Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/HSibcS4.jpg

I'll take that as a 'fold'. Chicken. :P

Of course, dear. Whatever you say.

[AndrewV69]

Ramadan: I loath it!

Why is that? I doubt that you are participating.

Sunrise where I am is 5:35 AM and sunset is 9:02 PM. It makes for a long hungry and thirsty day. The second night I managed to overeat and spent an uncomfortable few hours regretting it. Anyway, so far so good. Two weeks down and two to go.

[dogen]

Ophelia is now acknowledging that she didn't realize that the woman was arrested for failure to appear, not expired tags. OMG, you mean she went off half-cocked without knowing what the fuck she was talking about? Say it ain't so!

You calling a woman half-cocked? What, like a black only counts as 3/5 of a white?

MISOGYNIST!

[Jan Steen]

Thanks, Welch. Your technique seems to be working.

[Gumby]

I see. You chose mumbling. Oh well. Perhaps you'll reconsider some time. In the mean time, what onlookers observe are honest questions asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and you mumbling in response. Not very impressive.

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

[Wonderist]

http://i.imgur.com/HSibcS4.jpg

I'll take that as a 'fold'. Chicken. :P

Of course, dear. Whatever you say.

You're really satisfied to be reduced to mumbling as I predicted? Hm. So much for caring about the truth, then, eh? It would be so easy to just post a link to the evidence you said you have gathered. Far easier than continuing to mumble. But... I guess that would require a modicum of intellectual honesty. Too bad... :(

[AndrewV69]

I love when that happens. payback's a bitch.

it's "sport", right? can't always win.

It would be even more sporting if they could shoot back. Plus a whole lot more fun.

[Lsuoma]

I see. You chose mumbling. Oh well. Perhaps you'll reconsider some time. In the mean time, what onlookers observe are honest questions asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and you mumbling in response. Not very impressive.

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

QFT. Y'know, his metabolism isn't carbon-based, or even silicon: it's GOT to be boron...

[Wonderist]

I see. You chose mumbling. Oh well. Perhaps you'll reconsider some time. In the mean time, what onlookers observe are honest questions asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and you mumbling in response. Not very impressive.

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

Really? You mean all the onlookers have failed to actually read what I've written? Somehow, I think you underestimate the onlookers.

Jan Steen made some claims. I asked him to back up his claims with evidence. He failed to do so. You think onlookers failed to notice that? I don't.

[sacha]

I love when that happens. payback's a bitch.

it's "sport", right? can't always win.

It would be even more sporting if they could shoot back. Plus a whole lot more fun.

this is exactly what I say to people who claim it's a "sport"

[Gumby]

I see. You chose mumbling. Oh well. Perhaps you'll reconsider some time. In the mean time, what onlookers observe are honest questions asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and you mumbling in response. Not very impressive.

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

Really? You mean all the onlookers have failed to actually read what I've written? Somehow, I think you underestimate the onlookers.

Jan Steen made some claims. I asked him to back up his claims with evidence. He failed to do so. You think onlookers failed to notice that? I don't.

God what a boring narcissistic fuck. You're so fucking dense you're not seeing what is being plainly shown to you by many, many people here.

Oh, fuck it.

Yes, dear. Whatever you say dear.

[Gumby]

I see. You chose mumbling. Oh well. Perhaps you'll reconsider some time. In the mean time, what onlookers observe are honest questions asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and you mumbling in response. Not very impressive.

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

QFT. Y'know, his metabolism isn't carbon-based, or even silicon: it's GOT to be boron...

:lol:

[bhoytony]

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm27 ... Sleepy.gif

[AndrewV69]

I see. You chose mumbling. Oh well. Perhaps you'll reconsider some time. In the mean time, what onlookers observe are honest questions asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and you mumbling in response. Not very impressive.

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

Really? You mean all the onlookers have failed to actually read what I've written? Somehow, I think you underestimate the onlookers.

Jan Steen made some claims. I asked him to back up his claims with evidence. He failed to do so. You think onlookers failed to notice that? I don't.

Well, some might be skipping over the dialogue and miss it completely. So I would not count on it.

[Jan Steen]

I'll take that as a 'fold'. Chicken. :P

Of course, dear. Whatever you say.

You're really satisfied to be reduced to mumbling as I predicted? Hm. So much for caring about the truth, then, eh? It would be so easy to just post a link to the evidence you said you have gathered. Far easier than continuing to mumble. But... I guess that would require a modicum of intellectual honesty. Too bad... :(

Aren't you cute!

