Wow, I’ve Got A “Fan” Page!
Posted in Blogosphere on | 1 minute | 41 Comments →
Yep. Somebody actually made this. I’m kinda flattered. I wonder who it was?
Wow, I’ve Got A “Fan” Page!Yep. Somebody actually made this. I’m kinda flattered. I wonder who it was?
Peter Hurford
says...I really hope they update regularly.
twimfanboy
says...I hope you like my site, cl. I’m a HUGE fan, and consider you the next Martin Luther of reformation before he wigged out and started burning Jews out of their homes…by proxy, of course.
Carpinteiro do Universo
says...Appears to be very funny! I am laughing here :)
Thinking Emotions
says...“cl: Evidence! Goalposts! Cement! Footballs!”
LOL!!! Probably one of the funniest things I’ve read in a while.
cl
says...I have to admit: I love the site. I don’t mind getting roasted. It’s funny! Anybody wanna place bets on the author? I’ve got a few ideas but nothing beyond the level of circumstantial evidence… yet.
joseph
says...I am getting paranoid that CL, twimfanboy and Peter Hurford are all the same…if there is an ending, you must use the track “Where is my Mind?” by the Pixies a la Fight Club.
Peter Hurford
says...I’m also Joseph.
joseph
says...My head asplode
Thinking Emotions
says...This is how I feel about this whole situation.
twimfanboy
says...I await enlightenment.
cl
says...With regard to the fiasco twimfanboy brewed up, in another thread, joseph had written:
Frankly I don’t know how to prove that I am even the same commenter from five minutes ago. I know you can have a look at my IP address but I am sure that could be fakes. The use of quotations around my name annoys me because I have no practical means of refuting them.
Yes I fanned the flames, frankly your “experiment” excuse deserved it, or if it wasn’t an excuse then you naivety deserved it, as did the video games episode. You said yourself, and now it seems to have been disingenuous, that you “loved” the site.
Also I have to face two interesting challenges:
1. Both sides say I am a sock puppet.
2. You’re withdrawing from discussion with me after I actually tried to give a damn about your welfare.
In terms of “dealing” with TWIM Fanboy, just try to lessen the traits he laughs at.
Have fun with this fanboy, I am off for a pint with Mr.Crocodile.
*******************************
My response:
If that’s how you felt, why didn’t you come ask me for my side of the story? Was it at all rational to pass judgment without asking me?
Why is that? As you yourself noted, they sicked “Trinity” on me. So, I wondered how they would react if I did something similar to them. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Look, I can admit it was juvenile on my part, stooping to their level. Does that justify an entire blog’s worth of blatant character assassination, so haphazard and un-critically thought out that it’s now being heaped on an innocent Hollywood producer? You wrote,
That was the experiment: “Hmmm… I wonder how these ‘rational’ atheists would react if *I* posted under a different name?” Unlike them, I actually admitted it, and yet I’m still being defamed as a liar! Did they admit it? If not, aren’t they the real liars? Think critically here.
What is wrong with the Video Game Incident? After all, atheists, naturalists and materialists commonly demand that theists supply evidence of “breaks” in the laws of physics, do they not? Further, don’t they demand these things precisely because we might expect them if materialism were false? Where did I err in supplying exactly what they asked for?
So I deserve your mockery simply because I gave “Trinity” the benefit of the doubt for the first few comments? You yourself noted that I seemed to figure it out, so, whence the naivete?
It wasn’t disingenuous. I *DID* love the site, when it was limited to harmless roasting. It’s now went well beyond that into outright libel and character defamation, onto innocent third parties at that. In fact, that’s why I now feel compelled to stand up to it. You might notice that I’ve started commenting over there. The blue gravatar “cl” is mine; any other one is somebody else falsely impersonating me, in direct violation of WordPress code of conduct.
1) You brought it on yourself by getting involved;
2) I have *NOT* said you’re a sock puppet. I’ve said I lost trust. Aren’t those two different statements?
