Atheism and universal loneliness

[spidergoat]

I am really shocked that not one of the people who challenged me in this thread made a counter point or supported a claim with evidence. I guess this sounds pretty mean but it is just the case, Are there people here who can argue a point or is threats and attempts at character assassination pretty much the gold league here?

Probably because your complaint seems petty and disproportionate to the offense.

 

[BWE1]

I guess you are probably right.

 

[BWE1]

On second thought, no, you are not probly right.

 

[spidergoat]

Almost had some respect for you.

 

[Enmos]

Atheism is born out of disappointment, atheism is born out of misery.

Happy people don't say "In the Grand Scheme of Things, we don't matter, and we just have to suck it up."

Bullshit. Plain and simple.

 

[BWE1]

Almost had some respect for you.

well, that's why I changed my mind. I hate having to keep up appearances. Just going ahead and claiming all the unpopular positions right off the bat is a great way to keep the pressure off.

 

[BWE1]

That was a pretty badass wot though. At least I thought so.

 

[DaveC426913]

...is threats and attempts at character assassination pretty much the gold league here?

Pretty much.

Because the board is open to a very wide array of contentious topics (religion, alternative/fringe theories etc.), it attracts a lot of highly fringy people with very poor communication skills.

It also attracts a lot of more mainstream but relatively combative people who wouldn't cut it on other sites where respectful behavior is demanded.

And finally, since rules of behavior are rarely enforced here and there is little supervision, there is nothing stopping people from digressing to their most base tactics. It tends toward the lowest common denominator.

 

[Balerion]

Do you not advocate the opposition of Rape? Why do you hate America?

The reason I ask this is because you are against ideas that seem to be perfectly acceptable. You're making it sound like he's out to burn down churches or lynch Christians.

Well, since I never questioned his science teacher status nor maligned the value of what he does do, and since I didn't even ask him for the list nor did he have reason to lie other that to try to out important me for whatever reason, surely you condemn dishonesty and underhanded manipulation?

I certainly do condemn dishonesty, which is why I'm taking you to task right now. Stop lying about what you said to him. You challenged his credentials as a scientist. You said he hadn't done science in ten years. He answered your accusation with a list of what he's up to just this year. Please stop pretending this was an unprovoked response.

and since his anti theistic views are not even something I think I care about although maybe i would if I ever got that deep, and since basically you pulled every single statement in there outta your ass, well, can you read for comprehension?

You're lying again. Or do you not remember saying "I in every possible way oppose every single sentiment he expresses in this speech"?

Only if he wanted credibility as a research scientist which he has not been in over ten years so I guess I if he did then I can understand his reaction. But I can';t for the life of me imagine how he wouldn't be proud of what he does do. Also chasing grants is not a stable life very often. Every 5 years you have to pray that the NIH has funding still and that of the 10-15% of grant applications that get funded, yours will be picked again and if you happen to be researching a less popular kind of cancer in a bad year the breast cancer researchers are going to to take precedence because people value boobies over ovaries for some reason. No a university teaching job is nothing to use as an insult. Unless you don't understand what teaching means and entails. Teaching science is a challenging and rewarding enterprise and popularizing science is also not only laudible but a difficult balancing act which he manages quite well sometimes. Resisting attempts by creationists to censor education and other misdemeanors is also laudable in my book. I think you have to take a step back and ask questions when you don't know rather than assuming my positions with exactly 0 supporting facts. I have a very specific issue with PZ which I have had f=to find creative ways to communicate for various format related reasons. But I have communicated it.

You must have been working on this post for well over 12 hours, because I edited the post heavily a while after posting it (and getting a chance to do some more reading, both on you and PZ), so let me reiterate what I said in the edited post: PZ is currently a research scientist. Part of what he cited for you is research that he is currently doing, and from what I understand he publishes work frequently. Your assertion that he is not a research scientist is a lie, and from what I can tell a knowing lie. The fact that you dismissed those credentials only makes you appear as a troll. All you're interested in doing, apparently, is assassinating this man's character. Whether that's because this Abbie is a friend of yours, or simply because you didn't like it when he made those comments about her, you have not managed to argue the merits of his criticism, and reduced yourself from the very beginning to lies and ad hominem.

