Throwing Reason To The Wind: Stephen R. Diamond

Posted in Blogosphere, Humor on  | 11 minutes | 5 Comments →

The more haters hate, the more they prove the truth of God’s Word:

Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5: 11,12)

Enter hater extraordinaire, Stephen R. Diamond:

cl is fundamentally dishonest, as twimfanboy has demonstrated on his site. Here’s the most recent proof. cl posts on his web site: “Comments and criticisms from readers, writers, logicians, freethinkers, believers, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, scientists, theologians, philosophers, cranks, haters and trolls are welcomed. Your first comment will be held for moderation (to prevent spam). Subsequent comments should post without issue.” Yet, he has taken to censoring my comments, apparently without even informing his audience. You do no favor to freethought to discuss cordially with this psychopathic liar.

Here, by the way, is what I tried to post on his site in response to you, in response to his invitation to “haters,” the label he applies to me. I went to bat for this Christian loon when atheist JT expelled him, based in part on cl’s apparent commitment to “free speech.” This was before I learned he was a thoroughgoing liar. His lies to the public in claiming that “haters” like I can post freely to his blog should be exposed by any honest person choosing to communicate on his blog–just as cl expected his blacklisting by jt to be resisted.

Really? Okay, if you’re a commenter here, if you’re an individual that has even half a grain of respect for me—or truth for that matter—I ask that you would read this post, consider the evidence I’m about to present, and, should you find it persuasive, leave a comment condemning Stephen R. Diamond for his false claims, libel and wanton disregard for truth. Spurred on by the technical ignorance and logical missteps by Jim Crawford (a.k.a. twimfanboy), Stephen R. Diamond is out there libeling me all over the internet. Although I’ve gotten used to it enough that I can laugh now, it still bothers me that so few people seem to have any interest in condemning trigger-happy libelers like Stephen R. Diamond. If this hater were to libel any of you, dear readers, you can rest assured that I’d go to bat for you in heartbeat.

First off, I’d like to call your attention to the fact that Stephen R. Diamond presents himself a paragon of intellectual honesty and a true rationalist, yet he presents zero evidence for his claims. That alone should be a huge red flag to any reasonable person. Second, did you happen to read the last paragraph of Random Links & Snippets 5, where I link to this post? If not, go check it out. It’s pretty humorous to listen to Mr. Diamond beat his chest about how he’s gained “victory” over me. This is pure narcissistic drivel IMHO, but, that’s beside the point.

Did I “ban” or “censor” Stephen R. Diamond? Of course not. Does anybody really believe that I’m that stupid? Does anybody really believe that after being banned from 9 atheist blogs and 1 Christian blog that I would willingly turn myself into a public laughing stock by practicing the very behavior I’ve so stridently condemnded? C’mon! These false accusations have been flying so heavy and so often that I can’t afford to let them upset me anymore. Since he fancies himself a hotty-totty “legal writer” I’m going to have a little fun and draft this as if my attorney was questioning Mr. Diamond in a libel suit. Though humorous, it’s wholly accurate—which is actually kinda sad.

Prosecution: “Mr. Diamond, you allege my client has ‘banned’ and ‘censored’ you from his blog, where is your evidence for this claim?”

SRD: “I posted four comments and I didn’t see them right away.”

Prosecution: “cl, is that true?”

cl: “It is as Mr. Diamond alleges, sir.”

Prosecution: “And Mr. Diamond, you allege that this circumstantial evidence justifies your libel of the plaintiff?”

SRD: “Yeah! cl is an inviduous, psychopathic liar. After all, twimfanboy exposed him.”

Prosecution: “You mean, Jim Crawford?”

SRD: “Yes sir, may the flying spaghetti monster bless his soul.”

Prosecution: “Mr. Diamond, don’t you find this the least bit ironic?”

SRD: “Whaddya mean?”

Prosecution: “You’re condemning my client for allegedly ‘banning’ and ‘censoring’ you, yet, here you are, sucking up to somebody who deletes comments and bans commenters from his own blog.”

SRD: “No. That can’t be. twimfanboy promotes free speech! cl is the insidious Christian loon and fascist scoundrel here, not twimfanboy. twimfanboy is pure as snow, innocent as a dove, except for the cigarette dangling off his lip, or those yellow stains under the pits.”

