Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I Use To Have Affairs With Married Christian Women!


Leaf

Recommended Posts

Euphgeek, you are not obligated to hang out on this thread if it does not meet your personal taste. For the longest time I, too, could not figure out why everybody was so down on him. But when he bragged about taking out a teenaged Amish girl, well, that came too close to home for me. That could have been me. You can read my post about it. That's when I began seeing that this guy has NO values--zero respect for humanity.

Well, that's your opinion. And it's not about my personal tastes, I'm just trying to tell you guys what he's doing to you and what control he has over you.

My god...you guys are still obsessed with Leaf? You must really love to see him respond. I guess some people just can't get enough of shallow men. You may think you're making a fool of him, but he's really making fools of all of you. All he has to do is make one arrogant post and all the rest of you are all over it like flies on s**t with your Photoshopped pictures and juvenile insults. Can we please just grow up and move on? Junior high school was decades ago for some of us.

 

Oh, please. Don't be such a killjoy. I for one found that there was some great entertainment value to be had. Even though it was at his expense, it's not like he didn't ask for it. Besides, I never used Photoshop. I used the GIMP.

 

Maybe I'll find something to make you smile...just give me a few minutes here, there's quite a collection at Fugly.com...

Well, you act like you don't like Leaf, but here you are posting like a fanboy in response to everything he says. If your objective is to entertain yourself by making yourself look like a fool, then more power to you, I guess.

I suppose there are really only three ways to deal with people like our resident narcissist:

 

1. Ignore them

 

2. Respond without the knowledge that there is something psychologically wrong with them, which will more likely give the narcissist the attention they crave rather than drive them away

 

3. Mock them

 

Of the above three, 1 and 3 are your best bet. You'll notice that Leaf did not respond to a SINGLE thing I posted in his direction; you'll also notice that anything but the outright derisiveness of DigitalQuirk's responses prompted nothing more than a flurry of words like "wuss bag". So I have to agree with DigiQuirk's tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Leaf

    65

  • PaulQ

    43

  • euphgeek

    27

  • Legion

    22

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1. Ignore them

 

2. Respond without the knowledge that there is something psychologically wrong with them, which will more likely give the narcissist the attention they crave rather than drive them away

 

3. Mock them

 

Of the above three, 1 and 3 are your best bet. You'll notice that Leaf did not respond to a SINGLE thing I posted in his direction; you'll also notice that anything but the outright derisiveness of DigitalQuirk's responses prompted nothing more than a flurry of words like "wuss bag". So I have to agree with DigiQuirk's tactics.

The other option is to recognize that they are really a caricature of a more subtle mindset in society, and respond to them as though we are addressing the more underlying issue through the spectacle of extremes. This is what theater does in plots dealing with its characters. Typically they are caricatures that symbolize various personality types, current social issues, or human imperfections.

 

Leaf is a caricature, either through some sort of clinical issue, or he is simply an actor. In either case, he represents the worst in us. We identify with him by virtue of not wanting to be like him. He serves the purpose of social dialog, and for that reason alone he has value.

 

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players:

They have their exits and their entrances;

And one man in his time plays many parts,

His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,

Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.

And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel

And shining morning face, creeping like snail

Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,

Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad

Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,

Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,

Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,

Seeking the bubble reputation

Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,

In fair round belly with good capon lined,

With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,

Full of wise saws and modern instances;

And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts

Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,

With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,

His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide

For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,

Turning again toward childish treble, pipes

And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,

That ends this strange eventful history,

Is second childishness and mere oblivion,

Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

 

William Shakespeare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll notice that Leaf did not respond to a SINGLE thing I posted in his direction; you'll also notice that anything but the outright derisiveness of DigitalQuirk's responses prompted nothing more than a flurry of words like "wuss bag". So I have to agree with DigiQuirk's tactics.

 

 

You know.....he never responded to anything I said either. Anywhere. On any of the threads he's been active in. I think I'll take that as a compliment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preacher's wifes???? I give you two thumbs up!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, for all you fans out there, here's a picture for you to caption. Best caption wins!

 

liondog.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread helped me in more ways than one too. I really appreciate the thinking caused by Vigile and yet it was nice to see that I have values in common with other unbelievers that have nothing to do with religion but just being a good, caring, human being.