(I you weren't so obtuse, lazy and intellectually dishonest you could have typed 'peer review' in the search box in the upper right hand part of this page. You would then be presented with a list of all posts in this thread that mention said key words. You could then proceed to select those posts that were authored by me, and with only a little effort you would find the evidence you were asking for.)

[Wonderist]

Really? You mean all the onlookers have failed to actually read what I've written? Somehow, I think you underestimate the onlookers.

Jan Steen made some claims. I asked him to back up his claims with evidence. He failed to do so. You think onlookers failed to notice that? I don't.

God what a boring narcissistic fuck. You're so fucking dense you're not seeing what is being plainly shown to you by many, many people here.

Oh, fuck it.

Yes, dear. Whatever you say dear.

*What* has been plainly shown? Are you saying that evidence has been plainly shown of Carrier lying about having his book peer-reviewed, as Jan Steen has claimed? You're right! I haven't seen such evidence presented. Perhaps you could point it out to me.

Or perhaps you are saying that evidence has been plainly shown of Carrier claiming Verenna is anything more than a student scholar, or what Jan Steen refers to vaguely as a 'serious scholar'? You're right! I haven't seen that evidence either.

As a ***skeptic***, I tend not to believe tall claims without tall evidence.

How about you? Do you believe such claims? If so, based on what evidence?

[Gumby]

Well, some might be skipping over the dialogue and miss it completely. So I would not count on it.

Wonderist is such a narcissistic blowhard he thinks everyone loves his "technique" and clamors to read his self-important telephone-book length blatherings. There may be such people here, but I don't think his audience is anywhere near what his swelled head thinks it is.

If someone routinely posts very long posts, those posts should be interesting, or humorous, or informative. All Wonderbore produces is "See my technique? See how I'm winning? See how I'm not letting you get to me? Fallacy! Fallacy!" A complete self-absorbed twat with absolutely nothing of interest to say.

At least he's good for making fun of. He's so completely absorbed with himself he doesn't even see what's going on around him. Which, of course, makes him ripe for the picking.

[sacha]

You're really satisfied to be reduced to mumbling as I predicted? Hm. So much for caring about the truth, then, eh? It would be so easy to just post a link to the evidence you said you have gathered. Far easier than continuing to mumble. But... I guess that would require a modicum of intellectual honesty. Too bad... :(

Aren't you cute!

(I you weren't so obtuse, lazy and intellectually dishonest you could have typed 'peer review' in the search box in the upper right hand part of this page. You would then be presented with a list of all posts in this thread that mention said key words. You could then proceed to select those posts that were authored by me, and with only a little effort you would find the evidence you were asking for.)

you are losing sight of what welch taught you, Jan

[Gumby]

*What* has been plainly shown? Are you saying that evidence has been plainly shown of Carrier lying about having his book peer-reviewed, as Jan Steen has claimed? You're right! I haven't seen such evidence presented. Perhaps you could point it out to me.

Or perhaps you are saying that evidence has been plainly shown of Carrier claiming Verenna is anything more than a student scholar, or what Jan Steen refers to vaguely as a 'serious scholar'? You're right! I haven't seen that evidence either.

As a ***skeptic***, I tend not to believe tall claims without tall evidence.

How about you? Do you believe such claims? If so, based on what evidence?

Oh my. You are COMPLETELY clueless.

:lol:

[sacha]

Well, some might be skipping over the dialogue and miss it completely. So I would not count on it.

Wonderist is such a narcissistic blowhard he thinks everyone loves his "technique" and clamors to read his self-important telephone-book length blatherings. There may be such people here, but I don't think his audience is anywhere near what his swelled head thinks it is.

If someone routinely posts very long posts, those posts should be interesting, or humorous, or informative. All Wonderbore produces is "See my technique? See how I'm winning? See how I'm not letting you get to me? Fallacy! Fallacy!" A complete self-absorbed twat with absolutely nothing of interest to say.

At least he's good for making fun of. He's so completely absorbed with himself he doesn't even see what's going on around him. Which, of course, makes him ripe for the picking.

playing into his hands, Gumby

[bhoytony]

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4802/9qfr.png

[Gumby]

Well, some might be skipping over the dialogue and miss it completely. So I would not count on it.

Wonderist is such a narcissistic blowhard he thinks everyone loves his "technique" and clamors to read his self-important telephone-book length blatherings. There may be such people here, but I don't think his audience is anywhere near what his swelled head thinks it is.

If someone routinely posts very long posts, those posts should be interesting, or humorous, or informative. All Wonderbore produces is "See my technique? See how I'm winning? See how I'm not letting you get to me? Fallacy! Fallacy!" A complete self-absorbed twat with absolutely nothing of interest to say.