Prosecution: “I see… Mr. Diamond, at any moment during this escapade, did you ever use critical thinking to examine alternative options before grasping valiantly for the tar-and-feathers?”

SRD: “Critical thinking? What’s that? I just wanna shoot the damn gun!”

Prosecution: “Let’s trace this back to the beginning. On May 26th 2012 at 10:56am, after throwing a Loftus-style hissyfit after my client pointed out that your “consensus makes a claim more likely to be true” argument gives you prima facie reason to accept theism, in reference to TWIM, did you or did you not explicitly state that you ‘won’t be frequenting this shit hole again?'”

SRD: “Yes, I did.”

Prosecution: “So then, since you now admit that you returned and posted subsequent comments to TWIM, were you true to your word, or did you fail to live up to your word?”

SRD: “Well, uh, uh… uh, um, hmmm…”

Judge: “Answer the question Mr. Diamond.”

SRD: “No, I was not true to my word.”

Prosecution: “I see… And was this or was this not the second time you went back on your word with regarding your participation at TWIM?”

SRD: “Yes, I suppose that is the second time I’ve failed to keep my word.”

Prosecution: “Thank you Mr. Diamond. Now, in your accusation, you claimed my client has taken to censoring your comments apparently without even informing his audience. Is that correct?”

SRD: “Yes, that’s correct.”

Prosecution: “Yet, on May 26th 2012 at 8:18pm, after my client explicitly stated that he would add your IP address to his spam queue, didn’t my client say he would remove it should you change your mind, and that all you had to do was leave a comment on his contact page stating that you’d changed your mind?”

SRD: “I don’t know, I didn’t see that.”

Prosecution: “I see… So, in reality, my client was fully transparent with his audience, and you were simply ignorant, weren’t you Mr. Diamond?”

SRD: “Uh, yeah, I suppose so.”

Prosecution: “Now Mr. Diamond, can you think of any reason my client would have added your IP to his spam queue in the first place?”

SRD: “Probably because he’s a liar with no regard for free speech and he’s a liar and he’s a pyschopath who runs his blog like Kim Jong Il.”

Prosecution: “That’s not an answer to the question, Mr. Diamond. Can you think of any reason my client would have added your IP to his spam queue?”

SRD: “No, I can’t.”

Prosecution: “You don’t think it had anything to do with your ‘puerile sockpuppetry,’ Mr. Diamond?”

SRD: “What are you talking about?”

Prosecution: “On June 8 2012 at 5:18 PM, did you or did you not sockpuppet TWIM under the moniker, ‘FaithfulServant?'”

SRD: “Well, yeah, but that doesn’t mean he should censor me.”

Prosecution: “Mr. Diamond, didn’t my client post your comment anyways?”

SRD: “Yes, I suppose he did.”

Prosecution: “That’s interesting. So then, what is the basis of your claim that my client is censoring you?”

SRD: “I posted 4 comments after that one and I didn’t see them right away.”

Prosecution: “Mr. Diamond, on the day of your Loftus-style hissyfit, my client explicitly informed you that he was adding your IP to the spam queue. Why would you expect to see your comments right away?”

SRD: “It doesn’t matter, cl is a liar.”

Prosecution: “Interesting. Why didn’t you just a post a comment asking to be reinstated as a commenter, as my client asked, Mr. Diamond?”

SRD: “Because I’ve got serious pride issues and there’s no way in hell I would ever ask that fanatic for anything.”

Prosecution: “Look at the posts for July 2012, and notice the almost-2-week gap between July 16 and July 28. Is it not reasonable to assume my client had started a new job and was not spending much time on his blog when you posted your comments July 18th, July 19th and July 21st? How do you know my client was checking his spam queue during this absence, Mr. Diamond?”

SRD: “I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter, because I have faith that cl is a liar. He just wants to censor me because after all, it’s all about me.”

Prosecution: “Mr. Diamond, did it ever occur to you that a hobbyist programmer like my client might have coded his blog to identify and catch spammers and sockpuppets, based on your previous behavior, behavior you denounce elsewhere as ‘puerile?'”

[no answer]

Prosecution: “Mr. Diamond?”