 

Ditto - I've gotten the same out of this, and it's helped me to further hone and understand my moral approach as an Atheist. A lot of good people posted good things on an otherwise dumb thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preacher's wifes???? I give you two thumbs up!!

Hey, I know a lesbian who does that. :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize this guy is gone now, thanks be to Helios, but I am wondering if anyone else noticed the great difference is his initial post and the rest of them. The first post is so obviously a copy/paste, with most words spelled correctly etc. When he posts as himself, suddenly his posts are idiotic and illiterate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize this guy is gone now, thanks be to Helios, but I am wondering if anyone else noticed the great difference is his initial post and the rest of them. The first post is so obviously a copy/paste, with most words spelled correctly etc. When he posts as himself, suddenly his posts are idiotic and illiterate.

 

Yeah. And I, for one, don't believe that pretty-boy picture he posted is actually him, either. He just stole it off the Internet somewhere, which is why he refused to post any other pictures of "himself." Bet he's really a pathetic, ugly little troll who can only afford pathetic, ugly troll whores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that people on this board are so quick to criticize people they don't like or agree with, finding things wrong with the smallest things they do or say, but they accept without question (or at least without criticism) the proclamations of people like James Randi. :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that people on this board are so quick to criticize people they don't like or agree with, finding things wrong with the smallest things they do or say, but they accept without question (or at least without criticism) the proclamations of people like James Randi. :scratch:

I might find that interesting also, if only I knew who James Randi was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that people on this board are so quick to criticize people they don't like or agree with, finding things wrong with the smallest things they do or say, but they accept without question (or at least without criticism) the proclamations of people like James Randi. :scratch:

 

Well, people like James Randi have a reliable track record. I trust him. I can track back thru his web site's posts to double check the things he has said in the past. He cites his sources. When he has been wrong he has admitted it and apologised.

 

 

When you use the phrase "people like James Randi" What are you getting at? Could you give me some examples of other people like James Randi whose proclaimations have been accepted without question here?

 

I'd like to get a handle on who else you include in the Venn diagram subset "people like James Randi" and what label you would give to that subset.

 

I would give it the label "skeptics" and I would tend to have some respect for the people contained by it.

 

Now. against this subset of people whose proclamations we seldom question are your other group of people -people we "don't like or agree with". Now these people, it seems, we find "things wrong with the smallest things they do or say". Who would be the members of this group? Given this thread, would it be people like Leaf? and do you find his opinions and attitudes to be not worthy of criticism? Do you feel he is a worthy contrepoint to "people like James Randi"?

 

Have I misread your post? Do you see yourself in the subset of people NOT like James Randi?

or have I been too quick to find things wrong with the smallest things you do or say?

 

regards

 

Stew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize this guy is gone now, thanks be to Helios, but I am wondering if anyone else noticed the great difference is his initial post and the rest of them. The first post is so obviously a copy/paste, with most words spelled correctly etc. When he posts as himself, suddenly his posts are idiotic and illiterate.

 

Yeah. And I, for one, don't believe that pretty-boy picture he posted is actually him, either. He just stole it off the Internet somewhere, which is why he refused to post any other pictures of "himself." Bet he's really a pathetic, ugly little troll who can only afford pathetic, ugly troll whores.

 

I'm certain he's genuine.

 

His first post was written carefully, fueled by an overinflated ego. He would have spent some time in composing it to make sure it accurately portrayed what he deemed to be his greatness. Once his ego became bruised, his further posts became hurried rants, knee-jerk responses born of frustration and anger in attempts to protect his bruised ego. Blinded by rage, he lashed out at everyone. Once the mockery started, he only had one choice left for redemption; a choice his battered ego could not let him make. Therefore, he left.

 

He has a difficult time posting pictures because he probably does not own a digital camera. Such technology probably does not exist in that market yet; most of the people in the Ukraine would still be using film cameras. People in the Ukraine tend to buy good quality and hang on to their stuff; they aren't so eager as North Americans to buy the latest and the greatest, a credit to their culture. I would not be surprised if Leaf was using an older first generation Pentium-based computer. Hence, he is scanning in his pictures. He may not even own a scanner, he probably has to go somewhere to scan the images in. People in that part of the world are very practical.

