denied her passport and liberty and endured the ordeal to support her daughter through college in Africa.

Ms Mruke said she could “never forgive” her captor for her four-year ordeal.

“I felt like a fool, I was treated like a slave,” Ms Mruke said.

After bringing her into the country from Tanzania, Khan initially gave her an allowance of £10 a month to work around the clock at her beck and call, the court heard.

‘Never paid’

Within a year she stopped paying her altogether.

“Even the money I was promised, I was never paid. I feel terrible about this,” Ms Mruke said.

“I was hoping I would receive a salary and improve my life. But my hopes were dashed, my strength was reduced and I became unwell.”

Ms Mruke was brought to the UK after getting a job at a hospital in Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania which Khan owned.

Khan told her that she would work six hours a day and that her daughter in Tanzania would be paid 120,000 Tanzanian shillings a month, equivalent to £50.

But the court heard how Khan fed her two slices of bread a day and ordered her around by ringing a bell she kept in her bedroom.

Varicose veins

Ms Mruke was banned from leaving the house and never learned English because the family watched Pakistani TV.

Beginning work at 0600 GMT, she would often not be allowed to rest before midnight as she cleaned, gardened, cooked meals and accompanied Khan’s disabled son on walks.

Mwanahamisi Mruke was not allowed to leave the house in Harrow, north-west London

Ms Mruke told the court that sometimes she did not sleep due to the long hours she had to work, doing “all the housework, cooking, cleaning, inside and out”.

“She didn’t attack me physically. It was just the words and the way she was treating me.

“I feel that justice should be passed and others should learn from this. I feel terrible about her.”

Ms Mruke’s plight was discovered when she went to see a doctor for an examination of her varicose veins.

During her three-year ordeal, Ms Mruke’s parents died and her daughter was married, yet she was granted no contact with her family.

Ms Mruke is now pursuing a civil claim against Khan. – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12710481 So much for multiculturalism, OH “tolerant”, Liberals.

The Indians of course point out that these slave owners were Muslims. But that makes them, oh no: judgmental. And judgmental is a sin in the Liberal Commandments for which you can be pushed, kicked, punched, spat on, have your finger cut off, or genitals, severely scolded, have your protector signs stolen or vandalized, slandered, libeled, judged in court by a paid judge, and jailed for (why not also stone those who point out a person’s religion and sexuality while their at it? Maybe it’s becuase liberals they like to make people suffer for long, very long periods of time… Sounds like they want to play God of Hell on Earth.)

Spanish priest arrested over ‘21,000 child porn images’
11/12/2010/16:32 ET

A Catholic priest in Spain has been arrested over the alleged possession of thousands of images of child sex abuse.

Police said they found 21,000 images on computers inside the 52-year-old’s church in Vilafames, in the east of the country.

The priest, who has not been named, has been bailed and will appear before a judge in a fortnight, media say.

The Segorbe-Castellon diocese said it had suspended the priest and was ready to clarify the facts in court.

“If the accusation is true, this is something that hurts us deeply, that we sincerely regret and that we reject unreservedly,” the El Pais newspaper quoted a statement from the diocese as saying.

It said it would also offer the priest “the necessary means for a fair defence”.

Spain has largely escaped the child sex abuse scandals that have hit the Catholic Church in many European countries and the US.

But formal accusations have been made against a Carmelite monk in eastern Spain and Franciscan brothers in the south.

Police also launched an investigation in May into three members of staff at a care home run by a Catholic order in Cordoba.

Spain has arrested hundreds of people for distributing child pornography in recent years.

In May, police carried out almost 100 raids across the country after uncovering a network sharing abuse images.

The country’s biggest raid was in October 2008, when 121 suspects were detained. – Source WAS THE “CHILD ABUSE” AGAINST GIRLS OR BOYS? AND IF BOTH, HOW MANY GIRLS, AND HOW MANY BOYS. WHY SO VAGUE? I WONDER.

SO, You who make up the UK’s gov might want to start with refraining from your bigotry of calling anyone who disagrees with you a phobe. Stop slandering and libeling those who disagree with your Christaphobia. You bullies, cowards, slanderers and liars who can’t get along with your own neighbors.

Britain’s government doesn’t know what it is doing, because it is waste, just like it’s king and queen and princes. Diana’s own mother murdered her.

Oh, there is a response from a “Black Angel”, a British liberal. What would a “Black Angel” (a demon) have to say? A person with a name like black angel surely must have excellent grammar and spelling, must be very peaceful, and loving, let’s read Black Angel’s scholarly non-bigoted, non-judgmental, tolerant pro-diversity, well-ordered, scientific response:

I think [Who cares what you think? Other Satan worshipers] fundamentalists are nothing but a bunch of murderering [spelling error] filth [hate crime] looking for a cause [what cause you moron?] to justify thier [spelling error] slime [hate crime, and what “slime”?] and I don’t just mean the muslim jackasses [hate crime] bacvkward [sloppy] rubbish [hate crime]

Let us not [pretentious] forget the Christians in the past [stereotype and hate crime, and unlike you I have studied the Christians of “the past” extensively you parroting airhead] and in the present [And who “forgets” the Christians of the present? Could it be morons like you which is why you have to remind them of what is going while they are alive? Or do you think everyone is a moron and needs you to remind them of what goes on around them? They must truly be oblivious to be what’s going on now if they need a moron to remind them]