SRD: “Yes, I suppose he may have.”

Prosecution: “And of the three comments in question, were not the first two sockpuppets using the moniker ‘FaithfulServant?'”

SRD: “No! You can’t prove that! And there were four, not three.”

Prosecution: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I now turn your attention to exhibit A:”

SRD: “Okay, so I sockpuppeted his blog. But there were four, not three. What happened to the fourth one?”

Prosecution: “Mr. Diamond, wasn’t the fourth comment simply an inclusion of a URL you forgot to post on the third?”

SRD: “Yes, I suppose it was.”

Prosecution: “And didn’t my client do you the courtesy of inserting that URL into your third comment for you?”

SRD: “Why yes, I suppose he did.”

Prosecution: “So then Mr. Diamond, on what grounds do you claim to have been ‘banned’ or ‘censored’ from TWIM? On what grounds do you claim that my client is a ‘psychopathic liar?'”

SRD: “twimfanboy said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

Prosecution: “I see… Mr. Diamond, on March 18th 2012 at 1:13pm, when you libeled cl as a liar over some other issue, did you not eventually come to your senses and apologize, stating that you have a fault of making ‘excessive allegations’ when you’re angry?’

SRD: “Yes, I did say that, and I do have a bit of a temper, not to mention extreme hatred and intolerance of Christian loons like cl.”

Prosecution: “Interesting. The prosecution rests, your honor.”

[fast forward to closing statements]

Prosecution: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client has been fair and transparent in his dealings with Mr. Diamond. My client has suffered Mr. Diamond’s libelous online attacks and false claims for months yet continues to publish all of Mr. Diamond’s comments despite the fact. Mr. Diamond alleges that he has been censored but the evidence proves that my client clearly and openly explained what Mr. Diamond would have to do in order to get his IP out of the spam trap. I submit that if Mr. Diamond wants to see his comments post immediately then he should dispense with the very same behavior he decries as ‘puerile’ elsewhere. Mr. Diamond freely admits he has problems with excessive allegations when he’s angry, and it’s very clear from the froth all over the microphone that he is in such a mindstate at the present moment. Why should we believe Mr. Diamond’s accusations this time around, especially when all of his comments have been published despite the aforementioned behavior on his behalf? Think about it, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Libel is no small matter. If a man is going to libel another man in a public forum, don’t you think he ought to have conclusive evidence? Or are our personal vendettas and emotions so strong that we should just throw reason to the wind?”


  1. dale


    cl is fundamentally dishonest…

    Fundamental(ly) – The source of origin, or of central importance

    Dishonest – Not honest, a liar.

    What would be sane, rational, or of any sort of intellectual benefit to ones self to perpetually engage in debate with another person who is completely unable to tell the truth?

    It doesn’t make any sense.

    Without something of tangible sanity to work with or against, there has to be an emotional, psychological, or even spiritual component that would make someone engage in a perpetual debate with someone who they themselves have deemed as incapable of telling the truth. It’s like a compulsion for self torture, or an addiction to conflict, or a deep seated prejudice that you just have to exorcise here and there just to feel even the slightest bit stable.

    If I thought cl was “fundamentally dishonest”, I would never visit twim, ever.


    Do I agree with everything he says, or how he goes about saying it? Not all the time, though I do agree with much of what he says. But, I’m able to do that, and in good conscience, because I believe that he is asserting an honest opinion and pov and is telling the truth when he says what he says. Again, this is not saying the same thing as always being in 100% agreement with someone, it’s just about being able to have an open debate or discussion.

  2. Crude


    Yeah, I have to vouch for cl’s honesty too. Even coming right off a minor head to head with him. He may be willing to taunt if he’s taunted – Lord knows I do – but dishonest? I’ve never seen this, much less ‘fundamentally dishonest’.

    And I think anonymous “fan” pages meant as an attack are pretty low. Shades of Loftus right there.

  3. Mr. Nightstick


    I thought he said he was done with this place. It sounds like he was the liar.

  4. Dale


    Mr NIghtstick,

    Or he changed his mind? I know changing your mind is not exactly part of the debate sport. But in thinking terms, wouldn’t it be limiting to keep yourself tethered to a specific pov?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *