Ridiculous E-mail of the Month (or so)
January 2007
This guy came across my TCPA lawsuits page while doing a Google search
for "arizona telemarketing attorney" about 30 minutes before he sent
me this nastygram. He's a Cox customer in Phoenix. Based on his
email address, his web search, and his anger, I'd guess that he's in
the satellite reseller business (Dish Network and/or DirecTV), and was
looking for an attorney because somebody is suing him for TCPA
violations.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:12:22 -0800 (PST)
From: John Martin [satguys01 email addr at yahoo]
Subject: Get a life
To: [my web-listed email address]
You are just as bad as the telemarketers that call you. Just like a
scummy attorney that profits from filing frivolous lawsuits. You raise
the cost of doing business for companies, raise taxes by overburdening
the courts, and therefore raise the cost of goods for consumers in the
marketplace.
What do you care? You made a dollar.
Telemarketing is critical for the economy to function. The wheels
would stop turning if there were no phones or business conducted on
them.
The Federal and State do no call list is just another angle for the
Fed and State to make a buck.
Just ask yourself, why is it legal for politicians to contact and
harass millions of citizens with automated messages and call people on
the so called do not call list? So its OK for them to fund raise and
get re elected (profit) using unscrupulous methods. But a legitimate
business offering legit goods or services is restricted.
Are there Marketers that take advantage of people yes. Like any
other business there are bad apples. But most offer legit goods and
services.
Does your mailbox get full of junk mail? Do you watch commercials on
TV? or even now at the movies? Why not sue them? Junk Mail does more
damage to the environment than anything else. But the US post
service make money on it so that will never stop.
Screen you calls, that's what caller id is for, hangup on automated
messages and telemarketers. And stop with the lame lawsuits. Do you
really suffer any damages by listening to a message or having a dialer
hang up on you? Or are you just an other greedy opportunist like you
EVIL telemarketing counterparts just out for a quick buck?
From: "James J. Lippard" [my email addr]
To: John Martin [satguys01 email addr at yahoo]
Subject: Re: Get a life
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
The difference, John, is that they are knowingly violating the law,
and I'm not. None of my lawsuits have been frivolous, which is why I
have a 100% record of success. I'm only raising the cost of business
for companies that are blatantly breaking the law; my impact on the
courts is negligible--I always offer to settle out of court for the
minimum statutory amounts before filing a lawsuit, and I always file
in small claims which minimizes the paperwork. The money I collect is
specified as damages in the statutes, and serves not only to
compensate me for the violations but to act as a deterrent to further
violations. It has worked pretty well--I don't get many such calls
any more.
If you think the law is wrong, petition to have it changed. But if you
violate it, be prepared to get sued and to lose.
What's your interest that motivates you to send a nasty email to
someone you don't know? From your email address, I would guess that
you're in the satellite dish resale business, which is well known for
its sleazy violations of telemarketing law.
Are you a regular violator of the TCPA, John?
BTW, I have a nice life. What kind of life do you have that you seek
enjoyment out of sending such an email as this?
January 2006
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:22:55 -0700
From: David Etter [sent via Domains by Proxy davidetter email addr at shaw.ca]
Subject: FWD: [SPAM] An Open Letter to Jim Lippard [domainsbyproxyaddress]
https://www.discord.org/lippard/Missler.html [28 Aug 2022: URL updated. -jjl]
Yours?
I just thought I'd say that, If your not a Christian, why should Chuck
Missler respond to you, and most importantly,
Why are you trying to improve the accuracy of something you don't even
believe in the first place. You are absolutley ludicrous!
If you don't believe ok, but also with that statement comes something
you'll have to realize and accept. If you can't have faith, then you
can't understand it. So don't try to rationalize something you never
understood in the first place.
Dave
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:54:05 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" [lippard email addr]
To: David Etter [davidetter email addr at shaw.ca]
Subject: Re: FWD: [SPAM] An Open Letter to Jim Lippard [domainsbyproxy email addr]
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:22:55PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> https://www.discord.org/lippard/Missler.html
>
> Yours?
>
> I just thought I'd say that, If your not a Christian, why should Chuck Missler respond to you, and most importantly,
Why *shouldn't* he respond to me? I'm not a Christian, so if you
think it's a reasonable policy to ignore/fail to interact with people
who don't share your particular religious beliefs, why are you sending
me email?
Do you have any specific criticisms of the arguments or evidence in
that letter?
> Why are you trying to improve the accuracy of something you don't even believe in the first place.
I believe everyone should aspire to be the best they can be, whether I
agree with them or not. I believe that the quality of dialogue between
adherents of different beliefs is enhanced if all parties give their best
arguments.
> You are absolutley ludicrous!
You don't supply any reason for this judgment.
> If you don't believe ok, but also with that statement comes something you'll have to realize and accept. If you can't have faith, then you can't understand it. So don't try to rationalize something you never understood in the first place.
I used to be a born-again Christian, so I understand that mindset and
the subjective perceptions of such a worldview--I've been there.
It appears to me that your email to me is designed to find a way to dismiss
the content of what I wrote without thinking too hard about the actual arguments
or evidence in it--your failure to engage with any of those arguments is evidence
of that.
It is sad that most believers maintain their belief by refusal to
examine evidence. I hope that by reaching out to me, some part of you
has an interest in dealing with reality rather than living in a fantasyland
that avoids contact with anything inconsistent with your views.
> Dave
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
March 2005
He won't resort to arguments that evolutionists are deniers, but he
will send unsolicited snide namecalling emails.
From: "Frank Marsh" [franktmarsh email addr at hotmail]
To: [lippard email addr]
Subject: The origin of sexual reproduction
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:20:35 +0000
Hi,
In Volume 18(1) of TJ (2004), 'The in-depth Journal of Creation' there are
three papers about the supposed evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction.
Not surprisingly, the authors state that there is no evolutionary
explanation as to how sexual reproduction originated. No one who believes
this absurd nonsense can be taken seriously. Is it any wonder that
evolutionists need to hide behind loaded definitions of science? The theory
of evolution is nothing but an insult to a person's intelligence.
So will the real skeptics please stand up?
Regards,
Frank Marsh
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:38:50 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <[lippard email addr]>
To: Frank Marsh [franktmarsh email addr at hotmail]
Subject: Re: The origin of sexual reproduction
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Are you surprised that a journal published by creationists makes such an
argument?
Creationists aren't skeptics or scientists, they are deniers. If
creationists were scientists, they would be capable of dealing with
the evidence here:
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Please don't send me further email. If you'd like to actually discuss
or argue the evidence, there are public forums where you can do so.
From: "Frank Marsh" [franktmarsh email addr at hotmail]
To: [lippard email addr]
Subject: Re: The origin of sexual reproduction
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:36:06 +0000
As I mentioned in my first email, evolutionists evade discussing the origin
of such sexual reproduction because their case is non-existant. So it is
pointless referring me to such a website because no one there will discuss
it. To say that creationists are 'deniers' is nothing but a circular
argumentation, because this assumes that evolution is true to start with. I
would never say that evolutionists are 'deniers' because they don't believe
in creation...as I have shown, the case for intelligent design (irreducible
complexity) is very powerful and we don't need to resort to such weak
arguments.
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:27:28 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <[lippard email addr]
To: Frank Marsh [franktmarsh email addr at hotmail]
Subject: Re: The origin of sexual reproduction
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
I look forward to seeing publication of some content for "intelligent
design theory." So far, it's all been hand-waving and the usual bogus
arguments against evolution. If ID has real scientific content, then
it should prove fruitful as a theory--but so far, nobody has published
anything of substance. Only Stephen Meyer has published anything in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal, but his publication was a rehash of
previous work, full of errors, that bypassed peer review and was
published in an inappropriate journal (one on taxonomy) by a
creationist editor.
You say "as I have shown"--but I haven't seen the demonstration of
which you speak.
Feel free to let me know when something with real content gets
published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal describing positive
research results of intelligent design theory. Until then, I'd
appreciate it if you'd not send me further email. Thanks.
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 05:33:29 +0000
From: "Frank Marsh" [franktmarsh email addr at hotmail]
To: [lippard email addr]
Subject: Re: The origin of sexual reproduction
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
It is quite amusing to see you evade me on the issue of the origin of sexual
reproduction. But who would be foolish enough to try and defend a
naturalistic origin of sexual reproduction?! It is such laughable, pathetic
nonsense that no one with an IQ above 10 would believe in it. Frogs turning
into princes, a naturalistic origin of sexual reproduction...anything for a
laugh. You just hope that there is someone out there that can provide an
answer. But there is no one to help you. And you *do* believe in a
naturalistic origin for sexual reproduction, don't you? As an evolutionist,
you must. There is simply no choice. This is the sad state of the lame-duck
theory of evolution. I have lost count of the number of evolutionists a have
shredded to pieces. They are easy-beats. So if you bother to respond to this
email, make sure you show some backbone, and confront me on the origin of
sexual reproduction, if you can.
Frank Marsh
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:17:27 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" [lippard email addr]
To: Frank Marsh [franktmarsh email addr at hotmail]
Subject: Re: The origin of sexual reproduction
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
I'm no expert on the origin of sexual reproduction. I do know enough
about evolution and creationism to know that there is a wealth of
evidence for the former, and overwhelming evidence against the latter.
I pointed you to a wealth of information supporting common
descent--you refused to even go to the website. I spent over a decade
reading creationist material, some of which I have published responses
to (e.g., in _Creation/Evolution_ and _Perspectives in Science and
Christian Faith_).
Your response below includes cartoon caricatures of evolution of the
sort used by the most incompetent of creationist sources, like Ken Ham
and M. Scott Huse. It doesn't provide much support for the idea that
you are someone to take seriously, and I don't.
I don't know what your motivation is for sending unsolicited snide emails
to people you don't know, but I'm now asking you for the third time to
stop sending email to me. Please respect my request like a decent human
being.
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
December 2003
An exchange with highly decorated ex-military UFO proponent, artist, and
poet Alfred Lehmberg.
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:31:03 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" [lippard email addr]
Subject: Reply to Alfred Lehmberg (was Re: Starbaby etc.)
To: [skeptic list addr]
Cc: Alfred Lehmberg [Lehmberg email addr]
Message-id: <[email protected]>
>From: Alfred Lehmberg [Lehmberg email addr]
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto [ufoupdates list email addr]
>Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:29:05 -0600
>Subject: SK) Re: Starbaby & A New CSICOP Coverup?
>
>Yeah... but see, I submit that you're missing something from the
>big picture that's likely key to absolving some of our
>ignorance... forgetting that it won't really matter who makes
Absolving? I don't think ignorance is a sin.
>the most money doing *whatever*... remember the story Jerry
>Clark told us about "Fate" being supported by the largess of a
>Recreational Vehicle publishing effort? 'Fate' was operated at a
>loss same as the CSICOPian effort may or may not prove to be...
>What really matters is the motivation behind the desire to
>operate at a loss. In the case of "Fate," the motivation is
>obvious... the wish to peak behind the *curtain*, think out of
>the *box*, expand the *consciousness*... is worth the time and
>effort. It's fun if nothing else.... What motivates a CSICOPian
>to operate at a loss, love of what?
I disagree that the motivation is the important thing, but
let's address the issue.
I think the primary motivation of CSICOP, or at least CSICOP
supporters, is to promote critical thinking and skepticism, and to
prevent people from being taken in by fraud and falling into error
(specifically Type I error--believing falsehoods on the basis of weak
evidence). These should be laudable goals in anyone's book.
The opponents of CSICOP are largely more concerned with Type II
error--failure to believe truths where the evidence supports it.
This is also a type of error that anybody should want to avoid.
>Some would argue that they see a loss of human rationality and a
>quick slide to a new 'dark ages' upon a serious investigation
>into the paranormal, when any really rational person only
>perceives that investigation as forewarning for a future that
>approaches regardless. What's CSICOP got to hide? If _their_
You tell me. What is it that you think CSICOP is hiding
(as opposed to not promoting, or attempting to dissuade people
from believing on the basis of weak evidence)?
>science bears out the work of the paranormalist scientist (of
>conjecture) shouldn't that be a *good* thing?
Sure--and I think any supporter of CSICOP would agree.
>>My comparison of Amazon.com book sales was a start at such a
>>comparison, as I listed only parapsychology books and skeptical
>>books that (mostly) focused on parapsychology.
>
>This discussion is focused, but it's not on the point really --
> and the point is... Is CSICOP a fraud? That's the issue. It may
I disagree, that's not the issue, and I think you should be
more accurate with terms like "fraud."
>be -true- that they paid their idiosyncratic taxes, but what did
>they manufacture? Only dismissal! Never confirmation (even when
>the evidense of confirmation is there?)! Their research provides
>fodder for derision of something that every one of them admits
>is there (somewhere in space and time or in some capacity).
>"UFOs are real... (somewhere)," these think..."just please,
>please, please... not here"!
It doesn't sound like you're a subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer.
I think we differ not only on what we think is true, but on how
we get there. It looks to me like you are making the common
mistake of demonizing those who disagree with you, rather than
trying to understand why they disagree with you.
[...]
>What you may be doing here is comparing unlike scales. Which
>gets late-night (and so discounted) attention and which graces
>mainstream prime time, Gerald Posner or Jim Marrs? And Posner
>is "[Dirty]", sir (Parenti's "History as Mystery"). Marrs is,
>too quickly, dismissed as a sensationalist by the official
>mainstream, and seems to support himself, with regard to
>research, better than his detractors...
Posner is a better researcher than Marrs. Posner's work contains
mistakes, but people had to really struggle to come up with a list of
100 errors in his book, and most of those errors are extremely minor
(and many of them aren't even errors). See
https://www.discord.org/skeptical/Conspiracies/Assassination/ for
references.
I don't know what you mean by "Posner is '[Dirty]'", but it looks
like an ad hominem argument.
In my opinion, it is quite reasonable for Posner to get prime-time
coverage and Marrs to be on late-night talk radio (as well as be a
major source for Stone's "JFK").
If you did a random telephone survey of Americans, though, would they
be more familiar with Posner's work, or JFK assassination conspiracy
claims? Which has reached a larger audience? *That's* my point.
[...]
>So, more and more people, unimpressed with the veracity of
>CSICOP and leery of its biased prosecutions and duplicitous
>anti-paranormal prosecutions (for reasons hard to determine,
>remember...) , more and more become interested in UFOs...
Most people have never heard of CSICOP, I'm afraid. I think your
language here betrays a bias on your part that is stronger than that
of CSICOP--you should remember that the Skeptical Inquirer publishes
articles from a large field of contributors, and the specific issues
that CSICOP has been rightly criticized for involved only a very few.
Further, the worst example--its handling of the Mars Effect--resulted
in admission of error in 1983 (Kurtz, Zelen, and Abell's "Reappraisal"
article) and the publication of two pro-Mars Effect papers from
Suitbert Ertel in 1992 (vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 150-160) and 1998
(vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 59-60).
I don't think more and more people are becoming interested in UFOs
these days.
>Hey, burned and shy, I know the CSICOPian position on holistic
>medicine and nutritional supplementation and the fellow that
>cured himself of the incurable (so to speak) doing just what
>they'd say wouldn't work (Crohn's paper at our website
>AlienView.net). If they can have their heads up an locked, that
>hard, with regard to nutrition (another venue where they'd
>pronounce authoritatively), how wrong can they be about UFOs?
> Add Truzzi and Rawlins, and Steve Allen twirls in his burial
>urn.
I am not aware that CSICOP has a position on nutrition--they certainly
haven't "pronounced authoritatively" in anything I've read (and I own
every issue of the Skeptical Inquirer). If you're wrong about that,
how wrong can you be about UFOs?
I don't understand what your last sentence is supposed to convey.
Can you explain?
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:03:18 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" [lippard email addr]
To: [skeptic list addr]
Subject: Re: Reply to Alfred Lehmberg (was Re: Starbaby etc.)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Mr. Lemberg has given his permission.
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:01:42 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" [lippard email addr]
To: Alfred Lehmberg [Lehmberg email addr]
Cc: [lippard email addr]
Subject: Re: Reply to Alfred Lehmberg (was Re: Starbaby etc.)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <00a101c3ca51$dd64ac30$c9de2fd8@ownerdzp8hx39g>
In-Reply-To: <00a101c3ca51$dd64ac30$c9de2fd8@ownerdzp8hx39g>
Alfred:
My reply was sent to the same mailing list where I've sent all of my
postings in this exchange, so it was carried out in public. If you
send this posting to the list where you saw my posting, I would
certainly have no objection. It was not my intent to turn this into a
private discussion, but rather to cc you so that you would see what I
wrote and be able to respond even if my response was not forwarded to
the list you're on.
If you don't mind, I would like to send this response, including your
email that I am responding to, to the SKEPTIC list where my
participation has occurred. Your approval seems implicit in your
text, but I would like to see your approval before I go sending your
email out to a public forum.
I knew Marcello Truzzi--we corresponded extensively and spoke over the
telephone on a number of occasions--and I was a subscriber to his
publication, _Zetetic Scholar_. I am well aware of the circumstances
of his defection from CSICOP and his reasons for doing so. It wasn't
that he saw CSICOP as a "fraud" or as "hiding the truth," nor was it
that he thought CSICOP was advocating false views. Rather, it was
that CSICOP was advocating a position at all. He thought it should be
neutral, and provide a neutral scholarly forum.
I also am acquainted with Dennis Rawlins via correspondence and
telephone conversation.
Despite my knowledge of Truzzi and Rawlins, I still don't understand
your Steve Allen comment--Steve Allen was a supporter of CSICOP until
he died, which was long after the departures of Truzzi and Rawlins.
I looked through several pages of the output of a search on "holistic
nutrition" from the link you gave (82 matches), but found no
references to the Skeptical Inquirer except one (#31, an article on
"Why Bogus Therapies Seem To Work"). If you are assuming that every
link found by www.skepticplanet.com is endorsed by CSICOP or the
Skeptical Inquirer, you are mistaken. www.skepticplanet.com is the
site of Wally Hartshorn of Springfield, IL, not CSICOP. You've assumed
that all sites linked to from a site that is linked to from CSICOP's
site are official CSICOP doctrine.
