subject:"\[Vo\]\:List integrity"

OK , Lomax, you are an expert in deception and twist and spin.  I bow to 
your skill and go away.


The entire list can document this time that I am letting Lomax have the last 
word.  I will no longer post unless asked a specific question or insulted 
whether directly or in reference.


Please let this escalating round of insults end.  I'm tired.

One of my new year's resolution is not to engage with Lomax anymore.  Can't 
win with liars?  (I know I know, but you may insult me back one more time 
and I will not respond.  But I will respond to further insults beyond one.)





Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity



At 12:45 AM 12/31/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Herein is the fallacy of your comments.

You claim that the insults are mild, and that I do not have the right to 
respond to mild insults.


Beautiful. My post is quoted below. I did not claim that Jojo did not have 
the right to respond. I don't see that I called the insults mild. Some 
comments that Jojo responded to were mild, one was essentially Fuck you.


  This is the lie you keep on propagating. Whether the insult in mild 
or grave is not for you to decide.


I didn't say mild. But I do have the right to my opinions. Opinions like 
mild or grave are not fact.


  The person that the insult is directed at is the person that has the 
right to decide whether the insult was mild or grave. You have no right 
to claim that I should not be offended because in your eyes, the insult 
is mild. That's bullcrap.


I did not say that Jojo should not be offended.

Heck, in my eyes, calling allah a moon god and calling muhammed a sex 
pervert is a mild insult; yet I do not go around and lie that your 
response to me was improper because I only mildly insulted you.  The 
graveness of the insult is the gravenes of how the recipient have 
percieved it.  The recipient's perception is the only valid basis for 
deciding whether an insult is mild or grave.


By this standard, then, given that many *would* respond to those 
statements as highly offensive, and given that one list member was 
obviously so highly insulted by Jojo's comments that he responded with 
fuck you, Jojo has just condemned himself as having issued grave insults 
without grave provocation. Jojo's comment in that case was actually 
mild -- my opinion --, by comparison with others, but it had an effect 
that could have been predicted.


All my insults have always been a response to an insult, whether personal, 
as in F*** yourself or general as in the Bible is a fairy tale or The 
Bible is written by illiterate goat herders.  Both statements are false, 
and insulting whether they are personal or general.   For the same reason 
why you feel that I have insulted you by calling muhammed a sex pervert.


No, you did not insult me by saying that. You insulted friends of mine, 
and you insulted me by calling me a liar when I described what you had 
done *accurately,* often with links, and by dismissing the product of my 
sincere research as lies, without actually pointing out *one lie,* and 
totally disregarding evidence.


You seem to think that my vigorous response to an insult is unwarranted 
because the initial insults are mild.


Seem is the operative word here. It seems so to Jojo. I don't think 
Jojo's response was unwarranted, but I'll say right now that it was 
insane, it was excessive for Vortex, which is a *social judgment.*


 That is not for you to decide my friend.  You have no right to dictate 
the level of response I give out.


That's correct. Jojo decides, and Jojo is responsible for what Jojo does, 
and cannot shift responsibility to others because he perceives them as 
insulting him.


  But I can assure you, I take great pains in deciding the level of 
nastiness I give back.  I take considerable consideration that it is 
always calibrated to the level of nastiness directed my way.



Jojo


From this mail, as is common here, the judgment is deranged. Insults have 
been perceived when there was none. Jojo fantastizes about what has been 
said about him. When the truth is written, he *reads contempt into it.* 
That reveals how he actually thinks about himself. A turd, he called 
himself in several posts.


It's all made up. He is not a turd. Satan tells him he is, and he fights 
with Satan, something that Jesus advised against. He projects this war all 
over us.



- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro 
on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative 
energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a 
problem appeared.


Ultimately, this study leads

RE: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-31 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

I went digging through my Junk eMail folder to find what I was sure would be
a response from Mr.Jaro.

 

Mr. Jaro replied:

 

 And the provocations and insults continue.  

 

 Since you are clearly incapable of conprehending simple English

 prose.  I will spell it out for you.  I drank a total of about 5

 bottles of beer and I drank all of it before I was 20 years old. 

 I haven't touched alcohol since then to the present.

 

 Jeepers, I thought I was clear.  No wonder, we have a lot of

 conflict here.  People's comprehension skills are just lacking.

 

Indeed, I'm a flawed individual, Jojo. Nobodies' perfect... certainly not
me. Thank god for that.

 

So, you don't drink. Rigidly so.

It strikes me that something very powerful about the effects of alcohol.
more precisely the effects of alcoholism, must have made a huge impression
on you. Why have you deliberately chosen not to touch a drop of alcohol
since you were 20 years old? Did you personally witness the destructive
power of alcoholism in some of the immediate care givers who were supposed
to have been raising you?

 

What happened? What did you do? More to the point, what did they do to you?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-31 Thread de Bivort Lawrence

That a statement is endlessly repeated does not make it true.

I posted at length on the family practices of the Arabian peninsula, as they 
pertained to Christian, Jewish, and pantheistic communities, and to the 
pre-revelatory emergence of Islam, which limited some of the practices that 
many people today criticize.

But Jojo seems not to have seen this posting, though he did say he would 
respond to it (and this I hope from his own knowledge rather than 
assertian-based pseudo-sources), for he repeats assertions that are shown in 
the posting to be flat-out incorrect.


On Dec 31, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
 At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
 
 Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone.  The same
 corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old
 little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it.
 No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.
 
 
 BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. What is
 obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and over.
 Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued to
 emphasize it.
 
 
 Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse.
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
 
 Harry

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-31 Thread Harry Veeder

Sorry I am confused.
What is considered false here?

A nine year old is barely out diapers

or

that muslims do not disapprove of sexual relations with a nine year old?



Harry


On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM, de Bivort Lawrence
ldebiv...@gmail.com wrote:
 That a statement is endlessly repeated does not make it true.

 I posted at length on the family practices of the Arabian peninsula, as they 
 pertained to Christian, Jewish, and pantheistic communities, and to the 
 pre-revelatory emergence of Islam, which limited some of the practices that 
 many people today criticize.

 But Jojo seems not to have seen this posting, though he did say he would 
 respond to it (and this I hope from his own knowledge rather than 
 assertian-based pseudo-sources), for he repeats assertions that are shown in 
 the posting to be flat-out incorrect.


 On Dec 31, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
 At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone.  The same
 corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old
 little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it.
 No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.


 BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. What is
 obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and over.
 Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued to
 emphasize it.


 Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-31 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

Below, Jojo promised to allow me the last word. This is it. It 
really doesn't matter, though, because I'm done. anyway I already 
shut down response in other threads. There are issues raised in these 
exchanges that can be of value, but they are also basically off-topic.


The relevance I could assert is that they reveal a certain type of 
thinking that is not all that uncommon, it is merely extremely 
visible with Jojo. Jojo is demonstrating a hazard that we are all 
subject to. To avoid it requires care and a willingness to self-examine.


At 03:46 AM 12/31/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
OK , Lomax, you are an expert in deception and twist and spin.  I 
bow to your skill and go away.


All Jojo would have to do is acknowledge errors or misinterpretations 
on his part. My skill is only hard work. It takes time to research 
the issues raised. It takes time to write something coherent.


And, yes, it takes time, though much less time, to read what's found. 
What trolls do, mostly, is waste time. Is Jojo a troll?


A troll is someone who has, as a motive, insulting or enraging 
others. Motive can be difficult to discern, but, observing Jojo since 
his participation in Vortex started to go south, yes, Jojo intends to 
outrage. This is connected, for him, with responding to insults, 
i.e., to a belief that one must respond in kind to insults, and it 
is also connected to correcting propaganda, except that Jojo has, 
many times, *introduced* highly controversial topics, connected with 
politics and religion, when he either thought he was being insulted, 
or he saw his *beliefs* as being insulted. He introduces them, 
obviously, because he wants to insult back someone, so he picks a 
topic that he thinks will outrage them. And he's not precise, the 
topic is a shotgun blast, with massive collateral damage. That the 
damage *usually* does not appear is only because the readership of 
Vortex is relatively small, and most people just shrug stuff off.


He knew and expected that his use of Vortex to promote his beliefs 
(or correct the beliefs of others) would be disruptive. He referred 
to it many times. But he took nearly every excuse to do it.


I documented how this behavior first showed, previously, 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74768.html


The entire list can document this time that I am letting Lomax have 
the last word.  I will no longer post unless asked a specific 
question or insulted whether directly or in reference.



Please let this escalating round of insults end.  I'm tired.


