On 7/13/25 7:31 PM, John Doe wrote:
[racist abuse snipped]
Thank you for helping me update my kill file.
For more information on Whois status codes, please visitLast update of WHOIS database: 2025-07-14T11:45:22Z <<<
On 2025-07-14 05:17, T wrote:
On 7/13/25 7:31 PM, John Doe wrote:
[racist abuse snipped]
Thank you for helping me update my kill file.
His server actually has an abuse address ...
a b u s e @ n e w s g r o u p d i r e c t . c o m
... so perhaps if enough of us complain to it ...
On 7/14/2025 6:50 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 05:17, T wrote:
On 7/13/25 7:31 PM, John Doe wrote:
[racist abuse snipped]
Thank you for helping me update my kill file.
His server actually has an abuse address ...
a b u s e @ n e w s g r o u p d i r e c t . c o m
... so perhaps if enough of us complain to it ...
So what exactly are you going to complain about? He posted something
you don't like? Good luck with that, and I hope people who don't like
your thinking don't do the same to you.
T had it right. Kill filing is the appropriate action.
On 2025-07-14 12:59, sticks wrote:
On 7/14/2025 6:50 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 05:17, T wrote:
On 7/13/25 7:31 PM, John Doe wrote:
[racist abuse snipped]
Thank you for helping me update my kill file.
His server actually has an abuse address ...
a b u s e @ n e w s g r o u p d i r e c t . c o m
... so perhaps if enough of us complain to it ...
So what exactly are you going to complain about? He posted something
you don't like? Good luck with that, and I hope people who don't like
your thinking don't do the same to you.
He posted material that is illegal in many or most western democracies, including my own, so the organisation whose equipment was used would be well-advised to put a stop to it in order to comply with the law where
they are based.
T had it right. Kill filing is the appropriate action.
Kill filing is fine, but does nothing to tackle the problem at source.
On 7/14/2025 7:35 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 12:59, sticks wrote:
On 7/14/2025 6:50 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 05:17, T wrote:
On 7/13/25 7:31 PM, John Doe wrote:
[racist abuse snipped]
Thank you for helping me update my kill file.
His server actually has an abuse address ...
a b u s e @ n e w s g r o u p d i r e c t . c o m
... so perhaps if enough of us complain to it ...
So what exactly are you going to complain about? He posted something
you don't like? Good luck with that, and I hope people who don't
like your thinking don't do the same to you.
He posted material that is illegal in many or most western
democracies, including my own, so the organisation whose equipment was
used would be well-advised to put a stop to it in order to comply with
the law where they are based.
In another group they were talking about the EU Digital Services Act,
and the consensus was that it wouldn't affect usenet that much. Grant
can explain further. But it is funny you bringing it up as you've essentially done exactly the kind of thing this Act is trying to protect from in another post in this group where you call the POTUS a rapist.
That just cost George Stephanopoulos $15 million bucks. Libel, like
you've done, is an account terminating offense on E-S. Ray's condition
is that it must be proven in a court of law. Well a court of law found
him not guilty, so I'm guessing if Ray wants to protect himself from a
suit similar to the one Georgie got, he may want to tell you to find
another place to post your drivel.
T had it right. Kill filing is the appropriate action.
Kill filing is fine, but does nothing to tackle the problem at source.
The problem is you think you get to choose what is appropriate, and what isn't. The problem is that words scare you. Yet, when you do it, it's perfectly fine. I found your post totally offensive, outright bullshit,
yet still worthy of reading since it informs me of what people like you think is real. Eventually, I might tire of it and take other
appropriate measures to not have to read your bile. That action won't
be trying to censor you, unlike how you act. I'll take the "T" route.
On 2025-07-14 14:40, sticks wrote:
On 7/14/2025 7:35 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 12:59, sticks wrote:
On 7/14/2025 6:50 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 05:17, T wrote:
On 7/13/25 7:31 PM, John Doe wrote:
[racist abuse snipped]
Thank you for helping me update my kill file.
His server actually has an abuse address ...
a b u s e @ n e w s g r o u p d i r e c t . c o m
... so perhaps if enough of us complain to it ...
So what exactly are you going to complain about? He posted
something you don't like? Good luck with that, and I hope people
who don't like your thinking don't do the same to you.
