hello, mr. antichrist.

now, i don't know if you haven't noticed it, or choose to deny it, or what
have you, but there are very few scientists who question the existence of
jesus of nazareth as a true historical figure. and by true historical
figure, i mean to suggest that jesus was in fact a real guy, and not a myth,
created by romans, as you say, to control people. there are many
non-religious historical records that tell tales of jesus as a sort of cult
leader (which he really kinda was), and say nothing of it being truth. there
are archeological records of jesus as a real human being. we have extensive
knowledge of jesus, his family, and the apostles as real people (which they
were), mostly spurred on by the widespread belief in jesus as a true holy
man, granted, but by both sides: the christians, and the so-called
antichristians. most of your fellow antichristian scientists do not
disbelieve in the existence of jesus -- that's just kookish thinking and
makes you look like a conspiracy nut (which is okay, i respect that, but
it's certainly not in line with your self-proclaimed status as a scientist
with an IQ of 232). most of your fellow antichristian scientists actually
believe in jesus as a real human being, but nothing more, choosing to study
jesus and find archeological records of him to try to disprove his mythic
status as the son of god -- a valiant effort, i must say, but the fact
remains that such things cannot be proven or disproven.

which brings me to another problem with your arguments. you say that you are
a scientist, and in fact said:

"I don't have beLIEfs, I have KNOWLEDGE.  I don't say 'I believe', I either
say 'I know' or 'I do not know'.  Anything else, and I am not a Scientist, I
am a shamen"

now, this is all well and good and respectable, and as much as i personally
totally disagree with the idea of banishing all beliefs and living a spartan
intellectual existence, i can respect it and i certainly won't try to change
your mind. but you are not very consistent. for example, your frequently
expressed BELIEF that jesus and christianity are tools of people looking to
control the masses, and that they have no basis in scientific fact.

this is not a scientifically established fact at all, and is, in fact,
against many established scientifically established facts. there are plenty
of accepted archeological records that support the idea that the gospels are
true (historically), and very few scientists will dispute that.

and those that do dispute it are guided by beliefs instead of the
overwhelming truth of jesus' life. anyone who questions the existence of
jesus must, therefore, at least admit to their reliance on belief instead of
fact, instead of making bizarre and unverifiable claims as you have so
artfully done.

if you're going to rely on nonscientific beliefs, at least have the courtesy
not to continually call yourself a scientist.

and, furthermore, i am frankly insulted that a person such as yourself would
consider themself a scientist and use the word "science" as a crutch against
everything that seems superstitious (no offense -- it's nothing personal).
you are certainly no scientist (and frankly i have to admit i don't believe
that 232 IQ -- i would say, at best, that you are on the lower end of
genius, at worst [and most likely] that you are of average intelligence).

i have great respect for science, and am at times a scientist. i find this
trend disturbing, this idea of nonscientists grasping onto misinterpreted
scientific ideas and dogmas and using them as weapons against others whose
ideas they also don't understand.

you do not understand science. you do not understand christianity. you do
not understand religion, for that matter. you understand very little, in
fact, besides pessimism. you are very good with pessimism. and you seem to
be very good with paranoia, too, much like james randi and the rest of you
minimalist dogmatics seem to be, always questioning the motives and methods
of who you seem to regard as your enemies.

you should not proclaim yourself a scientist. at least proclaim yourself a
layman (which you are) who relies on what you perceive to be scientific
fact.

now, i am not always a scientist. i choose not to live my life entirely by
scientific dogmas, specifically because i believe (as almost any of the
scientific giants have in the past) that science is a tool, not a way of
life. science is what we use to establish knowledge and when there is much
at stake. science is not a weapon to bludgeon your religious enemies with
like one of the so-called "barbarians" that you like talking about so much.

i AM a christian, at times. i am also a jew, a muslim, a shintoist, a
buddhist, a taoist, and most importantly, a hindu. i prescribe to the idea
that all religions have some truth to them (spiritual truth, mind you, not
scientific truth), and that scientific truth has no place in religion.

i am also an optimist. i believe that all things unprovable are true until
proven false. that's just what I believe; it's simply a dogma that i have
adopted because it makes me happy to live my life that way -- not because i
am afraid of god or the afterlife or because i've been brainwashed. i
believe in gods, ghosts, extraterrestrials, bigfoot, santa claus. i believe
that UFOs are the tools of aliens, that the US government is the tool of a
shadowy conspiracy, and that disease is often the tool of the devil. and,
most of all, i believe that you are a misinformed dogmatic with a glimmer of
promise, but with mistaken ideas about truth and science and spirituality.

and i mourn for a future which contains more people like you.

please reply; i do so love arguing philosophy with others, especially when
they totally disagree. and put this up on your website too -- any chance for
me to get the good word out is a good one.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

I've been reading your website a lot recently, and i really have to say that
you're quite an asshole. Not to mention racist, senseless, and not very
intelligent at all. This business about "nigger lovers" being "lower than
turds", and "psycotic" (sic) is very disturbing. It seems to me that people
like you need serious help. You do not understand science, you do not
understand christianity, and you do not understand religion, for that
matter.

You do realize that Jesus was a true historical figure, right? Very few
archaeologists will dispute that fact; there's much evidence of his
existence, not to mention that of his family and acquaintances. There's much
scientific fact to support the existence of Jesus as more than a creation by
the Romans to control people, as you so ignorantly put it. Not that there's
anything wrong with kooks and conspiracy theorists, but the idea of claiming
that all these scientists are lying about Jesus makes you look rather silly,
especially given your propensity to smugly declare anything you don't
believe to be supported by science as false.

You stated:
"all of the most effective scientists in history have been atheist"
This is entirely bizarre and incorrect. Many of the great scientists of the
past have been ardent believers in god, or at least in some greater power
beyond that of man. Most of them have, in fact. Alchemy, which was the
launching pad for chemistry (as you would know if you had any knowledge of
scientific history), was in fact based on the existence of a spiritual
world. Astrology was firmly ingrained into Alchemy. For that matter,
Astrology was the major cause of the invention of Astronomy -- observation
of the celestial bodies was required by Astrologers, so Astronomy was
invented. Many great scientists had a strong belief in god. Francis Bacon,
one of the greatest chemists and scientific philosophers of all time, was a
practicing christian and strongly supported the study of the bible as god's
word. Einstein, if you prefer a more up-to-date reference, was a very devout
christian, who believed strongly in god as an active participant in the
universe, and yet he managed to formulate many of the most important
foundations of modern science -- namely the revolutionary special and
general theories of relativity. The list goes on and on. All the great
scientists of ancient Greece, who founded the modern idea of science in the
first place, were believers of higher power. All of the medievel and
rennaissance scientists were believers of higher power. Only since recent
times has atheism become popular among so-called "scientists". You would
label these scientists of days gone by "barbarians", and yet they were in
fact very successful and very effective scientists, which invalidates your
statement that "all of the most effective scientists in history have been
atheist".

