The Memory of the Dead Matter More than Your Faith


I got into a conversation with a redditor called Wannabebunny and I heard a story, I am posting it here with his permission because I think people should hear and listen.

He has a story to tell, a story which is emblematic of a variety of problems with religion, atheism and group think.

Firstly? Belief in a god does not make you a good person. All it does, is provide you with a hard code of good and bad so you don’t have to think about your actions. Your actions may not be good from the perspective of another.

Secondly? Atheists are discriminated against, in many  places religion drives life and is so entrenched within it that the very idea of an atheist is a declaration of war. We always bring up Islam as an example with many countries calling for the death of Atheists and the UK recently giving asylum to an atheist from Afghanistan.

Thirdly? People have declared us to be an acceptable target.

What happened to Wannabebunny is completely unacceptable. Many Christians would deride the actions of the man in question  and declare them as “un-Christian”,  but one cannot claim that what happened was solely due to the man in question being a complete bastard.

Wannabebunny’s father died recently. He passed away on the 29th of December 2013 and had his funeral on 2014. Now these are stressful times for the best of us and it’s a period where religion and atheism often clash because we atheists often have to bite our tongue with regards to religion and our beliefs.

Wannabebunny’s father was an atheist too and he had planned for his death. His family had requested a non-religious secular service in keeping with his wishes. We all want that right? Sure we may tinge it with the most known aspects of our cultural past butt we still want it to be secular for all to enjoy.. I know one of my readers (Guy Otten, The Mancunian Humanist celebrant who met me last year) does some great work as a Humanist celebrant by officiating  secular ceremonies.

The Funeral Home was John Gray and Co. in Bangor. County Down, Northern Ireland.

And the Funeral Director did not live up to the standards needed from his profession by allowing personal beliefs to dictate his dealings. To begin with he straight up does not want to do a secular service. He made a big fuss over how highly irregular such a thing is which should be news to Mr. Otten. Secular services are nothing new. Upon insisting, he quietened down.

After the planned service, the Funeral Director announced that he would like to say a few words which puzzled people. Funeral Directors may compare the service an announce and usher other speakers but rarely do they actively participate.

The ceremony stopped being secular. The funeral director’s speech was religious in nature and tasteless if I were to describe it at my most benign. But what did the damage was the line

“David was not a believer, but now that he is dead he knows the truth, he is with god being judged now”.

At this point Wannabebunny stopped the service and considering this was a funeral in Northern Ireland where a large number of people would hold a strong cultural and political affinity based on religion was incredibly polite in halting the religious speech with “My father didn’t believe in your god and asked for a non-religious service, could you respect that”.

He wrapped it up, but the bitter taste had already set in.

One can postulate if the funeral director would have brought up the Christian god at a Muslim, Jewish or Hindu wedding, hey may have. See if you cannot respect the wishes of atheists then what hope do other faiths have of being respected in a time of tragedy, sorrow and need.

At the best of times such a diatribe would be considered in poor taste and insulting to those who are not religious or are of a different faith. But during a funeral is a complete insult. It’s a total inability to keep your religion to yourself in even the most inappropriate  of places. We would hold the atheist to the same standard, we do not get on stage and say “There is no god, no heaven and Kevin (all my hypothetical situations occur to a Kevin) is not partying with angels!”. Such would be considered inappropriate yet we see a religious person deeming fit to insert his beliefs into people.

If you want to help and you want to make a difference to the beliefs of David and indeed Wannabebunny then please.

Do not harass the funeral director. I hate it when people send hate mail to me even though I think it’s a sign that I ask the “right questions”. We must be better than this cretinous creep who failed basic human decency while passing Bible class. But I fear sometimes we are no different.

Religion does not make you a moral person, thinking about your actions on others does. And this is the prime example, yes there are moral religious people. But these are moral because they think about what their actions mean to the people around them and their effect on those they love.

Maybe Wannabebunny will get some justice out of all of this. But as you know and may have realised, the more religious people criticise what we do, the more I feel like showing them up.

I know I asked visitors to earmark (or try to earmark for ASTI and I am planning to carry with me as a donor so that some good will come. Wannabebunny’s father was a giving man who wanted to help children who are disabled. I offered to donate money earned in his name so my donation to ASTI will go under Mr. Wannabebunny’s father’s name in addition to everyone at A Million Gods who reads and donates.

It will go to help women and children harmed by cruelty and chance.

If you wish to donate to ASTI you can go here directly or if you wish to add to my fundraiser, I have not yet started fundraising, you can either donate (mark it on Paypal as a donation to ASTI for the AMG Nepal Dealie) and I guarantee I will put it towards the Nepal fundraiser or you can wait and donate when I have my fundraiser page set up.

While we condemn this funeral director’s poor human touch, we must also demonstrate a better one.

Comments

  1. says

    Sorry for off topic, but it’s hard to read your blog with this sans serif font and formatting to the centre. My eyesight isn’t really very bad, but this is already a problem. Keep up the good work!

  2. says

    I missed my grandmother’s funeral, a combination of being poor and having to deal with a very real emergency with my youngest daughter. I got a phone call from my sister telling me that she was glad I missed it, because it was horrible. My grandmother wasn’t a religious woman at all, but had attended a few services at her nursing home, services run by a retired pastor resident. My parents knew that they were friends, and asked if he would run the service. He used the opportunity to go off on how atheists were all going to burn in hell. My sister has only recently lost her faith, and I don’t think she considers herself an atheist, but it still made her feel awful. My mom was upset by the religiousity and venom at such an inopportune time, and they both recognized that if I had been there, I’d have kicked his ass out the back door and taken over a much more secular ceremony.

    It’s like the post PZ put up earlier today, atheists are an acceptable target. I would bet that most of the people in that room weren’t in any way uncomfortable listening to this man talk about non-believers being tortured as his way of saying goodbye to my grandmother and allowing her family to ease their hearts.

  3. opposablethumbs says

    Absolutely horrifying – these people have no compassion and no shame, to behave so unforgivably at the funeral of someone whose family wanted a non-religious ceremony. As you say, they’d think twice before pulling a stunt like this at a religious funeral of a religion other than their own.

    I’ve been to five family funerals now, two of which I helped organise and at which I spoke (my parents), and there was not the least shred of a religious presence or any religious mutterings at any one of them (including one where someone who happened to be a minister was invited to be one of the speakers as a personal friend of the deceased. That minister said not one single religious word in his speech; he was a friend, and one worthy of the name). It’s an utter disgrace that someone should barge in and impose their own personal preference at a time of such raw emotion, when people are vulnerable and when it can be very important to forge a memory you can live with afterwards.

  4. says

    This is so fucked uo and utterly cruel to a grieving family.