SI certainly has a position on alternative medicine and possibly on
"holistic nutrition" (whatever that is--it seems to me that putting
"holistic" in front of a word means something different from what the
word means without it, or it wouldn't be there). But SI has no
interest in nor does it discuss the field of nutrition.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 01:12:23PM -0600, Alfred Lehmberg wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James J Lippard" [lippard email addr]
> To: <[skeptic list addr]>
> Cc: "Alfred Lehmberg" [Lehmberg email addr]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:31 AM
> Subject: Reply to Alfred Lehmberg (was Re: Starbaby etc.)
>
>
> > >From: Alfred Lehmberg [Lehmberg email addr]
> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto [ufoupdates list email addr]
> > >Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:29:05 -0600
> > >Subject: SK) Re: Starbaby & A New CSICOP Coverup?
> > >
> > >Yeah... but see, I submit that you're missing something from the
> > >big picture that's likely key to absolving some of our
> > >ignorance... forgetting that it won't really matter who makes
> >
> > Absolving? I don't think ignorance is a sin.
> >
>
> Really!
>
> > >the most money doing *whatever*... remember the story Jerry
> > >Clark told us about "Fate" being supported by the largess of a
> > >Recreational Vehicle publishing effort? 'Fate' was operated at a
> > >loss same as the CSICOPian effort may or may not prove to be...
> > >What really matters is the motivation behind the desire to
> > >operate at a loss. In the case of "Fate," the motivation is
> > >obvious... the wish to peak behind the *curtain*, think out of
> > >the *box*, expand the *consciousness*... is worth the time and
> > >effort. It's fun if nothing else.... What motivates a CSICOPian
> > >to operate at a loss, love of what?
> >
> > I disagree that the motivation is the important thing, but
> > let's address the issue.
> >
> > I think the primary motivation of CSICOP, or at least CSICOP
> > supporters, is to promote critical thinking and skepticism, and to
> > prevent people from being taken in by fraud and falling into error
> > (specifically Type I error--believing falsehoods on the basis of weak
> > evidence). These should be laudable goals in anyone's book.
> >
>
> I suppose it -would- be... if that's what they're doing... but the defection
> of Truzzi and the "Starbaby" paper, forgetting the learned and experienced
> criticisms of a host of quality ufologists [and skeptics]... compellingly
> challenge that assumption, sir. It -may- be that their primary function is
> something... 'else' ...entirely.
>
> > The opponents of CSICOP are largely more concerned with Type II
> > error--failure to believe truths where the evidence supports it.
> > This is also a type of error that anybody should want to avoid.
> >
>
> No argument here, sir.
>
> > >Some would argue that they see a loss of human rationality and a
> > >quick slide to a new 'dark ages' upon a serious investigation
> > >into the paranormal, when any really rational person only
> > >perceives that investigation as forewarning for a future that
> > >approaches regardless. What's CSICOP got to hide? If _their_
> >
> > You tell me. What is it that you think CSICOP is hiding
> > (as opposed to not promoting, or attempting to dissuade people
> > from believing on the basis of weak evidence)?
> >
>
> I think they hide the motivations behind the laughing stock positions
> they've taken, by way of example anything that comes out of Mr. Klass'
> mouth.
>
> > >science bears out the work of the paranormalist scientist (of
> > >conjecture) shouldn't that be a *good* thing?
> >
> > Sure--and I think any supporter of CSICOP would agree.
> >
>
> But it didn't seem to shake down that way in the "Starbaby" affair, did it.
>
> > >>My comparison of Amazon.com book sales was a start at such a
> > >>comparison, as I listed only parapsychology books and skeptical
> > >>books that (mostly) focused on parapsychology.
> > >
> > >This discussion is focused, but it's not on the point really --
> > > and the point is... Is CSICOP a fraud? That's the issue. It may
> >
> > I disagree, that's not the issue, and I think you should be
> > more accurate with terms like "fraud."
> >
>
> C'mon Mr. Lippard. They claim science as their major thrust when it's
> anti-paranormal (at all costs) public relations that drives their train.
> I'm not the only one saying so... That's a perpetration of a fraud something
> less than benign... IMO.
>
> > >be -true- that they paid their idiosyncratic taxes, but what did
> > >they manufacture? Only dismissal! Never confirmation (even when
> > >the evidence of confirmation is there?)! Their research provides
> > >fodder for derision of something that every one of them admits
> > >is there (somewhere in space and time or in some capacity).
> > >"UFOs are real... (somewhere)," these think..."just please,
> > >please, please... not here"!
> >
> > It doesn't sound like you're a subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer.
> >
>
> Well, no. I don't subscribe to most efforts that disrespect me, shine me
> on, insult my intelligence, or piss on my leg and tell me it's raining,
> either.
>
> > I think we differ not only on what we think is true, but on how
> > we get there.
>
> Well -- I was a highly decorated and successful professional soldier, master
> military aviator, and senior trainer who graduated from college MCL. I
> think in terms of objectives to be made, campaigns to be won, and victory
> snatched from the jaws of defeat... Additionally, I'm an artist and a poet
> and I can make a little music. It's entirely likely we're not even on the
> same planet! LOL! And, I submit, sir, you [and I] don't have a clue what's
> "true."
>
> > It looks to me like you are making the common
> > mistake of demonizing those who disagree with you, rather than
> > trying to understand why they disagree with you.
> >
>
> I call 'em as I sees 'em, sir, not unlike yourself, I would imagine. I
> believe in demonizing what has earned demonization and I'm just a tad
> resentful that you'd suggest that it would be that which provides the hurdle
> of simple disagreement. Unlike -most- of my CSICOPian opposition, I'm not an
> ideologue...
>
> > [...]
> >
> > >What you may be doing here is comparing unlike scales. Which
> > >gets late-night (and so discounted) attention and which graces
> > >mainstream prime time, Gerald Posner or Jim Marrs? And Posner
> > >is "[Dirty]", sir (Parenti's "History as Mystery"). Marrs is,
> > >too quickly, dismissed as a sensationalist by the official
> > >mainstream, and seems to support himself, with regard to
> > >research, better than his detractors...
> >
> > Posner is a better researcher than Marrs.
>
> Steaming Mookey-paffle!
>
> > Posner's work contains
> > mistakes, but people had to really struggle to come up with a list of
> > 100 errors in his book, and most of those errors are extremely minor
> > (and many of them aren't even errors). See
> > https://www.discord.org/skeptical/Conspiracies/Assassination/ for
> > references.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by "Posner is '[Dirty]'", but it looks
> > like an ad hominem argument.
> >
>
> Not at all, sir, I gave a learned citation.
>
> > In my opinion, it is quite reasonable for Posner to get prime-time
> > coverage and Marrs to be on late-night talk radio (as well as be a
> > major source for Stone's "JFK").
> >
>
> I find that a little less than surprising, sir, that you would think so...
>
> > If you did a random telephone survey of Americans, though, would they
> > be more familiar with Posner's work, or JFK assassination conspiracy
> > claims? Which has reached a larger audience? *That's* my point.
> >
> > [...]
> >
>
> The unwashed? The system's duplicity in this and *other* matters makes
> conspiracy as a potentiality... more than acceptable.
>
> > >So, more and more people, unimpressed with the veracity of
> > >CSICOP and leery of its biased prosecutions and duplicitous
> > >anti-paranormal prosecutions (for reasons hard to determine,
> > >remember...) , more and more become interested in UFOs...
> >
> > Most people have never heard of CSICOP, I'm afraid.
>
> Perhaps not, they're more than familiar with the effect that that
> organization has on the hijacked mainstream, it's a player in setting the
> tone of that "bogus" mainstream... It doesn't have to be well known. Its
> work gets done, and that's obvious everytime a reporter laughs up his sleeve
> at the ufological.
>
> > I think your
> > language here betrays a bias on your part that is stronger than that
> > of CSICOP--
>
> My bias was created by the greater bias of the opposition, sir. The same
> way unrestricted capitalists create a communist, racial bigots create Black
> Panthers, Chauvinists create feminazis, and homophobes create militant gays.
> Someone stood on someone's neck at the start and there was a consequence.
> CSICOP has created -me-!
>
> > you should remember that the Skeptical Inquirer publishes
> > articles from a large field of contributors, and the specific issues
> > that CSICOP has been rightly criticized for involved only a very few.
> > Further, the worst example--its handling of the Mars Effect--resulted
> > in admission of error in 1983 (Kurtz, Zelen, and Abell's "Reappraisal"
> > article) and the publication of two pro-Mars Effect papers from
> > Suitbert Ertel in 1992 (vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 150-160) and 1998
> > (vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 59-60).
> >
>
> Loss-leaders perhaps? Their overall tone seems clear.
>
> > I don't think more and more people are becoming interested in UFOs
> > these days.
> >
>
> Well -- you'll pardon my passionate efforts to reverse that, eh? [g].
>
> > >Hey, burned and shy, I know the CSICOPian position on holistic
> > >medicine and nutritional supplementation and the fellow that
> > >cured himself of the incurable (so to speak) doing just what
> > >they'd say wouldn't work (Crohn's paper at our website
> > >AlienView.net). If they can have their heads up an locked, that
> > >hard, with regard to nutrition (another venue where they'd
> > >pronounce authoritatively), how wrong can they be about UFOs?
> > > Add Truzzi and Rawlins, and Steve Allen twirls in his burial
> > >urn.
> >
> > I am not aware that CSICOP has a position on nutrition--they certainly
> > haven't "pronounced authoritatively" in anything I've read (and I own
> > every issue of the Skeptical Inquirer).
>
> Here's a link to over 80 articles off of the CSICOP site regarding nutrition
> and holistic medicine, sir. I think it's abundantly clear which side of the
> bull horn that they come down on.
> [dead link -jjl] http://www.skepticplanet.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/search/?db=db&query=holistic+nutrition&submit=Submit
>
>
> > If you're wrong about that,
> > how wrong can you be about UFOs?
> >
>
> ...A little less wrong than you, perhaps?
>
> > I don't understand what your last sentence is supposed to convey.
> > Can you explain?
>
> Allen was an early proponent of what CSICOP said they stood for, sir. The
> defections of Truzzi and Rawlins, added to a noted CSICOPian performance
> over the years... has Steve Allen spinning in his grave...
>
> Now -- there is nothing here that we couldn't discuss in public, sir, and I
> suspect that you just wanted to see how reasonable I'd be one on one...
> well, how reasonable am I? [g]. Be that as it may, my time is as valuable
> as yours, Mr. Lippard, so I won't be answering any more of your mail on this
> subject, though, feel free to engage me on UpDates.
>
> [Lehmberg email addr]
>
> Photo Album: http://www.alienview.net/AVAlbum.htm
> (send picture as attachment to [Lehmberg email addr])
> Splash page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlienViewGroup/
> AlienViewGroup Splash Page: http://www.alienview.net/alienviews.htm
> Radio Show Archives: Having... ah... *Technical* difficulties...
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:23:01 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" [lippard email addr]
To: [skeptic list addr]
Cc: Alfred Lehmberg [Lehmberg email addr]
Subject: Re: Reply to Alfred Lehmberg (was Re: Starbaby etc.)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:39:03PM -0600, Alfred Lehmberg wrote:
[Re Marcello Truzzi]
> A defection by any other name would smell as sweet. He couldn't support
> something he knew to be -knowingly- scientifically flawed (couldn't support
> a fraud?), and the act of taking a "position" is to undersell the solid
> points of the opposition... "hiding the truth" by another name. Truzzi, who
> I never knew, wanted a "neutral scholarly forum" for good reason, it seems.
> CSICOP is anything but that.
I think both are good things to have--neutral forums as well as advocates.
But one shouldn't pretend to be the other.
[...]
> > Despite my knowledge of Truzzi and Rawlins, I still don't understand
> > your Steve Allen comment--Steve Allen was a supporter of CSICOP until
> > he died, which was long after the departures of Truzzi and Rawlins.
> >
>
> My point, sir, is that Mr. Allen, a personal hero of mine, could not have
> been an active supporter (read CSICOPian idealouge), whatever the status of
> his membership, of the Church of Latter Day CSICOPia... I'd be very
> disappointed if he had.
Could not have been? The Steve Allen Theatre is at the Center for
Inquiry West in Los Angeles. A number of Steve Allen's books were
published by Prometheus Books. Steve Allen's name was often on
fundraising letters. Steve Allen was co-chair of CSICOP's Council for
Media Integrity.
He was a very active supporter of CSICOP.
> > I looked through several pages of the output of a search on "holistic
> > nutrition" from the link you gave (82 matches), but found no
> > references to the Skeptical Inquirer except one (#31, an article on
> > "Why Bogus Therapies Seem To Work"). If you are assuming that every
> > link found by www.skepticplanet.com is endorsed by CSICOP or the
> > Skeptical Inquirer, you are mistaken. www.skepticplanet.com is the
> > site of Wally Hartshorn of Springfield, IL, not CSICOP. You've assumed
> > that all sites linked to from a site that is linked to from CSICOP's
> > site are official CSICOP doctrine.
> >
>
> Hey -- lay down with dogs and get up with fleas, Mr. Lippard. A search was
> conducted on CSICOPS site and a clear position is determined.
Where did you go on CSICOP's site to get your data? The link you gave
is NOT a CSICOP site. If you go to https://www.discord.org/skeptical/
you will find lots of links, but if you attempt to infer my position
from the sites that are linked to, there are many sites where you will
be wrong. If you choose the ones that actually have my name on them,
then your inferences will be on more solid ground. (Hint: Check
https://www.discord.org/skeptical/Critiques/)
If *I* go to https://www.csicop.org and put your chosen search terms
("holistic nutrition") into the search box at the top of the page, it
yields three matches, none of which states a CSICOP position on
nutrition or health. (One is a Robert Sheaffer column about bras and
breast cancer, one is the Barry Beyerstein article I mentioned
previously on why alternative treatments can seem to work when they
don't, and the third is a Jack Raso article that describes a number of
alternative healthcare methods without examining or commenting on
their efficacy.
> > SI certainly has a position on alternative medicine and possibly on
> > "holistic nutrition" (whatever that is--it seems to me that putting
> > "holistic" in front of a word means something different from what the
> > word means without it, or it wouldn't be there). But SI has no
> > interest in nor does it discuss the field of nutrition.
>
> It could be a little misplaced hero worhship on you part?
I don't understand what you are construing as hero worship here.
You seem to have a habit of jumping to odd and erroneous conclusions.
I admit when I make mistakes. Do you? Or would that be to admit defeat
in a battle you are trying to win?
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 08:07:08 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" [lippard email addr]
To: [skeptic list addr]
Cc: Alfred Lehmberg [Lehmberg email addr]
Subject: Re: Reply to Alfred Lehmberg (was Re: Starbaby etc.)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Length: 7354
Mr. Lehmberg:
I don't appear to be the one having a problem with this argument.
I've asked you how you came up with your www.skepticplanet.com URL and
why you think its search results represent the official opinions of
CSICOP, and you've simply refused to answer. I've explained what I
did to attempt to duplicate your search.
You've insisted that Steve Allen, a personal hero of yours, could not
have been a supporter of CSICOP, I've given the evidence that he was
until his death, and rather than admit your error you've asserted that
I'm the one engaging in some kind of hero worship. When I've asked
you why you think that (and who is the hero I'm worshiping?), you've
simply refused to answer.
In your refusal to answer simple questions or to admit error, you've
answered my last question below--you are not the sort of person who is
willing to admit error, or, apparently, to learn from mistakes.
It's not the fact that you believe differently from me that makes this
argument futile--it's the fact that you are unwilling to answer questions,
unwilling to give arguments to support your conclusions, and too willing
to attribute beliefs and positions to your interlocutor on the basis of
nothing whatsoever. For you have no knowledge of my beliefs or what
philosophies I endorse, but you've already lumped me in with "your lot,"
whoever that might be, despite the fact that I've pointed you directly
to my own writings critical of "failings of organized skepticism."
So I will agree that you're not worth my time. Nor anyone else's, if
this is your standard methodology.
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 05:46:53PM -0600, Alfred Lehmberg wrote:
> Hey, Mr. Lippard, you like disagreement as little as that you'd assign to
> me, it seems. And you're beginning to take the usual tone your lot seems to
> take when you encounter someone looking askance of your homocentric
> assertions, not respecting the distracting wallow in overcomplicating detail
> your lot employs, or buying into the discredited philosophy your lot
> worships. Moreover, if you don't like the cut of argument you're in, I
> suggest you wobble off somewhere else and find another one. Write me off as
> a credulous believer, immune to your best efforts, and move on, sir, it
> matters -little- to me. Our argument -is- futile, regardless.
>
> [Lehmberg email addr]
>
> Photo Album: http://www.alienview.net/AVAlbum.htm
> (send picture as attachment to [Lehmberg email addr])
> Splash page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlienViewGroup/
> AlienViewGroup Splash Page: http://www.alienview.net/alienviews.htm
> Radio Show Archives: Having... ah... *Technical* difficulties...
> .
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:53:00 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" [lippard email addr]
To: [skeptic list addr]
Cc: "James J. Lippard" [lippard email addr]
Subject: Re: Reply to Alfred Lehmberg (was Re: Starbaby etc.)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Mr. Lehmberg seems to have been reduced to abusive ad hominem, like something
out of a Monty Python sketch.
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 09:41:01AM -0600, Alfred Lehmberg wrote:
> Oh?
>
> Then try this on for size, Mr. Lippard. -Your- tired methodology insures a
> societal dead-end if not outright suicide. Your argumentative arrogance is
> exceeded only by your whiney, judgmental, and intellectualized two-color
> impertinence. You're oblivious to anything not in your cloistered little
> box of Aristotelian thinking and you are clueless to the fact that I am not
> here to clear your hurdles...sir, you are here to clear mine. Shove off,
> Mr. Lippard, sincerely. I'll call you when I want to watch you hop over
> something. And thanks.
>
> ...Oh, and your "Committee for the Seriously Insentient Commitment of
> Obdurate Persons", sucks sour pond water. I will continue to point that out
> with every available opportunity... like I did last week on the radio to
> several hundred thousand people, deep into the heartland of America, points
> north, and down the eastern seaboard. Your heart-felt notes inspire me to
> more impassioned effort in that regard. Merry Christmas, sir.
>
> [Lehmberg email addr]
>
> Photo Album: http://www.alienview.net/AVAlbum.htm
> (send picture as attachment to [Lehmberg email addr])
> Splash page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlienViewGroup/
> AlienViewGroup Splash Page: http://www.alienview.net/alienviews.htm
> Radio Show Archives: Having... ah... *Technical* difficulties...