Of course, there's no point in arguing such points with you. You're nothing
but an unintelligent (no, i don't believe that 232 IQ one bit), racist,
ignorant motherf*cker (pardon my French), and it doesn't seem like you'll
ever learn. I believe I told you my religious affiliation in a previous
email, but frankly it doesn't matter. This is about your poor arguments and
inability to make logical sense, while meanwhile displaying a poor sense of
knowledge and a lack of humanity and intelligence.

People like you simply disgust me.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

And yet you and I have somewhat the same goals. We both seek to destroy
memes, to free the population from mind control. But you cannot do that by
suggesting a complete reliance on science to replace one of religion.
Science is simply the faith most believable by what is currently considered
a functioning human mind. But it's not the only truth; there are many
truths. Truth is what you make it. But freedom... freedom is the removal of
truth. Or the acceptance of all truth.

Either way you are not slave to any belief system. Nobody can control you if
you accept all truth. Not science, not gods, not men. Control can be cast
off entirely. Remove yourself from all reality tunnels.

Join the infinite. Cast yourself into the universe. Remove yourself from the
laws of science, from the laws of humanity, from the laws of god. You speak
of humans as their own gods, but you don't truly understand the concept.
Gods do not abide by the laws of science; gods do not care for science; gods
do not believe in science. Only when you cease to pick and choose your
beliefs and accept anything or nothing can you truly ascend and become god.

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Daniel wrote:
>
> I've been reading your website a lot recently, and i really have to say that
> you're quite an asshole. Not to mention racist, senseless, and not very
> intelligent at all. This business about "nigger lovers" being "lower than
> turds", and "psycotic" (sic) is very disturbing. It seems to me that people
> like you need serious help. You do not understand science, you do not
> understand christianity, and you do not understand religion, for that
> matter.

        I didn't write that, Gabriel did, but I do agree completely with him,
although I'm usually less crass about how I deliver my beliefs.  Now, if you
believe what you say, and you promote the destruction of your own race (I know
you are not a nigger, because there aren't any on the internet yet) then you
deserve what you shall receive.  You will, by your inaction, or worse, by your
NEGATIVE to the white race action, allow yourself to be removed from the gene
pool, and frankly I'm glad it will happen, we need people who support our own
race of people, not take pity on, and support some inferior race or culture.

        I wish I could drop you into the center of a negro infested ghetto, I
really wish I could.  I would then watch as the negro gangs gathered around
you, and watch you proclaim yourself to be a nigger lover, and beg and plead
for your life, which you would NOT be allowed to keep.  It would be
fascinating, like watching an antelope begging a lion for its life.  You are
prey to the negro, nothing more, you die so that they may live.  It's time you
understood the realities of racial life, and know it's US OR THEM!

> You do realize that Jesus was a true historical figure, right? Very few
> archaeologists will dispute that fact; there's much evidence of his
> existence, not to mention that of his family and acquaintances.

        Jesus was a myth, no historical records exist of him until many decades
after his purported death.  I prove this repeatedly on the website.  Read it.

> Of course, there's no point in arguing such points with you. You're nothing
> but an unintelligent (no, i don't believe that 232 IQ one bit), racist,
> ignorant motherf*cker (pardon my French), and it doesn't seem like you'll
> ever learn. I believe I told you my religious affiliation in a previous
> email, but frankly it doesn't matter. This is about your poor arguments and
> inability to make logical sense, while meanwhile displaying a poor sense of
> knowledge and a lack of humanity and intelligence.

        You are suicidal if you are not racist.  Why is "black pride" ok, yet
"white pride" hateful?  Why does my cable TV have the black entertainment
channel, no crackers allowed, yet we don't have a white entertainment channel,
no negroes allowed?  Expressing your genetic defects are killing OUR RACE!

> People like you simply disgust me.

        People like you disgust me, so we're even.  :o)  You will eventually be
removed by your beloved negro from the gene pool, and our dwindling white race
will actually be made much stronger by it.

James

Well, at least you're consistent.

You know, I agree with you on some points, regarding the race issue. I find
it bizarre and disgusting that our current culture in america accepts such
things as "black pride" but not "white pride". I think white pride is
perfectly acceptable -- as long as it does not enter into the field of
racial violence. Racial violence shouldn't be tolerated -- it makes too many
assumptions and generalizations. People are much more complex than simply
"race" or "religion" or any other grouping as such. It's naive to think that
a negro is violent, simply because he's a negro. While it's true that many
black people (especially those of the inner city) are violent against whites
for no particular reason other than that they are white, this is true of
whites against blacks as well, and is more a problem of upbringing than
race. Racism is simply another baseless dogma, like the ones you so
viciously deny.

And your so-called "proof" is none of the sort. You offer no adequate
scientific proof, especially in the face of overwhelming scientific
acceptance of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Whether or not he was
truly divine is a different matter alltogether. I believe he was just as
divine as you or I, but he was a good cult leader and had some interesting
ideas. However, most scientists, both for and against christianity, have
already accepted the truth of Jesus' existance, and your refusal to do so
seems quite odd in the face of your constant reliance on what you perceive
to be scientific fact.

You're a kook, plain and simple, with some incredibly bizarre ideas, and
it's a bit disturbing that people such as you would have any sort of
influence in the field of scientific atheism.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

>Daniel wrote:
> >
> > I've been reading your website a lot recently, and i really have to say
>that
> > you're quite an asshole. Not to mention racist, senseless, and not very
> > intelligent at all. This business about "nigger lovers" being "lower
>than
> > turds", and "psycotic" (sic) is very disturbing. It seems to me that
>people
> > like you need serious help. You do not understand science, you do not
> > understand christianity, and you do not understand religion, for that
> > matter.
>
>       I didn't write that, Gabriel did, but I do agree completely with him,
>although I'm usually less crass about how I deliver my beliefs.  Now, if
>you
>believe what you say, and you promote the destruction of your own race (I
>know
>you are not a nigger, because there aren't any on the internet yet) then
>you
>deserve what you shall receive.  You will, by your inaction, or worse, by
>your
>NEGATIVE to the white race action, allow yourself to be removed from the
>gene
>pool, and frankly I'm glad it will happen, we need people who support our
>own
>race of people, not take pity on, and support some inferior race or
>culture.
>
>       I wish I could drop you into the center of a negro infested ghetto, I
>really wish I could.  I would then watch as the negro gangs gathered around
>you, and watch you proclaim yourself to be a nigger lover, and beg and
>plead
>for your life, which you would NOT be allowed to keep.  It would be
>fascinating, like watching an antelope begging a lion for its life.  You
>are
>prey to the negro, nothing more, you die so that they may live.  It's time
>you
>understood the realities of racial life, and know it's US OR THEM!
>
> > You do realize that Jesus was a true historical figure, right? Very few
> > archaeologists will dispute that fact; there's much evidence of his
> > existence, not to mention that of his family and acquaintances.
>
>       Jesus was a myth, no historical records exist of him until many decades
>after his purported death.  I prove this repeatedly on the website.  Read
>it.
Oh, and I do support the destruction of my race, because I don't believe in
race. I believe only in the individual and their place in the universe. You
seem to be quite the tribal barbarian in your thinking, regardless of your
constant reassurances that what you believe in is sophisticated and
scientific.