 

For the record, I never hated the guy. I actually felt sorry for him. I still do. Nonetheless, there exists a side of me with a wicked sense of humor that I had to let out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such technology probably does not exist in that market yet; most of the people in the Ukraine would still be using film cameras. People in the Ukraine tend to buy good quality and hang on to their stuff; they aren't so eager as North Americans to buy the latest and the greatest, a credit to their culture.

 

I can't speak specifically for the Ukraine, but do know that they share many cultural and some economic similarities with Russia. It would be fair to say, I think, that their cultural similarities are comparable to the similarities shared between the US and Canada; in other words, they are not vastly different cultures the way that the US and Mexico are.

 

Here in Russia almost everyone who uses a camera is now using a digital camera; even our relatives from the middle of Russia have digitals. Moreover, Russians are obsessed with having the latest and greatest. For example, I bought a new camera last year that has 4.0 megapixels. Having an older camera that is 2.0, I knew that unless I was planning on blowing up photos to poster size, that 4.0 was more than enough. I bought it for the lense and not the pixels. Our friends, however, complained to us: "my camera has 6.0 pixels. why did buy a camera that has less than the latest attributes?" When we first moved here we heard the same about our cell phones. We bought a $60 panasonic that did the job and didn't think anything of it. Our friends were horrified.

 

That said, not everyone has a camera. What they do have though are cell phones and almost every cell phone sold here has digital photo tech. The number of Russians who have a cell phone is probably somewhere in the high ninety percentile range - even the babushki and older toddlers have cells. It is shameful for a Russian to have a cheap cell phone in the same way it is shameful for a Californian to drive a cheap car. They will go out of their way and spend a month or more's salary on the best cell phone they can eek through their annual budget. Russians are next in line to become the new consumer driven economy.

 

All that said, Russia has a lot of oil money. The Ukraine is forced to buy their natural gas from Mother Russia. Thus, even though their cultures are similar, the economic difference might be such that what you say holds true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Russia almost everyone who uses a camera is now using a digital camera; even our relatives from the middle of Russia have digitals. Moreover, Russians are obsessed with having the latest and greatest. For example, I bought a new camera last year that has 4.0 megapixels. Having an older camera that is 2.0, I knew that unless I was planning on blowing up photos to poster size, that 4.0 was more than enough. I bought it for the lense and not the pixels. Our friends, however, complained to us: "my camera has 6.0 pixels. why did buy a camera that has less than the latest attributes?" When we first moved here we heard the same about our cell phones. We bought a $60 panasonic that did the job and didn't think anything of it. Our friends were horrified.

 

How interesting. Being into photography myself, I have been reading reports on how the 35mm film market is growing rapidly in Eastern Europe, seen as an "Emerging market."

 

Kodak press release

 

Mind you, that information is a couple of years old. Things may have changed today. Then again, even in Canada, there are still areas that are slower to change than others. Not all of the United States is like California. That said, I am certain that Leaf uses film and scans in his pictures. None of his pictures contain any Exif information which ought to be present if he was using a digital camera. It also explains his difficulty in posting pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that people on this board are so quick to criticize people they don't like or agree with, finding things wrong with the smallest things they do or say, but they accept without question (or at least without criticism) the proclamations of people like James Randi. :scratch:

 

Well, people like James Randi have a reliable track record. I trust him. I can track back thru his web site's posts to double check the things he has said in the past. He cites his sources. When he has been wrong he has admitted it and apologised.

 

 

When you use the phrase "people like James Randi" What are you getting at? Could you give me some examples of other people like James Randi whose proclaimations have been accepted without question here?

 

I'd like to get a handle on who else you include in the Venn diagram subset "people like James Randi" and what label you would give to that subset.

 

I would give it the label "skeptics" and I would tend to have some respect for the people contained by it.

 

Now. against this subset of people whose proclamations we seldom question are your other group of people -people we "don't like or agree with". Now these people, it seems, we find "things wrong with the smallest things they do or say". Who would be the members of this group? Given this thread, would it be people like Leaf? and do you find his opinions and attitudes to be not worthy of criticism? Do you feel he is a worthy contrepoint to "people like James Randi"?

