Cordova knows that by breaking this unstated rule he is in for a heap of trouble. (He was correct.)
In all my life I’ve never released someone’s personal correspondence to me for others to see. The letters belong to me, and they are my property now that they have been sent to me. I have an moral obligation to the ID community, the creationist community, the YEC community and the general public, if the letters reveal something that is harmful to their interests, to forewarn them.
Dear ID proponent or creationist or YEC creationist, if Barry pleads or invites your participation at UD, consider my treatment. I feel it a public service to the YEC, the creationist, and ID community to forewarn them of the rude manners they might be subject to.
I kept some of the correspondence private until Barry started calling me a Nazi Collaborator. Now why wouldn’t Barry say that publicly? Would it make him look like a total jerk to say such things about someone who faithfully served his weblog for almost 10 years, who was on National TV defending ID in 2006, whose ID club members were on National Public Radio and Ben Stein’s 2008 motion picture Expelled, and who was featured in the April 28, 2005 cover story of Nature? The most that I’ve ever said of Barry in a negative way publicly or privately is reflected in this posting.
The banning happened in stages. But the banning isn’t the issue. I’ve banned people from my weblogs. It’s the lack of transparency. I will now remedy that lack of transparency. 🙂
[emails formatted for viewing]
So when did my UD author privileges get removed? Around the time I responded to someone’s question of why I left the Roman Catholic church. There are lots of Catholics at UD, they outnumber the Protestants.
In 2014 I posted a brief mention of YEC Mark Armitage lawsuit, which Barry immediately deleted. Shortly afterwards, I tried to log into my account and noticed my author privileges were suspended. No warning whatsoever. Then I get this letter from Barry:
[Subject] YEC
Barry Arrington
Add to contacts
7/26/14
[Keep this message at the top of your inbox]Sal,
UD is not hostile to the YEC stance; neither is it an organ for it. You showed poor judgment in the post you put up today. Perhaps you should stick to your own sites.
Barry K. Arrington
We tried to keep the separation quiet. I responded:
[Subject] RE: YEC
Salvador Cordova
7/26/14
[Keep this message at the top of your inbox]
To: Barry Arrington
Acknowledged. It’s probably in our mutual interest to keep our disagreements between us. I have no intention making any public flap and will quietly do as you said. Thanks for the many years at UD together.peace,
Sal
Barry responded:
Barry Arrington
Add to contacts
7/26/14
[Keep this message at the top of your inbox]
To: ‘Salvador Cordova’Thank you and best wishes.
Ironically, Denese O’Leary wrote pretty much the same thing a few days later:
At that point, I felt I was lied to. That letter was just a flimsy excuse. Didn’t matter, I was getting welcomed and sought after in private YEC circles, my true home.
But then, Barry started posting stuff like this about RDFish:
www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rdfish-is-an-idiot/
I didn’t think the name calling going on at UD was appropriate for ID’s premier blog. If you want to slime someone, at least do it with a bit more style. Sheesh Barry, do you have to be so unsubtle?
And over what, something not related to ID, but some philosophical question about self-evident morality. I like RDFish, I didn’t think that was right.
As a joke, on a matter totally unrelated, I wrote this thread at TSZ calling RDFish a genius (he is a genius given his scientific and mathematical background):
I then got this terse letter form Barry with no content, just a subject line:
[Subject] You are no longer welcome at UD in any capacity
Barry Arrington
Add to contacts
4/15/15
Then in response to Joe Felsenstein I wrote this:
It was that comment that apparently triggered the Nazi accusation:
[Subject] UD
Barry Arrington
Add to contacts
9/13/15
[Keep this message at the top of your inbox]
To: stcordova<redacted>
barry<redacted>I owe you an explanation for why you have been banned at UD.