April 2003
This guy is a friend or relative of one of my Indiana cousins.
We are both on an MSN "group" that my cousin operates. He started
emailing me directly regarding my postings to the group in which I pointed
out some reasons to think that going to war with Iraq was not necessarily a
good thing, that the Bush administration has used some bad and bogus reasons
to justify it, that international law has arguably been violated, and that
the long-term consequences are likely to be negative. I include only my last
contribution to the list which prompted him to respond to me directly in
email.
I don't know if this Mike Boston is the same as this Mike Boston who made pathetically bad arguments against
atheism on the Positive Atheism web site, but it wouldn't surprise me. After reading that complete
exchange, I would be willing to bet that it is the same guy...
(And here's another
exchange with Mike Boston, about good and evil on the Positive
Atheism web site.)
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: my cousin's mailing list
Subject: Re: George W. Bush and international law
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:09:31 -0800
On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 09:24:12AM -0800, Mike wrote:
> Saddam should have control in the north of his country.
> If he doesn't then that is all the
> more reason to install government that is representative of all
> peoples of IRAQ
Eh? I think you should do a little more research.
The three northeast provinces of Iraq--Dahouk, Arbil, and
Sulaymaniyah--have been under the control of the Kurds, with the
assistance of U.S. and British enforcement of an Iraqi "no fly" zone,
since 1991.
Sulaymaniyah is controlled by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK),
and Arbil and Dahouk are controlled by the Kurdistan Democratic Party
(KDP). Although those two groups initially battled with each other,
they reached an accord and control their own autonomous regions.
This area is popularly known as Kurdistan, though isn't officially
recognized by the rest of the world as an independent country. The
Kurds are a long-suffering people who had hoped to gain independence
at the end of the Gulf War, but were abandoned to their own (except
for the air support) at its conclusion, which led to numerous deaths.
They battled with Hussein's forces for a while, and ended up with
autonomy in those three provinces. Hussein never quite regained the
power he had prior to the Gulf War, and had to make some consolations
to the Shiite Muslim majority in order to retain power. The economic
status of Iraq has been far worse post-Gulf War than it was before;
the southern oil fields were out of commission for several years, the
infant mortality rate today is many times worse than it was prior
to the Gulf War, etc. Saddam Hussein was much less of a threat a week
ago than he was prior to the Gulf War, and is obviously much less
of a threat still today.
Turkey, like Iraq, has also long persecuted the Kurds. (The Turks
also committed genocide against the Armenians in 1915; the Armenians
and Kurds have the same opinion of the Turks.)
This is why the threatened Turkish invasion of troops into the Kurdish
areas of northern Iraq threatens further destabilization of the area,
and why the Germans are threatening to withdraw their defensive
support of the Turks if they sent troops in. The Turks would like to
claim the Kurdish parts of Iraq for themselves.
(The Turks have already claimed to have sent 1,000 troops into
northern Iraq, though they then retracted the claim.)
> Pakistan
> government is not a loose canon like saddam.
Oh really? Tell that to India, which has been repeatedly attacked by
terrorist operating out of Pakistan with the support of the Pakistan
government. Pakistan also actively supported the Taliban until
reversing course after September 11.
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/coalition/pakistan.html
And I take it from your lack of comment on North Korea that you agree
that it *is* a loose cannon.
> Saddam only adds to the instability of
> the region and I would hold that since we started bombing IRAQ
> that the
> region hasn't been this stable since Ishmael was 13 years old.
Actually, the reason the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was
because it was the U.S. view that Hussein supported the stability of
the region (as opposed to the Islamic fundamentalists controlling Iran).
Here's a nice photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein
in 1983:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/
It would also be a shame to gain some short-term stability in Iraq at
the expense of long-term stability for the entire rest of the world,
since the U.S. has made it clear that it doesn't give a damn about
international law and its participation in the UN process was a sham.
(See John Negroponte's statement on UN resolution 1441 at
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2002/1108usstat.htm:
"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this
Resolution contains no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of
force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by
UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the
Council for discussion as required by paragraph 12." The U.S. reneged
on this understanding of how to proceed.)
> Saddam is wrong and we are right and we are making it right
> in IRAQ
> and for the people of IRAQ
It remains to be seen what new regime ends up in place, whether the
U.S. will end up occupying Iraq for a long time to try to enforce
democracy, whether the power vacuum will be filled by Iraqis who know
how to say the right things to support the U.S., yet continue to
oppress the Iraqi people, or what. The U.S. has made it clear that
the Kurd-controlled provinces need to be included as part of
Iraq--despite what the Kurds living there may want. (I hope this
doesn't prove similar to the UN's misguided attempts to reinstitute
democracy in Somalia, where the people simply didn't want it, and
resisted to the point that they were finally left alone, and now have
a peaceful region that has greatly improved its economic power in
spite of having no national government at all--they have reverted to
the traditional tribal governing structure that they had for hundreds
of years prior to the dictatorship of Siad Barre, and seem quite happy
with it.)
The U.S. has a terrible past reputation of supporting regimes that are
friendly to us, yet oppress their own people--Iran (the Shah),
Nicaragua (Somoza), Iraq (Hussein), Chile (Pinochet), Philippines
(Marcos), numerous countries in Central America, South America,
Africa, etc.
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
From: "Mike"
To: <lippard email address>
Subject: Re: George W. Bush and international law
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:22:12 -0500
Message-ID: <000f01c2fd64$e9b84600$81b01a41@XPMSBOSTON>
Dude what news are you watching - this isn't even mentally challenging
(never was) was the Iraqi communications minister your mentor or
something/
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:31:22 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: Mike
Subject: Re: George W. Bush and international law
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <000f01c2fd64$e9b84600$81b01a41@XPMSBOSTON>
I've cited my sources to support everything I've said, while you've
not even specified what you are arguing! What's your point? What are
you claiming? What are you disagreeing with that I've said?
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 07:22:12PM -0500, Mike wrote:
> Dude what news are you watching - this isn't even mentally challenging
> (never was) was the Iraqi communications minister your mentor or
> something/
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
From: "Mike"
To: "'James J. Lippard'" <lippard email address>
Cc: cousin and his list
Subject: RE: George W. Bush and international law
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:14:58 -0500
Message-ID: <001501c30465$a3323350$81b01a41@XPMSBOSTON>
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
I am claiming you are wrong and my sources...well..... all your emails.
Keep up the great work.
PS - a great place to start looking for a job is right here
http://www.careerbuilder.com
Feel free to use me as reference.
The conservative right - Why because we are...right
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:39:12 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: Mike
Subject: Re: George W. Bush and international law
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <001501c30465$a3323350$81b01a41@XPMSBOSTON>
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 05:14:58PM -0500, Mike wrote:
> I am claiming you are wrong and my sources...well..... all your emails.
I can understand what you are saying up to the word "wrong," but from that
point on it doesn't seem to be parseable English.
Telling me "you are wrong" is not informative. Either you have no interest
in communicating your position or you have nothing to support it. Since you
initiated this off-list exchange, the latter seems more likely.
> Keep up the great work.
Thanks, I will.
> PS - a great place to start looking for a job is right here
> http://www.careerbuilder.com
What makes you think I need a job? The one I have is quite enjoyable,
thanks.
> Feel free to use me as reference.
I have a feeling that would impair my attempt to obtain any employment other
than manual labor.
> The conservative right - Why because we are...right
Right. Someday you should learn to think in terms other than slogans and
catch-phrases.
I think you have earned a place on my ridiculous e-mail page.
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:56:21 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: Mike
Cc: cousin's mailing list
Subject: Re: George W. Bush and international law
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
I just noticed that this message was not just sent to me. Rather than
repeat myself, I will simply point out that I will be putting the
conclusion of this exchange on my "ridiculous email" web page, and
that I won't be continuing to engage in the "Lippard Fallacy" here.
The term "Lippard Fallacy" was coined by Cary Kittrell of UofA's
Steward Observatory Mirror Lab on April 11 on the az.general Usenet
group. Cary wrote to another individual who, like myself, was
attempting to use facts and reason to argue with "Uncle Samuel," an
individual whose postings greatly resemble Mike's in their absence of
those features:
> I fear I must inform you that you have just committed the classic
> "Lippard Fallacy" -- the erroneous belief that having the facts on
> your side makes any difference to ol' Unc. You're attempting to use
> reason on someone who basically is a limbic system with feet. You're
> simply wrong -- not because you're wrong, but because he doesn't like
> the cut of your jib.
>
>
> -- cary
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
From: "Mike" <[email protected]>
To: "'James J. Lippard'"
Cc: my cousin, my cousin's mailing list
Subject: RE: George W. Bush and international law
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:03:45 -0500
Message-ID: <002c01c30f64$60fe4a50$81b01a41@XPMSBOSTON>
The liberal democrats are gone and we rule. Get over it. Everything
our governemnet is doing in IRAQ turns to freakin Gold man. The Iraqi
people like what we did and what we are doing so get over it -your just
wrong jimmy
[quoted my message of April 16]
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:47:47 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard"
To: Mike
Cc: my cousin,
my cousin's email address
Subject: Re: George W. Bush and international law
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <002c01c30f64$60fe4a50$81b01a41@XPMSBOSTON>
In-Reply-To: <002c01c30f64$60fe4a50$81b01a41@XPMSBOSTON>
Mike:
You don't rule. You don't understand how to make an argument.
You don't have the slightest comprehension of inference, evidence, or
even how to write coherently.
You regularly get your butt handed to you by those you debate with on
the Internet, and have no compunction about using lies and deception
to further your cause (e.g.,
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9844.htm, where you used the
fictional story about Cassie Bernal at Columbine to make a point,
then, when shown that you were using a bogus story, evaded repeatedly
to avoid admitting error). While initially you were the deceived, by
sticking to error, you became the deceiver. (Why is it that the
religious right is so fond of hoaxes, deception, and dishonesty to
support their positions? Why do so-called Christians allow their
fellows to get away with it, again and again?
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html)
You are willfully and gleefully ignorant, and have repeatedly
displayed no interest in learning, or even carrying on a halfway
rational conversation. I would appreciate it if you would please
not send any more email to my address.
BTW, here's some "freakin' gold" for you:
WMD:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0426peace-scientists26.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7310-2003Apr21.html
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0422war-main22.html
http://msnbc.com/news/903374.asp
Iraqi feeling about U.S. occupation:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20030418/ts_nm/iraq_dc_1601
Iraqi museums looted; U.S. fails to protect museums despite advance
warning:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/Iraq_030417Looting_raddatz.html
The number of Iraqi civilians killed is up to somewhere between
2,149 and 2,615 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/).
This account of the war is a joke, yet some people, sadly, seem to
think it's the truth:
http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0317/sutton.gif
[quoted message being replied to]
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
September 2002
This guy scanned my web server looking for a version of the FormMail.pl CGI script that could
be used to relay spam, using "[email protected]" as the recipient address.
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:05:56 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: [email protected]
Subject: your attempted spamming has been duly noted
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
and reported to your upstream providers.
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Received: from [66.169.14.4] by web14410.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:40:39 PDT
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: john couch
Subject: Re: your attempted spamming has been duly noted
To: "James J. Lippard" <[lippard email addr]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Who's my provider? Do you even know what you're talking about?
"James J. Lippard"
wrote:and reported to your upstream providers.
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:46:34 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: john couch
Subject: Re: your attempted spamming has been duly noted
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
You're doing scans for open FormMail.pl CGIs, from 208.227.232.5
(downstream of wt.net, which is itself a customer of UUNet), using
[email protected] as the recipient address and [email protected] as the
from address.
Are you doing this as part of a spam filtering service offered by
wt.net?
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Received: from [66.169.14.4] by web14403.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:55:37 PDT
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: john couch
Subject: Re: your attempted spamming has been duly noted
To: "James J. Lippard" <[lippard email addr]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Please stop harassing me. If you harass me yet again, I will report
you. You really don't know who you're messing with. I am a lawyer and
I will fight back. Oh, yeah, that's a virus on my computer doing that,
but don't be threatening me, son.
"James J. LipparOd"
wrote:You're doing scans for open FormMail.pl CGIs, from 208.227.232.5
(downstream of wt.net, which is itself a customer of UUNet), using
[email protected] as the recipient address and [email protected] as the
from address.
Are you doing this as part of a spam filtering service offered by
wt.net?
August 2002
Unsolicited email (no reply sent). A listing for Marine Sgt. Jim
Fincher with this guy's email address is found on the "Phantom Phixers" web
page, apparently a squadron of Phantom F4 pilots/crew.
Message-ID: <01f601c247af$ee8a5fd0$03fea8c0@JIMONE>
From: "Jim Fincher"
To: <lippard email address>
Subject: God is so big he even loves pitiful you
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:40:46 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Yes Mr. Lippard..... God is and does.... and that includes you....
despite the fact that you misuse the wonderful mind he gave you to
attempt to prove he doesn't exist.... how pathetic that someone like
yourself can allow your mind to keep your being, from fellowship with
the very "I Am" himself.
Rest in the fact that He will pursue you for all your days.
God Bless You,
Jim Fincher
July 2002
This guy sent a couple of unsolicited emails to a list of "evolutionists."
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
From: "Rhubarbpudding"
To: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Subject: Lippard
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:53:07 -0700
Organization: Creation Research
Lippard,
I won't bother with you again. Your Email was forwarded along with a =
batch of others from one of your evolutionist collegues, Ed Babinski. =
When I answered him you were automatically on the list.
Your (Futuyma's) definition of evolution could have come out of an =
abstract Mahayana Buddhist treatise and is typically evasive and vague, =
"straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel,
Don't bother to write,
James Foard
----- Original Message -----
From: James J. Lippard
To: James Foard
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Peppered moths and "evolution in action".
I enjoyed reading this, I think Miller responded quite ably. I know
he knows what he's talking about, it is not apparent that you do
(especially since you seem, by your own admission, to be unclear on
the difference between evolution and speciation--see
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html for a
primer on the former, http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/speciation.html
for the latter).
I would, however, like to NOT be included on future mailings. Thanks.
--
Jim Lippard [lippard email addr] https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:02:38AM -0700, James Foard wrote:
> In addition, for those of you who have missed the interesting exchange between myself and Mr. Miller, here is the recent flow of ideas that we had concerning the fabulous peppered-moth-evolution-in-action FAQ on Mr. Millers site. [After this exchange Mr. Miller, evidently disturbed by what he called my "strident and insulting" manner, has refused to correspond with me any more. What a Pity]:
>
> The following has been sorted in chronological order so that you may read the "mini-debate" in it's entirety from the beginning:
>
> FIRST EMAIL----- Original Message -----
>
> At 7:00 AM -0700 7/16/02, James Foard wrote:
> Ed,
> Regarding Miller's dissertation on Kettlewell http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html :
> Long before it became well known that Kettlewell had pasted the moths onto the tree trunks, this so-called evidence for evolution was challenged: Creationists pointed out correctly that there was no new genetic information, simply a shifting in population averages.
> And nobody disputes the change in the population statistics of peppered moths, this was never an issue, despite Kettlewells pasting of the moths on tree trunks:
> The real question is, what does it represent? Is natural selection "evolution in action"?
> The peppered moths still remained peppered moths.
> Natural selection was borrowed by Darwin from Blyth, a creationist, who correctly saw in it a limiting element meant to preserve the integrity of a species.
> The evidence still shows that there was nothing at all like evolution taking place, and indeed, Miller seems to get sort of muddled in his thesis and apparently contradicts himself, for he wrote "What he (Marjerus- Miller mispells his name farther down on his FAQ) reported, first of all, was that Kettlewell's experiments, indicating that moth survival depends upon color-related camoflage, were generally correct:"
> Yet almost immediately after this Miller wrote "since his work it has become clear that birds see ultraviolet much better than we do, and therefore what seems well-camoflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird."
> He further wrote: For example, in testing how likely light and dark moths were to be eaten, he placed moths on the sides of tree trunks, a place where they rarely perch in nature."
> This would invalidate the industrial melanism hypothesis in the first place, and it gets worse: Miller also confesses that "In addition, neither Kettlewell nor those who checked his work were able to compensate for the degree to which migration of moths from surrounding areas might have affected the actual numbers of light and dark moths he counted in various regions of the countryside."
> Thus he is invalidating Kettlewell's own thesis while supposedly defending it. If indeed "what seems well-camoflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird," then the entire scenario of industrial melanism is worthless, and if some of the darker moths might just have flown in from migration, that explains nothing as to where the darker moths came from in the first place, except other dark moths: there was no new genetic information produced, the peppered moths came from peppered moths and remained peppered moths.
> To extrapolate this variation within an existing population into a thesis that fish changed into amphibians and that yeast and horseshoe crabs and anacondas all evolved from some common ancestor is scientific fraudulence of the highest order.
> This type of weak, paultry excuse for evidence of evolution, being trumpeted as "Melanism - Evolution in Action" reveals the desparate tactics that evolutionists are resorting to for so-called "proof" of their theory.
> And Miller, after demolishing the idea of industrial melanism by his own words, has the hubris to state "Until these studies are done [testing the migration ratio and vision of birds], the peppered moth story will be incomplete [understatement of the decade].Not wrong, but incomplete."
> Uh huh, not wrong, just incomplete. Sounds like a lot of backtracking here while trumpeting, "I'm right, just you wait and see, I'm right, I was right all along, uh, I have to go now, I think I hear my mother calling me."
> Thats pretty much what Millers argument amounts to, nothing more than an embellishment of a schoolboys fib, the myth of evolution, one of their best "proofs" of "evolution in action".
> James Foard
>
> MILLER'S RESPONSE TO MY FIRST EMAIL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kenneth Miller
> To: James Foard ; leonardo3 ; Fred Williams
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Of moths and men
>
>
> Dear Mr. Foard (and others),
>
>
> Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter (below).
>
>
> As is typical with every creationist critique of the peppered moth
> story, you misrepresent the implications of the story and of
> Kettlewell's work.
>
>
> The peppered moth story is NOT an example of speciation. That's why your
> comment that "The peppered moths still remained peppered moths" is correct
> but pointless. No one has EVER maintained that the moths became anything
> other than moths.
>
>
> Rather, the case of industrial melanism has been used as an example of
> natural selection, which is the ability of forces in nature to alter the
> phenotypes of living organisms over time.
>
>
> And the case of the peppered moth is still a perfect example of this.