 

Have I misread your post? Do you see yourself in the subset of people NOT like James Randi?

or have I been too quick to find things wrong with the smallest things you do or say?

 

regards

 

Stew

I forgot to add, "and they defend him zealously." I don't know what sort of "track record" you've been looking at, but from what I've seen, James Randi's is far from reliable. The only times he's admitted he's wrong is when it's inconsequential to his core beliefs. His million dollar challenge has been widely criticized and his methods of scientific investigation are questionable, but anyone who dares to question him or his motives gets attacked by not only Randi, but by people who defend him unquestioningly.

 

My point is that people here are quick to criticize people they disagree with, but won't go to the same lengths to investigate people they agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to add, "and they defend him zealously." I don't know what sort of "track record" you've been looking at, but from what I've seen, James Randi's is far from reliable. The only times he's admitted he's wrong is when it's inconsequential to his core beliefs. His million dollar challenge has been widely criticized and his methods of scientific investigation are questionable, but anyone who dares to question him or his motives gets attacked by not only Randi, but by people who defend him unquestioningly.

 

My point is that people here are quick to criticize people they disagree with, but won't go to the same lengths to investigate people they agree with.

 

Now, I certainly haven't seen nor read everything James Randi has done, but from what I understand, he uses the scientific method to test for paranormal powers. In many cases, he exposes hoaxes. The protocols would seem to be fair and an accurate means of determining paranormal claims. Furthermore, his findings are consistent with my own, especially when it comes to psychics.

 

That said, he is human, and is therefore bound to make mistakes. You suggest his method of investigation is questionable, but such a claim is meaningless without a specific example. How is his method questionable? Can you elaborate on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to add, "and they defend him zealously." I don't know what sort of "track record" you've been looking at, but from what I've seen, James Randi's is far from reliable. The only times he's admitted he's wrong is when it's inconsequential to his core beliefs. His million dollar challenge has been widely criticized and his methods of scientific investigation are questionable, but anyone who dares to question him or his motives gets attacked by not only Randi, but by people who defend him unquestioningly.

 

My point is that people here are quick to criticize people they disagree with, but won't go to the same lengths to investigate people they agree with.

 

Now, I certainly haven't seen nor read everything James Randi has done, but from what I understand, he uses the scientific method to test for paranormal powers.

No he doesn't. He uses his own criteria which are designed to deny the possibility of any paranormal activity.

In many cases, he exposes hoaxes.
I agree. Harry Houdini did the same thing. The only difference is that Houdini admitted that some of the mediums he investigated were legitimate. I am highly suspicious of anyone who claims that 100% of the people they investigate are frauds.
The protocols would seem to be fair and an accurate means of determining paranormal claims.

They are only fair to Randi as far as not having to give away the million dollars.

Furthermore, his findings are consistent with my own, especially when it comes to psychics.
Exactly my point. You agree with him, therefore what motivation do you have to investigate any of his claims?
That said, he is human, and is therefore bound to make mistakes.

But no one seems to want to call him on those mistakes. That's my point.

You suggest his method of investigation is questionable, but such a claim is meaningless without a specific example. How is his method questionable? Can you elaborate on this?

See above. His million dollar challenge seems like more of a gimmick than actual scientific research, and 100% of the people he investigates are "found" to be frauds. He only investigates people he's sure can be made to fail the test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No he doesn't. He uses his own criteria which are designed to deny the possibility of any paranormal activity.

You mean double-blind testing w/ controls? That is universally accepted as the only means of scientifically proving any thing, like the effectiveness of drugs, while ruling out false positives, placebo effect, etc. In the case of paranormal activity, it's designed to rule out hoaxes and frauds.

I agree. Harry Houdini did the same thing. The only difference is that Houdini admitted that some of the mediums he investigated were legitimate. I am highly suspicious of anyone who claims that 100% of the people they investigate are frauds.

If you had ever actually read a sampling of Randi's web site you would know that he admits that many of the people he has tested over the years are not frauds but true believers, albeit misguided. Frauds simply won't submit to testing.

 

But I've read a lot of Houdini biographies and I've never once seen any of them suggest that he EVER admitted that any medium was legitimate. Source, please?