I’m sorry, by no means do I intend to crap on your generosity, especially if it’s genuine, but think about what’s going on and try to put yourself in my shoes for a minute. These buffoons are running an entire blog of sockpuppets, hiding behind proxies and blatantly impersonating real commenters. I saw one comment from you that was in my defense, then practically a dozen that heaped on the mockery or otherwise fanned the flames. Plus, didn’t you sock puppet Vox’s blog during the whole fiasco over there? Can’t you understand why I’m skeptical?
Like what? I’m open to legit criticism. I’m not cool with libel, lies, falsehoods and character assassination.
joseph
says...I could read the whole, original comment thread, I can’t think of anything I want to ask.
That’s a lot better than the experiment line.
Use of anecdotal evidence for the supernatural.
“Your naïveté”, not “you naivety”. Your naïveté in posting under two pseudonyms, one also on your own website, then removing it later.
Ok, you had a change of heart, but bear in mind any “flame fanning” was done without malicious intent on the understanding you didn’t mind.
True, doesn’t help but noted.
Yes, and put my name in quotation marks and later, linked me to Larry the Exterminator. Sure you haven’t said the words sock puppet.
Crude
says...I’d say that you shouldn’t put up with dickheads who can’t treat you with courtesy while on your blog, cl, but my understanding is that you prefer to put up with just about whatever is thrown at you to differentiate yourself from other sites. Your site, your rules.
Still, it’s clear that someone’s playing the Carrier/Loftus game of “well, I can’t win the argument, so I better mock”.
joseph
says...Yes! Laughably badly, I didn’t even know about IP proxies.
Ok! It was not an experiment, I was being an idiot, it was immature, I regret it and haven’t done it since. Apologies to Vox.
Yes, I understand your scepticism.
joseph
says...Well for one being pedantic to the point of seperating:
“Except that this is totally irrelevant. My claim isn’t, “God is likely to exist because the Israelites made efforts towards sanitation.”
From:
Is, unless I am wrong, unhelpful to the discussion, needlessly picky.
joseph
says...And you misused an absolute.
Crude
says...Is, unless I am wrong, unhelpful to the discussion, needlessly picky.
I don’t think it’s needlessly picky at all. “This, along with other arguments and evidences, justifies provisional belief that God inspired scripture.” != “God is likely to exist because the Israelites made efforts towards sanitation.” It’s not even close.
It’s like translating “This latest archaeological find, along with a host of other data, justifies provisional belief in the claim that modern humans had biological precursors 200kya” into “Darwinian evolution is true because some handjob in a bowtie found part of an old skeleton in a cave.” You’re mangling the claim from multiple angles.
Yeah, people are going to be very picky when making arguments like these, at least if they at all care about their arguments. They’re going to keep an eye on what they’re saying, what they intend to show, because strawmanning and mocking, inaccurate shorthand is extremely common.
joseph
says...“Darwinian evolution is true because some handjob in a bowtie found part of an old skeleton in a cave.”
Perjorative.
“God is likely to exist because the Israelites made efforts towards sanitation.”
Overly simplified. Non-perjorative. Can be expanded upon and discussion continued.
Doing it often enough, to the point where the discussion is lost, will increase the chances of mockery. Whether mockery is actually deserved or not, whether it is harmful or not, is a different, and highly subjective matter.
Crude
says...Overly simplified. Non-perjorative. Can be expanded upon and discussion continued.
I believe you’re looking for “pejorative” here, spelling-master. ;)
And, yes, it is pejorative. The fact that it doesn’t involve a snide word doesn’t change that. It’s a misrepresentation, and it’s reasonable to point out that no, that’s not at all a faithful reconstruction or summary of the claim. Anyone can see that – the proper response isn’t to complain when called on it. It’s to knock it off.
Doing it often enough, to the point where the discussion is lost, will increase the chances of mockery.
Oh lawdy lawdy, not mockery! Much less losing an opportunity to discuss things with so fine a thinker!
Demonstrating an inability to properly summarize what someone you’re talking with is actually claiming increases the chances of being exposed as a bit of a moron. If you think the only problem with the example I gave was it involved a taunting word, you’re in over your head with these discussions.
joseph
says...Thanks, I should have checked the spelling, bad me.
I disagree with more all less everything else you wrote.