> Want to know why? All one has to do is to look at the elements of the
> story as described by Kettlewell and see which elements have stood
> up under modern scientific scrutiny:
>
>
> * moths: prior to 1848 mostly (if not exclusively) light-colored
> * the very first dark moth found in 1848
> * just 47 years later, 98% dark moths in industrial areas of Britain
> * decline in dark moths began with use of cleaner fuels
> * today - dark moths are very rare (less than 1% and declining)
> * parallel rise and fall occurred in industrial US.
> * predators (birds) in aviary went first to moths that contrast with backgrounds.
> * fewer light moths survive release in sooty woods
> * fewer dark moths survive release in clean woods
> * birds in wild go first to moths that contrast with backgrounds.
>
>
> Which of these supporting elements of the story have turned out to
> be wrong? The answer, as you should know, is none of them.
>
>
> Therefore, the rise and fall of the carbonaria variety of the moth represents
> a perfect example of natural selection - a change in environmental conditions
> that first favored one phenotype (carbonaria) and then favored another
> (typica).
>
>
> Sir, if you do not think it is an example of natural selection, please
> provide an alternative explanation. Do you think it was a case of "intelligent
> design," where a supernatural outside force adjusted the phenotypes of the
> moths in order to ensure their survival? If you do, please make that clear,
> and then we can discuss how the designer might have done this. If you
> have another scientific alternative to natural selection, please let us know
> what it is. But if you do not propose an alternative (which your letter
> certainly did not) then I will conclude that you admit that this is, indeed,
> an example of natural selection in action.
>
>
> A number of scientists who have restudied the work of Kettlewell and done
> new experiments now regard his work as flawed. However, it's important
> that one be clear and honest about what these flaws amount to.
>
>
> Kettlewell took a classic example of natural selection in action, and
> attempted to pinpoint which factor (of many) played the predominant
> role in the rise and fall of the carbonaria form. Because of these flaws,
> it's clear that his conclusion, that predation of the moths by birds was
> the principal factor driving natural selection, was not well-supported by
> the experiments. A proper analysis of the data today leads to the conclusion
> that predation by birds was likely one factor among many driving natural
> selection in this case.
>
>
> This is desperation? This is dishonesty? (Remember, it was the
> scientific community that found the flaws and continues
> to study the organism!). On the contrary, this is an excellent example
> of science continuing to test the key elements of evolutionary theory.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Ken Miller
>
> MY RESPONSE TO MILLER'S EMAIL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: James Foard
> To: Kenneth Miller ; Fred Williams ; leonardo3
> Cc: [email protected] ; ICR Creation and Evolution Frequently Asked Questions and Resources ; David Crowe ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 9:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Of moths and men
>
>
> Mr. Miller,
> Thank you, I am very glad to hear you admit that there was no evidence of speciation, and that is precisely the point.
> You have also slightly mistated the case: if you read what I wrote to you, I never said that it was not a case of natural selection, however your claim is that it is "evolution in action" is an extrapolation that is a far cry from the truth.
> In one breath you claim in your letter that the peppered moth is not evidence of speciation, which would make your entire FAQ worthless and your claim that it is "evolution in action" meaningless dribble, and yet this is still supposed to represent evidence for evolution.
> Please explain the difference between evolution and speciation.
> You stated "No one has EVER maintained that the moths became anything other than moths."
> True, but you state that it is evidence of evolution; you imply that speciation does occur from this with your claim on your site of "evolution in action", which is a misnomer at best, and a fraudulent overstatement at worst.
> You make the traditional evolutionist mistake of extapolation of the evidence to imply that somehow variation within a species through natural selection is evidence for evolution: "Rather, the case of industrial melanism has been used as an example of
> natural selection, which is the ability of forces in nature to alter the phenotypes of living organisms over time."
> The trick in the deck are the words "over time". This in your scenario is meant to mean that this variation can go on and on until there is some new type of creature, something other than the peppered moth, which we have no evidence for at all.
> This is not science, this is fantasy. So you see, far from being pointless, I have merely pointed out the inadequacy of your claims that the peppered moth is evolution in action.
> Thank you for your kind response,
> James Michael Foard
>
> Postscript:
> Creationists acknowledge natural selection, as I pointed out, it was a creationist concept long before evolutionists and Darwin fooled with it, but this does not introduce newe species, it only reduces the gene pool, and the natural selection did not create new species, by your own admission the dark colored ones could have migrated from somewhere else.
>
> Mr. Miller and I had one other correspondece during this time about Haeckels "embryonic recapitulation" theory, and after that he wrote this to me:
>
> Dear Mr. Foard,
>
> Given the strident and insulting tone of your letter, this is the
> last reply you will receive from me.
>
> As in your previous letter, you have misstated and misrepresented
> the facts of the matter. First, the textbooks that Joe Levine and
> I have written have never used the Haeckel drawings. The drawings
> that were used prior to 1998 were based on images from other texts,
> not Haeckel's. However, they did indeed have some of the same problems
> that Richardson (in August of 1997) pointed out in SCIENCE magazine.
> As a result, I immediately corresponded with Richardson, and
> obtained accurate photomicrographs of the various embryos.
>
> As you grudgingly admit, I immediately fixed the problem, posting a
> correction on the web site for our book and obtaining new
> drawings based on photos of embryos. From my point of
> view, the right thing to do when you make a mistake is to
> admit it and to fix it. Joe Levine and I did both in less than 5
> months after the mistake was discovered.
>
> Should we have known about Haeckel's mistake before 1997?
> Maybe so. But your hero, Jonathan Wells wasn't aware either.
> Apparently, he was not aware of Haeckel's "fraud" until well after we
> had made our
> corrections. His book (Icons of Evolution) came out 1-1/2 years
> AFTER we had made our corrections. He ignored those corrections,
> incorrectly claimed that I had written a LIFE magazine article
> on human development (I did no such thing), and pretended that the
> incorrect drawings were current. Such is the standard of his
> scholarship.
>
> I should also note, Mr. Foard, that your claim of a trial in Jena is
> apparently
> another example of creationist fraud. See the letter from Sander and Bender in
> SCIENCE, Volume 281, Number 5375, Issue of 17 Jul 1998, pp. 347-351.
> There is no evidence that Haeckel was ever put on trial for "fraud."
>
> It has been a pleasure parrying your accusations and insults.
>
> Alas, I have to get back to work.
>
> Have a nice day,
>
> Ken Miller
June 2002
Upon reading the article at http://www.trueorigins.org/to_deception.asp,
I got the impression that the author was unaware of the difference between the talk.origins
newsgroup and the www.talkorigins.org website. I sent an email to the site's feedback address
to point that out, and got this defensive reply.
(By the way, an excellent response to the Fernandez article is now on the
www.talkorigins website.)
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: lippard email address
From: "TrueOrigin Feedback"
To: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
Subject: RE: Jorge Fernandez' critique of www.talkorigins.org
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:12:07 -0400
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Lippard,
Thank you for providing yet another fine example of evolutionary logic for
TrueOrigin readers. You wrote:
> Jorge Fernandez' critique of the www.talkorigins.org
> web site seems not to realize that this website is the
> FAQ website for a Usenet newsgroup...
...and (even if it were true) Jim Lippard apparently thinks this would
somehow absolve the TO writers from responsibility for their use of
conspicuously deceptive omissions and oversimplifications to explain their
beliefs? The misleading and deceptive tactics invoked by the website's
writers are not justified either by the website's purpose or its
relationship to the newsgroup.
> Talk.origins most certainly is an open forum to which
> anyone can contribute. I suggest that Mr. Fernandez
> use the newsgroup and post his criticism there.
It's an "open" forum, alright, loaded with evolutionist flamers of every
stripe, who think it's "open season" for burying creationists in endless,
time-consuming threads full of fact-free evolutionary rhetoric and
pop-science sound bites.
The handful of reasonable evolutionary voices at talk.origins are more than
offset by the cacophony of bigots whose sole aim is to deliver an
inexhaustible stream of rapid-fire inflammatory epithets, false accusations,
and science-free, subject-changing, boilerplate jargon at creationist
posters. Instead of being an environment for "open" and reasonable
dialogue, talk.origins excels as a feeding frenzy for evolutionary zealots.
I suggest Mr. Fernandez has done his homework, and -- not prone to waste his
time elsewhere -- has prudently posted his criticism in an appropriate
location. Rest assured that any reasonable feedback from evolutionists will
eventually find its way to the TrueOrigin feedback section -- but so will
yours, giving TrueOrigin readers a realistic picture of typical evolutionary
"logic" and "critical thinking skills."
> Items which appear on the website are items which have
> been originally posted to the newsgroup and undergone
> often fierce peer review.
...and by exactly what "peers"? I suggest these "peers" are the writers'
fellow evolutionist buddies, which hardly renders the website's contents the
objective "exploration" it pretends to be -- yet another fact conveniently
omitted from the website's deceptive fa�ade.
Again, thanks so much for writing!
Regards,
The TrueOrigin Archive
http://www.trueorigin.org
Here is my response:
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:27:17 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: TrueOrigin Feedback
Subject: Re: Jorge Fernandez' critique of www.talkorigins.org
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:12:07PM -0400, TrueOrigin Feedback wrote:
> Dear Mr. Lippard,
>
> Thank you for providing yet another fine example of evolutionary logic for
> TrueOrigin readers. You wrote:
Could you please define your term, "evolutionary logic," and explain how
I've given an example?
> > Jorge Fernandez' critique of the www.talkorigins.org
> > web site seems not to realize that this website is the
> > FAQ website for a Usenet newsgroup...
>
> ...and (even if it were true) Jim Lippard apparently thinks this would
> somehow absolve the TO writers from responsibility for their use of
> conspicuously deceptive omissions and oversimplifications to explain their
> beliefs? The misleading and deceptive tactics invoked by the website's
> writers are not justified either by the website's purpose or its
> relationship to the newsgroup.
You're putting words into my mouth. Frankly, I don't think Mr. Fernandez
has made his case--and in fact, he himself has engaged in deceptive omission
when he writes of Francis Crick that "it is clear (to Crick) that no earthly
cause for DNA is scientifically reasonable." This is in fact a distortion
of Crick's published views in _Life Itself_:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment
to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had
to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to
imply that there are good reasons to believe it could NOT have started
on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary
chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too
long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the
various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and
imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it
might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we
have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.
Perhaps in the future we may know enough to make a considered guess, but
at the present time we can only say that we cannot decide whether the
origin of life on earth was an extremely unlikely event or almost a
certainty - or any possibility in between these two extremes."
> > Talk.origins most certainly is an open forum to which
> > anyone can contribute. I suggest that Mr. Fernandez
> > use the newsgroup and post his criticism there.
>
> It's an "open" forum, alright, loaded with evolutionist flamers of every
> stripe, who think it's "open season" for burying creationists in endless,
> time-consuming threads full of fact-free evolutionary rhetoric and
> pop-science sound bites.
Why do you put "open" in quotes--it is literally an open forum--anyone
can contribute, and there are creationists of every stripe also
posting there on a regular basis. You are "buried" only if you choose
to be buried--or can't adequately handle the criticism and respond to
it.
The contrast between talk.origins (and www.talkorigins.com) and
www.trueorigins.org is striking--the newsgroup allows contributions
from anyone, and the web site links to critics (including
www.trueorigins.com), though your site does not seem to grant the same
courtesy. My impression is that that shows a lack of confidence in
one's arguments.
> The handful of reasonable evolutionary voices at talk.origins are more than
> offset by the cacophony of bigots whose sole aim is to deliver an
> inexhaustible stream of rapid-fire inflammatory epithets, false accusations,
> and science-free, subject-changing, boilerplate jargon at creationist
> posters. Instead of being an environment for "open" and reasonable
> dialogue, talk.origins excels as a feeding frenzy for evolutionary zealots.
Why not ignore the zealots, then, and only dialogue with the reasonable ones.
Modern newsreader technology (killfiles/filters) makes this fairly simple to
do.
I myself don't have time to read talk.origins on a regular basis, so my
participation is quite selective.
> I suggest Mr. Fernandez has done his homework, and -- not prone to waste his
> time elsewhere -- has prudently posted his criticism in an appropriate
> location. Rest assured that any reasonable feedback from evolutionists will
> eventually find its way to the TrueOrigin feedback section -- but so will
> yours, giving TrueOrigin readers a realistic picture of typical evolutionary
> "logic" and "critical thinking skills."
I would be quite interested in seeing any documentation of error on my part.
I note that you've not provided any in this email. Feel free to post this
email with the preceding. Alternatively, you can link to my website, where
I will put up this exchange, with a link back to you.
> > Items which appear on the website are items which have
> > been originally posted to the newsgroup and undergone
> > often fierce peer review.
>
> ...and by exactly what "peers"? I suggest these "peers" are the writers'
> fellow evolutionist buddies, which hardly renders the website's contents the
> objective "exploration" it pretends to be -- yet another fact conveniently
> omitted from the website's deceptive fa�ade.
>
> Again, thanks so much for writing!
>
> Regards,
>
> The TrueOrigin Archive
> http://www.trueorigin.org
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
I thank Thomas Wheeler for the Crick quotation, which occurs on p. 88 of
Crick's book.
And it continues:
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:33:43 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: TrueOrigin Feedback
Cc: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
Subject: Re: Jorge Fernandez' critique of www.talkorigins.org
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 11:16:36AM -0400, TrueOrigin Feedback wrote:
> > Could you please define your term, "evolutionary logic,"
> > and explain how I've given an example?
>
> Here are two examples implicit in your original feedback message:
>
> Premise: "Fernandez' critique seems not to realize"
> that talkorigins.org is a FAQ website.
> Conclusion: The primary focus of Fernandez' article
> (i.e., his documentation of the deceptive
> tactics used at TO) may therefore be freely
> ignored in a feedback response to it.
I never said anything of the sort. On the contrary, I think further
response to Fernandez is merited (and is going on right now on
the talk.origins newsgroup). I was simply pointing out one particular
apparent mistake (his lack of recognition of the difference between
the website and the newsgroup).
You are once again putting words in my mouth. Why not respond
to what I say, and not what you think I'm trying to imply?
> Premise: Evolutionists agree with the arguments of
> other evolutionists favoring evolution.
> Conclusion: This practice may be arbitrarily qualified
> as "fierce peer review" in order to lend
> an aura of superiority to such arguments
> above other (i.e., opposing) arguments.
This argument is also not present in what I said, and is certainly
no argument I agree with.
You do not seem to be interacting with me, but rather with your
projected image of what I must be saying. This is either dishonest
or delusional on your part.
> This kind of "logic" is popular among evolutionists (so you're not alone),
> but it does more harm than good to their credibility. The TrueOrigin
> feedback section is replete with additional examples, and has a hefty (and
> growing) backlog of more.
>
> > > ...Jim Lippard apparently thinks this would somehow
> > > absolve the TO writers from responsibility for their
> > > use of conspicuously deceptive omissions and
> > > oversimplifications to explain their beliefs? The
> > > misleading and deceptive tactics invoked by the
> > > website's writers are not justified either by the
> > > website's purpose or its relationship to the
> > > newsgroup.
> >
> > You're putting words into my mouth.
>
> Am I? The above conclusion is not unreasonable in light of the fact that
> your feedback response to Fernandez' article largely ignores the contents of
> that article, and begins by changing the subject: Rather than offer a
I wasn't writing a rebuttal of Fernandez' article--I was offering a
small comment on a specific piece of the article. Yes, you certainly
are putting words in my mouth, and you continue to do so.
> rebuttal of Fernandez' arguments or some form of justification for the
> questionable conduct Fernandez has documented, you went to the trouble of
> submitting a feedback response only to raise the (irrelevant) question of
> whether Fernandez understands the relationship between a website and
> newsgroup that share the same name.
It is not an irrelevant point.
> > Frankly, I don't think Mr. Fernandez has made his
> > case...
>
> While your frankness is appreciated, without corroborating argumentation,
> such a statement amounts to nothing more than an arbitrary opinion.
Fine, disregard it.
> > ...in fact, he himself has engaged in deceptive
> > omission when he writes of Francis Crick that "it
> > is clear (to Crick) that no earthly cause for DNA
> > is scientifically reasonable." This is in fact a
> > distortion of Crick's published views...
>
> In spite of Crick's obvious mid-paragraph waffling with a gratuitous value
> judgment ("...should..."), he begins and ends with clear statements
> appraising the empirical facts as leaving overwhelmingly poor odds for the
> emergence of DNA via natural processes.
>
> Nevertheless, wishing to avoid even the appearance of deceptive omission,
> Mr. Fernandez has agreed to an adjustment to his wording and the inclusion
> of a corroborating reference. Thank you for contributing to the article's
> improvement with your criticism.
Glad to be of help.
> > > It's an "open" forum, alright, loaded with
> > > evolutionist flamers of every stripe, who think
> > > it's "open season" for burying creationists in
> > > endless, time-consuming threads full of fact-
> > > free evolutionary rhetoric and pop-science
> > > sound bites.
> >
> > Why do you put "open" in quotes...[?]
>
> Because having a status of being "open" is of little value when the
> end-product of that "openness" is an essentially unmoderated free-for-all --
Why is that of little value? I think it's quite valuable.
> an evolutionary feeding frenzy. Calling attention to the newsgroup's "open"
> status doesn't legitimize the largely spurious, unproductive, and
> inflammatory content posted by the evolutionist majority, and scarcely
> renders it a platform for reasoned debate. Urban riots are typically "open"
> too, but they are not everyone's platform of choice for public expression.
That's not an apt comparison. Usenet offers a particular kind of
forum--it's not for all tastes or for all purposes, but it is in fact
an excellent way to get access to a wide variety of viewpoints and to
get feedback on one's own views. One can choose to engage or ignore
any of the respondents.
> > The contrast between talk.origins (and
> > www.talkorigins.com) and www.trueorigins.org is
> > striking--the newsgroup allows contributions from
> > anyone, and the web site links to critics...
>
> It is an error (at least) and/or willfully deceptive (at most) to treat the
> talk.origins newsgroup and the talk.origins website as if they were in the
> same class. They each operate under entirely different policies. The
This seems to sharply contradict your claim that my point about confusing
the two is "irrelevant."
They are different in policy and different in purpose. But *both* are
more open and objective than your site.