    My paternal grandfather was nominally catholic, so he got a catholic funeral. I was hardly a teen back then but I remember that I was furious that Jesus Christ was definitely more important in the whole thing than my grandfather.

    My maternal grandfather, a life-long atheist, got a secular ceremony. A friend of the family spoke about my grandfather, his life, the things that were important to him. He had asked us before what we would like to remember about him, the personal memories. It was lovely, in as much as such a sad occasion could be.
    Damn, that was 3 years ago, i still miss him like hell.

  5. johngreg says

    Avi said:

    The ceremony stopped being secular. The funeral director’s speech was religious in nature and tasteless if I were to describe it at my most benign. But what did the damage was the line

    “David was not a believer, but now that he is dead he knows the truth, he is with god being judged now”.

    And…

    At this point Wannabebunny stopped the service and considering this was a funeral in Northern Ireland where a large number of people would hold a strong cultural and political affinity based on religion was incredibly polite in halting the religious speech with “My father didn’t believe in your god and asked for a non-religious service, could you respect that”.

    opposablethumbs said:

    Absolutely horrifying – these people have no compassion and no shame, to behave so unforgivably at the funeral of someone whose family wanted a non-religious ceremony.

    (My emphasis.)

    Giliell said:

    This is so fucked uo and utterly cruel to a grieving family.

    (My emphasis.)

    I have to admit that I am gobsmacked at how remarkabley, jaw-droppingly upset, reactionary, and hysterical some of you folks are about such minor, such utterly minor issues. Molehills and mountains.

    Sheesh. Talk about first world issues of empty content? Fuck. Ya’ll take the cake.

    I stubbed my toe last week. Can I sue someone, or maybe I should write an endless rage-post on some blog somewhere and rage tears all over it.

    Big fucking deal. Grow the fuck up and deal with reality, for a change.

  6. says

    Do you have any awareness of the things you type or do you genuinely believe the things you say without any awareness of what you are saying or where you are posting these things?

  7. johngreg says

    Do you have any awareness of the things you type …

    Yes, of course I do. Do you?

    … or do you genuinely believe the things you say

    Yes, I do, generally, genuinely believe the things I say. Do you believe the things you say?

    …without any awareness of what you are saying or where you are posting these things?

    Huh? I do not understand that at all.

    What, specifically, has your ersatz-religious knickers in a knot this time?

  8. says

    An atheist’s funeral was disrupted by someone pushing religion after specifically being told to not have a religious ceremony and was paid and accepted money with that in mind. In addition it was not something benign like the quotation of Bible quotes or someone singing Amazing Grace but someone standing up and saying “Guess David learnt the error of his atheist ways”.

    If you said “Guess the protestant knows the truth now” or “Guess that Hindu’s learnt the truth” you would be considered crass, bigotted and stupid. Yet for an atheist it’s not a problem?

    And your big problem is that people find that bad? This was a genuine case of anti-atheist discrimination and your big issue is “I am sorry, it’s not terrible enough”.

  9. says

    Avi
    Hey, it’s John Greg. Whatever anybody on FtB says MUST be wrong.
    Grieving family whose final goodbye to a loved one is hijacked for a bit of prosletyzing?
    Stop being hysterical!
    People who remember saying goodbye to loved ones having some empathy with the grieving family?
    Grow the fuck up!
    Human decency and kindness is apparently for losers

  10. johngreg says

    Avi, I didn’t say it was not a problem. My post was to point out the ludicrousness of the extreme degree of response, as in “horrifying” and “utterly cruel”.

    In my opinion, in the real world, if what happened at that funeral counts as “horrifying” and “utterly cruel” for some people, then, in all seriousness, how on earth do those people get up in the morning and face reality without collapsing in a pool of victim’s raging tears?

    And Giliell, I have (in the past when I was not banned from 13 or 14 of them) posted positive comments directed toward FTB commentors and, on rare occasions, FTB blog hosts. I do not assume or presume that anything and/or everything said by any and/or all FTB commentors and blog hosts is automatically wrong. The fact that most of what FTB commentors and blog hosts say is usually fucked up in some way does not skew me to assume it’s all always wrong.

    And, back on topic, I did not say that people should not be offended or pissed off at what the funeral director did. As I said above, I was pointing out what I felt was a ridiculously over-the-top reaction to it. In my opinion, Avi’s pal handled it quite correctly in saying

    My father didn’t believe in your god and asked for a non-religious service, could you respect that.

    And nothing more really needs to be said or done. It was a very minor bit of tactless behaviour (on the part of the funeral director), not a declaration of war.

  11. says

    It is cruel if you can empathise with the bereaved who are effectively being told that your dead dad is in hell.

    And it is minor if it’s not someone you love.

    You cannot see why someone else would be angry about the hijack of a funeral they specifically said was to be secular by the man they told and paid to make it secular to flog their religion. If he did that to Muslims or Hindus it would be a major issue.

    And while you are stoic and can deal with the rough and tumble of life better than me, I must point out that this was something I wanted to write about. That I found interesting and worth writing about particularly to cheer up someone who had a bad time and do something nice by being willing to carry his story.

    Not everything I write about has to do with things that are not first world problems and I loathe to tell people who have problems that theirs are not valid because theirs are relatively less by the John Greg scale.

  12. abear says

    I agree with John that it’s not like he murdered someone, but on the other hand it’s a real kick in the nuts to someone that is already in pain.
    He was told to not mention religion and ignored it. Not only arrogant and boorish as well as unprofessional.
    They should get their money back at least, I doubt they could prove damages worth suing for, but still no small insult.
    Sorry John, I’m with the baboons (and Avi) on this one.

  13. johngreg says

    Avi, I did not say the issue was invalid. I did not say that people should not be angry. I did not say that no one should empathise with the people involved.

    What I did say was that I thought that calling it “horrifying” and “utterly cruel” was over the top. I also said I thought it was a very minor issue, a first world issue that was empty of content.

    I did not criticize you for writing about it. My criticisms are/were based on how much zealous anger this minor issue seems to have generated. Mind you, to be critical of myself, I should not really have been surprised. Such over-reaction seems to be a fairly regular form of reaction from most of the FTB blog hosts and commentariat over lots of relatively minor issues.

    abear, go for it. I might disagree with you, but I’ll never tell you I hope you rape yourself with a dead porcupine, or a *Floosh* rusty knife, nor will I call you Marc Lépine. However, criticising that funeral director is pretty darned sexist, misogynistic, and rapey.

  14. Holms says

    What I did say was that I thought that calling it “horrifying” and “utterly cruel” was over the top.

    Oh no, you weren’t disapproving of people having a reaction to this story at all… you were just insisting on telling them that their level of anger / disgust was too high.

    Because, apparently, you think your reaction is the standard by which all others are weighed.