At least he's good for making fun of. He's so completely absorbed with himself he doesn't even see what's going on around him. Which, of course, makes him ripe for the picking.

playing into his hands, Gumby

Oh, I know I'm feeding the stray. But I just feel like having a laugh at that clueless bloviating nitwit tonight. The "Yes dear, anything you say dear" mode will be activated shortly.

[Bill the Cat]

Morph the Wonderist face on my arrow-head picture?

[Steersman]

<snip>

Haven’t read all of the rather convoluted exchanges between you and Wonderist, but I think you’re making some sort of category or false dichotomy error there with your “Proven liars can’t [be honest people]”. While that might be intrinsically true – sort of like asserting people who have had sex can’t be considered virgins, I think you’re trying to imply that everything that a “proven liar” says is in fact a lie as well. Which, of course, doesn’t hold any water at all. And which is analogous to the paradigmatic case of asserting that because one has seen that some swans are white they can conclude that all swans are white – the problem of induction.

But I sort of wonder if you insist that anyone who has ever told a lie can’t be considered “an honest person” whether you yourself have ever told a lie.

And likewise with your implication that since Carrier is, you claim with maybe some justification, “dishonest about A+ and the A/S community” that he must also be “dishonest in his scholarly work”. While there might be some justification that in some areas of “his scholarly work” he has exhibited some dishonesty, although one might wonder whether that characterization is based in any case on a disagreement with his conclusions, I think it is a stretch to insist that all of it is similarly marred.

Con men thrive on people such as Steersman. Next he will tell us that the Book of Mormon may well be what it claims it is, even though it was revealed to the world by a convicted con artist.

That wouldn’t be the reason why I reject it. Convicted con artists are a dime-a-dozen each of whom might, in any given case, actually be telling the truth. Confirmed reports about “angels of God” are scarcer that hen’s teeth. One might suggest that con men thrive more on those who can’t tell the difference between those two cases.

(No, not everybody who has ever told a lie is a liar or is constantly lying. In the same way, not everybody who has ever made a racist remark is a racist. But those who deliberately and consistently propagate lies and false rumours in blog posts, interviews and conference talks do qualify for that title.)

Carrier supposedly qualified as a liar for being “dishonest about A+ and the A/S community” – everything else is presumably gilding the lily. But that still doesn’t prove that any given part of “his scholarly work” is a lie. To prove that you actually have to provide evidence that some part of it is factually wrong and that he knew that it was so when he wrote it. Have you done that yet?

And for the record, I would love it if someone could prove that Jesus never existed in any way. A priori I am sympathetic to Carrier's work as a biblical historian. But I am more interested in what is actually true than in what I would like to be true. A purported 'proof' of the non-historicity of Jesus that contained falsehoods would be worthless to me.

Well, I and a great many others would certainly like to know what is true about Jesus’ supposed existence, but like you I’m more interested in what is actually true than what I or anyone else would like to be true. And I quite agree with you that many seem to have more than a couple of dogs each in this fight, even to the extent of apparently putting their thumbs on the scales. For instance, I remember Myers trumpeting Carrier’s “proof” that Jesus was entirely mythical, presumably because it made his position with Creationists and fundamentalists that much more credible. And, on the other side, Hoffmann and company seem to be equally certain that there is a credible historical Jesus, although I haven’t yet figured out whether his conception encompasses a “miraculous” version, or just a run-of-the-mill human one.

But while you would seem to prefer that he had “never existed in any way” – although I wonder why you think that – I tend not to care much one way or the other. My impression is that both the mythicist and miraculous versions are untenable, the latter rather more so, while the most probable explanation is a human Jesus which precipitated a great many miraculous embellishments. Not at all implausible, I think, when we realize what even Hollywood can do to a bare-bones factual event – and they have fewer resources than does the Vatican.

[Wonderist]

(I you weren't so obtuse, lazy and intellectually dishonest you could have typed 'peer review' in the search box in the upper right hand part of this page. You would then be presented with a list of all posts in this thread that mention said key words. You could then proceed to select those posts that were authored by me, and with only a little effort you would find the evidence you were asking for.)

That's why it's called the *burden* of proof, Jan, and the *burden* falls on the one who makes the claim. I have no idea *which* if any of those purported references to 'peer review' constitute *your claim* that Carrier is 'pretending' and has not actually gotten it peer reviewed. That is *your* claim. You can't expect others to do your homework for you. That's your job. Skeptics 101 material here. Prove there's no invisible dragon in my garage. Sheesh, read some Sagan.