You could have helped your cause immensely if you had simply explained why he was wrong about Abbie (though given her comments, it's hard to imagine a good defense for her), but opting to attack PZ's credibility and lie about his credentials was suicide. Now you just look like a troll.

That science speech though. You have to truly not understand what science is to not be horrified by it, Something is slipping there and I'd leave it alone if it weren't so damned uncomfortable to interact with people who think science proves or even warrants adopting specific ontology and you have to be told by someone you trust who should know better to believe that science replaces religion. Because even a basic understanding of science is enough to alert you that he was selling magic there and that would worry me if he stared getting disciples. Goddamn I dislike preaching. I would love to have a civil discussion with him or anyone who supports it but I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn't assume that opposing the platform means that I must be a marketing executive with no sense of duty to anyone but myself and a secret fundamentalist hindu since that is the absolutely only alternative to blind adherence to his doctrines and proclamations. Not surprising in some ways. The dissenting voices have been kicked out over the years, Not that they dont argue among themselves but the claim that they are able to truly dissent is put to the lie following elvatorgate, the great schism.

Earlier in this same post you said you don't care about his anti-theistic position, yet now you're so concerned you claim to be a martyr in the fight against it.

Yet despite all this piss and vinegar, you can't bring yourself to make a reasoned argument against his essay. You are of course excusing yourself from making one with the proviso "I'd do it if he'd talk to me," but then you already had your chance, and opted to troll his blog and hurl baseless accusations at him instead. Well, for the second time, I'm offering you a chance to make an argument against his position here and now. And I don't want to hear "Nobody thinks that's a good idea," I want to hear logical reasons why he's wrong. You wanted a chance, so here it is.

Is an assertion which you will find is false right here on this thread.

Translation: "I actually don't know, but I'll lead you down the road a little further until either you forget the question or you're sufficiently confused by my nonsensical rhetoric."

She is a researcher, he is not.

A lie. He is a researcher.

He felt that using his blog to denigrate her character was appropriate.

They apparently have had a bit of a sparring session prior to his latest post about her, so there is more to this than just his refusal to attend events she's invited to. He also linked to a crude joke she made about other scientists' looks that many found insulting. I don't know why you have no problem with her for saying such childish things but do when he draws a line. That's not logical.

He did it by comparing himself to her by suggesting that he would decline any invitation to go to a conference that she was invited to. I think that is petty and bad form. It is a legitimate question to ask if he would even be invited to the same conferences.

But you're not asking the question, you're making the assumption that they would not. Need I remind you of your previous statement? "I suggested THAT HIS CRITICISM OF ABBIE WAS EMPTY AND DESIGNED ONLY TO INVALIDATE HER IF THEY DON'T GET INVITED TO THE SAME CONFERENCES." So you didn't ask the question, you assumed that he didn't he get invited, and that this was his way of coping with that reality. This is a baseless assumption you made in order to extract some blood. You were out for revenge.

The funny thing is that I did make an unwarranted assumption there. But it was about Abbie, not PZ. I assumed she wasn't on the invite list to New Atheist type conferences.

Oh no, lying troll, that what not your inference. From the comments section at freethoughtblogs.com:

It’s been more than a decade since you’ve actually done any science hasn’t it? What kind of conferences still invite you anyway? Probably not the same sort that invite Abby who, last I checked, was still actually doing science.

You were not assuming Abbie does not get invited to atheist conferences, but that PZ does not get invited to science conferences.

research scientist with a list of recent accomplishments when he hasn't done research for over a decade is just weird. To do it to try to minimize my value in comparison to his is something I want him to apologize to me for. That is unethical no matter who you are or what your credentials.
The question of whether I was out for blood is irrelevant but the answer is no. I am opposed to devaluing humans which is what I thought he was doing to Abbie and which is what I said in my post.