  15. Holms says

    Oh hey, not sure how I missed this bit the first time around:

    abear, go for it. I might disagree with you, but I’ll never tell you I hope you rape yourself with a dead porcupine, or a *Floosh* rusty knife, nor will I call you Marc Lépine. However, criticising that funeral director is pretty darned sexist, misogynistic, and rapey.

    Your attempt to mimic with ‘comedic’ exaggeration reveals only that you have no clue about the position that you are trying to mock.

    Conclusion: you are a vacuous airhead.

  16. johngreg says

    Holms teh Fuckin’ Moron said:

    Oh no, you weren’t disapproving of people having a reaction to this story at all… you were just insisting on telling them that their level of anger / disgust was too high.

    Because, apparently, you think your reaction is the standard by which all others are weighed.

    Your attempt to mimic with ‘comedic’ exaggeration reveals only that you have no clue about the position that you are trying to mock.

    Conclusion: you are a vacuous airhead.

    HAHAHAHA and HAHAHA.

    Listen up, cupcake:

    1. I did not disapprove of anyone having a reaction (as meaningless as that phrase is) to this story. I was flubblegubbed by the degree of that reaction. Comprende?

    I thought not.

    2. Yes, I insist on telling them that, in my opinion, their reaction is/was extreme, but what they do with that opinion is entirely, 100%, and completely up to them.

    3. No, I do not in any way shape or form think my reaction to their overblown nonsense is the standard by which all others are weighed. Call in the ClownCars! I am only expressing an opinion.

    Your attempt to mimic with ‘comedic’ exaggeration reveals only that you have no clue about the position that you are trying to mock.

    Huh? I don’t even…. Nah. I don’t know what you are trying to say in that sentence.

  17. says

    Ah I see!

    You cannot understand that English has contextual uses of the word.

    This is an awesome sandwich

    This view of the grand canyon is really awesome

    This HD shot of this distant galaxy is awesome.

    This does not mean the feelings of awe from the sandwich exceed the other two. Likewise with horror

  18. voidhawk says

    Stop arguing with him. We have all the classic signs of a troll here.

    On topic: Why can’t people let others have the funerals they want? I’m an atheist but if a religious family member died I’d go along with all the bells and whistles that a religious funeral entails. it reminds me of an episode of Peep Show where the relative had converted to Christianity late in life but his atheist sister had insisted on a strictly non-religious funeral:

    “Look, what I’m trying to say is that if I was dying and I decided that even though I’d never particularly been into, say, Enya before but that now I really, really was into Enya and that in fact, I thought Enya was great and that Enya died for our sins and I wanted an Enya themed funeral with pictures of Enya and lots and lots of mentions of Enya, then I think it would be a bit bloody rich for my sister to ban all mention of Enya from my funeral. Yeah? “

  19. Holms says

    Listen up, cupcake:

    Oh shit it’s an Internet Tuff Guy, EVERYBODY RUN!

    1. I did not disapprove of anyone having a reaction (as meaningless as that phrase is) to this story. I was flubblegubbed by the degree of that reaction. Comprende?

    I agree – you disapproved of people’s reactions. That’s what I said already!

    Huh? I don’t even…. Nah. I don’t know what you are trying to say in that sentence.

    Well I made it plain and didn’t use any uncommon words, I thought that would be enough dumbing down for you.

  20. says

    Haha, lovely laugh at John’s expense, he never fails to deliver some new level of fuckwittery! His railing against the hypocrisy of FTBs and the “baboons” is his main love in life, all of the bumblefucks at the Slymepit seem to think it’s very important work. Even creating a whole wiki devoted to scrying for it. Would just like to say that I personally think hypocrisy is part of the human condition, but extreme examples can be amusing. Like this one …

    The infamous John Greg whines about something he sees as no big deal, being a “first world problem”, and “FfTB’ers” getting “hysterical” about such minor problems… When … Wait for it… He is infamous for being a whiny baby about being banned by PZ and, *gasp*, called an MRA by the Pharyngula “Baboons”, when, *gasp*, he didn’t even know what that meant. Oh the humanity! Even the Slymepitters laugh at his constant trotting out his sob story about being banned … First. World. Problem.

    … in the past when I was not banned from 13 or 14 of them

    So many sob stories, not enough time. LMAO! Thanks John.

  21. says

    John Greg

    Avi, I did not say the issue was invalid. I did not say that people should not be angry. I did not say that no one should empathise with the people involved.

    What I did say was that I thought that calling it “horrifying” and “utterly cruel” was over the top. I also said I thought it was a very minor issue, a first world issue that was empty of content.

    So, who died and made you arbiter of appropriate reactions?
    You’re a one-trick pony, seriously.

  22. says

    At my sister’s funeral, the minister put out a call asking who had been saved, and urging people to come up front and find Jesus. Apparently, he was hiding in the casket containing my dead sister’s body.

    At my wedding, despite the fact that we’d told him we were non-religious and would appreciate it if he minimized the religious aspects of the ceremony, once he got the pair of us standing there, the minister harangued us about the importance of Jesus. Captive audience, you know.

    The colossal affront of these situations is that they get us into a place where WE recognize the importance of the situation — the memory of a loved one, the commitment to a new life together — and WE have a proper appreciation of appropriate behavior and do not want to disrupt the behavior, and THEY see an opportunity to shit all over the actual meaning of the occasion to spread Asshole Jesus on us.

    And according to some people commenting here, pointing out the extreme injustice and offensiveness of that behavior is excessive. Fuck that.

  23. says

    PZ

    <And according to some people commenting here, pointing out the extreme injustice and offensiveness of that behavior is excessive. Fuck that.

    It’s particulary rich coming from people who spent the last two years in a permanent temper tanturm because a woman said “guys, don’t do that”

  24. johngreg says

    I think there is some serious lack of reading comprehension going on here. Holms said:

    I agree – you disapproved of people’s reactions. That’s what I said already!

    No. I did not disapprove of their reactions. I criticised the degree of those reactions. Why are you unable to see and acknowledge the difference between those two different actions?

    And, for the record, the term cupcake is borrowed from Pharyngula.

    I am neither an Internet “tuff guy”, i.e., I don’t threaten, from the safey of a university keyboard, to fuck ice cream vendors into the ground, and neither am I a troll. I am simply trying to clarify my response to Avi’s post, and defend against the misrepresentations of my opinion: I do not condemn, criticize, or disapprove of the negative reactions to the funeral director’s religious spew: he was clearly in the wrong. I am criticizing the degree of those negative responses. How is everyone here so comfortably able to ignore, overlook, and/or fail to understand the differences between those two actions? I don’t get it.

