Barry Arrington’s Bullying

Cordova knows that by breaking this unstated rule he is in for a heap of trouble. (He was correct.)

Larry Moran


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:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/developing-story-young-earth-creationist-microscopist-fired-in-wake-of-finding-soft-tissue-from-dinosaurs-sues/

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):

Dimensionless units, RDFish is a Genius

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:

Was denial of the Laws of Thought a myth?

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:

Moderation Issues

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.

182 thoughts on “Barry Arrington’s Bullying

  1. Elizabeth: That email was firing Sal. Of course Sal isn’t under an obligation to keep it confidential.

    He’s also under no obligation to point out to everyone here as the lead in to his OP how he keeps private correspondence private. Except when he doesn’t.

    In all my life I’ve never released someone’s personal correspondence to me for others to see.

    Until now. LoL.

    I kept some of the correspondence private until Barry started calling me a Nazi Collaborator.

    Kept some correspondence private, but not all. I guess that’s what that means.

    Until now.

  2. Richardthughes: You seem fixed on this one part, Mung.

    Well, as you can see, the damages in this case are severe. So like any good lawyer, I’m impeaching the witness. And oh what a witness!

    And we all know Barry doesn’t post here and isn’t likely to. So what’s the deal, is someone trying to start a war with UD?

  3. Elizabeth: That email was firing Sal. Of course Sal isn’t under an obligation to keep it confidential.

    Of course, “of course” doesn’t fit, given the range of reactions on the issue (and two of your moderators appear to share my reaction).

  4. Alan Fox: 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.

    Of course!

  5. I think if you piss someone off you can expect them to act pissed off, regardless of the law.

    I would have fired Sal for being silly.

    But more to the point, Barry bans people for disagreeing with him. Or at least he thins the herd so they don’t outnumber the faithful. Losing your posting priveleges at UD is an honor.

  6. Mung,

    I didn’t know there was one till Barry told me. The mouse that roared. Shame though, I’d hoped Barry was more honest given the paragraph on his website.

  7. Neil Rickert: What if the implied trust has already been broken by the other party? I’d say that stcordova saw it that way.

    Perhaps, but one’s reaction needs to be apposite to the perceived offense. The appropriate reactions might include responding in kind by private email, publicly airing his grievances and describing the breakdown in general terms as he has here, and so forth. But airing private emails for the sole purpose of severely embarrassing Barry (Sal, please, no bullshit about warning others), feels to me like a violation at another level, inapposite to Barry severing Sal’s connection to UD. Feels a little like revenge porn to me. The intent was to embarrass and harm in retaliation, other rationalizations notwithstanding, IMHO.

  8. Reciprocating Bill,

    But airing private emails for the sole purpose of severely embarrassing Barry (Sal, please, no bullshit about warning others), feels to me like a violation at another level, inapposite to Barry severing Sal’s connection to UD. Feels a little like revenge porn to me. The intent was to embarrass and harm in retaliation, other rationalizations notwithstanding, IMHO.

    Indeed. “Gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail.”

  9. phoodoo,

    It would seem that Barry has been less than honest with his readers at UD, Phoodoo. And he has such a stirring personal ethical statement. You’ve been unable to address this so far.

  10. The intent was to embarrass and harm in retaliation,

    It is more nuanced than that.

    It is December, the letter in question was in September. This was all brought up because Mung was falsely accusing me of not saying I was banned. I declared I was banned weeks ago, but I didn’t want Mung circulating rumors as to the reasons.

    If I said, “Barry said he banned me because he says I’m a Quizling (Nazi Collaborator)”, who would believe me? Mung and others would demand evidence.

    It was at that point I realized Barry was taking advantage of the e-mail channels to protect and hide his malicious behavior –to abuse me and call me names and retaliate against what I said at TSZ in public, about what, “the law of non-contradiction” and the question of “A=A”?

    He could have used the public channels at UD to respond.

    He calls also sorts of people liars and idiots publicly, but he dare not say I’m a Nazi Collaborator in from of his peers publicly. He could have gone on UD and said, “Sal’s totally wrong”. Fine. But then he’s had all sorts of choice names
    and labels for people talking about, “A=A”. He knew people would start saying, “hey Sal doesn’t seem to agree with you, is he a liar because he agrees with Elizabeth?” Oops, now his adversaries will cash in on all the name calling and abuse he’s been pouring out at UD.