He's doing research now. Is it that you simply can't tell which of the credentials he's listed involves research, or are you just pretending not to know?

The more you guys say stupid things like this the more I am forced to type in response and since PZ did make a mistake and really kinda does need to knowledge the mistake now, the more detailed you make the simple fact that he needs to apologize to me and acknowledge the error and move on. My language on his blog is (or was since he banned me) somewhat calculated to be slightly abusive because they have this escape word called "tone troll" which means that a person objects to tone rather than content and by applying the label they consider it legitimate to dismiss any potential argument in such posts. Well, I considered it a challenge. Sure enough, they only know how to read tone. Not one response there even mentioned my actual criticism which was in the following paragraph. Whatever, I don't expect much intelligent response form the comments, especially since the game is how to dismiss people with insults rather than content there. Well, that is entertaining in its own right. But it turns out you get banned for being better at it than they are. Live and learn.

If you had paid attention, the reason those who called you "tone troll" took offense was because they don't know or particularly care what kind of scientist PZ is. Those folks found him and follow him for his social commentary, not his work in the field. Of course, he still does do work in the field, as he showed you, but some people there wouldn't know or care if he did.

But you don't have that crutch to lean on anymore, because you now have someone who very much takes issue with the content of your posts standing in front of you. From now on you can address my criticisms of you, not those of the group who smashed both your tone and your argument to bits in the comments section.

This forum I made a post to illustrate the point I tried to make to Wynn. She seemed to be interested and I used it as an example. It was and is an appropriate example. I wasn't the one who called up the I'm so mad but I can;t seem to force you to shutup by challenging your claims brigade. It's pretty cheeky to challenge my claims and them blame me for responding.

How delusional of you. That's exactly what you've done to PZ. You've challenged his claims of being a research scientist, then blamed him for responding.

As for Wynn, there's a reason she's on the ban list. It has nothing to do with having a dissenting opinion.

I want him to apologize to me and acknowledge that even if you are angry, lying in order to delegitimize someone else is still wrong. I am very against what I see as prejudice, and I don't care how well deserved it may be some of the members of the labeled group, there is no difference between prejudice toward black or gays than toward xians or muslims. Trying to rationalize that one has been done here too but it's not valid because it isn't the quality of the beef with the people you hate that makes prejudice wrong. but I think thats a matter of discussion. Unfortunately he has lost the ability to dicuss of late, hopefully he chooses to aplogize to me and that will initiate a slightly more humble phase where disagreement doesn't get barb wire porcupines up the disagrers rectum or whatever they tell people they deserve nowadys who disagree with the canon.

It's almost as if you're reciting this at a mirror, because this is precisely the kind of thing that could, would, and probably has been said about you. Instead of discussing this with me, you're having a pseudo-debate with some imaginary third party, instead of arguing merits you're simply mudslinging, and you're misrepresenting PZ's argument. Where do you see prejudice against Muslims or Christians in his blog or his speeches? And don't give me the "If you can't see it, you're not looking" BS. Give me an example.

Again, this is an irrelevant issue the all caps was desperation because nobody could seem to find my actual words so everyone had to resort to making up likely arguments to still not refute but apparently so have some filler to go around the 'how dare you malign my god posts.

No, people have refuted your words directly, including PZ himself. The ALL CAPS is the foot-stomping of a petulant child who can't have his way. Your arguments crumbled, no one will listen anymore, and you hate that. Instead of being the kind of scientist you claim PZ isn't, you'll just hide in your cave and throw rocks at passers by.

I do not expect nor request apologies from any of the faithful who rose up to try to silence the, what was it, hmm i'll find it, here it is, the guy who "And you STILL aren't a pimple on the butt of PZ Myers, intellectually."

Well, as crude as that comment is, it's very obviously true. PZ is a very intelligent man and a good scientist, and you're a comments section troll. I mean, a greater contrast there cannot be.