And, listen, I agree with many of your theories as to the creation of Jesus,
but most of these, I believe, were simply factors in the creation of the
idea of his supreme divinity. It's entirely true that christianity steals
ideas from all sorts of other places (such as earlier, pagan religions) and
that these are designed to control the masses (specifically those pagans
that they stole them from). I understand fully that christianity has been
used at many times to control people, and that it's greatly embellished, and
that faith in christianity has done a lot of harm to humanity. But you have
too simplistic and wrongheaded an interpretation of it. "Lack of jesus'
divinity" should not equate to "lack of truth in any religion". You should
learn more about eastern religions, for example. I've found that there are a
great deal of parallels between Hinduism (my chosen path), Buddhism, and
many of the fundamental physical laws of the universe -- relativity, for
example, and the wave nature of quantum mechanics.

Underneath, we're all of the same faith. Whether you be a scientific
atheist, a christian, a Buddhist, a jew, what have you, we all are simply
seeing different faces of the same infinite. Christianity is not the end-all
and be-all of religion, and it should not therefore preclude the existence
of any higher power. You are much too narrow minded in your thinking.

Please expand your mind in the future.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Daniel wrote:
>
> Well, at least you're consistent.
>
> You know, I agree with you on some points, regarding the race issue. I find
> it bizarre and disgusting that our current culture in america accepts such
> things as "black pride" but not "white pride".

        You seem to flip flop like a fish out of water.  However if you did NOT
agree with my racial viewpoints, you would thus be suicidal, so the fact you've
come 180° shows you are a logical thinker, but also the fact you did not come
to the conclusion on your own, you are not one of the 25% who are leaders.

        What do you think of the fact that negroes have racial organizations,
such as the NAACP, Rainbow coalition, and the UNCF, which gives money to
college students (black only) when it's ILLEGAL for any other organization to
offer white-only scholarships?  Get this, all these agencies were started by
WHITE WOMEN, which confirms that charity is not something natural to the negro.

> I think white pride is
> perfectly acceptable -- as long as it does not enter into the field of
> racial violence.

        I agree, I simply want to increase the intelligence level of both Africa
and the USA by taking all the negroes we have here, and sending them back to
Africa.  The average IQ in both Africa _and_ in the USA would INCREASE!

> While it's true that many
> black people (especially those of the inner city) are violent against whites
> for no particular reason other than that they are white, this is true of
> whites against blacks as well, and is more a problem of upbringing than
> race. Racism is simply another baseless dogma, like the ones you so
> viciously deny.

        Racism is what keeps you from wandering into the ghetto at night.  It's
what makes you NOT go near gangs of negroes.  It's that little voice in your
head that keeps you safe (common sense).  Statistically 85% of all violent
crime is committed by negroes, you watch Cops, you see it's true.  Check the
uniform crime statistics if you don't believe me.

        "there is nothing more painful to me . . . than to walk down
        the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about
        robbery--then look around and see somebody white and feel
        relieved."  -- Jesse Jackson
        http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ls/ls-08.htm

> You're a kook, plain and simple, with some incredibly bizarre ideas, and
> it's a bit disturbing that people such as you would have any sort of
> influence in the field of scientific atheism.

        I wear my kookdom as a badge of honor.  I am not like you, in fact,
according to statistics, if you line up six million (6,000,000) people, I
would have the highest IQ of all of them (on average).  I am a leader, I am
strong and firm in my beliefs.  I am a Scientist, anything which you can not
prove is hearsay, and rejected.  However if everyone were like me, nothing
would get done, we need a certain percentage of underqualified persons to do
the scutwork.  This was the tradition introduced to me in medical school, and I
see the utility of it.  However in medical school, the interns doing scutwork
eventually become residents, which are then replaced by new scutworkers.  :o)

        As for my influence in atheism, you'll find I'm on the fringe.  Most
atheists agree with me in secret, but reject most of my opinions (only) in
public.  They do this because they are weak.  They do agree (usually 100%) on
my anti-religious statements disproving the existence of god(s).  Most wish I'd
use a better method of presentation, a kinder, more velvet glove approach.
Now, how did I GAIN the influence I have?  It's simple really, first come,
first serve.  Being one of the first on the Internet back in the 1970's (when
it was called ARPAnet) in time I would ultimately register antichrist dot net
before anyone else, in a time before christianity had come onto the web.

James

>       You seem to flip flop like a fish out of water.  However if you did NOT
>agree with my racial viewpoints, you would thus be suicidal, so the fact
>you've
>come 180° shows you are a logical thinker, but also the fact you did not
>come
>to the conclusion on your own, you are not one of the 25% who are leaders.

I have to disagree with you there, as, you see, I never said anything about
my viewpoints on exclusively black organizations, and did indeed come to
this conclusion on my own. Sorry to disappoint you, but you've had no
influence on my thinking whatsoever.


>       What do you think of the fact that negroes have racial organizations,
>such as the NAACP, Rainbow coalition, and the UNCF, which gives money to
>college students (black only) when it's ILLEGAL for any other organization
>to
>offer white-only scholarships?  Get this, all these agencies were started
>by
>WHITE WOMEN, which confirms that charity is not something natural to the
>negro.

I think, as I'm sure you do, that it's outrageous and racist for such groups
to exist and for whites-only organizations not to. That's the climate of the
world today; I had nothing to do with it.


> > I think white pride is
> > perfectly acceptable -- as long as it does not enter into the field of
> > racial violence.
>
>       I agree, I simply want to increase the intelligence level of both Africa
>and the USA by taking all the negroes we have here, and sending them back
>to
>Africa.  The average IQ in both Africa _and_ in the USA would INCREASE!

The average IQ of a country does not matter -- to suggest so is ludicrous
and only serves as a weak argument for your racist point. What matters in
this country is personal freedom and the idea that all men are created equal
(I know that this isn't how the government really operates, but it's the
ideal we're supposed to be striving for in the USA, and I stand by it. It's
a good ideal). To cart all blacks off to Africa is completely against these
ideas. If they wanted to go to Africa, they'd go of their own accord. It
would be tantamount to returning to the slavery. And, furthermore, most of
the blacks in this country (especially the middle- and upper-class ones)
would be unable to live in a place like Africa. If you mean to suggest that
they should be sent back to the tribes they originated at, then you're being
completely rediculous. There's too much distance between the blacks of
America and the blacks of Africa (though judging from the way many of them
dress and act and name their children, you wouldn't think so). It would be
like placing you in a Germanic tribe thousands of years ago and expecting
you to cope. It doesn't work.

And if you mean to suggest that we should send them to the civilized parts
of Africa, then what's the point? Why send them to Africa at all? Why not
Europe, or Asia? Why not Australia? What makes Africa so special in this
respect?


