Layman

Please don't be absurd. I did not keep a running list of all their names. But I've seen plenty of them here (and other boards), as has any of the reasonable skeptics who frequent these boards.

The reason that your "facts" have no effect on me is that they are irrelevant dodges designed to help you save face. I do not complain that Holding's real name has been noted (although I'm amused at home important it is to skeptics to make such a big deal about it). Nor would I have complained if his email address had been given out (I assumed it was available at his own website). What I have complained about -- and you sadly and obviously continue to sidestep -- is that his home address, family information, and home phone number were released in hitpiece devoted to stirring up antagonism towards him (justified or not).

I'm not concerned with your comfort level. Should it be posted or not? And if you are not "comfortable" with it why go around linking people to it?

This is why you are a moral copout.

The issue is not "can" they do this. Have I said they "can" not? Obviously they can. Did I claim they had violated the law by doing this? Obviously I did not. Did I even argue that it should be against the law to post this informatioN? Obviously I did not. Indeed, I have been clearly and only been arguing the "should," not the "can."

Nice try, but you are still lamely dodging the issue and showing remarkable gutlessness about whether the information should be posted here (by you) and maintained by the II in their library.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

MrKrinkles

Layman,

I am sorry-perhaps I did not make myself clear. I asked you whether Steven Carr's post, the second one in this thread, caused you to think that Turkel is (or might be) dishonest. maybe I could make it even more clear: Do you think that someone who lies in your face, who lies consciously, is dishonest?

Brooks

Layman

I have no desire to devote the time required to verify or debunk Carr's story. Nor have my past encounters with Carr given me any reason to assume the accuracy of his representation of his opponents' positions or statements.

My interest is much more in the II and its approach to and respect for privacy. I've had Moderators splash my own private information on the boards and was not happy about it. Now I see that they store home phone numbers and personal information of one of their biggest critics in an article designed to stir up hostility towards him. As for Holding, I do not know him. Have never corresponded with him. That issues concerns me much less than does the former issue.

So, now that I have responded to you again, perhaps you could answer some of my questions that you have so far ignored?

Vorkosigan

I do not complain that Holding's real name has been noted (although I'm amused at home important it is to skeptics to make such a big deal about it). Nor would I have complained if his email address had been given out (I assumed it was available at his own website). What I have complained about -- and you sadly and obviously continue to sidestep -- is that his home address, family information, and home phone number were released in hitpiece devoted to stirring up antagonism towards him (justified or not).

I haven't sidestepped anything. On the contrary, I have affirmed that these pieces of public information were included in a public article about Holding/Turkel. The piece could hardly stir up antagonism, since Turkel is a laughingstock and the piece makes him out to be a fool. The goal of the piece is to make people laugh at what a sad pathetic fool he is. That's the opposite of antagonism, Layman.

Anyone who wanted to harass Turkel can easily get his phone number. Just as Till actually did. And anyone who wanted to find him can get his number out of the phone company. It's not difficult. In fact, on the donation page of his website, you can send him harassment mail, since he gives a PO Box there.

Please don't be absurd. I did not keep a running list of all their names. But I've seen plenty of them here (and other boards), as has any of the reasonable skeptics who frequent these boards.

Please give us the name of one person from the SecWeb whom you think there is a high probability will harass and annoy Turkel based on information that has been publicly available more than five years. Five years. And not single complaint from Turkel about SecWeb harassment.

I'm not concerned with your comfort level.

So why are you trying to ascertain it then?

Should it be posted or not?

Why not? It's public information. In fact, if you use the <a href="http://www.sunbiz.org/corpweb/inquiry/corinam.html" target="_blank">Corporate Name List Function</a> of the State of Florida Corporation Filings system, you will find <a href="http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=N00000002886&n2=NAMFWD&n3= 0000&n4=N&r1=&r2=&r3=&r4=TEKTONAPOLOGETICS&r5=" target="_blank">his home address and other names prominently displayed</a>. Are you going to call the State of Florida and whine and accuse them too? After all, there are a lot more violent and abusive people in Florida than on the SecWeb.