But when you realized that I am right, well, to be fair I don't know if you know that or not, but when you realized that it seemed to be getting worse rather than better, the army started threatening me and making value statements attempting to delegitimize me so that your unchangeable truth could be assuaged. So that the command dictated by a silly belief which got stuck in the wrong place and so commanded you rather that being where you could adjust it as needed and command it.

Consider why they jumped on you, BWE. They did so because didn't make one single argument to the merits of his position. Instead, you said things like "You haven't done real science in ten years" and "What kind of conferences still invite you anyway?" You launched a personal attack on him. Even you said you expected a negative response to that, so why are you complaining about it now that it has come?

As for apologies, you're the one who needs to be doing that. He never even addressed you until you made absurd claims about his credentials and his person based on nothing but your apparent preexisting distaste for his writing, particularly the anti-theistic stuff (which you on one hand claim to not even care about, then on other claim to be the lone opponent of).

Weird power truths have, they can command us to engage in futile effort and control us if we put them in the wrong place. They can make witnessing what they proclaim as bad into unbearable suffering (well, I think I deserve a little poetic license for being such a good sport about it)

A good sport? You've been nothing but a liar and a troll about this. Back up one accusation you've made. Even one.

That you attempted the tactic of making my argument go away by shifting the value focus to me rather than my words is strangely the exact same thing PZ did when he realized he was in a bind, change the rules and shift the attention of the audience I guess, to whether his claim that I am a poopyhead is true or not. I try very hard to be just a few degrees less violent (I am not really into being violent anyway and besides, what does violent text look like?) {it looks like all-caps --JD} and because I was definitely making a few people uncomfortable He just declared his truth to be established, banned me for being a liar, and to support the charge he linked to a post where he called me a liar. I support lying being a bannable offense btw. so I guess I have to accept that occasionally an innocent person gets convicted of a crime and this time it was me who drew the short straw. Id rather live in a world with some rules than one of pure anarchy.

You made false accusations, he answered them. He gave you a chance to list your own credentials, you failed.

First, I hope by now you are laughing at this whole mess a little bit, It is quite comedic in some ways I think but also serious and thoughtful too. It is a bizarre storyline for sure, We almost reversed all the roles here. You, played PZ but lacking mod powers. Wynn played me, getting banned, and I played talkrational, providing a running commentary which only made sense to someone who knew all the inside jokes or whatever. Well, ok. That is a painful fit. But, since this is my narrative for the time being, I wonder if you or any of the people who wanted me to stop and tried to accomplish that by posting challenges to my claims, have the ability or inclination to reflect on how it felt to have such a clusterfook with suck incompatible goals motivating totally different response patterns from what would have actually accomplished the goal. I admit, I thought for most of the time that these were actual attempts to debate my clains and it was weird confusing because I didn't know how to deal with that.

While some of Wynn's comments have bordered on the insane, I have yet to see her say things that would reach the level of ignorance that yours have, either in this thread and the comments section at PZ's blog. All of your claims are unfounded, all of your attacks personal, and when shown the error of your ways you simply adopt the argument used against you as your own against others.

