What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

[MapleDots]

I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

 

[Slanted]

One thing that stands out is that you just won't stop posting.

You ALSO continue posting. And your weird obsession is to post about how I'm posting! What's your fixation with me? It's not new. You've been suffering from this delusion since March, as I recall.

You are no longer working for Epik.

I thought you said I was Rob Monster or some secret committee of Epik staff members? Make up your mind.

So, what's your agenda?

Something nefarious, no doubt. We lizard people are always plotting or scheming.

It seems you are trying to burry the original issue that was the basis for this thread and/or add so much content to this thread as an attempt to boost SEO for Epik's services.

That must be it. When people are saying Religion = Poison / Mental Illness / Plague, they are focusing on the core subject of this thread, right? Or when someone declares that Europe (or "Yurup" in his world) is about to be taken over by radical muslims and become a muslim continent, they are focusing on the core subject of this thread, right? And if I respond to those people, as I have done, then it's because I'm in cahoots with them – with @whenpillarsfall and @NameLlama – to bury information about Epik. And simultaneously to BOOST information about Epik for SEO purposes. Never mind that contradiction. Makes perfect sense.

Adding the fact that your tone is much more aggressive creates more questions.

If you hear aggressive tone everywhere you go, it might be because people consider you a pest. You're behaving a bit like an online stalker – at least here at NamePros – don't you think? Although you don't have any ideas to contribute, you follow me around trying to pick fights and "unmask" me.

Finally, you have had many opportunities to confirm your identity but you have chosen not to.

The only pleasure I get from you is ridiculing your paranoid delusion. So I'm going to drag that on as long as possible. People will always remember you as the guy who was obsessed with me and saw phantoms behind every bush.

 

[TCK]

@Slanted

You are very good at deflection. You should be a politician.

 

[Slanted]

I travelled there on business 70’s-90’s numerous times. Traffic was worse than LA way back then if you lived or travelled east across the lake during evening rush hour. Capitol Hill as I recall was an older neighborhood and then was getting pretty beaten up and area to avoid. Havent been back since early 2000’s and actually stayed in downtown for a short vacation.

The term “Gentrification” gets thrown around in a negative light and many complain, but imo it is simply capitalism. Higher income people pay more taxes, drive less so less pollution than say commuting from Kirkland or Redmond. Amazon and other employees I can only assume pay more property taxes than previous owners, high paying jobs and prosperity is a good thing. So, I can only assume displaced have to move way out to Puyallup or Duvall or Marysville. All neighborhoods change, For better or worse. Boeing used to be the major and real only employer other than Lumber, pulp/paper. So, with all the new industry why so much homeless? Can only assume midwest to coastal migration, overcrowding.

You're right. It was a very different Seattle before the Microsoft. Other tech companies followed. Eventually Amazon. Prior to that, like you say, it was Boeing and lumber. Which is why Grunge music – which came from Seattle and the Pacific Northwest – had a working class, angsty edge; and the musicians wore flannel.

Gentrification is one of those inevitable processes – with good and bad effects. When I lived on Capitol Hill, the college students rented apartments within a few blocks of the campus there. Now they seem to have been pushed farther out. But at the same time, the new rail system they put in makes it much easier to get there from other parts of the city.

Certainly, but I question everything written in history because if you think about all of it was written by the survivors of wars, not balanced by those anniliated in whatever war in any country based of either religious conversion or covenance of property- the origin of all wars. So written history really isn’t balanced. My formal propagandized history education in school was lopsided, it didn’t include a open viewpoint of anything. On the other hand, one rare balanced idea given by a History Professor in college is that of the Spanish caste system. I had a different perspective history that didnt push it all as a bad idea. Say 250 years ago, no mass media or world view, People in lower castes lived without any expectation of being able to “advance” materially with property rights or affordability, didnt necessarily rob, lust or covet those who did. Sure, maybe thats about UnAmerican as it gets, but is a more balanced perspective instead of saying all caste systems suck- like my early education. This still exist all around the world too as you know and even living south of the border too. The wannabe or born rich act arrogant and are often more worried about what barrio someone is from more than their level of intelligence. Some Latinos criticize other latino people simply based on their accent, just like a southern versus northern NYC or west coast english accent might criticize one another.

Absolutely, written history is always lopsided – propagandistic if written by those who took part and spotty if written by those late enough to be impartial. The history that gets taught in public schools – especially prior to university – all around the world tends to has a propagandistic element for the sake of civics or nationalism. It takes a lot of widereading to unlearn that.