The exchange will end as he says, if he keeps his word. It's not 
merely a round of insults. That's what *Jojo* does.


Above, I describe what a troll is, and I provide some level of 
argument that could lead to a conclusion of trolling *in effect*. Is 
that an insult? Jojo has consistently claimed that his comments about 
Obama and supporters, about Muhammad and his wife Ayesha, about what 
a billion people worship as God, calling Allah a Moon god, about 
people who are concerned about global warming, about Christians other 
than a narrow group, about people who accept the evolution of 
species, and about many participants on this list, are just the 
truth, and therefore not insults.


I research topics that come up, and report the results. I don't 
research irrelevant topics and then dump the results here. On 
list-irrelevant topics, I don't start discussions here as new 
threads, other than in error or to pull an irrelevant topic out of a 
thread where it's disruptive. I have, many times, asked for errors to 
be corrected. In the absence of that correction, and where what I've 
said isn't obviously mere opinion, where it was based on cited 
evidence, I must assume that what I've written is either true or at 
least reasonable.


Yet Jojo has, many times, called it lies. It's fairly clear that 
his reading comprehension is poor, he doesn't understand what sources 
mean. He's mistaken comment that is not about him at all, as being 
about him, a clear example came up yesterday with Axil. He calls my 
posts lies because he does not like what conclusions may be drawn 
from them, and he assumes conclusions and states them as if they are 
what I've said. Frequently.


But my posts are just a collection of facts and thought. Facts are 
not lies, they are just what's so. If a source conveys an untruth, 
and the source is cited as saying what is untrue, it is not a lie to 
state what is in the source, if it's attributed, because *it's in the source.*


Science begins with this kind of detachment from opinion and 
judgment. I do not always distinguish my thoughts as such; but my 
thoughts are only my reactions. If reported as my reactions, they 
are, again, not lies. They are just my reactions, and, again, that's 
just what's so. My reactions and thoughts are not truth, nor are 
they lies. They are just reactions.


This is so for everyone who is not God.

It's easy for anyone with the training to recognize the

Re: [Vo]:List integrity


LOL LOL LOL 

At least one person is seeing thru the fog of spin and deception put up by 
Lomax.  My job is done and is an unqualified success.



Jojo


PS.  I have proven both statements to be true.  A'isha was indeed a little 
girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS as evidenced by her preoccupation with dolls. 
Which adult woman who is emotionally mature would bring dolls to her 
wedding.   Of course, Lomax spins this saying that this is just like a 
Doll collector bringing dolls to her new home.  But, honest and objective 
people know that that is not the case.  She brought her dolls because she 
was still playing with it.


Second, Lomax have proven it to everybody that muslims do indeed approve of 
sexual relations with a 9 year old.  This is shocking to me cause I truly 
expected Lomax (being a moderate westernized muslim), to oppose and condemn 
muhammed's retrograde action.  Yet, to my shock and amazement, he actually 
defended and tried to justify it.








- Original Message - 
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity



Sorry I am confused.
What is considered false here?

A nine year old is barely out diapers

or

that muslims do not disapprove of sexual relations with a nine year old?



Harry


On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM, de Bivort Lawrence
ldebiv...@gmail.com wrote:

That a statement is endlessly repeated does not make it true.

I posted at length on the family practices of the Arabian peninsula, as 
they pertained to Christian, Jewish, and pantheistic communities, and to 
the pre-revelatory emergence of Islam, which limited some of the 
practices that many people today criticize.


But Jojo seems not to have seen this posting, though he did say he would 
respond to it (and this I hope from his own knowledge rather than 
assertian-based pseudo-sources), for he repeats assertions that are shown 
in the posting to be flat-out incorrect.



On Dec 31, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:


On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:



Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone.  The same
corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 
year old
little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing 
it.

No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.



BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. 
What is
obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and 
over.
Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued 
to

emphasize it.



Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Harry

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

I believe I've responded to it my friend, just not directly to you.  My 
response to you was the same response to Lomax.


My response is repeated below:

Just because the practice of sexual relations with 9 year old little girls 
was common, widespread and accepted in the Arabian peninsula during the time 
of muhammed does not mean that the practice is not CREEPY.  Hindus have 
corrected this same practice and stopped having sexual relations with little 
girls several hundred years prior to muhammed's time.  The Hindus did it, 
and yet a progressive prophet like muhammed did not stop this retrograde 
practice.


My friend, just because your neighbors do it, does not mean you have to do 
it.  Nor that it justify your actions.  Molesting 9 year old little girls is 
just CREEPY, abhorrent and wrong, whatever the time period, or whatever 
everyone else is doing.





Jojo



PS.  Note that this response is not a violation of my promise to stop 
insulting.  Note that this is not an insult, just true facts.  And this is 
also a post directed to me.


I said I promised to stop posting  unless there are insults or question 
directed to me.  This is a question directed to me.








- Original Message - 
From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


That a statement is endlessly repeated does not make it true.

I posted at length on the family practices of the Arabian peninsula, as they 
pertained to Christian, Jewish, and pantheistic communities, and to the 
pre-revelatory emergence of Islam, which limited some of the practices that 
many people today criticize.


But Jojo seems not to have seen this posting, though he did say he would 
respond to it (and this I hope from his own knowledge rather than 
assertian-based pseudo-sources), for he repeats assertions that are shown in 
the posting to be flat-out incorrect.



On Dec 31, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:


On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:



Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone.  The same
corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year 
old
little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing 
it.

No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.



BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. What 
is
obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and 
over.

Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued to
emphasize it.



Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Harry

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

No my friend, no family members or caregivers were alcoholics.  10 for fishing 
effort though.  

No, I did not drink alcohol when I was younger because I was allergic to it.  
Since, I never acquired this bad habit when I was younger, I never thought of 
acquiring it now.  Besides, after my conversion, I now find no redeeming value 
or pleasure in drinking beer.  I hate the taste and it's deleterious effects on 
the body and my health.  Drunkeness is a cause of many sins and problems in 
one's life.  I have even limitted alcohol consumption of those people who work 
for me in my farm.   They don't know it yet, but I have just done them a great 
favor that will benefit them for the rest of their lives.




Jojo

PS.  I consider this insult to be your last word that I said I would allow.  
Please refrain from further insults.

Note, that I have not insulted you in this response, so you do indeed have the 
last insult.







  - Original Message - 
  From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:36 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:List integrity


  I went digging through my Junk eMail folder to find what I was sure would be 
a response from Mr.Jaro.

   

  Mr. Jaro replied:

   

   And the provocations and insults continue.  

   

   Since you are clearly incapable of conprehending simple English

   prose.  I will spell it out for you.  I drank a total of about 5

   bottles of beer and I drank all of it before I was 20 years old. 

   I haven't touched alcohol since then to the present.

   

   Jeepers, I thought I was clear.  No wonder, we have a lot of

   conflict here.  People's comprehension skills are just lacking.

   

  Indeed, I'm a flawed individual, Jojo. Nobodies' perfect... certainly not me. 
Thank god for that.

   

  So, you don't drink. Rigidly so.


  It strikes me that something very powerful about the effects of alcohol. more 
precisely the effects of alcoholism, must have made a huge impression on you. 
Why have you deliberately chosen not to touch a drop of alcohol since you were 
20 years old? Did you personally witness the destructive power of alcoholism in 
some of the immediate care givers who were supposed to have been raising you?

   

  What happened? What did you do? More to the point, what did they do to you?

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  www.OrionWorks.com

  www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

So, muslims approve of marriage with sexual relations to a 9 year old 
menstruating little girl?'''


There are only 2 possible answers: Yes or No.  But let's see how Lomax will 
spin this.





Jojo

PS.  Note that 2 respected and venerated muslim sources (Sahih Muslim and 
Sahih Bukhari) have indicated that A'isha was indeed 9 years old when 
muhammed started having intercourse with her; yet you find Lomax still 
attempting to throw confusion as to Aisha age.  Yet he does not say exactly 
what age he believes A'isha was when muhammed consumated the marriage.


So Lomax, based on your considerable research into this topic, what was 
A'isha age when muhammed started having intercourse with her?








- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity



At 05:31 PM 12/31/2012, Harry Veeder wrote:

Sorry I am confused.
What is considered false here?

A nine year old is barely out diapers

or

that muslims do not disapprove of sexual relations with a nine year old?


Obviously a nine year old is not barely out of diapers.

Muslims disapprove of sexual relations outside of marriage, so the issue 
is marriage (and specifically the consummation of marriage).


