JTEM the sick chocolate licker 5 
Author Message
 JTEM the sick chocolate licker 5


> How are things inside your cell today?

How original. Let's try something no one could ever make up, except
someone mentally retarded:

"As many of you may already be aware, I am an
accomplished medium who has often channeled
none other than Nostradamus himself."

Fri, 05 Sep 2014 13:04:39 GMT
 JTEM the sick chocolate licker 5

Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 JTEM the sick chocolate licker 5

> Sick {*filter*}

Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host:
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host:

Fri, 05 Sep 2014 13:24:38 GMT
 JTEM the sick chocolate licker 5

Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 JTEM the sick chocolate licker 5

Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host:
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host:

> Sick {*filter*}
> Isn't it strange

"Posting under various aliases is sock puppetry, that's how it is
Word games won't get you out of it.

People take your parodies seriously (that's clear from the ones
posted under the name jtem), and I suspect that you get a kick out of
- which suggests you are deliberately trolling. That you also post
under other aliases certainly looks like trolling.

Responses to a recent post of yours in talk.origins:
"JTEM is actually on the side of science and evolutionary theory; I'm
sure that his heading is parody. However - he is unnecessarily
confrontational, and it is often over ideas that are unsupported by
the evidence, or are not well thought out, and he doesn't always take
well to being corrected or informed. "

"t has been a long time since I have visited this group and I have
lost a sense of the disposition of regular posters. I apologize to
JTEM for mistaking his post as that of a creationism advocate. I am
sorry, sir. Nonetheless, I encourage any of the creationists viewing
my post to simply replace JTEM's name with theirs and maintain the
scientific challenge regarding outrageous biblical claims. Imagine if
those in the evolutionary biology camp suddenly started maintaining
that because there is no proof that men can walk on water
theory is therefore proven. Can you picture the outcry from
creationists? "

Other comments from posters in t.o:
" All the
intelligence leaves the conversation when JTEM snips out all serious
discussion without comment, so that he can focus exclusively on
and responding to "counter attacks", as you call them. "

"JTEM is interesting, in that he apparently holds a view of evolution
that either discounts or ignores molecular data, and strongly
with people who believe that the molecular data are good indicators
evolution.   I've found his explanations of why he holds this
to be obtuse, not well explained, and laced with sarcasm and

As a result, JTEMs views on the issue are not very approachable, and
still have no clear idea of why he disdains the molecular evidence,
other than he's convinced that it is somehow wrong.   It's a pity
because I learn quite a bit from the professional disagreements
presented here.

It is entirely predictable that these behaviors are acting like a
lightning rod on this n.g., and I have to wonder if that isn't JTEMs
intent. "

(to JTEM);"Why can't you respond without
injecting insults and sarcasm?  Any meaningful content is swamped by
the noise in your message. "

"I take from this that you have no intention of laying off the stupid
and useless insults.   So be it. "

"You frequenty ignore serous posts:

-You ignored my post where I explained the difference between the
that "random means an event can't be repeated" and the idea that
"repeats can be evidence against randomness".

-You ignored me when I explained precisely why the words "over time"
are not superfluous in the sentence "change in allelle frequency
a population over time".

-You pretty much ignored my criticisms of your 'dog giving birth'

-You ignored my reply to your criticism of the 'candy bowl' analogy.

-You ignored my detailed description of my idea of evolution,
and natural selection.

-You ignored my example of a time when another evolution corrected
something that I said.

All of these posts were in conversations between the two of us, in
cases I was answering a direct question of yours.  They were all 100%
serious.  It's possible that you considered them so ridiculous that
they didn't warrant a reply, but then that's not the kind of thing
do, if they were really that ridiculous you would have pointed it out
and tried to make me look stupid.  The problem here is that they
completely refuted something that you said, and I you couldn't admit
it.  You are a coward, plain and simple. "

about JTEM:
"Yes, since the one in question just showed up yet
again to declare that mere factual incorrectness in
each and every case doesn't mean he ever lost an
argument. That makes him pure essense of Troll.  I
guess JTEM has some "Humpty Dumpty word
meanings"-style definition of what "JTEM lost this
argument" would mean. "
and in the same post:
""I guess that's why they call JTEM's ignorance,

"This is just part and parcel of a long chain of
evidence JTEM has provided here of being abjectly
stupid. Identifying JTEM as once again proven stupid
in JTEM's own writing is hardly breaking new ground
in talk.origins. "

From the thread you started called
"The problem is the difficulty of distinguishing JTEMist argument
JTEMist parody. "

I particularly like this one:
"Ok....you can insult me one more time...it's what you do best when
have no argument. "

And from Mark Isaak:
"The "like watching a train wreck" analogy comes to mind, but it is
really valid.  Train wrecks are not nearly as fascinating; their
wreckage looks pristine compared to JTEM.

I particularly like how he quotes himself and thinks he has proved
someone else said something. "

So it's not most of the posters in the threads in sci.archaeology and
soc.history.ancient don't think much of JTEM (that's putting it

Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:45:31 GMT
 JTEM the sick chocolate licker 5

Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 JTEM the sick chocolate licker 5

> All with the same deerfield addy, how convenient.

You should be embarrassed by your stupidity.

Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:35:48 GMT
 JTEM the sick chocolate licker 5

> "I've also posted

Hi, crazy spazz!  Has anything changed
yet?  The evidence of Neanderthals using
boats all gone, thanks to your continuous
posting of nonsense?  Well thank goodness
for that.

Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:02:57 GMT
 [ 8 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. JTEM is right: he is king of chocolate

2. Speaking for us all: `I'm sick, Sick, SICK of Ed Conrad's bullshit!'

3. "SICK, SICK, SICK of Ed Conrad's bullshit" -- Kook EC-027

4. Speaking for us all: `I'm sick, Sick, SICK of Ed Conrad's bullshit!'

5. "Blacks Get Sick Easier, Stay Sick Longer and Die Sooner than Whites"

6. "Blacks Get Sick Easier, Stay Sick Longer and Die Sooner than Whites"

7. linda, without weavers bad and sick, helps alongside it, jumping daily

8. why does Wally dream so crudely, whenever Georgina believes the sick smog very partly

9. the frames, painters, and units are all dark and sick

10. sick chick got to see to beleave

11. she wants to grasp sick films alongside Isabelle's highway

12. they are sowing within sick, behind fresh, on new diets

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software