    If he called me Nazi Collaborator in front of his peers, he knows that won’t go over well. Fine. Just don’t say anything. Instead he uses the e-mails as a means to abuse me.

    The way I read the situation was Barry thinking “hey Sal never responds in kind, he’s such a been such a polite acquiescing sheep. I tossed him from UD on a fabricated excuse, and Sal just said, “thank you for all the years at UD.” What a pushover. I concocted the story about Armitage and he just bought it. Now I’ll call him a Quisling, and he’ll buy it too. It’s so nice I can bully him in private since if I do this in public there will be a price to pay. Oh this makes me feel so good I can call him names privately, I can concoct stories to him in private and call him names and no one will know.”

    That was the last straw. He wants to call me names, say crap about me, retaliate against me, he can say it in public, but he knows there will be a cost in showing his true nature for all to see.

    Nothing is stopping him from saying of me what he did of RDFish: “Sal is an IDIOT”. or “Sal is a Quisling”.

    The private e-mail channels I provided as courtesy to him speak to me on business matters or to cooperate, not a channel hide his malicious behavior.

    That’s why I think RB and Patrick, you’re not really seeing the dynamics in play accurately. This isn’t about me releasing a private correspondence, this is about Barry hiding behind e-mails to conceal abusive behaviors from the public.

    By his own words he declared the relationship adversarial, so he has no defense to say I broke his trust. Rather he abused my trust that he would use the e-mail channels for exchange of private information, not a channel to funnel insults to me privately that would otherwise make him look bad if he did this in public.

  11. stcordova,

    Well, maybe you are right, maybe Barry should have called you names in public. He chose to tell you privately that he disagrees with you. You are whining that he showed discretion.

    Now, why did you change the content of people’s posts without telling anyone?

    (note to Lizzie: I am sure you can find an excuse to move this post to guano. You are at war after all. Remember when you compared Sal to a bullied sexual assault victim. That was funny: “To take an extreme but parallel case: sex abuse is often accompanied by a request by the abuser to “keep our secret”.)

  12. phoodoo,

    I moved two of your comments to Guano. If you want to discuss moderation issues, there is a thread for that. If you just want to insult people, there’s one for that too.

  13. You are whining that he showed discretion.

    Your are not understanding. Barry ENJOYS name calling and being rude. He likes to justify it under some moral banner. But when he can’t, it makes him look bad and he knows it.

    I disagreed with him on trivial stuff like the nature of the law of non-contradiction and “A=A”. He was going ballistic and banning people and calling them all sorts of names on this trivial topic rather than just dealing with the arguments.

    He realized if he did that to me, he’d look bad in front of his peers and supporters. But then he won’t have the pleasure of being his usual rude self to people that disagree with him.

    I disagreed with Barry on the value of “A=A” and the inference being infallible verses an axiom. I disagreed with Barry on “self-evident morality”. That seemed to really get his goat. I didn’t say it just to rile him, that’s what I really believe whether I’m right or wrong. He’d like to do to me what he did to RDFish and call me an idiot, but he knows that will reflect badly on him.

    So he hides behind the e-mail channels and says, “Sal I accuse you of being a quisling”. I guess that sort of makes him feel good. Makes him feel like the defender of the soul of Western Civilization in a battle of good and evil where the forces of good are besieged on all sides. But he knows if he’s says that publicly about me, that will make him look bad.

    Now read the letter in light of what I just said, and you’ll see this clearly:

    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?

    Oh, Barry doesn’t that make you feel so good and righteous? You can be a totally insulting rude guy but make yourself believe you’re the force of moral goodness, and no one in the public will challenge you for calling Sal names.

    Maybe at some level he knew if he ever posted this at UD, the faithful there would go, “huh? Barry needs to drink less caffeine.”

  14. In all my life I’ve never released someone’s personal correspondence to me for others to see.

    For me personally, if that was a claim I was willing to post for all to see, I would not blame the other party for breaking trust. I would think I had broken faith with my own standards, which exist in spite of what someone else does.

    To me that statement is like asking everyone to look at me and acknowledge what great standards I have. I mean, like what’s the point of that though, if I then turn around and admit that I am willing to toss my standards aside on a whim.