(the racist scum in the USA [stereotype and hate crime]] and I mean all the evanglist [spelling error] crap [stereotype and hate crime and missing end bracket]

and even the Monolist [the what?] trash [hate crime against, uh, imaginary Monolists] as well, [as what? what does “as well” mean? pretentious]

you go to a church of a God [no ranting moron: “God” not “a God”] and you still go to your own neighbourhood [who else’s would it be?] and hate the thes [the what?] in your own land [what does going to my own neighborhood have to do with hating “thes” in my own land, and why wouldn’t I hate “thes” whatever that is, at church too or any where in “my own land”, and what do you mean by “own land”? Do you mean the country or a home in the neighborhood, cuz, I don’t have any “thes” in my house or on “my own land” at my house or anywhere else in the country]

because they have a different colour? [“thes” have a different color? Cool. You do know moron that evangelicals are often black, right, you ranting ignorant mentally ill sociopath and narcissist idiot? No you don’t, because you’re a liberal, and liberals are ignorant morons who persecute anyone who recognizes that they are corrupt or mentally ill]

or they are female ? [HUH ?] scum) [hate crime, oh, there’s the missing bracket, but why is it there?]

Look at the examples of [redundant phrase] their prophets and then look at them [and notice what moron, and if you don’t bother looking yourself why should anyone else listen to you you hypocrite?] (although can’t say the same for their Gods [True Christians don’t worship “Gods” you confused airhead, they worship “God”, and what did that mean? You can’t say what is the same? And why can’t you? And you’re missing an end bracket. What a sloppy-minded liberal.]”

Listen to God, Satan worshiper: “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” – John. God called you a murderer Black Angel. Why do you call yourself an Angel anyways? Are you very powerful? Do you have wings? Can you glow and change shape? Arrogant much Mr. God No Exist But Me all Meself An Immoral Angel?

And so you think the USA is the one with all the problems, and that your country is nice in comparison? No rotten demon.

: UK Police officers love child porn.

Sick Britain: The jeering crowds who urged suicidal man on McDonald’s roof to ‘jump off’
by Daily Mail Reporter
3/28/2011/12:14 PM

Jeering crowds urged a suicidal man to man to jump 50ft to his death from the roof of a McDonald’s restaurant while police tried to talk him down, it was claimed yesterday.

He teetered on the edge of the building in Lowestoft, Suffolk, as spectators allegedly yelled ‘jump off’ and ‘stop wasting our time, we’ve been here for ages, do us a favour’ .

Trained police negotiators were brought in and spent nearly 11 hours talking to him as firefighters and paramedics stood by.
Delicate negotiation: Police spent 11 hours trying to talk the man down as drunken revellers jeered and encouraged him to jump

Delicate negotiation: Police spent 11 hours trying to talk the man down as drunken revellers jeered and encouraged him to jump

The 38-year-old called police at 5pm on Friday to say he was on the roof and about to throw himself off.

The man, who had climbed on to the roof via a fire escape, eventually agreed to come down safely and was arrested just before 4am.

Ian Armitage, 28, of Norwich, Norfolk, was shocked to hear drunken revellers shouting at the man to jump when he arrived at Lowestoft station at 11pm after a family event in the town.

He said: ‘There were around 30 people watching on, huddled around the station building. I don’t know if they had been out drinking or messing about but some were laughing and pointing.

‘When we got to the station we could hear people shouting ‘jump off’ and ‘stop wasting our time, we’ve been here for ages, do us a favour. – More here

Over-50 divorce rate soars
from The Sunday Times
12/5/2004

THE divorce rate among couples in their fifties and sixties is rising sharply, a report to be published this week reveals, writes Robert Winnett.

Over the past five years the divorce rate among over-fifties has risen by 8.7%, according to the study carried out by the consultancy firm Future Foundation for Saga, the company that provides services for older people.

The trend is helping to push up the average age at which people divorce. Men, on average, now get divorced at 42, compared with 39 a decade ago; women are typically 39 — also three years older.

Experts attribute the rise to financially independent women leaving when their children have left home — a consequence of the “empty nest syndrome”. Generous divorce settlements and the right of a wife to claim part of her husband’s pension are fuelling the rise.

“Over-fifties marriages are more stable than those between younger couples, statistically speaking,” said Michael Cutbill, Saga’s marketing director. “But they are not immune to wider trends in society and their divorce rates are increasing.”

The study found that one in seven people aged between 50 and 64 is now divorced, compared to one in eight of those aged between 35 and 49. There is also evidence that more older people are divorcing for a second time. – More here

Summer bummer as divorce soars
by Alex Peake
8/16/2008

BRITAIN’S divorce rate soared 150 PER CENT this summer, figures revealed yesterday.

The credit crunch on top of the depressing return from long-awaited family holidays were blamed by experts.

Traditionally January witnesses the biggest number of break-ups as couples fall out over Christmas.

But July?s divorce rate was 40 per cent higher than January – and an alarming 150 per cent hike on 2007.

Relationship specialists and divorce lawyers warned August?s figures are set to rise again – then peak next month, which they are dubbing ?Separation September?.

The soaring rate comes after 2006 saw the lowest stats for 22 YEARS, when 132,562 couples broke up. – More here

It’s never going to be a sin for Christians, the children of God, to judge the bastards, grow up and get over it or go to Hell if you can’t take what you dish to Christians.

“You (God) hate all who do wrong.” – Psalm 5:5.

God’s hate will triumph over your rage, his love over your lusts, and his diversity over your discrimination.

