Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #47 on: 2010-09-21 10:14:40 »
re:http://www.churchofvirus.org/saints.html At my suggestion, Lucifer altered the order of the presentation to a chronological one, putting St. Hypatia first, then St. Charles, and St. Alan third. The dates of illumination are retained in the text and are of interest to the participants in those, but organizing them chronologically seems a more natural presentation to the rest of the world.
Lucifer noted in #virus chat that we've illuminated a new saint every 7 years so far. That's not binding precedent, but it seems like a reasonable schedule so far.
Transcript: [Zinnia Jones] Alan Turing was one of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century. His research in a wide variety of fields, and his uncanny ability to make new connections between them, led him to develop revolutionary concepts that have changed the face of our world.
Born in London in 1912, Turing showed an early affinity for science, mathematics and foreign languages, and an irrepressible fondness for scientific inquiry. At university, he began studying the nature of computation, and ultimately created his "universal machine"—an extremely simple conceptual device that was nevertheless capable of running any computer program that could be written. Turing machines would eventually become one of the most useful models for the exploration of computer science.
As World War II escalated, Turing worked for the British government as part of the effort to break the codes of Nazi Germany and read their encrypted messages. He designed an electromechanical device that would logically deduce the settings of Germany's Enigma machines, allowing analysts to reverse the code and uncover their battle plans. Hundreds of these devices were constructed, and the intel they acquired shifted the course of the war towards victory for the Allies.
After the war, Turing continued his work on constructing computers, and was drawn to the field of artificial intelligence. He posed the question of whether a machine could have a mind, and believed it was theoretically possible for computers to think in the same ways that humans do. He developed a test for an AI that relied on whether it could fool an observer in conversation into thinking it was another person. A simplified version of the Turing test is now in common use online as a way of distinguishing humans from automated systems. In his later years, Turing became interested in the mathematics underlying the formation of biological structures, and published a paper on reaction-diffusion systems as a model for morphogenesis.
To this day, Turing is remembered as the founder of computer science, a man whose work was pivotal in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and whose exploration of artificial intelligence has had wide-ranging philosophical implications. A thinker, a dreamer, a constant visionary, Turing is rightfully celebrated as one of the greatest scientists in history.
What many people may not know is that Alan Turing was also a gay man. In 1952, Turing was arrested on charges of "gross indency" for his relationship with another man. Turing refused to deny it, and insisted that he had done nothing wrong. He was stripped of his security clearance and could no longer work with British intelligence services. He was forced to have injections of female hormones as a crude form of chemical castration, with the side effect of inducing breast growth.
In 1954, Alan Turing committed suicide at the age of 41, biting into an apple poisoned with cyanide. Whatever he may have gone on to achieve, the world will never know. It was lost with Alan Turing, a casualty of a society that thought it was okay to treat gay people as deviants, as criminals, as less than equal.
Horribly, it still goes on today. Around the world, gays and lesbians are still subjected to unearned hatred and targeted by unfair laws. Gay teenagers are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide, and 20-40% of homeless youth are gay. And every inequality that we impose upon them, every injustice ignored, every slur, every hate campaign, every gay-bashing, represents our failure to appreciate their worth as human beings and the wonderful potential that lies within all of us.
How many more Alan Turings have been lost, their hopes and dreams dashed upon the rocks of hatred? How many more lives will be carelessly thrown away, sacrificed in the name of satiating our prejudice?
And for what? For all the persecution, exclusion, and criminalization, what do we have to show for it? Nothing. It's not worth it. The cost of homophobia, measured in human lives, is simply too great for our world to bear.
Remember Alan Turing, a hero betrayed by the country he helped defend, driven to suicide by people who hated him for who he loved. Remember all that we've lost to intolerance. And let us remember to respect the humanity that Alan was so shamefully deprived of, and the dignity that he was denied.
Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #49 on: 2011-02-17 10:22:28 »
In a fresh response to Hermit's year-old mischaracterization of my position, I would offer the second half of ZJ's memorial above as reflecting one actual message (and certainly not the only message) which I thought an Alan Turing's Illumination would bring for the Church of Virus. Specifically this second part:
Quote:
What many people may not know is that Alan Turing was also a gay man. In 1952, Turing was arrested on charges of "gross indency" for his relationship with another man. Turing refused to deny it, and insisted that he had done nothing wrong. He was stripped of his security clearance and could no longer work with British intelligence services. He was forced to have injections of female hormones as a crude form of chemical castration, with the side effect of inducing breast growth.
In 1954, Alan Turing committed suicide at the age of 41, biting into an apple poisoned with cyanide. Whatever he may have gone on to achieve, the world will never know. It was lost with Alan Turing, a casualty of a society that thought it was okay to treat gay people as deviants, as criminals, as less than equal.
Horribly, it still goes on today. Around the world, gays and lesbians are still subjected to unearned hatred and targeted by unfair laws. Gay teenagers are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide, and 20-40% of homeless youth are gay. And every inequality that we impose upon them, every injustice ignored, every slur, every hate campaign, every gay-bashing, represents our failure to appreciate their worth as human beings and the wonderful potential that lies within all of us.
How many more Alan Turings have been lost, their hopes and dreams dashed upon the rocks of hatred? How many more lives will be carelessly thrown away, sacrificed in the name of satiating our prejudice?
And for what? For all the persecution, exclusion, and criminalization, what do we have to show for it? Nothing. It's not worth it. The cost of homophobia, measured in human lives, is simply too great for our world to bear.
Remember Alan Turing, a hero betrayed by the country he helped defend, driven to suicide by people who hated him for who he loved. Remember all that we've lost to intolerance. And let us remember to respect the humanity that Alan was so shamefully deprived of, and the dignity that he was denied.
Remember Alan. For all our sakes. -ZJ
I never suggested that this was the REASON we should illuminate Alan Turing, but like the murder of St. Hypatia, the suicide of Alan Turing brings a message with it as well. Unfortunately ZJ had not written this memorial at the time we were discussing Alan Turing's Illumination, but his is a much clearer statement of my position. If this is what Hermit and Mermaid were objecting to, then my rejection of their arguments stands as does my everlasting opposition to and refusal to support or even give the appearance of support to the kind homophobia which Alan Turing endured. I therefore stand by my actions in regards to the management decisions I made in regards to this thread which I started. I was rather surprised that this could have been a point of dispute in the Church of Virus, but perhaps I somehow didn't articulate this point well enough. I think ZJ has now done that for me as clearly as possible.
As for Hermit, I never thought he was homophobic, and I still don't as he eventually abandoned this argument. I figured that he was entertaining the argument for the sake of Mermaid, who then promptly turned it into an ad hominem fest against me.
this is embarrassing. hermit, despite our many spats and disagreements...i am going to request you to stop encouraging this. "mo" is short for moron.
I think this should be the last I have to say about this already too much rehashed conflict.
2/18/2011 - ps. I've created a thread in the "Free For All" section to address any further possible issues regarding Hermit's and Mermaid's complaints and/or opposition to the 2010 illumination of Alan Turing as the third Church of Virus saint instead of cluttering up threads in the Doctrine section. The doctrine is settled, so any more post mortems belong in the free for all thread http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43681;start=0;boardseen=1
Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #50 on: 2011-02-17 13:22:48 »
Mo really is behaving rather pathetically.
Having destroyed and corrupted the threads evidencing the worst of his irrational assertions and very public attacks on the BBS during the illumination of Alan Turing, and now presumably having allowed his emotions to fester in his mind, Mo finally messaged us privately, and when responded to similarly, despite our having elected not to discuss his behaviour or Turing's illumination here, he elected to unilaterally publicize selectively chosen aspects from this private communication; presumably in an attempt to make others consider him less negatively or perhaps in a futile attempt to delude himself into feeling better about himself.
The validity of his sad, single sided diatribes in this thread and elsewhere may be judged by the readers, particularly in the light of the fact that Mo repeatedly makes claims which can be refuted by anyone with a memory; who cares to research them; or even who reads*; coupled with the fact that his blatantly biased ramblings are so self-evidently worthless as to have elicited only this note in response rather than the investment of any time in a refutation. The CoV being occupied by such lurid drama and slanted trivia, the hermits may be found at:
and somewhat irregularly via private messages here.
Hopefully this note won't be taken as an interest in a further discussion or worse, encouragement. Nothing could be further from reality.