    Hey, as long as someone is not mean to me I will keep their private messages to me private, but everyone is mean to me.

  15. Patrick:If you want to discuss moderation issues, there is a thread for that. If you just want to insult people, there’s one for that too.

    Right. But what if you want to do both?

  16. Patrick,

    I asked for a response from Lizzie as to why my posts about Barry’s opinion of Sal was sent to guano, and she refused to answer. So really you are just practicing your own form of censorship Patrick. This is a thread about Barry’s opinion of Sal, you had no right to move any of those posts.

  17. phoodoo,

    I will respond to any questions about moderation issues in the thread titled . . . wait for it . . . Moderation Issues.

  18. stcordova,

    I don’t see anything hypocritical about Barry’s actions towards you.

    The same can not be said about the actions of TSZ. Which site is more hypocritical Sal?

    I do feel that UD should have exposed your editing of people’s posts without their permission much sooner. That was totally inappropriate. Did Barry approve of you doing that? What do your private emails say about that?

  19. Mung,

    If you want to discuss moderation issues, there is a thread for that. If you just want to insult people, there’s one for that too.

    Right. But what if you want to do both?

    Feel free to leave your personal email address for use in that contingency.

  20. Now we all know it’s been a while since Barry has posted here, but as long as Barry has an account here I don’t think people should be allowed to level personal attacks at him. This is site and it’s OPs are supposed to be about arguments, not personal squabbles.

    I mean, if Elizabeth doesn’t post here for a few days, am I then allowed to level attacks at her? Do I have to wait a week?

    Maybe at some level he knew if he ever posted this at UD, the faithful there would go, “huh? Barry needs to drink less caffeine.”

    Yes, well, he didn’t post it at UD, and he didn’t post it at TSZ. What a lame defense.

    Salvador, when you were modifying the content of my posts over at UD to make it look like I had written something that I had not in fact written and when you were deleting my posts over at UD (back when you had those powers), did I run over here and cry about it in an OP?

  21. Hey, as long as someone is not mean to me I will keep their private messages to me private, but everyone is mean to me.

    Someone can say something insulting to me in private if that was peripheral to what they were trying to communicate. Like, “hey Sal what you said was stupid”.

    It’s different when the communication’s sole purpose is to insult and harass and be rude just for the fun of it so the public can’t see his true colors.

    If he really really believed all those bad things about me, why doesn’t he go on a campaign against me at UD like he does against his other detractors? He’s morally obligated to do so if he really believes it.

    Of course he doesn’t believe it, he just wanted to have the pleasure of calling me names and preaching to me how he’s fighting for the soul of western civilization by doing so. That’s breaking my trust.

    And again, you fail to take into account I had faithfully contributed articles and comments to his weblog for 10 years. Him e-mailing a year later after he tossed me for the sole purpose of insulting me when I never have ever said anything like that to him? That’s just plain low and a breech of the good will I extended to him for 10 years.

    Even after he tossed me for standing up for IDist/YEC Armitage, I said “thank you for all the years at UD.” I stand up for Armitage a fellow IDist and Barry calls that bad judgment and grounds for dismissal. You’d think Barry being the champion of the 30% of the creationists like Armitage in the USA would be reporting on article like that which even Nature published. Instead he tosses me for doing so (or at least that was Barry’s 1st explanation in an ever changing story, the latest reason is because I’m a Quisling). But rather than protest, I said, “thank you for the many years at UD.”

    That is representative of the polite and accommodating way I’ve dealt with him. But my continued accommodation wasn’t intended to be Barry’s personal commode. Enough is enough.

    Tell you what Mung, you feel you want to fight for the soul of western civilization, you believe what Barry says, you go to UD and start calling me a Quisling. You start saying we’re in a war. Repeat after me: “we’re fighting for the soul of western civilization”. You understand that you courageous soldier for the forces of light.

  22. Mung:

    Salvador, when you were modifying the content of my posts over at UD to make it look like I had written something that I had not in fact written and when you weredeleting my posts over at UD (back when you had those powers), did I run over here and cry about it in an OP?

    How about it Sal, do you have any excuses for this sort of scurrilous behavior? You didn’t just do this once, you did it multiple times to multiple people. You did at at UD, you did it at your old Young Cosmos blog, you did it at your new failed Creation Evolution University site.