This ia a strange question but hopefully I'll br able to explain in a minute, Was there ever a moment where you considered that if you might be able to make me suffer, really me, not the text you see but they guy bumbling along on the other end, that if I could suffer just a little that you might have unloaded some small part of your burden onto me that you might have convinced the truth that demanded action that you had done all you could and that would have to do? That if perhaps If my ego were bruised I would own the responsibility for the problem in a way that you couldn't accomplish without somehow getting me to accept some shame? It would be really interesting if compulsions caused by truths held too tightly or in the wrong spot would immediately try to the same mechanisms of shame and blame through the digital interface that they do in the real world, It might shed some light on those posters who just can't seem to say hello with calling the other guy/gal some creative compound swearword and have an exchange of links without mentioning how the other guy/gal sucks I wonder, when a truth creates suffering but does not offer a solution, if there is a negotiation process for dealing with the frustration by some alternate mean, one of which being transferring the suffering as shame to the other person. Did you feel like maybe, and I'm not suggesting you were all phycho over it or anything, but do you think you might have thought to yourself at some point that if you could make even one person who was following the structured case I laid out, not who was in the same boat as you, but an unbiased observer, think I looked like an idiot, that even if I kept going, you would feel better because you had somehow satisfied your (probably unexaminable at the time since it was busy demanding results? ) truth's requirement to stop my words by instead lessening their power by reducing their value? Did it also feel like you were searching for that hotbutton phrase that could make me defensive and so give you a target to focus on? I ask that because every once in a while someone melts down kind of spectacularly, I'm sure you've seen it happen, and it seems to me like it is absolutely desperate attempt to unload the suffering bu dumping the shame into the other person's weak spot. If that is accurate, why do you suppose we need to give it to another person if it is possible to hand it off? It seems like we could work out a barter system with the occasional stuck truth which puts in those awkward places like this thread where we just say, ok, well, this suffering is because I accidentally got this truth stuck, I'll unstick it later but right now I'm going to need to set the shame down for a seconf. Snd then when you leavem conveniently forget to make it back in time to pick it back up. I mean, if we can unload them into other people is it only because we make a power balance with the one left holding the shame being weaker by virtue of the burden or could we really just put it down?

I'm seeing one such meltdown right now. And yes, you are having it quite spectacularly. Long, rambling posts, usually senseless, always insincere.

As to your question, which is essentially "Do you think I may have owned up to my lies if you had been a softer touch?" the answer is no. I tried to be exactly that earlier on, merely pointing out the flaws in your argument. I made no assumptions about you at the beginning. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, at least in the sense of not assuming you were a lying troll. But you reacted to that with insults of my person, and even preemptive insults by saying that one who doesn't agree with you is "an echo chamber for PZ" or that there's something wrong with them. Insinuating conspiracy of all of your opponents is not the best way to cultivate civil discourse.

I think you already know this, however, and are just attempting once more to pass the buck. You know you've been outed, and you're trying your damnedest to turn the tide in your favor. (I don't say "back" in your favor, because any semblance of a valid argument you may have had was lost in the very first paragraph of your response to his blog post about Abbie when you called him a "laughingstock.")

See, this is me no longer giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I really do work on the principle that I like to show my cards and discover where I am wrong rather than be a servant to who knows what random truth would get stuck.

Save that for someone who hasn't already read your inane and insulting diatribes. Your accusations have all been debunked, your excuses for them all shown to be lies, and yet you won't give an inch. You're long past being able to make the claim of being an ethical person. Clearly and demonstrably you are not.

I think some weird stuff sometimes. But because I had no stuck truths to serve, I was free to enjoy the artistic and theatrical qualities of this whole bizarre affair where everyone seems to have tried their damndest to see if they couldnt suffer a bit for the sake of a truth that got miscategorized as an ontological reality.

So you're saying you don't really believe that he isn't a research scientist, nor that his arguments against Abbie were invalid and self-serving, and that this was all for show?

Another question did my demeanor confuse you? Did my confidence make it worse or no shange or did it inspire some in you? It isn't so much confidence, I'm not a super-genius or have a track record of being right more often than the next guy, it's just that I'm mostly fine with being wrong. You might notice that the actual topic of this thread is something which I have been reasonably faithfully following exactly like I told wynn I would.

Again, this is all hogwash. You're not talking about yourself here, and if you think you are, then I suggest you seek therapy immediately, because this is clearly a delusion. You are wrong, have been shown to be wrong, and yet you continue on as if correct.

As to your question, I'm not confused by your demeanor. I see it often in forum trolls. It's the self-confidence of someone who knows they will never have to admit they are wrong, because they know they have the stamina and lack of ethics to outlast virtually anyone, and that when the inevitable banhammer comes, they will flee to another forum where they can claim martyrdom in the name of truth and inquiry. Until someone there figures them out, of course, then it's simply a case of rise and repeat.