And, of course, you're right about the caste systems and discrimination in other countries. Within every Latin American society I've lived in, it exists. Certainly it exists in Egypt, where I lived for a time. Societies do function and achieve a lot even with those class divisions and inequalities. They always have.

I think I understand your point, which I would restate (and agree with) as follows: It should be an open theoretical question whether strict equality for all people within a society is necessarily better than a differentiated class structure where assets and education are concentrated at the top. I mean that we should be allowed to consider that hypothesis and investigate whether it's true without automatically discarding it because it seems unjust. Theoretically such a society might achieve more overall.

Personally, I do favor a more equal society; and I expect there is plenty of evidence for happiness and achievement within more equitable, semi-socialist countries like Sweden or Finland. But I'd be prepared to let that question be settled empirically by measuring the success of various societies in relation to the evenness of their income distribution and the presence or absence of social classes or castes. Let the chips fall where they may in that debate.

 

[Slanted]

@SlantedYou are very good at deflection. You should be a politician.

What deflection? You post a paragraph, and I answer it sentence by sentence. What could be more direct than that?

You, on the other hand, have been deflecting attention away from various questions that I have asked you. Like this one:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-69#post-7253112

As everyone can see, you suffer from an obsessive delusion that I'm not really me.

You asked for proof of my identity. And I asked you what proof would satisfy you? And you wandered off. Since then, you have just reverted to being a busybody / stalker, niggling me with post after obsessive post for talking to people on NamePros. (How dare I without your permission!)

Well, it's your delusion. So how do we prove to a deluded person that he has been deluded? What proof are you asking for when you demand proof of who i am? In your paranoid way, you have insinuated and insinuated. But you have neither spelled out concretely WHO you think I am, nor supplied any evidence for your deranged view, nor explained what proof you would consider to stop being a lunatic.

Am I deflecting? I think I am going straight to the heart of your problem. Will you answer these questions? Or will you deflect in order to continue stalking me for a few more months with paranoid insinuations?

 

[Rob Monster]

I hope the folks in the US had a good Memorial Day.

Personally, I have never served in the military nor has my wife, or any of our 3 sons or 2 daughters. I am a Dutch-American -- the oldest child and oldest grandchild on both sides of the family. As I was born in the US to Dutch parents, I have both a Dutch passport and a US passport. As for core values, while there are Dutch traditions that I greatly appreciate, in terms of national identity, my values are decidedly American.

This short Ronald Reagan speech is a reminder of what it recently meant to be a patriotic American.

However, in the bigger picture, I don't actually believe these are American values per se. I think they are sovereign rights.

Although there are rumors of wars currently, I believe nobody should feel compelled to go to war to kill someone else's father or mother. I hope and pray that war can be avoided and that cooler heads prevail.

In the meantime, I believe our job as Netizens of the World, is to promote communication, cross-cultural understanding, empathy, prosperity and philanthropy. I think we can do all of this better.

As for the folks who want to use this fascinating NamePros thread to engage in intellectual jousting and one-upmanship, I think it is a poor use of their obvious intellect.

At the end of the day, I believe the real battle is not going to be in threads like this one. The real battle is enabling all of humanity the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[TCK]

@Slanted & @Rob Monster

I will leave this thread. So you can freely use it as your propaganda machine in your so-called search for truth. Have fun. I can hear your applause.

 

[Slanted]

@Slanted & @Rob Monster

I will leave this thread. So you can freely use it as your propaganda machine in your so-called search for truth. Have fun. I can hear your applause.

Like it or not, Rob Monster is a separate person from me. I don't work for him. And his worldview has little in common with mine.

But you're absolutely right that people will applaud your departure. Good riddance!

 

[strugar]

Ha ha. It's actually pretty safe to get into a debate with me – as long as someone is willing to

- be open minded
- explain their own ideas
- understand ideas that contradict their ideas
- read
- answer questions
- avoid attacking the person they disagree with
- avoid changing the subject

The people who can abide by those rules of polite, rational debate will either learn something or else persuade me or both.

Missing two important points:

- dedicate one hour a day to read my posts.
- dedicate two more hours a day to read the posts again and again untill you understand them, or give up.

 

[Truespin Domains]

@whenpillarsfall

Let me explain how debate OUGHT to work.

(1) You claim A1.
(2) I counter claim A1 with A2 and invite you to respond.
(3) You counter A2 with A3.
etc.

