On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[47k deleted]
Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
but it's all got too personal.
Please let it go.
Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion.
The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar. I
doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have
walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron
brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away"
show that he was right about me telling lies :(
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims
once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I
have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite.
I do promise not to post any 47k messages!
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 7 May 2026 14:16:33 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[47k deleted]
Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
but it's all got too personal.
Please let it go.
Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
I don't care who has told any /the most lies, and after all this
repetitive to-and-fro what the facts are even. No one wins here.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion.
The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar. I
doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have
walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron
brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away"
show that he was right about me telling lies :(
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims
once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I
have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite.
I don't think you have a chance of convincing RonO, so I urge you to
desist.
Thanks!
I do promise not to post any 47k messages!
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 10 May 2026 21:42:11 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 14:16:33 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
>On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
>RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[47k deleted]
>
>
>Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read >>> >all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
> Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
>catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right; >>> >but it's all got too personal.
>
>Please let it go.
>
>Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
I don't care who has told any /the most lies, and after all this
repetitive to-and-fro what the facts are even. No one wins here.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion.
The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar. I
doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have
walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron
brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away"
show that he was right about me telling lies :(
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims
once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I
have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite.
I don't think you have a chance of convincing RonO, so I urge you to
desist.
Do you seriously think that if I desist that RonO will pack this in?
He will just start again in a few weeks time and claim I ran away yet
again. Chances are he will include his 47k rubbish then again as if he
thinks it proves something so nothing will be gained :(
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 10 May 2026 21:42:11 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 14:16:33 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
>On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
>RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[47k deleted]
>
>
>Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read >>> >all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
> Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
>catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right; >>> >but it's all got too personal.
>
>Please let it go.
>
>Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
I don't care who has told any /the most lies, and after all this
repetitive to-and-fro what the facts are even. No one wins here.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion.
The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar. I
doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have
walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron
brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away"
show that he was right about me telling lies :(
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims
once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I
have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite.
I don't think you have a chance of convincing RonO, so I urge you to
desist.
Do you seriously think that if I desist that RonO will pack this in?
He will just start again in a few weeks time and claim I ran away yet
again. Chances are he will include his 47k rubbish then again as if he
thinks it proves something so nothing will be gained :(
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/11/2026 10:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 21:42:11 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 14:16:33 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> >>> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
>RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[47k deleted]
>
>
>Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
>all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
> Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
>catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right; >>> >but it's all got too personal.
>
>Please let it go.
>
>Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
I don't care who has told any /the most lies, and after all this
repetitive to-and-fro what the facts are even. No one wins here.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion.
The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar. I
doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have
walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron
brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away" >>> show that he was right about me telling lies :(
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims
once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I
have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite.
I don't think you have a chance of convincing RonO, so I urge you to
desist.
Do you seriously think that if I desist that RonO will pack this in?
He will just start again in a few weeks time and claim I ran away yet again. Chances are he will include his 47k rubbish then again as if he thinks it proves something so nothing will be gained :(
What a nut job. You are the one that keeps coming back to claim that my sources were deficient, and when it turns out that they were not, you
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 11 May 2026 17:42:02 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 21:42:11 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 14:16:33 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> >>>>> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
>RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[47k deleted]
>
>
>Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
>all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
> Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
>catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
>but it's all got too personal.
>
>Please let it go.
>
>Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
I don't care who has told any /the most lies, and after all this
repetitive to-and-fro what the facts are even. No one wins here.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion. >>>>> The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar. I >>>>> doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have >>>>> walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron
brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away" >>>>> show that he was right about me telling lies :(
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims >>>>> once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I >>>>> have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite.
I don't think you have a chance of convincing RonO, so I urge you to
desist.
Do you seriously think that if I desist that RonO will pack this in?
He will just start again in a few weeks time and claim I ran away yet
again. Chances are he will include his 47k rubbish then again as if he
thinks it proves something so nothing will be gained :(
What a nut job. You are the one that keeps coming back to claim that my
sources were deficient, and when it turns out that they were not, you
Ah well, keep on bickering then.
>
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On 5/12/2026 7:50 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 17:42:02 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 21:42:11 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 14:16:33 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> >>>>> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
>RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[47k deleted]
>
>
>Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
>all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
> Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
>catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
>but it's all got too personal.
>
>Please let it go.
>
>Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
I don't care who has told any /the most lies, and after all this
repetitive to-and-fro what the facts are even. No one wins here.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion. >>>>> The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar. I >>>>> doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have >>>>> walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron
brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away" >>>>> show that he was right about me telling lies :(
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims >>>>> once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I >>>>> have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said >>>>> Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite.
I don't think you have a chance of convincing RonO, so I urge you to >>>> desist.
Do you seriously think that if I desist that RonO will pack this in?
He will just start again in a few weeks time and claim I ran away yet
again. Chances are he will include his 47k rubbish then again as if he >>> thinks it proves something so nothing will be gained :(
What a nut job. You are the one that keeps coming back to claim that my >> sources were deficient, and when it turns out that they were not, you
[]Ah well, keep on bickering then.
It isn't bickering at this time. It has been prolonged harassment by
All that I need to do is put up the REPOSTS because Harran can't deal
On Tue, 12 May 2026 11:25:09 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
It isn't bickering at this time. It has been prolonged harassment by
If you were interested
enough to do more than butt in with your worthless harassment, you
would be able to determine that the issue progressed just as it has for years.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 11:25:09 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/2026 7:50 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
On Mon, 11 May 2026 17:42:02 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 21:42:11 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 14:16:33 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> >>>>>>> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
>RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[47k deleted]
>
>
>Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
>all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
> Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
>catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
>but it's all got too personal.
>
>Please let it go.
>
>Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
I don't care who has told any /the most lies, and after all this
repetitive to-and-fro what the facts are even. No one wins here.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion. >>>>>>> The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar. I >>>>>>> doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have >>>>>>> walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron >>>>>>> brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away" >>>>>>> show that he was right about me telling lies :(I don't think you have a chance of convincing RonO, so I urge you to >>>>>> desist.
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims >>>>>>> once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I >>>>>>> have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said >>>>>>> Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite. >>>>>>
Do you seriously think that if I desist that RonO will pack this in? >>>>> He will just start again in a few weeks time and claim I ran away yet >>>>> again. Chances are he will include his 47k rubbish then again as if he >>>>> thinks it proves something so nothing will be gained :(
What a nut job. You are the one that keeps coming back to claim that my >>>> sources were deficient, and when it turns out that they were not, you
Ah well, keep on bickering then.
It isn't bickering at this time. It has been prolonged harassment by
All that I need to do is put up the REPOSTS because Harran can't deal
[]
It annoys everyone and no-one is going to bother reading them, especially,
I suspect, Martin Harran.
I despair.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 06:54:18 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,771 |