As a small for instance it’s CL that is being mocked, possibly more, not me.
Another:
In it you have the idea that the sanitary practices of the ancient Hebrews provides some evidence for God.
Not at all faithful? Pejorative? (hope that’s correct, didn’t check this time either). So you’re saying it’s in no way related to the argument? Completely unrelated? Beyond that you’re saying there’s an above 50% chance it’s intended as a joke?
Crude
says...I disagree with more all less everything else you wrote.
I’m sure you do. I mean, you’re not very swift and I was making a very simple, obvious point. The smart money would be on… well, whatever you’re not putting your money on, I suppose.
As a small for instance it’s CL that is being mocked, possibly more, not me.
Then you’re clearly not reading what I’m writing here. Should I be more blunt, Joseph? Or am I going to have to use stickers and letter blocks to get you to notice?
In it you have the idea that the sanitary practices of the ancient Hebrews provides some evidence for God.
Except “evidence for God [existing]” is not “evidence that God inspired scripture”. Except “this, along with other arguments and evidences” makes it clear that the sanitation claim alone isn’t being argued to establish that God inspired scripture in and of itself.
Level with me, Joseph, because I really have to know: are you really this dumb? Or is this just a bit? Like, “Maybe if I act really stupid, it will get to Cl. I’m really good at acting completely goddamn clueless, and I want to tease him, so that’s my best bet.”? Because if so, bravo sir – you’ve almost got me convinced.
joseph
says...Pl3asE carrie on Crude, ur really helPing I.
cl
says...*COMMENT EDITED IN RESPECT OF PRIVACY, ONCE THE POINT WAS CONCEDED
“joseph”
Ah, I see. So mentioning you and Larry in the same sentence, ala *IF* joseph is actually Larry, constitutes a link. I don’t know who the hell you are. I don’t know if you’re another one of Larry’s hands, but I know for a fact that you’ve sockpuppeted both my blog and Vox’s, that’s why I said *IF*.
Is that a bald faced lie? Or, did you forget about, “cosmic-gerbil,” IP address —.—.–.–., email xxx@xxx, which is quite suspicious when juxtaposed next to “joseph,” IP address —.—.–.—, email xxx@xxx? C’mon man, you ain’t foolin’ anybody, and you’re just making an ass of yourself now.
I bet you do.
My bad. I guess we should all just eschew precision and argue with the linguistic equivalent of a 2×4.
Was the discussion lost? Last I checked, it was going quite strong. However, look at the direction people like yourself and “twimfanboy” are taking it: completely away from the original issue. Here you are, conflating precision with “nitpicking” then having the audacity to claim I’m “hyper-literal” to the point where the discussion is lost. Get real. If anything, you two should be mocked.
Take care, “joseph.”
Crude
says...Helping you what, Joey? Learn from your mistakes?
C’mon now. Look at your track record – you’re quite immune to that sort of understanding. But don’t worry, I’m sure if you hit that blog you’ll get a pat on the head and a “Don’t worry, Joey – you’re really, really smart!” Maybe some graham crackers and apple juice too. Yum yum!
Quick, crack out some more forced spelling errors. It’s about all you’ve got at this point. ;)
cl
says...Crude,
I agree, but, why should precision matter when atheists can just throw up a smoke screen of “hyper-literalism” accusations to deflect from the real issues?
I agree, and look at the utter vacuity of “joseph’s” response to that! It’s even worse when you consider Peter’s strawman:
He actually smarts off saying he wanted to be sure he didn’t “distort” my claim again, where the use of scare quotes implies that he takes no responsibility for distorting it the first time. We’ll see, he did suggest that his inference was wrong, but then that leaves me confused as to why he used scare quotes. It ain’t hard, all one has to do is copy and paste as oppose to paraphrase.
It’s not that I want to differentiate myself, it’s that I value free speech and open criticism, even from the most virulent of haters. If I take to deleting comments, I’m no better than hypocritical atheists. You know, heat, kitchen… etc.