> > While it's true that many
> > black people (especially those of the inner city) are violent against
>whites
> > for no particular reason other than that they are white, this is true of
> > whites against blacks as well, and is more a problem of upbringing than
> > race. Racism is simply another baseless dogma, like the ones you so
> > viciously deny.
>
>       Racism is what keeps you from wandering into the ghetto at night.  It's
>what makes you NOT go near gangs of negroes.  It's that little voice in
>your
>head that keeps you safe (common sense).  Statistically 85% of all violent
>crime is committed by negroes, you watch Cops, you see it's true.  Check
>the
>uniform crime statistics if you don't believe me.
>
>       "there is nothing more painful to me . . . than to walk down
>       the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about
>       robbery--then look around and see somebody white and feel
>       relieved."  -- Jesse Jackson
>       http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ls/ls-08.htm

Actually, I live very close to an urban area frequented by gangs (admittedly
comprised mostly of Cambodian immigrants, not blacks), and I have often
entered ghettos in the middle of the night. I have been nervous, at times,
but only in areas which I knew for a fact had gangs, and only because I knew
they had gangs. I have nothing against black people; I can easily turn my
back on them and feel perfectly safe. I'm not a racist; I only feel
threatened by established, true threats, be they minorities or otherwise.


> > You're a kook, plain and simple, with some incredibly bizarre ideas, and
> > it's a bit disturbing that people such as you would have any sort of
> > influence in the field of scientific atheism.
>
>       I wear my kookdom as a badge of honor.  I am not like you, in fact,
>according to statistics, if you line up six million (6,000,000) people, I
>would have the highest IQ of all of them (on average).  I am a leader, I am
>strong and firm in my beliefs.  I am a Scientist, anything which you can
>not
>prove is hearsay, and rejected.  However if everyone were like me, nothing
>would get done, we need a certain percentage of underqualified persons to
>do
>the scutwork.  This was the tradition introduced to me in medical school,
>and I
>see the utility of it.  However in medical school, the interns doing
>scutwork
>eventually become residents, which are then replaced by new scutworkers.
>:o)

Now, you see, you place yourself above me, and yet you know very little
about me. You assume that my IQ is far below yours (and, if your
self-analysis is in fact true, statistically I probably would be). But the
fact of the matter is, I'm not so sorry to say, I was tested (with a
state-approved IQ test) to be in the top one-millonth percentile of all
people. There are very few people in this world with equal or greater
intelligence to mine. You really don't know who you're dealing with.

Furthermore, I have to take issue with this 232 IQ you speak of, as 232
would be much higher than the percentile you claim to be in -- somewhere
around the 99.999999999999999999 percentile, you jackass. It would be
completely off the charts; certainly not down at 99.99999 that would come
with being more intelligent than the average six million people. There must
be some miscommunication on your part. Or maybe good old-fashioned lying. I
find that more credible, out of a guy who suggests carting all negroes off
to Africa is a good idea.


>       As for my influence in atheism, you'll find I'm on the fringe.  Most
>atheists agree with me in secret, but reject most of my opinions (only) in
>public.  They do this because they are weak.  They do agree (usually 100%)
>on
>my anti-religious statements disproving the existence of god(s).  Most wish
>I'd
>use a better method of presentation, a kinder, more velvet glove approach.
>Now, how did I GAIN the influence I have?  It's simple really, first come,
>first serve.  Being one of the first on the Internet back in the 1970's
>(when
>it was called ARPAnet) in time I would ultimately register antichrist dot
>net
>before anyone else, in a time before christianity had come onto the web.

I'm quite glad that you have so little influence on atheism. It should stay
that way. I know many fine atheists, and none are as terrible human beings
as you are. And furthermore, most of them sound much more intelligent.

Keep responding; my friends and I are having a good laugh at your expense.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

listen, put these up on antichrist dot net. they're absolutely hilarious;
i'm sure anybody of sound mind will get a real kick out of 'em.

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Do you not see, good sir, that we are simply the same face under different
masks?

You, the monotheist, the minimalist, the judeo-christian (to put it
bluntly), believing that there is only one true god, and that of science --
that single god which has so far not spurned you, and,

I, the polytheist, the hindu, as it were, believing that all possible gods
exist, understanding that there are more levels than that of science, seeing
the big picture, rather than one narrow band.

You are simply one who can't see beyond your own face; I am one who sees all
possible worlds for what they are.

I am you; you are me. We are brothers of the same cloth.

But whereas you will lead only a small group of those who believe your
philosophy, I have the capacity to lead all men.

Good day, good sir, and may you somehow learn to see.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Daniel wrote:
>
> >       You seem to flip flop like a fish out of water.
>
> I have to disagree with you there, as, you see, I never said anything about
> my viewpoints on exclusively black organizations, and did indeed come to
> this conclusion on my own. Sorry to disappoint you, but you've had no
> influence on my thinking whatsoever.

        What you said is a matter of public record, and impossible for you to
refute, since anyone chronologically reading the messages will be able to come
to their own conclusions.  Although your grammar and spelling are slightly
better, intellectually you seem only slightly improved over "Jeff".  :o/

> >       What do you think of the fact that negroes have racial organizations,
> >such as the NAACP, Rainbow coalition, and the UNCF,
>
> I think, as I'm sure you do, that it's outrageous and racist for such groups
> to exist and for whites-only organizations not to. That's the climate of the
> world today; I had nothing to do with it.

        You don't stand forward and say "I am caucasian, and caucasians, along
with asian people built and created everything we have, very little was
contributed by the negro, regardless what revisionist historians claim".  I'm
the one doing that, not you.  You spout obscenities at my "racism" then later
agree with my "racist" comments, this constitutes a flip flop.

        One thing is clear, I have made you think, and I've influenced your
opinion on the licit racism of the negroes.  You may claim I'm not an influence
upon you, but clearly I am.  :o)

> >       I agree, I simply want to increase the intelligence level of both Africa
> >and the USA by taking all the negroes we have here, and sending them back to
> >Africa.  The average IQ in both Africa _and_ in the USA would INCREASE!
>
> The average IQ of a country does not matter -- to suggest so is ludicrous
> and only serves as a weak argument for your racist point.

        If it were not for the intelligent, specifically those of German
heritage who (among many things which has changed your life) created the Atomic
Bomb for the USA example, you might not be here, or you might be a slave of the
Japanese Empire, or working in a nazi industrial slave camp (as an example).
Thus you are incorrect regarding the importance of intelligence.  There are
countless other examples why you should be damn glad you live in the USA, tho
our freedoms are currently being eroded, and at an ever increasing pace.

> What matters in
> this country is personal freedom and the idea that all men are created equal

        Negroes were not considered men, but rather farm animals, or property.
When the Constitution was written, the framers never considered that they would
need to specify that negroes were excluded from the Constitution.  They felt it
was clear to anyone, by just looking that them, that they were more aligned
with the barnyard horse, or the plow mule, than with man.

> (I know that this isn't how the government really operates, but it's the
> ideal we're supposed to be striving for in the USA, and I stand by it. It's
> a good ideal).

        The rich have always been more free than the poor, it's the same
regardless where you live.  You have two options, be extremely rich to enjoy
above-the-law freedoms, or be extremely poor (and ignored by the system).

> To cart all blacks off to Africa is completely against these
> ideas. If they wanted to go to Africa, they'd go of their own accord. It

        Abraham Lincoln disagreed with that logic.  "Why should they leave this
country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and
we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists
between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not
discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I
think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while
ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is
admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated." Abraham
Lincoln; New York Daily Tribune, (August 15, 1862)

        Daniel, aren't you starting to feel rather foolish, that you are
becoming the academic equate to the religious zealot "Jeff"?  You will rue the
day you decided to match wits with the likes of me.  ;o)

> would be tantamount to returning to the slavery. And, furthermore, most of
> the blacks in this country (especially the middle- and upper-class ones)
> would be unable to live in a place like Africa.