He posted material that is illegal in many or most western
democracies, including my own, so the organisation whose equipment
was used would be well-advised to put a stop to it in order to comply
with the law where they are based.
In another group they were talking about the EU Digital Services Act,
and the consensus was that it wouldn't affect usenet that much. Grant
can explain further. But it is funny you bringing it up as you've
essentially done exactly the kind of thing this Act is trying to
protect from in another post in this group where you call the POTUS a
rapist. That just cost George Stephanopoulos $15 million bucks.
Libel, like you've done, is an account terminating offense on E-S.
Ray's condition is that it must be proven in a court of law. Well a
court of law found him not guilty, so I'm guessing if Ray wants to
protect himself from a suit similar to the one Georgie got, he may
want to tell you to find another place to post your drivel.
The jury in the Stormy Daniels case agreed that he raped her.
T had it right. Kill filing is the appropriate action.
Kill filing is fine, but does nothing to tackle the problem at source.
The problem is you think you get to choose what is appropriate, and
what isn't. The problem is that words scare you. Yet, when you do
it, it's perfectly fine. I found your post totally offensive,
outright bullshit, yet still worthy of reading since it informs me of
what people like you think is real. Eventually, I might tire of it
and take other appropriate measures to not have to read your bile.
That action won't be trying to censor you, unlike how you act. I'll
take the "T" route.
Specifically the problem is that what was posted was illegal in many of countries in which it will be read, generally the problem is that
freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to tell lies.
On 7/14/2025 11:59 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 14:40, sticks wrote:
On 7/14/2025 7:35 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 12:59, sticks wrote:
On 7/14/2025 6:50 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 05:17, T wrote:
On 7/13/25 7:31 PM, John Doe wrote:
[racist abuse snipped]
Thank you for helping me update my kill file.
His server actually has an abuse address ...
a b u s e @ n e w s g r o u p d i r e c t . c o m
... so perhaps if enough of us complain to it ...
So what exactly are you going to complain about? He posted
something you don't like? Good luck with that, and I hope people
who don't like your thinking don't do the same to you.
He posted material that is illegal in many or most western
democracies, including my own, so the organisation whose equipment
was used would be well-advised to put a stop to it in order to
comply with the law where they are based.
In another group they were talking about the EU Digital Services Act,
and the consensus was that it wouldn't affect usenet that much.
Grant can explain further. But it is funny you bringing it up as
you've essentially done exactly the kind of thing this Act is trying
to protect from in another post in this group where you call the
POTUS a rapist. That just cost George Stephanopoulos $15 million
bucks. Libel, like you've done, is an account terminating offense on
E-S. Ray's condition is that it must be proven in a court of law.
Well a court of law found him not guilty, so I'm guessing if Ray
wants to protect himself from a suit similar to the one Georgie got,
he may want to tell you to find another place to post your drivel.
The jury in the Stormy Daniels case agreed that he raped her.
Once again, you're either mistaken or lying. Either way, you are guilty
of defaming the POTUS.
BTW, the whole Daniels case, and the Carrol case
were ridiculous shams. But that's another discussion
T had it right. Kill filing is the appropriate action.
Kill filing is fine, but does nothing to tackle the problem at source.
The problem is you think you get to choose what is appropriate, and
what isn't. The problem is that words scare you. Yet, when you do
it, it's perfectly fine. I found your post totally offensive,
outright bullshit, yet still worthy of reading since it informs me of
what people like you think is real. Eventually, I might tire of it
and take other appropriate measures to not have to read your bile.
That action won't be trying to censor you, unlike how you act. I'll
take the "T" route.
Specifically the problem is that what was posted was illegal in many
of countries in which it will be read, generally the problem is that
freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to tell lies.
It does in the US, and most of the rest of the free world.
On 7/14/2025 6:50 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 05:17, T wrote:
On 7/13/25 7:31 PM, John Doe wrote:
[racist abuse snipped]
Thank you for helping me update my kill file.
His server actually has an abuse address ...
a b u s e @ n e w s g r o u p d i r e c t . c o m
... so perhaps if enough of us complain to it ...
So what exactly are you going to complain about? He posted something
you don't like? Good luck with that, and I hope people who don't like
your thinking don't do the same to you.
T had it right. Kill filing is the appropriate action.
Darwinism Is Junk Science!!
In article <1053efi$3clqr$2@dont-email.me>, wolverine01@charter.net
says...