Crude
says...CL,
I actually don’t know Peter’s side of this – I haven’t been following that end. I do know Joey’s given reconstruction up against what you said, sucks. I pointed it out nicely enough, but he really doesn’t seem to get it, so hey. He’s a great example of a guy who really shouldn’t throw around the “you should do as I say, or else maybe I’ll mock you” threat. All you have to do is stop politely ignoring his various moronisms and he’s an instant intellectual punching bag.
It’s not that I want to differentiate myself, it’s that I value free speech and open criticism, even from the most virulent of haters. If I take to deleting comments, I’m no better than hypocritical atheists. You know, heat, kitchen… etc.
Hey, fair enough. Your place, your rules. Nice job on keeping an eye on who’s doing what via IP, btw – looks like you’re more comp-literate than most bloggers.
joseph
says...*COMMENT EDITED IN RESPECT OF PRIVACY, ONCE THE POINT WAS CONCEDED
“Is that a bald faced lie? Or, did you forget about, “cosmic-gerbil,” IP address —.—.–.–., email xxx@xxx, which is quite suspicious when juxtaposed next to “joseph,” IP address —.—.–.—, email xxx@xxx? C’mon man, you ain’t foolin’ anybody, and you’re just making an ass of yourself now.”
I didn’t think that was sock puppeting it’s conventional sense. OK, sorry for that too. It was also silly and immature.
I think linguistic precision exists for the sake of the discussion. I can use it helpfully, so can you. You asked how I thought you could improve, I told you.
I think the discussion does, at times, get derailed. I think you could reduce that.
Crude is already mocking me, it’s quite easy.
joseph
says...Okey Mista Crud
Crude
says...Crude is already mocking me, it’s quite easy.
Yes, Joey, mocking you is ridiculously easy.
You finally scored one tonight. Well done. Someone’s getting a sticker on his Very Special Report Card, young man. ;)
joseph
says...@CL
I suppose I should also come clean and point out that Jox-Dei, and Taylor-Joseph were my sock puppets also.
@Crude
＼(^-^)／
cl
says...Crude,
I agree. It’s laughable.
I know. Unless things change, I probably will, for the most part at least. Thing is, even if “joseph” is, well… an old enemy of mine, we’ve had some fruitful exchanges despite the fact. So it’s a tough call. I’ll probably just take each comment on a case-by-case basis.
Stephen R. Diamond did it, too, here. He originally posted as “Faithful Servant” or some such nonsense, but the IP matched others for Stephen R. Diamond, so I corrected that for him. Besides, it was obvious from the lexicon. Only somebody like Diamond would use a ten-dollar word like “inviduous.”
cl
says...“joseph”,
I agree. If you’ll read closely, you’ll note the word “sockpuppet” did not occur in the text you cited.
No need to apologize. You were simply having fun. There’s nothing wrong with that, unless or until certain lines are crossed.
Right, but, I’m asking for a *LEGIT* area in which you think I could improve. When you conflate precision and conservatively stated arguments as “nitpicking,” you’re not helping anybody and actually hurting the whole cause.
I already knew those were you, though, they don’t really qualify as sock puppets to me. I would’ve mentioned it last night, I just didn’t feel like typing that much. I knew the day you left them. I didn’t care then, I don’t care now. It’s the internet. Big whoop. I only brought it up now because it became germane to the discussion.
BTW, I removed the pertinent info out of respect for your privacy—which I care about no matter who you are.
joseph
says...CL, I honestly think that is a legit area. You disagree, fine, no skin of my nose. You’ve been doing this for what >3 years? Works for you, keeps you happy, wins you converts, sure, keep doing what you doing. Please don’t make a snide comment about that, I mean that straight up. Again, I feel I’ve tried to help (ok, fine say I didn’t help, but the motivation was there), and again, not only have it been thrown in my face, it’s been smeared with acid first. 8’m fast learning it’s better not to give a damn.
No, and I for what it’s worth I don’t regard you as an enemy.
The IP gave me away again? ;-)
Thankyou for removing the personal details, the cosmic gerbil address wasn’t really mine.
cl
says...If it is a legit area, then why don’t you *EXPLAIN* how the two versions of the argument are identical, substance-wise? For example, I believe they differ substantially, *THEREFORE* I will explain to make my case, as opposed to simply assert.