    What Barry did may be pretty low but what’s you’ve done when you have moderator powers is far worse.

  23. I think this post has been very eye opening to see who the real hypocrites are.

    Sal refuses to address his malicious secret editing of other’s posts, Patrick is running around trying to control what can and can’t be said here, Barry is allowed to be insulted anyway anyone wants, even though that is supposed to be against the rules, and Lizzie is claiming some moral high ground, because she simply banishes posts to a wasteland, void of the content they were written.

    I and glad Sal brought this up. We can see his personality here very clearly. And Mung is insightful and amusing. Let there be light!

  24. I should add, I could have easily set a block on my e-mail account to filter out Barry’s e-mails. I deliberately didn’t do so because I trusted him to communicate legitimate business should the need ever arise. That trust was broken.

    Still, I didn’t have to say anything publicly.

    But then Mung raised the issue as to the reasons I was let go from UD, and I realized I had no way to prove the reasons I was given by Barry were:

    1. posting the news report of the Armitage lawsuit (which is totally illogical, but it was the reason given in 2014).

    2. being a quisling and posting at TSZ, the reason given in 2015

    At that point I said, “what’s the point of keeping secret Barry’s rude side anymore, by his own reckoning this has been an adversarial relationship ever since I participated at TSZ. I’m no obligation even by his own words.”

    This was the chance to suppress the rumors that might circulate. I’ll stand up for myself for a change rather than being the accommodating sheep I used to be at UD who spoke and defended the party line. I will find now the freedom to say, “Barry was being a jerk to Mark Frank.”

    Up until this last weekend, saying something as simple as that, standing up for Mark, I couldn’t bring myself to do because I was in such protect-Barry’s-reputation-at-all-costs-mode even after all that had happened.

    If I publicly said what I knew privately about Barry, the other IDists might pounce on me and say, “You’re not being fair to such a good guy.” But I knew the truth. The guy is just plain obnoxious and rude and he enjoys it but needs moral justification for it to make him not feel guilty for being that way. He needs to view himself as “defending the soul of Western Civilization” rather just a rude name caller.

    Now people will know why I feel free to say, “Barry was being a jerk to Mark Frank.” Mark didn’t deserve that and I’m sorry I didn’t stick up for Mark earlier.

  25. Sal, given that you have a rather sordid history of changing people’s words without attribution, how do we know you didn’t change the wording of the Barry post you keep whining about?

  26. Sal:

    If I said, “Barry said he banned me because he says I’m a Quizling (Nazi Collaborator)”, who would believe me? Mung and others would demand evidence.

    LOL! The evidence shows that this statement is false!!

    He abused my trust that he would use the e-mail channels for exchange of private information, not a channel to funnel insults to me privately that would otherwise make him look bad if he did this in public.

    This is backward. People often effectively abuse and bully others by resorting to a power imbalances to impose public humiliation – e.g. bosses dressing down employees in a public setting, husbands demeaning their wives in front of friends. Barry uses his control of UD to do just that on a routine basis – calling out his opponents in the mastheads of OPs, editing and excising others comments, insulting others and banning if they reciprocate, and in a few cases obliviating them entirely. The notion that he has been inhibited from upbraiding you publicly because it would “look bad” is ridiculous. Barry’s week isn’t complete if he hasn’t, well, you know. He did you a favor by keeping it private.

    In private email exchanges where there is no longer a relationship (as had been the case with you and he for several months) the power imbalance evaporates. He can only abuse through that channel you if you cooperate with that abuse. Instead, respond in kind, flag his address as spam, turn the other cheek, ignore him, say, “Barry was being a jerk to Mark Frank,” whatever – you’re out of his reach, and he can’t humiliate you because no one is listening. Why should you give a shit what he says privately now?*

    *Answer: now that you’ve set the unfortunate precedent, he may retaliate in a public forum.

  27. Richardthughes:
    In that case I’d better restate clearly: Phoodoo could you please give your thoughts on Barry’s email.

    Elizabeth:
    It would be interesting.

    I think you can find phoodoo’s comments in Guano.

  28. stcordova: 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.

    At least Barry appears to know that quisling does not mean Nazi collaborator. He was even kind enough to provide you with the actual definition.

    I don’t know though what country he thought was being occupied and who the enemy force was, though he seems to have tied it to TSZ. Perhaps that was at a time when he had opened up UD to the Army of Darkness and he was just feeling overwhelmed.