[Steersman]

I see. You chose mumbling. Oh well. Perhaps you'll reconsider some time. In the mean time, what onlookers observe are honest questions asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and you mumbling in response. Not very impressive.

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

I wonder whether or not more than a few "onlookers" might note what appears to be a "pile-on" and reflect on some oft-noted similarities with "the baboons" ....

[Jan Steen]

You're really satisfied to be reduced to mumbling as I predicted? Hm. So much for caring about the truth, then, eh? It would be so easy to just post a link to the evidence you said you have gathered. Far easier than continuing to mumble. But... I guess that would require a modicum of intellectual honesty. Too bad... :(

Aren't you cute!

(I you weren't so obtuse, lazy and intellectually dishonest you could have typed 'peer review' in the search box in the upper right hand part of this page. You would then be presented with a list of all posts in this thread that mention said key words. You could then proceed to select those posts that were authored by me, and with only a little effort you would find the evidence you were asking for.)

you are losing sight of what welch taught you, Jan

Not really, sacha. I just threw a stick in a swamp and this wonderdog ran after it. Sure, eventually he will return and claim either that he didn't find the evidence or that the evidence was not to his liking (it never is for 'debaters' like him). But then the welch gambit will be put on the board with devastating effect.

[Gumby]

I see. You chose mumbling. Oh well. Perhaps you'll reconsider some time. In the mean time, what onlookers observe are honest questions asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and you mumbling in response. Not very impressive.

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

I wonder whether or not more than a few "onlookers" might note what appears to be a "pile-on" and reflect on some oft-noted similarities with "the baboons" ....

Having a laugh at the expense of a clueless narcissistic blowhard hardly puts this place in the same league as FtB. Many people have explained to Blunderbore over and over why he gets the crap he does and like a mindless automaton he thinks if he does what he does even more, it will make everything OK. Fuck Wonderist, the clueless twat deserves the mockery he gets.

[Lsuoma]

Since the return of Wonderbore the Wonderbore a day or so ago, he has garnered another 12 foes who don't see his posts.

[bhoytony]

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8503/q0fj.png

[Lsuoma]

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8503/q0fj.png

He's too self-obsessed, and thinks people really do read his posts.

[Gumby]

Since the return of Wonderbore the Wonderbore a day or so ago, he has garnered another 12 foes who don't see his posts.

:lol:

And he'll say he doesn't care, and he'll twist it into a victory for himself and his Technique. He's got the self-brainwashing skills of a creationist.

OK, I'm done.

"Yes dear. Anything you say dear" mode activated.

[Jan Steen]

(I you weren't so obtuse, lazy and intellectually dishonest you could have typed 'peer review' in the search box in the upper right hand part of this page. You would then be presented with a list of all posts in this thread that mention said key words. You could then proceed to select those posts that were authored by me, and with only a little effort you would find the evidence you were asking for.)

That's why it's called the *burden* of proof, Jan, and the *burden* falls on the one who makes the claim. I have no idea *which* if any of those purported references to 'peer review' constitute *your claim* that Carrier is 'pretending' and has not actually gotten it peer reviewed. That is *your* claim. You can't expect others to do your homework for you. That's your job. Skeptics 101 material here. Prove there's no invisible dragon in my garage. Sheesh, read some Sagan.

How right you are. Here's a cookie. Fetch.

[Lsuoma]

And he's also getting close to being confined over there. I'm not going to define exact criteria when it will happen, but I'll just say, "Knock it off, fool, or I'll lock you up in that thread." I'm not going to give you another warning.

[Wonderist]

Really? You mean all the onlookers have failed to actually read what I've written? Somehow, I think you underestimate the onlookers.

Jan Steen made some claims. I asked him to back up his claims with evidence. He failed to do so. You think onlookers failed to notice that? I don't.

Well, some might be skipping over the dialogue and miss it completely. So I would not count on it.

Good call, Andrew, here's a summary for those who've skipped some bits:

On 'serious scholar'
From viewtopic.php?p=111518#p111518 (quotes denested)

He has hardly 'addressed' these issues. Take also a look at the link that Slither provided:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1739

If we are to believe Carrier, Verenna is a serious scholar.

Ummmm, if we are to actually, you know, *read* Carrier there, we would be led to believe that Verenna is :o

except Verenna, who is a history student at Rutgers

I know the urge to throw him under the bus is strong. But let's not start spreading rumours and false allegations around like FTBers do. Or are we to believe that Stef McGraw parrots misogynist thought now?