    HAHAHA, oolon, oolon, oolon. I have never, ever whined about being banned from Pharyngula, or any of the other FTB blogs that I am banned from. What I have done is frequently comment upon the hypocrisy of blogs carrying the Freethoughtblogs banner practicing, willy-nilly, and with gleeful abandon, moderating, editing, and deleting comments, so as to ensure a false consensus and a false view of the “hateful” commentors’s actions, and banning commentors with whom the blog hosts simply disagree.

    And, yes, yes, yes, we all know that people like you and LousyCanuck insist that moderating, editing, deleting, and banning equals free speech and not moderating, editing, deleting, and banning equals censorship, but that’s your particular oddball psychosis fomented in room 101.

    And what do you mean by “He is infamous for being a whiny baby about being … called an MRA by the Pharyngula “Baboons”, when, *gasp*, he didn’t even know what that meant.”

    Where and when did I “whine” about being called an MRA and not know what it meant? Do you have any evidence to back that up? I can only remember pointing out, on a couple of occasions, that I am not, by any realistic definition, an MRA or MRA supporter. I do not and never have supported any MRAs, MRA Websites, nor MRA philosophy/ideology.

    Anyway, to repeat: I have not and do not criticise, condemn, dismiss, or disapprove of anyone being angry about the funeral director’s religious spew. His actions were unwarranted and wrong. However, I maintain that calling those actions “horrifying”, “utterly cruel”, and “colossal affront” is just ridiculous hyperbole.

    Giliell said:

    So, who died and made you arbiter of appropriate reactions?

    No one, and I am not. I am, like everyone else here, simply expressing my opinion on the issue. And you disagree with me. Fine. That’s what the real world is all about: discussion, debate, agreement, disagreement, etc.

    Myers said:

    And according to some people commenting here, pointing out the extreme injustice and offensiveness of that behavior is excessive. Fuck that.

    Nah, like most of the rest of the commenters here, you basically missed the point. It is the extremity of the reaction, not the reaction itself, that I think is unwarranted, over the top, and ridiculous. “… extreme injustice and offensiveness….”? Give me a fucking break. Or maybe you should just fuck me into the ground. You’re good at making that kind of violent threat, aren’t you.

    Giliell, said:

    It’s particulary rich coming from people who spent the last two years in a permanent temper tanturm because a woman said “guys, don’t do that”.

    It sure does get tiring reading that sort of totally dishonest representation of what started the Pit. It was not, and was never claimed to be about Watson saying “Guys, don’t do that”. If you care about honesty and accuracy, you will note that it was Watson’s handling of the Steph McGraw issue that started the Pit. And, please, you don’t need to repeat that Watson and McGraw mended their respective fences: that is quite irrelevant.

  25. Holms says

    No. I did not disapprove of their reactions. I criticised the degree of those reactions. Why are you unable to see and acknowledge the difference between those two different actions?

    1. Some people expressed their reactions to an event.
    2. You disapproved of what they said.
    Done. Whether you disapproved of the degree of their reaction or of their having a reaction at all is immaterial.

    And, for the record, the term cupcake is borrowed from Pharyngula.

    No, it’s been used as a diminishing form of address for decades. I remember it being used in school.

    Speaking of school, your ‘Pharyngula started it’ excuse dates back to the primary school level of maturity as well. If you must express an obnoxious, patronising opinion, at least have the guts to own it!

  26. johngreg says

    Holms said:

    1. Some people expressed their reactions to an event. 2. You disapproved of what they said. Whether you disapproved of the degree of their reaction or of their having a reaction at all is immaterial.

    Nonsense; it is completely material. Specificity and intent are important — they might not be magical, but they are important. I criticized the extremity of their response. What is this deep and abiding fear that so many FTB commentors and blog hosts have of accuracy in diction, rhetoric, and language? I don’t get it.

    Speaking of school, your ‘Pharyngula started it’ excuse dates back to the primary school level of maturity as well. If you must express an obnoxious, patronising opinion, at least have the guts to own it!

    Well, I did not actually intend it to be a “pharyngula started it” kind of a thing. I just wanted to clarify where I got it from. I’m sure you are probably accurate about its origins, but I do not recall having ever heard it or seen it before I saw it on some FTB blog.

    And, yes, I do own my obnoxious, patronising opinions, 100% all mine. Me-oh-my-oh; I, me, mine; we gotta go-oh.

  27. abear says

    oolon

    January 17, 2014 at 6:44 PM (UTC 5.5)

    Haha, lovely laugh at John’s expense, he never fails to deliver some new level of fuckwittery! His railing against the hypocrisy of FTBs and the “baboons” is his main love in life, all of the bumblefucks at the Slymepit seem to think it’s very important work. Even creating a whole wiki devoted to scrying for it. Would just like to say that I personally think hypocrisy is part of the human condition, but extreme examples can be amusing. Like this one …

    It amazes me how you never fail to shoot yourself in the foot. Of course the extreme example of hypocrisy that you point out is your own behavior of constantly following real or imagined Slymepitters around the internet and making a fool of yourself with your transparently dishonest attempts at debate.
    Talk about obsessed!
    Well at least you have the art of projection down to a science!

  28. says

    John Greg – Even I have a moderation policy, it’s lax compared to theirs but it does exist.

    Free speech is associated with responsible speech and that is something I am acutely aware of. If you keep abusing the low censorship here you will get banned too.

    Now I don’t know who you are talking about but I am going to assume it’s not me and you have decided to utilise the comment session on my blog as some sort of soap box for your grievances of others. I see references to Pharyngula and the Lousy Canuck.

    You didn’t try to clarify a response, you came in and said “All you fainting Nancies are too sensitive! It’s a wonder how you deal with real injustice”. That’s not clarifying a response.

    If the insult was on the basis of another religion or gender or sexuality or race we would not be having to justify the anger and disappointment of the victim to you. In fact, I bet you would not be disagreeing with this victim and the reader’s perspective if this story was posted on Patheos.

    John, I think you should go find some Americans to bother. If accuracy of diction is your biggest fear then the usage of the word “Awesome” in America seems to be a bigger issue than a few people considering the religious attack on a dead relative at the dead relative’s funeral as a “horrible” thing.

    Maybe English is not your first language but English has always utilised things such as similies and metaphors and indeed the discretion of the reader/listener to understand the context. Let’s take an example you ignored.

    This photograph of a galaxy is awesome. This hotdog is awesome. I understand that the level of awesome in the galaxy is higher than the hotdog. The hotdog is merely a very good hotdog and delicious.

    The usage of the word horrible here does not mean that this incident is as bad as if the funeral director was found killing people to put into his coffins or whatever arbitrary line of horrible you wish to use but that in this context it means that the readers found it “very bad” that someone was doing this and that putting themselves in the position of the son, they would feel incredibly bad.

    And they couched this feeling in the word “horrible” because it’s a good word to convey that.