‘Paedophilia is Hollywood’s biggest problem,’ alleges former child star Corey Feldman

Categories: "Do not Judge.", Discrimination Against Christians, Discrimination Against Christians, homosexuality, Homosexuals Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pathetic for Stalkers

November 12, 2010 Leave a comment

So much for the Great Gazoo, Kjelstad, and gorgeoustxwoman, footprints in the sand (aka Persephone) and novangelis, and a supposed woman named predator hunter (who thinks her nasty comments are worth reading here), and an evil gang at Answerbag made up of a Wiccan, Gypsy, Satanist, atheist and Catholic, who finally have given up. They are all failed stalkers defeated by their own mental laziness and hatred of the truth, truth which God gave to me by his word and giving me understanding. Though they troll Yahoo Answers and Dirtbag (where they know they can get away with it and be exalted as top contributors and get medals of honor for their bitter, stubborn, babble, and make like-minded psychotic and narcissistic friends on top of it, their rewards are temporary and any unrepentant friends they have on the Day of Judgment will be thrown into Hell with them. Novangelis is also a stalker on Wikipedia, who apparently had friends helping him to bully and flame-bait Christians out of that propaganda tool, but not enough to keep track of wherever I went there. And whatever happened to the psychotic Justin, who popped up out of no where to repeatedly harass me?: failed. None of them have nothing useful to say except to show how their way leads to eternal Hell.

Please visit bestanswers.tk to keep this journal alive so that more people will learn the truth about the lies of humanist atheist nonsense and the logic that leads to eternal life.

Atheists Fail at Logic

September 5, 2010 1 comment

Post link: logicfails.tk

The Corrupt Logic of Anti-Christian Atheists

Recently, while studying logic and trying to find references, I’ve noticed that Google has been giving biased search engine results by entirely showing logic fallacy lists that are only supportive of atheism as a whole. For example, about.com lists its logic fallacy list within in atheist web page; how is it NOT a logic fallacy to associate atheism with being logical and theists illogical MERELY BECAUSE AN ATHEIST IS REPEATING LOGIC FALLACIES AND ONLY OR ALMOST ENTIRELY PREJUDICES THE EXAMPLES AGAINST THEISM, TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS IF THEISTS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO MAKE MISTAKES? Aren’t those acts indicating circular reasoning and ad hominem within the minds of those copying and pasting these lists? Isn’t that deliberately conniving, bitter, deception? IT’S CALLED “LYING”.

Here is another example, a blatant one, in which a former psychology professor at Shippensburg University, George Boeree, copy-pasted a fallacy list and contradicted one of the fallacies using hate speech against theists, which Shippensburg University has sanctioned by hosting:

“We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.”

But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior? Of course not!

This hack philosopher, WITH NO DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY LET ALONE LOGIC, who copied and pasted a fallacy list and made it anti-theistic, made a circular argument himself: he’s making a personal attack against religion (ad hominem) and is committing the fallacy of “appealing to obviousness” by his weasel word: “of course not!” and committing the fallacy of “appealing to emotion” by using an exclamation mark. He’s also indirectly committing the fallacy of “appealing to authority” by implying that his mere word as a former professor with a degree in psychology and whatever works he’s written (which are obscure, and not authoritative, so he’s being a vain hypocrite on top of all this). On top of that, this moron is obviously ignorant about religion BECAUSE his statement is grammatically nonsensical: worship is apart of religion, and he spoke as if they were two entirely different things. His error is analogous too this statement, “But does eating apples and apple pieces actually produce nutrients in the body?” On top of that he even showed with the biased example he thought up, that he understands religion and worship to be intertwined, because the example doesn’t say, “religion”! Talk about eating your own words! Some professor eh? As usual, the accusations of Satan’s children punch them right back in their deceiving mouths.

The oldest logical fallacy list on the Internet is hosted by Georgia State University, from 1992, notice it makes NO REFERENCE TO GOD, which shows that it was deliberately used for propaganda by atheists (I put the title in bold):

LOGICAL FALLACIES

I’ve been bothered for a number of years, really for most of my adult life, by how poorly individuals will construct their arguments in everyday life and in academic debate. Along the way, I stumbled upon a collection of fallacies (see references) that I’ve found to be a convenient yard-stick by which to critique others’ arguments. They are offered here in a hypertext form that I originally wrote to be read by my PalmPilot personal digital assistant (PDA).. – Art

Fallacies of Relevance

Accident
Affirmation of the Consequent
Argumentum ad Antiquitam
Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force)
Argumentum ad Crumenam
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive)
Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial)
Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance)
Argumentum ad Lazarum
Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity)
Argumentum ad Nauseum
Argumentum ad Novitam
Argumentum ad Numeram
Argumentum ad Populam
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)
Bifrucation
Complex Question
Converse Accident (hasty generalization)
Denial of the Antecedent
Dicto Simpliciter – Sweeping Generalization
Fallacy of Interrogation
False Analogy
False Cause
Hasty Generalization
Ignoratio Elenchi
Non Causa Pro Causa
Non-Sequitur
Petitio Principii (begging the question)
Plurium Interrogationum – Many Questions
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Quaternio Terminorum
Red Herring
Reification
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Special Pleading
Straw Man
Tu Quoque – Two Wrongs Make a Right

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Equivocation
Amphiboly
Accentus – Accent
Composition
Division

Fallacies of Correlation

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Affirmation of the Consequent.

Description: An argument from the truth of a hypothetical statement, and the truth of the consequent to the truth of the antecedent. In the syllogism below, P is the antecedent and Q is the consequent: P implies Q Q is true <– Affirming the consequent ______________ Therefore: P is true.

Argumentum ad Antiquitam.

Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old; that is, because "that's the way it's always been."

Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force).

The arguer appeals to force or the threat of force to compel acceptance of the conclusion.

Argumentum ad Crumenam.

Description: Fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right.

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive).

"The phrase argumentum ad hominem translates literally as 'argument directed to the man.'" The abusive variety occurs when one attacks the other person rather than the other persons argument.

. Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial).