We are in a war. That is not a metaphor. We are fighting a war for the soul of Western Civilization, and we are losing, badly. In the summer of 2015 we find ourselves in a positon very similar to Great Britain’s position 75 years ago in the summer of 1940 – alone, demoralized, and besieged on all sides by a great darkness that constitutes an existential threat to freedom, justice and even rationality itself.
There is another parallel to World War II. We have quislings among us. A quisling is a person who collaborates with an enemy occupying force. The word originates from the Norwegian war-time leader Vidkun Quisling, who headed a domestic Nazi collaborationist regime.
Sal, I accuse you of being a quisling every time you go over to The Skeptical Zone and give aid and comfort to the enemies of truth. Will you cease or will you continue to collaborate?
Barry K. Arrington
What do I think the real reasons I was tossed were? I’ve agreed too much with TSZ, Elizabeth, Mark Frank, Patrick, Larry Moran and RDFish and disagreed with Barry, Granville Sewell, KairosFocus, Winston Eweret, VJTorley, Niwrads, StephenB, Upright BiPed, William J. Murry, and who knows whom else. Just about every UD author or ID proponent to some extent. A partial laundry list is of my transgressions is here:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wine-cellar/comment-page-21/#comment-99616
That’s my take on things, but according to Barry it was first because I was posting about Armitage (apparently not the real reason I was tossed since Denyse posted an almost equivalent article a few days later) or that I’m like a Nazi Collaborator.
UD is becoming a little bankrupt in generating interest, they may need the services of a bankruptcy lawyer soon.
How many baby lambs do you think a pair of grown Tigers eat in a year Sal?
I think since you have missed my question elsewhere, and you have started a thread to “come out” as you say, here is a great place for an answer. Help to convince those you need to heal. A couple of baby lambs a month? Many some baby hippos? Baby squirrels really are just enough to make you more hungry aren’t they?
I don’t think it was baby dogs, because the hyenas probably already gobbled them up.
I hope and presume peace and brothers in arms wi;; prevail.
ID/YEC creationists are different tribes but can and do cooperate against bad guys everywhere.
UD and TSZ are excellent blogs for thinking peopl;e on a historic intellectual modern confrontation.
One side will prevail in our time on basics. not for long with two well articulated systems of thought co exist. Impossible. Of coarse i think the invading one, ID/YEC, will prevail and has probability on our side.
TSZ is well run and i INSIST i have been on many, many, evolutionist blogs over the years and usually they are oppressive and censorious, and lame dumb about contribution from their opponents. Yes I have been yossed from many for no good reason. nO gOoD rEaSoN.
UD is a important blog and cutting edge. TSZ gas good threads and well run.
More power . YUP people have complainrs about each other and everybody has a few good points
Origin subjects are a contact sport. Time should erase the contact incidents.
Robert Byers,
I applaud you supporting open venues, Robert. But the email suggests Barry’s true views are different from those he espouses at UD?
Moved a couple of posts to guano.
In that case I’d better restate clearly: Phoodoo could you please give your thoughts on Barry’s email.
It would be interesting.
phoodoo,
For your convenience, here is the email:
keiths,what are your odds estimates on Barry’s potential responses:
1. Ignore / don’t acknowledge
2. Threatening legal bluster
3. So what?
4. Some sort of meltdown
5. Other
Rich,
My money is on
That was his strategy after he got caught deleting an entire thread at UD.
How about you?
1 all the way. Some at UD will see it, but their collective mental scotomas will mean it doesn’t trouble them: They’re on an emotional, not rational journey. Wes putting it up at PT makes it more prominent – perhaps some disposable socks would like to quiz Barry on it? He does after all have standards higher than this world requires or whatever.
I actually wasn’t following that (I don’t read a lot of UD stuff, especially around that time).
VJTorley at least publicly said he was mistaken when he believed he was mistaken. He felt he owed it to the readers to have them educated to what he thought was right in light of realizing he may misspoke.