But instead, this is what you have been doing daily for over a week:

(1) You claim A1.
(2) I counter claim A1 with A2 and invite you to respond.
(3) You run away from A2 and never present any A3 to counter it.
(4) Instead, you change the subject with B1.
(5) I counter B1 with B2 and invite you to respond.
(6) You run away from B2 and never present any B3 to counter it.
(7) You claim C1.
(8) I counter claim C1 with C2 and invite you to respond.
(9) You run away from C2 and never present any C3 to counter it.
(10) Now you repeat claim A1.
(11) I point out that I already responded to A1 with A2, which is awaiting your response.
(12) You run away from A2 and never present any A3 to counter it.
(13) Now you change the subject again and repeat claim B1.
(14) I point out that I already responded to B1 with B2, which is awaiting your response.
etc.

Do you see why that's unproductive? Do you see why it goes nowhere?

This is why I was able to cite 17 posts that refute your view point and to which you have NEVER provided an answer. During the past week, these instances (where I contradict you and you never respond) have accumulated to an extent that ought to be embarrassing, given the amoutn of unrelated clutter you have posted instead of responding:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-65#post-7252520

Since then, you have made probably a dozen posts but NEVER responded to the one you're running away from:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

You keep stammering about how offended you are at being called a "bigot", for example, yet you have never addressed the posts where I cite the definition of bigotry and explain why it fits you:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252584

At some point, you ought to break this cycle of endlessly running away, of endlessly changing the subject, of endlessly repeating yourself ... and TRY to respond to SOMETHING that I have said. Adding more and more posts that DON'T respond to any of the posts where I have contradicted you is an eternally losing strategy.

Notice how when YOU say something, I quote it and explain why it's wrong? Generally I do that right away. But I've been pulling teeth for a week to get you to respond to my responses and explain why my refutations of you are wrong. No matter how many times I dare you to respond, you always run away and say something unrelated, which doesn't reference my contradiction of you.

When someone presents a case, explaining why you're wrong, then you really ought to respond to that person's argument. Why don't you? Even if you end up being refuted, there is dignity in engaging with someone. Running away and never responding, there is no dignity. It just looks foolish.

I have made a clear rebuttle of your points about me being a bigot in my last post with the blue headers. It shows you for what you are - a liar.

You stated in black and white, for example, that you never suggested I wanted to inflict violence on religious people. But right there in black and white are two quotes from you suggesting that I do. And now you ignore it.

A picture:

You are a liar!

For all the other points I provided direct quotes from both you and myself that clearly discredit your accusations about what I apparently believe / said.

You will not address this. You instead simply link to old posts, ignoring my clarification of what was said.

It's circular because you're making it circular.

Awaiting apology. But you're obviously too proud to admit you fucked up.

 

[Truespin Domains]

Dishonesty runs throughout your debate.

You have insisted time and time again that I said religious people were diseased. Again, I have clearly responded to this lie, as per the screenshot below.

You lie and claim there is no difference. But you and everyone reading this sorry excuse for a thread knows you are being obtuse.

No matter how much I post clear evidence that you have completely and intentionally misinterpreted my position, you claim otherwise.

You're desparately trying to muddy the waters with your long rambling posts and links that go back to your old arguments.

The facts have all been clearly set out - you lied about my position and then, based on these lies, called me a bigot.

You seemingly consider yourself a man or great insight. But you're just one of those people that's good at regurgitating stuff they've read, but fails miserably when they have to apply their own logic or interpretation, papering over the cracks with fiction.

Pathetic.

 

[TCK]

Like it or not, Rob Monster is a separate person from me. I don't work for him. And his worldview has little in common with mine.

Yeah. Whatever, man. Who cares. Don’t respond to my posts anymore. Time to move on.

 

[NameLlama]

Again and again, you pretend that the only farther step you could take would be murdering religious people. But that's ridiculous. Society could implement many much milder repressions, which would curtail religion. For example: Why should society permit people who are mentally ill, who are suffering from a dangerous infectious disease, to be teachers or professors? The risk of contamination in the classroom is unacceptable.

Society could use a questionnaire to exclude religious people from teaching biology or history. Why not? We already exclude people who are mentally ill or infectious from the classroom, if they pose a danger. And you do believe that religion poses a danger to society, do you not? In that case, why not apply the normal standard for dealing with dangerous disease, mental illness, etc.?

Most people seem capable of being a teacher and keeping their religiious views out of it, so there would just be a rule for that

Did anyone even say that religious people are ACtUALLy menttally ill
It's a point to say why should I treat your belief in those invisible beings as normal, if it would otherwise appear you are mentally ill
It's not such a debilitating problem of hteir mind that they can't be a teacher who keeps it separate, unless they are a really weird obsessive person

'infectious disease' doesn't mean easily contagious

 

[NameLlama]

No, that isn't your position. You didn't say that religion was simply wrong. You called all religion "Poison". And that is why I cornered you about the logical conclusion of your opinion – which should be concentration camps or forced re-education or laws making poisonous ideas illegal. Rationally, that is the next step. If you're not prepared to take it, then you don't have the courage of your convictions.