In this case, one tries to convince the opponent to agree to the conclusion based on the opponents circumstances. For example (from Copi), a hunter may claim an anti-hunter must say hunting is acceptable since the anti-hunter is not a vegetarian.

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance).

* "The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any."
* The argument that something must be true simply because it hasn't been proved to be false, or vice versa.

Argumentum ad Lazarum

Description: A fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the informal fallacy "argumentum ad crumenam."

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity).

The arguer appeals to pity where the conclusion is a matter of reason and not one of sentiment, e.g. referring to a murder suspect's dependent family.

Argumentum ad Nauseum.

Description: The incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseum" is one that employs constant repitition in asserting a truth.

Argumentum ad Novitam.

Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer than something else. Or that something is better because it is newer. This type of fallacy is the opposite of the "argumentum ad antiquitam" fallacy.

Argumentum ad Numeram.

Description: A fallacy that asserts that the more people who support or believe a proposition then the more likely that that proposition is correct; it equates mass support with correctness.

Argumentum ad Populam.

"the attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of the multitude, rather than by appeal to the relevant facts."

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority).

This is especially the appeal to authority outside the field of that authority's expertise. In the field of the authority's expertise, "this method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of that authority's competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. … Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it."

Accident.

"The fallacy of accident consists in applying a general rule to a particular case whose 'accidental' circumstances render the rule inapplicable." For instance, while generally one should not exceed the speed limit, it is acceptable for emergency vehicles to do so.

Bifrucation.

Description: Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation is the presentation of a situation or condition with only two alternatives, whereas in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

Complex Question.

* This is a question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety.
* Arguing based on a response, or assumed response, to a complex or "loaded" question, where no simple yes or no response is reasonable — "have you stopped beating your wife?" "will you vote for the Republicans and prosperity?"

Converse Accident (hasty generalization).

Making a general rule based on a few atypical cases. For instance, considering the effect of alcohol only on those who indulge to excess, and concluding that liquor is harmful and should be outlawed.

Denial of the Antecedent.

Description: An argument in which one infers the falsity of the consequent from the truth of a hypothetical proposition, and the falsity of its antecedent. P implies Q Not-P ____________ Therefore: Not-Q.

Dicto Simpliciter – Sweeping Generalization.

Description: Sweeping Generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation in which the features of that particular situation render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a hasty generalization.

Fallacy of Interrogation.

Description: The question asked has a presupposition which the answerer may wish to deny, but which he/she would be accepting if he/she gave anything that would count as an answer. Any answer to the question "Why does such-and-such happen?" presupposes that such-and-such does indeed happen.

False Analogy.

* Description: An analogy is a partial similarity between the like features of two things or events on which a comparison can be made.
* A false analogy involves comparing two things that are NOT similar.
* Note that the two things may be similar in superficial ways, but not with respect to what is being argued.

False Cause.

* This is mistaking a event to be the cause of some other event.
* Arguing that one event causes another on the basis merely that it occurs earlier, or more generally mistaking what is not the cause of something as its cause. For instance, arguing that beating of drums causes the sun to reappear after after an eclipse by citing that every time drums have been so beaten the sun has reappeared.

Hasty Generalization

Description: An argument in which a proposition is used as a premise without attention given to some obvious condition that would affect the proposition's application. This fallacy is also known as the "hasty generalization." It is a fallacy that takes evidence from several, possibly unrepresentative, cases to a general rule; generalizing from few to many. Note the relation to statistics: Much of statistics concerns whether or not a sample is representative of a larger population. The larger the sample size, the better the representativeness. Note also that the opposite of a hasty generalization is a sweeping generalization.

Ignoratio Elenchi.

* Description: An argument that is supposed to prove one proposition but succeeds only in proving a different one. Ignoratio elenchi stands for "pure and simple irrelevance."
* An argument which supports one conclusion is made to prove a different conclusion.
* Copi's example is a legislator who, in discussing a housing bill, argues only that decent housing for all is desirable, rather than whether the bill in question would achieve that goal.

Non Causa Pro Causa.

Description: An argument to reject a proposition because of the falsity of some other proposition that seems to be a consequence of the first, but really is not.

Non-Sequitur.

Description: An argument in which the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. Another way of putting this is: A conclusion drawn from premises that provide no logical connection to it.

Petitio Principii (begging the question).

* The conclusion of an argument is contained in one of the premises assumed.
* Assuming the truth of one's proposal as a premise for the conclusion one is trying to prove.

Plurium Interrogationum – Many Questions.

Description: A demand for a simple answer to a complex question.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

Description: An argument from a premise of the form "A preceded B" to a conclusion of the form "A caused B." Simply because one event precedes another event in time does not mean that the first event is the cause of the second event. This argument resembles a fallacy known as a Hasty Generalization.

Quaternio Terminorum.

Description: An argument of the syllogistic form in which there occur four or more terms. In a standard categorical syllogism there are only three terms: a subject, a predicate, and a middle term.

Red Herring.

Description: A fallacy when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being discussed, such that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points being made, and toward a different conclusion. It is not logically valid to divert a chain of reasoning with extraneous points.

Reification.

Description: To reify something is to convert an abstract concept into a concrete thing. Reification is a Fallacy of Ambiguity. Reification is also sometimes known as a fallacy of "hypostatization".

Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

Special Pleading.

Description: Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than he or she would make when evaluating someone else's arguments.

Straw Man.

Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.

Tu Quoque – Two Wrongs Make a Right.

Description: Two wrongs never add up to a right; you cannot right a wrong by applying yet another wrong. Such a fallacy is a misplaced appeal to consistency. It is a fallacy because it makes no attempt to deal with the subject under discussion.

AMBIGUITY.

