Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 12-08-2002, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
[QB]

Glad to see you're finding some good use for the Sabbath, Layman. Since your putatively powerful oratory does not come through on the web, it has no effect on me. I brought up your profession as an explanation for your weaselly debating tactics, which I find helpful in keeping my blood pressure up.

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.

It is not weasely to object to publishing the personal information. And, once again, it appears that the important people at II agree with that.

Quote:

Just to keep the record straight, Don Morgan removed the personal information at the request of another user who posted in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002369" target="_blank">Feedback queue</a>, so Don is probably not aware of this thread.

I was not impugning Mr. Morgan. I was responding to your attack against me that somehow I was doing something wrong by posting on a subject after Mr. Moran had removed the offending information.

Quote:

You could have posted there and gotten the same results, but no, you'd rather posture and whine here, going on for a page of outrage, playing the wounded victim, the pure minded advocate of civil liberties.

I posted here because the link was posted here. Then I responded to those skeptics -- such as yourself -- that once again could not stand the fact that I was pointing out something inappropriate done by a fellow skeptic.

I am not wounded. This was not my information that was published. But what was done is worrisome and objectionable. That it was remedied is encouraging.

Quote:

For the record, some Christians have a record of harrassment and murder of people they consider infidels.

Really? How many post on this board? I assure you I have murdered no one. Nor have I ever harassed a skeptic by email, phone call, or in person.

Quote:

I haven't heard of a non-believing equivalent of the Army of God that targets incompetant internet apologists with death threats or harrassment. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you will let me know.

I never claimed such was the case. Nor do I think that the standard for publishing private information such as home phone numbers and the names of spouses should be whether such a group exists. Do you?

But I am curious. Has the II received death threats from the Army of God? Have you? Has anyone who frequents this board?

Butters · 12-08-2002, 02:28 PM

Quote:

For the record, some Christians have a record of harrassment and murder of people they consider infidels. I haven't heard of a non-believing equivalent of the Army of God that targets incompetant internet apologists with death threats or harrassment. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you will let me know.

Hmmmm...You shouldn't go around giving people ideas...

Bobzammel · 12-08-2002, 02:31 PM

Although Holding/Turkel is a bit of a jerk, I think one still has to admit that at least he is not as judgemental and far-fetched as many other Fundamentalists. At least he has a sense of humor, something most fundies lack.

AJ113 · 12-08-2002, 03:13 PM

How many of you who are trying to justify the posting of the link would be happy have a link posted giving your real name, address, telephone number and name of spouse?

It is simply not justifiable. If there was a link posted with similar details of myself, I would be both angry and frightened. Wouldn't you?

Toto · 12-08-2002, 04:02 PM

I never justified posting the data and I think Don did the right thing to delete it after he was notified (by a non-believer, incidentally). I don't know what Till's motive was in listing the data, but it sounds like there is a lot more to this than meets the eye and really no call for Layman's histrionics.

galiel · 12-08-2002, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
 (addressed to Layman)
you'd rather posture and whine here, going on for a page of outrage, playing the wounded victim, the pure minded advocate of civil liberties.

To be fair, none of this would have been necessary if people had just said:

It is wrong to post private information online without the person' permission.

There. Is that so hard, Toto? You could have spared us having to wade through Layman's neverending sophistries, too, while you were at it.

galiel · 12-08-2002, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrKrinkles:
Layman,

Because Turkel makes a special effort to reveal personal information about people who do not give him their permission to do so. In other words, he is a hypocrite.
Brooks

This is like the arguments my kids make to justify doing something wrong.

Do you really have to have someone retort, "So, if someone is a thief, that gives you justification to steal from them?"

Grow up and learn to separate the issues from the personalities. Either you have an ethical compass or you don't.

galiel · 12-08-2002, 08:09 PM

[deleted because I reposted in the complaint forum.]

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]

Steven Carr · 12-08-2002, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:
[QB]Nor should Steve Carr's ad homs. Steve, have the maturity to admit a mistake. Your credibility is vanishing the more you refuse to acknowledge that the responsibility to protect people's families by respecting their private information extends even to those you don't like.

I refuse to admit I made a mistake in posting Turkel's home address and telephone number, partly because I did not. Indeed, mainly because I did not.

Turkel said he used a psuedoynm to stop inmates tracking him down when they learned he wrote articles promoting innertancy. Till posted the info to show how flimsy an excuse that was as it was easy to find out.

As for my calling Turkel a liar,

in <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.htm" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.htm</a>

Turkel writes 'Note to Till fans: Lately Stevie accuses me of editing out the link above.'

Turkel *had* changed the link in what I wrote to a link on his own site, removing totally the link I gave, and even now, he has edited out the link I gave. The *name* of the link is there, but the hyperlink itself is not.

He is such a brazen liar. Even on an article with the hyperlink edited out of his HTML, he claims that accusations of his editing out the link won' t wash.

Steven Carr · 12-08-2002, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Yet another example why I do not have any regard for Carr's ability to accurately represent what his opponents say and mean.

More strawmen from Layman!

Layman's entire post consisted of 'Did you really need to publish the man's home address and telephone number on a site filled with people very hostile to Holding?

Couldn't he be demonized without that particular excess?'

When I pointed out that atheists don't believe in demons and that demonising is literally a Christian invention, we were treated to one of Layman's mud-throwing posts.

Is he claiming that what I wrote was wrong, and that Layman thinks atheists do believe in demons?

12-08-2002, 08:09 PM	#58
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	[deleted because I reposted in the complaint forum.] [ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

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

12-08-2002, 02:31 PM	#53
Bobzammel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 276	Although Holding/Turkel is a bit of a jerk, I think one still has to admit that at least he is not as judgemental and far-fetched as many other Fundamentalists. At least he has a sense of humor, something most fundies lack.

12-08-2002, 03:13 PM	#54
AJ113 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Hull UK Posts: 854	How many of you who are trying to justify the posting of the link would be happy have a link posted giving your real name, address, telephone number and name of spouse? It is simply not justifiable. If there was a link posted with similar details of myself, I would be both angry and frightened. Wouldn't you?

12-08-2002, 04:02 PM	#55
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I never justified posting the data and I think Don did the right thing to delete it after he was notified (by a non-believer, incidentally). I don't know what Till's motive was in listing the data, but it sounds like there is a lot more to this than meets the eye and really no call for Layman's histrionics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.