  29. Adapa: Sal, given that you have a rather sordid history of changing people’s words without attribution, how do we know you didn’t change the wording of the Barry post you keep whining about?

    I’m not speaking for Sal here.

    Clearly, we do not know that. I can live with uncertainty.

  30. Neil Rickert: Clearly, we do not know that. I can live with uncertainty.

    Ah. Mr. Neil “I didn’t see that” Rickert. But can you live with being both blind and uncertain?

    Sal admitted to it. He even claims that he gave “fair warning” before he did it. LoL.

    stcordova: For the record, the author of the comment was told if he persisted in violating the thread rules, his posts were subject to alteration as punishment, so there was attribution to me as the source of the edits.

    And even if given a warning, it’s still a despicable thing to do.

    Also, I clearly know it as well. I wish Salvador had warned me before he started changing the content of my posts to make it appear as if I had written things I did not say.

    So that’s the testimony of three witnesses. What more do you need Neil, before you can see it?

  31. Patrick:

    I dimly remembered that case and just googled this article by Donald Prothero on it. What were Barry’s objections? It looks like exactly the kind of fake expelled story he’d love to run.

    Patrick,

    Exactly! You don’t think I knew that? This was a flimsy excuse to get rid of me.

    As I pointed out in the OP (note the date):

    7/26/14

    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.

    You see, Barry can’t bring himself to say, “I don’t like you, I don’t like dealing with you.” He has to try to concoct some flimsy excuse to say something about me. He has to reassure himself he has the moral warrant. It makes him feel good.

    I really could have said, “Go shove it Barry, I know that’s a lie, you suck.” But you know, why make trouble? There is the YEC underground that few people peer into. I was welcomed with open arms there.

    The other thing, naïve me, I gave him the benefit of the doubt on 7/26/14. Maybe that’s the way he felt, that it was poor judgement to post something about Armitage at UD. But then why wasn’t the following suppressed (as I mentioned in the OP)?

    July 30, 2014

    Developing story: Young Earth creationist microscopist, fired in wake of finding soft tissue from dinosaurs, sues

    So YECs found soft tissue, and the one who worked at the State U was fired.

    “Artiofab”’s account is reasonably fair, but, puzzlingly for these times, he writes as if it were unusual for people to be fired when they are discovered to have non-standard beliefs.

    On the contrary, usually, such firings are accompanied by tortuous bafflegab about supporting a diversity of opinion. It is the natural accompaniment to the censorship of thought that philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci was recently heard complaining about. Perhaps Artiofab doesn’t get out much?

    The story has hit the legacy media (CBS):

    Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

    ….
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/developing-story-young-earth-creationist-microscopist-fired-in-wake-of-finding-soft-tissue-from-dinosaurs-sues/

    My my! Denyse’s article was even more bold than my poor understated version (not available to anyone now).

    At that point I had the goods on him. I could have written back and said, “Barry, you’re a scumbag, you don’t think I don’t know what’s going on. Why’d you let Denyse post a pro-YEC article when I didn’t even use the word YEC. Why won’t you be straight about this and say you don’t want me around, that you don’t like what I say. Why do you have to pronounce some sort of moral judgment on the matter as if you need any moral justification to do anything regarding content on your blog.”

    Why didn’t Barry say publicly “Sal is dismissed because he tried to write about Armitage.” Everyone would have gone, “huh?” But I didn’t call him out on it. I kept quiet, no need to make trouble, but I now knew the character of the man whose weblog I served faithfully and defended for 10 years. I felt disgusted and lied to, but I moved on, or at least tried to.

    Note the date of 7/27/14 of the source story which Denyse reported on 7/30/14. I actually had a different source for the same story on 7/26/14 partly because I know Mark personally as well as his circle of associates.

    At the time, because of the Ken Ham debate earlier that year, I posted a bit on YEC and UD was attracting a lot of YECs. Barry never said anything at all! Why should he, I was driving traffic to his site from YEC quarters.

    But I guess he started to take exception when I started a YEC website. (Those were the websites Barry was referring to.) He probably didn’t like me using UD to advertise my website. If that’s the case, Barry, just say so. Do you have issues communicating?