If I'm confused by anything, it is your often inane rambling. You're very stream-of-consciousness, and at times it takes a few read-throughs to get the gist of what you're saying. And even then...

If you recall, this isn't a thread about pz. Well I know that was the apparent storyline and that was everyone's stuck spot, but I was testing the conjecture I made when I first responded to her. That holding onto a truth too tightly actually causes suffering rather than provides a suggestion for alleviating it. What do you think? I'd say it definitely isn't busted anyway. At least in this small sample. And with a not so cosmic absolute truth, I'll loosley name the truth that the ephemeral notion of PZ's integrity is unquestionable because it is real or something. Interestingly, everyone who got stuck by it did try to use that truth to find ways to alleviate the suffering first. Step one, state the truth: PZ is not a liar therefore you must be the liar. Then,when that rang back as not working the next response was pretty much: Hey buddy! Don't be an asshole. Stop. But since absolute truths restrict rather than loosen degrees of freedom, that truth ultimately caused suffering because it created a need but no way to meet it. But in the end, PZ's integrity is not in much danger. He probly should acknowledge the mistake and I certainly would appreciate an apology because it was a kind of a dick move. But if his whole schtick for what maybe twenty years, has been to take the frustration of the masses of people who are getting screwed by creationists and dump it right on their damn heads, it is actually possible that he may be hypersensitive to shame now because he's dumped so much for so long that he simply doent have the mechanism opiled up to loosen his truths anymore. That would explain the weird attack squad around him and it also would make his duty as a blogger take on a quality of a mindfucking burden. That shame needs dumping. He must find more places to dump it, places to dump more, and so on. When I picked up recently on what I called hate speech, I could just as easily call if wholesale shame dumping. Can you imagine feeling responsible for dumping the shame for thousands of people? Think how critical the desire to satisfy a truth which, on a moments consideration, isn't capable of doing what it demands. You can't protect his integrity without controlling him. No one can, while acting with their own integrity, defenf the integrity of someone else if it need some body work. But if the tiniest bit of shame has taken on epic proportions in his mind, he may simply be unable to dump it by the normal means of just taking responsibility, acknowledging the mistake, making his apologies and he's absolved. But if that first step is the weight of the world I might have really messed with him which would be too bad. He becomes the boy in the basement in the Omelas.

This is a perfect example of your very serious delusion. I mean, at the risk of repeating myself, allow me to restate what really happened:

(1) You made claims about PZ's credentials and his motives.

(2) PZ refuted those claims and asked for you to list your own credentials.

(3) You failed and were banned.

(4) You have come here in an effort to seek out followers of PZ's blog and have restated your claims with the additional one that he has lied about one of the items listed. You've also ignored several items within his list by saying that he hasn't done research in ten years, a claim which is debunked by the very list he offered you, but can also be dunked by looking up anything to do with PZ Myers nearly anywhere on the internet.

(5) Your claims have again been refuted.

(6) You attempted to backtrack by saying your false assumption about the conferences he attends had nothing to do with him, but with Abbie

(7) this claim was refuted.

And now here we are, with you pretending no one properly refuted your claims, no one exposed your lies, and that PZ somehow owes you an apology even though you were the only one who made any false claims about the other.

Again, this is a serious delusion. Or it's simply you trying to outlast me by continually restating your original premise until I get bored and walk away.

But also, if he is getting neurotic about dumping shame only through devaluing others, then I kinda hope this inspires him to take a break, because that is exactly what is unacceptable to me and bullshit is someone out there claiming to represent science and feeding off inflicting pain on others going to go unchallenged in terms of his fitness to represent science. I can't think of a single place Carl Sagan needed to devalue anyone to communicate science.

What pain has he inflicted on others? Who has he devalued?

The obvious thing is to work at loosening out truth, eh? For those of you who got stuck in the grip of such a weird and counter productive truth, not holding the truth so tightly, just saying, 'meh', would have actually solved the problem because I had no intention of bashing PZ here in this thread, other than stating the truth of the matter as an example of the type of thing I was thinking about. This huge long sort of damning expose that we have now was the result of the limited freedom and unreasonable demands which seem to quite possibly be caused by the truths themselves.