> website does NOT publish contributions that do not favor evolution, and the
> gratuitous inclusion of creationary links does NOT render the balance of its
> content the objective "exploration" it pretends to be. Indeed, trading on
> the newsgroup's "open" status, the website strives to appear open and
> objective, but even a cursory inspection reveals its content and agenda to
> be unquestionably closed-minded and one-sided.
>
> On the other hand, instead of pretending to "explore" the debate, the
> TrueOrigin website openly identifies its purpose in no uncertain terms on
> page one, faithfully executes it elsewhere, and includes links to
> evolutionary web content and references to evolutionary printed matter
> wherever they are relevant to the topic at hand.
>
> Yes, the contrast is indeed striking!
>
> > ...Why not ignore the zealots, then, and only
> > dialogue with the reasonable ones?
>
> What compelling reason is there for considering the talk.origins newsgroup a
> superior venue for such dialogues than any others?
Because it truly is an open forum, and there are representatives of a
wide variety of viewpoints, including all stripes of creationists and
evolutionists.
> > I would be quite interested in seeing any
> > documentation of error on my part.
>
> Please see above.
>
> > > ...and by exactly what "peers"? I suggest these
> > > "peers" are the writers' fellow evolutionist
> > > buddies, which hardly renders the website's
> > > contents the objective "exploration" it pretends
> > > to be -- yet another fact conveniently omitted
> > > from the website's deceptive fa�ade.
>
> By answering the above with silence, you have said plenty.
It doesn't appear to make much difference what I say--you are engaging
not what I say, but what you think evolutionists say.
And no, the "peer review" in talk.origins includes feedback from
creationists as well as evolutionists. Certainly the evolutionists
are the majority, but that's true of science, academia, Ph.D.s, and
the pool of people with education beyond college in general.
> Regards,
>
> The TrueOrigin Archive
> http://www.trueorigin.org
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
And culminates:
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 20:48:50 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: Tim Wallace
Cc: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
Subject: Re: Jorge Fernandez' critique of www.talkorigins.org
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 10:34:31PM -0400, Tim Wallace wrote:
>
> > > Here are two examples implicit in your original feedback
> > > message:
> > >
> > > Premise: "Fernandez' critique seems not to realize"
> > > that talkorigins.org is a FAQ website.
> > > Conclusion: The primary focus of Fernandez' article
> > > (i.e., his documentation of the deceptive
> > > tactics used at TO) may therefore be freely
> > > ignored in a feedback response to it.
> >
> > I never said anything of the sort...
>
> It appears as if you have trouble understanding what the words "implicit in
> your message" mean. One's perspective is often revealed more by what is
I know what it means, but you are mistaken. It was never my intent to
convey the message that the Fernandez piece should be ignored, and
your seeing such a message in what I wrote is either a misperception
on your part or a miscommunication on my part. I don't see how your
continued attribution of this to me in the face of my disputing it
can be the result of miscommunication on my part.
Tim, I really don't understand why you've--from the very start--taken
a posture in this exchange where you are being insulting and assuming
the least charitable interpretation of everything I say.
> *done* and what is *not* said than merely what one says -- in this case the
> juxtaposition of your conspicuous silence on the article's subject with your
> eagerness to advance arbitrary and unsubstantiated speculation about the
> author's knowledge.
As I said, I was not writing a rebuttal, I was offering feedback on a
specific point. The apparent confusion between the website and the
newsgroup is exhibited in Mr. Fernandez' article in a number of
respects, including that he doesn't ever mention the existence of the
newsgroup, and he claims that the website purports to be an open and
presumable unbiased forum (when in fact the website states that the
newsgroup is an open forum).
> > Why not respond to what I say...?
>
> Why the double standard? Why not respond to what Mr. Fernandez said in the
> first place, instead of projecting arbitrary and baseless speculation about
> his knowledge of Talk.Origins?
I don't think I'm operating under a double standard. See above for why I
thought the critique did not display an understanding of the distinction
between the website and the newsgroup.
> > And no, the "peer review" in Talk.Origins includes
> > feedback from creationists as well as evolutionists.
> Now that sounds *very* interesting. At this point, the only thing I'm
> interested in receiving from you is documentation of the Talk.Origins
> website's official version of what you call an "often fierce peer-review
> process" -- including the names of several of the "creationists" who
> participate in it.
I don't believe there is such documentation--and you seem to be continuing
with the same newsgroup/website confusion that I originally complained about.
The newsgroup is called talk.origins. The website is called
www.talkorigins.org. talk.origins is a newsgroup name, not a website
name.
The "peer review" process of the material that appears on the website
is that it all gets posted on the newsgroup and discussed at length,
in sometimes quite heated debates, which include creationists as well as
evolutionists.
See the Biographica file at
https://www.talkorigins.org/origins/jargon/jargon.html#bioinfo for a
list of some of the major contributors.
> Otherwise I've had enough of this protracted and petty "exchange" of yours
> (there are far more productive uses for my time).
Likewise, so fair enough.
> Should you fail to produce said documentation and names, it will be duly
> noted when your fine example of evolutionary conduct, priorities, and
> "logic" eventually appears in the feedback section of the TrueOrigin
> website.
> Regards,
> The TrueOrigin Archive
> http://www.trueorigin.org
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
June 2001
Some "constructive criticism."
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:26:52 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: John Field <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Reductio ad Nausium
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from [email protected] on Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 09:08:06AM -0700
John:
Your point about evangelical vs. fundamentalist is well-taken, however,
there is a very strong correlation between evangelical and set of beliefs
held.
Your point about "all the points have been well made before" doesn't
seem to be much of a criticism.
You state that my arguments are "sophomoric and unfair", but I note that
you don't take specific issue with a single premise or inference in any
of the arguments supplied.
Your perception that I am Jewish is incorrect. On what did you base
such a conclusion? I think Orthodox Judaism is as erroneous as
fundamentalist Christianity; my past writings address the Old
Testament as well as the New.
If I might offer a suggestion for your own efforts, as represented
by this missive from you: stick to the facts, avoid unsubstantiated
name-calling.
Congrats, you've earned a place on my ridiculous email web page.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 09:08:06AM -0700, John Field wrote:
Greetings Mr. Lippard: I chanced upon your piece "Three Reductio ad Ab=
surdum Arguments Against Evangelical Christianity" and thought I might offe=
r some constructive criticisms. I realize your mission as a skeptic is to e=
xpose irrationality in religious belief systems. But it seems to me that th=
is particular attack on "Venial Christianity" is rather sophomoric and unf=
air.. Let me explain. All of the points you raised have been well made befo=
re by some of the finest minds in the history of intellectual skepticism. F=
rom the giants of the Age of Enlightenment to Marx to Mark Twain to Bertran=
d Russell and many more, your points have been exculpated with great skill =
and effect. Yet you offered no credit to that great body of skepticism, but=
present your thoughts as original. =
=
Another deficiency was that you too broadly included "E=
vangelical" Christianity with fundamentalism. "Evangelism" is a form or mod=
e of ministry more than a specific set of beliefs. Not all evangelists are =
fundamentalists. You might do better to recognize that Christianity is a v=
ast spectrum, from the most inflexible literalists to agnostics. At least =
a nod to this complexity would have been nice, if only for reasons of polit=
eness. And finally, I perceive that you may be a gentleman of Jewish herita=
ge. Let me ask you, therefore if you have ever attacked Orthodox Judaism in=
the same vein as you attack Christianity? As a Jew, you would be insured =
against the inevitable ad hominem anti-Semite charge as well as better cre=
dentialed from personal experience. Also, to broaden your field of targets=
might offset the thread of narrowness and disrespect you demonstrate for t=
he larger and more rational good of Christian spirituality. This is unfortu=
nate because it can alienate some of those whom might otherwise be persuade=
d, and it reveals your own callowness. You might even benefit from some the=
Christian principles in evolving your own world view. That's it for now. =
I welcome your thoughtful reply, -John Field
Received: (qmail 31041 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 17:09:17 -0000
Received: from f165.law15.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (64.4.23.165)
by leviathan.discord.org with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 17:09:17 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:08:50 -0700
Received: from 63.206.115.218 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:08:49 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [63.206.115.218]
From: "John Field" <[email protected]>
To: lippard email address
Subject: Re: Reductio ad Nausium
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:08:49 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2001 17:08:50.0070 (UTC) FILETIME=[AE59EB60:01C0F4F4]
>From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
>To: John Field <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: Reductio ad Nausium
>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:26:52 -0700
>
>John:
>
>Your point about evangelical vs. fundamentalist is well-taken, however,
>there is a very strong correlation between evangelical and set of beliefs
>held.
>JF's REPLY: There is, but enough of a difference to avoid making the
>mistake again, in the interest of accuracy. Your point about "all the
>points have been well made before" doesn't
>seem to be much of a criticism.
>JF's REPLY: It doesn't? If I wasn't so polite I would have said it was
>totally without originality to the point of plagerism; in view of the fact
>that you offered no credit or sources whatsoever for ideas which have been
>around for a long time. If it was a summary and not a rip-off of better
>thinkers than yourself, you would have done better to say so. You state
>that my arguments are "sophomoric and unfair", but I note that
>you don't take specific issue with a single premise or inference in any
>of the arguments supplied.
>JF'S REPLY: That's right. I prefer to engage good ideas closer to their
>source, when possible. Your perception that I am Jewish is incorrect. On
>what did you base
>such a conclusion?
> >JF'S REPLY: It was not a "conclusion" at all but only a tentative
>impression. Please reread what I said. That impression was based in part
>on some associations I found you have had with refuting holocost
>revisionism, and, alas, with your name -- Lippard is often a Jewish
>surname. My error. >I
>think Orthodox Judaism is as erroneous as
>fundamentalist Christianity; my past writings address the Old
>Testament as well as the New.
>JF'S REPLY: I think you're being a bit disingenous here. Attacks on the Old
>Testement are not very strong attacks on Orthodox Judaism, especially when
>the stated target is Fundamentalist Christianity. Have you ever subjected
>the Talmud to any such "attack"? I doubt it very much.
>If I might offer a suggestion for your own efforts, as represented
>by this missive from you: stick to the facts, avoid unsubstantiated
>name-calling.
>JF's REPLY: Excuse me, but no names were called. Not one. Please reread
>what I wrote. And to the extent I stuck to only the "facts", you accepted
>my correction! As far suggestions for improvements in style, form and
>responsibility, I do not think you are above reproach in the piece I
>selected to criticize. Congrats, you've earned a place on my ridiculous
>email web page.
>JF'S REPLY: WOW! This must really be the Big Time!!!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:23:02 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: John Field <[email protected]>
Cc: lippard email address
Subject: Re: Reductio ad Nausium
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from [email protected] on Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 11:51:04AM -0700
Your previous reply was indeed sent. I did not reply.
It is my impression that you set the tone with your initial
message in your choice of adjectives and accusations; in your
previous reply you accused me of a lack of originality tantamount
to plagiarism, as well as producing arguments that are "sophomoric and
unfair." How is that not name-calling and abuse? Where have I done
anything comparable in my responses to you?
As for originality--the basics of the problem of evil (of which the
first argument is a specific example) are well-known, and there is no
locus classicus to cite. I don't know of anyone who has made, in
print, the specific version I make, with the point about heaven. The
second argument (abortion and missionaries) is one that I've seen
people come upon in verbal argumentation, but not in print. Again, my
specific version is not derived from anyone else's work. The third
argument, I've not seen made anywhere by anyone else. If you have
really read any specific arguments that you think are so similar to
mine as to make mine tantamount to plagiarism, I'd like references,
please.
Criticisms of Orthodox Judaism are less common (and less interesting)
because there are far fewer Orthodox Jews, and they tend not to
proselytize.
I've not ever met a Jewish Lippard. Where have you come across one?
The most famous Lippards were the writer George Lippard of
Philadelphia, who wrote a number of plays that scandalized the local
populace prior to the U.S. civil war, and Lucy Lippard, a New York art
critic/historian. I don't know the religious views of either of them.
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 11:51:04AM -0700, John Field wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
> To: John Field
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Reductio ad Nausium******************
> ************Hello again Mr. Lippard: I composed a reply to these points
> once already and I thought I sent them off by e-mail but I could not find
> the copy in my "sent e-mail" folder. So here they are again.
> John:
>
> Your point about evangelical vs. fundamentalist is well-taken, however,
> there is a very strong correlation between evangelical and set of beliefs
> held.
> >JF's REPLY: "Very strong" is an inaccurate because within the evangelical
> movement are important mainline protestant denominations which are
> significantly less literalist than fundamentalists. What you say is true
> only of fundamentalists like Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's
> Witnesses, etc.
> Numerous important mainline protestant sects, like the United Methodist
> Church for example, recognizes evangelism as an acceptable type of ministry
> for its doctrine, but is more liberal in its beliefs than fundamentalists.
> The acceptability of the theory of evolution, the metaphorical rather than
> literal concept of Hell, and other major points are illustrative. There are
> other protestant denominations as well which respect the evangelical mode
> yet are definitely not fundamentalist, e.g., The Church of Latter Day
> Saints, ("Mormons"), Lutherans, and others.
> ****************************************************************
> Your point about "all the points have been well made before" doesn't
> seem to be much of a criticism.
> >JF's REPLY: It doesn't? My point wasn't just that they were made before,
> but that they were not original to you as you seemed to imply by withholding
> any reference to sources.
> ***********************************************************
> You state that my arguments are "sophomoric and unfair", but I note that
> you don't take specific issue with a single premise or inference in any
> of the arguments supplied.
>
> JF's REPLY: But you already acknowledged one correction. Your sophistry is
> demonstrated more as a matter of your lock-horn, antagonistic attitude. You
> tend to get abusive as well. These are hallmarks of a callowness and serve
> to repel rather than convince.
> ******************************************************************
> Your perception that I am Jewish is incorrect. On what did you base
> such a conclusion?
> >JF's REPLY: I drew no such conclusion. Please re-read what I said: "I
> perceive that you MAY [emphasis mine] be a gentleman of Jewish heritage."
> I based my impression (as opposed to "conclusion") on your past association
> with the debunking of holocaust revisionism, your avoidence of attacking
> Orthodox Judaism the way you do Christianity and, alas, on your last name,
> which is not an uncommon Jewish surname. My error.
> ***************************************************************
> I think Orthodox Judaism is as erroneous as
> fundamentalist Christianity; my past writings address the Old
> Testament as well as the New.
>
> JF's REPLY: Your "past writings" on The Old Testament were attacks on
> Christianity. Thus it is disingenuous to offer that as an attack on Orthodox
> Judaism.
> ***************************************************
> If I might offer a suggestion for your own efforts, as represented
> by this missive from you: stick to the facts, avoid unsubstantiated
> name-calling.
> JF's REPLY: No names were called. Not one. Abuse and ridicule are your
> tactics, not mine.***************************************************
>
> Congrats, you've earned a place on my ridiculous email web page.
>
> JF's REPLY: See what I mean?*********************************************
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
PGP Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:25:04 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: John Field <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Reductio ad Nausium -- and the plagerism question answered in detail.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from [email protected] on Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:37:50PM -0700
I'd say my putting those specific sets of propositions together into
an argument form to spell out explicit contradictions is unique and
original, even though the first two arguments are, in general form,
common. The "many" in the sentence you quote is reference to the
very beliefs stated, the "but" is not an exclusion for the whole set.
OK, I'm a bully because of my ridiculous email reference, fine.
My point about your tone from the very beginning still stands.
Where did you check out the "ethnically Jewish" status of George and
Lucy Lippard, and what do you mean by "ethnically Jewish"? That their
mothers were Jewish? You certainly came up with that information quickly,
I am curious to know your sources.
Did you come across my web page as a result of Holocaust
denial/revisionism? Would you consider yourself to be a Holocaust
revisionist?
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:37:50PM -0700, John Field wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
> To: John Field
> Cc: <lippard email address>
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 12:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Reductio ad Nausium
> * * * * > Your previous reply was indeed sent. I did not reply.
> *********************
>
> >> >Hmmm... At any rate my second reply contained some refinements which you
> likewise did not reply to. *************************
> > It is my impression that you set the tone with your initial
> > message in your choice of adjectives and accusations; in your
> > previous reply you accused me of a lack of originality tantamount
> > to plagiarism, as well as producing arguments that are "sophomoric and
> > unfair." How is that not name-calling and abuse? Where have I done
> > anything comparable in my responses to you?
> ************************** The was set in your web page. Please read my
> previous reply (attached below). I did not say your presentation was
> plagiarism or tantamount to it, but approached it; to the *point* of
> plagiarism , not past it . (You also mistook my tentative perception that
> you might be Jewish with a "conclusion" that you were.) The first
> suggestion of plagiarism is based in part, on the implication that your
> ideas were original when in fact they are not. Please read what you said: "I
> have discovered a number of inconsistent sets of belief held by evangelical
> Christians. Many involve philosophical difficulties with theism commonly
> discussed by philosophers of religion and many involve contradictions which
> arise from a literal interpretation of the Bible. BUT THOSE WHICH I WOULD
> LIKE TO PRESENT HERE are philosophical difficulties peculiar to evangelical
> Christianity ". Your use of the qualifier "But..." in context, conveys the
> idea that your ideas were not also "...commonly discussed by philosophers of
> religion..." . Note that in both sentences you refer to "evangelical
> Christians" and only to them, which your issues are "peculiar to". Thus
> the qualifier "but" can be understood to mean that the second set of issues
> differs from the first in that they are NOT "difficulties" commonly
> discussed by philosophers of religion, since all issues raise are common to
> the same set of "evangelical Christians" in the first sentence as the
> second.
> The second, lesser suggestion of plagiarism is in the points themselves,
> which appear totally without reference, (and again, are presented as being
> APART from the ideas of "... philosophers of religion...") and many of
> which are longstanding and predate you by many decades. To tell you the
> truth, I can't imagine you seriously claiming your points were original
> when pressed to account for what you said. Carelessness is, I admit, not as
> serious as dishonesty, but a parsing of your writing does suggest the
> problem. As to answer your question "Where have I done
> anything comparable in my responses to you?", like to ridicule, as when you
> post replies for that very purpose under a "ridiculous e-mail" heading. Your
> thus come off as something of a bully.
> *************************************************
> > As for originality--the basics of the problem of evil (of which the
> > first argument is a specific example) are well-known, and there is no
> > locus classicus to cite. I don't know of anyone who has made, in
> > print, the specific version I make, with the point about heaven. The
> > second argument (abortion and missionaries) is one that I've seen
> > people come upon in verbal argumentation, but not in print. Again, my
> > specific version is not derived from anyone else's work.
