…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
For the future, it seems that you need to familiarize yourself with the characteristics of rat bastards.
Glen Davidson
Mung at UD: “The algorithm is amazingly simple. There’s nothing about it that is difficult to understand. Even you can understand it. It follows that it cannot possibly be difficult for any IDist to understand it.
You’re just making things up. Again.”
Dipshit Mung.
These bible posts are somewhat tedious. Mung, you are boring.
You may be right. And I concede that I’ve been finding that fairly difficult.
{Notes to Self: Consider the possibility that everything in the universe is the product of intelligent design–except rat bastards. Important? Unimportant?. Don’t forget to check the Logos on this. Remember that that very omission last time cost you seven months of pointless programming.}
Time for some unpleasantness, at Alan’s insistence.
Some of you may recall that Alan lodged a complaint against me about a month ago, writing:
I responded:
He refused to bow out, we examined the evidence, and sure enough, Alan looked ridiculous when I was easily able to supply examples in which I admitted my mistakes.
I concluded:
With so much egg on his face, you might have thought that Alan would learn a lesson. Apparently not. He is now insisting that I address two other accusations of his.
I suspect that he miscalculated and assumed that my silence was evidence of fear, when in fact it was evidence of pity. I figured he would cool down and drop the issue, but I overestimated him.
So please direct any complaints to him, since I am doing this at his insistence.
The first of Alan’s remaining false accusations has to do with the following comment of mine:
In response, Alan weighed in with his typical uninformed sanctimoniouness:
And reiterated it:
My responses:
And:
If Alan or anyone else thinks that my suspicions were stupid or unreasonable, then make your case. Explain to us exactly why I should have considered hypothesis #2 above to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why it was stupid of me not to.
I’ll hold on off on Alan’s final false accusation until the discussion of this one has died down.
Hi Keiths
This doesn’t need to be unpleasant for anyone. Readers have the option of scrolling past and this is the thread where rules are relaxed for such discussions.
Let me first make a distinction between thoughts and actions. I strongly support the idea of free thought and expression so, in my opinion, you are perfectly entitled to any beliefs, thoughts or suspicions (strong or otherwise) that you may hold.
I don’t dispute that the scenario regarding your ability to access TSZ was as you describe and you are perfectly entitled to jump to the conclusion that Neil was behind it. However when you wrote in a comment:
I read that as an accusation that Neil had somehow nefariously interfered with your account. I thought this was a stupid thing to say and I said so but I checked to confirm that the allegation was groundless. In fact, it is impossible for any admin to create the scenario you describe through the WordPress interface.
Here is how it might have gone, had you taken a different route.
You could have asked: “Hey, admins, – *describes problem* – is there anything wrong at TSZ that might be causing the problem?”
and I might have replied “I’ll look into it” and after checking, I might have added “Nothing this end. In fact there is no way anyone could create that problem other than by modifying .htaccess which only Lizzie can do.” I might have also asked if anyone else was having the same problem and whether anyone had an idea how to fix it.
You could have kept your strong suspicions to yourself and that would have been that. You still have options. You could say something along the lines that you didn’t mean to suggest Neil had nefariously interfered with your account and that you see now how people might read that into:
and maybe say sorry. That would be that.
Or you can ignore this and carry on. That’s fine too.
ETA typo
TSZ times out on me frequently. Sometimes I get a database error and sometimes just a generic timeout message. This has been happening for a long time.
petrushka,
I do wonder whether the database-saving plugin slows things down when in operation. It kicks in four times a day and I’ve noticed not being able to connect at odd times. Giving it a couple of minutes before trying again seems to work.
Just for context, here is my comment a few pages back that Keiths picks up on.
Also Keiths asked me if I’m a masochist. Whilst I consider his delving into my sexual proclivities somewhat impertinent, I can confirm I am not a masochist. Not that there would be anything wrong with that! I’m all for the maximum freedom of thought, expression and behaviour that does not impinge on the rights of others. Always remember your safeword, too!
As I’ve noted toward people who ascribe motives for being a nonbeliever, this is unseemly. And against the rules.
petrushka,
Yes, but when that happens it’s not IP-specific. I’ve checked.