    No contrast the reason for my banning on 7/26/14:

    7/26/14

    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.

    to the explanation given a year later:

    9/13/15

    I owe you an explanation for why you have been banned at UD.

    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?

    Oh, now the story is that it’s because I’m part of TSZ not because I’m a YEC adovcate. Too funny.

    Even with all that I kept it to myself from September till December. The last straw was when till Barry’s fan, Mung, starts taunting me. Then I came to my senses. Those e-mails weren’t Barry trying to communicate to me privately, he was trying to brow beat me in participation at TSZ and throw a few insults with it as if that’s how I’ll be persuaded. Btw, did you notice, that’s how he tries to make his case — lots of insults! 🙂

    I was getting brow beaten, I’m the one who has to be in the wrong in Barry’s eyes. Barry was abusing my sheep like behavior toward him. I put up with it because I was planning to move on. But when I moved on and he still follows me around and flames me on private channels that I kept open for his benefit. That was the last straw.

  32. He did you a favor by keeping it private.

    What’s there to keep private? That I’m at TSZ, that I’m a YEC. That I was supposedly banned because I defended Armitage (the first version of the story) or that I’m TSZ Quisling (the second version).

    The thing he wanted to keep private was calling me a quisling in front of the YEC and ID community and his peers.

    He also knows if the excuse of me getting banned because I defending Armitage, some people would go, “wait a second, that makes no sense.”

    What do you mean protecting me? I was protecting him.

  33. how do we know you didn’t change the wording of the Barry post you keep whining about?

    Why don’t we have Mung ask him. Do a BA77 imitation and make an off topic post and say:

    “Barry, is Sal a Quisling. He says you sent an unwelcome e-mail to him insulting him to that effect, can you confirm that Sal is being truthful or not?

    Is it true the first excuse you gave for banning him was because he tried to post on Armitage, and the second version of your excuse was because he’s a TSZ Quisling?

    Are we really in a war defending the soul of Western Civilization and is Sal collaborating with the enemy?”

    C’mon Mung, give Barry a fair chance to defend himself.

  34. I just love all the woulda coulda shoulda.

    stcordova: Even with all that I kept it to myself from September till December. The last straw was when till Barry’s fan, Mung, starts taunting me. Then I came to my senses.

    I was the last straw? Because I was taunting you about what?

    I was getting brow beaten, I’m the one who has to be in the wrong in Barry’s eyes. Barry was abusing my sheep like behavior toward him. I put up with it because I was planning to move on. But when I moved on and he still follows me around and flames me on private channels that I kept open for his benefit. That was the last straw.

    Wait, how many last straw was there?

    What was the really, really, last straw?

  35. Mung: Sal admitted to it.

    Only because you have changed the topic to something that Sal admitted to.

    My comment, to which you were responding, was only on the question of whether Sal had changed the mail that he claims came from Barry.

  36. Neil Rickert: My comment, to which you were responding, was only on the question of whether Sal had changed the mail that he claims came from Barry.

    Ah. ok. My mistake.

  37. stcordova: Why don’t we have Mung ask him. Do a BA77 imitation and make an off topic post and say:

    Salvador, I’m sure there’s a way you’ll come out smelling like a rose in all this.

    But you used to accusing me of being off-topic in your threads at UD and deleted my posts for being off-topic even when they were not off topic. Then you started those threads just for off-topic posts, and I would post in those, and you’d still delete my posts. Then you’d accuse me of personal animus.

    LoL. Those were the good old days.

    [I wonder what a quisling smells like, and if my sense of smell wasn’t just far better than Barriy’s.]

    Smelling like a Rose!

  38. But you used to accusing me of being off-topic in your threads at UD and deleted my posts for being off-topic even when they were not off topic. Then you started those threads just for off-topic posts, and I would post in those, and you’d still delete my posts. Then you’d accuse me of personal animus.

    Ah, and I knew you might be thinking and insinuating “the reason Sal was banned was because he did this to guys like Mung”.

    Nope. I decided to finally set the record straight.

    At least you now have two reasons from Barry himself. Go ask him now, which of the two version of his story is the one to believe, the one about Armitage or the one about TSZ?

    Go ask him Mung. Now you finally have my blessing to go off topic at UD. 🙂

    Don’t you have an obligation to defend the soul of western civilization by identifying the Quislings?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.