        They may enjoy too much the preferential treatment they receive here,
something they would NOT receive in the negro-dominant africa.  However, if
they have the desire, they could do as the educated robert mugabe did, and
become dictator over one of the nations, and live as kings in luxury, away in
europe, while their people back home starve.  Sounds like opportunity to me!

> If you mean to suggest that
> they should be sent back to the tribes they originated at, then you're being
> completely rediculous.

        Thanks to christianity, tribes don't exist anymore, a 3rd world shanty
village where natives wear american good will clothing, and live in sheet metal
shacks exists where the primitive villages used to stand.  Most of africa is
indistinguishable from "the projects" in most larger cities.

> There's too much distance between the blacks of
> America and the blacks of Africa (though judging from the way many of them
> dress and act and name their children, you wouldn't think so).

        I agree, they still have their jungle/tribal instincts intact.  Funny
how you start out the sentence above, then refute your own words at the end.

> It would be
> like placing you in a Germanic tribe thousands of years ago and expecting
> you to cope. It doesn't work.

        I'd quickly take over and rule, and rapidly bring them up to speed.  As
I said before, I'm a leader, it's what I do.  Now follow or get out of my way.

> And if you mean to suggest that we should send them to the civilized parts
> of Africa, then what's the point? Why send them to Africa at all? Why not
> Europe, or Asia? Why not Australia? What makes Africa so special in this
> respect?

        Because I don't think any of us here hate Europe, Asia or Australia
that much to give them "our negro problem".  Well, some would suggest we send
them to France, who is already suffering because of the influx of w. africans,
with the resultant increase in crime and rape cases.  Now I'm sure you're
chuckling at this reasoning, because it is funny, but it wasn't intended to be.

> >       "there is nothing more painful to me . . . than to walk down
> >       the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about
> >       robbery--then look around and see somebody white and feel
> >       relieved."  -- Jesse Jackson
> >       http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ls/ls-08.htm
>
> Actually, I live very close to an urban area frequented by gangs (admittedly
> comprised mostly of Cambodian immigrants, not blacks), and I have often
> entered ghettos in the middle of the night. I have been nervous, at times,
> but only in areas which I knew for a fact had gangs, and only because I knew
> they had gangs. I have nothing against black people; I can easily turn my
> back on them and feel perfectly safe. I'm not a racist; I only feel
> threatened by established, true threats, be they minorities or otherwise.

        The first time you are vicimized by one of them, you'll change your
mind.  You're more racist than you think, read your own words.  As for me, I
never trust those subhuman beasts, nor do I turn my back on them.

> >       I wear my kookdom as a badge of honor.  I am not like you, in fact,
> >according to statistics, if you line up six million (6,000,000) people, I
> >would have the highest IQ of all of them (on average).  I am a leader, I am
> >strong and firm in my beliefs.  I am a Scientist, anything which you can
>
> Now, you see, you place yourself above me, and yet you know very little
> about me. You assume that my IQ is far below yours (and, if your
> self-analysis is in fact true, statistically I probably would be). But the
> fact of the matter is, I'm not so sorry to say, I was tested (with a
> state-approved IQ test) to be in the top one-millonth percentile of all
> people. There are very few people in this world with equal or greater
> intelligence to mine. You really don't know who you're dealing with.

        Oh, it is MORE than evident who I am dealing with.  Just the high
concentration of misspelled words [more so in your previous] messages is proof
enough of your proclaimed "acumen".  I have no idea what you mean by a "state
approved IQ test", do you mean college aptitude test?

> Furthermore, I have to take issue with this 232 IQ you speak of, as 232
> would be much higher than the percentile you claim to be in -- somewhere
> around the 99.999999999999999999 percentile, you jackass.

        I hope you can clearly see how you are becoming the academic equate to
the zealot "Jeff" inasmuch as you insist on calling me jackass, asshole, and so
forth, REPEATEDLY in our conversations.  When have I once resorted to such
antisocial behavior?  Perhaps it's because I don't need to, because YOU do not
intimidate ME!  It is clear to all _exactly_ what you are, and the simple fact
that you do not seem to know there are TWO accepted scales used for IQ, the
Stanford-Binet (for those near normal IQ) and the Cattell (reserved for those
of genius IQ) suggests you are probably a liar.  My IQ places me (exactly) in
the 99.99999809636012 percentile (FYI).  My Cattell score is 232, and my
Stanford-Binet score is 188.  There are only 114 people alive who have tested
equal or greater than I.  Beyond the fact you resorted to name calling, the
fact you did not know this fact speaks volumes.  Had you even bothered to
research (using the search engine ON THE SITE) you would have had your answer.
Probably your greatest handicap is your inability to perform research.

> It would be
> completely off the charts; certainly not down at 99.99999 that would come
> with being more intelligent than the average six million people.

        The one in six million claim is for anyone in the MENSA category of
"top 1000" of which I am.  To be in the top 1000, you need to score 182 or
higher on the Stanford-Binet exam (Cattell=223).  To use that figure is a bit
more modest, since I am rather fond of the idea of our grouping.  If you
calculate my rarity based upon my _actual_ score, I am _exactly_ one in
52,530,944 for what that's worth, placing me in the middle between the greatest
chess player who ever lived (Bobby Fischer - IQ=180) and the smartest man in
the USA (Chris Langan - IQ=195) [both based upon the Stanford-Binet].

> There must
> be some miscommunication on your part. Or maybe good old-fashioned lying. I
> find that more credible, out of a guy who suggests carting all negroes off
> to Africa is a good idea.

        The fact you did not know that scores < 200 are based on the
Stanford-Binet scale, and those > 200 are on the Cattell scale tells me
everything that I need to know.  You probably have never tested your IQ, and
based upon your logic displayed thus far, I'd guess your IQ to be above 100,
but less than 120, and certainly less than the MENSA entrance requirement of
132 (top 2%).  As for my solution to the negro problem, I did not invent the
idea of returning them from whence they came, Lincoln (their savior) did!

> >       As for my influence in atheism, you'll find I'm on the fringe.  Most
> >atheists agree with me in secret, but reject most of my opinions (only) in
> >public.  They do this because they are weak.
>
> I'm quite glad that you have so little influence on atheism. It should stay
> that way. I know many fine atheists, and none are as terrible human beings
> as you are. And furthermore, most of them sound much more intelligent.

        Don't get me wrong, most atheists agree with me in private, in secret,
but for SOCIAL reasons, don't espouse on such beliefs in mixed company.

> Keep responding; my friends and I are having a good laugh at your expense.