    Now you think it’s hyperbole possibly because you cannot put yourself in the shoes of another. Had an atheist gone “Fuck Heaven, there is no god!” at a religious ceremony they would rightly be called out. Yet we are to ignore atheists who are similarly harassed because it’s not awful enough for you?

    What exactly is the hard classification of an event that lets it be classed as horrible.

  29. johngreg says

    Avi, I would like to reply to your comment in the order of what I think is most important, though not in the order of what you said. I hope that is OK with you.

    Avi said:

    If you keep abusing the low censorship here you will get banned too…. John Greg – Even I have a moderation policy, it’s lax compared to theirs but it does exist.

    OK. That’s fine. It’s your blog; however, please clarify how/where I have been abusing the low censorship. I cannot see any list of comment rules, or any other sets of rules that define/explain what it is you think I am doing wrong. I am confused and befuddled, honestly. Please explain. Otherwise, I am at a complete loss as to what is, or is not, allowed.

    Now I don’t know who you are talking about but I am going to assume it’s not me and you have decided to utilise the comment session on my blog as some sort of soap box for your grievances of others.

    I do not understand this comment. Please explain what it is you are referring to.

    I see references to Pharyngula and the Lousy Canuck.

    In my opinion, those references are directly relevant to the discussion, particularily in light of the accusations made against me regarding my integrity, honesty, and so on.

    You didn’t try to clarify a response, you came in and said “All you fainting Nancies are too sensitive! It’s a wonder how you deal with real injustice”. That’s not clarifying a response.

    I said no such thing, and yes I certainly tried to clarify my comment after it was misunderstood. Are you blind? That is not an honest representation of what I said. What I said was that I thought the reactions, in particular the phrases “horrifying”, “utterly cruel”, and “colossal affront”, were over the top and hyperbolic. I said nothing about “fainting Nancies”. What is a fainting nancy?

    If the insult was on the basis of another religion or gender or sexuality or race we would not be having to justify the anger and disappointment of the victim to you. In fact, I bet you would not be disagreeing with this victim and the reader’s perspective if this story was posted on Patheos.

    Huh? I do not understand that.

    John, I think you should go find some Americans to bother. If accuracy of diction is your biggest fear then the usage of the word “Awesome” in America seems to be a bigger issue than a few people considering the religious attack on a dead relative at the dead relative’s funeral as a “horrible” thing.

    Huh? I do not understand that.

    Maybe English is not your first language but English has always utilised things such as similies and metaphors and indeed the discretion of the reader/listener to understand the context. Let’s take an example you ignored.

    Huh? I do not understand that.

    This photograph of a galaxy is awesome. This hotdog is awesome. I understand that the level of awesome in the galaxy is higher than the hotdog. The hotdog is merely a very good hotdog and delicious.

    Hmm. Now you’re justing dribbling at the mouth and espousing nonsense. Do you even know what it is you are trying to say?

    The usage of the word horrible here does not mean that this incident is as bad as if the funeral director was found killing people to put into his coffins or whatever arbitrary line of horrible you wish to use but that in this context it means that the readers found it “very bad” that someone was doing this and that putting themselves in the position of the son, they would feel incredibly bad.

    The word used was not “horrible”. The word used (misused) was horrific. Please try to maintain accuracy when you try to throw me into the ditch.

    And they couched this feeling in the word “horrible” because it’s a good word to convey that.

    ibid.

    Now you think it’s hyperbole possibly because you cannot put yourself in the shoes of another. Had an atheist gone “Fuck Heaven, there is no god!” at a religious ceremony they would rightly be called out. Yet we are to ignore atheists who are similarly harassed because it’s not awful enough for you?

    What exactly is the hard classification of an event that lets it be classed as horrible.

    Huh? I do not understand that.

  30. Holms says

    I criticized the extremity of their response.

    Correct: you criticised an aspect of their response. I’ve been saying that all along! I’m glad you finally agree with me. Now, let’s beeee friends.

    Of course the extreme example of hypocrisy that you point out is your own behavior of constantly following real or imagined Slymepitters around the internet and making a fool of yourself with your transparently dishonest attempts at debate.
    Talk about obsessed!

    How exactly does replying to a pitter on FTB constitute following him around the internet?

    I do not understand this comment. Please explain what it is you are referring to.
    Huh? I do not understand that.
    Huh? I do not understand that.
    Huh? I do not understand that.

    [immediately followed by:]

    Hmm. Now you’re justing dribbling at the mouth and espousing nonsense. Do you even know what it is you are trying to say?

    It’s a bit much to accuse him of not knowing what he said, given that you’re the one that failed to grasp his point four times.

    The word used was not “horrible”. The word used (misused) was horrific. Please try to maintain accuracy when you try to throw me into the ditch.

    This bit, right here, exemplifies why you are possibly going to be banned. Horrific, horrible, they may not be the precise word, but they very obviously have the same basis; quibbling over the difference is pure pedantry plain and simple. It shows that you are not here for any real point other than being an argumentative troll.

  31. abear says

    Holms @30:

    How exactly does replying to a pitter on FTB constitute following him around the internet?

    It’s not just on FtB. It seems anywhere that a pitter posts Candiru oolon shows up.
    It’s almost like a full time obsession with him. At one time he was the most prolific poster on the Slymepit until he admitted to doing an awful thing, after which he flounced in shame. He is famous (was on BBC) for his blockbot activities, something he (in my opinion) did to get back at Slymepitters.
    In the past he has spammed the comments on Thunderfoot’s youtube channel, sometimes posting up to a hundred childish name calling taunts for a single video.
    He really is a sick puppy.

  32. johngreg says

    Holms said:

    Correct: you criticised an aspect of their response. I’ve been saying that all along! I’m glad you finally agree with me.

    Hmm. Well, perhaps I have been mistaken. I took your first comment to be sarcasm:

    Oh no, you weren’t disapproving of people having a reaction to this story at all… you were just insisting on telling them that their level of anger / disgust was too high.

    Implying, I thought, that you were actually saying that you felt I was criticising any angry response, not the degree of that response.

    And then you said:

    I agree – you disapproved of people’s reactions. That’s what I said already!

    Which looks to me to be specifically saying that I was criticising the response, not the degree of the reponse.

    And then you said:

    1. Some people expressed their reactions to an event.
    2. You disapproved of what they said.

    Which is pretty clear and needs no explication.

    As I say, specificity and accuracy are pretty important, so as to avoid confusion, misquotes, misrepresentation, etc.

    It’s a bit much to accuse him of not knowing what he said, given that you’re the one that failed to grasp his point four times.

    Not really. That comment, my comment that is, was directed specifically to the paragraph it follows — not the paragraphs preceding the paragraph it followed.

    … quibbling over the difference is pure pedantry plain and simple.

    Actually, yes, you are right, it is pedantry. But over the years I’ve found that pedantry is sometimes required to get to the root of the matter on FTB blogs, simply because FTB blog hosts and commenters have a dedicated habit of playing fast and loose with diction, and denotative and connotative definitions soley to suit the argument/ideology/dogma du jour. So, in that event, pedantry often serves as the only way find out what is really being said. So to speak.

    Nonetheless, my request to Avi is genuine:

    … please clarify how/where I have been abusing the low censorship. I cannot see any list of comment rules, or any other sets of rules that define/explain what it is you think I am doing wrong. I am confused and befuddled, honestly. Please explain. Otherwise, I am at a complete loss as to what is, or is not, allowed.

    I await his specifications. Seriously. Some kind of expression of what I should and/or should not do/post can only be helpful. A vague “you’re doing it wrong” doesn’t help me at all.

    And what abear says is quite true. I’ve seen oolon lambasting the Pit on blogs and other ‘net places where no Pit person had ever previously even been and no Pit discussion has ever previously even taken place. Lambasting the Pit is one of oolon’s raison d’être; he probably gets a limp vicarious sexual jolly out of doing so as he is a pretty darned strange fella with some pretty darned cthonic sense of entertainment, justice, right and wrong, and so on.

    In my opinion.

  33. Holms says

    Hmm. Well, perhaps I have been mistaken. I took your first comment to be sarcasm:

    Goddammit, just as I’m mocking you harder than ever, you suddenly take me seriously! Siiiiiiiiigh.

    It’s not just on FtB. It seems anywhere that a pitter posts Candiru oolon shows up.

    Well, I am agnostic as to his habits elsewhere, but the blockbot thing? You guys are still complaining about some people shoosing to not listen to what you guys say, as if you have the right to demand a captive audience? Fucking wow.

  34. abear says

    Holms
    Who are you referring to when you talk about “you guys”?

    You guys are still complaining! Fucking WOW!

    I’m going back to debating heddle about Calvinism; this guy is just too folksy for me!!

  35. johngreg says

    Holms said:

    You guys are still complaining about some people shoosing to not listen to what you guys say, as if you have the right to demand a captive audience?

    No, Holms, the problem is not that some people choose to listen or not listen to anything anyone has to say. The problem is not that Pit people demand a captive audience — we don’t. The problem is not that some people choose to not listen to what we say — so far as I know, most Pit people don’t give much of a shit at all whether anyone listens to the Pit or not … and, HAHAHAHA, despite the fact that the Pit have gained more than twenty former FTB commenters and even blog hosts as friends, yet at the same time the, erm, readership of FTB blogs, in general, and Pharyngula in particular, has greatly declined, and has most absolutely and certainly not gained any new members from “our side” if the great divide.

    No, the problem is oolon.

    The problem is that some moronic little pipsqueak onanistic sour stain with a Jesus complex larger than Mount Everist and a moral base the size of a micron decides to create a program and a moral imperative that makes that decision for other people.

    oolon, a twisted and sad little instance of neuronic deficiency has decided that only he knows best; only he knows what is right; only he knows what is wrong; only he knows what the best way to approach all the problems of the world is, and he’s gonna try and force it down everybody’s throat.

    The problem is that oolon is playing junior dictator, censor, minor god, and arbiter of morality. C’mon, the guy’s an empty headed, divisive, angry little pustulant sore on the skin of the world.

    Ya, ya, ya, I know that is all mostly unnecessarily hostile, but, fuck, oolon is … well, just a complete and total waste of Earthly resources. Of all kinds. He provides nothing, absolutely nothing that is constructive, creative, or useful to humanity. He is a destroyer, so to speak; a negative space; a bleak house. I mean really, guys, don’t do that.

  36. johngreg says

    Oh, and yes, I am still waiting from some guidance and/or direction and/or rules on what I can or cannot, should or should not post in the comment section of this blog.

    Thanks Avi.

  37. Holms says

    abear

    Who are you referring to when you talk about “you guys”?

    Well gee, you mentioned Oolon in the context of his actions relating to the slymepitters, so I thought it was fairly obvious that I was continuing that context.

    But even if it wasn’t obvious: ‘you guys’ refers to ‘slymepitters’.

    johngreg

    …despite the fact that the Pit have gained more than twenty former FTB commenters and even blog hosts as friends…

    Twenty? TWENTY? And you think this number is relelvant to a site with the traffic of FTB? That is some lulzy shit, but please continue…

    …the, erm, readership of FTB blogs, in general, and Pharyngula in particular, has greatly declined…

    I’m sure you have a source for that, other than anecdotal, because I recall you claiming to be a sceptic. FTB traffic logs perhaps?

    The problem is that some moronic little pipsqueak onanistic sour stain with a Jesus complex larger than Mount Everist and a moral base the size of a micron…

    And I’m sure that this tirade is all completely necessary to the following argument, and it not simply a case of petty invective. Right?

    …decides to create a program and a moral imperative that makes that decision for other people.

    Yeah, it ‘makes the decision’ for others, but only after they voluntarily install it fully cognizant of what it does. Your portrayal of it is so skewed, you make it sound more like a virus.

    oolon, a twisted and sad little instance of neuronic deficiency…

    Another dose of completely necessary and factual data that isn’t invective at all. Still waiting for the payoff, but I’m sure this is all just some kind of preparation for a massive logical beat-down. Can’t wait!

    …has decided that only he knows best; only he knows what is right; only he knows what is wrong; only he knows what the best way to approach all the problems of the world is, and he’s gonna try and force it down everybody’s throat.

    Oh shit, he’s forcing people to download this gadget? Cos I’m pretty sure it’s voluntary.

    …You wouldn’t be lying now, would you?

    …C’mon, the guy’s an empty headed, divisive, angry little pustulant sore on the skin of the world.

    Oh man, I don’t know what this is building to, but I’m expecting it to be epic. Don’t let me down!

    Ya, ya, ya, I know that is all mostly unnecessarily hostile…

    YEAH!

    …Wait. What? This whole time you were just intentionally being a shithead? You know it to be nothing more than schoolyard insults all along, and you didn’t self edit? Wow, fuck you. You truly are an excellent example of what not to do in any discussion, online or not.

    This is why the slymepit has a reputation for awful conduct.

  38. Holms says

    Oh, and yes, I am still waiting from some guidance and/or direction and/or rules on what I can or cannot, should or should not post in the comment section of this blog.

    Thanks Avi.

    You just finished posting an utterly hostile screed, in which you openly admit to being ‘unnecessarily hostile’. After said admission, you then resumed with the hostility.

    And you still have the fucking gall to pretend to wonder why you are being warned? Amazing.