Again and again, you pretend that the only farther step you could take would be murdering religious people. But that's ridiculous. Society could implement many much milder repressions, which would curtail religion. For example: Why should society permit people who are mentally ill, who are suffering from a dangerous infectious disease, to be teachers or professors? The risk of contamination in the classroom is unacceptable.

Society could use a questionnaire to exclude religious people from teaching biology or history. Why not? We already exclude people who are mentally ill or infectious from the classroom, if they pose a danger. And you do believe that religion poses a danger to society, do you not? In that case, why not apply the normal standard for dealing with dangerous disease, mental illness, etc.?

First the so-called logical conclusion is 'concentration camps' or 'forced re-educaiton' or making religion illegal, because by the word poison it was inferred that this is an extremely dangerous thing that will destroy society if you don't take these actions

Then later, it can be 'milder' to just 'curtail' religion. Restricting religious people from teaching

These are the only ways to respond to religion apparently

Just like the only way to respond to a pseudoscience that teaches eugenics as the only way to a good human race..is to silence it, force re-education, or make it illegal to believe, or make camps, or ask all teachers if they believe in these bad eugenics ideas and block them all from being teachers

 

[NameLlama]

You can have a religion that only says a few things, things that people would agree are fine, like always try to do good to other people, and that's it
That religion isn't poison
'Religion' is poison in the sense that religions often have no good basis for their claims.... and yet they want to go around telling other people what is true.... and want to tell other people they are being good or bad without any argument but my god and his book says so. So it makes divisions in society based on nothing but old books and gods. If I think the divisions or potential for division by faith and religion is bad enough, I can call it poison.... As I can call anyone who goes around with bullshit conspiracy theories and is growing their following a poison to society.... Because their theories could lead to dangerous divisiveness

 

[NameLlama]

But the LOGICUL CONCLOOSSION is that you want to interrogate all teachers to test for their extreme conspiracy theory views, or put them in concentration camps or whatever shit

 

[frank-germany]

Look at what extreme liberalism and extreme feminism has done to women.

I'm sure they don't mean
You

 

[frank-germany]

My continuing bet is that conventional domains can be made resilient against censorship, thereby avoiding the need for trustless alternatives. That is the essence of Epik's resilient domain initiative.

promoting Epik in this thread???????

 

[frank-germany]

.. For example, in case not aware, I was raised in a secular household. I came to Christ as an adult based on a diligent, unbiased and objective search for truth...

sometimes you hit
sometime you miss

nothing to blame you for

I found it all to be nonsense
so what

but the problem starts when you try to promote that BS

 

[Rob Monster]

I'm sure they don't mean
You

Google the term about babies as parasites. I think you will be amazed by the depravity of the active campaign to convince women that unborn babies are parasites. It is a classic strategy to re-frame the conversation. After all, people take antibiotics for infections. And indeed, there are people who are dumb enough to believe and promote this reframing of the conversation about abortion is not only acceptable but desirable. You are old enough to see how far we have come in 50 years. Welcome to crazytown.

 

[Truespin Domains]

Did anyone even say that religious people are ACtUALLy menttally ill

It matters not to @Slanted

He'll debate it anyway.

 

[frank-germany]

The irony of a few articulate atheists debating religion is pretty thick. For the casual observers trying to make sense of this intellectual "rap battle", just remember to not throw out the baby with bathwater!

Show attachment 119953

thats a good one


but actually not quite supporting your position...

in fact ...

 

[frank-germany]

Anyone who knows Joseph knows that his pen is mighty, and that he has zero tolerance for fools. Best not to wind him up.

oops
who would have thought...
we have something in common ...

 

[Rob Monster]

thats a good one


but actually not quite supporting your position...

in fact ...

You might have to look a bit deeper. It does.

It would all be comically funny, if the matter was not so serious, as nobody is promised tomorrow.

However, for each his own -- liberty and free will within the bounds of the law.

Anyway, welcome back to thread. Nobody actually seems to leave it. They try.

 

[MapleDots]

oops
who would have thought...
we have something in common ...

HeHe

Man I wish I could double like this post

 

[frank-germany]

You might have to look a bit deeper. It does.

It would all be comically funny, if the matter was not so serious, as nobody is promised tomorrow.

However, for each his own -- liberty and free will within the bounds of the law.

Anyway, welcome back to thread. Nobody actually seems to leave it. They try.

so you don't see the boat is sinking as well?
so why then should there be people outside of the boat?