But no one seems to want to call him on those mistakes. That's my point.

I'd be glad to call him on it if you could point one out....

See above. His million dollar challenge seems like more of a gimmick than actual scientific research, and 100% of the people he investigates are "found" to be frauds. He only investigates people he's sure can be made to fail the test.

Again, do you have sources for this rather brazen claim? Can you back this up with something more than "seems like?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trashy, that's exactly what I'm talking about. People are quick to criticize those they disagree with whether those criticisms are legitimate or not, but will defend zealously (as you have) those they agree with. Thank you for an excellent demonstration of my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the one statement amongst the 20 pages that stood out to me was Leaf's: "what feels good do it!!!!"

This is used to justify adultery in this case, but I've heard the same thing from drug addicts ("its my body I'll do what I want") and thugs ("I go out looking for fights on Friday night, makes me feel tough!").

These self claimed alpha males think the world is their oyster, that they are some how special. Sadly its usually when the angry husband catches up with them that they learn the error of their ways (if they survive). Its the hedonistic attitude that leads to ruin, whether via STDs, violence or if they are luckly looking back and saying "damn I was such an idiot, I'm lucky to be alive".

 

I've always wondered what causes people to end up this way? Is it simply the bragging rights and awe of your friends? Seems alot of it is peer pressure and the illusion of respect. A thug smacks someone over in a bar and all his friends cheer him on, buy him a drink and pat him on the back for a job well done. If the same guys friends yelled abuse for being an idiot and walked away in disgust would he feel so powerful?

Stupidity inspires stupidity. The TV show Jackass was filmed with stunt co-ordinators, medical staff and planning, and yet numerous idiots have mimicked the stunts they see ending up hurt or killed.

Its fine to say "what feels good do it!!!!" but in the end all of us suffer for this stupidity whether it be in hospital charges, clean up costs, insurance prices or even just causing society to be a bit crappier than it was before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are quick to criticize those they disagree with whether those criticisms are legitimate or not

 

Right, which is exactly what you haven't been doing for several pages now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I never said I was completely innocent, did I? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trashy, that's exactly what I'm talking about. People are quick to criticize those they disagree with whether those criticisms are legitimate or not, but will defend zealously (as you have) those they agree with. Thank you for an excellent demonstration of my point.

 

Why do you think the criticism was quick? If Trashy is anything like me he would have read your post, scratched his head, thought about it, typed and deleted up to 5 first draft replies because they were to strongly and emotionally worded before finally hitting the "Add Reply" button.

 

I don't feel it is out of order to zealously defend someone against lies and disinformation. The statements you have made about Randi's million dollar challenge and his protocols and his choice of candidates are SO incorrect.

 

Go to the james Randi Educational Foundation site (http://www.randi.org)

Read the FAQs about the test.

Read how they arrive at the test protocols, in conjunction with the person being tested

Read how they use independent judges, agreed to by all parties

Read how they arrive at what would constitute a successful claim.

The kind of bollocks you have been talking has been said often enough by dishonest and scared people for them to have been addressed. People who claim the money doesn't exist. People who claim the tests are rigged or biased.

 

Show me an example of a rigged test, or a claimant turned away because Randi was scared. You bloody show me one, and I'll check it out, through the claimant and Randi and publicly, here on the board, kiss your arse in apology, and post here, and on my blog, and to all the skeptic sites around that Randi is not on the level.

 

While you're about it, read up on Houdini.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, StewartP, for continuing to prove my point. You don't want to find anything wrong with anything Randi does because you agree with him. People here are quick to find things wrong with what Leaf does because they disagree with his lifestyle. That's just how the human mind works.

 

That said, I've read Randi's defense of his million dollar challenge while trying to keep an open mind. I've been to his site and read what he has to say on other things, too. My impression of the challenge was that it was all a gimmick and that he was not interested in real scientific research, but only proving that anyone who believes in the paranormal is either deluded or a charlatan. He comes across as a very smug and angry person who must always be right, and his fans are not much better. I've also read the criticisms of his challenge by such people as Victor Zammit and Winston Wu, and the replies to his accusations by actual paranormal scientists. The scientists always seem to have logical and well thought out responses, while Randi resorts to extreme language and ad hominem attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.