*e.g. read the quotation at http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?action=display;board=4;threadid=43294;start=0#173823 cited by Mo today to see a hint as to what we objected to in the since: deleted (by Mo), edited (by Mo), editorialized over (by Mo) and obfuscated (by Mo) to death threads about his stance on the highly irregular vote for Turing - and note that our objections (and Mermaid's too) had everything to do with Mo's assertion that it would result in "forcing the CoV to take a stance on homosexuality", manipulation of the BBS, and gaming of the reputation system at Sat's instigation (see the contemporaneous chat logs) and nothing to do with Alan Turing (an immensely significant thinker and wonderful mensch advocated by us as a Virian Saint long before Mo Enzyme took up the idea, apparently for all the wrong reasons) or allegations about Turing's sexuality (which, as Turing himself did not address it, ought to be irrelevant to anyone except his fiancée and any sexual partners he may have had - which as far as we know, couldn't possibly have involved Mo or any other Virians).
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #51 on: 2011-02-17 14:35:07 »
So is Alan Turing a saint for you, Hermit or not?
Once you shave away all your ad hominems against me, it should be a really easy question to answer I would think. Are you still going to let your wounded feelings against me stop you from actually answering it? Surely Alan Turing should be more important to you than attacking me.
Quote:
. . . allegations about Turing's sexuality (which, as Turing himself did not address it, ought to be irrelevant to anyone
First of all, you are completely wrong. Turing did address the charges against him. Instead of denying them or remaining silent, he said there was nothing wrong with what he had done.
Secondly though, he's dead, Hermit. That's the whole point. If he weren't, he couldn't be considered for sainthood by the very rules you agreed to in the first place. He has no desires anymore. His death is a matter of public record, and so what is left of his life and death belong to the living, not him as he's no longer alive. The same with Darwin and Hypatia. No one gets to write their own post mortem. It has never worked way . . . ever.
So given what's already all over the internet and the world about Alan Turing, long before any of us ever started considering him for sainthood, is Alan Turing your saint? Nothing we've done or said here has changed any of the facts about his life and death. It should be an easy question.
2/18/2011 - ps. I've created a thread in the "Free For All" section to address any further possible issues regarding Hermit's and Mermaid's complaints and/or opposition to the 2010 illumination of Alan Turing as the third Church of Virus saint instead of cluttering up threads in the Doctrine section. The doctrine is settled, so any more post mortems belong in the free for all thread http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43681;start=0;boardseen=1
:Alan Turing was a top-level link between Britain and the United States, and his visit to America between November 1942 and March 1943 was a landmark in the Intelligence collaboration that, with its continuation after 1945, has shaped the global post-war order.
The background: After Japan and Germany declared war on the United States in December 1941, the British commonwealth and empire gained a stronger ally. However, Britain had been economically dependent on American 'Lend-Lease' support since 1941, and in 1942 suffered a succession of disasters, essentially marking the end of its colonial and commercial rule in Asia. One of the few cards in the British hand was the triumph with the Enigma. But since February 1942, a small technical change in the Atlantic U-boat Enigma (the 'fourth rotor') had snatched away their success in this vital area of operations. As 1942 went on, with disastrous shipping losses, the U. S. insisted on being told everything about the Enigma. The British were reluctant, for two reasons. (1) They did not wish to give away everything they knew, without getting anything in return. (Poland had done that in 1939, and the bitterness lasts to this day.) (2) They did not trust the Americans to use the information properly. A complicating factor, which the well-co-ordinated Bletchley Park people found almost incomprehensible, was that the U. S. Navy and U. S. Army worked as independent organisations, if not indeed as mutual enemies.
Realities of power in this as in every other field obliged Britain to concede independence and try to make the most of it. British industry could not cope with making enough high-speed Bombes to cope with the 4-rotor Enigma problem, whilst American industry could. After several top-level administrative meetings in the course of 1942, which created a working agreement for the sharing of work and information on naval signals, Turing's visit to America represented the first top-level technical liaison on the cryptographic procedures.
The deal was that he would share everything he knew on Enigma. But he would also be allowed to inspect the speech encryption system being set up for Roosevelt-Churchill conversations, and so be allowed access to the most secret American work in this field. However, these agreements were poorly worked out at the time of his visit, and involved furious renegotiation at the highest levels while he was there.
Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #53 on: 2011-03-06 05:22:11 »
MoEnzyme, failing to realize that most people are not interested in petty swipes at absent opponents, and being far too self-involved to comprehend the repeatedly asserted near total lack of interest on the part of Hermit & Co, has maintained a barrage of apparently compulsive posting and commenting on this topic, along with repeatedly issuing sneers, challenges and invitations to engage with him while apparently attempting to define where and how such a discussion should occur. While rejecting the concept of dealing with slurs except where they originate, it seemed worthwhile to take a little time to rebut his recent assertion that he, and only he, was involved in the manipulation of Meridion which he acknowledged during the process of illumination of Alan Turing.
