Roger, I am capable of proceeding into acts you couldn't even imagine.
I just don't want to. Because I am not a person who has this disposal
to harm people, I did not shot down the list. True, I once threatened
of doing so, but I then said to myself, hmm, weren't you keep them for
the sake of entertaining yourself? Trust me, if I decided to do it, I
will. It's just the fact, that I made you look foolish in front of
everyone and you knew that and so they do. The New York Times apology
was made because the Jewish lobby pressured them to do so. Wake and
smell the coffee, this is the true immage of your allegedly
unexpurgated free expression. This all turned out to be absolutely
fallacious. I hope my questions regarding discrimination of free
expression will be tackled. I give mr Roger the consent to continue
deriding me if that makes him happy. Yesterday, I gave a lecture in
Arabic to locals about the fundamentals of Atheism and made people
understand the reality of this way of life. I want Roger to continue
insulting me and then accuse me of doing so. I am so happy. I am being
entertained here.
On 7/2/19, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, Mostafa is off in Egypt and I don't quite think he has the
technical expertise to commit atrocities over the Internet. He has
threatened to shut down this list, but he hasn't, so I doubt that he
knows how. But if he lost an argument in person then what kind of
atrocities might he be capable of? He certainly can make a lot of
threats and throw tantrums by email.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/1/2019 5:20 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
I would encourage Mostafa to read, and think about, your quote, Roger.
"Voltaire.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities."
But of course, one must first come to realize that they are being made
to believe absurdities.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/1/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
If Mostafa was at a chess board and lost then not only would he make the
Yablonski move, butt he would never stop ranting that he did not really
lose.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 6/30/2019 9:26 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Yablonski, eh? That's a new one on me, but I love it. And it's a
good thing Mostafa is not seated at a chess board when responding to
you.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/30/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I was thinking of another way to describe Mostafa. Back when I was
playing tournament chess there was a piece of chess lore that the
chess
playing community frequently mentioned. Supposedly there was once a
chess player named Yablonski. If you know anything about chess you
will
know that most chess games are not played out to their very end, the
checkmate. At some?? point in a game the ultimate outcome becomes
obvious
and you know who is going to win and continuing the game is just drawn
out torture. So the losing player concedes. In chess the word resigns
is
used for the concession. Well Yablonski had a different way of
resigning. Actually, it shows that he had too much of a temper to be a
really good chess player. Instead of saying that he resigned or
instead
of tipping his king in concession like other losing chess players did
he
would upend the chessboard and perhaps the table it was sitting on.
Chess pieces would be scattered all over the floor and the winning
opponent might have to duck to avoid being punched. Then Yablonski
would
stomp out of the room. This became known as the Yablonski move. Well,
Mostafa is the same kind of sore loser that Yablonski was except that
he
keeps making that move over and over. Mostafa is one big sore loser.
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/29/2019 12:58 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well Roger, speaking from one old Agnostic to one not as old Atheist,
I refer Mostafa to the Word of God, the Holy Bible, where, in Mathew
He warned of false prophets who would come in sheep's clothing but
who
would have their own selfish motives to fulfill. ???Ye shall know
them
by their fruits???.
The American Indians were reputed to put it this way, "White man
speak
with forked tongue."
Carl Jarvis
On 6/27/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, I have pointed out his misuse of the word destine a number of
times. For some reason that particular misuse bugs me. As far as I
can
tell he has just ignored that attempt on my part to improve his
English.
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/25/2019 12:17 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Richard,
Long, long ago Mostafa said he would appreciate suggestions when he
misused words. I took him at his word...which he spelled and used
correctly, and began correcting mistakes and misspellings. Mostafa
neither thanked me, nor did he acknowledge my efforts, so I quit,
thinking I might be embarrassing him, since there were so many.
More
recently he assured me that he knows the meaning of the words he
uses,
but I might not, since he was using Proper English, not American
English. So Richard, either you and I are not understanding the
Queen's English, or Mostafa is too proud to admit his misuse of the
language. Certainly it is not the easiest of languages to
understand.
Many of us have been "learning" proper usage for 80 or 90 years.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/25/19, R. E. Driscoll Sr <llocsirdsr@xxxxxxx> wrote:
A beautiful listing of descriptive adjectives most of which are
incorrectly
used.
Richard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 25, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I must truly thank both Carl and Roger for variously entertaining
me.
They both made me laugh so well. Roger attempted to depress my
disposal with his repeated derision of my religious tradition. He
surely won???t ever prosper. Islam has fortunately made me quite
confident and unflustered. His deficiency of competent faith
though
made him critically forlorn, garbled and deplorable. Each and
everything must be empirically examined for him in order to
genuinely
exist. Well, a question then, objective moral principles and
duties
are scrupulously motivated, do they exist? How could you prove
their
existence or the lack of physically? This guy is mentally
perturbed.
He thence demands to be thoroughly treated. Now, regarding
evolution
and its stiffly lineal affiliation to denotative incredulity,
what
are
the decreeing tenets of that theory? According to testable
science,
fluid substances tend to freeze and boil at specific degrees. We
knew
that for certain, because they have been trialed by many in
numerously
evidenced circumstances. Therefore, no one could deny this fact
because it has been witnessed on plenty of occasions by
sempiternal
mortals. Is evolution bore witness by any decisive evidence? Ah
Roger, instead of arbitrarily referring to an unknown belle with
your
unfathomed response, go out and seek a date. You seem to be
sensually
deprived, pity. I look forward to being entertained even farther.