> ****************************************************************************
> **
> > The problem is an old one and has been discussed in print. I refer you to
> accounts of Spanish missionaries accompanying the conquistadors who
> sanctioned the massacre of Indians, sometimes regardless of their status of
> conversion. Those who refused to convert were killed and dispatched to hell.
> Others were allowed to convert first, then summarily killed with missionary
> acquiescence on the grounds that as Christians they were assured a place in
> Heaven. (Of course, the real motive had more to do with military and
> financial considerations, as well as ordinary human cruelty). The idea
> apparently was that the greater general good of the Christian conquest of
> the New World might mean that occasionally you "can't make an omelet
> without breaking some eggs", and to let God sort things out. .> ...If you
> have
> > really read any specific arguments that you think are so similar to
> > mine as to make mine tantamount to plagiarism, I'd like references,
> > please.******************************
> > See above.*************************
> > Criticisms of Orthodox Judaism are less common (and less interesting)
> > because there are far fewer Orthodox Jews, and they tend not to
> > proselytize.**************************
> > True, but they are still a high profile target because one of the
> destructive consequences of their beliefs is that Jews are a special and
> superior race of people. The Mideast troubles is the obvious case in
> point.******************
> > I've not ever met a Jewish Lippard. Where have you come across one?
> ********************** >I've never met one either, but
> entering "Lippard" and weighted variations like "Rachael Lippard" and
> "David" or "Max" etc. in my search engine produced a statistically high
> number of Jewish examples. Also "Lippard" is related to "Lipsit" "Lipps"
> "Lipinsky", "Lippman" etc. which are more common Jewish names.
> ****************************> The most famous Lippards were the writer
> George Lippard of
> > Philadelphia, who wrote a number of plays that scandalized the local
> > populace prior to the U.S. civil war, and Lucy Lippard, a New York art
> > critic/historian. I don't know the religious views of either of
> them.****************************
> >Both are ethnically Jewish. I checked it
> out.*******************************
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
PGP Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
X-Originating-IP: [63.206.115.218]
From: "John Field" <[email protected]>
To: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
Subject: Re: Reductio ad Nausium -- and the plagerism question answered in detail , plus a bonus e-mail reprint.
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:12:48 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
----- Original Message -----
From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
To: John Field <[email protected]>
Cc: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Reductio ad Nausium -- and the plagerism question answered in
detail.
> I'd say my putting those specific sets of propositions together into
> an argument form to spell out explicit contradictions is unique and
> original, even though the first two arguments are, in general form,
> common. ************************************
> It sounded like old hat to me -- like the stuff we use to get from Madelyn
Murray O' Hare, et al. ,***********************************
>"...but" is not an exclusion for the whole set.
> Let's go over it one more time; here's what you said: "I
have discovered a number of inconsistent sets of belief held by evangelical
Christians. Many involve philosophical difficulties with theism commonly
discussed by philosophers of religion and many involve contradictions which
arise from a literal interpretation of the Bible. BUT THOSE WHICH I WOULD
LIKE TO PRESENT HERE are philosophical difficulties peculiar to evangelical
Christianity ". The confusion arises partly from the fact that,
"philosophical difficulties with theism" in Fundamentalist Christianity are
the *result* of " contradictions which
arise from a literal interpretation of the Bible." There is nothing NOT
"peculiar to fundamental Christianity" anywhere in the two sentences.
Everything mentioned is "difficulties peculiar to evangelical
Christianity." Everything being discussed or referred to is about the "
inconsistent sets of belief " (in the first sentence) and/or similar
"difficulties" (in the second sentence) with Christianity (the only religion
under discussion). Therefore the qualifier "But" has no meaning. This
suggests you meant that the only qualification is between "philosophers of
religion" (other than yourself, presumably) in the first sentence, and
yourself, in the second. You say "peculiar to..." as if you are focusing
down from some larger set, but no such larger set is mentioned. Again, the
qualifier "But" is left searching for meaning. ***************************
> OK, I'm a bully because of my ridiculous email reference, fine.
> My point about your tone from the very beginning still
stands.*********************
> The beginning began with the tone of your site because your site precedes
me.***************> Where did you check out the "ethnically Jewish" status
of George and
> Lucy Lippard, and what do you mean by "ethnically Jewish"? That their
> mothers were Jewish? You certainly came up with that information quickly,
> I am curious to know your sources.****************
> I simply ran the names through my Google Search with the word <"Jewish">,
and the hits cascaded down in profusion. I'm quite sure they were Jewish
because many of the hits linked them to self-named Jewish organizations.
One link was to "Distinguished Colonial Jewish families" Try it. As far as
what I mean by "ethnically Jewish" I would have to read you the definition
of "ethnically" and "Jewish". I was not referring to the definition by
maternity as codified in Jewish (religious and Israeli) law. Do you have a
problem understanding what "Jews" are? Some people do. Just curious.
*************************
> Did you come across my web page as a result of Holocaust
> denial/revisionism? ****************I actually didn't see the page but
a reference to some connection you had with holocaust denial/revisionism (I
prefer the lower case "h"). I did a quick search and couldn't find anything
solid. *************************************************
>Would you consider yourself to be a Holocaust
> revisionist?**************************************************
> Who, me? Probably not. It depends on where you draw the line. The best
scholarship I've seen allows for a downward margin of error which counts
about four million Jews murdered between 1933 and VE Day, 1945. Six million
is clearly an exaggeration. A great many Jews who were missing in 1945 were
displaced refugees who turned up later in places like Palestine and New York
City. Many more were absorbed into the Soviet Union and were never
repatriated or properly accounted for, as reliability for honest statistics
in the USSR was nil. That certain evidence was fabricated is now beyond
challenge, like the "reconstructed" gas chambers which were first
represented as original. Lamp shades of human skin and "soap factories" have
also been debunked. BTW, I sent you a separate email regarding holocaust
revisionism a few days ago. Did you receive it? If not I have attached a
copy below.
>
> >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear Mr. Lippard:
I was a bit intrigued to see how the principles and methods of conscientious
skepticism have been applied, after a fashion, to the issue of holocaust
(please note the small "h") revisionism. May I respectfully suggest that you
apply the same energy of skeptical criticism to the machinations of
worldwide Zionism. Specifically I direct your attention to the Jews' in
Israel (and elsewhere), longstanding racist oppression of the indigenous and
exiled Palestinian people. Please consider the problem of how Jews in
America are generally and strongly aligned with liberal principles of
"diversity", cultural /racial inclusion and tolerance, but who nevertheless
actively support the racist oppression of indigenous people in the Jews'
sacred father/motherland, the JEWISH State of Israel. Please also note how
Jews in America generally decry any link to church and state, but who
simultaneously give strong moral, financial and political support to their
beloved Israel, which employs the Biblical Star of David on its national
flag and uses the Holy Menorah as its official National Seal. Please note
also how the Jewish faith, especially in its most backward and superstitious
form -- Orthodox Judaism-- is privileged above all other forms of worship in
the JEWISH State of Israel, and how Jews in America and elsewhere are nearly
lockstep in their moral, financial and political support for the Jewish
State. And finally, please note how deceit and manipulation of the media is
employed in widespread fashion in America to perpetuate this evil hypocrisy.
Thank you for your attention to my suggestions. -- John Field
X-Originating-IP: [63.206.115.218]
From: "John Field" <[email protected]>
To: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
Subject: The Jewish Question
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:13:15 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Here is another recent email to you. I have remailed it because you =
expressed some interest in my views regarding Jews. It's admittedly a =
bit acerbic. When I composed this, I was under the impression that you =
may be Jewish. =
=
=
=
=
=
=
Dear =
Mr.Lippard: =
As yet I have not =
received your reply to my suggestion. Skeptics and critical thinkers are =
not known for hiding from a challenge. Intellectual cowardice is =
supposed to be the weakness of the bunkos and distorters. Let me say =
again: The application of the principles of skeptical criticism of =
holocaust deniers should also be applied to fallacies of US-Jewish =
(Israeli and diasporic) -Palestinian issues. May I refer your powers of =
critical analysis to such issues as the big lie of the advantage to US =
interests of supporting the continued Jewish State's in its occupation =
and domination of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories. =
And again would you please investigate the amazing inconsistency between =
the consensus of American Jews' views on "diversity" "pluralism" =
liberalized immigration, racial equality, and separation of church and =
state; in America, and the diametrically opposite of these values as =
they are practiced in the Jewish State against the Palestinian people, =
and how the Jews in America are almost unanimous in their political, =
moral and financial support of the Israeli Jewish state. Please do not =
infer an anti-Semitic animus in my curiosity, although from my =
experience in challenging others to account for this hypocrisy, you can =
be expected to do so. =
Another interesting example of bunko =
history for your critical mind to explore is the USS LIBERTY attack in =
1966. That was where Israeli Defense Force jets savagely attacked an =
American ship on the high seas killing dozens of American servicemen. =
The Jews have always denied it was deliberate, claiming the ship was =
misidentified as an Egyptian freighter. Massive forensic and witness =
evidence from investigations that followed have demonstrated that the =
attack was ordered to keep the American ship from learning of Israeli =
military activity during Israel's attack on Egypt. (The incident =
occurred during the Six Day War). In spite of the evidence, which =
convinced then Sect. Dean Rusk to his dying day that the attack was =
deliberate, the Jews' big lie and the official American version is that =
the attack was an honest mistake. Please summon your courage and =
integrity to apply your love for truth to this historical falsification, =
and please do so with the same enthusiasm as you would to exposing =
holocaust deniers. Thanks, John Field.
December 2000
Horribly argued religious spam...
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: lippard email address
Received: (qmail 19788 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2000 15:39:16 -0000
Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (206.165.6.135)
by leviathan.discord.org with SMTP; 20 Dec 2000 15:39:16 -0000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10422
for <lippard email address>; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:35:31 -0700 (MST)
Received: from local02.primenet.com(206.165.6.142), claiming to be "primenet.com"
via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA0baWvu; Wed Dec 20 08:35:26 2000
Received: (from lippard@localhost)
by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id IAA17193
for lippard email address; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:39:02 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131])
by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA17173
for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:39:00 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17997
for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:37:48 -0700 (MST)
Received: from f225.law11.hotmail.com(64.4.17.225), claiming to be "hotmail.com"
via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpdAAACxaa.I; Wed Dec 20 08:37:34 2000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:38:45 -0800
Received: from 209.84.176.109 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:38:45 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [209.84.176.109]
From: "TDZONE ZONE"
To: [email protected]
Subject: A new subject!
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:38:45 -0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2000 15:38:45.0177 (UTC) FILETIME=[F014B290:01C06A9A]
Content-Length: 3751
Hello,
And here is the dagger form which evolution can never recover, ULTIMATE
ORIGINS. Either our universe (which includes ALL materialistic objects) has
an origion or it has an infinite existence. If the universe is infinite then
thru "natural selection" we would be enjoying utopia right now, which we are
not. Yes, the universe had a begining.
Thru the laws of thermodynamics we know that matter can not be created nor
destroyed. You can not start with nothing and come up with something.
Nothing comes from nothing, nothing always will.
We also have the law of cause and effect which says that any effect must
have a cause equal to or greater then itself. If we see an effect (such as
our known universe) we know that it required a cause. It did not just appear
out of nowhere.
In spite of this the Atheist/Evolutionist will try to tell us that life
crawled out of some "warm little pond" millions and millions of years ago.
Yet they have no explanation as to where the "warm little pond" came from.
Not to mention all the chemicals needed to create this first form of life.
"It was all just there, trust us, we are scientists," they will tell us.
Then there is the cosmic space dust and other many particals that were
floating around millions and billions of years ago. Somehow, someway they
came togather in just the right combanation and (BANG) the whole entire
material universe leaped into existence. Yet when asked where the space dust
and other chemicals came from they have no answer. You cannot produce
something from nothing!
So as you can see millions of years plus nothing cannot and do not create a
highly complex fully functional universe. No, for this effect you MUST have
a cause. A Great cause.
It is at this point that I usally hear the question, "o.k., so where did God
come from?"
And right there is their stumbling block. God did not come from anywhere. He
has always been and he will always be. He is the eternial I AM. The uncaused
first cause. He is not bound by time and space, he is the Creator of time
and space. He is the Alpha and the Omega. (notice that it says he IS the
Alpha, not that he had an Alpha) He holds the laws of thermodynamics and
cause and effect in his back pocket.
While this might seem difficult for some to comprehend it is by no means to
difficult to apprehend.
"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for
me? Jeremiah 32:27
So as you now can see that any unbiased, rational thinker who looks for
truth can come to the only logical conclusion: "In the begining God created
the heavens and the earth."
And based on their conclusion, if they accept or reject this truth, that
will determine how they live their life.
Now based on this well established fact we would kindly ask the
Atheist/Evolutionist to stop trying to ram their false religion down our
throat by forcing it to be taught in our public schools.
Yes thats right I called Atheism a religion because it is a religion.
Religion: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that
somebody lives by
An Atheist believes that there is no God or gods. They believe that the
universe we see around us came to be through pure naturalistic means. This
BELIEF shapes thier values and attitudes that they live by.
You have put your FAITH in "The Theory of Evolution", however you have no
proof.
See it is religion. A false religion, however a religion none the less.
So in all reality we have one belief system Vs. another belief system or the
science of one religion Vs. the science of another religion.
TD Zone
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
November 2000
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Received: from [203.11.225.5] by web10001.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:45:48 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:45:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Irwin
Subject: The answer Skeptics don't want you to know...
To: [email protected]
Hi Jim,
It is clear from the review of Duane Gish's book
"Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics" at your
website that the reviewer has no answer to the
creationists on the second law of thermodynamics. Gish
has a whole chapter on the subject, pages 151 to 206,
where he easily refutes the evolutionist's arguments.
Typical of the feeble responses by evolutionists, the
reviewer says: "...needed to respond to Edward Max's
thermodynamics challenge (C/E XXVII:53-55)"
I found a report on a debate by Edward Max and Duane
Gish at: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-275.htm
After reading a review of the debate, it came as no
surprise to find that Dr Max simply gave the usual
parrot-like response to the creationists claims on the
2nd law. He claimed that the 2nd law does not prohibit
a local reduction of entropy. This claim is easy to
refute, as shown below.
It is important to note that a mechanism is required
to receive and to store the small dynamic energy
deviations so as to store reduced entropy locally.
Without a storage machine the entire attempt to
rationalize the concept of autoorganization of matter
would fail. As no mechanisms or machines existed in
the prebiotic matter, the vital small deviations could
never to stored. The small increases of order would be
immediately ironed out by returning to a state of
equilibrium. Without a receptor mechanism, they will
be lost immediately.
The origin of new complexity with existing life forms
is also impossible. The reason for this is that small
entropy decreases cannot, in any way, be equated with
the generation of new genetic information. There is no
known law of nature, no known process and no known
sequence of events which can cause information to
originate by itself in matter. This was also the
conclusion of the seventh "International Conference on
the origins of life" in Mainz, 1983.
It is obvious that Edward Max has no answer to
creationists on the 2nd law. The reviewer of Gish's
book obviously hopes that no one attempts to find the
article in the Creation/Evolution periodical. If Max
had a valid scientific response, surely he would have
mentioned it in the debate with Gish, or perhaps the
creationists deliberately omitted part of Max's
argument from the report?
Anyway, I doubt if evolutionists would stop using this
discredited argument, even if it was brought to their
attention the fact that it is scientifically bankrupt.
They will continue to rely on the fact that the
average person is ignorant on such topics, and will
keep trying to deliberately mislead the public on the
fact that functional complexity can never originate
naturally.
Regards,
Brian Irwin
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:50:38 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: Brian Irwin
Cc: lippard email address
Subject: Re: The answer Skeptics don't want you to know...
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from [email protected] on Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 06:45:48PM -0800
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 06:45:48PM -0800, Brian Irwin wrote:
> It is obvious that Edward Max has no answer to
> creationists on the 2nd law. The reviewer of Gish's
> book obviously hopes that no one attempts to find the
> article in the Creation/Evolution periodical. If Max
> had a valid scientific response, surely he would have
> mentioned it in the debate with Gish, or perhaps the
> creationists deliberately omitted part of Max's
> argument from the report?
Good call. That's common to most ICR debate reviews.
The young-earth creationist arguments on the 2nd law of
thermodynamics--as on many other topics--are simply not competent.
Your reading of the review of Gish's book seems to have been
a bit selective. From what you sent me, you betray no hint that
the reviewer in question is who you are addressing, nor that the
review has nothing to do with a debate between Edward Max and Duane
Gish, nor anything about the criticisms actually leveled against
Gish's book regarding the thermodynamics section in the review.
It looks like you just had a little monologue that you wanted to
make, which didn't really touch on the content of my review at all.
That's fine, but if I want to read your monologues I'll buy them
when they're published. Please don't send any further such tripe
my way, I don't have time for it.
If you'd really like someone to address the points you make, I suggest
you submit them as feedback to the www.talkorigins.org website.
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
PGP Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:45:37 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: [email protected]
Cc: lippard email address
Subject: 2nd law of thermodynamics
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i
Just in case you really are interested in some dialogue, I got
a quick response to your message from Edward Max, Wesley Elsberry,
and Kevin O'Brien. Enjoy.
--
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
PGP Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
From Kevin O'Brien:
---cut here---
There is no evidence that a receptor mechanism or a storage machine are
needed to cause local reductions in entropy, but even if there were, the
machine can be as simple as a collection of particles and the mechanism as
simple as energy flow.
For a collection of particles, entropy simply indicates how close the
particles are to some equilibrium state; the higher the entropy the closer
the particles are to the equilibrium state. Once a system reaches
equilibrium, entropy has maximized. In closed systems that are receiving
energy, the influx of energy can actually stave off reaching equilibrium.
It does this, not by reducing the entropy of the system, but by increasing
the amount of entropy that has to be present before equilibrium can be
reached. If this entropy limit increases faster than the particles are
able to gain entropy, the particles will naturally form organized
structures as a way to maximize the entropy they currently have.