Another lie, because your motives in this thread are obvious. And anyone who disagreed with your assessment of this situation was cordially invited by you to read your lie-filled post on PZ's blog, so clearly your intent was to hammer PZ to anyone who would lend an ear. After all, you can no longer spread your poison on his blog.

Last order on the agenda:

May I ask what the bleep you think you discovered there?
Please note my second post in this thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944266&postcount=144

And what is the significance of not even an atheist. But actually you do know that this is either nonsense or wrong, right?

The significance is that you're pretending to be an atheist and then denouncing atheist in an attempt to legitimize nonsensical arguments against people like PZ Myers. You figure that if you pretend to be an atheist, people might actually listen to you, rather than dismiss you for being a Christian, or whatever it is you actually are. It's like the Eagles fan who calls into the drivetime talk shows purporting to be a fan of the Giants so his ad hom criticisms of the Giants are given weight rather than dismissed as the jealous ramblings of a frustrated Philly fan. It's not uncommon.

 

[BWE1]

You are amazing.You entirely invented my positions without a single bit of evidence other than what you imagine I must have to be. I can only guess because your universe is too small to imagine any alternatives. I am sorry I touched a nerve.

PZ lied. The quotes are in this thread.

I am not an anything-ist. This whole thread is about how unquestionable truths cause suffering. Exhibit A: your posts.

 

[BWE1]

The significance is that you're pretending to be an atheist and then denouncing atheist in an attempt to legitimize nonsensical arguments against people like PZ Myers. You figure that if you pretend to be an atheist, people might actually listen to you, rather than dismiss you for being a Christian, or whatever it is you actually are. It's like the Eagles fan who calls into the drivetime talk shows purporting to be a fan of the Giants so his ad hom criticisms of the Giants are given weight rather than dismissed as the jealous ramblings of a frustrated Philly fan. It's not uncommon.

This may be the most paranoid quote I've ever seen on a forum.

 

[BWE1]

and by the way, PZ is not a research scientist. He doesn't claim to be one usually.

 

[Grumpy]

BWE1

So you are not a theist posing as an Atheist? I don't believe that either. I know everything you claimed about PZ is lies, why would you change your MO when you claim you're an Atheist? I stopped reading your drivel after the first half page diatribe, realizing you are a firm believer in the old maxim "If you can't dazzle them with wit, baffle them with bull shit. You posted so much bull shit no one knew where to start digging and few of them thought it worth the effort. But it doesn't fit with what we know of PZ and his work, but such messianic, reasonless rages are a sure sign of a troll and trolls don't last long here. You will not be missed. You now have the honor of being the only one on my ignore list. Ta Ta asshole.

Grumpy:fart:

 

[Balerion]

You are amazing.You entirely invented my positions without a single bit of evidence other than what you imagine I must have to be. I can only guess because your universe is too small to imagine any alternatives. I am sorry I touched a nerve.

PZ lied. The quotes are in this thread.

I am not an anything-ist. This whole thread is about how unquestionable truths cause suffering. Exhibit A: your posts.

You lied. The quotes are in my latest post.

Apologize for lying, or get lost.

This may be the most paranoid quote I've ever seen on a forum.

There you go again. Rather than defending your position, you attack me personally. This is all you've done since this conversation started. You haven't backed a single claim, and you ignore points that refute them. You even ignored my question of how you know PZ is lying about the keynote business. Why is that? Because you know you can't answer it without having to rethink your position and admit you could very well be wrong about that?

But just so we're clear: Your actions are those of a person who is pretending to be something they aren't. Just as a poker player raises when a third spade drops on the river to demonstrate that he's made a flush.

Trolling.

and by the way, PZ is not a research scientist. He doesn't claim to be one usually.