Maybe MoEnzyme had overlooked or forgotten the appended post (or less charitably, perhaps he simply hopes that others have overlooked or forgotten it), containing a quotation from Sat on IRC, claiming credit for MoEnzyme's Meridion manipulations, posted on a thread where both he and Sat were active, while MoEnzyme, possibly in a fit of pique, possibly as a component of "social engineering", possibly as a result of some combination, had manipulated, deleted, locked, spindled and mutilated the Turing proposal threads. As the appended post resulted in complaints about topic-spamming, which suggests that it was noticed and read, but despite this, did not result in any contemporaneous attempt to disclaim responsibility or attribution, MoEnzyme's attempted late stage disclaimer seems less than persuasive or perhaps even dissimulative. While others probably have little or no interest in the answers, MoEnzyme might find it illuminating to ask himself if:
he did not realize that he had been manipulated;
he has forgotten that he was manipulated;
he is in denial about having been manipulated;
he is now asserting that Sat was lying or mistaken when he claimed to have inspired this manipulation;
From the answers, MoEnzyme might be inspired to wonder if he burned through a number of relationships and a previously largely unexceptional reputation with vitriolic attacks, unsustainable assertions and unmannerly behaviour motivated and predicated on things that he got wrong - and perhaps do better in the future. Then again, judging on the evidence scattered all over these boards, he may no longer be capable of the required thought as this would likely require rational introspection and empathy.
P.S. Outside of debate, and sometimes within it, reporting only on what people have done and what you think of their actions does not constitute "Ad Hominem", no matter how prejudicial it may seem to the subject. "Ad Hominem" is always an attempt to "link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise" - and even under such circumstances is not always fallacious. For example, "in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue" (Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).
P.P.S. Turing made it perfectly explicit that he considered sexual orientation (including his own) irrelevant to anyone outside of a sexual interaction. As such, converting him into a "gay icon" is to contradict everything for which Turing himself stood.
P.P.P.S. To address one area of slur that MoEnzyme has repeatedly visited, despite the many explicit contrary messages above, we need to address Turing as "Gay Icon" forcing "a stand on homosexuality" for the C.o.V., and as a "Saint of the C.o.V.". On background, this is written primarily from Hermit's perspective because Hermit has known about Turing (including his sexuality and suicide), since he was about 8. Hermitess learned about him from Hermit, and felt total shock and horror at what she learned of how he was treated.
If, despite repeated challenges, MoEnzyme ever disavowed, "I had some inkling that Alan Turing was going to force us to take a stand on homosexuality - and hence GLBT cultural issues in general," it was not visible on the BBS, or on IRC, then or now. As can be seen through rereading this thread, particularly being aware that MoEnzyme deleted his posts and other threads on the topic, our conclusion from MoEnzyme's now long deleted arguments was that the above assertion is true for a significant number of people, mainly American, and as reflected in this thread, this resulted in our totally unexpected opposition to Turing's illumination by the C.o.V. This was because, and only because, the hagification of Turing with this question left open means that, for us at least, and we suspect for others, the C.o.V. now has a dogma , "a stand on homosexuality," even if MoEnzyme hasn't bothered to explain what it is.
Until then, we had our own stand on the subject, one which includes the fact that sexuality is irrelevant except to the people involved (Turing's personal stance, as reflected in his letters, diary and defence), and that love and sex are subjects for poetry, music, song, humour and celebration, not for the condemnation of others. We both have close family members and friends who enjoy "alternative" sexual orientations. We cherish them no more, and certainly no less, than any others of our family and friends.
So it is quite natural that, for us, Alan Turing was always a tragic exemplar of a wonderful, brilliant, much misunderstood polymath, who was persecuted by society because he cherished his right to freedom and to find joy with whoever he chose, however he chose. We admired and admire him, and would probably consider anyone emulating him, including, and perhaps particularly his sexual perspectives, to be wholly virtuous. We did not, and do not seek any other perspective, no matter how helpful its promoter's intentions may be. We shun the idea that any people should be prejudiced against on any grounds other than for embracing the Virian Sins or shunning the Virian Virtues - and are both dismayed that we should have been repeatedly accused of such - particularly by somebody who we thought was a friend and who we were - and are - certain, that he knew that the accusation was false.