I
must admit, I spend pleasant time here in the list intemperately
snickering at the manner by which some of you folks react. As for
Richard, what a funny guy, where is he though? Please, keep
entertaining me, I enjoy it. My Jaws even laughs. You folks, what
a
joke!
On 6/24/19, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, nyah. I lasted longer than you did,
Carl.
You
broke down and started reading Mostafa's messages before I did.
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/24/2019 11:39 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
You are setting up Straw Men, Mostafa. I do not ridicule your
beliefs. I accept your statements that you believe that your
beliefs
are the Truth, Everlasting. What I ridicule is the fact that
you
cannot see that your stubborn protestations and accusations
parrot
exactly those protestations and accusations uttered by
intolerant
people of every other religion in today's world.
Furthermore, I understand and accept Roger's statement that he
is
an
Atheist. And it does not bother me to hear Roger question why
I
claim
to be an Agnostic, when it is obvious to him that I am an
Atheist.
I
accept that Roger believes this, and yet I remain Agnostic. I
believe
that you believe that you have been given the Truth through
your
Faith. I don't believe that is true, but I understand that you
do
believe this. That, in and of itself does not bother me. What
troubles me is that you are not content to allow Roger or
myself
to
believe what our experiences lead us to believe, and you become
so
insistent in proving that we are wrong, and you are right, that
you
resort to hurling insults, and making snotty, contemptuous
comments.
In my mind, you have gone from impressing me as a bright
outspoken,
inquisitive young man, to being a petulant, quarrelsome narrow
minded
and bitter man.
A man comes upon a cup filled halfway with cool water, which he
happily drinks. Another man comes upon a cup filled halfway
with
cool
water and he curses whoever came before him and drank half the
cup,
which he kicks away from himself.
You, Mostafa, impress me as one whose cup is always half empty.
Cordially,
Carl Jarvis
On 6/23/19, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I thought Roger wanted to bring Joe of conniptions back to the
list.
I
brought his contact earlier though. I bring him here again. I
couldn???t
bear offending mr Roger. I joyously watch nonbelievers collide
with
each other. They criticise us with being declinable to one
another.
Nonetheless, an Atheist doesn???t accept what an Agnostic
assumes.
Would
it be rationally natural, if each and every dissenting
community
is
equally placid to me? That is indeed the practically proper
definition
of hypocrisy, which is An expression of agreement that is not
supported by actual convictions. The reason why do they not
firmly
clash, is that none of them has tautened fundamentals to take
issue
and strenuously fend for. It is therefore quite easy for many
of
them
to alter their beliefs based on essentially temporal interest.
So,
Carl doubts the belief in God. Nonetheless, he shares with
Roger
the
sanctioning temperament of vocally ridiculing my tenets of
faith.
Each and everyone here knew I am the only different one.
Intolerance
against me has somewhat nurtured here because I strongly
oppose
receding to cultural manipulation and imperialism. My disposal
is
staggeringly extravagant. To heighten our tense, I brought
alongside
Roger and Carl other nonbelievers from Britain and the States.
These
people greatly share mutual tenets of incredulity. This
denying
state
has mental rejection. This psychological development has
significantly
deepened inwardly. They counterfeitly base their philosophical
notion
on unjustifiedly privileged pseudoscience. They have wholly
deceived
various generations with this forged assumption. So, what have
they
deceived people with? Well, at its inception, they attempt to
make
the
subsequent proposition a rational premiss. So for instance, if
something isn???t potential of being empirically examined, it
shall
chronologically be unsubstantialised. Because of this,
concepts
in
the
west in general have been stiffly impounded to enormous
philistinism.
Thence, even human perceptions such as emotional and other
relevant
factors have been translated to broadly material conception.
Westerns
have professed and gravely embraced physicalism and
pragmatism.
This
is indeed the longstanding prob with western materialism. To
highlight
the crisis a bit clearer, it???s odd to many westerns to react
genuinely
in emotional situations. Here in the Muslim world, we might
have
lots
of unsolved problems. We may have financial, technological,
educational and medicinal crises. Nonetheless, we still knew
how
to
laugh and even how to cry. A friend of mine resides in the
United
Kingdom. He swears to me, that a typical English man would
regularly
go to the pub and drink insanely to distract himself from the
relentless distress he is heavily subjected to. So, Atheists
worship
a
God which is materialism and lecherousness. A God is what you
quickly
turn to in times of need and despair. So, disbelievers seek
refuge
with what satisfies their desires. They ultimately repose
their
conscience and falsely convince themselves, this is indeed
the
vital
stance of truth. This is absolutely the catastrophe. Atheists
abruptly
tell us we???re retarded in intellectual emersion because
we
allegedly
believe in fairytale based presumptions. However, if we
arguably
state
it is the case, well, they too believe in mythically based
effronteries. Evolution has never been scientifically
ratified.
Nonetheless, they firmly adhere it because it is the only
theory
that
disqualifies creation and hence, believing in a divine being.
That???s
why evolution is emphatically sacred to them. They plainly do
not
have
decisive evidence that speaks up for evolution theory. It will
remain
so, even if they claim otherwise. That???s what obviously
disappoints
mr
Roger though.