        I doubt you'll let them read this message, because it exposes your
[probable] lies so exquisitely, but if you do, it should make them question
your academic claims (at the very minimum).  You remind me of this fellow I met
at a party once, I was the guest of my girlfriend, and most of the people there
were people she worked with.  I had not boasted at all, but made small-talk
with people she introduced me to, conversing with them at length on their
chosen subjects (I can talk with just about anyone on just about any subject
BTW).  Then I met the loud mouth.  You remind me of him.  ;o)  He was boasting
how good he was at chess, and how smart he was, and how he was a member of
MENSA, so I asked him, "Where is your MENSA lapel pin"?  He said, "Oh, I didn't
wear it, I didn't want to make anyone feel inferior" or something similarly
revolting.  So that's when I decided to break my promise with my girlfriend, to
simply get along, and to play nice, and begin to seriously berate this turkey.
I asked him, "what color is the pin?" and he said he didn't remember.  I said,
"Funny, I remember the color of my lapel pin", and he got a funny look on his
face.  I then produced a pen and paper, and asked him to draw a picture of the
Mensa logo, and assured him that I didn't care if it was imperfect.  He
refused, citing that he couldn't remember.  Needless to say, it went down hill
from there, and my poor gf wished she could crawl into a hole and die.  I was
never invited back to any future parties.  ;o)  Eventually my arrogance, and my
intelligence played a significant role in her dumping me for (surprisingly) a
rather low-brow unintellectual man.  :o/  I never can figure out women.  ;o)

James

Daniel wrote:
>
> listen, put these up on antichrist dot net. they're absolutely hilarious;
> i'm sure anybody of sound mind will get a real kick out of 'em.

        Rest assured, they will be posted, under the title "James academically
castrates an imbecile" or something similar.  :o)  Do you know the meaning of
the term "backfire"?  Your plans have backfired upon you.  :o)

James

>Daniel wrote:
> >
> > >       You seem to flip flop like a fish out of water.
> >
> > I have to disagree with you there, as, you see, I never said anything
>about
> > my viewpoints on exclusively black organizations, and did indeed come to
> > this conclusion on my own. Sorry to disappoint you, but you've had no
> > influence on my thinking whatsoever.
>
>       What you said is a matter of public record, and impossible for you to
>refute, since anyone chronologically reading the messages will be able to
>come
>to their own conclusions.  Although your grammar and spelling are slightly
>better, intellectually you seem only slightly improved over "Jeff".  :o/

I only wish I could be as hilariously ignorant as Jeff is; it would make
things a lot more fun, I'll tell you.

And you've really had absolutely no influence over my feelings about racism
-- either that perpetrated by whites or by minorities. I defy you to name
one single thing which I have actually refuted, as opposed to the
presuppositions of yours which I've shattered with my alleged
"flip-flopping".


> > >       What do you think of the fact that negroes have racial
>organizations,
> > >such as the NAACP, Rainbow coalition, and the UNCF,
> >
> > I think, as I'm sure you do, that it's outrageous and racist for such
>groups
> > to exist and for whites-only organizations not to. That's the climate of
>the
> > world today; I had nothing to do with it.
>
>       You don't stand forward and say "I am caucasian, and caucasian, along
>with asian people built and created everything we have, very little was
>contributed by the negro, regardless what revisionist historians claim".
>I'm
>the one doing that, not you.  You spout obscenities at my "racism" then
>later
>agree with my "racist" comments, this constitutes a flip flop.

I agree with many of the ideas you have put forth ABOUT racism, but I still
do not agree with those ideas which I denounced as racist. I have always
considered unfair the racism of both black and white groups in America. I
never "flip-flopped" -- you just assumed that I felt certain ways about
racist black groups simply because I found you to be a racist person.


>       One thing is clear, I have made you think, and I've influenced your
>opinion on the licit racism of the negroes.  You may claim I'm not an
>influence
>upon you, but clearly I am.  :o)

Go on thinking that, but no matter how much you think it, it'll never be
objectively true.


> > >       I agree, I simply want to increase the intelligence level of
>both Africa
> > >and the USA by taking all the negroes we have here, and sending them
>back to
> > >Africa.  The average IQ in both Africa _and_ in the USA would INCREASE!
> >
> > The average IQ of a country does not matter -- to suggest so is
>ludicrous
> > and only serves as a weak argument for your racist point.
>
>       If it were not for the intelligent, specifically those of German
>heritage who (among many things which has changed your life) created the
>Atomic
>Bomb for the USA example, you might not be here, or you might be a slave of
>the
>Japanese Empire, or working in a nazi industrial slave camp (as an
>example).
>Thus you are incorrect regarding the importance of intelligence.  There are
>countless other examples why you should be damn glad you live in the USA,
>tho
>our freedoms are currently being eroded, and at an ever increasing pace.

I never questioned the importance of intelligence; clearly intelligence is
an important factor in the advancements that humans have made in the past.
What I called into question was the importance of "national IQ", as you put
it -- the idea that the OVERALL IQ of a country (Africa and the USA, in this
case) was important. The IQs of individuals are indeed very important, but
your IQ doesn't change simply because of a change in geography.


> > What matters in
> > this country is personal freedom and the idea that all men are created
>equal
>
>       Negroes were not considered men, but rather farm animals, or property.
>When the Constitution was written, the framers never considered that they
>would
>need to specify that negroes were excluded from the Constitution.  They
>felt it
>was clear to anyone, by just looking that them, that they were more aligned
>with the barnyard horse, or the plow mule, than with man.

I fully agree with this statement, that the early founders of our country
did not indeed consider negroes as men while drafting the constitution. But
the constitution is based on the idea of elasticity, that the government can
change with the changing climate of the people -- this is why we have
amendments. The people of the USA generally consider negroes to be human
beings today; therefore, the fundamental rights put forward in the
constitution SHOULD apply to them.


> > (I know that this isn't how the government really operates, but it's the
> > ideal we're supposed to be striving for in the USA, and I stand by it.
>It's
> > a good ideal).
>
>       The rich have always been more free than the poor, it's the same
>regardless where you live.  You have two options, be extremely rich to
>enjoy
>above-the-law freedoms, or be extremely poor (and ignored by the system).

You have my absolute full agreement on this; I never denied that.


> > To cart all blacks off to Africa is completely against these
> > ideas. If they wanted to go to Africa, they'd go of their own accord. It
>
>       Abraham Lincoln disagreed with that logic.  "Why should they leave this
>country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You
>and
>we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists
>between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need
>not
>discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both,
>as I
>think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us,
>while
>ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this
>is
>admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated." Abraham
>Lincoln; New York Daily Tribune, (August 15, 1862)

I never said that Lincoln was some sort of saint. Most of the people who
consider Lincoln as some messiah for the black people are simply
undereducated and misunderstanding of history. I never put Lincoln on a
pedestal, and I have always believed that Lincoln was something of a
hypocrite. The abolition of slavery only entered the war as a political
stroke -- it had nothing to do with Lincoln's personal feelings.

Furthermore, many of the black slaves of America were not so far removed
from their original tribes at that time -- it would have been much easier
for them to relocate to their homeland (and many of them did indeed do
that). However, over these past 141 years since Lincoln made that statement,
much has changed about the culture of the black people of America, and many
of them certainly could not cope with forced relocation to a primitive land.