I had to come clean too about something I feel I was mistaken about:
The problem is if one is wrong and then one gets on a soap box and calls everyone else an moron for disagreeing, if it turns out one is wrong, one has built barriers to making a retraction. That’s not the sort of thing to do if you really don’t have command of the subject matter.
Easier to retract and correct mistakes if you don’t blast away at critics who may be substantially more knowledgeable.
Sal,
When are you going to address the issue of you editing people’ posts without their permission?
keiths,
Keiths,
Why the fuck on this whole green earth should I care why Barry decided to ban Sal?
Does Lizzie have admins on her site, who espouse a love of the Discovery Institute and who thinks atheists are clowns (oh wait, I said clown, is my post going to get moved to guano?)
If Barry think admins are not useful to his website, why does he need to keep them? Who the hell cares why, its his site!
Lizzie is apparently allowed to move any posts she wants to guano, and decides who gets to be an admin so where is your complaining about that?
You all are a bunch of partisan shills, so where is your moral grounds for whining? Geez, you all are something.
Maybe he just realized Sal is a clown! (again, I didn’t mention make-up or Gloria Allred, so hopefully this won’t get put in guano, but Lizzie is going to do what she likes isn’t she?)
Here, I corrected it for you:
1. Ignore / don’t acknowledge
2. Ignore / don’t acknowledge
3. Ignore / don’t acknowledge
4. Ignore / don’t acknowledge
5. Respond right after he explains why he deleted Aurelio Smith.
You miss the point, Phoodoo. He says one thing to you all at UD, yet this email suggests he believes another. Is that honest? Do you respect that? Is that okay?
The issue isn’t my banning, Barry didn’t like the fact I publicly criticized the things he said and didn’t have the resolve to say it publicly in front of his peers.
He could have come out and said at UD, “Sal Cordova is an Idiot like RDFish and a liar like Elizabeth Liddle” or “Sal Cordova is a Nazi Collaborator”.
Why did he go the e-mail channel and try to do the name calling in private? He’d face some level of boycott from the YEC community and some IDist for pulling a stunt in public.
That’s being a bit two-faced and not transparent.
Or how about Barry saying publicly:
“Sal Cordova is no longer with us because he tried to report on creationist Mark Armitage’s lawsuit and that is really bad judgement on his part for reporting news which Denyse O’Leary also reports on”.
That would look real bad. Instead, he puts on another face at UD.
What other sorts of two-faced behaviors go on that we don’t see?
Exactly!
Denyse O’Leary wrote this:
and he’s says I got tossed for “bad judgement” in trying to report the same news story earlier. Mine didn’t even use the phrase (as best as I recall) Young Earth Creationist. I can’t confirm that now because I can’t login, but if that’s the case, then it’s even more incriminating that Barry used that as the grounds for banning me.
It looks like he wasn’t being truthful, especially since a year later made up a completely different excuse related to my supposed and utterly fabricated Nazi collaborations.
Moved some posts to guano.
Phoodoo, do you agree with:
“We are fighting a war for the soul of Western Civilization, and we are losing, badly.” – Barry Arrington
or
“The Statue of Liberty is OK. And so is ID” – Barry Arrington
??
Richardthughes,
I don’t agree we are losing the war of ideas.
I think you are a great example of how we are winning.
Interesting, please elaborate!
Elizabeth,
Why? Because I said Barry doesn’t need only one reason to feel Sal is a kook?
That’s now getting sent to guano?
I think there is clearly more than one person who feels we are at war, and you are one of them Lizzie.
Richardthughes,
I can’t, I am afraid Lizzie will find another excuse to send something to guano and its getting pretty boring frankly.
She is beating her war drums.
That’s a shame, I thought you were actually going to provide some support for your opinions. Oh Well.
Yeah…
Why would you create conjecture when you have evidence, Phoodoo?
I agree with the OP. Releasing private correspondence is despicable and I would never do such a thing. Please don’t send me private messages or emails, else they may decorate the front page at TSZ.
Despicable Me.
