Without addressing anything else in this s message, I'll merely stay that all reference to Islam and Muhammad is no sensual and reflects a degree of ignorance that exceeds expectations.
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2012, at 1:32 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > He he he..... > > yeah I'm all you label me. I'm all that and more. And yes, I have a > repressed childhood. You can believe whatever it is that tickles your fancy. > > Yes, I'm a turd; but whose more pathetic? The turd or the man playing with > the turd knowing it's a turd? The turd has no choice, but the man playing > with a turd has got to be some maladjusted retard. LOL... > > But at least..... at least I am smart enough to graduate with a engineering > degree; but sensible enough not to boast that I am some kind of expert.. And > I am wise enough not to worship a 2nd rate moon god preached by a > sex-perverted 9 year-old child molesting prophet. > > Somebody doing this must be some maladjusted individual. The sexual pervert > prophet would have tipped any sensible man to stay away from that moon god; > but our expert worships him. LOL.... > > > OH my, I've really done it this time. I'm done for.. You will now really > call for my banning. Since I just insulted your great moon god and his > "holey" loving prophet. I'm done for; you will now go to your imam and issue > a fatwah against me and have me killed. LOL.... > > BTW, for those of you just reading this. I have done nothing more than tell > the truth. Allah is the moon god of muhammed's tribe; and muhammed is a > sex-perverted prophet with dozens of wives and concubines including a 9 > year-old little girl barely out of diapers. And muslim imams do indeed issue > a fatwah for the assasination of anyone who they consider have insulted their > prophet. I speak the truth if you care to research it yourself. Even > muslims acknowledge these truths and this is a source of great embarassment > for many a moon god worshipper; and you will see our expert trying to spin > this away. > > > Jojo > > PS, Don't even pretend that you don't read what I write. Everyone know that > you read it. LOL. But, as for me, I honestly only read the first part of > your posts. It's tiresome to read your verbal diarrhea. So, if you really > really really want to insult me; make sure you do so in the first few > sentences. That would really be effective in getting me and hurting me with > your insults. LOL.... > > So, Go ahead, continue the insults. I will give as much and much more than > I can get. Christmas period is a slow time for me so I'll play along with > your games. But come January, you can play with yourself. > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" > <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 12:13 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell -> about Jaro Jaro > trolling > > > Hah! I see that when I added the tag to the subject, I mispelled Jojo Jaro.... > > At 04:14 AM 12/8/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: >> >> So, this libtard from Wisconsin claims that I do not have emotional maturity >> and that I am 10 or that I did not get feedback and all that crap. O well, >> if I am a turd, what do you call somebody who keeps playing with a turd >> knowing full well its a turd. > > Someone who is not willing to give up on the idea > that a "turd" is a human being. > > Foolish, perhaps. Jojo is giving us plenty of > evidence that he wants us to think he's a turd. > >> Libtard claims that I am emotionally volatile, so why does he keep on >> provoking me other than to elicit a strong reaction from me. > > Jojo would not understand the reason, but there are many possibilities. > > 1. It's so much fun. > 2. We like watching Jojo make an idiot out of himself. > 3. We have a hope (foolish?) that the pimple will finally pop. > 4. We have nothing better to do at the time we write the post. > 5. We have something better to do and we are avoiding doing it. > 6. Just because. > 7. We care. > 8. ??? > >> This behavior from libtard seems to be what is classically defined as >> trolling. > > It could be, were it not clearly provoked. > Responding to trolling is not trolling. However, > not all "insult" is trolling. The essence of > trolling is an attempt to provoke outraged > response. The sequence here began with something > other than that, but Jojo responded to it as an > insult. It could be argued that it was mildly > insulting, but it clearly was not, from context, > trolling. It was just a comment on what had just > happened, and it did not insult, beyond calling > Jojo a "bible fanatic." Is that an insult? It can > be so. Am I a "cold fusion fanatic"? > > Someone who said so would not necessarily be > insulting me. They might just be describing how my behavior looks to them. > >> It is a clear pattern with this individual that he would say something to >> provoke me for the fun of it. > > And then we might need to look at what "fun" > means. Why would it be "fun" to poke at a bear in > a cage? What I can say is that boys do this. It's > juvenile human behavor. Some of us never grow up. > Occasionally we poke the wrong bear, and we don't > survive. Jojo seems to want us to think that he > is that bear, because he threatens eye for an > eye, or two eyes for an eye. That's why I don't > agree with characterizations of Jojo as a > Christian. His behavior is quite distinct from > Christian behavior. He's hostile, pugnacious, and > he retaliates, quickly and readily. > > If he does really think he's a Christian, he is > then the kind that his Lord will reject on the > Day of Judgment; he might well read his Bible on > that topic. The idea that "believing in Jesus" > will wipe all sin, even sin continually committed > after supposedly trusting Jesus, even defiant sin > that attacks everyone and refuses to surrender to > love, is surely naive or worse. It's actually evil. > >> But it costs me little to throw an insult back so I indulge this retard, >> cause obviously, only a retard would continually provoke an "attack dog" >> knowing he'll be bitten each time he does. > > So if you do it back, Jojo, surely, then, you > understand it. Answer your own question. Why do *you* do it? > >> One will clearly notice that I did not insult him in this thread until such >> time as he started insulting me. > > Actually, he explored the implications of your > logic, and tested your response. Jojo's claim to > only be responding to others does not match the > record. With regard to one sequence, I just > posted an examination of that history. I just saw > more. Basically, a speculation that wasn't aimed > at Jojo was posted. And then Joho showed up and > commented, with what had the effect of trolling, > and matching the speculation. Jojo explicitly > promised to "give back what he gets," but he > gives back, always, more. Many times, I've > directly examined his factual claims, and he > responds with insults. He's very ready to claim > that the posts of others are insults directed at > him, but this much should be clear: he > *deliberately* insults others. He's been quite explicit about that. > > Here is what I wrote last night about Jojo's > behavior, with links, contradicting his claim > that he stops when others stop. Quite simply, he doesn't. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73717.html > > He takes everything written about him as an > insult, if it isn't positive. Steven's exercise > with the name Jojo was obviously not serious, he > was simply applying the kind of logic Jojo uses > in his claims about "truth." He found evidence > that "Jojo" was an African name, and other > evidence that it was the name of a pet, so ... he > wrote that Jojo was obviously a black dog. And > then he cited the cartoon about, "On the > internet, nobody knows that you are a dog," with > a very interesting exchange being present on the > site hosting the cartoon, about net behavior. > > People have written things about me, like that. > "Enemies" have done it. The sane response is to > laugh. Jojo isn't sane. Jojo read it as "racist," > and responded that way, quoted below. Everything blows up. > >> t is quite easy to go back the archive record and see that every insult I've >> directed at this libtard is always a response to a recent insult to me from >> him. No need to argue and spin it. The archive records speak for itself in >> this matter. > > I'm not doing the research, I just know that, in > my case, Jojo lies. He maintains his drumbeat, > even when the other person stops responding *entirely*. > > Whatever Jojo has claimed, he remembers, and he > trots it out periodically. Like "moon god." It > had been mentioned here in early November; > apparently, at that time, Jojo expected he would > be banned; he stopped posting here entirely. Then > he noticed he wasn't banned, and raised the *same > claim* again. People had not continued to discuss > it. I have never before seen such obvious evidence of trolling. > > (Actually, that's not true. A certain Wikipedia > editor, on another web site, identified himself > as "Professional troll, doing it harder and > better than you." And he really was a > professional troll, though being paid in cash has > never been obvious. He might just be paid in the > gratitude of those he serves. He attacks people > they don't like, and when they respond to him > normally, they can then ban the person.) > >> Moreover, not only did he make an insult with "dog"; he made it racists by >> calling it "black". What is the difference between a black dog and a dog of >> any other color. > > "Black" here was a pun. The source read > "African." The cartoon was of a black dog. So ... "black dog." > > There is a difference between a black dog and a > dog of another color. It's black, that's the > difference. Steve did not claim that the black > dog was inferior or superiod. Just a black dog > being a black dog. On the internet, where nobody > knows you are a black dog, you think. Actually, everyone can tell. So to > speak. > >> Alll dogs generally behave the same. > > And differently as well. Dogs behave the same, > they must, because they must all pattern-match > the name "dog" in some way. But "The dog" is > unique. That's what the definite article > indicates. If I say "pet the dog," you know what > dog I'm talking about, or at least I think you do. > > In English, it's awkward to say, "I worship the > god." Instead of using the definite article, we > capitalize the word to make it a proper noun, > which is often definite. "I worship God." And > then some idiot wannabe Muslim comes along and > says, "You are Wrong! You should worship Allah!" > > No sect has a monopoly on idiocy. The Qur'an: "By > whatever name you call upon him, to him belong the most beautiful names." > >> So the post qualifying "black" to "dog" is clearly a racists attempt to >> paint me as some radical and stereotype all black people as violent >> uncontrollable dogs. The intent was obvious. > > Obvious to someone who lives in his own > fantasies, obvious because Jojo made it up. I'm > sensitive to racism, I have an African daughter. > I didn't see racism there, at all. There was no > attempt to express the idea that "race" is a > biological reality, which is racism in my book > (and that of academics). And discussion of "race" > can often blow up, because many people still believe the myth. > >> This trolling from libtard needs to be stopped by banning him. Banning him >> would solve two problems - his trolling and his repeated and blatant >> disregard for the rules with his incessant off-topic posting. > > Let anyone who calls for a ban be considered for > one. As well, however, what anyone claims, > reasonably, should be considered. Sometimes a ban is necessary. > > My own recommendation is that if a member of the > list is causing problems, the member should be > *warned.* Only continued violation of the warning > would result in a ban. I was not thrilled by the > ban of Mary Yugo, because it appeared to have > taken place without warning. Perhaps the warning > was private, but, as an experienced list manager, > I'd also issue a public warning as a last resort, > and the reason would partly be to sense the > community opinion, and, as well, to make process transparent. > > I was once active on a list promoting a voting > system. I wrote a post, with extended > consideration of a related topic, that the > moderator -- who was not generally active on the > list and who was not especially knowledgeable on > the topic -- considered off-topic, and he warned > me publicly. People chimed in and said that what > I'd written was on-topic, the relevance simply > had not been understood by the moderator. He backed off and apologized. > > Later, when he again thought my comments were > off-topic, he, without warning or telling me, put > me on moderation, then lost a whole series of > posts (he was really inexperienced), and when I > objected, he blocked me entirely. He did this > without allowing comment on the list itself. > > The result: the list died, surprisingly quickly. > I had gone to another list, a bit broader in > scope, and started writing and supporting that > activity, and it flourished (and a nonprofit > corporation has been formed out of this). The > original list, from which I remain banned, still > exists. I can't remember the last time a post > came through from it, seems like it might be once > every few months. The funny thing is that I'm > known as a prominent supporter of that list > purpose, and I've generated, with years of > effort, much of the political activity, the memes > to be used, toward implementing that voting method. > > List moderators function best when they consider > their role as being service to the community, > consistently with the basic purpose of the list. > The owner here is not terribly active, I don't > know how much he's been following this. I have not pinged him. I do trust him. > >