In my case it was IP-specific, as you’ll see if you read through the observations I made at the time.
I have never, before or since, had an IP-specific problem (except at UD, where IP address blocking is standard practice).
Alan,
You haven’t answered the question:
I did. I said you are perfectly entitled to entertain any suspicion you like. If you put that suspicion into a comment without first simply asking if there is a problem, that is another matter. I think it was a stupid remark to make without checking the evidence first.
And regarding specific IP blocks, if you were blocked at the level of the TSZ dashboard, it would prevent you from logging in, not from seeing the site. Preventing visibility to specific IP addresses can only be done through .htaccess at the TSZ server and Lizzie, the only admin able to access the server interface has already confirmed she has no idea how to do that.
ETA missing text
keiths:
Alan:
No, you didn’t. Here are the two hypotheses again. Explain to us why I should have considered hypothesis #2 to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why it was stupid of me not to.
From my earlier comment:
I was evaluating two competing hypotheses:
1. Someone blocked my IP address.
2. A glitch of some kind prevented my IP address from accessing TSZ.
If it had happened at no special time, then I would have regarded #2 as being more likely.
But the prior probabilities had been updated, quite dramatically, because a) the previous evening, Neil had falsely accused me of harassment, and not long before that, he had falsely accused me of misrepresenting him; and b) he has done similarly impulsive things in the past, for example when he tried to impose a “timeout” on walto and me. Patrick had to intervene in that one.
He had a motive, he had tried this sort of thing before, and the symptoms matched exactly with what you would expect from an IP block.
The alternative was that for the first time ever, a glitch was preventing my particular IP address from accessing TSZ, that it matched exactly what you would expect from an IP block, and that it was purely a coincidence that this happened immediately after a hysterical accusation of “harassment” from Neil.
Which was more likely? The first, obviously. If anyone disagrees, I would like to hear your reasoning.
Let’s hear your reasoning, Alan. Why should I have considered hypothesis #2 to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why was it “stupid” of me not to?
Keiths, I think your testing methodology would not make it through the shoddiest level of peer review. You could be right or you could be wrong, but your accusation is unwarranted.
petrushka,
Good. Then you will be able to answer the question that Alan cannot.
Explain to us exactly why I should have considered hypothesis #2 above to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why it was stupid of me not to.
Alan, let’s recap the progress of your little inquisition.
You accused me of quotemining Ernst Mayr. The accusation was ridiculous and obviously false, so you looked like a jackass.
Then you accused me of not admitting my mistakes. I easily provided a counterexample from just a few days earlier. In response, you conceded the absolute minimum:
I provided another example from the very next day, with the result that you looked even more like a jackass.
Not content with your humiliation to that point, you brought all of this up again after a few weeks. (I still can’t figure out why; did you actually think it would turn out well for you?)
You labeled my suspicions towards Neil as stupid, but you can’t back that up either. When I ask you to explain why the alternate hypothesis was the only reasonable one, you fold. (Let’s see if petrushka can answer the question.)
Plus, your explanations for why my suspicions were “stupid” were themselves stupid, as I noted at the time:
When we move on to your final accusation, it isn’t going to go any better for you.
You set out to smear me, but what we’ve actually uncovered is your irrational, impulsive and dishonest behavior. It’s a serious problem, Alan. Why not address it rather than making false and hypocritical accusations against others?
keiths,
Yes, I did.
Sorry? I’m the inquisition? I comment on this blog, help out with the admin because I enjoy it. You post here frequently out of choice. Nobody is holding your feet to the fire over anything. I, within the rules, will post as I have time and inclination and you are perfectly able to post, within the rules, whatever you want, ignore whoever you want and respond to whomever you want.
My comment and subsequent clarification are available for all to read. I claim you lifted Mayr’s words from a secondary source. That I Iook like a jackass to you is unfortunate.
Funnily enough I think that example was subsequent to my comment that said “from memory, I can’t recall…” which was true when I said it. In fact I think I added something about not having searched for such an occurrence, though how I should go about it, I’m not sure. So you’re wrong there. I did not accuse you of anything, I merely remarked that I couldn’t recall such an incident. I should say I haven’t bothered to check back regarding my exact wording because I can’t be arsed.