  39. johngreg says

    Holms said:

    Twenty? TWENTY? And you think this number is relelvant to a site with the traffic of FTB? That is some lulzy shit, but please continue

    No, you twit. I was referring to the the number of “traitors”, so to speak, that went from your side, so to speak, to our side, so to speak, and the complete lack of otherwise.

    C’mon, you’re not really that stupid, are you?

    I’m sure you have a source for that, other than anecdotal, because I recall you claiming to be a sceptic. FTB traffic logs perhaps?

    There have been several posts, at the Pit, showing the decline of both FTB’s and Pharyngula’s readership using traffic logs, and other resources, and various other ways of resourcing ‘net traffic, over the last several years. There was a huge burst of Pharyngula traffic around the time Myers made his amazing slander toward Shermer, but other than that the general ‘net traffic, et al, has declined greatly. However, no, I do not have a direct link to those posts. They are many and various, but, in general they show a decline of, so far as I recall, approximately 40%, over the last two or so years.

    And you still have the fucking gall to pretend to wonder why you are being warned? Amazing.

    Of course I have that gall. I have no idea what Avi’s editorial policy is. So far as I can determine, it is not stated anywhere.

    Anyway, it shouldn’t really be so surprising. No one, anywhere, knows fully what is or is not legal/allowed on any FTB blog — the usually unspoken and undocumented rules change daily so as to provide the blog hosts with the freedom to spike anyone they choose on an ad hoc basis. I mean, really, it changes daily.

    As for myself, I haven’t told anyone to rape themselves with a porcupine, or a rusty knife, or to die in a fire, or to kill themselves in a variety of entertaining ways, or threaten them with snapping their neck, or to fuck thyemselves and die while doing it, or to fuck off and die, and so forth and so on, all of which threats have been gleefully expressed and wholly supported on various FTB blogs, without censorship or recourse, towards Pit people.

    link: … slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=256

    The http and www stuff is left off for the sake of editorial tidiness.

  40. Holms says

    No, you twit.

    Cool, we’re agreeing then that twenty is chump change for FTB.

    However, no, I do not have a direct link to those posts.

    …Damn, there I was thinking you were marshalling the evidence. You were doing so well til you said that.

    Funnily enough, your claims that FTB is some kind of sinking ship reminds me of the creationists and their continued claims that ‘even the scientists are abandoning evolution’ and such. Nice company your argumentative methods keep.

    Of course I have that gall. I have no idea what Avi’s editorial policy is. So far as I can determine, it is not stated anywhere.

    I’m pretty sure being a hateful liar qualifies.

    As for daily changes of policy? This would be just such a lie. Doing it purely to provide a pretext to ban you guys? Laughable.

  41. abear says

    Holms wrote:

    …Wait. What? This whole time you were just intentionally being a shithead? You know it to be nothing more than schoolyard insults all along, and you didn’t self edit? Wow, fuck you. You truly are an excellent example of what not to do in any discussion, online or not.

    Good thing you reacted appropriately and didn’t call him names like shithead or sink to schoolyard stuff like liar,liar pants on fire or “fuck you”.

  42. johngreg says

    Holms said:

    I’m pretty sure being a hateful liar qualifies.

    Well, yes, sure. But one person’s hateful liar is another person’s A+ keyboard warrior of true justice.

    Or something like that.

    What I really mean is that claiming someone is a liar can be just a biased judgement of personal emotional reaction, and not grounded in reality.

    As for daily changes of policy?

    That was using creative language for an exaggerated effect. Poor choice of words. I should have said I mean, really, it often changes without notice — and anyway, on most FTB blogs there is, or at the time certainy was, no actually stated or posted statement regarding the specifics of comment policy.

    This would be just such a lie.

    Except it is not.

    Doing it purely to provide a pretext to ban you guys?

    Yes, indeed, that is true. Myers, Benson, G. Christina, LousyCanuck, and a few others, have all ignored their own either explicit or implicit commenting rules to ban Pit people for no reason other than either a disagreement with the Pit people, or in several instances for no more reason that the banned individual had posted on the Pit — a variation on original sin, I guess. Myers and a few other FTB blog hosts even stated outright that they would ban Pit people just for being Pit people. Myers even equated all Pit people with Marc Lépine stating that the only reason Pit people were not out and about on murder sprees was because they were ashamed and lacked the courage to do so. Amazing stuff.

    And, as I have stated elswhere, countless times, it is not the fact of banning that bugs me; it is the blatant hypocrisy.

  43. says

    If what I write irks you so much then why are you posting on my blog and quite honestly de-railing any and all conversation with regards to “Someone being told their dad is in Hell for being an atheist at that same Dad’s Funeral”.

    How did this stop being about the young man and his father and his experience and about “John Greg”.

    Dear John Greg.

    You are demonstrating the problem in the atheist community, that a moment of tragedy and indeed people showing solidarity was rubbished because the original incident was not tragic enough. I am lucky that you are not in my line of work lest you be turning people away for not being sick enough to qualify for you.

    It is interesting to me that you don’t realise something.

    Each blog here is independent. Stand alone. We have different ideals. If we compare Taslima and say Greta we see two different sorts of applications of feminism and ideas with regards to it. In fact Taslima’s “lack” of sex positivity is something I disagree with. I disagree with the way A+ works too, yet I am still here.

    Do you know why? Because each of us has rules and I backed up my stance on A+ with a solid argument. I have even written posts that Cromwell has admitted that despite not agreeing with me on the topic is a solid post on a different culture.

    FTB has never been a monolith, you were always welcome to come comment on subjects germane to the conversation.

    You instead showed up and derailed a subject.

    It is high hypocrisy to come to my blog and whinge about the censorial attitude of FTB banning members of the pit on sight when I have not especially….

    And this is important.

    Especially when I am banned from the pit. I cannot see your link, it just shows up as banned. I have to dodge the Ip to see anything.

    Remind me again.

    I am sure you will say something like “We ban all Indian Ip addresses for various reasons” or something equally stupid but the fact of the matter is that your “place” banned me without me posting a SINGLE post, it has in effect banned me from reading what it writes and posting and seeing who is there and who isn’t. I assume it’s some stupid plot you lot have and any moment you are going to show up on PZ Myer’s blog going “AHAHA SEE AVICENNA CANNOT SEE OUR PLACE ERGO SUMMAT”

    At this point? Remember all those stupid arguments about Free Speech that you were defending through the Slymepit? Going to have to go tell you that it’s utterly fucking Bullshit. From where I am sat, I have defended free speech in my comments with a greater honesty, with greater integrity and with greater emphasis on responsibility of free speech than your Slymepit.

    Now see what I am going to assume is that you have banned someone else from India and are just banning Indian posters since most Indians have variable IP addresses so straight bans on all Indian IP. Kudos, let’s rule out 1/7th of mankind with all the atheists that may contain sine there are so few Brown Atheists that it would mean no difference to lose a few. OR you lot genuinely don’t want me reading the Slymepit because free speech?