Muslims disapprove of the consummation of a marraige with a girl who is 
not sexually mature, specifically mentstruating. It's considered rape, 
because mensturation is a condition for a woman having reached the age of 
consent. This is not the only condition; parents, generally, determine the 
right to consent as well, and girls are not automatically free to make 
their own choices until much later than nine. Marriage requires consent. 
Specifically, the woman must consent.


Muslims disapprove of the marriage of minor children without parental 
consent. (This is the same as U.S. law, generally.)


*Some* Muslims believe that the wife of the Prophet was nine when she was 
married, and assume that the marriage was consummated. But this is 
actually not solidly establshed. Nevertheless, *those Muslims* sometimes, 
from the example, allow 9 years old as a lower limit, but, in fact, the 
limit is sexual maturity -- or whatever standard is established by the 
society, *in addition to parental consent.*


(Technically, the wali consents, who is usually the father, but it can be 
others. A free woman sometimes appoints a wali, I've served.)


*Most* Muslims disapprove of marriage that is not recognised by the 
society in which the parties live.


Because of law in the United States, then, and in that place, Muslims 
disapprove of sexual relations with a nine-year old, no matter what the 
state of sexual maturity or parental consent. Under other conditions, 
their opinion might differ.


All these discussions were about the *limits*.

U.S. law, in some states, if I'm correct, still sets no minimum age for 
marriage, but requires judicial consent below a certain age, sometimes 14.

Re: [Vo]:List integrity


Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his 
qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.


If calling for the proper transparency and objectivity from Darwinian 
Evolutionist is an insult, then yes, I've insulted them  (Notice how Lomax 
clouds the issue.  My problem is with Darwinian Evolutionists, not 
Evolutionary Biogists.  This is the crux of the issue.  Everyone is lulled 
into the belief that evolution automatically mean Darwinian Evolution. It 
does not.  I happen to believe in evolution also.  I believe in 
microevolution because I can see it with my own eyes.  I haven't seen a 
turtle turn into a bird. LOL...)


If telling the truth about muhammed and his practice of dozens of wives and 
concubines is an insult, then yes, I've insulted him.  (It's your problem if 
you find the truth about your prophet offensive.)


Not sure how I could have insulted A'isha.

I have not insulted Abraham and Sarah.  I pointed out that what they did was 
wrong.  Even the Angel that promised Sarah a son corrected Abraham in this 
matter saying that the son you born with Haggar (Sarah's maid) will not 
inherit Abraham's wealth.  He put aside the illegitimate child (Ishmael) in 
favor for the promised child (Isaac).  I understand muslims find this 
offensive because they (modern muslim arabs) predominantly descended from 
the lineage of Ishmael, so they like to claim first born preferencial 
kinship to Abraham, but that is in fact not what the Bible said.  Isaac was 
to be the one in favor over Ishmael.  Ishmael was to be sent away.


If muslims find the truth about their god and prophet an insult, then yes, I 
have insulted muslims by saying their god is the moon god of muhammed's 
tribe and muhammed had dozens of wives and concubines and had a 9 year old 
sex toy.  All of which is the truth.  So, muslims find the truth offensive. 
Interesting.


Which Hawaiian State Registrar are you referring to?  Name please?  Are you 
implying that he or she has seen the original Birth Certificate.  If so, I'd 
be curious if he said that the scanned copy he saw on the Internet is the 
same as the vault copy.  As far as I know, no state official has actually 
said that the BC on the Internet was accurate.  All they said was that they 
have the oriignal copy of Obama's BC under vault.  They never mentioned 
anything about what it contained.  Everyone was too afraid to cross the 
Illuminati.


But other than these people that I have insulted, have I actually insulted 
anyone in Vortex-l first without being insulted first?




Jojo




- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity



At 09:29 PM 12/29/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

... my caustic postings are exclusively directed at people who insult me;

I challenged anyone to sieve thru the archives to see if I have insulted 
people who have not insulted me.


Barack Obama. Evolutionary biologists. Muhammad. His wife, Ayesha. Abraham 
and his wife Sarah. Every Muslim on the planet. (That's, what, one out of 
four people?) I could add, for example, the Hawaiian State Registrar, who 
apparently does not exist in Jojo's eyes, or is lying.


Qutie obviously, Bill has examined the situation in Vortex-L and has seen 
that what I am doing here does not deserve banning like many of these 
trolls would like to advocate.  But if he does ban me due to mob pressure, 
I will still not change my response to obvious bullies.


I doubt very much that Bill has looked at the situation. Bill will not 
respond to mob pressure, I'm sure.


I have not advocated banning Jojo. I've advocated warning him.

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo 
Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on 
alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 
2012, when a problem appeared.


Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He 
imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, 
escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, 
apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on 
topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just 
about anywhere on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and 
he readily drops these into discussions.


At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of 
his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.


I will separately address this in another post.

I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's 
sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the 
contributions of Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that 
he doesn't start insulting, but that others insult him, and he 
responds with insult.


He made comments early on that could indicate a certain 
combativeness, but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 
2012 20:33:31 -0700, in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he 
mentioned that he disagreed on Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, 
source time confirms location in the Philippines, I think.)


However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not 
mention Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to 
some other post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support 
for Jojo, but nobody started debating evolution.


But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an 
extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html


Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It 
was in response to a casual comment by James Bowery:



I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been
among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.


This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, 
it assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand 
this: that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a 
belief, among most people interested in science. Were there some 
necessity to attack Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand 
for Vortex-l -- okay. But there was not. The subject was not 
Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected it 
with *everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! Jojo 
knew that he was changing the subject. He knew that it would be 
highly controversial. He anticipated shots. He implied that he'd 
not be responding.


Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this:

I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and 
it is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian 
Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, 
that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum other than 
Cold Fusion.  I wish people would not use this forum for propaganda 
of their beliefs and then exclude other points of view; just like 
what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion.


However, he then proceeded to challenge Jed Rothwell, who had 
responded civilly to Jojo. However, Jed noted that Jojo was 
ignorant. That kind of comment is typically taken by Jojo as an 
insult. Rothwell promised to let Jojo have the last word. He kept 
that promise for that thread. The discusion of evolution continued a 
little, but other readers started to complain about off-topic.


A thread on a cold fusion topic had been hijacked by the insertion of 
a discussion of Darwinian Evolution, based not, as Jojo has often 
claimed, on propaganda, but a mere reference to Darwin as a man 
with ideas that were not popular in his time, dicta. In the process, 
Jojo set up a *political argument.* Read the post!


Then Jojo started a new thread, specifically on Darwinian Evolution, 
resent Sat, 26 May 2012 02:22:30 -0700.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66051.html

He did not keep to his intention. He continued to poke at Jed. Jed 
had answered, and indicated intention not to respond further, and had 
not responded further. Others had made small comments. Yet Jojo's 
post mentioned Jed five times, in addition to continuing to quote 
Jed's original response. The mentions were not complimentary.


Jed Rothwell did not bite. However, James Bowery did, becoming 
incensed that Jojo apparently would not consider an experiment to 
distinguish between Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution. The 
interchange revealed clearly that this was a *religious* argument.

we know the history; I think the solution is to answer strictly only those
messages of Jojo which refer to LENR and ignoring the toxic ones.
I am very worried why Bill Beaty does not answer
to the complaining colleagues.
Peter

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro
on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative
energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a
problem appeared.

Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He
imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult,
escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs,
apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics
that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere
on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily drops
these into discussions.

At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his
qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.

I will separately address this in another post.

I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense
of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of Jojo
to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start insulting,
but that others insult him, and he responds with insult.

He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, but
that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in
which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on
Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the
Philippines, I think.)

However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention
Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other
post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but
nobody started debating evolution.

But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an
extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. http://www.mail-archive.com/**
vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html

Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was
in response to a casual comment by James Bowery:

I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not
been
among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.

This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it
assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this:
that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, among
most people interested in science. Were there some necessity to attack
Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l -- okay. But
there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected it with
*everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! Jojo knew that
he was changing the subject. He knew that it would be highly controversial.
He anticipated shots. He implied that he'd not be responding.

Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this:

I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it
is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for
so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to
involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people
would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude
other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing
wrt to Hot fusion.

However, he then proceeded to challenge Jed Rothwell, who had responded
civilly to Jojo. However, Jed noted that Jojo was ignorant. That kind of
comment is typically taken by Jojo as an insult. Rothwell promised to let
Jojo have the last word. He kept that promise for that thread. The
discusion of evolution continued a little, but other readers started to
complain about off-topic.