Actually, you can get more information off the site, but given the propensity of Christians to harass other Christians whose views they don't agree with, I won't post that information here.

And if you are not "comfortable" with it why go around linking people to it?

'Cuz some of us like to laugh at Turkel. I'm not comfortable with that piece of information -- specifically, the mention of the man's wife -- but that doesn't mean that the piece in general isn't amusing or that I shouldn't link to it. My old links page (down for revamping) had a link to the KMT party HQ, an organization which once blacklisted me and murdered and imprisoned people I know. Should I not link to it? Or what?

Nice try, but you are still lamely dodging the issue and showing remarkable gutlessness about whether the information should be posted here (by you) and maintained by the II in their library.

For what reason should public information not be posted publicly? Turkel does not conceal his identity. Everyone knows who he is, and what state he lives in, since he puts a PO Box on the donation page of his site: Tekton Apologetics Ministries P. O. Box 112 Clarcona, Florida 32710-0112 and tells you his Corporation is registered in Florida. Anyone who wants to can find him using the information he gives on his website, and information freely given by the State of Florida, which includes his home phone number and a copy of his legal signature.

Now that's scary.

I should add that Turkel is also briefly mentioned on a Florida Corrections website, which gives some clue as to what his employment must be. In other words, anyone who wanted to could easily find out all the information about Turkel they wanted to. It's ALL public.

Vorkosigan

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Toto

Did you guys notice that Don Morgan has already removed the personal information from the on-line version of The Skeptical Review, as of about 9:30 am yesterday?

I think it was done on general principles, not because there is much real danger of someone harrassing Turkel, especially from this site.

I find Layman's concern about the Internet Infidels privacy policy a little disingenuous. One moderator (not moderators) once posted Layman's place of employment based on his IP address (to show him that the information was available), but the information was removed fairly quickly and he apologized, and the II policy was clarified. Subsequently Layman has used his real name along with his laymantwo account at yahoo on Crosstalk2, so we all know.

I think Layman is focussed on this issue because he is avoiding the threads on the James ossuary. Pretty disappointing for you, I bet.

Vorkosigan

Did you guys notice that Don Morgan has already removed the personal information from the on-line version of The Skeptical Review, as of about 9:30 am yesterday?

Great!

I find Layman's concern about the Internet Infidels privacy policy a little disingenuous.

No doubt he'll go after the phone company and the State of Florida now, crusader for privacy that he is.

Vorkosigan

MrKrinkles

Layman,

I would not post another person's personal information on my site if that person wanted to remain anonymous because I try to honor other people's wishes. But I can't speak for the motivations of Farrell Till, who wrote that article in 2002. By that time Turkel was no longer anonymous and no longer cared. Turkel wrote this to me in 2001:

"I don't even care if you use my real name anymore -- had you kept up with my updates, you would know that that is no longer an issue for me."

You should be made aware of the fact that Turkel puts out an Internet newletter in which he actually gives the name and the location of the church where he gives lectures/sermons.

As I said before, Turkel discovered my unique name and posted it without my permission. Additionally, he tried to make me post on my site personal information about a third party that wanted to remain anonymous. He became angry when I refused to post this information.

Till may have gone overboard by posting all that information about Turkel, but I think your expresssions of righteous moral outrage at his article are a little overdone.

Brooks

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: MrKrinkles ]</p>

Steven Carr

To put this another way... Carr is right, Turkel is a lying bastard, and I cannot produce anything to show otherwise. Isn't that right, Layman.

I give link to what Turkel writes, Robert (No Link) Turkel does not, and distorts what others write, lies and rewrites what he has written to make it look as though others were foolish.

Steven Carr

I don't think atheists can demonise people, as they don't believe in demons. Demonising is a Christian activity.

Steven Carr

Farrell Till's home number is posted, and I'm sure he received more harrassing calls than Robert (A majority of the world is Chinese) Turkel.