Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Evangelion · 12-09-2002, 05:54 AM

Butters -

Quote:

All this talk about poor Turkel's privacy being invaded, no comments about what a total wack job the guy is. Good diversion!

Read the thread, and you'll see that Turkel has already copped a savage beating with the ugly stick.

If you want more, I'm sure it won't be too hard to find around here...

AJ113 · 12-09-2002, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:


I have posted all of that data. The link is here

<a href="http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/newlife2.html" target="_blank">http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/newlife2.html</a>

Because of that link, we have never been harassed. On the contrary, we have met many wonderful people and hosted several people visiting Taiwan or coming here to teach English. The experience has been fine.

Vorkosigan

Don't be daft, Vork, you uploaded this information of your own volition. It's hardly the same as someone else posting this type if information without your permission, is it?

Sauron · 12-10-2002, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Given Till's obviously agendized head-hunting, and vitriol, no, the article did not convince me that Holding is dishonest. It did convince me that Till is petty and spiteful, and that the II is too loose with its library policey. And that Volk will desparately justify the obviously out-of-bounds because he pretends that no atheists are hot-heads and only Christians are.

Says the man, who complains about nitpicking and moral bankruptcy in others.

Semantic olympics to rationalize your lack of disapproval for Turkel. Hurt yourself bending over that far, Layman?

Sauron · 12-10-2002, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
What is weasely is claiming that it was okay to reveal Holding's personal telephone number, home address, and family information because he has revealed his name and email address.

Revealing? That implies something previously kept secret. That's not what we have here.

Since Turkel has provided that information to the phone company, etc. already, and does not have an unlisted phone number, the charge of "revealing" is bogus.

"Showing others where already public information can be found" - that's the maximum you can accuse someone of here.

Sauron · 12-10-2002, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
[QB]

Etc.

Layman, since you've returned to the BC&A forum --
I wonder if you will be putting in an appearance here, to clarify your position on the ossuary, in light of the mounting problems with its authenticity?

Cheers.

emotional · 12-10-2002, 10:44 AM

Turkel aka Holding wrote an article explaining how the raqia' or "firmament" of Gen 1 may not necessarily mean a solid dome, here:

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4169.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4169.asp</a>

To that, I wrote a refutation:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/raqiasolid-01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/raqiasolid-01.htm</a>

I've sent Holding an e-mail notification of this refutation. Let's see what he'll do with it.

-- Shlomi Tal aka devnet (no, my real name ain't supposed to be secret

)

Layman · 12-10-2002, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


Layman, since you've returned to the BC&A forum --
I wonder if you will be putting in an appearance here, to clarify your position on the ossuary, in light of the mounting problems with its authenticity?

Cheers.

That depends on whether and how much new analysis has been done. I have been keeping my eye on CrossTalk to see what real scholars are saying about it, and it does not seem like much new has happened.

I did notice that Richard Carrier wrote an article on the ossuary. I did read that"

Quote:

Comparing all the facts and arguments, unless I learn something new about this matter, I'm of the opinion that this find is probably genuine. The odds seem stacked against forgery here.

<a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=244" target="_blank">http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=244</a>

I had not heard that Fitzmyer or the other scholars had backed off on their claims of authenticity. If you have any such information I'd be interested to see it. And any information about how the rest of the scholarly community is weighing in on the box.

Sauron · 12-10-2002, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


<a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=244" target="_blank">http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=244</a>

I had not heard that Fitzmyer or the other scholars had backed off on their claims of authenticity. If you have any such information I'd be interested to see it. And any information about how the rest of the scholarly community is weighing in on the box.

I've placed a response in this thread:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000799&p=2" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000799&p=2</a>

Since the topic is shifting from Turkel to the ossuary, it seemed best to do so.

Layman · 12-10-2002, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


I've placed a response in this thread:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000799&p=2" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000799&p=2</a>

Since the topic is shifting from Turkel to the ossuary, it seemed best to do so.

Acutally, your post in this thread on this subject was nothing more than an off-topic taunt in the first place.

Toto · 12-10-2002, 06:24 PM

Layman seems to have made a long post in the ossuary thread relating to Turkel and his alleged privacy issues, with little relevance to the ossuary. Could it be moved or copied over here, just to keep things organized?

Layman, I have to say that I find your analysis not very lawyerly. I gather you do not specialize in internet privacy issues?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-10-2002, 10:44 AM	#76
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	Turkel aka Holding wrote an article explaining how the raqia' or "firmament" of Gen 1 may not necessarily mean a solid dome, here: <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4169.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4169.asp</a> To that, I wrote a refutation: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/raqiasolid-01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/raqiasolid-01.htm</a> I've sent Holding an e-mail notification of this refutation. Let's see what he'll do with it. -- Shlomi Tal aka devnet (no, my real name ain't supposed to be secret )

12-10-2002, 06:24 PM	#80
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Layman seems to have made a long post in the ossuary thread relating to Turkel and his alleged privacy issues, with little relevance to the ossuary. Could it be moved or copied over here, just to keep things organized? Layman, I have to say that I find your analysis not very lawyerly. I gather you do not specialize in internet privacy issues?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.