Description: An argument in the course of which at least one term is used in different senses. Also known as equivocation. There are several types of "fallacies of ambiguity," including REIFICATION, EQUIVOCATION, AMPHIBOLY, COMPOSITION, DIVISION, and ACCENTUS.

Equivocation.

* Using the same word in two different senses.
* A fallacy arising from the ambiguity or multiplicity of possible interpretations of a repeated word or phrase. "An elephant is an animal, therefore a small elephant is a small animal".

Amphiboly.

* Arguing from premises which are ambiguous due to their grammatical construction.
* An argument whose premises contain statements with grammatical constructions capable of being interpreted in more than one way. Classical example: "if Croesus went to war with Cyrus, he would destroy a mighty kingdom". Based on that advice Croesus went to war with Cyrus and in so doing destroyed a mighty kingdom: his own.

Accent.

* Stressing a word in a sentence which thereby changes the meaning.
* An argument based on a change in meaning through emphasis or accent. "we should not speak ill of our friends", unaccented, may be valid, while by accenting the last word the implication is added that it may be acceptable to speak ill of others. Similarly, quoting or emphasizing something out of context ("the captain was sober today").

Composition.

* Attributing to the whole the properties of the parts.
* Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself: "all of the parts of this machine are light, therefore the machine itself is light". Or, to infer that what may be said of a term distributively may be said of the term collectively: "a bus uses more gasoline than a car, therefore buses use more gasoline than cars".

Division.

* Attributing to the parts the properties of the whole.
* The reverse of composition: reasoning from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of its parts, or inferring that what may be true of a term collectively is true distributively. "HP is a very important company; I am an HP employee; therefore I am very important"; "Dogs are frequently seen in the streets; Afghan hounds are dogs; therefore Afghan hounds are frequently seen in the streets".

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Description: A fallacy of correlation that links events because they occur simultaneously; one asserts that because two events occur together they are causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. This fallacy is similar to the "post hoc" fallacy.

Reference:

1. Message-ID: Sender: netnews@apollo.hp.com (USENET posting account) Nntp-Posting-Host: avatar_r.ch.apollo.hp.com Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 18:05:01 GMT .
2. From: jsanders@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Definition Time — Strawman Date: 25 Apr 1992 10:42:00 -0500 Organization: Kansas State University Lines: 105 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu.
3. From: bcushman@envy.Reed.Edu (Ben Cushman)Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: catalog of everyday fallacies? (long) Message-ID: Date: 26 Apr 92 23:39:51 GMT Article-I.D.: reed.1992Apr26.233951.29296 References: Sender: news@reed.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR.

Update 2/14/2011:

At about 9 AM I decided to study logic a little more. And discovered more evidence of atheists hijacking the original logic fallacy list, from an apparent atheist named Zack Smith, who, I wonder, if coincidentally, is using a .tk domain to direct people to his propaganda website on logic, atheism and religion, which was last worked on in 2010, the year I wrote up this post. More suspicious is that he does not say when he last edited it. It’s suspicious to me because he’s using topics on my website and the redirect is close to the one I use, and hides credit, just like the other atheists who parrot the list. Translation: I wonder if he’s stolen credit from me too. Here is my reply to what I found on the part of his website on with those subjects:

Zack: if information-avoidance (concerning what is morally right from wrong) is a sin in your arbitrary illogical rulebook, (and it is in the Bible: the most popular and most influential spoken and gathered information in the world, which YOU AVOID), why then do you hide your email from your atheism propaganda pages, and not only that, not tell people something as important as to WHERE YOUR TRUNCATED FALLACY LIST ORIGINATED FROM, OR FACTS CONCERNING THE HELPFULNESS OF THE BIBLE FOR LIVING A PEACEFUL, LOGICAL AND PROGRESSIVE LIFE?

And lest you claim you did provide your email, I’ve saved your pages.

And religion isn’t “a mind virus”, it’s a method of worship; it’s a logical fallacy to over-generalize, a fallacy which you illogically and deliberately did not include in “your” arbitrary credit-robbing fallacy list. Further: do you know who the father of biology is, bitter Mr. Religion is Mind Virus? Don’t avoid that information Mr. I Love Truth. Hint: wain’t your father Deluded Darwin who spread is mental virus called Darwinian Evolution which is used as an excuse by every God-hater whether they call themselves Christian or not to lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, covet, blaspheme, forget that God worked to give eternal life freely, and to dishonor their parents. You do recognize those list of wrongs don’t you atheist, Mr. All Religion Is Bad For Your Mind and There is No God? Yeah: none of those things, not even murdering babies or abusing children is wrong, WRONG.

It’s also a false argument when you DO NOT SHOW INFORMATION THAT REFUTES YOURS AND PRETEND THAT YOU ARE RIGHT BY EXCLUDING SUCH INFORMATION.

As for strawmen, why don’t you point out that many Christians don’t claim that atheism is a religion, let alone a spreading one, BUT THAT HUMANISTIC ATHEISM IS? Yet you point out that strawman arguments are bad. And are weasel arguments fallicious in your mind either? If I point out the arguments made by atheists which only have bad grammar or who are very poor in school or who are mentally ill, would I be being a “weasel”? Would I be AVOIDING INFORMATION? Be ashamed you liar. Stop being a bitter, fault-finder and hypocrite and avoiding information and restoring to lies, hiding truth and misleading to make yourself feel better.

Here’s an excellent example of atheists biasing the logic fallacy list, using examples from Zack the infantile copy-paster:

Genetic Fallacy

Here, the source or origin of a claim is discredited or bolstered in order allege that the claim itself is false or true.
It comes from the bible and the bible is the word of Yahweh therefore it must be true.
That research was done in China therefore it must be full of errors and crap data.

Legitimacy From Effort.