That Carrier considers Verenna to be a serious scholar is obvious from the following quotes from that piece:

[followed by quotes which do not establish what 'serious scholar' could mean, as those words are never used by Carrier to describe Verenna. It's all Jan Steen's interpretation. (See original quotes in comment linked above.) Therefore I ask:]

Okay then, define "serious scholar". I think your charge hinges strongly on your personal definition of the words/phrase.

A text search for 'serious' and 'scholar' in juxtaposition only turn up quotes from you, and, well, Fisher. This is what Carrier wrote in his rebuttal to Fisher, about Verenna as a 'scholar', the only time I could find him referred to as such:

And she uses that as an additional opportunity to insult two other scholars in the field. (The nonsense that Thompson can’t be an expert in early Christian history because he is “only” an expert in second temple Judaism, which Christianity happens to be a sect of, I already debunk here. Verenna, meanwhile, is presently an undergraduate in the field who reports as a journalist, a task for which he has developed considerable skill, arguably more than Fisher can claim. He also has published a chapter on this subject in a peer reviewed academic book. It’s unknown to me whether Fisher has ever done that.)

Seems he's using 'scholar' there in a broad sense, in the *same* sense that he would refer to Fisher *herself* as a 'scholar', namely as 'one who studies'. For, in case you're not aware, Fisher is *also* a student.

Is Stephanie Fisher a 'serious scholar' in your view? If not, then Carrier is not using the less specific phrase 'scholar' to mean 'serious scholar' as you define it. If she is, then by the same qualifications so is Verenna, by your definition. But, let's hear your definition then, so we can see what you mean.

Jan's response (in full): viewtopic.php?p=111536#p111536

<snip>

I'm not going to argue with you, Wonderist. You are too obtuse, too lazy, and too intellectually dishonest to waste my time on you.

Of course, the charge should not be dropped so easily (commonly known as a 'dodge') so I pursue it in another response to him later (where he omits any mention of it): viewtopic.php?p=111679#p111679

Speaking of ***evidence*** Jan, where is your evidence that Ricard Carrier: a) ever claimed that Verenna was anything more than a student scholar, rather than a 'serious scholar' (which you have yet to define, by the way; said definition will be a crucial component of your argument of course), [...]

Still waiting for the evidence. I call, by the way. Let's see your cards. :popcorn:

So far, crickets.

Yet Jan purports to be interested in the truth (viewtopic.php?p=111643#p111643): "But I am more interested in what is actually true than in what I would like to be true." So why doesn't he support his claim to show that it's true? Or admit that he can't show it's true. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

[Metalogic42]

And he's also getting close to being confined over there. I'm not going to define exact criteria when it will happen, but I'll just say, "Knock it off, fool, or I'll lock you up in that thread." I'm not going to give you another warning.

Shitty move, IMO.

[John Greg]

Wonderist is the only person I've got on ignore. I generally hate using ignore because it can fuck up the sequential flow of a thread (I also think it is in some ways intellectually dishonest).

I had Steers on ignore for a while, but then I realized that even though he usually bores me to snoozems, he does sometimes have some very good points -- just terribly, terribly written (a la Natalie Screed endless stylee).

But Wonderist? Fuck. He's even boring and completely fatiguing when he's on ignore.

I can just see it now, when finally the entire Pit puts Wondersit on ignore, Lsuoma will politely inform him of such and Wonderist will say "See? Totality. I win!"

[Steersman]

Wonderist said: "I see. You chose mumbling. Oh well. Perhaps you'll reconsider some time. In the mean time, what onlookers observe are honest questions asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and you mumbling in response. Not very impressive."

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

I wonder whether or not more than a few "onlookers" might note what appears to be a "pile-on" and reflect on some oft-noted similarities with "the baboons" ....

Having a laugh at the expense of a clueless narcissistic blowhard hardly puts this place in the same league as FtB. Many people have explained to Blunderbore over and over why he gets the crap he does and like a mindless automaton he thinks if he does what he does even more, it will make everything OK. Fuck Wonderist, the clueless twat deserves the mockery he gets.

Maybe not in quantity – yet – but in quality I would say we’re pushing it.

If you and others don’t want to read or respond to “his self-important telephone-book length blatherings” then it seems the simplest and most reasonable thing to do is put him on ignore. While I don’t read all of his comments, particularly those related to his discussions with Jan Steen on Carrier largely because of time, I at least don’t find them particularly beyond the pale. In addition, while I think Carrier is looking more and more discreditable, I also think that Wonderist has a point that criticisms of him should at least make some effort to be fair and based on fact – as in posts by Matt Cavanaugh and Dave.

[Lsuoma]

And he's also getting close to being confined over there. I'm not going to define exact criteria when it will happen, but I'll just say, "Knock it off, fool, or I'll lock you up in that thread." I'm not going to give you another warning.