Darwinism Is Junk Science!!
That signature grates every time I see it. For the record, "Natural >Selection" is right there at the very top of the list of scientific >understanding best supported by overwhelming evidence.
What Darwin did was see past the religion-based assumptions that had
gone unexamined for centuries and simply figured out "what must have >happened".
Most people with any sort of education will accept the basic principles >(though a true scientist is ever ready to consider a well-thought-out >alternative and delights in learning they've been wrong about
something), so having that in your signature very likely 'colours'
anything you might be saying in your posts in the minds of others.
That's it - duty done. No more from me on this.
On 7/14/25 11:42 AM, Java Jive wrote:
Mistaken, they found him guilty of sexual abuse, but didn't actually
go so far as rape:
Not to split hairs with you, but this was a "civil"
case. There is no "guilt" in a civil case. He
was found "liable".
And please take this kind of stuff to an appropriate
group, such as
alt.politics.scorched-earth
And leave this group to computers and Windows.
In article <1053efi$3clqr$2@dont-email.me>, wolverine01@charter.net
says...
Darwinism Is Junk Science!!
That signature grates every time I see it. For the record, "Natural Selection" is right there at the very top of the list of scientific understanding best supported by overwhelming evidence.
What Darwin did was see past the religion-based assumptions that had
gone unexamined for centuries and simply figured out "what must have happened".
Most people with any sort of education will accept the basic principles (though a true scientist is ever ready to consider a well-thought-out alternative and delights in learning they've been wrong about
something), so having that in your signature very likely 'colours'
anything you might be saying in your posts in the minds of others.
That's it - duty done. No more from me on this.
On 7/15/25 9:37 AM, Java Jive wrote:
Fair enough (though it is splitting hairs which you claimed to
eschew), but how does that make him any more or less a rapist?
He is not.
The kangaroo court declared him liable. It
will be thrown out in appeal.
In article <MPG.42e0584864ecb5289896b1@news.eternal-september.org>, nothing@invalid.com says...
In article <1053efi$3clqr$2@dont-email.me>, wolverine01@charter.net
says...
Darwinism Is Junk Science!!
That signature grates every time I see it. For the record, "Natural
Selection" is right there at the very top of the list of scientific
understanding best supported by overwhelming evidence.
What Darwin did was see past the religion-based assumptions that had
gone unexamined for centuries and simply figured out "what must have
happened".
Most people with any sort of education will accept the basic principles
(though a true scientist is ever ready to consider a well-thought-out
alternative and delights in learning they've been wrong about
something),
so having that in your signature very likely 'colours'
anything you might be saying in your posts in the minds of others.
That's it - duty done. No more from me on this.
I lied. There is one further thing worth saying.
If you put in your signature what you DO believe - presumably something
like "I believe God created each living thing by His design" - there
would be nothing to object to. That's about stating what you believe,
rather than declaring what everyone else should believe, and that's
easier to respect, even for those whose understanding of the universe is different.
Now you are defaming the US legal system on the basis of zero evidence.
On 7/15/2025 7:33 AM, Philip Herlihy wrote:
In article <MPG.42e0584864ecb5289896b1@news.eternal-september.org>,
nothing@invalid.com says...
In article <1053efi$3clqr$2@dont-email.me>, wolverine01@charter.net
says...
Darwinism Is Junk Science!!
That signature grates every time I see it. For the record, "Natural
Selection" is right there at the very top of the list of scientific
understanding best supported by overwhelming evidence.
Initially, I was surprised by the reaction to my sig file. But the more
I thought about it, I'm not. It is exactly what has been happening in academia for quite some time now when anyone has ideas countering the establishment narrative.
You speak of "overwhelming evidence," and I
would love to see some of this evidence. I'm not talking about pretty pictures drawn by an artist showing the morphing of a monkey into a man.
Of course, this is not the place for this discussion, unfortunately.
But, I would debate you on this issue any time.
What Darwin did was see past the religion-based assumptions that had
gone unexamined for centuries and simply figured out "what must have
happened".