This religion has taken millenia to get built up therefore you should believe in god.
It took years for Microsoft to produce Windows therefore we should use it.
It took years for the seagulls to cover the rocks completely with shit therefore it is pretty like a Jackson Pollack painting.
It took years for such-and-such minority to build up their own separatist subculture therefore members should not interact with outsiders and they deserve respect.

In the Genetic fallacy, Parrot Zack uses an incorrect example, and showing his hatred of those who are religious, blasphemes God’s name to make himself look wise (if you show deep hatred for someone let alone hatred at all while claiming to be teaching the truth, that makes what you say suspect as being false Zack; that’s obvious), which is that to say that if Yahweh said it is true that it must be. Parrot: Yahweh doesn’t lie as is shown by the historical accuracy of the Bible and eye witness testimony to the things it says exist and that still happen. If you’d like to attempt to cure yourself of your insanity of doubt try sleeping next to a knife in various houses haunted by violent demons. Keep in mind that you deserve to die if one of them attempts you; don’t blaspheme after being hurt by one being that it will be your own fault to sleep with demons. Notice also how Parrot Zack weasels in the example of China, a communist dictatorship. Zack, are you aware communist atheists with the silence or aid of humanistic atheists murdered or indirectly murdered 250 million people in the last 100 years, the most killed by any group and in that short a time, AND AFTER THE SUPPOSED AGE OF FREE-THINKING AND ENLIGHTENMENT BROUGHT ON BY ATHEISTS? That’s not evolution Mr. Pretentious Genetics, that’s thinning the genetics humans have to work with to continue to survive and be fit and to adapt. Humanistic Communism is evil Zack, stop denying that murder is wrong, let alone murder of those who disagree with the personal feelings of others. Murder exists Zack, just like Yahweh who forbids. Psychopathic parroting, truth-twisting and disgust won’t change that.

In Zack’s Legitimacy From Effort fallacy he put’s first as an example “This religion has taken millenia to get built up therefore you should believe in god.” How about also adding, “Pagan Roman, Catholic Roman, Muslims, and Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian and Baltic Communist atheists fought to suppress, oppress and murder millions of Christians and those who spoke out against their gods who were no gods, therefore you shouldn’t trust in Yahweh.”? How about these ones: “If it survives it must be fit.” or “If it survives it must be best.” Or “If it survives it must be right.” Or “If it survives it must be just.” Or, “If it took millions of years to evolve it must be best.” Do any of those lines of reasoning sound familiar, hypocrite? Strange you don’t use any of them as examples but rather some arrogant biased rants with a snotty fanboy tone.

Or how about including these examples somewhere: “A man looks like a monkey, therefore one of them must have come from the other.” Or, “A bird looks like a giant lizard, therefore one of them must have come from the other.” Or, “Because animals look alike they must have all biologically have come from a single thingy.” Or, “If there is a column of animals in the order of little to big big animals then big animals must have come from little animals.” Do you know what types of logical fallacies those fall under, Mr. Logical?

That’s your fallacious logic blind Zack who magnifies his error in his one eye that can see with a false lens.

It’s also a logical fallacy to think that because you point out right from wrong that you must therefore be wise in morality and moral, yet clearly you’re neither, but rather a parasitic parrot.

—-

That’s the end of my reply. I’m trying to finish with a book on logic and arguments against religion which I mostly finished last year, but I wanted to add another argument I remembered about three days ago, refuting in my original version of the book in 2005 or 2006, which was on a justification for homosexuality, and then yesterday I think, remembered another, on God supposedly wrongly treating us like children, which I also refuted. Ironically one of the logical fallacies Zack listed in his list, one which I didn’t remember having read and thinking about is the basis points out the error of this justification for homosexuality (but doesn’t explain why it’s wrong, no surprise being that Zack is merely parroting without little to no understanding or critical after-thought on what he’s talking about). I wasn’t going to mention that I’d never read it because I think I already did in my book, but after commenting about the homosexuality argument and seeing it tied into it; it was too strange to not mention. Divine coincidence I call it. The logic fallacy Zack listed which I’m talking about, I personally call it the The Superiority or Inferiority/Moral Characteristics/Relation by Origin Fallacy, at the moment. If it’s in my book already I don’t remember whatever term I have for it in there. I’ll try to update this post later to point out if I already mentioned it in my unpublished book, for history.

“How do ye say, ‘We are wise, and the law of Yahweh is with us? Lo: certainly in vain made he made it’: rather it is the pen of the scribes that lies.” – Jeremiah 8:8

Lemmiwinks2’S ”Where did the universe come from” refuted

Lemmiwink2’s comments, in the order they came, minus one minor sentence, are in bold, with my replies:

“Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies are under the misunderstanding that the universe had a beginning,”

And they are mistaken because you said so.

“Even as they are saying this, they acknowledge that there could be no reaction which could take place in a complete void,”

If they think it was simply a void then they are wrong. According to Genesis, which is accurate as can be shown indirectly by various evidences, including archaeology, prophecy and science, there was some formless mass from which God created the universe, or rather a formless universe from which he made an ordered one.

“and so there must have been something likions predicted an expanding universe until somebody told him.”

What is “likions”? And why did you refer to a him when you referred to two people before: Hawking and Davies? Something wrong with your thought process?