A thread on a cold fusion topic had been hijacked by the insertion of a
discussion of Darwinian Evolution, based not, as Jojo has often claimed,
on propaganda, but a mere reference to Darwin as a man with ideas that
were not popular in his time, dicta. In the process, Jojo set up a
*political argument.* Read the post!

Then Jojo started a new thread, specifically on Darwinian Evolution,
resent Sat, 26 May 2012 02:22:30 -0700.
http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66051.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66051.html

He did not keep to his intention. He continued to poke at Jed. Jed had
answered, and indicated intention not to respond further, and had not
responded

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-30 Thread ChemE Stewart

It takes two to escalate and you guys have used up a lot of bandwidth
one-upping each other.

You are obviously both bright guys, I think your positive focused energies
do much more good when spent solving world energy problems...

On Sunday, December 30, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear Abd,

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:

At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his
qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.

I will separately address this in another post.

Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was
in response to a casual comment by James Bowery:

I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not
been
among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.

Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this:

A thread on a cold fusion topic had been hijacked by the insertion of a
discussion of Darwinian Evolution, based not, as Jojo has often claimed,
on propaganda, but a mere reference to Darwin

--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

 been getting anywhere with efforts to 
challenge this, and it will be, in my opinion, totally moot if 
Congress certifies the second election. Unlike what many seem to 
think, if it *were* discovered that Obama were ineligible, this 
would, by itself, have zero effect on his first term as President, 
because Congress had the responsibility and authority to certify -- 
or reject -- the election, and chose to certify it in 2009.


Congress could act now, by impeaching him, if they felt that 
necessary (what a waste of time! because it would have practically no 
legal effect, all of his actions as President would still stand). The 
birthers will have their last chance, coming up in a few days. If 
Congress ignores the birther claims, or rejects them, it's over. He's 
then the continuing President, even if actual proof were to come out 
that he was born in Kenya, even if his mother were merely a foster 
mother. It's called res judicata. There is a limit to controversy, legally.


On the other hand, if proof comes out that he *lied*, that he 
committed perjury, on a matter like this, Congress could impeach him 
on those grounds, and remove him from office if he is found guilty. 
But he'd still be President until removed from office, and the 
Vice-President would become President. Don't hold your breath!



- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity



At 09:29 PM 12/29/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

... my caustic postings are exclusively directed at people who insult me;

I challenged anyone to sieve thru the archives to see if I have 
insulted people who have not insulted me.


Barack Obama. Evolutionary biologists. Muhammad. His wife, Ayesha. 
Abraham and his wife Sarah. Every Muslim on the planet. (That's, 
what, one out of four people?) I could add, for example, the 
Hawaiian State Registrar, who apparently does not exist in Jojo's 
eyes, or is lying.


Qutie obviously, Bill has examined the situation in Vortex-L and 
has seen that what I am doing here does not deserve banning like 
many of these trolls would like to advocate.  But if he does ban 
me due to mob pressure, I will still not change my response to obvious bullies.


I doubt very much that Bill has looked at the situation. Bill will 
not respond to mob pressure, I'm sure.


I have not advocated banning Jojo. I've advocated warning him.

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-30 Thread leaking pen

Perhaps in that case, Jaro, we would all be served better if you WERE to
start drinking.  I'd start with a good rum and coke, I'd suggest Whaler's
dark rum, one shot, poured into a can of cherry coke, with a couple of ice
cubes. Very relaxing!

Alexander Hollins

(ps, your very declarations against certain religions is an insult to
humanity as a whole.)

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 I haven't insulted anyone for over 24 hours now and I thought that things
 would start to simmer down as people stopped insulting me; and yet out of
 the blue, a fresh insult pops up to stoke new heat on the dying embers of
 the conflict.  SVJ has admitted openly that he does this intentionally to
 provoke a strong reaction from me.  This is the pattern of behavior that is
 the problem here in Vortex-L.  Not me.

 For somebody who's worst drinking was less than 5 bottles of beer spread
 over the first 2 decades of his life; an insinuation that I am an alcoholic
 is a grave insult.  Please refrain from insults.

 Instead of acknowledging that my caustic postings are exclusively directed
 at people who insult me; SVJ comes up with an insult veiled as a crackpot
 theory of my alcoholism.  This is the integrity of this list that has gone
 downhill.  And contrary to some people's assertion, I am NOT the problem.
 I am the solution to this madness.

 I challenged anyone to sieve thru the archives to see if I have insulted
 people who have not insulted me.  A few folks immediately come to mind.
 Have I insulted Axil, David Roberson, Fran Roarty, Jones Beene, Terry
 Blanton, Nigel Dyer, Mark Iverson, etc.  These are some of the most
 intelligent scientific minds in this forum and they know how to behave like
 adults, unlike some self appointed experts and off-topic trolls here.

 So Lomax, SVJ, Rocha, Peter Gluck, Jouni and some thers don't like my
 opinions; as I don't like theirs.  But I never start insulting them.  They
 always start it.  If I have a problem with them, I always direct it to
 personal email as I have done with Peter.  That is the proper way for
 civilized individuals to act.

 Qutie obviously, Bill has examined the situation in Vortex-L and has seen
 that what I am doing here does not deserve banning like many of these
 trolls would like to advocate.  But if he does ban me due to mob pressure,
 I will still not change my response to obvious bullies.



 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 6:13 AM
 *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:List integrity

  From Mr. Lomax:

 ** **

  ... But Jojo's writings here also vary in quality. 

  Sometimes his spelling is atrocious,

  sometimes accurate.

 ** **

 I have been wondering if Mr. Jaro drinks. In fact, for some time now I
 have wondered if Mr. Jaro drinks a lot. It might help explain some of his
 occasionally caustic posting behaviors.  Alcoholism, among other issues.**
 **

 ** **

 It's possible that if one were to sift through the history of Mr. Jaro's
 postings one might begin to discern a distinct 24 hour pattern as to when
 his spelling tends to be accurate and when it becomes less so. Quite
 frankly, it's beyond my desire to care to find out. However there might be
 others on this list that might consider it an interesting challenge.

 ** **

 I'm wondering if Jojo needs an intervention. (Not my department.)

 ** **

 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 www.OrionWorks.com

 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-30 Thread Jed Rothwell

leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

Perhaps in that case, Jaro, we would all be served better if you WERE to
 start drinking.  I'd start with a good rum and coke, I'd suggest Whaler's
 dark rum . . .


Ahem. This recalls a song of my youth:


We never eat fruitcake because it has rum,
And one little bite turns a man to a bum.
Oh can you imagine a greater disgrace,
Then a man in the gutter with crumbs on his face?

Away, away with run by gum, with rum by gum!
Away, away with run by gum -- the song of the Temperance Union.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

Clearly, everyone can see that I started my posting on Vortex-L with clearly 
high hopes.  Then you mentioned that I started insulting.  Did you bother to 
mention why I started insulting.  Did you mention that I started insulting 
people who insulted me first?   If I told you to F*** yourself, is that an 
imagined insult?  You clearly take it as an insult when I call allah a moon 
good, and yet feel that when people call the Bible a fairy tale, that is not 
an insult?


Lomax, my friend, that is why I call you a LIAR.  You take parts of history 
and pick and choose what you want to support your fallacious history.  Even 
now, when things are starting to calm down, you and SVJ continue the cycle 
of insults by continuing this.   That's the reason why I despise you and who 
you are to the core.  You take fallacy and lies to the next level without 
any qualms about it.  You spin and lie and deceive people with your expert 
use of long wordy essays and you find no problem with that.  Of course not, 
why should you; that is who you are.  That is what you are expected to be. 
That is what you are taught to be.  Hence, in you, the corruption of islam 
is seen by everyone.  The same corruption that justifies to the world that 
it is OK to fondle a 9 year old little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just 
because other people are doing it.  No matter how you justify it, that's 
CREEPY.



Jojo


PS, But you win Lomax.  My Christmas break is almost over.  Come January, 
you will be left on your own to continue lying about me again.






- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro 
on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative 
energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a 
problem appeared.


Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He 
imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, 
escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, 
apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics 
that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about 
anywhere on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily 
drops these into discussions.


At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his 
qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.


I will separately address this in another post.

I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense 
of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of 
Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start 
insulting, but that others insult him, and he responds with insult.


He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, but 
that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in 
which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on 
Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the 
Philippines, I think.)


However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention 
Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other 
post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but 
nobody started debating evolution.


But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an 
extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html


Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was 
in response to a casual comment by James Bowery:


I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not 
been

among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.