Unfortunately, even while ignoring the unsolicited vicious attacks on ourselves and Mermaid, courtesy of MoEnzyme's persuasive - or at least passionate - arguments on this topic, Turing's election as a Virian Saint ended up negating much of what we most cherished about the Church of Virus. Not least it's previous lack of dogma. Which is why we strongly opposed the transfiguration of Alan Turing into "teh gay icon", abstained from electing him, and decline to promote an organization "abusing" his memory in this way (and recognizing that e.g. David Lucifer and many other Virians have no intention of abusing Turing at all. It is unfortunately an artifact of the way he is perceived, particularly in the USA, as a "gay icon".). Re: Research: How you think about your age may affect how you age « Reply #7 by Hermit on: 2010-02-24 13:50:09 »
Walter,
MoEnzyme has apparently decided to rewrite the rules under which the BBS is operated by attacking people, deleting posts, locking threads, voting down other members and electing not to respond to legitimate questions about his behaviour and assertions on the BBS. As such, raising the issue in other places may cause him to reassess his silence. This is not an issue about threads, it is an issue about MoEnzyme's approach and an attempt to establish an effective response to his BBS behaviour. Hopefully the need won't persist for very long.
According to Sat, he apparently proposed the rating war, and is colluding with Mo and introducing new players. As both members of this cabal are on this thread, it seems an appropriate place to respond. Over the past week Sat reduced his rating of me first to 5 and then to 1. I have now reciprocated in an attempt to maintain some equilibrium in the process.
From #virus
11:24:11 Sat well the rating war right now is among some higher up virians who are down rating one another to fubar voting weights on issues. 11:24:19 Sat I suggested it to Mo, actually. 11:24:26 Sat I wanted to test how it'd unfold 11:24:29 Sat * Sat winks 11:24:41 Orochi Ah social engineering, thou art most clever. 11:24:45 Sat * Sat watches his rating decrement « Last Edit: 2010-02-24 14:00:38 by Hermit »
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #54 on: 2011-03-06 08:47:16 »
In a last ditch effort to make it somehow relevant to Alan Turing, Hermit added added a pps., and a ppps. to his last post on this thread half an hour AFTER I had already copied it to the appropriate Free For All thread. (Please note the more than two hour discrepancy between Hermit's posting time - 04:22:11 vs. Last Edit: Today at 06:29:06 by Hermit) For the rest of these off topic post-mortem conflicts, I yet again refer Hermit and anyone possibly following this thread to the Free For all Thread which I created on February 18th, 2011 for this explicit purpose. Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination. I've given multiple notices on both threads of this since then, so this should come as no surprise to anyone. Please do not post off-topic again here, especially where this specific issue has already been well noticed. These petty interpersonal issues should be taken up on that other thread in the Free For all section instead of continuing to spam other threads. http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43681
I shall however respond here to Hermit's on-topic points he later added.
Hermit,
Quote:
If, despite repeated challenges, MoEnzyme ever disavowed, "I had some inkling that Alan Turing was going to force us to take a stand on homosexuality - and hence GLBT cultural issues in general," it was not visible on the BBS, or on IRC, then or now.
If it wasn't clear then, and especially after my posting of ZJ's video above http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKk8qYIf4oI, I think the issue which Alan Turing's death implicitly makes compelling for members of the Church of the Virus are the dangers of homophobia. Using the word "homosexuality" in conversation was only incidental to the extent that it relates to homophobia and that Alan Turing was accused of homosexual behavior in his trial, and so I don't think that it should require any explicit dogmatic disavowal. Is that really ALL this had to do with? If so, of course I certainly don't think we should have any dogma about homosexuality per se.
I don't think this requires me to DISAVOW a simple conversational statement, but I'm happy clarify. I assumed that everyone including you surely knew that homophobia related to reactions to homosexuality as that is the kind of behavior which Alan Turing was accused of. In any case if you couldn't figure that out for yourself, please accept my clarification now.
from:http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homophobia homophobia- Etymology - (obsolete) Latin homo (“man”) + phobia (“fear”) - homo, from homosexual + -phobia, coined in 1971, George Weinberg, Society and the Healthy Homosexual. Noun 1. (obsolete, individual occurrences) A pathological fear of mankind. 2. Fear of homosexuals. 3. Antipathy towards homosexuals.