“Also, science until recently has been tied up with religion,”

No: the scientific method is programmed into humans. Everyone trying something new or trying to confirm what they are instinctively programmed to know how to do (like move their mouth and tongue to speak) has an emotional or mental thought to do something, and who wants to accomplish that thing, and finds the time and resources to, will try. And if they don’t succeed, they will try again unless past attempts from other things let them know it won’t work. But if they succeed, then they confirm that their desire or idea was possible. Everyone does that. Also, it’s vague to say, “tied up with”. What exactly does that mean? Do you mean hindered by religion? Did you know that Einstein said, “science without religion is lame”? And just how is it “tied up” with religion? Are you saying that when a Christian performs an experiment, he’s praising and worshiping God? And what is your point? That you personally don’t like God being praised while experiments are done, and…? So what?! Are you a stupid brat? So what if you hate God? Lame.

In the book of Judges, Gideon carries out the modern version of the scientific method: more than one try to confirm a hypothesis. Also, as you know, Christians have been using science to try and conform their beliefs since the concept became clear to them, and that was occurring since before Darwin was born, a man whom anti-Christians and ignoramuses act like is the father of science, forgetting about Christians like the great genius mathematician Euler.

“and religious beliefs played a part in scientists trying to prove what they already believed.”

And that isn’t recent.

“Early in Einstein’s career he believed in an eternal universe, with two equations: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and mass equals energy de a singularity of infinite density that the universe came out of, which would actually be the universe in a different form. They ask us to believe that this singularity existed for all eternity, unchanging, because there was no time, and then all of a sudden decided to explode. This is a ridiculous idea, because any reaction which possibly could take place would have already happened over eternity.”

More evidence that Genesis is true: that a thing or things without a will of their own, disordered, could not order itself/themselves without someone to order it.

“They are following the teachings of some respected scientist like Einstein who was in fact wrong in that particular case.”

Seems to be true from my study of Michio Kaku which I reported on in my journal here.

“Einstein was known to be wrong many times in his mathematical calculations, and didn’t see that his equativided by the speed of light squared seeming to back this up.”

That is a grammatically nonsensical sentence it seems to me: what is an “equativided”?

“The universe is eternal,”

And whatever you say is true because you said so? That’s not true for God, to simply speak and be right “juz cuz”, so then how can you be greater than God?

“and any theory which says that it can’t be needs to be reexamined.”

Just not yours, juz cuz. Contradictory arrogance.

“Anything which can possibly happen has happened before”

Sounds circular reasoning to me.

“and will continue to happen for all eternity.”

In the renewed universe, God teaches that sin will no longer exist, it will only exist in Hell, and people building homes with their own hands (or whatever) will cease. They will no longer feel pain. And God is always right.

“Big bang, big crunch.”

That’s not a sentence and makes no point.

“Please read my articles on the subject by googling rowan casey, and looking for my associated content profile.”

After reading your broken logic: no. And associated content is anti-Christian, or at least anti-[[Calvinist]], so double no.

“This is the second most popular theory, I don’t need to site my sources.”

Of course: because you’re God and whatever the false God says is true is true, juz cuz he said it’s the second most popular theory.

The Huffington Post and Wikipedia is for Anti-Science Morons: Both Promote Lynne McTaggart

Talk about careless, stupid “a joke” and pathetic, the Huffington Post I just found out, has allowed the anti-science con artist  Lynne McTaggart to post a conspiracy rant claiming that Dan Brown’s “Science Fiction is Mostly Fact” speaking of his “The Lost Symbol” book. And wow what a clever title she came up with” “science fiction is fact” what a clever contrast! So original to say “why his lies are mostly truthful” too right? Lynn’s article begins with, “The most vehement criticism of Dan Brown’s new book The Lost Symbol concerns the view of many reviewers that while the material about Freemasonry may be based on fact, the science is more akin to science fiction.” Whatever. Lynn is a moron, she put out a book called “The Intention Experiment” in which she makes a big deal over something obviously false, which is that intentions can influence things, in other words, that you can will things to happen, such as events, not merely moving an object, in other words: WISHING! Talk about “wishful thinking”! When I made a sarcastic review of her book soon after it was listen on Amazon, the community moderators aggressively took action to suppress my review which was, as I intended, getting votes up immediately. Meanwhile they allow endless fake, malicious, sarcastic rants on books which promote or show evidence for creation science / intelligent design. Wikipedia even allows itself to be used to promote Lynn McMoron, meanwhile, they harassed me and aggressively, for including a page on the scientist prominent J.L. Naudin, aggressively attacking me for it and then deleting the page after pretentious consideration of it, and also for making a page on the prominent con artist Tom Bearden, for showing him to be a pseudo scientist while also attacking me for supposedly promoting Naudin for being a pseudo scientist and another scientist and inventor. The points: don’t trust the Huffington Post or Wikipedia. Liberals just make no sense: they latch on to main stream scientists in order to repel Christianity and promote them as legitimate unlike Christian ones, and at the same time also embrace clear pseudo scientists like McTaggert and Bearden in order to gain more followers against the honest Christian scientists. Their acceptance of liars in their hatred of God works against them; it self-defeating and so long as they do this, the greater technologies they desire, just in reach, will, in my opinion, continue to be withheld from the majority of them by God, and for the evil ones that do obtain or already have them, will not benefit the majority.

Who Cares About Carabane?: A Grand Example of Wikipedia’s Hypocrisy

February 13, 2010 4 comments

Today, the nerds of Wikipedia, called Wikipedians (which includes truth-hider Jimmy Wales), is featuring an extremely obscure and not noteworthy place called Carabane, at least until Wikipedia decided to make a show out of it:

Here, you can see how Wikipedia presented this article full of eloquently stated information, yet casually neglected, with apathy towards their own rules, to cite references for a large bulk of it (the first parts), as I kindly revealed for them and their audience:

And here you can see how two of their administrators broke their own precious arbitrarily and hypocritically enforced rule against reverting a particular page more than three times in one day:

Notice how wannabe Pope “Pontificalibus” lies in his last “reason for editing” (undo/revert) comment section by implying that he’s only reverted one of my edits? What a rabid, malicious, liar, and yet this liar is allowed to manipulate Wikipedia left and right to no end. This is the typical rabid hypocrisy you can expect from Wikipedia, and yet Google Corp is perfectly happy to promote Wikipedia as a relevant reliable encyclopedia and so promoting Wikipedia’s massive anti-Bible propaganda.