For energy flow, you need an open system that exchanges both matter and
energy with its surroundings. The change in entropy of the system is then
divided between changes caused by exchanges between the system and the
surroundings and changes caused by irreversible processes within the
system. If some of this entropy created within the system is dissipated
into the surroundings, the entropy of the system will either increase more
slowly or may even decrease. As an example, take a cell. The external
entropy changes are caused by heat exchanged between the cell and its
surroundings, while the internal entropy changes are caused by the
breakdown of food to create heat. Dissipation of internal entropy
generated by this process occurs whenever the cell excretes the low energy,
high entropy waste products generated as well. This help keeps the entropy
of the cell below maximum value and can even reduce the entropy of the
cell, but at the expense of increasing the entropy of the surroundings.
At the same time, however, entropy that is not dissipated can be
sequestered away in the form of increasing biomass or increasing genetic
information. So in point of fact increasing information is one method by
which existing lifeforms can deal with increasing entropy to avoid reaching
equilibrium (which means death).
Kevin L. O'Brien
---end msg---
From Edward Max:
---cut here---
Dear Jim,
You might tell Brian Irwin this: The account he read of the debate I had
with Gish was written by Gish. Not surprisingly, the summary left Gish
looking good. If Irwin would like to see what I actually said, and then
provide a reply that he thinks is appropriate, I will be happy to provide
the text from which I made my points at the debate.
Since I am a molecular biologist not extensively trained in thermodynamics,
Irwin may also be interested in reading a fine essay on the 2LoT argument by
an evangelical Christian who is also a professional specializing in
thermodynamics:
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
Ed
---end msg---
From Wesley Elsberry comes this challenge:
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/2lot.html>
February 2000
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:47:01 -0500
From: Thomas Mollo
To: [email protected]
Subject: Lucy's Knee Joint.
Mr. Lippard,
I doubt if anyone who has even the slightest bit of common sense will be
even mildly stimulated by your assertions involving "Lucy's" knee
joint. Actually the fact that you and other Evolutionists have jumped on
this apparent mis-quote as if it were the last flotation device on a
sinking ship proves your theory is in desperation mode and sinking fast.
Surly the highly educated men involved in the search of the origins of
man will be able to find another way to support themselves when Evolution
is finally proven to be completely false. Face it dude, it's over !
Evolution is a lie long over due for exposure and Creation Science is
gaining in prominence everyday.
I don't know why people are so desperate to prove Evolution but I do
believe money and ego are the driving force behind many Evolutionist that
have long since seen the futility in their search, or maybe there are
some scientists who honestly believe in the theory of Evolution ?
However common sense, reason and now Creation Science are proving in the
beginning GOD. Not in the beginning SLIME ?
Thomas Mollo.
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:40:25 -0700 (MST)
From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
To: Thomas Mollo
Subject: Re: Lucy's Knee Joint.
Is it your opinion that lying is perfectly OK, so long as you're
criticizing evolution?
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:35:45 -0700 (MST)
From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
To: Thomas Mollo
Cc: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
Subject: Re: Lucy's Knee Joint.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Thomas Mollo wrote:
> No sir, lying is wrong in every case. Mr. Johanson was mis-quoted and if
> the person who made the mis-quote did lie then he or she is wrong,
OK, then I fail to see what further justification my article needs, nor
why you felt the necessity to harangue me.
> however it does not change the fact that "Lucy" was a tree climbing Ape
> at best. Science is wonderful unless it is abused, Evolutionists have
Well, you're wrong there and are ignoring the bulk of the evidence about
A. afarensis, as well as the other hominids, and I suggest you read Jim
Foley's fossil hominds FAQs at the talkorigins web site.
> abused, molested and beat the stuffing out of it long enough. Truth and
> Fact must prevail on both sides.
Agreed, and I've certainly done my share of criticizing people on both
sides of this issue. (See
https://www.discord.org/lippard/plimer-book.html). Have you? The
creationists really badly need to clean up their act. They need more Kurt
Wises and fewer Duane Gishes.
> The fact that our museums are packed with ape-men and other artistic
> re-creations, or what Evolutionist perceive to be early man is a
> testament to the distortions regularly perpetrated by so called
> Evolutionary Scientists. Do not assume my opinion, instead re-evaluate
> your own perception of lying. Is not distortion a form of lying ?
Sure, and every distortion is worthy of exposure.
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 13:08:10 -0700 (MST)
From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
To: Thomas Mollo
Subject: Re: : Re: Lucy's Knee Joint.]
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Thomas Mollo wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Lucy's Knee Joint.
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:06:39 -0500
> From: Thomas Mollo
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> To: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
> References:
>
>
> Well, you disappoint me sir, I read the site you suggested and found it
> to be laced with insults instead of facts. It is quite typical of the
Eh? Point me to an example, please.
> arrogance displayed frequently by Evolution Scientists i.e. (if you doubt
> evolution, or fail to see our logic, you are a naive stooge that is
> brainwashed by a cult)... Is that the scientific conclusion ? At least
Is that a direct quote, or a distortion?
> now I know a bit about where you are coming from and you have further
> cemented my feelings about "Evolution Science". I believe that DNA and
Then you're acting on emotions and feelings, because we haven't even
discussed the subject.
> Genetic research will further prove evolution to be completely false and
> soon the Evolutionary THEORY will be 100% extinct...And I do not consider
> that a bold statement considering the incredible lack of intermediary
> forms of any kind, much less that of human origin.
I consider it a statement that is completely out of touch with any
biological research.
> Evolution supposedly occurred over Millions of years... Where are the
> millions of years of almost evolved men ??
A. afarensis, H. erectus, H. habilis, H. neandertalis, etc. Did you even
look at the Jim Foley FAQ I recommended?
> Why do animals seem to appear suddenly without a trace of fossil evidence
> to support otherwise ?
"seem" being the operative word. More detailed study shows otherwise,
e.g., the reptile-mammal transition is very finely graded.
> How did the Eyes evolve ?
Which ones? They've done so many times.
> Where did Male and Female come from ?
I'm not up on that one, but I'm sure I could get you a reference if you
were truly interested, rather than propagandizing.
> Why is it that almost every week there is a new discovery of PROOF FOR
> EVOLUTION... Then suddenly that amazing new discovery disappears ?
That's just not the case.
> I understand that in order to continue the funding scientists must come
> up with something every now and then, but it is getting quite ridiculous
> and people who do not believe evolution are getting a great laugh at all
> the crazy new birds and other animals that grace our local papers for 1
> or 2 days only to vanish soon after without further mention or proof.
>
> I've also learned that Evolution Scientists will not debate Creation
> Scientists, is that true... If so why ?
No, it's not true. There are multiple c/e debate tapes and transcripts
available from the National Center for Science Education.
> I know I started this but after reading
> www.discord.org/lippard/plimer-book.html, I can see that reasoning
> with you might be a problem being that you see all us inferior less
> evolved types as "naive, brainwashed, cult member stooges"... Interesting
Huh? Where did you find that quote? It doesn't sound like you actually
read the page in question--which is critical of an evolutionary geologist!
> !
>
> Evolution has a cultic following also: Adolf Hitler, Mao se Tung,
> Stalin, Lenin, Marx... All believers in Evolution... All believers in
> natural selection... All failed to create the Master race...Why ?
> Because all men were created equal and in times of adversity weaker
> nations and poorer people have somehow fought and defeated a seemingly
> undefeatable foe time and time again. So much for Natural selection !
>
> Evolution is limited within the blueprint of the original creation, micro
> evolution within a species is a fact, But a Turtle was never a goldfish.
> DNA makes a Mommy monkey have a baby monkey over and over again because
> it is it's blueprint... DNA never changes.
DNA never changes? Ever? So we are all clones of each other?
>
> Thomas Mollo.
> p.s. Harangue you ??
Yes, that's what it looks like to me. You're throwing all these straw men
and red herrings at me, and not addressed a single thing that I've
actually written on any of my web pages.
You win a spot on my ridiculous email page. Congratulations.
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:29:20 -0700 (MST)
From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
To: Thomas Mollo
Subject: Re: : Re: Lucy's Knee Joint.]
> > Evolution supposedly occurred over Millions of years...
> Where are the
> > millions of years of almost evolved men ??
>
> A. afarensis, H. erectus, H. habilis, H. neandertalis, etc.
> Did you even
> look at the Jim Foley FAQ I recommended?
>
>
> You must be joking none of those are on a direct line with
> Man...Neanderthalis ? You mean the Men with Arthritis ?
All of them are, except perhaps H. neandertalis. Which is not arthritis
except in some creationist comic books.
> Not only that but do you expect people to believe that these mosaics of
> bones and Tiny pieces of cranium or Craniums with missing fragments to
> be proof ?
There's a lot more than that. Even Marvin Lubenow, creationist author of
_Bones of Contention_, points out the huge amount of fossil evidence that
exists. (His book is actually not bad--I recommend it, though his main
argument is fallacious and assumes that ancestors can't exist at the same
time as their descendents.)
> > Why do animals seem to appear suddenly without a trace of
> fossil evidence
> > to support otherwise ?
>
> "seem" being the operative word. More detailed study shows
> otherwise,
> e.g., the reptile-mammal transition is very finely graded.
>
> Seem because I wasn't there to see it happen. Niether were you.
So I guess the Japanese merely "seem" to have attacked Pearl Harbor.
> > How did the Eyes evolve ?
>
> Which ones? They've done so many times.
>
>
> Interesting answer.
It's the case--squid eyes, for example, follow a completely different
path (and are much better "designed" than vertebrate eyes, which have some
major design flaws).
>
> > Where did Male and Female come from ?
>
> I'm not up on that one, but I'm sure I could get you a
> reference if you
> were truly interested, rather than propagandizing.
>
> I'm sure you could.
>
>
> > Why is it that almost every week there is a new discovery
> of PROOF FOR
> > EVOLUTION... Then suddenly that amazing new discovery
> disappears ?
>
> That's just not the case.
>
> It's not ? Nebraska man is not a long gone example, anyone who reads the
> papers can see similar ground breaking discoveries that are gone long
> before anyone has time to doubt it.
Nebraska man was never supported by scientists.
> > I understand that in order to continue the funding
> scientists must come
> > up with something every now and then, but it is getting
> quite ridiculous
> > and people who do not believe evolution are getting a great
> laugh at all
> > the crazy new birds and other animals that grace our local
> papers for 1
> > or 2 days only to vanish soon after without further mention
> or proof.
>
> Hummm .
>
> >
> > I've also learned that Evolution Scientists will not debate
> Creation
> > Scientists, is that true... If so why ?
>
> No, it's not true. There are multiple c/e debate tapes and
> transcripts
> available from the National Center for Science Education.
>
> I'll have to check that out.
www.natcenscied.org
I recommend Kenneth Saladin v. Duane Gish transcript, or Kenneth Miller
v. anybody (he's debated Gish, Henry Morris, Phil Johnson, etc.)
> > I know I started this but after reading
> > www.discord.org/lippard/plimer-book.html, I can see that
> reasoning
> > with you might be a problem being that you see all us
> inferior less
> > evolved types as "naive, brainwashed, cult member
> stooges"... Interesting
>
> Huh? Where did you find that quote? It doesn't sound like
> you actually
> read the page in question--which is critical of an
> evolutionary geologist!
Hummm .
> > !
> >
> > Evolution has a cultic following also: Adolf Hitler, Mao
> se Tung,
> > Stalin, Lenin, Marx... All believers in Evolution... All
> believers in
> > natural selection... All failed to create the Master
> race...Why ?
> > Because all men were created equal and in times of
> adversity weaker
> > nations and poorer people have somehow fought and defeated
> a seemingly
> > undefeatable foe time and time again. So much for Natural
> selection !
>
> Funny there was no response to this one.
It's a bad argument. I could point out creationist racists, but it would
prove nothing about the truth of creationism. By the way, I know of no
evidence that any of those except Marx were believers in Darwinian
evolution. Certainly the Soviet Union had major setbacks in agriculture
because of their state-mandated advocacy of Lysenko's Lamarckian theories.
> > Evolution is limited within the blueprint of the original
> creation, micro
> > evolution within a species is a fact, But a Turtle was
> never a goldfish.
> > DNA makes a Mommy monkey have a baby monkey over and over
> again because
> > it is it's blueprint... DNA never changes.
>
> DNA never changes? Ever? So we are all clones of each
> other?
>
> Oh Boy ! DNA Bluprints do not change Monkeys to Men.
The genetic distance between gibbons and siamangs--which can
interbreed--is larger than the genetic distance between chimpanzees and
humans.
> > Thomas Mollo.
> > p.s. Harangue you ??
>
> Yes, that's what it looks like to me. You're throwing all
> these straw men
> and red herrings at me, and not addressed a single thing that
> I've
> actually written on any of my web pages.
>
> You win a spot on my ridiculous email page. Congratulations.
>
> I'm quite proud of that , thank you.
You're welcome.
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:26:38 -0700 (MST)
From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
To: Thomas Mollo
Subject: Re: : Re: Lucy's Knee Joint.]
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Thomas Mollo wrote:
> > You must be joking none of those are on a direct line with
> > Man...Neanderthalis ? You mean the Men with Arthritis ?
>
> All of them are, except perhaps H. neandertalis. Which is
> not arthritis
> except in some creationist comic books.
>
> Then why isn't it plastered all over the world ? End the debate, shown
It is.
> us the money ? Er ? Ape-Man ! All I'm hearing is that it's a done deal
> , men evolved from apes and when the supposed proof is shown all I see is
> a sculpture of what the evolutionists think it (THE SKULL) used to look
> like with 10 or 15 actual bone chips glued on it in the areas the
> evolutionists think it belongs. Millions and millions of $$ are spent on
> these digs for what ? So evolutionist can hide there findings that could
> possibly end one of the biggest debates of all time... WHY ? Where ? Who
> ? End the debate already show beyond a reasonable doubt that Man Evolved
> from Apes
Take the Lucy test:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8853/index.html
Let me know how you score.
> > Not only that but do you expect people to believe that
> these mosaics of
> > bones and Tiny pieces of cranium or Craniums with missing
> fragments to
> > be proof ?
>
> There's a lot more than that. Even Marvin Lubenow,
> creationist author of
> _Bones of Contention_, points out the huge amount of fossil
> evidence that
> exists. (His book is actually not bad--I recommend it,
> though his main
> argument is fallacious and assumes that ancestors can't exist
> at the same
> time as their descendents.)
>
> There can be millions of fossils but show me one of a clear cut
> intermediary form...You can't. I've searched it all, all the best
> possibilities that is, and there is nothing conclusive, it is all
> speculation and that is not good enough.
You haven't even looked at anything I've asked you to. Don't lie to me,
Thomas. Read this all the way through:
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
And see if you can address EVEN ONE of the pieces of evidence there.
I bet you can't.
> > > Why do animals seem to appear suddenly without a
> trace of
> > fossil evidence
> > > to support otherwise ?
> >
> > "seem" being the operative word. More detailed study
> shows
> > otherwise,
> > e.g., the reptile-mammal transition is very finely
> graded.
> >
> > Seem because I wasn't there to see it happen. Niether were
> you.
>
> So I guess the Japanese merely "seem" to have attacked Pearl
> Harbor.
>
>
> I've talked to enough people who were there (Pearl Harbor) to know
> beyond a reasonable doubt they did attack it.
>
> Pearl Harbor was well documented by men and woman who were there to
> witness it, just like the witnesses who wrote the Bible. And those
> witnesses also died for what they believed in, never once denying God.
Evolution was well-documented by the physical processes which left
evidence in the form of fossils and genetic evidence.
> > > How did the Eyes evolve ?
>
>
> > It's the case--squid eyes, for example, follow a completely
> different
> path (and are much better "designed" than vertebrate eyes,
> which have some
> major design flaws).
>
> Oh... OK that explains everything ? Did you say design ? Be careful your
> evolution friends won't hang out with you.
Sure they will. Most of the people who understand the overwhelming
evidence for evolution also believe in God. E.g., Robert Pennock, author
of _Tower of Babel_, a refutation of creationism, is a Quaker. E.g.,
former young-earth creationist Glenn Morton, who ghost-authored the
sections on evolution in Josh McDowell's _Reasons Skeptics Should Consider
Christianity_, who has now written two books for Christians showing that
the evidence supports evolution. See
http://home.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm and see if you can respond to even
a single argument there. I bet you can't.
> I guess you will see things as you wish to see them regardless how
> ridiculous your "Proof" seems. I am a simple man and the thought of
> this earth existing for 4.5 billion years and life starting in a puddle
> of muck that somehow sprung to life starting this chain reaction which
> branched of into all life that we see today is unbelievably nuts.
And so you refuse to even listen to anything I have to say. Why should I
dialogue with anyone who speaks but cannot listen?
> The very theory that the universe was started out of nothing is the most
> un-scientific thing I've ever heard. I realize that the thought of God
Have we even been discussing that? No. Why don't we stick to one thing
at a time?
> to an Evolutionist is un-heard of, after all you can't prove God exists
Not true--most evolutionists believe in God. Stop changing the subject.
> by using the scientific method... But then again how do we prove the
> universe aligned it's self using the scientific method ? You need more
> faith to believe in evolution than I need to believe in God, at least I
> have eyewitness testimony and written records from those actual
> witnesses. What do you have ?
Boatloads of evidence.
> Answer: a bunch of bones that are found by men who need to find something
> in order to keep their jobs. Yikes ! No thanks. I'd much rather put my
> faith in a God who created men that thought nothing of being killed
> rather than deny His (God's) existence. The Bible is all the proof that I
> and Billions like me will ever need.
That's not science, Thomas.
> If the universities and governments put 1/2 the time and money spent on
> trying to prove evolution into trying to prove Biblical accuracy and the
> existence of God this debate would be mute because we would all be
> reading the Bible and worshiping our creator God.
Ah, it's all a satanic conspiracy. You'll never be able to see the
evidence if you think like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
> Thomas
> Mollo.
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:37:18 -0700 (MST)
From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
To: Thomas Mollo
Subject: Re: Lucy's Knee Joint.
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Thomas Mollo wrote:
> What all of the fossil work over the past hundred years or so has done
>is to emphasize the gaps. The buckets that contain fossils are
>overflowing, those that used to be empty are still just as empty. So, now
>the whole world has been examined. The evidence that Darwin said would be
>a legitimate, fatal blow to his theory if true has now been confirmed.
This is simply false. You seem to be using the argument that if there are
two fossils A and C, with a gap between them
A ___ C
and the gap is filled
A B C
that now there are two gaps to be filled
A ___ B ___ C
The more evidence you get, the more gaps there are.