  44. Holms says

    Good thing you reacted appropriately and didn’t call him names like shithead or sink to schoolyard stuff like liar,liar pants on fire or “fuck you”.

    Well, ‘liar’ was already demonstrated as true, to the point that he has had to climb down from the claim that provoked that accusation. The more general accusation of arguing dishonestly also applies.

    As for the other, I must admit that I have only so much patience for obnoxiousness; my irritation got the better of me. On that note, feel free to take johngreg to task for his ridiculous slander against Oolon.

    Well, yes, sure. But one person’s hateful liar is another person’s A+ keyboard warrior of true justice.

    No. Speaking truth or untruth is not a matter perspective; a lie is not changed by allegiance to either the pit or FTB. You lied ‘for exaggerated effect’, you were called on it, you have since backed away from that claim.

    As for the rest of the crap about big mean FTBorg – PZ especially – picking on you poor pitters, I have seen several of those bannings and they in no way resemble your description. Warnings have always been given, with instructions on how to avoid a ban, and you lot persist with the disengenuous arguments and trolling.

    Unless… you have more evidence? Well, I say ‘more’ as if to suggest that you have given some already, but I have yet to see you present anything beyond whining.

    This includes the request for you to demonstrate that FTB ceding support to the pit, beyond your usual anecdotal nothing. It seems to me that all of your evidence amounts to nothing more than you guys having a discussion on your forum, and coming to the conclusion that you all agree with one another while, perhaps, nodding sagely.

    Oh and I notice you have stepped back from the Oolon front. Did my point – that blockbot is entirely voluntary – convince you to drop that admittedly hateful tirade?

  45. johngreg says

    Avi, I am not derailing.

    I stated specifically, on-topic, that I supported your friend’s angry reaction to the funeral director. I even stated that I thought he handled it just right. I also stated that I think anyone’s being angry at the funeral director is/was completely justified. My argument is and always has been about the degree of that anger. And everyone/anyone is perfectly justified to disagree with me — but that is not derailing; that is clearly and specifically on-topic. For some reason some people here seem unable to distinguish between criticism of degree (which I did), and criticism of the act of reacting (which I did not do).

    The first person to derail was Giliell, who falsely claimed that I think everything everyone on FTB says is wrong, and Giliell implied that I think human decency and kindness is apparently for losers. I felt that needed some defence and clarification. Is it not fair for me to defend myself against derailing misrepresentation?

    The second derail was Holms’s endless attempt to misrepresent (and now he’s really wandering off-topic) what I said in regard to both your friend’s experience and reaction to it, and what I actually said regarding some of the reactions on this comment thread. That too required some defence.

    And the major derailer (big surprise) was oolon, who brought in a bunch of baggage about the Pit and other pet peeves of his own. His derail; my defence to that derail.

    Overall, what you are referring to and criticising as my derailing has only been my defence in light of others derailing and misrepresenting my statements and opinions on the issue.

    As I say, my criticism throughout has been in reaction to degree, not criticism of other’s reactions in and of themselves — degree of reaction; not the reaction in itself.

    I have repeatedly stated my agreement with and support of your friend’s reaction to the funeral director. You have clearly decided to intentionally overlook that for some reason.

    And, no, you are not banned from the Pit. There are valid legal and spam-based reasons for some IPs to be scuttled, usually for spam. I think you do not understand that, as perusing your blog it is pretty clear that you either don’t know that many of your comment threads are overflowing with blatant spam, or you just don’t care. If you actually wanted to view/participate at the Pit, you would contact Lsuoma and ask him to clear your IP. Try it. It works.

    Holms you really are derailing and ranting now.

  46. abear says

    Holms wrote:

    Well, ‘liar’ was already demonstrated as true, to the point that he has had to climb down from the claim that provoked that accusation. The more general accusation of arguing dishonestly also applies.

    As for the other, I must admit that I have only so much patience for obnoxiousness; my irritation got the better of me. On that note, feel free to take johngreg to task for his ridiculous slander against Oolon.

    What are you talking about “he has had to climb down from the claim”? What are you accusing John Greg of lying about?
    As far as slander against oolon, everything JG said is true. So what if the blockbot is voluntary? It still is an attempt for oolon and his pals to shut people up they don’t agree with.
    You seem to misunderstand points being made or simply disagree, and then launch into accusations of slander and calling people liars.
    Perhaps English is not your first language or you have troubles with communication in general.
    I find your writing somewhat difficult to decipher. WTF does” This includes the request for you to demonstrate that FTb ceding support to the pit, beyond your usual anecdotal nothing” mean?

  47. John C. Welch says

    Especially when I am banned from the pit. I cannot see your link, it just shows up as banned. I have to dodge the Ip to see anything.

    screenshot?

  48. John C. Welch says

    I am sure you will say something like “We ban all Indian Ip addresses for various reasons” or something equally stupid but the fact of the matter is that your “place” banned me without me posting a SINGLE post, it has in effect banned me from reading what it writes and posting and seeing who is there and who isn’t. I assume it’s some stupid plot you lot have and any moment you are going to show up on PZ Myer’s blog going “AHAHA SEE AVICENNA CANNOT SEE OUR PLACE ERGO SUMMAT”

    actually, there’s a lot of good reason to block entire swaths of asia. One of the things I do with any public-facing server I set up is block a rather long list of IPs and blocks. Otherwise, eventually, you find your server under attack from various subnets allocated to china, india, japan, and russia. (it’s not really a party until the russians show up)

    it’s a shame to have to do that, but not doing it would be somewhat stupid, as continual SSH attacks (for example) can create performance issues on a server.

    Of course, it’s wrong that you even have to do that. The real solution is “don’t hack”, right? Telling people to block IPs and other anti-hacker measures is just victim-blaming.

  49. says

    Do I have to? I would rather maintain the hilarious status quo of you lot complaining about freedom of speech and bans when you have pro-actively banned me from your charming site.

    Because all I see are excuses and things that effectively make it harder to go read your atheist forum as someone who doesn’t live in the USA or the UK, knowing that we have to effectively dance through more hoops to get to your tour de force of free speech.

    I don’t wish to give out my IP address and in any case I move around a lot so it would require repeated requests. I can simply utilise an IP re-route and access your site if I wish to read what you guys write about us. Keep the ban, at least it will stop you from parading yourselves as champions of free speech knowing that you pro-actively banned people and judging from past interaction, I am quite within my rights to think that all the excuses you lot have provided are precisely excuses to extricate yourself from some sort of idiot shenanigans.

    So no thanks. Just going to use a proxy to check out your site and confirm my deep dark fears that you guys don’t like FTB, are angry that I said something or shouting cunt at each other because it’s amusing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>