Shitty move, IMO.

Yep, it is. But you know what, so many people really don't want to hear the boring fuck, that I'll do it anyway.

Really, nobody cares about him except to hope that he'll shut the fuck up. This is a big boys' place, and he has to take the consequences of his actions.

He can go and play in his little sand pit with anyone who will engage with the unpleasant and antisocial techniquey little shit.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

And he's also getting close to being confined over there. I'm not going to define exact criteria when it will happen, but I'll just say, "Knock it off, fool, or I'll lock you up in that thread." I'm not going to give you another warning.

Really? Well, it's your blog, Prof Meyers.

[Steersman]

And he's also getting close to being confined over there. I'm not going to define exact criteria when it will happen, but I'll just say, "Knock it off, fool, or I'll lock you up in that thread." I'm not going to give you another warning.

Shitty move, IMO.

Indeed. Looking rather "Myer-ish" as a matter of fact ....

[Metalogic42]

And he's also getting close to being confined over there. I'm not going to define exact criteria when it will happen, but I'll just say, "Knock it off, fool, or I'll lock you up in that thread." I'm not going to give you another warning.

Shitty move, IMO.

Yep, it is. But you know what, so many people really don't want to hear the boring fuck, that I'll do it anyway.

Really, nobody cares about him except to hope that he'll shut the fuck up. This is a big boys' place, and he has to take the consequences of his actions.

He can go and play in his little sand pit with anyone who will engage with the unpleasant and antisocial techniquey little shit.

I just skim past most of his posts, as well as the ones responding to him (although I do read them occasionally). Telling people to do that if they don't want to read his posts is a much better solution than dropping the hammer of moderation on him for no reason other than that people think his posts are boring.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

Really? You mean all the onlookers have failed to actually read what I've written? Somehow, I think you underestimate the onlookers.

So, Wonderist, have you had a chance to start reading that book I recommended?

[Steersman]

Wonderist is the only person I've got on ignore. I generally hate using ignore because it can fuck up the sequential flow of a thread (I also think it is in some ways intellectually dishonest).

I had Steers on ignore for a while, but then I realized that even though he usually bores me to snoozems, he does sometimes have some very good points -- just terribly, terribly written (a la Natalie Screed endless stylee).
But Wonderist? Fuck. He's even boring and completely fatiguing when he's on ignore.

I can just see it now, when finally the entire Pit puts Wondersit on ignore, Lsuoma will politely inform him of such and Wonderist will say "See? Totality. I win!"

Thanks. I think.

FWIW, I have been attempting to pare down my posts – in part because on re-reading some of them even I find them rather tedious and long-winded. And I have been thinking about taking a course on writing except I already have too many things on my plate. But if you wish to provide some pointers – in general or on specific posts – then I’m all ears ….

[Parody Accountant]

<snip>

http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/ima ... 869747.gif

I'm sorry, dear. I don't want to fight anymore.

[Wonderist]

(Continuation of viewtopic.php?p=111735#p111735)

On "pretending that his [Carrier's] Jesus book is properly peer reviewed"

My initial questions: viewtopic.php?p=111518#p111518

My issues with Carrier, as I have explained several times before, are:

[...]

2) He falsely inflates the academic credibility of his work by pretending that his Jesus book is properly peer reviewed (by four self-selected ‘major professor’ who can’t be named, of whom two failed to respond), and by pretending that peer review amounts to a seal of approval.

[Underline added by me]

Can you quote him on that? I've never heard him say peer review is an automatic seal of approval, only that it's a necessary *pre-requisite* for honest research. He disagrees with *most* peer-reviewed mainstream scholars on Jesus' historicity; I can hardly see why you'd think he sees peer-review as a seal of approval. It so obviously isn't.

Also, I've not heard the claim that he's 'pretending' that his book was peer reviewed. Do you have a source for that? And if 'two failed to respond', doesn't that mean that two didn't? As in, at least two responded that they did review his book? As in, it *was* peer reviewed? Need more specifics on this claim. Do you have links?

(That he inflates his ego/image I'll readily concede; [...]

Jan's initial response, same as previous claim:

<snip>

I'm not going to argue with you, Wonderist. You are too obtuse, too lazy, and too intellectually dishonest to waste my time on you.

A follow-up by Jan, an immediate attempt to shift the burden of proof. No effort made to provide evidence: viewtopic.php?p=111610#p111610

This has all been discussed and demonstrated, with links, in this thread. Blunderist is too lazy to read the fucking thread before he comments. QED

My response, calling him on it: viewtopic.php?p=111679#p111679

Wonderful! Then *you* providing said link to said demonstration should be a *snap*! The onus of the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim. You made the claim. The onus is on you.