This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it 
assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this: 
that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, 
among most people interested in science. Were there some necessity to 
attack Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l --  
okay. But there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected it with 
*everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! Jojo knew that 
he was changing the subject. He knew that it would be highly 
controversial. He anticipated shots. He implied that he'd not be 
responding.


Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this:

I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is 
the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for 
so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want

RE: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-30 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Since I openly speculated about Mr. Jaro's habits I suspected he would
respond. He did.

 

I see that Jojo recently stated:

 

 For somebody who's worst drinking was less than 5 bottles of

 beer spread over the first 2 decades of his life; an insinuation

 that I am an alcoholic is a grave insult.  Please refrain

 from insults.

 

 

Jojo,

 

I apologize to you personally (and as such to everyone on the vortex-l list
within hearing range) if my speculations that you might be an alcoholic are
baseless. You seem to be implying that you aren't. You specifically stated
that you have had less than 5 bottles of beer spread over the first two
decades of your life. 

 

First two decades of your life, you say?

 

Are you really that young? If so, that would help explain a lot of your
posting behavior. However... somehow I really don't think you're that young.


 

Have you heard of the term: dry drunk?

 

And then, there was something else you stated:

 

 I am NOT the problem.  I am the solution to this madness.

 

Really? That might also help explain your posting behavior... far more than
baseless speculation on my part that you might be an alcoholic. Jeez! No
wonder you 're so defensive and upset! Nothing seems to be going your way!
I'd sure be upset too if I had gotten it into my head that I was the
solution to this madness.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-30 Thread leaking pen

You know that Mary was between probably 11 to 13 when she gave birth to
Jesus, right? Menses was considered adulthood, and children were
considered adults when they reached puberty, and treated that way, with all
the rights and responsibilities.

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

Clearly, everyone can see that I started my posting on Vortex-L with
clearly high hopes. Then you mentioned that I started insulting. Did you
bother to mention why I started insulting. Did you mention that I started
insulting people who insulted me first? If I told you to F*** yourself,
is that an imagined insult? You clearly take it as an insult when I call
allah a moon good, and yet feel that when people call the Bible a fairy
tale, that is not an insult?

Lomax, my friend, that is why I call you a LIAR. You take parts of
history and pick and choose what you want to support your fallacious
history. Even now, when things are starting to calm down, you and SVJ
continue the cycle of insults by continuing this. That's the reason why I
despise you and who you are to the core. You take fallacy and lies to the
next level without any qualms about it. You spin and lie and deceive
people with your expert use of long wordy essays and you find no problem
with that. Of course not, why should you; that is who you are. That is
what you are expected to be. That is what you are taught to be. Hence, in
you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone. The same corruption that
justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old little girl
BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it. No matter
how you justify it, that's CREEPY.

Jojo

PS, But you win Lomax. My Christmas break is almost over. Come January,
you will be left on your own to continue lying about me again.

- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity

At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his
qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.

I will separately address this in another post.

He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness,
but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700,
in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on
Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the
Philippines, I think.)

Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was
in response to a casual comment by James Bowery:

I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not
been
among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

How do you know that? Mary's Age?

Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: leaking pen 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity

  You know that Mary was between probably 11 to 13 when she gave birth to 
Jesus, right?  Menses was considered adulthood, and children were considered 
adults when they reached puberty, and treated that way, with all the rights and 
responsibilities. 

  On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

Clearly, everyone can see that I started my posting on Vortex-L with 
clearly high hopes.  Then you mentioned that I started insulting.  Did you 
bother to mention why I started insulting.  Did you mention that I started 
insulting people who insulted me first?   If I told you to F*** yourself, is 
that an imagined insult?  You clearly take it as an insult when I call allah a 
moon good, and yet feel that when people call the Bible a fairy tale, that is 
not an insult?

Lomax, my friend, that is why I call you a LIAR.  You take parts of history 
and pick and choose what you want to support your fallacious history.  Even 
now, when things are starting to calm down, you and SVJ continue the cycle of 
insults by continuing this.   That's the reason why I despise you and who you 
are to the core.  You take fallacy and lies to the next level without any 
qualms about it.  You spin and lie and deceive people with your expert use of 
long wordy essays and you find no problem with that.  Of course not, why should 
you; that is who you are.  That is what you are expected to be. That is what 
you are taught to be.  Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by 
everyone.  The same corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to 
fondle a 9 year old little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other 
people are doing it.  No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.

Jojo

PS, But you win Lomax.  My Christmas break is almost over.  Come January, 
you will be left on your own to continue lying about me again.

- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity

  I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro 
on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative energy 
research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a problem appeared.

  Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He 
imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, escalating. 
At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, apparently not 
suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics that are likely to be 
inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except 
for certain odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions.

  At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his 
qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.

  I will separately address this in another post.

  I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense 
of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of Jojo to 
this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start insulting, but 
that others insult him, and he responds with insult.

  He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, 
but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in 
which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on 
Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the 
Philippines, I think.)

  However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention 
Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other post. 
Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but nobody 
started debating evolution.

  But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an 
extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html

  Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was 
in response to a casual comment by James Bowery:

I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not 
been
among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.

  This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it 
assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this: that 
importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, among most 
people interested in science. Were there some necessity to attack Darwinian 
evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

 barely scratched 
the surface, I only reviewed the contributions through the first 
brouhaha -- is cherry-picked or in error, I invite correction *on 
specifics*, or supplying what is missing. There are a few people who 
have supported Jojo in certain ways, and I'd suggest that they either 
assist him by correcting my errors -- and I *do* make mistakes -- or 
by informing their friend, on or off-list, that he's gone off the deep end.





Jojo


PS, But you win Lomax.  My Christmas break is almost over.  Come 
January, you will be left on your own to continue lying about me again.






- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


I this post I review the early history of controversy involving 
Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings 
on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until 
May, 2012, when a problem appeared.


Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. 
He imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of 
insult, escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong 
beliefs, apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine 
discussion, on topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought 
here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except for certain 
odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions.


At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of 
his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.


I will separately address this in another post.

I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's 
sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the 
contributions of Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that 
he doesn't start insulting, but that others insult him, and he 
responds with insult.


He made comments early on that could indicate a certain 
combativeness, but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 
Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he 
mentioned that he disagreed on Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, 
source time confirms location in the Philippines, I think.)


However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not 
mention Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference 
to some other post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some 
support for Jojo, but nobody started debating evolution.


But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an 
extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html


Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. 
It was in response to a casual comment by James Bowery:



I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been
among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.


This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. 
Yes, it assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to 
understand this: that importance is a routinely accepted fact, 
tantamount to a belief, among most people interested in science. 
Were there some necessity to attack Darwinian evolution -- 
difficult to understand for Vortex-l --

okay. But there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected 
it with *everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! 
Jojo knew that he was changing the subject. He knew that it would 
be highly controversial. He anticipated shots. He implied that 
he'd not be responding.


Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this:

I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; 
and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about 
Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum 
so much, that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum 
other than Cold Fusion.  I wish people would not use this forum 
for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of 
view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion.


However, he then proceeded to challenge Jed Rothwell, who had 
responded civilly to Jojo. However, Jed noted that Jojo was 
ignorant. That kind of comment is typically taken by Jojo as an 
insult. Rothwell promised to let Jojo have the last word. He kept 
that promise for that thread. The discusion of evolution continued 
a little, but other readers started to complain about off-topic.


A thread on a cold fusion topic had been hijacked by the insertion 
of a discussion of Darwinian Evolution, based not, as Jojo has 
often claimed, on propaganda, but a mere reference to Darwin as a 
man with ideas that were not popular in his time, dicta. In the 
process, Jojo set up a *political argument.* Read the post

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

And the provocations and insults continue.  

Since you are clearly incapable of conprehending simple English prose.  I will 
spell it out for you.  I drank a total of about 5 bottles of beer and I drank 
all of it before I was 20 years old.  I haven't touched alcohol since then to 
the present.

Jeepers, I thought I was clear.  No wonder, we have a lot of conflict here.  
People's comprehension skills are just lacking.




Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:49 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:List integrity


  Since I openly speculated about Mr. Jaro's habits I suspected he would 
respond. He did.

   

  I see that Jojo recently stated:

   

   For somebody who's worst drinking was less than 5 bottles of

   beer spread over the first 2 decades of his life; an insinuation

   that I am an alcoholic is a grave insult.  Please refrain

   from insults.

   

   

  Jojo,

   

  I apologize to you personally (and as such to everyone on the vortex-l list 
within hearing range) if my speculations that you might be an alcoholic are 
baseless. You seem to be implying that you aren't. You specifically stated that 
you have had less than 5 bottles of beer spread over the first two decades of 
your life. 