To say, “God is likely to exist because the Israelites made efforts towards sanitation” can’t even be taken seriously. Many, many other cultures, long before the Israelites, made efforts towards sanitation. That’s *NOT* what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that the hygienic commands in Leviticus are consistent with a knowledge of germ theory that simply did not exist at that time, and I do *NOT* reason straight from that to “Christianity is true” as Peter falsely claimed. My argument is stated precisely and conservatively, and it’s conclusion is not overstated.
Can you really not see the difference? If not, I’m glad to drop it here. The onus is on the critic.
It’s not about winning converts. It’s about exposing false atheist arguments and encouraging believers along the lines of, “Hey, you don’t have to just bend over when some atheist starts spouting off like he knows a thing or two.” It’s also about taking a stand against irresponsible actions and arguments on behalf of fellow Christians. I can’t convert anybody. C’mon man.
Are you even reading what I write? I’ve already *THANKED* you for your help, both recently and not-so-recently. Don’t you remember? All I did was express skepticism related to the whole TFB thing, and, through the use of irrefutable evidence, I explained why.
Oh please, kill the drama. What would you think if you had a blog, and one of your regulars was *KNOWN* to post under multiple names, then all of a sudden a hater blog pops up, and said regular is also a regular there, heaping on the mockery? You said you *UNDERSTOOD* my skepticism.
Did I say you did? This is pure overreaction. All I did was wonder if you might be one of my old enemies. I have enemies. Though I dislike certain behaviors of certain humans, I don’t regard any human as an enemy. One family. One race. Under God. That’s what I believe.
Do as thou wilt. I give a damn.
Crude
says...Joey? Fast learning? I think not. ;)
cl,
I still haven’t read this exchange, but I will say this. My limited past experience with Peter is that, if he does make a mistake like the sort you refer to, he will back off if you call him on it and explain your side. Maybe things have changed, maybe something is going on here that I am unaware of. But I recall the guy was actually reasonable to have a conversation with, and pretty distinct from the usual Cult of Gnu antics.
cl
says...Absolutely. He is reasonable. He often recants and I’ll straight up vouch for him as one of the most respectable atheists I’ve encountered online. Of course, this doesn’t mean I can’t express my opinion that some of his posts strike me as unjustifiably cocksure. I love the guy. He helps keep me in check. For example, he’s quick to call me out when I do something that I call others out for (see last paragraph of the link), and because he does it with tact instead of vitriol, slander and lies, I’m much more prone to listening. Peter Huford makes me a better debater.
Peter Hurford
says...Here’s my angle on the whole “distort” in scare quotes thing:
In an essay that I recanted, I had written:
I do stand by that, and it shows that I would find some sort of “Argument from the Bible Having Really Advanced Statements In It” (for lack of a better name) persuasive. What I was looking for is some sort of actual discussion of microbes carrying disease akin to what we have now, but Cl took this phrase and gave me this in his first rebuttal:
This was in context of my use of the Bubonic Plague as a natural evil — Cl argued that God gave us a way to handle it, and this way was basically “modern hygiene and germ theory”, and thus Cl had proven God by my own quote.
In my essay rebutting this, “Cl, Bubonic Plagues, an Bibles, Part II”, I wrote this:
I said Cl made it sound like this. I had noticed that Cl had included burying refuse outside city limits among a variety of different hygenic commands in the Bible, and he still continues to argue that these hygenic commands are the first of its kind, because they were given to the Israelites directly by God.
Interestingly, it turned out that Cl had included this just because it would have helped against the Bubonic Plague, and it was the other commands that were the ones that would have both helped AND were unique to the Bible.
This is fine — I thought it sounded like that, but Cl pointed out that no, he did not mean that. If he says that’s not what he meant, I’m not going to dispute that — I obviously don’t know nearly as much about what Cl meant than Cl does, and I’ve made false inferences about what authors have meant in the past. I was fine at leaving it there, because it didn’t affect my response.
To me, an accusation of distortion is an accusation of intentionally altering someone’s argument to make them sound bad. Cl has accused me of a few other acts of bad faith, such as theatrics and dishonesty, so I thought this was just another accusation that I had distorted him. When he brought this up repeatedly in a few different places, I thought it was just more accusations that I was arguing in bad faith.