>       Daniel, aren't you starting to feel rather foolish, that you are
>becoming the academic equate to the religious zealot "Jeff"?  You will rue
>the
>day you decided to match wits with the likes of me.  ;o)

Jeff's main argument centers around fellatio, James. I have much more
logical points. Even you can see that.


> > would be tantamount to returning to the slavery. And, furthermore, most
>of
> > the blacks in this country (especially the middle- and upper-class ones)
> > would be unable to live in a place like Africa.
>
>       They may enjoy too much the preferential treatment they receive here,
>something they would NOT receive in the negro-dominant africa.  However, if
>they have the desire, they could do as the educated robert mugabe did, and
>become dictator over one of the nations, and live as kings in luxury, away
>in
>europe, while their people back home starve.  Sounds like opportunity to
>me!

You can't possibly believe that that's a good idea.


> > If you mean to suggest that
> > they should be sent back to the tribes they originated at, then you're
>being
> > completely rediculous.
>
>       Thanks to christianity, tribes don't exist anymore, a 3rd world shanty
>village where natives wear american good will clothing, and live in sheet
>metal
>shacks exists where the primitive villages used to stand.  Most of africa
>is
>indistinguishable from "the projects" in most larger cities.

There are still many undeveloped areas of Africa. They certainly are
dwindling, but they're there.


> > There's too much distance between the blacks of
> > America and the blacks of Africa (though judging from the way many of
>them
> > dress and act and name their children, you wouldn't think so).
>
>       I agree, they still have their jungle/tribal instincts intact.  Funny
>how you start out the sentence above, then refute your own words at the
>end.

I was making a dig at the rediculous fake African culture of many of the
black people today trying to get back to their roots. It would be like me
wearing loincloths and changing my name to Running Wolf simply because I am
of a pretty good part American Indian descent. (Not Native American, mind
you -- that's simply the sickening label of white politically correct
dimwits).

And doesn't it make you look pretty presumptuous, assuming that I am
predominantly white? I'm quite a mutt, only part of which is anglo-saxan.


> > It would be
> > like placing you in a Germanic tribe thousands of years ago and
>expecting
> > you to cope. It doesn't work.
>
>       I'd quickly take over and rule, and rapidly bring them up to speed.  As
>I said before, I'm a leader, it's what I do.  Now follow or get out of my
>way.

Now you're just being rediculous. First of all, you would not be able to
speak the language, you'd be dressed in (what they would consider)
rediculous clothing, and you would not be accepted by the group to begin
with, let alone become their leader.


> > And if you mean to suggest that we should send them to the civilized
>parts
> > of Africa, then what's the point? Why send them to Africa at all? Why
>not
> > Europe, or Asia? Why not Australia? What makes Africa so special in this
> > respect?
>
>       Because I don't think any of us here hate Europe, Asia or Australia
>that much to give them "our negro problem".  Well, some would suggest we
>send
>them to France, who is already suffering because of the influx of w.
>africans,
>with the resultant increase in crime and rape cases.  Now I'm sure you're
>chuckling at this reasoning, because it is funny, but it wasn't intended to
>be.

I don't see any "negro problem" in America, but that's just my opinion.


> > >       "there is nothing more painful to me . . . than to walk down
> > >       the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about
> > >       robbery--then look around and see somebody white and feel
> > >       relieved."  -- Jesse Jackson
> > >       http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ls/ls-08.htm
> >
> > Actually, I live very close to an urban area frequented by gangs
>(admittedly
> > comprised mostly of Cambodian immigrants, not blacks), and I have often
> > entered ghettos in the middle of the night. I have been nervous, at
>times,
> > but only in areas which I knew for a fact had gangs, and only because I
>knew
> > they had gangs. I have nothing against black people; I can easily turn
>my
> > back on them and feel perfectly safe. I'm not a racist; I only feel
> > threatened by established, true threats, be they minorities or
>otherwise.
>
>       The first time you are vicimized by one of them, you'll change your
>mind.  You're more racist than you think, read your own words.  As for me,
>I
>never trust those subhuman beasts, nor do I turn my back on them.

I am not racist, I'm simply blunt. It's certainly true that there are
minority gangs in America; I won't deny that. However, there are white
gangs, too. It's more of a problem of poverty culture than racial culture.


> > >       I wear my kookdom as a badge of honor.  I am not like you, in
>fact,
> > >according to statistics, if you line up six million (6,000,000) people,
>I
> > >would have the highest IQ of all of them (on average).  I am a leader,
>I am
> > >strong and firm in my beliefs.  I am a Scientist, anything which you
>can
> >
> > Now, you see, you place yourself above me, and yet you know very little
> > about me. You assume that my IQ is far below yours (and, if your
> > self-analysis is in fact true, statistically I probably would be). But
>the
> > fact of the matter is, I'm not so sorry to say, I was tested (with a
> > state-approved IQ test) to be in the top one-millonth percentile of all
> > people. There are very few people in this world with equal or greater
> > intelligence to mine. You really don't know who you're dealing with.
>
>       Oh, it is MORE than evident who I am dealing with.  Just the high
>concentration of misspelled words [more so in your previous] messages is
>proof

Now, I find very few to no misspelled words in my messages; maybe I'm simply
missing them, but I highly doubt that. Please point out specific examples.


>I have no idea what you mean by a "state
>approved IQ test", do you mean college aptitude test?

By "state approved IQ test", I'm referring to an IQ test administered by a
state-approved psychologist. It's much easier when dealing with the
unintelligent to simplify my terminology.


> > Furthermore, I have to take issue with this 232 IQ you speak of, as 232
> > would be much higher than the percentile you claim to be in -- somewhere
> > around the 99.999999999999999999 percentile, you jackass.
>
>       I hope you can clearly see how you are becoming the academic equate to
>the zealot "Jeff" inasmuch as you insist on calling me jackass, asshole,
>and so
>forth, REPEATEDLY in our conversations.  When have I once resorted to such
>antisocial behavior?  Perhaps it's because I don't need to, because YOU do
>not
>intimidate ME!

I find it entertaining to use "antisocial behavior".

It's fun, dumbsh*t, that's all. I'm not intimidated, I'm entertained.

Are you having fun, James? Because I'm certainly having LOADS of fun. No,
seriously, I am.


>It is clear to all _exactly_ what you are, and the simple fact
>that you do not seem to know there are TWO accepted scales used for IQ, the
>Stanford-Binet (for those near normal IQ) and the Cattell (reserved for
>those
>of genius IQ) suggests you are probably a liar.  My IQ places me (exactly)
>in
>the 99.99999809636012 percentile (FYI).  My Cattell score is 232, and my
>Stanford-Binet score is 188.  There are only 114 people alive who have
>tested
>equal or greater than I.  Beyond the fact you resorted to name calling, the
>fact you did not know this fact speaks volumes.  Had you even bothered to
>research (using the search engine ON THE SITE) you would have had your
>answer.
>Probably your greatest handicap is your inability to perform research.

I did indeed know that there were two accepted IQ scales, but felt very
little need to discuss such things with jackasses who I don't believe in the
first place.

Yes, you're a jackass. And I don't believe that 232 one bit.