>
> A requirement of the scientific method is a principle called
>falsification. It means the ability to prove a theory wrong. Before a
>theory can be accepted as valid by the scientific community, there must
>be an experiment that can "falsify" the theory if it fails. In most of
>his discussion Darwin presents his material in a way that is not capable
>of falsification, as we shall see in the next chapter when we work our
>way through The Origin. However, Darwin more or less admitted in the
>first two quotations above that if the fossil record really were as it
>appeared in his day, that this would be a fatal blow to his
>theory. Hence, using the standards that Darwin himself gave, evolution
>has been falsified, shown to be invalid.
I've read Popper. Have you? Have you read Origin of Species, or just
what creationists have written about it?
BTW, you forgot to put quotations from Darwin "above."
> Of course, the heart of evolutionary theory is not evolution, but
>religion. Most people believe in evolution so that they can justify to
>themselves their rejection of God. A few simple facts represented by the
"Most people", eh? That's not possible, since most people who believe in
evolution also believe in God--they haven't rejected God at all.
>actual content of the fossil record are not going to be sufficient to
>induce them to change religions. So they cover their weakness with an
>aggressive proclamation that the fossil record provides the primary proof
>for general evolution and let it go at that. It intrigues me that what
>most people count as the greatest evidence FOR general evolution is
>actually one of the strongest arguments AGAINST it.
It intrigues me that ignorant people actually think this is true.
> Let's consider the origin of birds. According to the Bible, God directly
>made the birds as birds, thus there should not be any non-bird ancestors
>in the fossil record leading up to birds. By contrast according to
>general evolutionary theory, we would expect that if reptiles became
>birds that there would be some indication of the path by which the
>transformation took place. In fact the scientific purpose of evolutionary
>theory (as opposed to its religious purpose) should be to tell us what
>this path is. However, all the buckets between reptiles and birds are
>empty. Any proposed path between reptiles and birds is purely imaginary
>and not based on evidence. In fact, some evolutionists believe birds came
>from crocodiles, some from thecodants, and others from dinosaurs. The
>reason for the uncertainty is the complete lack of a fossil trail
>pointing back from the birds to the reptiles. The fossil record
>concerning the origin of birds is consistent with the Biblical account
>and inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
Actually, according to the Bible, bats are birds (in Leviticus), while we
know they are actually mammals.
There is overwhelming evidence of the reptile to bird transition.
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
I predict that you will never address this evidence.
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:47:08 -0700 (MST)
From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
To: Thomas Mollo
Subject: Re: Evolution religion.
Thomas: Please send me only one message at a time from here on out,
rather than three long missives which completely fail to address anything
I've previously sent to you.
And if you're going to ignore everything I say to you, that's just
downright rude. I'd prefer not to converse with you if you're not going
to listen and address the content of what I actually send to you.
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Thomas Mollo wrote:
> For all those people who want proof of Creation, I'll give it to you.
> First off.. evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of
> science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation,
> especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but
> wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since
> there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.
Rubbish. It is tested every time a new fossil is discovered, every time a
new method of genetic testing is discovered or applied, every time any
dating method is discovered or applied, every time a genetic study is
performed in a lab, etc.
> As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the
> essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they
No, they haven't.
> themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that
> they _believe_ it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something
> one "believes." Science is knowledge -- that which can be demonstrated
> and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it
Knowledge is predicated upon belief. You are using the word "belief" in
an odd way. I believe that there is a computer in front of me; this is
also something that I know. I believe it, but my belief is not *merely*
belief, it is justified belief.
> can only be believed. Therefore, evolution is simply another religion.
This is a horrible argument. By this argument, *everything* is "simply
another religion."
> Humanism. So if you believe in evolution, or don't believe in God, you
> have your own religion, so you cannot claim to be "non-religious" because
> you are.
Eh? I think that claiming to be non-religious because one is
non-religious is the best reason to claim to be so.
> Just look at a living creature, like a dog. Imagine the complexity that
> goes on within it, such as, how it remembers, plays, shows affection,
> eats, and reproduces. Now, if that's not enough to make your mind go
> beserk, imagine trying to construct a similar organism using carbon,
> calcium, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. - the animal's basic constituent parts.
>
> All living things are extremely complex. Including simple bacteria. The
> amount of complexity in that organism alone, is enough to make a space
> shuttle look extremely low-tech. But nothing on this earth is more
> complex than the human being. How is it that "mother nature" happened to
What's your measure of complexity?
> make one being completely superior to that of other creatures. Because
> the complexity of a human being is so far more complex than other
> creatures. Each person is filled with trillions of molecules and cells,
> and the human brain is filled with billions of cells forming trillions
> and trillions of connections. A quote from the late biochemist and
> atheist author Dr. Isaac Asimov: ^�In man is a three-pound brain which, as
> far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in
> the universe.^� The exact positioning of the earth from the sun is
> astonishing enough.. a few degrees closer we'd fry, a few degrees farther
> we'd freeze. And we just 'happened' out of nothing, that concept is
> utterly impossible to comprehend. The brain capabilities of even the
> smallest insects are mind-boggling. The tiny speck of a brain found in a
> little ant, butterfly or bee enable them not only to see, smell, taste
> and move, but even to fly with great precision. Butterflies routinely
> navigate enormous distances. Bees and ants carry on complex social
> organizations, building projects, and communications. These miniature
> brains put our computers and avionics to shame, in comparison.
>
> Even if nature could have originally built the proteins and enzymes used
> by living things, the job would not have been done. It takes more than
And it certainly could have, since proteinoid microspheres which look just
like cells have been produced in the laboratory again and again, (see the
work of Sidney Fox).
> this to produce life. There is an enormous difference between producing
> building blocks and producing a fully operating and serviced 100-story
> skyscraper from those building blocks. Buildings require builders;
> programs require programmers. The chances are as if taking minerals, such
> as metal, etc, from a junkyard and sending in a tornado to build a
> perfect Stealth Bomber. The chances are rediculous.
Self-replicating molecules have also been created in the laboratory.
> Today, most scientists are convinced that life could never have come
> into being without some form of highly intelligent designer.
Where does the quotation end? And what's your source? Your junkyard
quote does NOT come from Asimov.
OK, I've responded to a lot of what you've said. It's your turn--can you
address any of the evidence I've presented you with?
Please don't open up any new topics of discussion until after I'm
satisfied that you can address something of what I've already asked you
about.
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
[Here Abe Heward began an exchange with Mollo.]
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:37:21 -0700
From: Abraham Heward
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Evolution and Creation
At 03:19 AM 02/12/2000 -0500, you wrote:
I just started reading as soon as the page Mr. Lippard
recommended came up, from the beginning it started out with
calling Creationists stooges, cult members and naive that was
enough for me so I wrote my thoughts of his recommended page
without reading the whole thing. My mistake. As far as Mr.
Lippard's damning arguments ? I don't see it.
Evolution makes no sense at all, it goes against the grain
of rational thinking. Nothing from nothing makes
nothing...That's scientific !! 0 = our current spectacular
universe ??? That's just plain bad science...Really bad !!
What is scientific about the Bible? What's rational about believing it?
In one of your notes to Mr. Lippard you mention falsifiability as a
qualification of the scientific method. What's falsifiable in your
supposedly rational belief in scientific creationism?
I believe in God. I just thought in this forum maybe
someone could show me something new in the evolutionary
world. I was wrong, it's the same ridiculous claims trying
desperately to survive in an age of scientific
enlightenment. But it's days are numbered.
So you are willing to say that the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is
not a ridiculous claim?
I guess I shouldn't assume that you're a Christian, since I don't recall
you explicitly saying that you are. Excuse my assumption.
Given that you have a hard time with the concept of the universe being
uncaused, can you explain to me why you don't have a hard time with the
concept of God being uncaused? I can't see why the second one would be
more believable than the first, since the second one raises more
questions and problems than the first.
Regards,
Abe
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:05:52 -0700 (MST)
From: James J. Lippard <lippard email address>
To: Abraham Heward
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Evolution and Creation
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Abraham Heward wrote:
> At 03:19 AM 02/12/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >I just started reading as soon as the page Mr. Lippard recommended came
> >up, from the beginning it started out with calling Creationists stooges,
> >cult members and naive that was enough for me so I wrote my thoughts of
> >his recommended page without reading the whole thing. My mistake. As far
Which page are you referring to? I don't believe I pointed you to any web
page which calls creationists stooges, cult members, and naive. I know
that is not anything I've written. Please show me where you saw this,
Mr. Mollo.
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
November 1999
Somebody sent out unsolicited email to a long list of addresses which
were scraped from a Secular Web (https://www.infidels.org)
Feedback page. All the addresses were listed in the headers, which led
to a bunch of morons replying to everybody else saying that they wanted
off the list. I sent private email directly to people who were doing
this, explaining that they were actually the ones causing the problem
to continue. A fellow named Sherman posted a similar explanation to the
whole list. This guy replied to Sherman's message--sending it out
to everyone--suggesting that he was the person responsible even though
he was simply a clueful victim trying to solve the problem. Here's
my exchange with this moron. I've included all header information so
you can see that his email came directly from him to me, not via any
intermediary. Either this guy is totally incompetent, malicious and
stupid, or he's got a computer infected with Back Orifice, NetBus, or
a similar Trojan horse and someone wants to cause him to be portrayed
that way. (November 24 update: His employer reports that the Bubble Boy
virus was removed from his machine today.)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:49:44 -0700 (MST)
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: Dan Johnson
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
YOU are the responsible party for this particular message coming to me.
I didn't ask to be on this list just as you didn't. But you just ignored
what Sherman said and sent out yet another message to everybody in the cc
list. Please don't do a "reply to all" if you get any more of these, like
you just did with this message.
There is no "list" for a moderator to remove people from. There are just
individual messages which have many addresses listed in the "To:" and
"cc:" fields. If anybody who receives a copy of one of these replies to
everyone (which is what you just did), then the problem continues.
Get it?
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Dan Johnson wrote:
> Sherman:
>
> Thanks for the condescending message I just got. If you are the responsible
> party for all of this hyper message activity then I'm asking YOU to stop. I
> didn't ask for all this e-mail, I don't want it, I don't appreciate it and
> I'm not interested in wasting my time talking to people who are trying to
> get off a mailing list as desparately as I am.
>
> Somewhere some inconsiderate prick may be laughing because there are a whole
> bunch of people trying to figure out how in the world to get off this list.
>
> I believe the onus of responsibility to stop this is on whoever set this up.
> You could sure do a lot for your personal integrity to just say I did it and
> I'm sorry and I've fixed it. Good luck---whoever it is, you'll feel better
> once you fess up and unwind this or tell US how to unwind it. As it stands
> now we're getting e-mail messages from clear around the world saying ,send a
> message saying unsubscribe, send one saying STOP., don't send messages....
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> >Hey Geniuses, see the list below? That's all our e-mails, hitting reply
> all
> >and then sending mail saying "unsubscribe" doesn't do JACK to get your name
> >off that list. Please stop replying to this list. That's the only way to
> >unsubscribe. You don't post, you don't get mail, simple. Well, not quite,
> >we ALL have to stop posting messages to get off this list, so please stop!
> >If you have something to say to me in particular hit "reply", not "reply
> >all".
> >
> >Sherman
>
>
> >
> >"Did Adam and Eve have belly-buttons?"
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David Ballard
> >To: Frank ; [email protected]
> >
> >Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected]
> ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >lippard email address <lippard email address>; [email protected]
> >; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ;
> [email protected]
> >; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected] ;
> >[email protected] ; [email protected]
> >; [email protected]
> >Date: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:44 AM
> >Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
> >
> >
> >>Please take my name off of this list.
> >>
> >>--- Frank wrote:
> >>> to unsubscribe please reply to this message with the
> >>> word "Unsubscribe" in the subject line.
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> Do You Yahoo!?
> >>> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>__________________________________________________
> >>Do You Yahoo!?
> >>Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: lippard email address
Received: (qmail 11364 invoked from network); 22 Nov 1999 19:44:15 -0000
Received: from mail.viningsparks.com (208.14.127.21)
by leviathan.discord.org with SMTP; 22 Nov 1999 19:44:15 -0000
Received: by mail.viningsparks.com with MERCUR-SMTP/POP3/IMAP4-Server (v3.00.17
AS-0098311) for <lippard email address> at Mon, 22 Nov 99 13:42:42 +-600
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
From: "Dan Johnson"
To: <lippard email address>
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:44:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Reply-To: [email protected]
Thank you Mr. Lippard for YOUR response. Yes you are right that I sent a
reply all to Sherman's last message. Why? Because I am receiving a HUGE
quantity of e mail here at my office completely unsolicited and ALL of this
junk attributed mostly to someone else. I've gotten the same e mail
repeatedly from different sources. In addition, I've received several
different "solutions" via these ridiculous messages as well. So, Mr.
Lippard---I don't know the source of these messages---I just want them
stopped.
I'm glad someone thought this was cute and I hope they are having a huge
laugh about it. I'm sorry to be so harsh Mr. Lippard but you seem to be
suggesting that I have some sort of responsibility to "do my part" and
undertake the "right" solution. Who is Sherman and why is his solution
anymore credible than the kook that said to respond and put
"unsubscribe"....
[original quoted message deleted; it's above -jjl]
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:52:19 -0700 (MST)
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: Dan Johnson
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Dan Johnson wrote:
> Thank you Mr. Lippard for YOUR response. Yes you are right that I sent a
> reply all to Sherman's last message. Why? Because I am receiving a HUGE
> quantity of e mail here at my office completely unsolicited and ALL of this
> junk attributed mostly to someone else. I've gotten the same e mail
You just exacerbated the problem you were complaining about. You sent me
(and everybody else who has been victimized by this) unsolicited email
through your thoughtless and stupid action.
> repeatedly from different sources. In addition, I've received several
> different "solutions" via these ridiculous messages as well. So, Mr.
> Lippard---I don't know the source of these messages---I just want them
> stopped.
If you and everybody else would stop doing "reply to all", it would stop.
Instead, you kept the problem right on going. And you still seem clueless
about it. If everybody who wants them stopped keeps replying to all
recipients complaining that they want it stopped, it will never stop.
> I'm glad someone thought this was cute and I hope they are having a huge
> laugh about it. I'm sorry to be so harsh Mr. Lippard but you seem to be
I don't think it was cute at all, I'm as sick of it as you are. That's
why I asked you to take the profferred advice, so the problem will stop
and not be continued further.
> suggesting that I have some sort of responsibility to "do my part" and
You do have a responsibility to do your part by not adding to the problem.
> undertake the "right" solution. Who is Sherman and why is his solution
> anymore credible than the kook that said to respond and put
> "unsubscribe"....
Sherman is another victim. He happens to be a victim who understands
exactly what the problem is and exactly what will solve it, and so he
shared that information in hopes that people would stop replying to these
messages.
Please don't respond to all recipients on any more of these messages; if I
get another one from you sent to everybody I'll take it up with your
Internet provider.
[Original quoted message deleted; it's above. -jjl]
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: lippard email address
Received: (qmail 15203 invoked from network); 23 Nov 1999 14:13:05 -0000
Received: from mail.viningsparks.com (208.14.127.21)
by leviathan.discord.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 1999 14:13:05 -0000
Received: by mail.viningsparks.com with MERCUR-SMTP/POP3/IMAP4-Server (v3.00.17
AS-0098311) for <lippard email address> at Tue, 23 Nov 99 08:11:31 +-600
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
From: "Dan Johnson"
To: <lippard email address>
Subject: Thanks
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:12:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Reply-To: [email protected]
Mr. Lippard: I don't know if your e-mail address at "discord" equals what
you are trying to "sow" or not. When I reply, I don't hit "reply all" nor do
I believe that all these other folks are hitting "reply all". However as
sure as I'm sitting here this message I'm sending you will come back to me
as an e-mail addressed to me.
Thank you for the advice you "proffered" Mr. Lippard. Best regards at
discord.org. It sounds like you may have reaped some of what you've sown.
Best regards.
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 07:35:46 -0700 (MST)
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard email address>
To: Dan Johnson
Subject: Re: Thanks
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Dan Johnson wrote:
> Mr. Lippard: I don't know if your e-mail address at "discord" equals what
> you are trying to "sow" or not. When I reply, I don't hit "reply all" nor do
> I believe that all these other folks are hitting "reply all". However as
Well, you're not only wrong, you're a lying, since you said in your last
message:
Thank you Mr. Lippard for YOUR response. Yes you are right that I sent a
reply all to Sherman's last message.
And lo and behold, that was the only message from you that appears to have
gone out to everyone on that list of recipients. The above message I
quoted from, you sent directly from me, and nobody saw it except the two
of us. This very message I'm replying to also went directly to me, and it
also hasn't caused further problems. I'm sorry that you are too dim to
understand how to read email headers, and that the cause of this problem
still completely escapes you.
> sure as I'm sitting here this message I'm sending you will come back to me
> as an e-mail addressed to me.
Only in this reply.
> Thank you for the advice you "proffered" Mr. Lippard. Best regards at
> discord.org. It sounds like you may have reaped some of what you've sown.
> Best regards.
Please don't send me any further email. Thanks.
Jim Lippard lippard email address https://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: lippard email address
Received: (qmail 28931 invoked from network); 23 Nov 1999 14:18:07 -0000
Received: from mail.viningsparks.com (208.14.127.21)
by leviathan.discord.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 1999 14:18:07 -0000
Received: by mail.viningsparks.com with MERCUR-SMTP/POP3/IMAP4-Server (v3.00.17
AS-0098311) for <lippard email address> at Tue, 23 Nov 99 08:14:36 +-600
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
From: "Dan Johnson"
To: ,
"Velveteen Rabbit" ,
"David Ballard" ,
"Frank" ,
Cc: ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
<lippard email address>,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe Please tell everyone on the list to use the block
sender function on their browser. Unsubscribe will not work.
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:15:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Reply-To: [email protected]
Do It Anyway
Written By Mother Teresa
~~~
People are often unreasonable, illogical,
and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, People may accuse you
of selfish, ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some
false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank,
people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone
could destroy overnight;
Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness,
they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.
The good you do today,
people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have,
and it may never be enough;
Give the world the best you've got anyway.
You see, in the final analysis,
it is between you and God;
It was never between you and them anyway.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nadine Garwitz
To: Velveteen Rabbit ; David Ballard ;
Frank ; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
lippard email address <lippard email address>; [email protected]
; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ;
[email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;