I refer you again to ZJ's video for my actual position on these things. So yes, I think the illumination of St. Alan Turing implicitly places the Church of Virus in opposition to the excesses of homophobia, especially the kind which lead to the trial and chemical castration of Alan Turing. In any case this topic was never addressed in the wiki which David Lucifer actually wrote in connection with the illumination of Alan Turing. http://www.churchofvirus.org/saints.html and http://www.churchofvirus.org/wiki/AlanTuring. I therefore don't see how you can credibly say that the Church of Virus has adopted any dogma regarding homosexuality per se even if you continue to erroneously believe that I individually have. Does this therefore mean that you now embrace St. Alan Turing as the the thrid illuminated saint of the Church of Virus?
-Mo
PS. since Hermit added a huge edit (pps and ppps) to his post over two hours after first in an apparent attempt to make it relevant to this thread about half an hour after I had called him on his spamming attempt, he prompted me to write this post when I had not planned to. I will therefore delete my previous post #54 on this thread as I promised and shall instead incorporate it into this PS, making this post #54 instead.
I would point out in the future that when the other person has already posted to the BBS since your posting, especially when that other person is already involved in the conversation you are responding to, then it is inappropriate and deceptive to be adding your new message as a post script when it really should be a brand message. This is especially the case when your added post scripts are even longer than the original message.
Hermit should have been alerted to this fact simply by looking at the top post which is always linked in under the Recent Posts on the BBS home page at http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php and also by the fact that I had with plenty of notice in both threads, deleted the previously two references posts of mine here and pasted them in there. Hermit's decision to then corrupt the thread of the conversation by simply adding post scripts instead of a new post was at least deceptive if not an post hoc attempt to justify his decision to continue spamming this thread after seeing all of the previous notices not to.
This is now at least the second time Hermit has decided that off topic spamming of BBS threads is an appropriate way for him to pursue his ad hominems against me. Walter Watts called him on it last year when he did it to one of Sat's threads, and I'm calling him on it this year. If Hermit would like us to have civilized conversations without necessitating temporarily locking ongoing conversation threads again, then I would encourage him to behave less deceptively in the future and cease with his off-topic spamming behaviors especially when ample notice has already been provided to him.
-Mo
previous message #54 pasted in below, and hereby deleted with the posting of this PS. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
I am also deleting two of my previous posts on that Doctine thread which only concern and relate to that conflict and reposting them on the existing Free For All Thread already dedicated to that topic. Those posts by me are respectively "Re:Saint Alan Turing « Reply #49 on: 2011-02-17 09:07:02 »", and "Re:Saint Alan Turing « Reply #52 on: 2011-02-17 12:46:27 »" and can now be found on the new thread. I have also reposted Hermit's responses for context. There are a couple of other posts in reply to Hermit on the Doctrine thread which DO relate to Alan Turing which I will leave on there. « Last Edit: Today at 06:38:38 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator Logged I will fight your gods for food, Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #55 on: 2011-03-06 16:43:49 »
Not accepting, but merely ignoring MoEnzyme's more vacuous blathering, in the interests of my and everyone else's sanity, let me respond to just four of his more egregiously incorrect assertions:
1) Responding to things said by others, particularly when they contain specious allegations about yourself, on the same thread, is not so much "off-topic" as entirely appropriate behaviour. Indeed, depreciating or worse, preventing, such responses is always a mark of illegitimacy. It should be noted that MoEnzyme has done this repeatedly.
2) I suggest that it is the height of chutzpah for anyone who has made approximately 50 posts referencing someone on the BBS, and made many negative references in IRC too, over the course of a year, to assert that a total of 3 responses, two made in response to his communicating privately and then publicizing these communications, and one in response to the slew of poisonous allegations and erroneous irrelevancies here, is spamming, in any way, shape, or form.
3) MoEnzyme's allegations about my "updating" my post to "make it relevant" are as fallacious as most of his other assertions. My post was automatically relevant, as it responded to things said by him (the thread creator). In any case, due to technical issues (an unreliable computer), I generally post as soon as I realize that I have written a substantial amount, and then update my post as many times as needed, lest I lose what I have written. I don't usually bother to add a "Draft Flag" unless I expect the process will be interrupted. The negative implications imputed to this by MoEnzyme betrays his lack of Internet acumen, as, on most forums, including this one (see Hermitish Markup), it is regarded as entirely appropriate posting etiquette to edit your own post if it is the last on a thread, rather than appending additional posts making the thread longer (aka "bumping your own posts").