> > It would be
> > completely off the charts; certainly not down at 99.99999 that would
>come
> > with being more intelligent than the average six million people.
>
>       The one in six million claim is for anyone in the MENSA category of
>"top 1000" of which I am.  To be in the top 1000, you need to score 182 or
>higher on the Stanford-Binet exam (Cattell=223).  To use that figure is a
>bit
>more modest, since I am rather fond of the idea of our grouping.  If you
>calculate my rarity based upon my _actual_ score, I am _exactly_ one in
>52,530,944 for what that's worth, placing me in the middle between the
>greatest
>chess player who ever lived (Bobby Fischer - IQ=180) and the smartest man
>in
>the USA (Chris Langan - IQ=195) [both based upon the Stanford-Binet].

References, sir. I need proof before I'll consider believing your story.


> > There must
> > be some miscommunication on your part. Or maybe good old-fashioned
>lying. I
> > find that more credible, out of a guy who suggests carting all negroes
>off
> > to Africa is a good idea.
>
>       The fact you did not know that scores < 200 are based on the
>Stanford-Binet scale, and those > 200 are on the Cattell scale tells me
>everything that I need to know.  You probably have never tested your IQ,
>and
>based upon your logic displayed thus far, I'd guess your IQ to be above
>100,
>but less than 120, and certainly less than the MENSA entrance requirement
>of
>132 (top 2%).  As for my solution to the negro problem, I did not invent
>the
>idea of returning them from whence they came, Lincoln (their savior) did!

I am a MEMBER of MENSA, jackass, so I'll have to assume that you have a
complete inability to seperate fact from your own ludicrous reality.

And I never said that Lincoln was their savior; you just assumed that I felt
so.


> > >       As for my influence in atheism, you'll find I'm on the fringe.
>Most
> > >atheists agree with me in secret, but reject most of my opinions (only)
>in
> > >public.  They do this because they are weak.
> >
> > I'm quite glad that you have so little influence on atheism. It should
>stay
> > that way. I know many fine atheists, and none are as terrible human
>beings
> > as you are. And furthermore, most of them sound much more intelligent.
>
>       Don't get me wrong, most atheists agree with me in private, in secret,
>but for SOCIAL reasons, don't espouse on such beliefs in mixed company.

Really? Because ALL of my atheist friends who have seen your website have
proclaimed your ideas along the lines of "ignorant", "bizzare", and, let's
just say, "kookish".


> > Keep responding; my friends and I are having a good laugh at your
>expense.
>       I doubt you'll let them read this message, because it exposes your
>[probable] lies so exquisitely, but if you do, it should make them question
>your academic claims (at the very minimum).

I've posted all of your messages onto my personal weblog (I'd give you the
address, but you already know too much [e.g. absolutely nothing] about me).


>You remind me of this fellow I met
>at a party once, I was the guest of my girlfriend, and most of the people
>there
>were people she worked with.  I had not boasted at all, but made small-talk
>with people she introduced me to, conversing with them at length on their
>chosen subjects (I can talk with just about anyone on just about any
>subject
>BTW).

I find that hard to believe.


>Then I met the loud mouth.  You remind me of him.  ;o)  He was boasting
>how good he was at chess, and how smart he was, and how he was a member of
>MENSA, so I asked him, "Where is your MENSA lapel pin"?  He said, "Oh, I
>didn't
>wear it, I didn't want to make anyone feel inferior" or something similarly
>revolting.  So that's when I decided to break my promise with my
>girlfriend, to
>simply get along, and to play nice, and begin to seriously berate this
>turkey.
>I asked him, "what color is the pin?" and he said he didn't remember.  I
>said,
>"Funny, I remember the color of my lapel pin", and he got a funny look on
>his

My pin is yellow and black, by the way.


>face. I then produced a pen and paper, and asked him to draw a picture of
>the
>Mensa logo, and assured him that I didn't care if it was imperfect.  He
>refused, citing that he couldn't remember.  Needless to say, it went down
>hill
>from there, and my poor gf wished she could crawl into a hole and die.  I
>was
>never invited back to any future parties.  ;o)  Eventually my arrogance,
>and my
>intelligence played a significant role in her dumping me for (surprisingly)
>a
>rather low-brow unintellectual man.  :o/  I never can figure out women.
>;o)

Maybe it was your jackassedness, to invent a word which fits you well. I
know if I were a woman, I'd never want anything to do with you.

Actually, you remind me of a former friend of mine, as well. He was a very
unlikeable fellow; never bathed, made bizarre references to things he knew
nothing about and thought he did, and confronted everybody about everything,
even when he didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I was perfectly
fine with the guy; he was an unlikeable fellow, but we got along fine. Then
he tried to rape my sister, and I kinda lost interest in being friends with
him.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing what next jackassed comments you come up
with; we're all having a great laugh.

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

You're going to castrate yourself? But you seem like such a perfectly
masturbatory guy...

Good luck on that, then.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Really, James, are you having fun? Because if you're not, I'll gladly cease
my correspondence with you. I can only hope that you're having as good a
time in your bizarre reality as I am in mine.

I'm just a nice guy like that.

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

You may have an above average intelligence -- I won't deny that, except for
when I find it funny. Your IQ is obviously rather high; you speak eloquently
and precisely, at your best, and you seem to understand a number of the
mechanistic concepts you bring up, in all honesty. However, I would not go
so far as to say that you are as intelligent as I am, and certainly not
more. We may be equal (or almost) in left-brain thinking, but I certainly
have a far superior right-brain. You are unable to understand in any
meaningful way the fields of creativity, spirituality, and philosophy. You
cannot alter your mindset (something which I do on an hourly basis) in order
to fully understand concepts that others put forth, and you therefore seem
to deny them as baseless and wrong.

And frankly, for that, I feel sorry for you.

Because I can understand religion, and take it for what it is. I can
understand science, and take it for what it is. I can understand anything,
and take it for what it is. All is clear to me.

I understand that religion has nothing to do with science. So do you. But I
understand that religion is a possible world, and you fully deny the
possibility -- you are simply a tool of science.

Use science towards scientific ends. But don't try to apply it to
spirituality. The two have nothing to do with each other, by definition.

Adieu until next time, good buddy.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

(If you don't respond to this one, I'll be sure of your cowardice and lack
of comprehension)

The funniest thing about all this is the fact that neither of us will ever
change the other's mind. You will probably always be ignorant of all other
mindsets; I will never (and I mean never) ascribe to your racist ideas or
your denial of god.

And, yet, my mindset is the more logical one, which makes your entire
argument laughable. For, you see, I can ascribe to any mindset. I can adopt
the universe of a christian, and choose to believe it; I can put myself in a
scientific mind, and choose to believe it; I can put myself in your mode of
thinking, even, and choose to believe it.

Now, it makes plenty of sense to completely disregard god and the
supernatural when forming a scientific model. For example, when charting the
path of the moon around the earth, we certainly don't need to factor in
god's will on the moon, because it makes no difference.

But this does not mean that god does not exist. You don't factor in the
gravitational pull of Alpha Centauri when charting the path of the moon,
simply because it has little to no measurable effect -- but does this mean
that it does not exist?

For the purposes of the model that describes the movement of the moon, Alpha
Centauri need not exist.