And notice here how his partner breaks their rule to assume good faith, and almost immediately warns he’ll ban me?:

Notice another reference to the Bible in the name of this idiot moderator “Sangrail”? Clearly they see themselves as holy warriors in a jihad against reality.

These are the typical tactics which the atheist dominated Wikipedia uses in order to silence, subdue or crush their opposition, hoping to appear to be running a professional, neutral and factual encyclopedia.

On top of all that: how is this article “noteworthy“, and yet it’s featured on their home page as the number one featured article! Wikipedia’s administrators are noted for making out obscure hardly useful articles to be noteworthy and deleting things and people which clearly are noteworthy out of jealousy and hatred of some truth or truths.

Other common tactics is to twist the meaning of neutral to mean “unbiased” (when it means “in the middle” and in context meaning “not taking sides” which is the last thing they do, they are clearly biased) and to claim to be factual, asking for facts arbitrarily, or pretending some member they are against isn’t giving them facts or enough facts to back up some claim must be done) and yet implying that “factual” doesn’t mean, at least in part, “truthful”, which they do by insisting that, Wikipedia is not about truth.” when the facts inconvenience them.

Poisonous Administrators of Wikipedia Suppress Aspartame’s Toxic History

February 13, 2010 2 comments

Today I had planned on repeating a warning about aspartame being re-marketed as Amino-sweet by the controversial Ajinomoto Corporation in an obvious attempt by them to obscure it’s bad history of poisoning and killing those who ingested it. After reading the articles on this, I then prepared to repost the information in a more helpful way, but before publishing, tried to input this information in Wikipedia, and was then shocked (which rarely happens to me) to see that one of the most relevant websites on this subject had been banned:

Clearly someone is trying to suppress the facts on Wikipedia, and it is more clear then ever that Wikipedia is dangerous to the world’s health. I hope Google, which has recently decided to pull out of helping the atheist communist government of China (not after making a hefty profit however) will also pull out of promoting Wikipedia in nearly all of it’s top five search results.

Update May/1/2012:

If Wikipedia had existed before 1950, any pages witten before June, 1957 on cigarrettes would have been a glowing approval of the wonders, health and social benefits of smoking and the tobacco industry, and dismissed anti-cigarrette smoking speech as dishonest, spreading urban myth, and anti-smokers as paranoid conspiracy theorists spreading irrational fear and confusion based on their precious and sacred “scientific Mainstream science references” (see the history of cigarrette danger awareness at these two pages, http://bit.ly/badcigs, http://bit.ly/badcigs2) then look at the smear job against those against aspartame use on Wikipedia:

Safety controversy

Main article: Aspartame controversy (that is supposed to be a link to the main article on the Aspartame controversy, which this paragraph in the main Aspartame article is not and therefore not meant to be, but only a short introduction to it).

Since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974, aspartame has been the subject of several controversies, hoaxes[3] and health scares.[49] Critics allege that conflicts of interest marred the FDA’s approval of aspartame; question the quality of the initial research supporting its safety;[50][51][52] and postulate that numerous health risks may be associated with aspartame.

The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed.[6][50][53]” – Wikipedia

Question for the Wikipedia trolls who are sanctioned as upstanding members: Dismissed by who? Everyone? Most people? The many millions of health aware shoppers and growers of organic foods who don’t dismiss it? Stop the grossly prententious and arrogant lying.

It should be noted that this recent newcomer to the aspartame promotion on Wikipedia, user novangelis, is a malicious stalker and troll who for years has been stalking and trolling Yahoo! Answers and Wikipedia. When viewing and studying his Wikipedia habits, you can see that he has a mentally ill personal Vendetta against any users he associates with me, calling them “a duck of…” (apparently an insult meaning “someone who annoyingly repeats (as in quacking) the same things as chosenbygrace, Daniel Knight etc.). What novangelis does is to watch my journal (he seems to be using a Brit named Justin (one of his psychopath friends on Yahoo! Answers) to watch what articles I publish, and then watches the pages on Wikipedia to do with my articles, and reverts any changes to them that he suspects are made by me or someone who approves of what I say.) If you look at the friends novangelis keeps on Yahoo! Answers, and study their answers and any questions they make, it becomes clear what kind of person novangelis is from that alone. A good person does not befriend a mass of amoral, conniving and malicious hatemongers who show no respect for a person merely because they are theists (novangelis is an evolutionist, big bangist atheist who hypocritically claims to be a humanist, hypocritical because he doesn’t adhere to humanism. He goes about making malicious edits and reversions to Wikipedia, and based on his years long stalking of me, probably attacks anyone on Yahoo! Answers who says very similar things to me, including by reporting questions by them that he doesn’t personally like, following them around there if he can and thumbing them down and then trying to give a better answer than them on whatever it is they’ve answered, over his personal vendetta against me.

National Post Exposes Massive Wikipedia Global Warming Conspiracy

December 23, 2009 1 comment

The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm. The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD. The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history. …

band members turned to their friends in the media and to the blogosphere, creating a website called RealClimate.org. “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds” in aid of “combating dis-information,” one email explained, referring to criticisms of the hockey stick and anything else suggesting that temperatures today were not the hottest in recorded time. One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. …

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity.

Full article here.

More information on The Connolley Conspiracy here.