4) During the illumination process, after first unsuccessfully promoting his own perception of Turing as "teh Gey", MoEnzyme highlighted that, at least in the U.S.A., many of those who know of Turing, perceive him as a "gay icon," and as such, despite MoEnzyme's spluttering, inarticulate, post hoc putative denials, the C.o.V. does indeed now have a "gay icon" as a "saint," and as such, exactly as MoEnzyme predicted, Turing's illumination did, "force us to take a stand on homosexuality - and hence GLBT cultural issues in general" (aka "a dogma") and the more that MoEnzyme attempts to argue that this is not the case, the deeper becomes the swamp of contradictions in which he flounders*.
*For the purposes of determination of whether "dogma" is involved, arguments that adopting a homophilic or at least anti-homophobic stance is a good thing (which, in the current social milieu, they arguably are) are, of course, quite irrelevant. Even dogma with socially redeeming qualities remains dogma. P.S. MoEnzyme will find the IRC Search function helpful if he hopes to avoid making erroneous assertions about the order in which things occurred. Then again, his cheerful habit of moving, deleting and repeating things said until they form a totally impenetrable stew of turgidity, probably makes it impossible for him, let alone anyone else, to validate his assertions. What a good thing he hardly ever says anything worth validating these days.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
If it wasn't clear then, and especially after my posting of ZJ's video above http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKk8qYIf4oI, I think the issue which Alan Turing's death implicitly makes compelling for members of the Church of the Virus are the dangers of homophobia.
ok..then should be we make jesus christ a saint of cov? afterall, we know the dangers of persecution when one is a hippie, wears long hair, sandals and is borderline socialist?
sainthood should be conferred on the basis of virtues, not victimhood. it is a shame to exploit turing by showcasing his sexuality(which he considered private). shame.
Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #57 on: 2011-03-08 00:28:24 »
updating for hermit. please note last two sentences by Mo. because of my intervention, Mo will no longer be flogging this dead horse. so..it's official. stick a fork in it..it's done. Mo has better things to do. we have buried this..once and for all, hopefully. mo will not invoke your names or mine. he has "better things to do." nothing more to see here.
if anyone wants to send flowers to thank me, please message me.
from today's chat logs:
12:26:46 MoEnzyme
MoEnzyme (~every1hz@[death to spam].99-10-220-20.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net) has joined #virus 12:28:20 Sat good afternoon Mo 12:28:34 Sat I mean Charlie. 12:28:44 Sat * Sat chuckles 12:41:36 MoEnzyme okay, Mermaid has now chimed in on the Alan Turing discussion, so now it's officially gone stupid. 12:45:48 Sat she showed up here a little while ago. actually. 12:45:55 Sat see logs 12:47:28 MoEnzyme oh yeah. 12:47:31 MoEnzyme I see now. 12:48:18 MoEnzyme Well, she and Hermit sure do pay a lot of attention to me. Almost exclusively now in the CoV. 12:48:47 Sat In the words of the great Skwisgar Skigelf, "Go homes, takes a shower, and wash the shames off a you, cos you suuuck!" 12:48:50 Sat * Sat chuckles 12:48:59 Sat It feel nice to be loved. 12:51:21 Sat ^must 12:53:38 MoEnzyme I think she's actually stalking Hermit. She doesn't ever chime in any more unless Hermit starts looking like he might actually be having a discussion. 12:54:20 MoEnzyme And then she gets an overwhelming urge to inject drama and stupidity. 12:55:09 MoEnzyme She never addresses me at all unless Hermit is somehow involved. 12:55:10 Sat you guys are like the three stooges. 12:55:20 Sat * Sat chuckles 12:57:59 Sat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jocRd-aajW0 12:58:01 MoEnzyme yeah, but it's nothing new, so I think I'll take a pass on responding this time. I hate to keep repeating myself. 12:58:08 Sat * Sat nods 13:01:31 MoEnzyme I was considering responding to Hermit, but now that his retarded side kick showed up, . . . 13:01:54 MoEnzyme I think I've got better things to do.
Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #59 on: 2011-03-08 03:04:20 »
I know that you said to send flowers privately (and will), but we think you deserve public thanks not just for wading in so effectively, but even more so for giving the silly insults tossed your way by MoEnzyme all the attention they deserved. Which is to say, nothing.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Author
Logged