Are you serious? From his "cv":

"Got a publication coming out this fall, got a major grant award, was the keynote speaker at SDB in Hawaii, UNLV White Distinguished Lecture, taught a standard 3/2 load (including developing a new upper level elective), had 35 advisees, have 3 students working with me this summer on a new field project."​

You don't need to be scientist to recognize that a publication coming out in the fall, a major grant award, and a field project amount to research credits, you just have to not be a dishonest troll. So, again, you lied. Now apologize for it.

 

[BWE1]

You lied. The quotes are in my latest post.

Apologize for lying, or get lost.

I read that whole post and I can't se the connection between what you wrote and what you quoted. If i made a mistake of course I will correct it. Please quote what you think I lied about and youfr evidence proving it's falsehood. It's only fair. I provided the sourced and material to support my claims.

 

[BWE1]

oh boy. I am sorry. You appear to be delusional and I am unwilling to continue this discussion.

 

[Balerion]

I read that whole post and I can't se the connection between what you wrote and what you quoted. If i made a mistake of course I will correct it. Please quote what you think I lied about and youfr evidence proving it's falsehood. It's only fair. I provided the sourced and material to support my claims.

Uh, no you haven't. Where is the evidence that he's not a research scientist? Where is the evidence that he hasn't done "real science" in ten years? I just showed you evidence that he is and does, so where's yours? Where is your evidence that he is acting inappropriately in condemning Abbie? Where is your evidence that he doesn't get invited to scientific conventions?

You want evidence of your lies? I've already given then, but here's a recent one:

his anti theistic views are not even something I think I care about although maybe i would if I ever got that deep,

versus

I in every possible way oppose every single sentiment he expresses in this [anti-theistic] speech

Oops!

Next:

The funny thing is that I did make an unwarranted assumption there. But it was about Abbie, not PZ. I assumed she wasn't on the invite list to New Atheist type conferences.

versus

It’s been more than a decade since you’ve actually done any science hasn’t it? What kind of conferences still invite you anyway? Probably not the same sort that invite Abby who, last I checked, was still actually doing science.

Next:

and by the way, PZ is not a research scientist.

versus

Got a publication coming out this fall, got a major grant award, was the keynote speaker at SDB in Hawaii, UNLV White Distinguished Lecture, taught a standard 3/2 load (including developing a new upper level elective), had 35 advisees, have 3 students working with me this summer on a new field project.

Next:

he banned me for making him compromise his professional integrity by being mean to him by suggesting he has made an error of judgement.

versus

Oh, I forgot — if that lack wit bwe4 shows up again without giving a short list of his recent scientific contributions, he will be banned. Goose, gander, etc.

Shall I go on? There are more.

 

[BWE1]

OMG. Do you own guns?

 

[Balerion]

oh boy. I am sorry. You appear to be delusional and I am unwilling to continue this discussion.

Troll's Handbook, Pg 7:

When an argument is defeated, all lies are exposed, and there is no recourse--regardless of the size of one's sucking void where one's integrity should be--the Troll's Handbook suggests dismissing all opponents as delusional and terminating the discussion. It won't be the total victory that watching as the thoughtful and intelligent drop out one by one, frustrated and befuddled by one's obfuscations, evasions, and outright lies, but there is certainly satisfaction to be taken from the arhythmic thumping as those left standing bang their heads against the wall at one's ability to duck out of a long debate without conceding a single point and even inferring a small measure of victory.​

 

[BWE1]

Look, you actually inserted the word required to make my statement a lie in brackets you quoted pz's original lie in support of your accusation that my mention of it some 30 posts later was a lie, you quopted pz saying he would ban me if i didn't post my credentials, I posted my credential, you are seriously delusional.

The last refuge of an insane true believer is sciforums.com

Mods. This is really uncomfortable. I reported huis post and asked if I was dealing with a delusional person, I reported one yesterday which made a threat asking how I was allowed to respond. So far no contact. This is ridiculous though. It is either cruel or dangerous to engage with these people. Is that the way these forums outside the science fora run?