Darwin was not trained in this, though he was an able researcher, and
for the first 10 years after writing his book was widely challenged by
the real scientists of his day. His real interest was in making a name
for himself and ultimately being accepted by his peers. It was only
about 10 years after his work a friend salvaged his reputation. However,
the Big Book he promised with all the "evidence" supporting his theory, never came to fruition. Still, his theory gained traction among the
elites looking for a way to eliminate anything supernatural in
explaining how life on Earth is possible. Centuries of abuse in the Catholic Church, countless European wars, and other new scientific
discovery (initiated by the church ironically) led many to embrace this
type of Naturalistic theory. Basically, they embraced nihilism.
Most people with any sort of education will accept the basic principles
(though a true scientist is ever ready to consider a well-thought-out
alternative and delights in learning they've been wrong about
something),
This is where we will disagree. You think I must just be dumb and uneducated to not accept Darwinian evolution theory. However, I am not alone in thinking it simply does not work. The culture now is so anti-science, that anyone attempting to find or counter the Darwinian evolution paradigm in today's scientific circles will end up costing you your teaching job, your grant or funding money, and get you blacklisted
from any serious income possibilities. I can give example after example
of this happening in real life. However, here's a link of over 1000 PhD scientists in just about all the scientific fields who were willing to
risk it and put their name on a document stating their belief that there
is problems with the theory you say "Most people with any sort of
education will accept." Either you are unaware of differing ideas, or
you function with similar close minded bias on all this.
<https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2023/05/Scientific-Dissent-List-05012023-2.pdf>
I have always been interested in finding answers to some of the
difficult questions these topics bring up, and I have been fortunate to
be able to research quite a bit more than in my younger years since my retirement. I have spent the last 10 years reading and researching
anything I could get my hands on in the matter. I almost certainly know more about this than you, as shown by your sophomoric statement above. I don't have the answers any more than Darwin (or you) did. You look for evidence. It's impossible to explain as fact how a one time event
happened when no one was there to witness it. But I do have a basic knowledge of things that appear impossible and have not been answerable
by the evolutionists. I have written a paper myself summarizing what I
call "show stoppers" that the evolutionist would just say we don't know
yet how that is possible. The problem wasn't finding the evidence once
I figured out how to look, it was figuring out where to stop. Almost
every branch of science has such show stoppers.
At this point I assume you think I am trying to push some kind of
religion onto people. I am not. I don't care what religion or doctrine anyone cares to have, if any. I don't care if you think little green
men planted the seeds of life here. I don't care if you believe (like
Max Tegmark from MIT) in the multiverse. I don't even care if anyone
wants to know what I've learned. It just has become an amazing area of discovery for me to learn that things I've been taught my whole life are
not quite as sure footed as everyone thinks. Hence, my horrible sig file.
so having that in your signature very likely 'colours'
anything you might be saying in your posts in the minds of others.
So what do you think I should do? Change my sig file because people
might disagree with it and think I'm just stupid?
A four word signature
file have got your attention in a way that is telling. Better get on
the horn and tell all those PhD's how dumb they are I guess. Will you
sleep better then?
I don't wish to belittle you, like you've done to me by insinuating lack
of education or intelligence. I do however think you are uninformed, or unwilling to even listen. That doesn't bother me. I'm not here to
"save" you or anyone else.
That's it - duty done. No more from me on this.
I lied. There is one further thing worth saying.
If you put in your signature what you DO believe - presumably something
like "I believe God created each living thing by His design" - there
would be nothing to object to. That's about stating what you believe,
rather than declaring what everyone else should believe, and that's
easier to respect, even for those whose understanding of the universe is
different.
Oh, why don't you just go ahead and write my sig for me please???
FWIW, I state exactly what I believe, that Darwinism is junk science.
They don't even call it Darwinism anymore. Now it's Neo-Darwinism. It's like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still junk science and there's
plenty of evidence supporting my conclusion.
I fail to see where I'm
"declaring what everyone else should believe." It's simply MY opinion
and I don't care if anyone believes it or respects it. That's your
choice and has nothing to do with me or my sig file. Feel free to be
grated all you want.
Regarding your second part about what you think it is that I must
believe and that you would prefer I say in my sig, that is exactly what
I do NOT want to do. Of course I have come to some conclusions about creation and origin of life, but as I said earlier I don't care what
anyone here would choose to believe. Neither does my sig file suggest anything of the kind. All I'm saying is Darwinism simply doesn't work.
If anyone comes to that conclusion also, they can decide on their own
why not and how all this works, and how to move on in life after
acquiring that knowledge.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 11 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 48:00:37 |
| Calls: | 166 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 77,697 |