So let’s get this straight. I still don’t think this is a big deal at all, but if others think so, or even if Cl thinks so, I’d be happy to insert a comment in my previous essay indicating that Cl was not actually saying that Isrealites were the first people to bury refuse outside city limits.
Thanks Crude for the kind words.
cl
says...Peter,
…and therein lies the difference. You go above and beyond standard dictionary definition; I don’t. By “distort” I simply mean, “to twist out of the true meaning or proportion; to twist out of a natural, normal, or original shape or condition.” Such says nothing about malicious intent, which I don’t think you have. Any distortion on your part strikes me as human error, not deception.
Wait, what? Theatrics? Certainly. God Is A Malevolent Bully? Pure theatrics, as is much of your emotional tugging WRT to infant suffering. However, did I really accuse you of outright dishonesty somewhere? As in, something above and beyond human error and/or inaccuracy? If I did, I want to reread it, ASAP. Chances are I was pissed off and inadvertently took it out on you. I’ve made it a point, several times, to DISTANCE myself from such claims, especially about you because, as I just explained to Crude, you’re one of the best atheists online. I suspect you might be under the influence of Stephen R. Diamond’s vituperous poison. I’m referring to the time he ran around suggesting I called you a “fraud” when I hadn’t. If you need a link I’ll dig it up, haven’t got the time at the moment.
I’m not even talking about that. I’m talking about the distortion of the original argument. Unfortunately we’re not even on the same page. I don’t think the “Isrealites were the first people to bury refuse outside city limits” remark was a big deal at all. I was just curious what I wrote that gave you that impression. What I *DO* think a big deal is the distortion of the original argument(s). Let me know if you need further clarification.
Peter Hurford
says...Indeed, therein lies the difference as well. “Twist” still has a tinge of intentionality to me, and “distort” still sounds loaded. But if you did not think I had malicious intent, then we’re square. Sorry to have troubled you.
~
Sorry to still not get it, but I’m not sure what part you find distorted. Could you quote it?
~
It’s not just for play. We may have our disagreements so I won’t fault you if you find those to be theatrical — that’s understandable — but I do still think they’re legitimate arguments and not excessively emotional or dramatic.
~
I was referring to the few times I’ve been on the wrong side of an argument that any honest and/or rational person would see as clearly inaccurate.
~
Yes, and for that I again thank you for the praise. I just take accusations of bad faith seriously, because I do go above and beyond to try to make sure everything I do is above board. (Though I do still have an admitted penchant for overstating claims, which does need smacking down when it shows.)
I’m willing to drop this and say we’re square. Let me know where I’ve distorted you and what you want me to do about it, and we’ll go from there.
cl
says...Peter,
Cool, we solved that one. Sorry to have troubled you, as you clearly thought I was implying you acted in malicious intent when I wasn’t.
Eh, forgive me for being slightly annoyed, but all you have to do is read the post. It’s all right there. Here, let me run and get it for you… okay, right here:
See it now? If you pull a joseph and claim they’re functionally equivalent and that I’m just nitpicking, I’m going to pull my hair out! :)
The arguments have merit; the theatrics don’t. You don’t need to pile on all the emotion-creating language. I think that actually detracts from cold reason. Either way, whether we disagree or not, I don’t think your use of theatrics is in any way indicative of bad faith. Read my comment at #36.
Well then, refer to them. I can’t read your mind. I’m near certain I’ve never once called you dishonest, but, I may be wrong, and if I am, I better have had a damn good reason else I owe you an apology.
You and me both, that’s probably why we work so well together. However, again, I ask: have I ever once accused or even implied that you acted in outright bad faith? I don’t think I have.
If you don’t mind I’d like to follow it through, just to be sure that I didn’t unfairly accuse you of bad faith or dishonesty. I already explained where the distortion was.
I’m beat, time to crash.
joseph
says...CL,
You’re totally right, I’m wrong the comments are totally unrelated.
I’m going to drop the issue totally and go to Moron School as the lovely Crude suggested.
I’ll still read.