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. This is a fallacy. If you continue down this road, you'll be showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest by continuing to use fallacious reasoning to try to influence people.

[...]

Speaking of ***evidence*** Jan, where is your evidence that Ricard Carrier: a) [...] or b) falsely claimed that his book (I'm assuming you mean Proving History, but I suppose you might mean his upcoming one On the Historicity of Jesus Christ) was peer-reviewed when in fact it wasn't?

Still waiting for the evidence. I call, by the way. Let's see your cards. :popcorn:

Jan's response, in full: viewtopic.php?p=111685#p111685

<snip>

(Here is my chance to practice this new debating technique I just learned from Welch.)

Yes dear, I'm sure you know best, sweety.

(By the way, have Blunderist and Oolon ever been seen together?)

And: viewtopic.php?p=111692#p111692

http://i.imgur.com/HSibcS4.jpg

My motivations for pursuing this, despite the ad homs and red herrings being tossed around, from here: viewtopic.php?p=111679#p111679

(To onlookers: It is simply unacceptable that so-called 'skeptics' should willy-nilly throw around serious accusations against other people based on personal dislike or political animosity or whatever superficial reasons they might have. This is the *same* type of behaviour that RW used against Stef McGraw, that many people used against Monopod Man, that people regularly use against bigger names like Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, etc. I have no particular interest in defending *Carrier* here; my interest is in *confronting* rumour-mongering directly, where it occurs. I also stood up against rumour-mongering against EllenBeth Wachs here: http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... ularism-2/ I didn't have to do that; she can stand up for herself, and so can Richard Carrier. But the *behaviour* of spreading around unsupported claims about other people is something that occurs *within* the so-called 'skeptic' communities. *That* is what I find despicable and worth confronting. That is my motivation for speaking up about this here.)

[Dave]

Wonderist defending Carrier?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

[Parody Accountant]

And he's also getting close to being confined over there. I'm not going to define exact criteria when it will happen, but I'll just say, "Knock it off, fool, or I'll lock you up in that thread." I'm not going to give you another warning.

Shitty move, IMO.

Agreed.

I really love your approach to moderation. This action would be easily forgivable, but outside your norm. I'm assuming you're fucking with him with your status, and teasing him into taking his shit off thread so he doesn't derail. (If so, I like that he'll *NEVER KNOW*. Bwahahaha)

[Lsuoma]

He's gone. And I'm off on vacation tomorrow. I may look at this place while I'm away, but Wonderbore has his only little shitpit.

[Wonderist]

No, what the onlookers are observing is you making an infinitely boring and tedious self-aggrandizing ass out of yourself yet again.

Really? You mean all the onlookers have failed to actually read what I've written? Somehow, I think you underestimate the onlookers.

So, Wonderist, have you had a chance to start reading that book I recommended?

I have previously read Strunk & White, whose advice they boil down to: Let every word tell.

It is good for what it's good for, but I've defended the use of extra caveats here: viewtopic.php?p=111564#p111564

The unspoken assumption of such advice is that you're speaking to a friendly or neutral environment. That assumption isn't true when dealing with a hostile adversary in debates such as these. In those cases, conciseness can leave you open to deliberate or opportunistic misinterpretation. See especially the example I refer to in regards to Aneris' point 3.

You'll note also, that several of my recent comments in the last few days have been shorter than 500 characters, which is not coincidentally the limit of characters on YouTube comments. I was an active commenter on YouTube early on when the atheist community was just getting started there. It forces you to be concise, but the drawbacks are that it's nearly impossible to have an in-depth debate with any kind of resolution in sight. Forums are much better for that.

[AndrewV69]

He's gone. And I'm off on vacation tomorrow. I may look at this place while I'm away, but Wonderbore has his only little shitpit.

Is this why we were warned about a possible incoming from Marbus and Eucliwood? Because our fascist tit was going on vacation?

[sacha]

<snip>

http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/ima ... 869747.gif

I'm sorry, dear. I don't want to fight anymore.

that's briliant

[guest2]

Ophelia is now acknowledging that she didn't realize that the woman was arrested for failure to appear, not expired tags. OMG, you mean she went off half-cocked without knowing what the fuck she was talking about? Say it ain't so!

Admitting one's mistakes and errors? Isn't that considered good behavior for a skeptic? That specific action deserves a pat on the back and a recognition of progress, not sarcasm.