Well, as I hadn’t made an accusation, only mentioned I hadn’t noticed such an event, good for you.
Love the pejoratives! Imagine that I might have taken you at your word. You promised to respond. You took others to task for not responding to your questions. Join the dots.
No. I called your posting a comment voicing your strong suspicions, equivalent to an accusation, stupid. You cannot be this obtuse, can you?
Your claim that Neil could have produced the scenario you describe is false. What more needs to be said? You mention being IP-blocked at UD. Think, Keith, were you still able to see the site? I rest my case.
Fine, I hear what you say. I still say it is stupid to voice an allegation without checking your facts.
Are you turning into Zachriel (not that there would be anything wrong with that!)? You should say “I”. “When I move on!”. I’m remembering someone saying something along the lines of “just make your case”.
Drama queen! I value your contributions, many OPs, over 5,000 comments. KN has acknowledged you as a valuable critic of his ideas. I broadly agree with the factual content, though bashing theists (for their theism) doesn’t interest me. What I dislike about too many of your comments is your delivery style, your casual rudeness to other participants. That and the fact that you can’t seem to take a hint about it. I view it as counterproductive to the ideals that Lizzie has been very clear about setting out and attempting to establish.
Thank you for your advice. I look forward to your further comments.
PS
I’m going to be away from a keyboard for the next few days, though I will be checking in on my phone, so any further response from me will not be likely till after this coming weekend.
Alan,
I’ll respond at greater length later, but for now I’ll note that your comment provides two excellent examples of your tendency to make snap judgments that backfire badly on you.
Example #1:
You wrote:
I “lifted” them from my copy of What Evolution Is. The book that Mayr wrote. Apparently, that possibility didn’t even occur to you.
This is exactly the kind of jackass behavior I’m talking about. You falsely accuse me of quotemining, and have to backpedal from that. Then you falsely accuse me of “lifting Mayr’s words from a secondary source.” You get to backpedal again.
All of this while you’re accusing me of “voicing an allegation without checking your facts”.
I appreciate the fact that you are so determined to undermine your case. It makes my job that much easier. But how do you benefit from this sort of hypocritical and idiotic behavior?
Example #2:
You wrote:
No, I was not able to see the site. Just like at TSZ. Your case fails.
Think, Alan. Did it even occur to you that your own recent experience at UD might not be representative of everyone else’s?
I carefully tested my hypothesis before voicing my suspicions of Neil. No one, including you, has been able to demonstrate that my suspicions were “stupid” or unwarranted.
You, by contrast, blurted out your accusations without even thinking about the alternatives. Now that they turn out to be unfounded, you look like a hypocritical ass.
Clean up your act, Alan.
keiths:
Alan:
We’re doing this at your insistence, Alan. I was willing to let it drop, out of pity for you — and did. You brought it up again after weeks.
Keiths, I believe your suspicions are unwarranted, because I have experienced a number of timeouts at this site. Far more than at other similar sites.
I cannot say that you are wrong, but I think your accusation is lame.
petrushka,
I addressed that already:
Meanwhile, I still await an answer from you or anyone else to this:
Keiths, you are on record as never in your entire life made a logical error. Your record is better than HAL’s (which as you know, once made a tiny miscalculation).
The problem I see is that you made a public accusation on the basis of your hypothesis. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. It stinks. The real problem is that you look like a jerk, act like a jerk, quack lick a jerk.
The working definition of a jerk is someone who is always right. Even when they are.
petrushka,
You’re repeating Alan’s second (and obviously false) accusation: that I don’t admit mistakes.
(Here, also.)
It made him look like a jackass, and it can do the same for you. Are you interested?
…says petrushka, who just made a public accusation on the basis of his hypothesis. An untrue hypothesis.
That’s called hypocrisy, petrushka.
What good does it do if you remember your safe word and your partner forgets your safe word?