   

  First two decades of your life, you say?

   

  Are you really that young? If so, that would help explain a lot of your 
posting behavior. However... somehow I really don't think you're that young. 

   

  Have you heard of the term: dry drunk?

   

  And then, there was something else you stated:

   

   I am NOT the problem.  I am the solution to this madness.

   

  Really? That might also help explain your posting behavior... far more than 
baseless speculation on my part that you might be an alcoholic. Jeez! No wonder 
you 're so defensive and upset! Nothing seems to be going your way! I'd sure be 
upset too if I had gotten it into my head that I was the solution to this 
madness.

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  www.OrionWorks.com

  www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:List integrity


Herein is the fallacy of your comments.

You claim that the insults are mild, and that I do not have the right to 
respond to mild insults.  This is the lie you keep on propagating. 
Whether the insult in mild or grave is not for you to decide.  The 
person that the insult is directed at is the person that has the right to 
decide whether the insult was mild or grave. You have no right to claim that 
I should not be offended because in your eyes, the insult is mild. 
That's bullcrap.


Heck, in my eyes, calling allah a moon god and calling muhammed a sex 
pervert is a mild insult; yet I do not go around and lie that your 
response to me was improper because I only mildly insulted you.  The 
graveness of the insult is the gravenes of how the recipient have percieved 
it.  The recipient's perception is the only valid basis for deciding whether 
an insult is mild or grave.


All my insults have always been a response to an insult, whether personal, 
as in F*** yourself or general as in the Bible is a fairy tale or The 
Bible is written by illiterate goat herders.  Both statements are false, 
and insulting whether they are personal or general.   For the same reason 
why you feel that I have insulted you by calling muhammed a sex pervert.


You seem to think that my vigorous response to an insult is unwarranted 
because the initial insults are mild.  That is not for you to decide my 
friend.  You have no right to dictate the level of response I give out.  But 
I can assure you, I take great pains in deciding the level of nastiness I 
give back.  I take considerable consideration that it is always calibrated 
to the level of nastiness directed my way.




Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro 
on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative 
energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a 
problem appeared.


Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He 
imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, 
escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, 
apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics 
that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about 
anywhere on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily 
drops these into discussions.


At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his 
qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.


I will separately address this in another post.

I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense 
of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of 
Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start 
insulting, but that others insult him, and he responds with insult.


He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, but 
that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in 
which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on 
Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the 
Philippines, I think.)


However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention 
Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other 
post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but 
nobody started debating evolution.


But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an 
extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html


Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was 
in response to a casual comment by James Bowery:


I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not 
been

among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.


This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it 
assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this: 
that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, 
among most people interested in science. Were there some necessity to 
attack Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l --  
okay. But there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected it with 
*everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! Jojo knew that 
he was changing the subject. He knew that it would be highly 
controversial. He anticipated shots. He implied that he'd not be 
responding.


Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this:

I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is 
the reason why I

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

You can not use your own speculation to support your argument.  You speculate 
that that was true and use that to support your assertion.  Faulty logic.

Find me evidence that that is true.

It's common for Americans to imbibe Beer and Alcohol on a daily basis, but I 
don't and many people don't.  That is the fallacy of your argument.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: leaking pen 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


  because that was what was common at the time!  Anything different would have 
been commented on as unusual. 


  On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

How do you know that? Mary's Age?



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: leaking pen 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


  You know that Mary was between probably 11 to 13 when she gave birth to 
Jesus, right?  Menses was considered adulthood, and children were considered 
adults when they reached puberty, and treated that way, with all the rights and 
responsibilities. 


  On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

Clearly, everyone can see that I started my posting on Vortex-L with 
clearly high hopes.  Then you mentioned that I started insulting.  Did you 
bother to mention why I started insulting.  Did you mention that I started 
insulting people who insulted me first?   If I told you to F*** yourself, is 
that an imagined insult?  You clearly take it as an insult when I call allah a 
moon good, and yet feel that when people call the Bible a fairy tale, that is 
not an insult?

Lomax, my friend, that is why I call you a LIAR.  You take parts of 
history and pick and choose what you want to support your fallacious history.  
Even now, when things are starting to calm down, you and SVJ continue the cycle 
of insults by continuing this.   That's the reason why I despise you and who 
you are to the core.  You take fallacy and lies to the next level without any 
qualms about it.  You spin and lie and deceive people with your expert use of 
long wordy essays and you find no problem with that.  Of course not, why should 
you; that is who you are.  That is what you are expected to be. That is what 
you are taught to be.  Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by 
everyone.  The same corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to 
fondle a 9 year old little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other 
people are doing it.  No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.


Jojo


PS, But you win Lomax.  My Christmas break is almost over.  Come 
January, you will be left on your own to continue lying about me again. 






- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM 

Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity



  I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo 
Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative 
energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a problem 
appeared.

  Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He 
imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, escalating. 
At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, apparently not 
suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics that are likely to be 
inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except 
for certain odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions.

  At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of 
his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.


  I will separately address this in another post.

  I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's 
sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of 
Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start 
insulting, but that others insult him, and he responds with insult.

  He made comments early on that could indicate a certain 
combativeness, but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 
20:33:31 -0700, in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he 
disagreed on Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location 
in the Philippines, I think.)

  However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not 
mention Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other 
post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but nobody 
started debating evolution.

  But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14

Re: [Vo]:List integrity


At 12:45 AM 12/31/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Herein is the fallacy of your comments.

You claim that the insults are mild, and that I do not have the 
right to respond to mild insults.


Beautiful. My post is quoted below. I did not claim that Jojo did not 
have the right to respond. I don't see that I called the insults 
mild. Some comments that Jojo responded to were mild, one was 
essentially Fuck you.


  This is the lie you keep on propagating. Whether the insult in 
mild or grave is not for you to decide.


I didn't say mild. But I do have the right to my opinions. Opinions 
like mild or grave are not fact.


  The person that the insult is directed at is the person that has 
the right to decide whether the insult was mild or grave. You have 
no right to claim that I should not be offended because in your 
eyes, the insult is mild. That's bullcrap.


I did not say that Jojo should not be offended.

Heck, in my eyes, calling allah a moon god and calling muhammed a 
sex pervert is a mild insult; yet I do not go around and lie that 
your response to me was improper because I only mildly insulted 
you.  The graveness of the insult is the gravenes of how the 
recipient have percieved it.  The recipient's perception is the only 
valid basis for deciding whether an insult is mild or grave.


By this standard, then, given that many *would* respond to those 
statements as highly offensive, and given that one list member was 
obviously so highly insulted by Jojo's comments that he responded 
with fuck you, Jojo has just condemned himself as having issued 
grave insults without grave provocation. Jojo's comment in that case 
was actually mild -- my opinion --, by comparison with others, but it 
had an effect that could have been predicted.


All my insults have always been a response to an insult, whether 
personal, as in F*** yourself or general as in the Bible is a 
fairy tale or The Bible is written by illiterate goat 
herders.  Both statements are false, and insulting whether they are 
personal or general.   For the same reason why you feel that I have 
insulted you by calling muhammed a sex pervert.


No, you did not insult me by saying that. You insulted friends of 
mine, and you insulted me by calling me a liar when I described what 
you had done *accurately,* often with links, and by dismissing the 
product of my sincere research as lies, without actually pointing 
out *one lie,* and totally disregarding evidence.


You seem to think that my vigorous response to an insult is 
unwarranted because the initial insults are mild.


Seem is the operative word here. It seems so to Jojo. I don't think 
Jojo's response was unwarranted, but I'll say right now that it was 
insane, it was excessive for Vortex, which is a *social judgment.*


 That is not for you to decide my friend.  You have no right to 
dictate the level of response I give out.


That's correct. Jojo decides, and Jojo is responsible for what Jojo 
does, and cannot shift responsibility to others because he perceives 
them as insulting him.


  But I can assure you, I take great pains in deciding the level of 
nastiness I give back.  I take considerable consideration that it 
is always calibrated to the level of nastiness directed my way.



Jojo


From this mail, as is common here, the judgment is deranged. Insults 
have been perceived when there was none. Jojo fantastizes about what 
has been said about him. When the truth is written, he *reads 
contempt into it.* That reveals how he actually thinks about himself. 
A turd, he called himself in several posts.


It's all made up. He is not a turd. Satan tells him he is, and he 
fights with Satan, something that Jesus advised against. He projects 
this war all over us.




- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


I this post I review the early history of controversy involving 
Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings 
on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until 
May, 2012, when a problem appeared.


Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. 
He imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of 
insult, escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong 
beliefs, apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine 
discussion, on topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought 
here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except for certain 
odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions.


At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, I stand corrected.

If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of 
his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.


I will separately address this in another post.

I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's 
sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-30 Thread Harry Veeder

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
 At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone.  The same
 corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old
 little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it.
 No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.


 BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. What is
 obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and over.
 Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued to
 emphasize it.


Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Harry

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-29 Thread Horace Heffner



On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:



These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill,  
but mostly the former.




My two cents worth:

The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls.

I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced  
threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond  
to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should  
be banned also.


Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll?

It is clearly an option to automatically trash emails from pesky  
people, or, if you are afraid you'll miss something to simply read  
you want, but - to respond to a troll shows an obvious lack of  
integrity, a lack of an appropriate level concern for what you are  
doing to other members of the list.


One of the greatest things about this list, and the internet in  
general, is the freedom of speech. List moderation should only be  
used in extreme circumstances. A little self control by list members  
is often enough to discourage trolls.  I think Bill Beaty's laissez  
faire attitude with regard to moderation is a good and even necessary  
approach for this list, which encourages free discussion of science  
anomalies.


If a roll tries to bully, control what you post, the best response is  
to simply go ahead and post what you want, and ignore any responses  
from the troll or bully. If numerous members of the list object, then  
that is another matter.


If you feel action is warranted by an ISP, such as Microsoft, Google,  
etc. then a few simple googles will show you sites to directly report  
abuse to ISPs.


Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down  
hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up.  This is a  
weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages  
behavior unbecoming a scientific list.  There are many services that  
will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is  
ultimately an ineffective ruse.  Sometimes merely googleing an email  
address will yield the identity. For example, google  
(jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields:


http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? 
ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124


http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd

which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in  
Atlanta.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
- - - - -

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000124
Posted by Joseph Hao (Member # 3289) on June 14, 2004, 02:42 PM:

Any folks out there studying for CCIE Voice Lab in Atlanta?
[snip]

Joseph
CCIE #9273
jth...@hotmail.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
- - - - -


In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not  
respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw,  
and warn off victims. To bullies the response should be to do what  
you want and ignore the bully.  The response to truly disruptive and  
egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by  
ISPs.  The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps  
to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to  
eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^)


That's my 2 cents worth, from a member of the list for over 15 years.

Resuming lurk mode.

Best Regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

I couldn't agree more.  I even tried to call myself a turd to try to bring 
home the point that it is not worth the effort to insult me.  But still, 
Lomax and others see it fit to play with the turd.  LOL  Heck, I want 
nothing more than for people to ignore me if they disagree, but I have as 
much right to express an opinion without insults.  And as a matter of fact, 
I was discussing calmly with civility before Lomax started insulting again. 
That is a fact that you can verify.



As for Joseph Hao,  he is a good friend.  We used to work together on some 
free energy projects most notably on some HHO and Veg Oil/ Biodiesel 
projects and we were co-workers for a while.  We went to graduate school 
together in San Diego State (MS Computer Science) a long time ago.  This was 
a common email we used on all our free energy projects correspondence.  He 
was the one who first subscribed this account to Vortex-LI have been 
exclusively using this email since I left the country.   Yes, he is in 
Atlanta and he is in fact a CCIE RS and is studying for his CCIE Voice.




Jojo




.



- Original Message - 
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced  threads 
lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond  to the 
troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should  be banned 
also.


Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll?








Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down  hill 
since a bunch of fake email names have showed up.  This is a  weak shield 
for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages  behavior unbecoming 
a scientific list.  There are many services that  will provide reverse 
lookup information for email addresses, so it is  ultimately an 
ineffective ruse.  Sometimes merely googleing an email  address will yield 
the identity. For example, google  (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields:


http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? 
ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124


http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd

which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in 
Atlanta.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - 
 - - -

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000124
Posted by Joseph Hao (Member # 3289) on June 14, 2004, 02:42 PM:

Any folks out there studying for CCIE Voice Lab in Atlanta?
[snip]

Joseph
CCIE #9273
jth...@hotmail.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - 
 - - -


In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not 
respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw,  and 
warn off victims. To bullies the response should be to do what  you want 
and ignore the bully.  The response to truly disruptive and  egregious or 
unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by  ISPs.  The 
response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps  to expose the 
identity - which has worked well here in the past to  eliminate nonsense 
from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^)


That's my 2 cents worth, from a member of the list for over 15 years.

Resuming lurk mode.

Best Regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-29 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Good to see you're on-line, Horace... even if 'cloaked'.

Just wanted to support your wise words about why the recent exchange got out
of control... some people just can't keep their fingers off the keyboard.

To all Vorts,
Personal attacks are specifically forbidden on this forum, and I would hope
that one has the conscious self-awareness and restraint to reread your
posting before hitting 'Send', and *PURGE* it of all forms of name-calling
and veiled derogatory implications... especially when it comes to belief
systems. That's not too much to ask of rational human beings, is it?

-Mark Iverson

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


 These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill, 
 but mostly the former.


My two cents worth:

The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls.

I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced  
threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond  
to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should  
be banned also.

Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll?

It is clearly an option to automatically trash emails from pesky  
people, or, if you are afraid you'll miss something to simply read  
you want, but - to respond to a troll shows an obvious lack of  
integrity, a lack of an appropriate level concern for what you are  
doing to other members of the list.

One of the greatest things about this list, and the internet in  
general, is the freedom of speech. List moderation should only be  
used in extreme circumstances. A little self control by list members  
is often enough to discourage trolls.  I think Bill Beaty's laissez  
faire attitude with regard to moderation is a good and even necessary  
approach for this list, which encourages free discussion of science  
anomalies.

If a roll tries to bully, control what you post, the best response is  
to simply go ahead and post what you want, and ignore any responses  
from the troll or bully. If numerous members of the list object, then  
that is another matter.

If you feel action is warranted by an ISP, such as Microsoft, Google,  
etc. then a few simple googles will show you sites to directly report  
abuse to ISPs.

Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down  
hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up.  This is a  
weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages  
behavior unbecoming a scientific list.  There are many services that  
will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is  
ultimately an ineffective ruse.  Sometimes merely googleing an email  
address will yield the identity. For example, google  
(jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields:

http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? 
ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124

http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd

which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in  
Atlanta.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
- - - - -
To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000124
Posted by Joseph Hao (Member # 3289) on June 14, 2004, 02:42 PM:

Any folks out there studying for CCIE Voice Lab in Atlanta?
[snip]

Joseph
CCIE #9273
jth...@hotmail.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
- - - - -

In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not  
respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw,  
and warn off victims. To bullies the response should be to do what  
you want and ignore the bully.  The response to truly disruptive and  
egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by  
ISPs.  The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps  
to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to  
eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^)

That's my 2 cents worth, from a member of the list for over 15 years.

Resuming lurk mode.

Best Regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-29 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 05:06 AM 12/29/2012, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill,
but mostly the former.


My two cents worth:

The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls.


The positions are that of moderator and owner. Moderators and owners 
have different reponsibilities from list members, and one of the 
duties of a moderator is to *act* with respect to trolls. For a 
moderator to engage a troll in debate is a Bad Idea. Rather, a 
moderator will do one of several things: warn the troll, on or 
off-list, put the troll on moderation, or ban the troll. If others 
complain about an alleged troll, a responsible moderator will accept 
or reject the complaints, not just ignore them.


This list apparently has an owner/moderator whe is absent for 
extended periods, and who has then, seeing a problem, acted without 
warning. I don't think that is best practice, but *it's his list.*



I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced
threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond
to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should
be banned also.


This is a common opinion among kibbitzers. Just ignore it. I 
remember such opinions about spam. What's the harm, just delete it! 
It's naive. There is harm from trolling. Trolls become expert at 
angering and enraging. People who do not care to engage with trolls 
may well use killfiles, or just ignore messages. But that does 
nothing to stop the trolling, and sometimes a troll will continue 
even if nobody responds, and, sooner or later, someone bites. Someone 
new thinks there is a real question or issue to be addressed.


The list archive is public and googleable. A user may have no 
intention and not care what people on the list think, and may be 
playing to Google. Lists *do* lose members because of trolls. Blaming 
those who respond is short-sighted.