[ianfc]

Can someone do the fascist cap please http://img.izismile.com/img/img2/20090202/moment_01.jpg

[Cunning Punt]

Just saw episode 7 and 8 of season 3 of Game of Thrones.

An epic, disturbing monologue of Shakespearean proportions.

[youtube]MpybogxYGsI[/youtube]

What a show!

[ianfc]

Perhaps the pit of endless wonder could become the anti-fascist pit; the boron bit was very clever

[ianfc]

A little about boron

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... Gc&cad=rja

[Southern]

Lsuoma, c'mon man. People already pointed what your move against The Boring One looked like, so I'm not hitting the same note again. But please reconsider - if people find him really annoying and boring as you find, they would put him on the ignore list.

[welch]

Could be a useful 'technique'. I may give it a try.

You could try that, of course. Unfortunately, I had already predicted welch's response before he fell into it: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=334&p=106276#p106276

Of course you did waldo. That's because you're smarter than everyone else. You and Carrier.

That technique will "win" you arguments in the "who has the last word" sense, but anyone who thinks you can actually articulate a point in a clear, concise manner is either hallucinating or has never actually read a fucking thing you've written. Have you ever noticed a lot of people reply to you with mumbles or the equivalent thereof?

Yes I have. That's because they don't have anything better than flames, and I'm immune to flames. Pretty soon, you will be reduced to either ignoring me, blowing a gasket, or mumbling yourself. Or, you know, you could actually engage in productive conversation.

Are you also going to try to stick with the win-lose paradigm? The fourth alternative, to engage in reasonable dialogue, is a much more productive, win-win scenario. But that's entirely up to you. I leave that ball in your court, to see what you'll do with it.

Wait, YOU'RE complaining about Zero Sum? Again, the fact you're not on the receiving end of lightning proves there is no god. However, you have me confused with people stupid enough to think you care what anyone who is not you thinks. I'll say this again, and you'll ignore it *again*, because you only read shit that tells you how wonderful you are.

You don't care about the point, you only care about "did my technique shut up their stupid foul opinions that aren't mine". Period. Whether someone's point is right or wrong doesn't matter to you in the least. The only thing, the. only. thing. you have any interest in is "did they stop disagreeing with me." Shit, you've decided you've won every argument you're in before it even starts, because the only thing that matters to you isn't being right, it's being the last dumbass standing.

The dead silence of a room empty save you works perfectly well to that aim, although I doubt anyone can fit into any room your ego is in to begin with. No, really. For example, read your reply to me:

Yes I have. That's because they don't have anything better than flames, and I'm immune to flames. Pretty soon, you will be reduced to either ignoring me, blowing a gasket, or mumbling yourself. Or, you know, you could actually engage in productive conversation.

My god, just how astoundingly egotistical and self-...fuck that, COMPLETELY unaware do you have to be to walk around assuming that the only reason people just walk away from you, telling you to never speak to them again, or, (because even "FUCK OFF" isn't worth the 45-page reply it gets), they just stop dealing with you all togther is that they ONLY have flames, which you in your magnificence are immune to. It's never your fault is it? They're all just too stupid to comprehend your magnificent "technique". Bet you tell yourself that a lot, don't you.

If everyone is ignoring you, tell me, how the fuck do they even know what you're saying? I mean, they're happier not to have to listen to you wank, that's clear, but you theoretically want to "win" arguments, and you view people ignoring you as a valid part of that.

Does the word "dichotomy" actually mean anything to you? "Empty set"? "one of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong"?

Yes, yes, I know, the "onlookers get my point" theory. More egotistical fantasy. If you can't keep the people you're directly engaging from walking off and chalking you up as a over-filled bag of fertilizer, exactly why are people who may not be interested in the subject very much, if at all, going to read your Herbert-length-only-without-the-talent dronings? When everyone is ignoring you, who exactly are you talking to?

Christ, I bet your hand gets bored with you before it even gets done unzipping your fucking trousers.

If you want to know why people stop talking to you and just start yelling at you, it's because they realize, rather early on, that you have not, do not, nor shall you ever talk TO them or WITH them. You talk AT them, but that doesn't matter to you, because after all, the only reason people stop dealing with you is your flame-proof wall. You literally talk without even the slightest care that anyone is listening to you. As long as no one responds, you won, right?

Now, please, do link to your 70,000 word dissertation that neither I, nor really, anyone else shall read. Enjoy your "victory". Perhaps if you tell yourself that you're a lone wolf and the sheeple are too stupid to understand your greatness enough, you'll eventually believe it. After all, it's not like anyone will be around to counter you.

[welch]

Good gawd, it just never shuts up.

that's because it views silence as proof it was right.