For example, I recently forgot that keiths actually has a “safe phrase.” When he wants someone to stop beating on him he says, “I defend my claims.” To my shame, I continued to beat on him, and even mocked him for uttering his safe phrase! Mea culpa keiths.
It just doesn’t seem to matter how many times you say this.
I’ll have to remember that. I’m pretty sure it will be useful in my own life. 🙂
Just got a strange message that I was logged in but couldn’t post without being logged in.
petrushka,
Perhaps a temporary glitch.
Being logged in mostly means that there’s an appropriate browser cookie. A temporary network glitch might have prevented presenting that cookie in the browser connection to post.
I didn’t check to see if it was IP address related.
lol
Apparently keiths fails to realize just how protected he’s been by the good faith rule.
Mung,
I don’t need or want the protection of the good faith rule, and I think it’s a bad idea, so I never ask for it to be enforced.
As I said:
Alan,
I responded:
Even the most obvious things don’t occur to you. You accused me of quote mining without bothering to check the quote. You accused me of “lifting” the quote from a secondary source, without even considering the possibility that I got it from the original. You accused me of refusing to admit my mistakes, and were promptly refuted. Now you assume, with no evidence whatsoever, that your experience at UD is the same as everyone else’s.
It’s obvious to any technically competent person that there’s more than one way to interfere with a commenter at a WordPress blog. It didn’t occur to you.
And now you — who have demonstrated that you are neither honest nor technically competent — insist that Neil could not possibly have blocked my IP address in the way I describe.
Why should anyone believe you?
If you want to be believed, answer my question:
…says Alan, whose own casual rudeness is of course always appropriate, unlike mine.
Alan,
If ‘casual rudeness’ is your complaint, then why all the false accusations about other things? What were you hoping to accomplish by making shit up?
Lizzie isn’t opposed to ‘casual rudeness’, which is subjective anyway:
You would apparently like to remake TSZ into a milquetoast paradise, but most of the rest of us, including Lizzie, don’t want that.
I especially don’t want it if it means that someone like you can make false accusations all day without being challenged.
Instead of asking us to bring TSZ down to your level, why not rise to ours?
Gentlemen. I love you both. I don’t think you’re going to see eye to eye on this one and I’m not sure the payoff is worth it for anyone.
KeithS has sharp edges. I like that , but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
Rich,
I agree, which is why I dropped the issue after refuting the first two of Alan’s false accusations. I hoped that would be sufficient and that Alan would wisely decline to further humiliate himself.
It wasn’t sufficient. Alan couldn’t let it rest. He brought the issue back up after weeks and is insisting that I address the remaining false accusations.
Please direct your complaints to Alan for dragging this out.
Oh it’s not a complaint. I can just see the rabbit juiced soaked rag getting weaseled….
It’s up to Alan. I can’t imagine why he thought this would turn out well for him.
You mean, the self-congratulatory stuff like I hoped that would be sufficient and that Alan would wisely decline to further humiliate himself.
What’s not to like?
You’d be surprised. Self-humiliation comes in a variety of flavors.
walto,
It’s hardly self-congratulatory. Alan did all the self-humiliating work; I merely pointed it out.
Alan, if you need to rise to the level of keiths, you’ve truly sunk lower than I thought humanly possible. But then, you are French, right?
Okay, on to the last of the false accusations that Alan has insisted I address. Let’s hope he has the sense to drop this afterwards. Besides making him look like an ass, it’s boring.
I wrote:
Alan responded:
Alan’s mistake was to disagree with this statement:
I pointed this out more than 20(!) times at Alan’s repeated insistence. Still he kept asking.
Here are a few of my comments:
keiths:
keiths:
keiths:
keiths, in exasperation:
Those comments are just from one thread. Alan brought this up again and again, and now he is saying:
This is the man-child equivalent of putting his hands over his ears and shouting “I can’t hear you!”
It’s ridiculous and infantile.
Alan, you made a mistake. It’s obvious. Admit it and move on with your life.
You must be talking about your approach to getting me to talk about my beliefs about hell and your response when I actually did so.
I asked you a question. When you finally answered it, I wrote:
Were you expecting a tickertape parade?