It really is up to the list moderator, and, supposedly, this is a 
moderated list. If responding to a troll is considered the problem, 
the moderator can warn. Though it would be a bit weird. Trollface 
can post, but you may not respond.


Think it through, Horace.


Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll?


Neither one is necessarily a fool. Horace, your thinking *sucks.* 
Trolls have a purpose (or it wouldn't be trolling). If the troll 
gets people upset, whether they are upset directly or from others 
responding, *that's the purpose.*



[...] Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down
hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up.  This is a
weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages
behavior unbecoming a scientific list.  There are many services that
will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is
ultimately an ineffective ruse.  Sometimes merely googleing an email
address will yield the identity. For example, google
(jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields:

http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124

http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd

which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in
Atlanta.
[...]

In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not
respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw,
and warn off victims.


Wait! Is Jojo a troll or a fraud? If he's a troll, you just violated 
your own should. If he's a fraud -- and he does promote fraudulent 
memes -- your suggestion does require response.



 To bullies the response should be to do what
you want and ignore the bully.  The response to truly disruptive and
egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by
ISPs.  The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps
to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to
eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^)


Is it a fake identity?

Jojo responded to this mail.

As for Joseph Hao,  he is a good friend.  We used to work together 
on some free energy projects most notably on some HHO and Veg Oil/ 
Biodiesel projects and we were co-workers for a while.  We went to 
graduate school together in San Diego State (MS Computer Science) a 
long time ago.  This was a common email we used on all our free 
energy projects correspondence.  He was the one who first subscribed 
this account to Vortex-LI have been exclusively using this email 
since I left the country.   Yes, he is in Atlanta and he is in fact 
a CCIE RS and is studying for his CCIE Voice.


The story is not fully consistent with the record. Look at it on the 
face: jthao is Joseph Hao, yes. Jthao would be 
internet-sophisticated, as would Jojo. So they would share a hotmail 
account? Why? Surely they would realize the risks!


Now, given that they are sharing, they are *really good friends*, 
Jojo has decided to tell the truth

RE: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-29 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Mr. Lomax:

 

 ... But Jojo's writings here also vary in quality. 

 Sometimes his spelling is atrocious,

 sometimes accurate.

 

I have been wondering if Mr. Jaro drinks. In fact, for some time now I have
wondered if Mr. Jaro drinks a lot. It might help explain some of his
occasionally caustic posting behaviors.  Alcoholism, among other issues.

 

It's possible that if one were to sift through the history of Mr. Jaro's
postings one might begin to discern a distinct 24 hour pattern as to when
his spelling tends to be accurate and when it becomes less so. Quite
frankly, it's beyond my desire to care to find out. However there might be
others on this list that might consider it an interesting challenge.

 

I'm wondering if Jojo needs an intervention. (Not my department.)

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

I haven't insulted anyone for over 24 hours now and I thought that things would 
start to simmer down as people stopped insulting me; and yet out of the blue, a 
fresh insult pops up to stoke new heat on the dying embers of the conflict.  
SVJ has admitted openly that he does this intentionally to provoke a strong 
reaction from me.  This is the pattern of behavior that is the problem here in 
Vortex-L.  Not me.

For somebody who's worst drinking was less than 5 bottles of beer spread over 
the first 2 decades of his life; an insinuation that I am an alcoholic is a 
grave insult.  Please refrain from insults. 

Instead of acknowledging that my caustic postings are exclusively directed at 
people who insult me; SVJ comes up with an insult veiled as a crackpot theory 
of my alcoholism.  This is the integrity of this list that has gone downhill.  
And contrary to some people's assertion, I am NOT the problem.  I am the 
solution to this madness. 

I challenged anyone to sieve thru the archives to see if I have insulted people 
who have not insulted me.  A few folks immediately come to mind.  Have I 
insulted Axil, David Roberson, Fran Roarty, Jones Beene, Terry Blanton, Nigel 
Dyer, Mark Iverson, etc.  These are some of the most intelligent scientific 
minds in this forum and they know how to behave like adults, unlike some self 
appointed experts and off-topic trolls here.

So Lomax, SVJ, Rocha, Peter Gluck, Jouni and some thers don't like my opinions; 
as I don't like theirs.  But I never start insulting them.  They always start 
it.  If I have a problem with them, I always direct it to personal email as I 
have done with Peter.  That is the proper way for civilized individuals to act.

Qutie obviously, Bill has examined the situation in Vortex-L and has seen that 
what I am doing here does not deserve banning like many of these trolls would 
like to advocate.  But if he does ban me due to mob pressure, I will still not 
change my response to obvious bullies.



Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 6:13 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:List integrity


  From Mr. Lomax:

   

   ... But Jojo's writings here also vary in quality. 

   Sometimes his spelling is atrocious,

   sometimes accurate.

   

  I have been wondering if Mr. Jaro drinks. In fact, for some time now I have 
wondered if Mr. Jaro drinks a lot. It might help explain some of his 
occasionally caustic posting behaviors.  Alcoholism, among other issues.

   

  It's possible that if one were to sift through the history of Mr. Jaro's 
postings one might begin to discern a distinct 24 hour pattern as to when his 
spelling tends to be accurate and when it becomes less so. Quite frankly, it's 
beyond my desire to care to find out. However there might be others on this 
list that might consider it an interesting challenge.

   

  I'm wondering if Jojo needs an intervention. (Not my department.)

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  www.OrionWorks.com

  www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

Excellent analysis Lomax.  You sure pinned it down.  Just like the excellent 
Jojo is an Alcoholic bullcrap and the Jojo has had a rough childhood fairy 
tale.  LOL  Keep up the good work guys.


Bullies will always be bullies.




Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity



At 05:06 AM 12/29/2012, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill,
but mostly the former.


My two cents worth:

The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls.


The positions are that of moderator and owner. Moderators and owners have 
different reponsibilities from list members, and one of the duties of a 
moderator is to *act* with respect to trolls. For a moderator to engage a 
troll in debate is a Bad Idea. Rather, a moderator will do one of several 
things: warn the troll, on or off-list, put the troll on moderation, or 
ban the troll. If others complain about an alleged troll, a responsible 
moderator will accept or reject the complaints, not just ignore them.


This list apparently has an owner/moderator whe is absent for extended 
periods, and who has then, seeing a problem, acted without warning. I 
don't think that is best practice, but *it's his list.*



I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced
threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond
to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should
be banned also.


This is a common opinion among kibbitzers. Just ignore it. I remember 
such opinions about spam. What's the harm, just delete it! It's naive. 
There is harm from trolling. Trolls become expert at angering and 
enraging. People who do not care to engage with trolls may well use 
killfiles, or just ignore messages. But that does nothing to stop the 
trolling, and sometimes a troll will continue even if nobody responds, 
and, sooner or later, someone bites. Someone new thinks there is a real 
question or issue to be addressed.


The list archive is public and googleable. A user may have no intention 
and not care what people on the list think, and may be playing to Google. 
Lists *do* lose members because of trolls. Blaming those who respond is 
short-sighted.


It really is up to the list moderator, and, supposedly, this is a 
moderated list. If responding to a troll is considered the problem, the 
moderator can warn. Though it would be a bit weird. Trollface can post, 
but you may not respond.


Think it through, Horace.


Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll?


Neither one is necessarily a fool. Horace, your thinking *sucks.* Trolls 
have a purpose (or it wouldn't be trolling). If the troll gets people 
upset, whether they are upset directly or from others responding, *that's 
the purpose.*



[...] Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down
hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up.  This is a
weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages
behavior unbecoming a scientific list.  There are many services that
will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is
ultimately an ineffective ruse.  Sometimes merely googleing an email
address will yield the identity. For example, google
(jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields:

http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? 
ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124


http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd

which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in
Atlanta.
[...]

In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not
respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw,
and warn off victims.


Wait! Is Jojo a troll or a fraud? If he's a troll, you just violated your 
own should. If he's a fraud -- and he does promote fraudulent memes --  
your suggestion does require response.



 To bullies the response should be to do what
you want and ignore the bully.  The response to truly disruptive and
egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by
ISPs.  The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps
to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to
eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^)


Is it a fake identity?

Jojo responded to this mail.

As for Joseph Hao,  he is a good friend.  We used to work together on some 
free energy projects most notably on some HHO and Veg Oil/ Biodiesel 
projects and we were co-workers for a while.  We went to graduate school 
together in San Diego State (MS Computer Science) a long time ago.  This 
was a common email we used on all our free energy projects correspondence. 
He was the one who first subscribed this account to Vortex-LI have 
been exclusively using this email since I left

Re: [Vo]:List integrity