Mung,
Are you fine with saying something publically you privately don’t believe at all?
If UD is a such dangerous place to visit I think Salvador should have warned us all back when he was a regular contributor.
I’m saying that if I was going to publish the contents of private correspondence on the front page of TSZ, never having done so in the past because I think it’s despicable to do so, that I’d probably see if I could come up with a moral excuse for my actions.
You know, like it’s good for me to warn you about the dangers of having author privileges at UD, like it’s something you’ll ever need to worry about.
There was no longer any relationship of trust in Barry’s own words, but one of an adversarial nature. Hence his e-mails were an intrusion to my e-mail account, not something he should expect to be considered private any more than unwelcome spam from a stalker should be considered private.
“Gee Barry, explain why you felt the Nazi Collaborator you are at war with is expected to keep correspondence with him confidential? I mean if he’s your enemy wouldn’t you expect that he’s not going to protect you?”
Right about now is when my posts would start disappearing if this were a thread started by Salvador over at UD. Thankfully, I don’t have to worry about that here at TSZ 🙂
I think we should all thank Barry for that.
You’re a good foot-soldier, Mung. Loyal, uninquisitative.
Barry is a lawyer. He understands the concepts of “meeting of the minds” and “nondisclosure agreement.”
Neither of which apply here.
Barry never called Salvador a Nazi Collaborator. Can we all at least agree on that?
Hmmm….
How about “equivalent to a Nazi Collaborator”? The same thing as? equally repugnant?
So Mung, given that Arrington said I was a Quisling, why didn’t he tell the whole world, why doesn’t he do so now, why did he say so privately.
If your at war with the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators, what’s the point of writing them and saying, “Dear Mr. Nazi Collaborator, you need to know you’re a Nazi Collaborator.”?
Why didn’t he say something at UD and warn all the ID and creationist communities that they’ve got a Nazi Collaborator in their midst.
You don’t see something a little two-faced going on?
I wonder. I seem to recall that correspondence becomes the property of the receiver but this site goes into more detail. I would suspect fair use covers Sal’s publication. I don’t think he expects any financial gain.
stcordova,
Mung is the most skeptical.
From your link:
Dicey, perhaps, but I don’t think Barry would win a case.
I have to say that I’m mostly with Mung on this, believe it or not. I don’t care if it is a legal offense to publish private emails or who owns the message once sent or whether fair use applies. In my view it is a breach of implied trust, and an ethical breach. There may be circumstances that warrant such a step, but getting a nasty (bizarre, paranoid) parting shot in a private venue isn’t one of them.
I also find that Sal’s repeated claim that Barry called him a Nazi collaborator weakens his complaint. It is an unnecessary distortion of the plain facts. Barry’s private message was full of ridiculous hyperbole. “Barry started calling me a Nazi Collaborator” is hyperbole of a similar order.
I’d agree. On the other hand, I’d suggest it is unwise to put anything in correspondence, sent to a third party over whom you have no control, that you would not say in public. I try never to write anything in correspondence that I would not be prepared to see published.
Reciprocating Bill,
Well put. Is there any ethical obligation to expose Barry’s desperate public and private viewpoints?
Reciprocating Bill,
I agree. As I noted before, there is an implied presumption of privacy unless the recipient has warned the sender that future email will be made public.
Both desperate and disparate. But I don’t think so. Barry once confided in me that his hair is thinning. His secret is safe with me.
Reciprocating Bill,
And Upright Biped’s too! 🙂
Reciprocating Bill,
He told me that, confidentially, he is a ranting blowhard.
I have to admit to breaching confidentiality, but I thought that the world should know this deep, dark, secret.
Glen Davidson
That email was firing Sal. Of course Sal isn’t under an obligation to keep it confidential.
Post moved to guano. Please feel free to discuss whether this thread should be here in Moderation Issues, but I will say now that it won’t be deleted. I don’t delete threads.